# #NEWS: New Stadiums and Arenas



## Morten M

Because of the new Royal League, many people are talking about what league is the best in Scandinavia. Then I thought what about a stadium poll to. 

Ullevål (25.572 All-seater) : Oslo, Norway. Hometeams: Lyn Oslo, Vålerenga IF and National team










Lerkendal (21.166 All-seater) : Trondheim, Norway. Hometeam: Rosenborg










Vikings Stadion (13.800 All-seater) : Stavanger, Norway. Hometeam: Viking FK Stavanger










Brann Stadion (19.200 Seats: 12200 ): Bergen, Norway. Hometeam: SK Brann










Molde Stadion (11.167 All-seater): Molde, Norway. Hometeam: Molde FK










Parken (42.075 All-seater): Copenhagen, Denmark. Hometeam: FC Copenhagen and National Team.


















Brøndby Stadium (29.000 Seats: 23.400): Brøndby (Copenhagen Suburb), Denmark. Hometeam: Brøndby IF










SAS-Arena (11.500 Seats: 7000): Herning, Denmark. Hometeam: FC Midtjylland










Farum Park (9551 All-seater): Farum, Denmark. Hometeam: FC Nordsjælland










Aalborg Stadium ( 16.000 Seats:7.800*) Aalborg, Denmark. Hometeam: AaB










Atletion (21.000 All-seater): Aarhus, Denmark. Hometeam: AGF










Nya Ullevi (43.200 All-seater): Gothenburg, Sweden. Hometeams: IFK Gothenburg and Örgryte IS (Only Big and derby Matches)










Råsunda Stadion (37.000 All-seater): Stockholm, Sweden. Hometeams: Aik, Hammerby IF (Derby Matches), Djurgården IF (Derby Matches) and National Team.


----------



## Kampflamm

Definitely the Danish national stadium.


----------



## Sparks

Parken by a long way.


----------



## Lss911

Parken stadium gives no chance against the others of the poll! I think it`s the only one witch haves an european quality allied with a good size! Nya Ullevi it`s a good one too!
All of the stadiums aren`t bad...


----------



## Mo Rush

I am also beginning to hate soccer stadiums with athletics tracks how boring and stupid!!!


----------



## Lss911

I agree! the crow seats too much far away from the field! English style it`s the best on that area!


----------



## Morten M

Mo Rush said:


> I am also beginning to hate soccer stadiums with athletics tracks how boring and stupid!!!


I agree! Stadiums without tracks, and seats close to the field, give the best view and atmostphere.


----------



## Moolio

Where's Helsinki's Olympia Stadion (42000 all-seater), Finnair Stadion (15000 all-seater) and Ratinan Stadion (25000 all-seater)? Seems a bit unfair poll, doesn't it?


----------



## Kampflamm

Is Finland part of Scandinavia?


----------



## Moolio

Depends on how you look at it: in purely factual terms, yes. Helsinki is built on the bedrock which used to be the eastern branch of the Scandi mountains, and the same mountains cover large parts of Finnish Lapland. In that sense Denmark actually isn't part of Scandinavia because the Scandi mountains don't reach to Denmark. 

In terms of "cultural Scandinavia" the question is a little more difficult, but I think we should still consider Finland as a part of Scandinavia as the differences in culture tend to be very superficial (republic vs. monarchy etc).

This is how I see it, feel free to disagree.


----------



## CharlieP

To me, Scandinavia = all the countries with an off-centre cross in their flag


----------



## Moolio

CharlieP said:


> To me, Scandinavia = all the countries with an off-centre cross in their flag


Ironically, you're not far from the truth.


----------



## mlm

Ahhh this one is too easy, it's of course the SAS Arena here in Herning Who else haven't lost a home game in all of 2004. 16 Games, 14 victories, 2 draw and a goalscore of 41-14

A few of my images (different games):




























Parken is also a nice stadium, no doubt, but it feels a bit empty if there is "only" 20.000. The best athmosphere in Denmark is probably at Brøndby Stadium. I wouldn't know about the other Scandinavian stadiums (outside Denmark), since I haven't visited any of then in real life...


----------



## Imperial

obviusly Parken is the best.


----------



## Genç

Parken, by far!


----------



## DïegôLG

Viking Stadium.............it's small, simple and elegant, I like it


----------



## Tancred

I have to vote for Parken


----------



## Hviid

yeahhh Parken  .. although i have to admit the SAS arena does look really nice


----------



## erki89

I voted Parken, but Viking stadium is also nice.


----------



## dande

Nya Ullevi is the best arena when it comes to crowds, Parken tends to be boring, maybe it´s the people or maybe not but if you want fun go Nya Ullevi.


----------



## carlspannoosh

WeasteDevil said:


> Nick, I also, and I'm not sure about this, think that your figures for other grounds are also a little suspect.
> 
> The Valley, almost at current Anfield capacity? Come on!
> 
> Charlton Athletic.
> Liverpool Football Club.
> 
> Slightly different stature don't you think?
> 
> Still, haven't a clue where you come up with 65,000 for Stamford Bridge!


It was reported fairly recently that Charltons plans for the long term do indeed include expanding The Valley to 40,000. They are doing so in stages which means they wont get into deep shit should they get relegated in the mean time. They have actually already applied to Greenwich council for planning permission for their latest expansion which would take the stadiums capacity over the 30000 mark.

I don't know where the 65k Chelsea figure comes from though.


----------



## high_flyer

Probably what Kenyon would like The Bridge's capacity to be after development


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful

WeasteDevil said:


> Stamford Bridge 65,000? Where did that come from?
> 
> It all depends I suppose on what we are talking about here, and I think it is what is currently there, thus I didn't decide to count 76000 (a year and a half) or 95000 (eight to ten years) for Old Trafford.



I agree, we may aswell say OT's got a capacity if 95,000.


The Olympic Stadium may or may not happen, depending on the bid.

Stamford Bridge - 65,000 - I haven't seen any plans. It's all talk.

White Hart Lane - 50,000 - as above, all talk.

The Valley - 40,600 - I've seen the plans.

Boleyn Ground - 40,500 - I doubt they'll finish the plans whilst they're in the second division.

A lot of ifs and maybes in there.


----------



## eddyk

The Olympic stadium will only be 80,000 for the games....its being reduced to 25,000 after its all finished....and it will 'become the home of British athletics!'


----------



## CorliCorso

carlspannard said:


> It was reported fairly recently that Charltons plans for the long term do indeed include expanding The Valley to 40,000. They are doing so in stages which means they wont get into deep shit should they get relegated in the mean time. They have actually already applied to Greenwich council for planning permission for their latest expansion which would take the stadiums capacity over the 30000 mark.
> 
> I don't know where the 65k Chelsea figure comes from though.


This is how it should look when finished, and at 40,600 capacity:


----------



## Christos7

Athens....


Football stadiums

Olympic Stadium - 75,000
Karaiskaki - 33,000
Rizoupoli - 14,000
Nea Smyrni - 12,000

New Panathinaikos - 45,000 (construction to begin in summer)
New AEK - 40,000 

Arenas

Olympic Indoor Hall - 19,000
Helliniko Arena - 14,500
Peace & Friendship - 14,000
Ano Liossia Arena - 9,000
Faliro Arena - 8,500
Peristeri Indoor Hall - 8,000
Galatsi Arena - 6,000
Nikea Indoor Hall - 5,000


And a variety of smaller football and areans under 5,000....


----------



## CorliCorso

*Manchester-area stadia*

Old Trafford (Football) - 68.190 (going up to 76,313)









City of Manchester Stadium - 48,000









Reebok Stadium - 28,723









Old Trafford (Cricket) - 23,500









Manchester Evening News Arena - 17,245









Boundary Park - 13,624









Gigg Lane - 11,669









The Willows - 11,363 (3,000 seats)









Edgeley Park - 10,852









Spotland - 10,249 (8,249 seats)









Bower Fold - 6,500 (1,200 seats)
















Moss Lane - 6,150 (1,154 seats)
















G-Mex Centre - 6,000 (for Comm. Games), or over 10,000 (concerts)
















City of Manchester Stadium, athletics arena - 6,000









Bolton Arena - 6,000
















Heywood Road - 4,800 (2,254 seats)









Manchester Velodrome - 3,500
















Manchester Aquatics Centre - 2,500
















National Squash Centre - 1,800


----------



## Zizu

I'd give it to London. Maybe there are cities with more stadiums. But the quality of the London stadiums is higher than anywhere else. 

Btw. Munich also has some nice stadia and arenas.


----------



## WeasteDevil

The problem with London now is, Athletics, Aquatics, Indoor Arena.

How can that compete with Athens?

London has a lot of Football/Rugby stadia, Wimbeldon too, but surely, the topic of the thread is "has", not "will have".


----------



## WeasteDevil

Until London has a serious Athletics arena, you can count it out IMO.

Manchester is a no go. It doesn't have a serious athletics stadium, and lack many other facilities.


----------



## WeasteDevil

Zizu said:


> Maybe there are cities with more stadiums.


Doubt it!


----------



## Malo

*Paetec Park--Rochester*

I've never tried to copy and paste pictures like this before, so if they don't show up, I will include the website I got them from, below.

Thought some of you soccer fans might be interested in seeing the new stadium being built in Rochester, for the Rochester Rhino's (AAA level) team. This shoud all but guarantee them an MLS berth.

May 17th, 2005 - PAETEC Park takes it place in the Rochester skyline



May 17th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



May 17th, 2005 - "Canalside" stands - Broad St. in background - Photo by Stratus Imaging



May 17th, 2005 - The future PAETEC Park - Photo by Stratus Imaging



May 17th, 2005 - The "Riverside" stands and parking lot



May 17th, 2005 - Building the foundation of the concession stands & rest rooms



May 17th, 2005 - Looking west, above PAETEC Park - Photo by Stratus Imaging



May 17th, 2005 - The view from high above Brown St. - Photo by Stratus Imaging



May 17th, 2005 - PAETEC Park, looking north - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 12th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 12th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 12th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 12th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 12th, 2005 - Photo by Stratus Imaging



Apr 8th, 2005 - 



Apr 8th, 2005 - 



Apr 8th, 2005 - 



Apr 8th, 2005 - 



Apr 8th, 2005 - 



Apr 5th, 2005 - Crews continue to place steel into the seating areas



Apr 5th, 2005 - Crews continue at PAETEC Park



Apr 5th, 2005 - Future playing surface



Mar 18th, 2005 - Workers assemble seating at PAETEC Park



Mar 18th, 2005 - City skyline, Oak St, Broad St looking south



Mar 18th, 2005 - Looking north from above Smith St



Mar 18th, 2005 - Rochester's skyline looking south



Mar 18th, 2005 - Rochester's PAETEC Park takes shape



Feb 6th, 2005 - 



Feb 6th, 2005 - 



Feb 6th, 2005 - 



Feb 6th, 2005 - 



Feb 6th, 2005 - Progress continues - February 2005



Nov 30th, 2004 - The entire site from 400 feet up



Nov 29th, 2004 - Gravel subbase being installed for playing field



Nov 29th, 2004 - Steel piles being driven for the stadium



Nov 29th, 2004 - A lot of activity in a small space



Nov 23rd, 2004 - Playing field starting to take shape



Nov 23rd, 2004 - Excavation for storm sewer diversion



Nov 10th, 2004 - The north parking lot will go here



Dec 15th, 2004 - Another wide angle view from Oak and Smith Street



Dec 15th, 2004 - View facing east showing completed piles along Broad Street



Dec 15th, 2004 - Form work for concrete pile caps in the northwest corner



Dec 15th, 2004 - Follow the piles from the foreground to the right and you can see the shape of the stadium



Dec 15th, 2004 - The pile driver, a little higher up



Dec 15th, 2004 - North parking lot with sections of water main to be installed



Dec 15th, 2004 - Close up view of the pile driving rig



Dec 15th, 2004 - The beginning of the water main relocation project



Dec 15th, 2004 - Looking west; contractor?s parking in the foreground



Dec 15th, 2004 - Wide angle view of the entire project looking northwest; Empire Precision Plastics is in the lower right foreground



Nov 10th, 2004 - Leveling begins; parts for storm sewer relocation arrive

http://www.rhinossoccer.com/stadium/


----------



## Malo

..alrighty then--that didn't go as planned did it? Click on this link below for more information.

http://www.rhinossoccer.com/stadium/


----------



## IchO

Try again.


----------



## PrinzPaulEugen

Some of the stadia in Spain should also include the number of bulls who might be there along with the people - the away team must have some support????


----------



## Giorgio

From Christos:

Olympic Stadium - 75,000
Karaiskaki - 33,000
Rizoupoli - 14,000
Nea Smyrni - 12,000

New Panathinaikos - 45,000 (construction to begin in summer)
New AEK - 40,000 

Arenas

Olympic Indoor Hall - 19,000
Helliniko Arena - 14,500
Peace & Friendship - 14,000
Ano Liossia Arena - 9,000
Faliro Arena - 8,500
Peristeri Indoor Hall - 8,000
Galatsi Arena - 6,000
Nikea Indoor Hall - 5,000
+
Velodrome - 9,000








Olympic Tennis Cente - 9,200


----------



## SkyscraperGuy

*New stadiums with 1,000 - 15,000 people?*

Post pictures of new stadiums projects which hold up to 1,000 - 15,000 people.


----------



## unfrequented

Stade la Maladiere, 12,500 seats
Club: Neuchatel Xamax FC
Scheduled inauguration: 2006


----------



## messiah

Istanbul is one of the best in this section:
Here some big venues!
Stadiums:

*Atatürk Olympic 81.500*









*Fenerbahce Sükrü Saracoglu Stadium 52.000*









*Besiktas Inönü Stadium 35.000*









Galatasaray ASY Stadium 55.000 (under consruction)











Arena:

*Ataköy Dome 22.500 - (30.000 with portable stands)*










*Apdi Ipekci Arena 12.000*










*Bagcilar Badminton Hall 5.000*



















*F1 Istanbul Otodrom 125.000*


----------



## Guest

CorliCorso said:


> Manchester Evening News Arena - 17,245
> 
> G-Mex Centre - 6,000 (for Comm. Games), or over 10,000 (concerts)


MEN Arena is 21,500, though their about page says "capable of accomodating 21,000" (http://www.men-arena.com/aboutus/). The G-Mex can hold 19,000, though I'm struggling right now to find the document which said it.


----------



## Mr. T

In terms of football srenas London is easily the best but for all around stadiums and arenas I will make my case for Athens.

Olympic Stadium- 75,000

















Karaiskaki Stadium- 35,000

















Peace and Friendship Stadium- 14,000

















Olympic Sports Hall- 19,000

















Ano Liossia Arena- 9,300

















Faliro Arena- 8,500









(During a Pre Olympic Tournament)









There are many more but I cant get to those now.


----------



## WeasteDevil

Mr. T said:


> In terms of football srenas London is easily the best


Why?

Are you saying that:

Highbury
Stamford Bridge
White Heart Lane

are better than:

Old Trafford
City of Manchester Stadium
Reebok Stadium

?


----------



## Mr. T

WeasteDevil said:


> Why?
> 
> Are you saying that:
> 
> Highbury
> Stamford Bridge
> White Heart Lane
> 
> are better than:
> 
> Old Trafford
> City of Manchester Stadium
> Reebok Stadium
> 
> ?


Look at what London is doing with all the new stadiums they are building which will most likely be done by 2008 such as the New Wembley, New High Bury, not to mention the fact that Stamford Bridge is a very nice Stadium from what I have seen and heard about it. I say that in terms of stadiums London has much more going for it than any city in the rest of England or even Europe for that matter.

That is my reason why.


----------



## birminghamculture

Theres lots of other stadiums but I thought I wouldd show a variety and a few of the bigger ones :cheers:

*Wembley New 90,000










Twickenham 83,000



















Emirates Stadium










Stamford Bridge 43,500










Highbury 38,500










White Hart Lane 36,500










Upton Park 36,000










Lords Cricket Ground 28,000










The Valley 26,500










Selhurst Park 26.000










O2 Arena 26,000










Craven Cottage 22,000










The New Den 21,500










Loftus Road 19,500










Brit Oval 18,000










Wimbledon










London Arena 10,000

















*


----------



## Sitback

London has more stadiums then any other city as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Giorgio

Sitback said:


> London has more stadiums then any other city as far as I'm concerned.


The title says best not most


----------



## Muyangguniang

STADE DE FRANCE PARIS

80,000


----------



## Citrus-Fruit

.::Giorgos::. said:


> The title says best not most


It has the best and most -> Wait till the velodrome, Aquatics center, and Hockey arena start next year.


----------



## Mr. T

*What stadium does your countries National football(soccer) team play in?*

Let's see the stadiums:

For Greece it is:

Karaiskaki Stadium- 35,000 *Home of the European Champions*


----------



## eddyk

Lets see now....UK

At the moment....any, Mainly Old Trafford and St James Park

But in 2006, the England team moves back to their old home...Wembley Stadium, Capacity 90,000


----------



## druha

Spain plays in a different stadium every match, so everyone around the country can see the team.


----------



## DiggerD21

Germany's team plays in any of the big stadiums.


----------



## th0m

For Holland I don't think we have an official National Ground, we just play at the three biggest grounds, the Amsterdam ArenA, the Kuip in Rotterdam, and the Philips Stadium in Eindhoven.

Amsterdam ArenA, Amsterdam:



























The Kuip, Rotterdam:



























Philips Stadium, Eindhoven:



























Capacities are slightly above the 50k for the Amsterdam and Rotterdam venues, and over 36k for the Eindhoven one.


----------



## vivayo

México, plays almost all of its home games at Estadio Azteca (110,000)

http://homepages.mty.itesm.mx/al224065/estadio_azteca1.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Mexico/Azteca/Azteca.jpg


Old picture but you get the atmosphere.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwe.../Mexico/Azteca/Aztekenstadion_mexiko_ca_2.jpg


----------



## vivayo

México, plays almost all of its home games at Estadio Azteca (110,000)











Old picture but you get the atmosphere.


----------



## hngcm

Awesome stadium.


----------



## Madman

eddyk said:


> Lets see now....UK
> 
> At the moment....any, Mainly Old Trafford and St James Park
> 
> But in 2006, the England team moves back to their old home...Wembley Stadium, Capacity 90,000


Remember eddyk wembley is for ENGLAND not the UK! (I'm sure the Welsh, Scottish and N. Irish would be not so keen on Wembley being their national stadium )


----------



## eddyk

Gosh darn it.


----------



## PPOBBO

Sweden plays on Råsunda ( 37,000 ) and Nya Ullevi ( 45,000 )

Råsunda


















Nya ullevi


----------



## eddyk

Wed Boxes


----------



## CorliCorso

None of those - it *has* the be the Stockholms Stadion:


































Unique, fantastic architecture & history, none of the other options come close (in my humble opinion :yes: )


----------



## sakor1

^^ Yeah, Vic G'ment came out afterwards and said it is still gonna happen. It's just a matter of when exactly now...

Stu


----------



## Jayayess1190

The Philadelphia Kixx play indoors at the Wachovia Spectrum:










www.kenn.com/soccer/ stadiums/misl/:


----------



## carlspannoosh

The Stockholm stadium is a beauty. Very nice architecture, but it is an athletics stadium first and foremost. Parken is better for football and so in my opinion it is probabaly the best football stadium in Scandinavia.


----------



## Loranga

*Globen (Stockholm Globe Arena) gets stands*

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/sport/story/0,2789,664849,00.html

Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet reports Globen will get standing room for 1500 people by removing 800-900 seats from one section in the middle of the end zone. Work has started to strengthen the stands.

Capacity will raise from 13850 to somewhere between 14450 and 14450. Seating capacity will drop to between 13050 and 12950.

I say congratulations hockey supporters of Djurgården, AIK and Hammarby. Sad that there will not be any stands for away supporters.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

On Olympic Park in Melbourne.

The new stadium will be start construction after the Empire Games finish in March 2006 to be opened in 2008 sometime.

Due to a current agreement with Docklands Stadium they are not permitted to construct any stadium larger than 20k in Melbourne until after 2010(starting in 2000).

So the rectangular stadium will hold up to 20k for starters and they will add up to another 10k after the old Docklands agreement finishes.

The tenants already on the books are Melbourne Victory Soccer Club, aff. A-League, Melbourne Storm Rugby League club in the NRL, and the Victorian Rugby Union. The FFA(soccer Oz) will play weaker AFC opponents there.

Sweet deal to get the Vic gov't to cough up, now all they have to do is draw attendances.

p.s. have to say those stadia in Sweden look remarkably similar to the SFS in Moore Park, Sydney. Do they also have the problem that no matter where you sit when it rains, you still get wet?


----------



## dewback

That list is crap! What is the Rose Bowl doing there? And honestly, I had never heard about the Rasunda Stadium in Stockholm.


----------



## Codex

WeasteDevil said:


> It's a FIFA thing!!!!
> 
> They say the Bernabeu, but not the Camp Nou. Interesting, as one is five star rated by UEFA, the other is still not. And the five stars do not go to Camp Nou.
> 
> I would argue that 33% of their choices are a load of bollocks.


mmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrong!! Bernabeu is 5stars and it says: "classic footbal stadiums". There isn´t one as classic as the Real Madrid Home Stadium since +50 years at Spain. Camp Nou means New Stadium and that´s not very classic by definition.


----------



## Zizu

^^ Bernabeu is neither a 5 star nor a 4 star stadium!!! check the official lists! Why, do you think, haven't there been played any finals in the past years, ha??


----------



## ramiretto

Zizu said:


> ^^ Bernabeu is neither a 5 star nor a 4 star stadium!!! check the official lists! Why, do you think, haven't there been played any finals in the past years, ha??


 :sleepy: 

If you had read the FIFA article........ 



FIFA said:


> Location: Madrid, Spain
> Inauguration: 14 December 1947
> A cathedral to football in the heart of Madrid
> 
> The story of the mythical Santiago Bernabéu Stadium leads inevitably to the history of its regal owners, Real Madrid, an institution which in 2000 was recognised by FIFA as the Club of the Century. Enduring greats such as Alfredo Di Stéfano, Ferenc Puskas, Emilio Butragueño, Ronaldo, Raúl and Zinedine Zidane have all graced the Bernabéu’s sacred turf in the famous all-white strip.
> The stadium has also hosted many memorable international matches, most notably the 1982 FIFA World Cup™ final and when La Furia Roja lifted their one and only major international trophy -- at the European Championships in 1964.
> 
> Built on what at the time were the outskirts of the Spanish capital, the stadium now stands in the heart of Madrid's bustling financial district. The massive undertaking marked the beginning of an era of colossal sporting constructions across the globe. Many at the time thought that its capacity for 120,000 spectators was madness, but the property developers' gamble soon paid off.
> 
> Trophy for the Spanish cabinet
> 
> Around 100,000 fans packed the Bernabéu on 21 June to witness the final of Euro 1964 when Spain snatched a victory rife with political overtones from the Soviet Union. It was a win that Spain’s fascist leader Generalissimo Franco was quick to spin a propaganda vehicle for his regime.
> 
> 
> 
> © AFP The dictator had withdrawn Spain from the first European Championship because of political differences with their quarter-final rivals - again the USSR - but he did appear for the showdown that afternoon. The hosts took an early lead thanks to a goal from Pereda in minute six, but Khusainov levelled for the visitors with a masterly free-kick just two minutes later. With the clock ticking down to the final whistle, and after a superb cross in from the right by Pereda, Marcelino headed home past the suddenly helpless "Black Spider" Lev Yashin. Spain had won their first and to date, only major international trophy with the majestic Bernabéu as the backdrop.
> Coming of age
> 
> 
> Did You Know?
> Architects Luis Alemany Soler and Manuel Muñoz Monasterio's bid was chosen as the design for the new stadium of “Chamartín.” After the land was blessed, the ground's foundations stone was laid on 27 October 1944.
> In 1955, the stadium was renamed after Santiago Bernabéu, the chairman who strived so hard to see the construction of the ground and strengthen Real Madrid. Under his guidance, the club would enjoy some of its finest hours.
> The land on which the stadium is built cost 3,001,069 pesetas (around 20,000 US dollars) in 1944 and the total cost of construction amounted to 37m pesetas (275,000 USD). Today, the site is valued at more than 480m USD.
> Refurbishment work undertaken to adapt the stadium to new UEFA crowd regulations reduced the capacity from an initial 120,000 to the current 80,000. The field of play measures 106 by 66 metres.
> The stadium underwent major remodelling and refurbishment work when Spain was chosen to host the 1982 FIFA World Cup - with the final to be hosted there. Its capacity was reduced to 90,000 and the ground was kitted out with the latest technology in the form of video scoreboards.
> With the stadium filled to the rafters, Italy won their third FIFA World Cup crown at the expense of West Germany. Marco Tardelli was to earn himself a place in football lore for his wild celebration of Italy's second goal, putting the Azzurri into a lead which was to prove beyond the Germans. The joy registered on his face and his frantic race to the dugout to celebrate with his coach and team-mates live on in the collective memory.
> 
> Poacher supreme Paolo Rossi also got on the scoresheet for the Italians, picking up not only a winner’s medal but the title of the tournament's top scorer. Another Italian legend, goalkeeper Dino Zoff, crowned a glittering career when, at the ripe old age of 40, he received the FIFA World Cup trophy from King Juan Carlos I of Spain.
> 
> White coliseum
> 
> 
> 
> © Popperfoto Santiago Bernabéu not only dreamt of a great stadium, he also envisaged a great team. The Real Madrid, which he created around the Blond Arrow Di Stéfano, were eager to prove that they were worthy of their impressive home. And that is just what they did. Between 1956 and 1960, they won the first five editions of the European Cup and repeated the feat again in 1966.
> The final of this famous competition has been held at the Bernabéu on three occasions. In 1957, Real Madrid overcame Fiorentina 2-0. In 1969, an unshakeable AC Milan brought Johan Cruyff's spectacular Ajax Amsterdam to their knees (4-1). And in 1980, Nottingham Forest retained their European Champions' crown by beating Hamburg (1-0).
> 
> As far as domestic competitions are concerned, as well as hosting the perennial Real Madrid-Barcelona superclasico, the Bernabéu has been home to more Copa del Rey finals than any other stadium. One never-to-be-forgotten encounter was the 2002 final, popularly known as the Centenariazo. On 6 March, which happened to be the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Madrid club, northern rivals Deportivo de la Coruña were bent on spoiling the party, which they memorably did thanks to strikes from Sergio and Diego Tristán.
> 
> *Five-star stadium
> 
> 
> 
> © AP In 1992, four imposing towers were added to facilitate access to and from the stands. The cover over the east stand and the remodelling of this part of the ground, which will house the director's box and the press area, mean that in 2005 the stadium will attain "five-star" status in accordance with UEFA standards. Also under consideration is a project to cover the entire Bernabéu with a transparent retractable roof.
> All the more reason for players who take to the field to be struck by "stage fright,” an expression coined by Argentinean world champion Jorge Valdano to explain the sensation of performing in such a magnificent, awe-inspiring setting. *



http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/cs/bernabeu.html


----------



## fman80939

Too bad FIFA doesn't issue the 5/4-star certificate, so it's quite irrelevant as UEFA decides about this (remember: the certificate is important for venues which want to host finals in UEFA-competitions, FIFA is not involved). 
Zizu is right, the Bernabeu doesn't appear on the 4-star or the 5-star listing (therefore it hasn't been used for UEFA-finals recently), although RM claimed it will get 5-star status as soon as the latest redevelopment would be finished.


----------



## Tomesh

dewback said:


> I had never heard about the Rasunda Stadium in Stockholm.


Rasunda stadium is truly a classic stadium!!!


----------



## Bigmac1212

What's next, Sanford Stadium in Athens, Georgia as the best Olympics Soccer stadium? (FYI, it was used during the 1996 Olympics for the event.)


----------



## Loranga

New information
531 seats will be removed and replaced with stands for 800 people. New capacity will be 14 119 with 13 319 seats and 800 standing.

http://www.hockeyligan.se/nyheter/index.phtml?nid=6392&focus=true


----------



## AtlanticaC5

So finally there will be some life in Globen during hockey-games?


----------



## Loranga

Hopefully yes. It's a pity that there will not be any stands for away supporters though.


----------



## rantanamo

*Oval Racing Speedways*

Let's see some pics of your local oval tracks

Texas Motor Speedway - Fort Worth, Texas 154,861 main grandstand. 204,861 with backstretch grandstand for NASCAR.


----------



## newyorkrunaway1

that thing is huge!!!!


----------



## Jerv

Rockingham Motor Speedway, Corby (Near Birmingham) England, 130,000 capacity
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/race-tracks/rockingham-raceway.htm

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/race-tracks/rockingham-motor-speeday.htm


----------



## Bigmac1212

The current NASCAR race is in Chicagoland Speedway in Joliet, Illinois.
























The only thing I don't like in NASCAR is that almost every other new track is almost similar to another. 1.5 Mile, tri- or quad-oval. It's getting to my brain!


----------



## Koniaczeq

Kuvvaci said:


> no chance... absolutely no chance...


Only because Turkey is one of candidates?


----------



## BOLSCHOI

i agree, no chance... absolutely no chance...


----------



## Kuvvaci

no, UEFA doesn't look at joint bids anymore, also, the distance between both countries is too much, not like Nederlands-Belgium, Austria-Switzerland. Also both countries have not enough complexes and organization experience.


----------



## BOLSCHOI

It would be better if Ukraine/Poland made it on it's own...


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd guess it will depend who there up agenst if they have to go solo. Ukraine could probabley come up with larger stadiums than Austria/Switzerland is going to have but is the cash going to be their to upgrade more than just Shaktar and Kiev's grounds?

I have a feeling that Spain or Italy may well put in a bid in which case I think everyone else would be playing catchup.


----------



## Adrokvs

Spain 2012 is the most probably


----------



## Kuvvaci

Spain is not candidate. Spain 2012 doesn't mean anything because of this...


----------



## Christos7

Spain never entered as a candidate and is not in the bidding. (mainly because of Olympic 2012 bidding)


They made the first cuts already... the next round is coming up soon when they will announce the best 3 bids, and then some time after that (after examination) they will select the host country.

As for Ukraine/Poland, I honestly think they have potential and may suprise us all... but sometimes I just don't think their bid will be strong enough, also the distance like Kuvvaci mentioned, and also infastructure... They may need to much to build, but I don't know the situation. (hotels, transport to cities, distance, hospitals etc)


----------



## Sergey

i would like to sochi russia to win


----------



## johnz88

There is a chance and it would awsome and very good for the economy of both countries. It would show the world how beatiful and modern eastern europe really is.


----------



## Giorgio

^ i disagree. Poland dosnt have funds for a new national stadium let alone a tourney. 
Better wait


----------



## samsonyuen

Pyeonchang came really close last time. I would give it to Salzburg next time round. Is there snow in Georgia and Bulgaria? I really didn't know that. It's amazing that there hasn't been a Winter Olympics in Russia yet though!


----------



## pitq

New national stadium for 50k people will be built not especially for EURO2012 as the construction starts next year. The same goes for stadiums in Krakow and Poznan which are actually U/C. Stadium in Gdansk is already aproved and the construction starts in 2 year. So I would not agree with you about funds... I think that Poland&Ukraine have quite big chances for wining the competition


----------



## pitq

Stadiums proposed for EURO2012 in Poland and Ukraine are realy good and they are better and larger than these in Austria&Switzerland for EURO 2008. The only probleme are motorways or rather lack of them...


----------



## Giorgio

the jointbid will wreck there chances possibly. but who knows, 2008 is joint.


----------



## Giorgio

Personally, i would have liked to have seen Italy and Greece Joint.


----------



## eomer

Christos7 said:


> They made the first cuts already... the next round is coming up soon when they will announce the best 3 bids, and then some time after that (after examination) they will select the host country.


That's interesting but...whish countries are candidate ?
I know there are Russia, Greece and Turkey but who are the other ?


----------



## Giorgio

Italy, Hungry and Croatia, Poland Ukraine Russia Greece Turkey


----------



## eomer

IMO, Sweden has good chance to win.
But, if the athlete's results are importants, Austria should win.


----------



## eomer

OK, thank you.
So, Italy is candidate...Italy will win.

_Stop fucking kangaroos now !!!_


----------



## Zizu

definitely Parken


----------



## Ringil

> Does anyone know if this "New Råsunda" is actually going to happen?


Yes it *is* reality, and if all goes as planned they'll start building 2006-07. The stadium will have 50 000+ seats and will look about like the new one Porto.
And just outside Råsunda they'll build either a 210 meter scraper or two 120 meter scrapers


----------



## cphdude

Köbtke said:


> At least just for national games. I personally wouldn't want FCK to move from Parken, especially not if the D-stand is redeveloped, the parking problems would probably be solved by that.
> 
> Anyway, Parken wins by far, as football goes...


I dont want FCk to leave parken either, and as it looks like they will get the permit for the renovation of the coca cola tribune, they dont have to. But as we ware talking about in the copenhagen olympic city thread, it would be nice to have a bigger stadium, (not nessesarely owned by any club), to be used for national games, the bigger cup and leage games, and concerts or other sporting aragenments...Or perhaps hosting if international finals in uefa cup, like we did a few years ago...In many cases it could be used. Ørestaden was suggested because thay are already talking about/planing for a stadium out there, and because the infrastructure would be better out there....As you probebly know, Parken curently has great limmitation on the number of arengements they can do, bacause it is located in a residential area...


----------



## Köbtke

Ringil said:


> Yes it *is* reality, and if all goes as planned they'll start building 2006-07. The stadium will have 50 000+ seats and will look about like the new one Porto.
> And just outside Råsunda they'll build either a 210 meter scraper or two 120 meter scrapers


Awesome. Do you have any links to plans or renderings and info?

Do you know if the plans for the Nya Söderstadion has been scrapped?

cphdude: A new stadium would be grand, indeed trying to boost any bids we might have planned for anything big. 

The public transporation facilities really do need to get bettered around Parken, adding a metro station, as Flemming Østergård has advocated for, wouldn't be a bad idea. And of course, if Brumlebyboerne decides to shut up, and we get the new D-stand, the parking problems could be solved.

Anyway, do you know anything further about plans for a possible stadium in Ørestaden, any links maybe?


----------



## cphdude

Ringil said:


> Yes it *is* reality, and if all goes as planned they'll start building 2006-07. The stadium will have 50 000+ seats and will look about like the new one Porto.
> And just outside Råsunda they'll build either a 210 meter scraper or two 120 meter scrapers


where is this located? Near stockholm or malmø?


----------



## DenverDane

^ Råsunda is in Stockholm (or Solna to be precise)...


----------



## Cpt. Picard

^^As DenverDane said, it's in Stockholm. 
But Malmö however, is also getting a new stadium with a capacity of ~30.000. There are no renderings yet...they have just stated that there WILL BE a new stadium for sure and it will not have running tracks. It will only serve as a football stadium. 
I must say that this is about damn time. The already existing Malmö stadion really sucks, but MFF still had the highest average attendance last year...So i guess this is right. MFF and their fans deserve this.


----------



## cphdude

^^ oh okay, i was afraid it was in malmø....


----------



## Cpt. Picard

*Råsunda*

About New Råsunda. This is what Råsunda looks like TODAY 
Currently there seems to be three main proposals.

*A.* A rebuilt areana. Capacity 50.000. 
The east stand,the lower parts of the south and 
north stands will be demolished and replaced with new ones. 
The western stand will be extended backwards over the existing office buildings.
A roof will be added.
By the north stand, commercial spaces in 5 floors will be built.
and by the south stand they will build commercial spaces in 9 floors.
Finally, they will build a 30 storey high-rise.

*B.* A rebuilt arena. Capacity 40.000-45.000.
Kinda the same as alternative "A", except that they don't extend the western stand. 
The high-rise and the commercial areas would also be one storey higher.

*C.* A brand new arena. Capacity 50.000
The existing stadium will be completely demolished to make place for a new one. 
The stadium will have a roof (most likely a retractable one).
It will look something like Estádio Dragão in Porto, Portugal:
Here are some pictures from Stadionwelt 
In this case they will build either one 200m+ high-rise, or two smaller ones.

These are the only pictures I could find.









My vote goes to alternative *C* 
To me this seems a bit preliminary, so I guess we'll see some more interesting proposals in the future.


----------



## cphdude

Kerf said:


> About New Råsunda. This is what Råsunda looks like TODAY
> Currently there seems to be three main proposals.
> 
> *A.* A rebuilt areana. Capacity 50.000.
> The east stand,the lower parts of the south and
> north stands will be demolished and replaced with new ones.
> The western stand will be extended backwards over the existing office buildings.
> A roof will be added.
> By the north stand, commercial spaces in 5 floors will be built.
> and by the south stand they will build commercial spaces in 9 floors.
> Finally, they will build a 30 storey high-rise.
> 
> *B.* A rebuilt arena. Capacity 40.000-45.000.
> Kinda the same as alternative "A", except that they don't extend the western stand.
> The high-rise and the commercial areas would also be one storey higher.
> 
> *C.* A brand new arena. Capacity 50.000
> The existing stadium will be completely demolished to make place for a new one.
> The stadium will have a roof (most likely a retractable one).
> It will look something like Estádio Dragão in Porto, Portugal:
> Here are some pictures from Stadionwelt
> In this case they will build either one 200m+ high-rise, or two smaller ones.
> 
> These are the only pictures I could find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My vote goes to alternative *C*
> To me this seems a bit preliminary, so I guess we'll see some more interesting proposals in the future.


c looks better...But i am guessing also more expensive....


----------



## Köbtke

Proposal C looks great. I wouldn't want to go for either A or B (although they're probably more cost-efficient, as cphdude said), since they'd probably be a slightly less crappy version of the current Råsunda.

What's the motivation to build such a high scraper right next to Råsunda by the way? And will the current tall class building (I have no idea what it's called) that stand behind Råsunda remain standing, or will it get knocked down?


----------



## Ringil

The whole project is called Solna city and it will be massive








SFF have earned a lot of money. Football has grown and become huge again, like it was on the 50s when both Råsunda and Nya Ullevi were 50.000 stadiums. 









the 210 meter scraper.









Råsunda today

lets hope for nr. C we need bigger and new stadiums, because we need to hold somehting now, right   the world cup or the euro


----------



## Köbtke

Thanks for the info Ringil. That glass building you see in the picture of present day Råsunda, will that be left standing when they build this Solna City?


----------



## hngcm

*Soccer Specific Stadiums*

Show me pictures of stadiums that are MEANT for SOCCER only.

None of this running track crap.


----------



## You are to blame

here is the Home depot Center in LA, Home to the LA Galaxy and Chivas USA both of the MLS. It's about 3 years old










































*LA Galaxy*

































*Chivas USA*


----------



## You are to blame

Crew Stadium, in Columbus Ohio. Home of the Columbus Crw of the MLS the stadium is about 5-7 years old


























Columbus Crew


----------



## You are to blame

The future Home of FC Dallas of the MLS - Frisco Soccer & Entertainment Center opens in a few months


















*FC Dallas*


----------



## Alexander21

Is it me or do you find the 'nicknames' of these teams absurd!

LA "Galaxy"? Columbus "Crew"?


----------



## You are to blame

i like the Crew name and the logo, MLS has traditional names aswell like DC United, FC Dallas, Real Salt Lake


----------



## You are to blame

Rice-Eccles Stadium, Home of Real Salt Lake of the MLS, also home to University football. so not a real SSS. but close enough


















*Real Salt Lake*

























Those are all the SSS ( witht he excepting of Real) for MLS currently a few more are planned for New York, Denver and Washington. Also if toronto join the league in 2007 we will also have a SSS built


----------



## Alexander21

FC Dallas sounds good.... I like the Real Salt Lake... sounds great.

But some of the others are woeful, just like in Australia, some of the nicknames are attrocious.


----------



## You are to blame

i think the MLS names and logos are fine now as opposed to a few years ago.

Here are the rest of the teams

*New England Revolution*
















Gillet Stadium not SSS though

















*DC United* - the most succesful team in MLS over the Years

























the next two logos and name i do hate though

*San Jose Quake*
















Spartan Stadium, not SSS specific though









*Kansas City Wizard *

















*Colorado Rapids*








new stadium under construction

































*NY MetroStars*

























*Chicago Fire*


----------



## Nic

Renderings








































Construction Photos


















































































This multi-purpose facility featuring a 20,000 seat stadium, coupled with seventeen regulation-size soccer fields, is scheduled to open in April of 2005 in Frisco, and will be located a few hundred yards east of the Dallas North Tollway and Main Street intersection, just north of the new Frisco Town Square.

Frisco Town Square is a mixed-use development currently under construction and will be the future home of commercial, residential, retail and public buildings, including the new Frisco City Hall.

The FC Dallas will serve as the primary tenant of the stadium. It is anticipated this venue will host over a multitude of events annually, some of which may include:

> FC Dallas soccer
> High School football
> Concerts
> Major international soccer matches
> United State Soccer Mens' and Womens' National Team Games
> World Cup Qualifying matches
> Major League Soccer All-Star Game and MLS Cup
> Other major professional and amateur tournaments and events 
Notable amenities of the stadium include:

> Video displays planned for both corners of the north side of the stadium
> Permanent stage infrastructure on the north side of the field, capable of facilitating major concert and other entertainment events
> Open-view concession stands, keeping fans closer to the game when leaving their seat to order food or drink
> Gate entrances on the north, south, east and west sides of the stadium
> A private, 6,000 square foot Stadium Club
> 18 luxury suites

The seventeen regulation sized soccer fields will be utilized year-round on a daily basis featuring a myriad of programming:

> Youth and adult amateur soccer
> Local, regional, national, and international soccer tournaments
> High school athletics
> Soccer camps, clinics, and academies
> Training camp for professional teams
> Community and corporate events 
The two closest fields to the stadium will be used exclusively for partners of the facility:

> The FC Dallas training field, which will feature a natural-grass training field.
> Dr Pink Field, which will be used exclusively for various Frisco ISD athletics, and will feature an artificial turf field along with a press box and bleacher seating for six hundred fans. 
Permanent tenants at the facility will include:

> Stadium and field management
> FC Dallas front office staff
> North Texas State Soccer Association management
> United States Youth Soccer Association management 
The complex will feature an esplanade leading from the stadium thru the heart of the southern half of the soccer fields, ending at a pavilion area which will be located at the center of the sports park, featuring concessions, restrooms, and other anticipated amenities.

It is anticipated that additional features will be incorporated into the facility as corporate partnerships are announced.



Site Design by Birdsall Interactive


----------



## Alexander21

Is the Dallas Stadium going to be used exclusively for football?


----------



## Nic

FC Dallas is the main tenant....however, it is expected to host other events such as concerts, high school football, etc.


----------



## You are to blame

Old renderings of toronto SSS but the location has changed and so might have the designs. The bid and stadium still seem to be back on as the latest news suggest


----------



## Alexander21

Nice looking stadium, but could do with a roof.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

America certainly do have simply the best stadia on the planet.

I didn't even think they were into soccer in the USA. 

What standard is the American league? Would it be rated as around English League 1 level?


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

San Siro, MILAN


----------



## Melchisedeck

Stadio "San Filippo" in Messina (South Italy)
Built in 2004
Capacity 43.000




























Brescia in the North Italy


















Shopping center near the stadium


----------



## Madman

BobDaBuilder said:


> America certainly do have simply the best stadia on the planet.
> 
> I didn't even think they were into soccer in the USA.
> 
> What standard is the American league? Would it be rated as around English League 1 level?


Well the stadiums look roughly the same size as a 2nd/maybe 3rd tier football clubs in England.

This is St Mary's Stadium a 2nd tier club (Southampton) with approx 32,000 cap


----------



## You are to blame

BobDaBuilder said:


> America certainly do have simply the best stadia on the planet.
> 
> I didn't even think they were into soccer in the USA.
> 
> What standard is the American league? Would it be rated as around English League 1 level?


i would say the teams range in quality of top half of the English 1st division and bottom quarter of the premiership


----------



## mikeyraw

This is the upgraded Members Equity Stadium, the home of My football club, Perth Glory, which is due to be complete early to mid next year. It is SSS, but they also play Rugby on it in the winter, Football is a summer sport in Australia. This is stage two of the development, stage three will see the capacity raised to 30,000 with the new eastern stand coming all the way around the ground.










This is what it currently looks like, the only difference is that currently there is terracing at the Kop-esque end, and that the large Eastern stand has not been built yet.


----------



## birminghamculture

You are to blame said:


> i would say the teams range in quality of top half of the English 1st division and bottom quarter of the premiership



Umm - Maybe Top English Championship but not the premiership - The MSL Championsh would probably reach 32nd in the English Leagues with the worse teams making it not even as high as mid-table Coca Cola 3rd division.


----------



## birminghamculture

Another 2nd tier English Team - *Wolverhampton Wanderers * AKA *Wolves*
Capacity 29,500 (Soon to be increased to 46,200)


----------



## dl3000

You are to blame said:


> i would say the teams range in quality of top half of the English 1st division and bottom quarter of the premiership


Yeah I'd somewhat agree to that. The MLS teams aren't that bad and I remember they had MLS versus Europe matches and MLS did OK but they weren't playing Europe's best. America's best obviously move to Europe where the money and attention are.


----------



## Lindemann

Santiago Bernabéu (Real Madrid)

















































Vicente Calderón (Atlético de Madrid)

































Nou Camp (Fútbol Club Barcelona)


----------



## Mac

Its not called soccer....its Football.


----------



## You are to blame

birminghamculture said:


> Umm - Maybe Top English Championship but not the premiership - The MSL Championsh would probably reach 32nd in the English Leagues with the worse teams making it not even as high as mid-table Coca Cola 3rd division.


well since you don't know the name of the league, MLS, i don't think you have seen any games and so can't judge the level of play. I did say the bottom quarter of the Premiership nd the top hlf of the Championship(1st division)


----------



## Ringil

yeah the dallas scraper will stay but they're going to make it higher so it will fit in more later when the new stadium is finished


----------



## dl3000

DaDvD said:


> In Europe we do. South America does so, and I bet that the rest of the world except North America does it aswell.


Thats my logic. Im assuming perhaps certain countries in Asia and Africa might have another word.


----------



## rantanamo

Australia, Canada, Even some of the names of stadiums use the word soccer in many many countries. Especially in Asia is soccer commonly used.. Basically, the areas that use romantic languages, or were colonized by romantic languages use football. At the same time, the founding country of it uses soccer as well as football, which is interesting. I've been doing a lot of stadium research of the whole world for better Asian, African and South American stadium representation on this board. Especially for non-soccer stadiums. Lots of the Asian stadiums specifically use the word soccer, which was surprising. I wasn't surprised at the south Pacific/Oceana using soccer. That is big rugby territory. Perhaps Mo Rush can answer, but does South Africa use the word "soccer". I notice there is a stadium known as Soccer City. I also notice that rugby is big there like the NFL is in the US. 

One of my biggest finds though is the variety of stadium designs out there no matter what the continent. This board gives a much different impression as to what is actually out there, which is probably because of the focus on a handful of stadiums. I also find that the US and Japan really have a ton a great, technological venues. There are great venues all over the world, but the sheer numbers and concentrations are simply different probably due to the wealth and lots of public financing. 

One cool new thing I have become a fan of are Bullfighting rings. They deserve their own post as their are some really great ones.


----------



## Melchisedeck

Philips Stadium in Eindhoven




































Amsterdam Arena





































Sant James Park (Newcastle)














































Reebok stadium (Bolton)




























Luigi Ferraris (Genova)


----------



## cphdude

^^ any news on when they will start this? Sorry if this has already been answered...


----------



## Loranga

I believe in New Råsunda when I see it! 
Actually, what is it going to be used for except of 4-5 soccer national games per year?


----------



## cphdude

^^ thats always a danger...


----------



## Tomesh

AIK Solna play there league matches at Rasunda !


----------



## koskaar

Anything going on with Hammarby's ground? I know there were plans to expand the current Söderstadion, but haven't heard anything about it in years.


----------



## GNU

*stadium nightshots*

this thread is about stadium Nightshots.
Post your pics here.

I'll have a start with the Olympic Stadium in Berlin:



















not really a nightshot but still nice:





























Veltins Arena:


----------



## Melchisedeck

San Siro




























San Nicola in Bari (South Italy)









Reliant Stadium in Huston


















Telstra stadium in Sidney


----------



## savas

i posted this photos already but still....


----------



## Melchisedeck

The photos of Athens olympic stadium are really beautiful, and the opening ceremony of olympic games it has been wonderful.

(Sorry for my english!)


----------



## rantanamo




----------



## New York Yankee

has anyone a picture of the allianz arena at night?


----------



## Zizu

^^Have a look at the Allianz Arena thread! There are a lot. Don't want to link them again


----------



## dgnr8

City of Manchester Stadium. Home of Manchester City. Sorry for shit pics, best I could find on Google.




























From the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony























































Outside of the stadium with Britain's tallest sculpture, the 56m B Of The Bang.


----------



## Zaqattaq

New York Yankee said:


> has anyone a picture of the allianz arena at night?


I post them all over the place look in the various Allianz threads


----------



## NavyBlue

The Melbourne Cricket Ground's six huge light towers can be seen from most parts of the city.


----------



## Mo Rush

I am looking for one high resolution high quality image of the athens olympic stadium during the opening ceremony for my desktop background...please post one or send me a few links in a private message thanks..


----------



## Giorgio

crap, i have a really good one on my work computer that i found on google. ill try find it again for you. i loved it,


----------



## GNU

thx for that!!
I have been looking for new pics of the Hallenstadion


----------



## www.sercan.de

pics of the Hallenstadion


----------



## antigr12

there is also the LTU arena in dusseldorf , if you have pics


----------



## stadiumfuture

Have anybody news about the extension of Camp Nou. In mine opinion is the lower side after the extension works the high side of the whole stadium.


----------



## traveler

Great stadiums. Very impressive!!


----------



## dande

How is London arena with 26,000 biggest in the world? What about Pontiac Silverdome, Georgina Dome, Alamo Dome and that huge arena in New Orleans (can´t remember the name right now) to name just a few.


----------



## www.sercan.de

antigr12 said:


> there is also the LTU arena in dusseldorf , if you have pics



LTU-Arena
51.500


----------



## MoreOrLess

dande said:


> How is London arena with 26,000 biggest in the world? What about Pontiac Silverdome, Georgina Dome, Alamo Dome and that huge arena in New Orleans (can´t remember the name right now) to name just a few.


Arena equals an enclosed stadium with an icehokey/basketball/tennis sized playing area in the terminology most people here use.

I'm still suppized that the Germans picked Nuremberg for the World Cup with its smaller/older stadium with a running track over the much larger and more modern one in Dusseldorf.


----------



## GNU

Well stadium-wise this decision is truly stupid.
But the DFB(german football federation) wanted to spread the host cities all over Germany.
If Duesseldorf would have been picked there would have been too many cities in the RheinRhur area.
there are already Schalke/Dortmund/Cologne which are all not far from each other.

But you are right.Nuremburg really has the crapiest stadium in the lineup for the WC. plenty of other stadiums would have been a better pick.


----------



## CorliCorso

Other proposed UK arenas -

Bristol Arena, 10,000 capacity








http://www.templequarter.com/bristol-arena/index.asp 

Brighton International Arena, 8,000 (normal) 11,000 (concerts)








http://www.brightonarena.co.uk/ 

Southampton Arena, 5,000 (normal) 7,000 (concerts)
Can't find any pictures
http://www.invest-in-southampton.co.uk/latest_news_view.asp?NavID=320&MnuID=8&ID=86 

Leeds Arena, 13,000
See this thread


----------



## eddyk

Isnt this UC in Liverpool at the moment?










I think its a 10,000+ seater


----------



## antigr12

Checker said:


> Well stadium-wise this decision is truly stupid.
> But the DFB(german football federation) wanted to spread the host cities all over Germany.
> If Duesseldorf would have been picked there would have been too many cities in the RheinRhur area.
> there are already Schalke/Dortmund/Cologne which are all not far from each other.
> 
> But you are right.Nuremburg really has the crapiest stadium in the lineup for the WC. plenty of other stadiums would have been a better pick.



weserstadion in bremen is also crappy


----------



## CorliCorso

eddyk said:


> Isnt this UC in Liverpool at the moment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its a 10,000+ seater


Aye, I forgot that one. There's also another proposed arena in the London area, the Croydon Arena, but I can't find out much about that. Capacity should be 12,500.


----------



## eddyk

Just had a look on the Liverpool page.

at the moment they are putting the sewers in....work on the Arena iteself should start this month or next.


----------



## GNU

antigr12 said:


> weserstadion in bremen is also crappy


true,but Bremen isnt a host city to the worldcup


----------



## GNU

The third tier for the St.Jakobs Park,Basel
dunno when they start with the construction.Maybe some swiss forumer can give some help here.










at the moment it looks like this:











And a new arena for Real Sociedad:










































Looks fantastic :cheers:


----------



## GNU

Ok,now some more regional news from Germany:

This is a new proposal for a arena for the football club Fc.Union Berlin a Fourth? league club.
And this is something we rarely see in Europe.
It's a retro building.It will bw buil in the style of the industrialisation.










next is the new arena for Rot Weiss Essen a third league club.
Im quite dissapointed by this proposal because Essen is one of Germanys biggest cities and lies within the Ruhr agglomaration.
But its just another small boxy design that we see too often these days.
soon uc:


----------



## GNU

finally some pics from the new proposal for the Paragon Arena in Paderborn:


----------



## earthJoker

Checker said:


> The third tier for the St.Jakobs Park,Basel
> dunno when they start with the construction.Maybe some swiss forumer can give some help here.


I didn't found any dates, all I know is that the enlargement will be ready for the euro 2008. If the Uefa rules for enlargements are the same as for new stadia this would mean it would be finished 2007.


----------



## Köbtke

Does anyone know any details as to the Real Sociedad arena? Like construction start, capacity and other such details.


----------



## earthJoker

I found some information,

the constructions have already started, it is not much to see yet.

It will be finished already in summer 2006 (if there are no delays)

It will have 42'500 seats after enlargment. That would be the biggest statium of switzerland.


----------



## aCidMinD81

One of the proposal for the new Valencia C.F stadium. Capability: 80,000


----------



## Jerv

*Ice Hockey World Cup?*

Not sure about the rules, history, or even the existance of an Ice Hockey world championships (along the lines of the football world cup). Anyway, for what it's worth I think the UK has a pretty good array of facilities and these are my suggestions for venues for a future tournament

Leeds Arena, 13,000;









Newcastle Arena, 6,500;









Sheffield Arena, 12,500;









Liverpool Arena, 10,000;









Manchester Arena, 18,000;









Nottingham National Ice Centre, 7,500;









Birmingham NIA, 8,500; (Alternatively NEC arena, 13,000)









London O2 Arena, 23,000









London Earls Court Arena, 16,000









Belfast Odyssey Arena, 9,000










Bristol Arena, 10,000 capacity










Brighton International Arena, 8,000


----------



## TalB

There is a planned arena for Brooklyn, which I oppose greately.


----------



## rantanamo

Its a different animal than the soccer world cup. Doesn't require a ton of venues or even a bunch of super great ones. Its pretty much been played in hockey loving nations so far. The UK facilities are aight compared to Canada and the US. But that's to be expected as basketball and ice hockey are very popular sports.


----------



## Mr. T

The World Cup of Ice Hockey and the Ice Hockey World Championships are actually two different competitions. The world Cup is held at venues around the world while the world Championships are held in a single country. 

Britian would host a world Championships and not a world cup.


----------



## earthJoker

You only need 2 or 3 venues. So your list is overkill.

Here some infos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ice_Hockey_Federation_World_Championships

2009 in Switzerland, maybe I gonne watch a game


----------



## Cpt. Picard

koskaar, the project hasn't been scrapped, they're just taking things very slowly.
I remember reading somewhere that they scrapped the plans for a 50k seater-söderstadion (not really sure, though)...but if that's the case, the city of stockholm has still promised hammarby a new stadium with ~25k seats. 
So one thing's for sure: Hammarby won't walk away from this with empty hands.


----------



## CorliCorso

Köbtke said:


> Does anyone know any details as to the Real Sociedad arena? Like construction start, capacity and other such details.



















Capacity: 42,500

http://www.stadiumguide.com/gipuzkoarena.htm


----------



## CorliCorso

Also, the first picture isn't of the Leeds Arena, it's of the proposed Croydon Arena in London. If you hover your mouse over the picture on the Leeds Arena homepage, it says "Crodyon Arena shown for illustrative purposes only..."


----------



## King-Tomislav

Parken


----------



## Giorgio

for morush:

heres a large pic of the stadium. its not much of the stadium more of the opening its self but its big and its at night lol. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Olympic_flame_at_opening_ceremony.jpg

its 1 mb so i wont post it on the forum. just copy that url into ur browser.


----------



## Jerv

CorliCorso said:


> Also, the first picture isn't of the Leeds Arena, it's of the proposed Croydon Arena in London. If you hover your mouse over the picture on the Leeds Arena homepage, it says "Crodyon Arena shown for illustrative purposes only..."


Yes but they plan on using the same design


----------



## GNU

that proposal for Valencia is outstanding!!
what are the chances that its going to be build like that??


----------



## GNU

earthJoker said:


> I found some information,
> 
> the constructions have already started, it is not much to see yet.
> 
> It will be finished already in summer 2006 (if there are no delays)
> 
> It will have 42'500 seats after enlargment. That would be the biggest statium of switzerland.


thx for that!hope to see some construction pics soon.


----------



## aCidMinD81

Checker said:


> that proposal for Valencia is outstanding!!
> what are the chances that its going to be build like that??


That one is an Arup Associates project. I was the best rated by the club belong the designs that some architects were requested (that was two years ago). Now, Valencia C.F. has invited different architects to present some projects at the end of this year, among them: Santiago Calatrava, Arup, HOK Sports, GMP...

On the other hand, the club is dealing with Sony, Toyota (maybe Nike too) to sign a sponsorship agreement similar to the Arsenal's with Emirates.


----------



## GNU

thats some great news for Valencia.
Is it also sure that the capacity will be 80.000 or could it be less?


----------



## aCidMinD81

Mestalla (Valencia C.F. stadium) has a capability of 53.000 spectators, they pretend to have a new stadium with 70.000-80.000 seats.


----------



## antigr12

on the spanish forum , there is one thread about this stadium in which the articles say valencia mayor wants an athletic track inside the stadium , with amovible seats , that would be the basic deal for giving city parcels to the club for the stadium construction .


----------



## carlspannoosh

Are there enough major Athletics meetings in the world to warrant yet another stadium being built in Europe with a track? Does it make financial sense to build another friggin athletics stadium? Just wondering like.


----------



## Malt

The aesthetics of it are good, 8/10

But the layout is absolutely shit.

You have the field, surrounded by a running track, surrounded by.. random grass? surrounded by another running track, then finally the stands.
That is too far from the field.


6/10


----------



## hngcm

ok now after seeing the second rendering....

why are the seats so far back?


----------



## traveler

It looks like the Algarve stadium. Great stadium.


----------



## Imperial

Very nice stadium, especially roof look amazing 7/10


----------



## MoreOrLess

As others have said great aesthetics but terrible layout, I thought they stopped building stadiums like that after the 50's.


----------



## rantanamo

Iain1974 said:


> Perhaps the Jets ought to pay for their own premesis like any other business? Then they can do what they like with it.


perhaps you didn't read what I said. The city of New York wants to use the place for many events and as part of their convention center. Many more than the Jets 8 games per year. So they should get this for free? I don't think so. These cities complain about the rents that the teams charge for facility use, so that's why the team's know they can get public private partnerships. Opposition groups are always trying to make it look like the public is paying for a team to play there. No the public would be playing for a facility that they NEED(this has been acknowledged by both sides) for their city as much more than just a sports facility. In Dallas we had huge public opposition to the American Airlines Center, which sees about 80 sports use days per year. The facility now sees over 100 non sports events per year, and Dallas citizens paid only 1/3 of the cost. If anyone got hosed, it was the teams, though the facility builders didn't mind because of how successful Victory has been. This is why I say each situation is different. Public Private partnerships can work, and do work when used in the right situation. Its not just teams hosing the public.


----------



## Iain1974

*Jets*

Of course I read what you'd said. m)) 

If the Jets paid for their own stadium they could then rent it out as often as they like to whomever they chose. 

I've no doubt that many businesses would find a use for such a stadium and be hapy to pay the Jets the going rate for whatever function they are in the business of providing. Of course, we couldn't expect them all to use the full extent of such a facility in the way the Jets will. I'd guess that in NYC it'd rake in a fortune in rock concerts. I'm surprised the Jets even wanted anyone else involved.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Iain1974 said:


> Of course I read what you'd said. m))
> 
> If the Jets paid for their own stadium they could then rent it out as often as they like to whomever they chose.
> 
> I've no doubt that many businesses would find a use for such a stadium and be hapy to pay the Jets the going rate for whatever function they are in the business of providing. Of course, we couldn't expect them all to use the full extent of such a facility in the way the Jets will. I'd guess that in NYC it'd rake in a fortune in rock concerts. I'm surprised the Jets even wanted anyone else involved.


If you look elsewhere that seems to be the universal way in which stadium contruction is going, clubs(or even nation stadiums in wembley's case) are trying to ditch public built facilities in favour of privately funded ones from which they can reap the full profits.


----------



## TalB

The Nets arena that I showed is no different, and it goes a step further by challenging the courts on wheather it is right or wrong to spend taxes on evicting people for a private developement.


----------



## Zizu

This is the proposal for the new football stadium of the club Karlsruhe SC in Germany.









I think it looks pretty cool. Karlsruhe is currently playing in the second league in Germany.


----------



## taicher

*Best sport facilities*

Which one can offer the best sport facilities?


----------



## Mr. T

Athens for me. The most modern sports facilities(obviously since they were built in the last 2 years). Also none have been taken apart yet like in other Olympic cities.


----------



## linostar1982

Athens,its obvious.


----------



## linostar1982

Has Sydney any big venue for athletics??????????????


----------



## Mr. T

Lionstar this isnt about Sydney vs. Athens but just a comparison of all the sports facilities of past and future Olympics.


----------



## ExSydney

Here we go again..

Yes..Sydney has a big modern venue suitable for athletics.Its called Telstra Stadium ,it seats 83,500 and if ever required again,a track can be reinstalled and the stands can be retracted backwards to suit athletics.
But whats the point,the only reason this would be done,would be a IAAF World Champs and Sydney isnt that interested in hosting one,so an athletics track in a 80,000 seat stadium in Sydney is about as useful as a 70,000 seat stadium in Athens which would never again be filled for an athletics event in our lifetime.

Totally useless.


----------



## Messed Up

Doeas Athen have internation standard golf courses or motor racing circuit? I think not. Therefore Sydney would have its overall measure.


----------



## rantanamo

Atlanta for what is currently finished.


----------



## Mo Rush

Sydney does..


----------



## GNU

^^Thx for that Zizu I was just about to post that1


----------



## GNU

some new pics from Kaiserslautern.The roof construction has begun

















this is a good pic that shows how much the other tribune will be extended

























and the new Mediatowers of the Weserstadion in Bremen: (finished 2004)



































just found some dressing room pics:

















pic from the Business lounge:


----------



## GNU

and since it hasnt been posted yet,here are some pics of the nice mid-sized colorline-arena in Hamburg which was built for the local Icehockey club and other purposes. (finished 2002)










seems like its situated just next to the AOL-arena:










































heres the official website:
www.colorline-arena.com


----------



## GNU

and some pics from the Volkswagen Arena in wolfsburg: (finished 2002)
































































restaurant:


----------



## Mo Rush

the volkswagen arena is nice simple classsy does its job


----------



## Sinjin P.

wonderful developments  hope to see these infras established soon!


----------



## Mr. T

ExSydney said:


> 70,000 seat stadium in Athens which would never again be filled for an athletics event in our lifetime.
> 
> Totally useless.


Please learn the facts before you make uneducated comments. The Athens Olympic Stadium is used constantly as it is home to two top Greek league football clubs(Panathinaikos, AEK Athens) and the Stadium is filled multiple times throughout the year expecially for Champions league games, and rivalry games.

I was watching a game last sunday between Olympiakos and Panathinaikos at the Olympic Stadium and it was full.

BTW Athens is hosting the IAAF World Cup of Athletics this summer so it will fill up for athletics events again this year. So again do some research beofore posting random things you know nothing about.  

You have the right to think that Sydney has the most modern venues (which I disagree with) but you dont have to put Athens down in every post. It really makes you look bad. :weirdo:


----------



## Giorgio

ATM its between Athens and London. Athens wins for now until London Constructs the stuff for the olympics then it can shit all over Athens. 

Sydney has nothing special at all. Why would it have the best? they were all built like 1997-1998


----------



## Mo Rush

i wonder who will win this poll


----------



## linostar1982

Dont forget the Rally Acropolis special race which filled the Athens Olympic stadium! Its very funny for some people at the other side of the world to think that Athens Olympic stadium was empty from the time of the Olympics!!They have no idea,this stadium is every week totally full of people for the AEk and Panathinaikos football games!!! Lets see your Telstra which has not any track facilities(only if it will be reinstalled)...very bad for saying that Sydney has athletic facilities.


----------



## Isaac Newell

What about Los Angeles? there are some rather large stadia/arenas/speedways/ballparks/horse tracks etc.


----------



## Mo Rush

linostar1982 said:


> Dont forget the Rally Acropolis special race which filled the Athens Olympic stadium! Its very funny for some people at the other side of the world to think that Athens Olympic stadium was empty from the time of the Olympics!!They have no idea,this stadium is every week totally full of people for the AEk and Panathinaikos football games!!! Lets see your Telstra which has not any track facilities(only if it will be reinstalled)...very bad for saying that Sydney has athletic facilities.


oh my word how many times are you still gonna mention the rally in the athens olympic stadium...oh u forgot to mention the stadium floor can fill up with water and drain away in minutes... u know just in case youre in the mood for a pool in the stadium...fantastic


----------



## Mr. T

^^
What are you talking about?

I was just naming times since the Olympics that the Olympic Stadium has been full and I forgot the acropolis rally and he just reminded me.


----------



## savas

here is the Athens Sport Facilities Master Plan...


----------



## linostar1982

Yea Mo its a unique stadium like this which can host both lakes and Rally and I will mention it as many times as I want! ! And u,lets pay a graphic dersigner to make a new logo for SA s bid......


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

Yeah, this looks pretty empty to me!!! (loser!)


*For the race:*

























































*For football matches:*





























































































With the Champions League Final in 2007 and the World Cup of Athletics coming up, plus two major football teams using the stadium for domestic and UEFA competitions, it looks to me that the OAKA is getting used a lot. And it almost ALWAYS sold out.

Some people need to shut up and think before they make stupid comments.


----------



## vertigosufferer

The Olympic Stadium might be getting some use at the moment, but many other facilities used during the Athens Olympics, will be lucky to see more activity than bird droppings, since the closure of the Games. 3 of the very well built stadiums in the Hellinikon complex that hosted events such as Hockey, Softball and Baseball are standing idle, and not used since the end of the games.


----------



## auslankan

The city with the best around sports facilities is none of the above it is 1956 Olympic city Melbourne.

Check this out for comparison.

MCG 100,000+ stadium.Olympic Games 1956, Commonwealth Games 2006, Australian Football,lnternational Cricket, Rugby, Soccer

Telstra Dome 56,600 roofed stadium Football ,Cricket ,mixed use.

Melbourne Park 16,000 reteactable roof tennis stadium home of the Grand Slam Australian Open,

Vodaphone Arena 10,500 retractable roof, Velodrome, Basketball, mixed sports

State Hockey Centre 8000

Aquatic Centre for international swimming and diving events, indoor and outdoor

Albert Park F1 race track home of the Australian F1 GP

Phillip Island Moto GP track

Flemington Racecourse home to the famous Melbourne Cup horse race.

How many cities can match this list?


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

auslankan said:


> The city with the best around sports facilities is none of the above it is 1956 Olympic city Melbourne.
> 
> Check this out for comparison.
> 
> MCG 100,000+ stadium.Olympic Games 1956, Commonwealth Games 2006, Australian Football,lnternational Cricket, Rugby, Soccer
> 
> Telstra Dome 56,600 roofed stadium Football ,Cricket ,mixed use.
> 
> Melbourne Park 16,000 reteactable roof tennis stadium home of the Grand Slam Australian Open,
> 
> Vodaphone Arena 10,500 retractable roof, Velodrome, Basketball, mixed sports
> 
> State Hockey Centre 8000
> 
> Aquatic Centre for international swimming and diving events, indoor and outdoor
> 
> Albert Park F1 race track home of the Australian F1 GP
> 
> Phillip Island Moto GP track
> 
> Flemington Racecourse home to the famous Melbourne Cup horse race.
> 
> How many cities can match this list?




This is impressive, but Athens can (and it possibly beats Melbourne). Here is why:

*1) Athens Olympic Stadium:*

Capacity: 66,132 (all seated) Used for Athletics, football, auto racing, and concerts.
Location: The stadium is located in Maroussi, a northern suburb of Athens (9 km from the city centre, 22 km from the airport). It is part of the Athens Olympic Sports Complex (AOSC, better known from its Greek initials as OAKA). 

The two giant arcs have a total span of 304m and a maximum height of 72m... the roof has a total weight of 19,000 tons... 5,000 polycarbonate panels were used for the roof, which covers an area of 25,000 sq m... the west arc was assembled 72m from its final position and the east 65m - both later slid into place... the roof is designed to withstand winds up to 120 km/h










































*2) Olympic Sports Hall (used for basketball, volleyball, gymnastics)*

Capacity: 18,700

The Olympic Sports Hall is one of the biggest and most modern indoor sports arenas in Europe. Greeks call it (and its neighbouring Olympic Stadium) simply "OAKA" - the initials for the Olympic Sports Complex, of which it is part.

The arena features a unique roof, based only on four huge pillars (each being 35m tall and the two pairs 108m apart). It is the largest construction of this 
kind in the whole world, according to the Greek Ministry of Sports. The arena is also built in such a way as to provide abundant natural sunlight all day long. 






























*3) Olympic Tennis Center:*

Main Court Capacity: 18,000











*4) Olympic Aquatic Center:*

Capacity 12,000-15,000











*5) Olympic Velodrome:*

Unknown Capacity, but huge nonetheless!!!











*6) Karaiskaki Stadium (for football)*

Capacity: 33,334 (seated)































*7) Peace and Friendship Stadium (Basketball and Volleyball):*

Capacity: 14,095 (for basketball) - 11,750 (for athletics)

The arena was designed by architects "Thymios Papagiannis and associates" at a cost of € 25 million (1983 prices). In 1991 it received the Golden Award by IAKS (International Working Group for the Construction of Sports and Leisure Facilities). Besides basketball, its multi-purpose main arena is also able to host athletics, gymnastics, volleyball, handball, ice skating etc, but also concerts, conventions and exhibitions.






































*8) Ano Liossia Hall:*

This brand new indoor hall will host the sports of wrestling and judo during the Athens 2004 Summer Olympic Games. It has a capacity of 9,300 spectators.




















*9) Galatsi Arena (used for b-ball):*





























*10) Nikea Indoor Hall (was used for weightlifting; is now a theatre):*

Apart from being the most complete sports centre for weightlifting in the world, it is also able to host conventions, concerts and similar events. The complex includes the main hall, warm-up and training halls, medical facilities, a press centre, administrative offices and a separate connecting building with guest rooms for 59 athletes, a restaurant etc.

It has a capacity of 5,191 spectators.





















*11) Peristeri Indoor Hall (Boxing):*

It has a capacity of 8,400.












*12) Helliniko Arena (Basketball):*

It has a capacity of about 14,500 spectators.




















*13) Helliniko Baseball and Canoe/Kayak Center:*





















*14) Faliro Arena (multi use facility):*

It had a capacity of 8,536 spectators, half of the seats being temporary. After the Olympics, capacity was reduced to 3,836.




















*15) Faliro Beach Voleyball Center (currently being used for FIVA world championships):*











*16) Markopoulo Equestrian Center:*











*17) Agios Kosmas Sailing Center:*










This list excludes "older" football and b-ball arenas that exist (i.e. old Panathinakos stadium and teh stadiums of the smaller Athenian football teams)

Also, yesterday the municipal government approved a brand new football stadium for Panathinaikos seating 40,000 along with a b-ball bvenue that will seat 6,000 to 8,000 people. It is scheduled to be complete by 2008.


all pictures are courtesy of stadia.gr


----------



## Mr. T

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> Also, yesterday the municipal government approved a brand new football stadium for Panathinaikos seating 40,000 along with a b-ball bvenue that will seat 6,000 to 8,000 people. It is scheduled to be complete by 2008.


Why a new b-ball stadium for PAO what is wrong with Olympic sports hall?


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

Mr. T said:


> Why a new b-ball stadium for PAO what is wrong with Olympic sports hall?



I know my friend, but that is what was agreed to. Sometimes these decisions confuse me as well.


----------



## Philite

let's not forget Eindhoven with the philips stadium (PSV Eindhoven, who always beat the greek teams !!) a giant indoor swim stadium (because world champion Pieter vd H was born here), Indoor sports stadium good isn't it!


----------



## Mr. T

Philite said:


> let's not forget Eindhoven with the philips stadium (PSV Eindhoven, who always beat the greek teams !!)


Panathinaikos beat PSV 4-0 last year in Athens. :cheers:


----------



## TalB

This is the new stadium for the Mets if it gets built.


----------



## linostar1982

I can hardly remember the Atlanta s and Sydney s venuew which host the olympic sports..


----------



## Giorgio

vertigosufferer said:


> The Olympic Stadium might be getting some use at the moment, but many other facilities used during the Athens Olympics, will be lucky to see more activity than bird droppings, since the closure of the Games. 3 of the very well built stadiums in the Hellinikon complex that hosted events such as Hockey, Softball and Baseball are standing idle, and not used since the end of the games.


Very true, however, what has the utilization of the stadiums got to do with how great they are?? 

People are just trying to saturate athens in such crap like this to make it lose the poll...

The question is Best sports facilities, not most utilized.


----------



## NavyBlue

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> Main Court Capacity: 18,000


The capacity is 8,000 for the tennis main court...


----------



## ExSydney

Mr. T said:


> Please learn the facts before you make uneducated comments. The Athens Olympic Stadium is used constantly as it is home to two top Greek league football clubs(Panathinaikos, AEK Athens) and the Stadium is filled multiple times throughout the year expecially for Champions league games, and rivalry games.
> 
> I was watching a game last sunday between Olympiakos and Panathinaikos at the Olympic Stadium and it was full.
> 
> BTW Athens is hosting the IAAF World Cup of Athletics this summer so it will fill up for athletics events again this year. So again do some research beofore posting random things you know nothing about.
> 
> You have the right to think that Sydney has the most modern venues (which I disagree with) but you dont have to put Athens down in every post. It really makes you look bad. :weirdo:


Why dont you actually READ first before you comment????

I said Athens will NEVER fill its stadium again for an *athletics* event in our lifetime,in response to Sydney ripping its track out.
I never said that Athens will not fill its stadium.
Considering Athens struggled to fill to the stadium for the Olympics.Considering Athens extremely poorly attended 1997 IAAF World Championships(yes...that is not forgotten),there is no chance in hell that the venue will be full for a World Cup event.

As I said,its a waste of time having an unused Athletics track in a 70,000 seat venue.


----------



## Giorgio

ExSydney said:


> Why dont you actually READ first before you comment????
> 
> I said Athens will NEVER fill its stadium again for an *athletics* event in our lifetime,in response to Sydney ripping its track out.
> I never said that Athens will not fill its stadium.
> Considering Athens struggled to fill to the stadium for the Olympics.Considering Athens extremely poorly attended 1997 IAAF World Championships(yes...that is not forgotten),there is no chance in hell that the venue will be full for a World Cup event.
> 
> As I said,its a waste of time having an unused Athletics track in a 70,000 seat venue.


excuse me you dumb little ***** but during the athletics the athens stadium was a SELLOUT on almost EVERY night of the second week!

HERES A PIC TO REFRESH SOME PEOPLES MEMORIES!










ONCE AGAIn.....GO AWAY IF YOU ARNT GOING TO DISCUSS THE BEST SPORT FACILITIES.....YOU CAN MAKE A THREAD FOR THE MOST UTILIZED IF YOU WISH


----------



## ExSydney

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> *snips another useless Athens Stadium pic*
> ONCE AGAIn.....GO AWAY IF YOU ARNT GOING TO DISCUSS THE BEST SPORT FACILITIES.....YOU CAN MAKE A THREAD FOR THE MOST UTILIZED IF YOU WISH


The question was asked about Sydney's athletics track and I answered.Simple as that.

For the educated,Sydney's Olympic track was pulled up and relocated next door at the 15,000 capacity Sydney International Athletics Centre.


----------



## Giorgio

why make up crap like it struggled to fill up during the olympic athletics you loser. 
The Athletics were selouts as i showed in the 'useless Athens stadium pic'


----------



## Giorgio

heres the pic i was talking about. it looks really good as a wallpaper


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

NavyBlue said:


> The capacity is 8,000 for the tennis main court...



Yes, you are correct. My mistake. I placed the "1" in front of the"8" in my rush to complete the post.


----------



## linostar1982

I t does not changes anything, Athens is now the absolute metropolis of sports with venues that difficulty can beat any other city...maybe only London could in a few years.


----------



## Giorgio

London WILL Beat athens in a few years, as soon as the venues are complete, but Athens is currently the best your right stavros


----------



## birminghamculture

I think London already beats Athena guys :yes:


----------



## birminghamculture

Oh sorry if this is just about Olympic venues then Athens then obviously Beijing then London


----------



## taicher

London beats already Athens??? Show me a place for weightlifting in London and compare it whith the Athenean one. Show me a place for canoe kayak and another one for beach volley .What about judo and boxing?? London has at this time some of the best stadium ,sure, but had not yet facilities for as many sports as Athens has now.


----------



## Mephisto

I'm sorry but Athens venues are already deteriorating and Athens is not one of the worlds great sporting cities (even though modern sport was invented there as many of our humble Athenian posters will tell us). 
London, Sydney, Melbourne, Paris et al are the great sport centres of the world with not just fantastic venues but ones that actually get used often, not just for the odd novelty event here and there.


----------



## taicher

deteriorating???From which planet u become??


----------



## Christos7

I am so tired of this forum and this constant bickering. 


And for the record, just so we can end this debate, I will go through all the venues in Athens and show which is used and which is not. So maybe then all of you will shut up. (both Greeks and others)

Athens Olympic Stadium - In use. (football + other sports)
Indoor Arena - In use. (Basketball - Panathinaikos)
Velodrome - Not in major use. I believe the Greek cycling team may practice there. 
Tennis Centre - IN use. ( http://www.tennisacademy.gr/eng/academy.html )
Aquatic Centre - To be used as training for Greek NT. But not in major use. 

All 6 football stadiums built for the games are in use. 

Panathinaiko Marble Stadium - tourist attraction

Peace & Friendship Arena - In use. (Basketball - Olympiakos)
Galatsi Arean - In use. (Basketball - AEK)
Ano Liosia Arena - Not in use. 
Nikea Weightlifting Hall - Not in major use. (confrences, speeches, etc)
Peristeri Indoor Hall - Not in use. (being turned into a public sports complex: http://www.stadia.gr/peristerinew/peristerinew3.jpg )
Helliniko Arena - Not in use. 
Fencing Hall - Not in use. 
Hockey Stadium - Not in use.
Baseball/Softball Stadiums - Not in use. 
Slalom Centre - (To be converted into water theme park.)
Schinias Rowing Centre - Not in use.
Faliro Arena - Not in use. 
Beach Volleyball - Not in major use. (Hosting prelimenaries at the moment and has hosted occasional shows)
Goudi Indoor Hall - Not in major use. (has hosted some plays etc)

EDIT:

26 venues left after the games, 19 with some kind of use, 7 with no activity. The whole situation with Helliniko is still pending, they are planning on making it into a big metropolitan park. 

Ok?

Now stop with the stupid insults and constant bickering of the SAME FREAKING THING OVER AND OVER. This is getting way beyond rediculous. (mainly from Greeks too) Just act CIVIL. (I guess I am talking into the winds since it's the same ones over and over)


----------



## Giorgio

ExSydney said:


> Great stuff...so why do you need an athletics track around it?


Super Grand Prix,
IAAF World Cup 2006....

give


----------



## Giorgio

ExSydney said:


> Great stuff...so why do you need an athletics track around it?


Super Grand Prix,
IAAF World Cup 2006....


----------



## dande

Why comparing Athens, Syndey and Atlanta with relatively fresh venues with Rome, London without major events in the last decade.


----------



## Mo Rush

when u use the word "best" which is very unspecific you do leave room for forumers to interpret this as they wish, so if they wish to weight the actual use of the venues into their description of "best" then so be it, i could claim that telstra stadium is the "best" stadium compared to some others, where as some might say their "best" is berlin olympic stadium....the fact of the matter is athens did not have a sustainability plan, and some not all of its venues are now being left dormant, IMO sydney overall for more reasons that one..its good to have a "weightlifting" or a "badminton" venue as such but its post olympics and the communities need to use these venues, so in that respect saying that a particular city has the best weighlifting venue means nothing, it might be flashy and very good but can its seats be retracted? can it be used for more than one sport? is 10,000 seater venue really neccessary, is the baseball venue being used like the sydney baseball venue is being used a showground??? these are all ways in which people might interpret best....will the world cup in athens be highly attended?? no its a 75,000 seat stadium i dont think it will be filled or be closed to be full on any night, this is why future olympic cities will build stadia that can be reduced to 25,000.....


----------



## Giorgio

> will the world cup in athens be highly attended?? no its a 75,000 seat stadium i dont think it will be filled or be closed to be full on any night


why wouldnt it?? Athletics have ALWAYS been a hit in greece ever since thousands of years ago when the Olympic games were FIRST invented. Greeks still have a high interest in Athletics and in the 2004 olympics, on EVERY night of the Athletics, the stadium was a sell out. i have the pics to prove it...


----------



## Giorgio

> this is why future olympic cities will build stadia that can be reduced to 25,000.....


why would they reduce the numbers? Athens olympic stadium gets excellent use and is constantly reached to capacity of within 5-10k seats


----------



## Giorgio

MILIUX said:


> *Sydney Olympic Park*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Superdome is a very busy venue. Check out the site and click event for more details.
> 
> http://www.superdome.com.au/superdome.asp
> 
> Literally at least 2 events per week.
> 
> There is a rave techno party happening at State Sports Centre tonight with 4000+ crowd. Not too crowded for comfort and space.
> 
> And for your comfort, Sydney Olympic Park is one of the largest public space in the world after Tiantemmin Square, Beijing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This...is not the biggest Park in the world. It's half the size of Sydney's Bicentennial Park.
> 
> Sydney Olympic Park will get hundreds of millions of dollars worth of further investment such as apartments, commerical blocks, shopping malls, park and wildlife enrichment...


err... can you please make both elevations the same? look how far out the athens one is... and look at how much more beautiful it is...


----------



## Iain1974

*Best Tournament to host?*

What major tournament would you most like to see in your country/city?

World Cup (Football) - 33Bn TV viewers, 2.7M tickets

European Championshps (Football) - 7.9Bn TV viewers, 1.2M tickets

World Cup (Rugby Union) - 4Bn TV viewers, 1.8M tickets

Olympics (Multisport) - 3.9Bn TV viewers, 3.4M tickets

I only listed the 4 biggies and got the viewers/ticket sales from various websites.


----------



## Landos

Any of the venues in the northern hemisphere would get my vote. Even Atlanta, though they botched up the Olympic games with their commercialism.

Why would anybody want to go to Sydney? Talk about off the beaten track!


----------



## StoneRose

WC of course. And I will. Isn't that great? 
I already curious to know which teams will play in Hannover.


----------



## vertigosufferer

Wow! - I didn't know that the World Cup in Football was more publically viewed than say the Olympics. Even more surprising to see the Olympics only 4th in that list. Oh well, it's the youth generation coming up behind us, they don't appreciate the traditional sports. They just want to kick a ball about lol


----------



## dANIEL2004

Even from the air the Athens olympic venues design is much better and inspired!...Only Munich can beat it!


----------



## Iain1974

vertigosufferer said:


> Wow! - I didn't know that the World Cup in Football was more publically viewed than say the Olympics. Even more surprising to see the Olympics only 4th in that list. Oh well, it's the youth generation coming up behind us, they don't appreciate the traditional sports. They just want to kick a ball about lol


I'm not sure how much fait I put in TV viewers numbers but I thought I'd put them on anyway. Formula 1 btw claims about 50Bn viewers!

Many people are surprised by the Olympics being so low but most of the sports don't get many viewers. Water Polo, Equestrian, Archery or Softball for example.


----------



## AcesHigh

Iain1974: it makes sense pal, since thats the accumulated TV audience. 

The World Cup lasts one entire month. And many countries literally stop when their teams are playing... like... every Brasil game has at least some 150 million tv viewers in Brasil alone...

As for Formula One... well... its the accumulated audience during one entire season...


----------



## Madman

They cheat the figures though, including captions shown in news as an audience. As for the Olympics i think they have got the figures slightly wrong, it might not be as widely viewed as the Football World Cup but must have more viewers than the Rugby World Cup.

As for the question in this thread, i'm more excited about the Olympics than hosting a World cup though nothing could beat England being World Champions .


----------



## Iain1974

AcesHigh said:


> Iain1974: it makes sense pal, since thats the accumulated TV audience.
> 
> The World Cup lasts one entire month. And many countries literally stop when their teams are playing... like... every Brasil game has at least some 150 million tv viewers in Brasil alone...
> 
> As for Formula One... well... its the accumulated audience during one entire season...


True enough.

European championships = 250M per game, WC = 540M per game and F1 = 2.7Bn per race. F1 still seems a little high as I doubt there are 2.7Bn people with access to TV in the world.


----------



## samsonyuen

Olympics

World Cup (Football)

European Championships
World Cup (Rugby)


----------



## samsonyuen

London or Athens. Sydney and Atlanta have good facilities as well.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Iain1974 said:


> True enough.
> 
> European championships = 250M per game, WC = 540M per game and F1 = 2.7Bn per race. F1 still seems a little high as I doubt there are 2.7Bn people with access to TV in the world.


If I remember correctly that figure includes anyone who watchs highlights of the race on TV no matter how short(so say a few seconds on some news broadcast).

I'm sure any country were football is the majority sport would rank the WC highest but I'd say the Olympics gains more importance for the host country compaired to merely watching your countrymen/women compete in it elsewhere.


----------



## MoreOrLess

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> why would they reduce the numbers? Athens olympic stadium gets excellent use and is constantly reached to capacity of within 5-10k seats


In London's case because they want the stadium to become the new national athletics venue and 25,000 is as large as they figure it needs to be unless theres another major athletics event held there in which case Wembley could be used. Stadiums with athletics tracks are not considered suitable for football in the UK so the only way it could be used in that capacity is if they lowered the playing level after the games as with the city of Manchester stadium which would leave it unusable for athletics.


----------



## Mr. T

The Olympics IMO. They did so much good for Athens. The fact that they were successful was helpful since now Greece is hosting many more world and European sporting events and Athens is completly modernized. Not to mention that Greece had more tourists this summer than in any time in recent history.


----------



## Prometheus

vertigosufferer said:


> Quite a way away from the pitch though. Not the most engaging viewable experience for watching football?


Yes well it IS an athletics stadium so we have to put up with the pitch. Like Jenventus and the Delle Alpi. I prefer the pure football grounds found in the UK.


----------



## hngcm

World Cup easily


----------



## NavyBlue

Mo Rush said:


> when u use the word "best" which is very unspecific you do leave room for forumers to interpret this as they wish, so if they wish to weight the actual use of the venues into their description of "best" then so be it, i could claim that telstra stadium is the "best" stadium compared to some others, where as some might say their "best" is berlin olympic stadium....the fact of the matter is athens did not have a sustainability plan, and some not all of its venues are now being left dormant, IMO sydney overall for more reasons that one..its good to have a "weightlifting" or a "badminton" venue as such but its post olympics and the communities need to use these venues, so in that respect saying that a particular city has the best weighlifting venue means nothing, it might be flashy and very good but can its seats be retracted? can it be used for more than one sport? is 10,000 seater venue really neccessary, is the baseball venue being used like the sydney baseball venue is being used a showground??? these are all ways in which people might interpret best....will the world cup in athens be highly attended?? no its a 75,000 seat stadium i dont think it will be filled or be closed to be full on any night, this is why future olympic cities will build stadia that can be reduced to 25,000.....


Very well said Mo... 

Building venues for every sport is fine during the games but if they're left dormant afterwards it's a complete waste. I agree that the best thing about Sydney was that most of the venues built had a use after the games. In fact they were planned that way from the beginning. The showgrounds complex (which you touched on) are a perfect example, like the main ground used for baseball is now used for rugby league and the many halls that held minnow sports like badminton, table tennis etc are now used by the agricultural society for the royal easter show. 
Big athletic meets don't come arount too often yet Sydney needed a big multi purpose stadium (without an athletics track). Thats why Telstra was always going to be reconfigured as a football stadium afterwards (which is why it looks better now), and athletics have moved to the smaller venue next to it.

Whether people love or hate the Sydney stadiums, no one can dispute that they were extremely well planned for life after the Olympics.


----------



## savas

_...its a 75,000 seat stadium i dont think it will be filled or be closed to be full on any night, this is why future olympic cities will build stadia that can be reduced to 25,000....._ 

well this is nonsense and you know it... londons olympic stadium - which will be great - will be reduced to 25.000 because they already have large stadiums... the new national wembley will have a capacity of 90.000 (?).. 

Every country needs a national stadium with high capacity. 75.000 is not too much. It is perfect... The Athens Olympic Stadium had this capacity before the Olympics and it was sold out very often... It doesnt always have to be an international event...


----------



## MILIUX

NavyBlue said:


> Very well said Mo...
> 
> Building venues for every sport is fine during the games but if they're left dormant afterwards it's a complete waste. I agree that the best thing about Sydney was that most of the venues built had a use after the games. In fact they were planned that way from the beginning. The showgrounds complex (which you touched on) are a perfect example, like the main ground used for baseball is now used for rugby league and the many halls that held minnow sports like badminton, table tennis etc are now used by the agricultural society for the royal easter show.
> Big athletic meets don't come arount too often yet Sydney needed a big multi purpose stadium (without an athletics track). Thats why Telstra was always going to be reconfigured as a football stadium afterwards (which is why it looks better now), and athletics have moved to the smaller venue next to it.
> 
> Whether people love or hate the Sydney stadiums, no one can dispute that they were extremely well planned for life after the Olympics.



Exactly, most of the facilities are well used regularly. 

Telstra stadium: rugby league, Australian Football League
Superdome: concerts, raves entertainment, car rallies, circus, basketball, etc
State Sports Centre: basketball, raves, concerts
Aquatic Centre: competitions, championships, regular swimming, diving championships
Showground: Clothing/retail sales, Easter Show, raves,


----------



## Mo Rush

btw people are not going to flock to athens like they did for the olympic games to say that because the stadium was full on an olympic evening of athletics suggests it will be full during the world cup is absurd...


----------



## Landos

They'd sooner come to Athens than some place with mud huts and corrugated iron for a roof. Having running water and modern plumbing doesn't hurt either. You keep chopping away, but I don't see any chips flying. Sharpen your axe?? :bash:


----------



## ^NuSpirit

AT THIS MOMENT... Athens has the best sport facilities... End of story.


----------



## Mo Rush

Landos said:


> They'd sooner come to Athens than some place with mud huts and corrugated iron for a roof. Having running water and modern plumbing doesn't hurt either. You keep chopping away, but I don't see any chips flying. Sharpen your axe?? :bash:


again ur ignorance is not my worry


----------



## tootshibbard

The Super Bowl


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Definitely the World Cup.


----------



## Giorgio

MILIUX said:


> Exactly, most of the facilities are well used regularly.
> 
> Telstra stadium: rugby league, Australian Football League
> Superdome: concerts, raves entertainment, car rallies, circus, basketball, etc
> State Sports Centre: basketball, raves, concerts
> Aquatic Centre: competitions, championships, regular swimming, diving championships
> Showground: Clothing/retail sales, Easter Show, raves,


eer, i believe you have a question of mine to answer....


----------



## Kuvvaci

for a city;:Olympics

for a country: World Cup


----------



## ExSydney

Sydney Olympic Park








awesome!


----------



## BobDaBuilder

What about the "Cricket World Cup."

It is MUCH, MUCH bigger than the rugby world cup.

The Olympics has gone off the rails and is a joke. Couldn't care if they disbanded the whole thing now. It has lost its magic for mine.

Now the World Cup of Soccer is something special. I wouldn't mind having that down under. 

We will get it at the expense of old England in 2018 who have already hosted it.


----------



## GNU

thx for sharing!!

that arena for NY looks great.But why does it feature an atheletics track?
The Mets are a football team right?

Btw.Im also looking forward to see the F1 in South africa :cheers:


----------



## GNU

Ok this is the Preussag arena in Hannover.(finished 2000)
the capacity is 14.000 to 15.500

its not big compared to its american counterparts,but here in Europe its still a biggie.









































construction pic:


----------



## reyrey

once, and it would be 52 years since we did by 2018.
for a country regarded as the home of football, thats not exactly a lot
and thats compared to a country that struggles to qualify, has a mild interest (not exactly a big sport down under) and is now trying to get in by claiming to be a part of asia!
no offence to australia, but in no way do you deserve to host the world cup more than england.
and back to the topic.... i go for the olympics, as it has shown it can do alot for the city/country in regeneration and tourism terms etc.


----------



## TalB

Checker said:


> thx for sharing!!
> 
> that arena for NY looks great.But why does it feature an atheletics track?
> The Mets are a football team right?
> 
> Btw.Im also looking forward to see the F1 in South africa :cheers:


The NY Mets are a baseball team, and that stadium was originally for the olympics.


----------



## Mo Rush

Oh my word is that landscaping i see at homebush bay??? silly shudda left it all sandy and attached some australian symbolism to it....


----------



## Iain1974

*Cricket World Cup*



BobDaBuilder said:


> What about the "Cricket World Cup."
> 
> It is MUCH, MUCH bigger than the rugby world cup.
> 
> The Olympics has gone off the rails and is a joke. Couldn't care if they disbanded the whole thing now. It has lost its magic for mine.
> 
> Now the World Cup of Soccer is something special. I wouldn't mind having that down under.
> 
> We will get it at the expense of old England in 2018 who have already hosted it.


Well, Cricket is probably the second most popular sport on earth (if we count the number of players) but the CWC only gets 1.2Bn viewers and in SA there were 800,000 spectators which I admit seems rather low. Perhaps the next time it's in India we'll see cricket beat the Football World Cup for spectators.

You're right though. I should have included it.

BTW, enjoying the Ashes?


----------



## dANIEL2004

http://www.oaka.org.gr/default.asp 
the official website for Athens Olympic Sport Complex (Calatrava s miracle )


----------



## hngcm

It will never beat the soccer World Cup for spectators.


----------



## Alexander21

1. Football World Cup
2. Olympics

daylight

Everything else.


----------



## NavyBlue

^^
Everytime I try to click on a link that says 'EVENTS' it doesn't seem to work.

Are there any upcomming events? all I see is an exhibition celebrating the one year anniversary of the games.


----------



## MILIUX

Mo Rush said:


> Oh my word is that landscaping i see at homebush bay??? silly shudda left it all sandy and attached some australian symbolism to it....


So you're saying a desert landscape in the smack bang of the city? :weirdo:


----------



## Wezza

Landos said:


> Any of the venues in the northern hemisphere would get my vote. Even Atlanta, though they botched up the Olympic games with their commercialism.
> 
> Why would anybody want to go to Sydney? Talk about off the beaten track!


LOL
You are foolish..............
If Sydney is off the beaten track, then what does that make Melbourne? Guess what?? Melbourne has the biggest Greek population anywhere in the world outside of Greece........... Can't be too far off the beaten track huh? :weird:


----------



## Mo Rush

MILIUX said:


> So you're saying a desert landscape in the smack bang of the city? :weirdo:



u missed my sarcasm, "some" host cities barely complete venues and have no time for landscaping, what they do is call it an "earth" theme and attach some symbolism to it


----------



## Zorba

^^
Mo Rush you can assume that we Greeks ar simply making all this up about the "earth" theme or you can look at the renderings which were made years before the Olympics even took place.

How long do you think it would have take to lay down some Grass over the dirt? A day at most. The organizers at the Olympic complex were finished 3 weeks before the games and could have easily chosen to lay down some grass over the dirt but they didnt since it was not in the plans.


----------



## Sir Costa

I thought it would be London, but after watching LEAFS FANATIC post, I'm decidelly a Greek suporter now. Fantastic facilities! The Olympics made it all possible, didn't it?


----------



## dANIEL2004

Not at all. The olympic stadium is from 1982 and hosted all these years great world class events(even it was roofless the biggest sport conferrences trusted it a lot of times for hosting first importance events) .the same for Peace and Friendship stadium and for the OAKA indoors.


----------



## Plex

Football World cup


----------



## Landos

> Guess what?? Melbourne has the biggest Greek population anywhere in the world outside of Greece


Yeah, and try as they might to raise the level of sophistication in the rest of that country, they're outnumbered by the boobs. But I will say this, Melbourne is the one city in that nation that is culturally inspired. Mainly because of the ethnics.


----------



## ExSydney

Iain1974 said:


> What major tournament would you most like to see in your country/city?
> 
> World Cup (Football) - 33Bn TV viewers, 2.7M tickets
> 
> European Championshps (Football) - 7.9Bn TV viewers, 1.2M tickets
> 
> World Cup (Rugby Union) - 4Bn TV viewers, 1.8M tickets
> 
> Olympics (Multisport) - 3.9Bn TV viewers, 3.4M tickets
> 
> I only listed the 4 biggies and got the viewers/ticket sales from various websites.


If you base Olympic ticket sales,then consider that Sydney sold nearly 7,000,000 and Atlanta over 8,000,000 tickets.
Think about it...8 Million spectators during a 2 week period.Compare this to the Football World Cup of 2.7Million over 4 weeks in around 10 cities..

To me,the Olympics is HUGE and the Football World Cup is big,but no where near as big as an Olympics.


----------



## Wezza

^ U r racist.


----------



## dANIEL2004

No...the racists were all they who attacked to a small nation like Greece the last years and said that never could organise olympic games.Now this small nation has some of the best stadiums in the world .


----------



## GNU

Ok here again: the new Arena for Berlin:

After long negotiations it has now been announced that a name-sponsor will be found until the end of the year to secure the financial costs.
After that construction works should begin.
Possible name-sponsors include:O2 and the Deutsche Telekom.
The arena will house 17.000 spec. but it can also go up to 21.000 spec. as the plannings are not totally finished yet.It depends on the budget basically.
The arena will be home to Alba Berlin (Basketball) and the Eisbaeren (Icebears,Icehockey)

here are some pics:


----------



## GNU

and this is the future construction site:










It has already been cleared.
on the lower left corner you can see a small part of the Ostbahnhof. (East-Trainstation),and just next to the street is the last conserved part of the Berlin-Wall.
By the way: the investor for this project is the american AEG (Anschutz Entertainment Group) who are also responsible for the O2 dome in London.
The boss of AEG,is the american billionaire Anschutz himself.
Amongst many other clubs he owns is the East-Berlin Icehockey club the "Eisbaeren".They will use this arena whilst their West-Berlin counterpart the "Capitals will have to remain in their old facility.


----------



## GNU

I found a nice pic of the Cardinals arena in Arizona:
The stadium is 80 percent finished
(Architecteter Eisenman)


----------



## Morten M

Checker said:


> I found a nice pic of the Cardinals arena in Arizona:
> The stadium is 80 percent finished
> (Architecteter Eisenman)


The new Cardinals stadium looks fantastic, but the surroundings look boring as hell. Just in the middle of the dessert out of nowhere, without any urban surroundings.


----------



## Mo Rush

Zorba said:


> ^^
> Mo Rush you can assume that we Greeks ar simply making all this up about the "earth" theme or you can look at the renderings which were made years before the Olympics even took place.
> 
> How long do you think it would have take to lay down some Grass over the dirt? A day at most. The organizers at the Olympic complex were finished 3 weeks before the games and could have easily chosen to lay down some grass over the dirt but they didnt since it was not in the plans.


yes ive seen the renderings the olympic cauldron was meant to be taller too and the olympic swimming pool was meant to have a roof....lets not believe everything the renderings say...k?

otherwise dont take it too seriously, i just dont like dusty olympic parks, just my opinion, the olympic park had an excellent water feature great entrance and walkway architecture..


----------



## Zorba

> yes ive seen the renderings the olympic cauldron was meant to be taller too and the olympic swimming pool was meant to have a roof....lets not believe everything the renderings say...k


What do the cauldron and Olympic pool have to do with it? Those werent done because there wasnt time but the grass was not put in because it was never supposed to be. The Olympic organizers had ample time to lay down a sheet of grass but they did not want to. It wasnt ever in the plans. 



> otherwise dont take it too seriously, i just dont like dusty olympic parks, just my opinion, the olympic park had an excellent water feature great entrance and walkway architecture..


Thats your opinion. I would have liked some more green but Calatrava didn't and in the end he is the one making the decisions. I still believe that the Athens Olympic Complex is the nicest ever. The Agora, fountains, wall of nations, and great venues are in my opinion amazing.


----------



## The Game Is Up

^That's the only way they could build that stadium: in the middle of a desert. In the States, NIMBYism is a national sport.


----------



## dANIEL2004

Noone modern olympic park can beat the Athens OAKA,u have already see a lot of pics of it and know that is architecturally magnificent.The wall of nations(250m sculpture) is amazing and the generally aestetic style of the area is superb.


----------



## Christos7

Mo Rush said:


> u missed my sarcasm, "some" host cities barely complete venues and have no time for landscaping, what they do is call it an "earth" theme and attach some symbolism to it



Your such a ****.

There was ample time to put down landscaping if they wanted landscaping. Whether or not the buildings are even done they can still put grass down. The buildings have no effect on landscaping since even if they need finishing works the outside and base of them are already completed. And to lay grass all they need are some immigrants, some grass, and about 2 days.... And since they finished all venues 2 weeks before the games, and it wouldn't have hampered landscaping at all, why wouldn't you believe as intended there was no grass? It was an earth - water - sky theme as depicted in the renderings, hence all the red earth with trees, water and white/blue everywhere.....

So shut up already. (All i see you do is constantlyyyyyyy bash Athens)

If they wanted to have landscaping, it would have been very easy. Just like the Helliniko Complex had:




















wooooooowwwwwwww so hard. 


Now whether I agree with the theme or not (which I don't) stop being an ass and trying to make it seem as if a city which hosted the games couldn't lay some grass.


----------



## hngcm

Nope.

World Cup is far bigger than the Olympics.

It's only the world's most popular sport!

While the Olympics is mostly sports nobody cares...


----------



## Christos7

NavyBlue said:


> ^^
> Everytime I try to click on a link that says 'EVENTS' it doesn't seem to work.
> 
> Are there any upcomming events? all I see is an exhibition celebrating the one year anniversary of the games.



Greek web sites are notorious for never updating, so I wouldn't hold my breath. 


It's a pretty good site though (for Greek standards). The pictures are real quality:



Olympic Stadium (some rare VIP/Lounge pics, haven't seen any on the net...)






































Indoor Arena
























































Indoor Aquatic Centre





















Tennis Centre







































Velodrome


----------



## Alexander21

At the moment Athens has the best facilties and it is not even close.

In 3 years it will be Beijinig, then it will be London.


----------



## Alexander21

And dont forget that football is the highest or one of the highest ticket selling sports in the Olympics.


----------



## DeMaFrost

I'd say the NBA All-Star game. Most people not in the states are probably saying wtf? but you wouldn't believe the celebrity power that game has.

But seriously from a civic standpoint, I think the Olympics does a much better job profiling the host city then the World Cup does (from an American media perspective). It seems the World Cup is all about the football, which there is nothing wrong with. But as a means of hyping up your city to the world, nothing beats the Olympics.


----------



## Giorgio

Mo rush ur officially a fuckhead.

u question Calatravas Spectacular landscaping, and, like a fool, suposidly WOW at Sydneys lack of.

Sydney = Shit architecture. Fuking out of charachter venues.
Sydney = Basic Standard everything. nothing special...

**** off and dont talk until capetown hosts the shittest olympic of earth,,,,that is if the olympics are still around in 3456 AD (if lucky). Cape town is an aid infested shit hole, were obviously, no one knows true inspired architecture...


----------



## Mo Rush

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> Mo rush ur officially a fuckhead.
> 
> u question Calatravas Spectacular landscaping, and, like a fool, suposidly WOW at Sydneys lack of.
> 
> Sydney = Shit architecture. Fuking out of charachter venues.
> Sydney = Basic Standard everything. nothing special...
> 
> **** off and dont talk until capetown hosts the shittest olympic of earth,,,,that is if the olympics are still around in 3456 AD (if lucky). Cape town is an aid infested shit hole, were obviously, no one knows true inspired architecture...


hahahahahahaah u obviously dont understand sarcasm.....add that to ignorance and you have gained yourself an impressive collection of bullshit for brains...and good night to ur unsustainable empty olympic venues....im sure the can convert them into large halls for "big fat greek" weddings.....


----------



## dANIEL2004

If u point at sky with your finger, an idiot will look at the finger,not at the sky. The same does Mo Rush in this thread..


----------



## dANIEL2004

If u point at sky with your finger, an idiot will look at the finger,not at the sky. The same does Mo Rush in this thread..


----------



## Christos7

You know, I hope the both of you get banned already so we don't have to put up with this endless bullshit.


----------



## Giorgio

you dont have to put up with anything....what you can do though is leave this thread and NEVER return if its so Dramatic for you...

im not going to stop sharing my opinion because a few whingers complain about it...


----------



## Giorgio

Mo Rush said:


> hahahahahahaah u obviously dont understand sarcasm.....add that to ignorance and you have gained yourself an impressive collection of bullshit for brains...and good night to ur unsustainable empty olympic venues....im sure the can convert them into large halls for "big fat greek" weddings.....


catch aids ya bastard...


----------



## NuSpirit

come on guys leave him alone.... he is just being jealous don't you get it?? And if one day his country gets the olympics (2222 A.D.).... i hope they dont get blasted by any zulu attacks... africa bambata papoo acoomba da baoola aloo time to catch some aids!! And africaman dont you get it?? Don't you understand?? Are there any mental problems ur facing?? This is about "Best Sport Facilities" and from that list, Athens has the best sport facilities right now!!! Is it so difficult to understand?? And I don't really care about polls here... few people really know how things are at this moment... And you just shouldn't tell us what you think cause you have no idea about how things are... MoRush..... END OF STORY. YOU LOSE... eee-eee-eee INSERT COIN NOW... END OF STORY... YOU LOSE


----------



## Christos7

.::G!oRgOs::. said:


> catch aids ya bastard...



Opinions eh?


Opinions or complete insults? I mean what kind of a thing is this to say???


Both of you should be ashamed, and it's astonishing how two racists like yourselves have not been banned yet. You act like lowlifes who cannot properly get their thoughts across without being vulgar. 


So many topics destroyed by this shit, when nice conversations could have been had.... yet this nationalistic/racist crap keeps dominating everything.


----------



## CorliCorso

Well, for 'Arenas'...
MEN Arena, Manchester, UK - 17,250 seats
National Indoor Arena, Birmingham, UK - 13,000 seats
Hallam FM Arena, Sheffield, UK - 12,500 seats
Wembley Arena, London, UK - 11,500 seats (currently being re-developed along with Wembley Stadium)


----------



## cphdude

dande said:


> I don´t think Parken has a retractable roof.


It does actually...

edit- sorry, ill try again with my own host, hopefully they will work now...


----------



## hngcm

umm, in terms of money?


----------



## hngcm

pictures dont work


----------



## Mo Rush

hngcm said:


> umm, in terms of money?


no as in what items are included as incomes and expenses by fifa's definition...profit is not money! the athens games apparently made a profit......


----------



## Perth4life3

Perths new Arena (used for concerts, tennis, basketball etc.)
i 
Old plans \/ , a new design is being done atm.


----------



## dande

I think there is indoor arena in Moscow, annual Kremlin Cup in tennis is played there.


----------



## hngcm

wow, would have never guessed Parken had a retractable roof!

was it added later, or was it built with it?


----------



## MoreOrLess

The roof at Parken comes out of the redevolped end stand doesnt it?


----------



## cphdude

hngcm said:


> wow, would have never guessed Parken had a retractable roof!
> 
> was it added later, or was it built with it?


Yea, the roof was added after, in 2001, for the Eurovision Song Contest. The roof is 100 x 120 meter, and weighs about 550 tons. It takes about 20 minutes to role out...


----------



## www.sercan.de




----------



## www.sercan.de




----------



## 2005

www.sercan.de said:


>


A great stadium in a great country man I love Turkey


----------



## Melchisedeck

Olympic stadium in Rome









San Siro Stadium in Milan


----------



## Melchisedeck

Delle Alpi Stadium in Turin









San Paolo stadium in Naples









Palermo stadium









Reggio Calabria


----------



## Melchisedeck

Olympic Stadium in Rome









San Siro Stadium in Milan









Delle Alpi Stadium in Turin









San Paolo stadium in Naples









Palermo stadium









Reggio Calabria


----------



## Andrew

I like this one of the main stadum in Pyongyang:


----------



## Andrew

> Didn't know Millenium had a retractable roof...


The millennium Stadium's claim to fame is that with the roof closed it becomes the largest indoor arena in Europe.



> I wouldn't call any of them an "indoor arena" (as per the title of this thread) - they're all stadia with a retractable roof...


What difference does it make? A stadium with a retractable roof makes a lot of sense, it means that it has the benefits of both and can hold a much wider range of events.


----------



## GNU

Ok here is a news update:

The Westfalenstadium in Dortmund will definitely have another name from the start of the next season.
the debt-ridden club hopes to get at least 5 million euros a year out of the deal.










And here are the new proposals for the new stadium in Dresden.
choose your favourite  

HBM Proposal (the dutch company which also realised the Veltins arena,Gelredome and the Ostseestadium in Rostock)








others:
















my favourite:


----------



## www.sercan.de

1. 32,000 (24,650 seats) 37,5 Mil. €
2. 30,000 (25,000 seats) 30 Mil. €
3. 31,000 (25,000 seats) 33 Mil. €
4. 40,500 (35,000 seats) 60 Mil. €


----------



## Roman_Bratny

new arena for Lodz/Poland (13.000) construction is about to start


----------



## RonJon

Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid, Spain.


----------



## mr.x

*FIFA World Cup Bidding Competiton at GamesBids.com*

Do you have time to spare? Well, we're having a World Cup (host country) bidding competition at GamesBids.com. You'll make bid books and technical plans and we vote on who's the best! Come and join us!










Official Website of the FIFA World Cup Bidding Competition

Contest Discussion Central: http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=SF;f=36


----------



## vertigosufferer

England. End of.


----------



## don_gato

here some pics 


































[/QUOTE]


----------



## heavyzakura334

me gusta el estadio. especialmente las bancas y el techo. le doi un 8.

I like the stadium, especially the benches and the roof. i give it an 8.


----------



## GNU

Frankfurt will probably built a new arena.

The "superdome" is supposed to house up to around 15.000 spectators.
Construction works could start early next year.


----------



## Raddie

Some developments in the Netherlands (football)

new stadium FC Groningen (13th position eredivisie) capacity 20 000 

pics from dutch forum














































It'll be taken in use january 2006

Under construction: new AZ stadium (2nd in eredivisie) capacity 13 500





































http://webcam.kooimeerplaza.nl/


----------



## goboo

expansion of the Abe lenstra stadium. 
home of the SC Heerenveen footbal club
when it is finisched the capacity is 27000

http://www.feanfans.nl/sportstad/tekeningen.htm


----------



## mmmarios

guys i think i am gonna have to watch the game from the crap stand.

i am flying on saturday from athens to watch the game between greece and denmark....

i hope at least i wont be far away from the action cause i see 3 stages on the stand right?

my ticket sais raekke 6 number 145 zone gul indgand D24 have nooo clue what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Morten M

mmmarios said:


> guys i think i am gonna have to watch the game from the crap stand.
> 
> i am flying on saturday from athens to watch the game between greece and denmark....
> 
> i hope at least i wont be far away from the action cause i see 3 stages on the stand right?
> 
> my ticket sais raekke 6 number 145 zone gul indgand D24 have nooo clue what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Række" means "Row" and "Indgang" means "Entrance"










So you will be close to the pitch behind the goal.


----------



## GNU

those new dutch stadiums look great!


----------



## GNU

some new pics from Kaiserslautern


----------



## GNU

btw: heres a short video about the pitch in the AOL-arena

http://wstreaming.zdf.de/zdf/300/051005_rasen_hamburg_h15.asx


----------



## Zizu

@ checker. Your link doesn't work :rant:


----------



## JimB

Nice pics of the Fritz Walter stadion.

I went there with Spurs six years ago. Had a fantastic time for the best part of 90 minutes. Thousands and thousands of Spurs fans all over the ground, making a hell of a noise until two late goals by Kaiserslautern!

Looks like they've done / are doing an enormous amount of work on the stadium since then. The facilities used to be very basic. What's the capacity when finished? Seem to remember it was about 40,000 before.

Best thing about the stadium, in my opinion, is its spectacular location. It's situated in the middle of the city at the top of a hill. You can see it from just about anywhere, especially when it's lit up for a night game.


----------



## nomarandlee

*Top 10 American/Canadian stadiums?*

Include football, basketball, hockey, baseball, or any other. What are the jewels of North American sports stadium in your eyes?


----------



## nomarandlee

These would be mind.....

1. Wrigley Field
2. SeaHawks Stadium
3. Camden Indoor Stadium (Duke)
4. American Airlines Arean (Dallas Mavs). Great exterior
5. Fenway Park
6. Reliant Stadium (Houston Texans)
7. SBC Park? (San Fran Giants)
8. Soilder Field (Bears)
9. PNC Park (Pittsburgh Pirates)
10. Arrowhead Stadium (K.C. Chiefs)

Honerable mention goes Maple Leafs Gardens, Boston Garden, and Chicago Stadium. The new can never match the charchter of the old.


----------



## Sparks

Here is a top 5 from me

Invesco Field at Mile High
Reliant Stadium
SeaHawks Stadium
Gillette Stadium 
Soldier Field


----------



## Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Lambeau Field... before the renovation (now it's as cozy as a 5-star hotel and mall complex.)

Yankee Stadium... also, before the renovation (before the 70s it was a MONSTER and looked soooooo cool.)


----------



## 3rdbaseYankees

You are all crazy.... THIS IS THE LIST OF TOP 10!

1. Yankee Stadium
2. Tie Maple Leaf Gardens
2. Tie The OLD Montreal Forum
4. Orange Bowl
5. Wrigley Field
6. Lambeau Field
7. Boston Gardens
8. Rose Bowl
9. Superdome
10. Skydome


----------



## NovaWolverine

We're crazy, you have the Orange Bowl in the top 10.

Top 10 in the US still in use (In no order):
Yankee Stadium
Fenway Park
Wrigley Field
SBC Park
Rose Bowl
Ohio Stadium
Cameron Indoor Stadium
Allen Fieldhouse
Madison Square Garden
Lambeau Field

Soldier Field, Reliant Stadium, Yost Arena, Conseco Fieldhouse, The Palestra, Neyland Stadium are all good too along with many other's I'm for sure forgetting.

As far as Canada, Maple Leaf Gardens and the Montreal Forum were the best, and the Skydome was a marvel so it's definitely up there too. I think the saddledome is cool looking too.


----------



## 40Acres

Nice lists. The orange bowl should never be in the top 10 of any list, heck, not even the top 100. Maimi cant even fill that thing up for a BIG game.

Mine are:

*10. SBC Center (San Antonio Spurs - Pro Basketball)*



















*9. Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles Dodgers - Pro Baseball)*










*8. Ohio Stadium (Ohio State University Buckeyes - College Football)*



















*7. Qwest Field (Seattle Seahawks - Pro Football)*



















*6. Ghallager Iba Arena (Oklahoma State University - College Baskeball)*










*5. Invesco Field (Denver Broncos - Pro Football)*



















*4. Notre Dame Stadium (Notre Dame University Fighting Irish - College Football)*










(Touchdown Jesus)









*3. Neyland Stadium (University of Tennessee Volunteers - College Football)*



















*2. Reliant Stadium (Houston Texans - Pro Football)*



















*1. Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs - Pro Baseball)*


----------



## nomarandlee

Sparks said:


> Here is a top 5 from me
> 
> Invesco Field at Mile High
> Reliant Stadium
> SeaHawks Stadium
> Gillette Stadium
> Soldier Field



That would probably be my list as far as Pro football goes. I think those you listed are definatly the most aethecilly intreasting if not great looking. Lambeau and Arrowhead would also get on my list since they are "old school" (which isn't hard to be hard school in the NFL) and great atmosphere


----------



## 2005

I feel that 3/4 of the Seahawks stadium looks good but the other 1/4 looks strange and well in my opinion crap.


----------



## samsonyuen

I still like Olympic Stadium looks from outside, in Montréal.


----------



## invincible

*Sporting Precincts*

Does your city have large precincts where several stadia and training facilities are located? Post away. 


Here's Melbourne Park (pic originally posted by Grollo, newspaper scan):









MCG (huge one north of train lines)- 100,000 capacity by the end of the year - cricket, Aussie rules, anything else that they can fit a large crowd in.
Olympic Park (stadium with athletics track) - 20,000 capacity - athletics, rugby, soccer
Rod Laver Arena (roofed stadium on left) - 15,000 - tennis, concert venue
Vodafone Arena (roofed stadium on right) - 10,000 - tennis, concert venue, netball, cycling, other sports

The white rectangular stadium is a 25,000 capacity proposal to finally provide a real stadium with a rectangular pitch (without an athletics track in between). The government's doing a bit to speed up the approval process.

Rowing and waterskiing on the river too.

Transport facilities - Richmond station is at the right, it is a bit far but there are special trams run for events. It's only a couple of minutes out of the CBD too. There's a freeway too, but not any parking for it.

Not much dates before the 1980s, it's pretty much just Olympic Park Stadium - everything else is brand new or has been refurbished.


----------



## CrazyCanuck

How can everyone miss Raymond James, it has a pirate ship!


----------



## cphdude

I hope you guys had fun....


----------



## TalB

The only place in NYC proper is Flushing Meadows, which is home to the USTA Ctr and Shea Statium.


----------



## TalB

The only other sporting precint I know of in the NYC area is the Medowlands Sports Complex, which located near East Rutherford, NJ.


----------



## ExSydney

Australia is lucky to have some great sporting precincts.Both Sydney and Melbournes' are a legacy of what the Olympic Games can provide.

Not much better going around than 

Sydney Olympic Park











Telstra Stadium -83,000 Capacity
Sydney Superdome-20,000
Sydney Showground-20,000
Athletics Centre-15,000
Aquatic Centre-12,000
Tennis Centre-10,000
The Dome-10,000
Hockey Stadium-10,000
State Sports Arena-4,000
Woodchopping Stadium-2,000
+ numerous Indoor Showground pavillions that can and have been converted to Sports Arenas.


----------



## Giorgio

*ATHENS:*

OAKA Olympic Complex:



















Spyros Louis: 73 000
Sports Hall: 18 000
Velodrome: 9 000
Tennis Centre 8 000


Helleniko Sports Complex










Indoor Arena 
Fencing Hall
Basball Centre
Softball Stadium
Canoe/Kayak Centre
Olympic Hockey Centre
Faliro Coastal Zone



















Peace and Friendship Stadium (15 000)
Sports Pavilion (8 000)
Olympic Beach Vollyball Centre (10 000)


----------



## Köbtke

TalB said:


> The only other sporting precint I know of in the NYC area is the Medowlands Sports Complex, which located near East Rutherford, NJ.


These pictures remind me of The Sopranos, for some reason.


----------



## dave8721

hmmm...lets see..here's 10. Not in any particular order, just the order that I thought of them.

Yankee Stadium
Wrigley Field
Fenway Park
Neyland Stadium
Rose Bowl
Notre Dame Stadium
Camden Yards
Lambeau Field
Ohio Stadium
Raymond James Stadium

Honorable mention goes to Bronco Stadium at Boise State University for its blue turf. Birds crash into it thinking its water.


----------



## TalB

Did that show actually take place near the Meadowlands?


----------



## xXMrPinkXx

JimB said:


> What's the capacity when finished? Seem to remember it was about 40,000 before.


The capacity of the Fritz-Walter-Stadion will be 48500 (full-seater)! 16363 seating places will be able to transform into standing places at a ratio of 1:1.

Btw. Here’s a current High-Res Webcam-Overview of the construction progress!


----------



## paradyto

Hi all,

This is the Srivijaya Stadium in Palembang (the capital city of South Sumatra Province), Indonesia:



enjoy


----------



## paradyto

Enjoy


----------



## nacirema dream

1. Nat Bailey Stadium (Vancouver)
2. safeco field (seattle)
3. Gm place (vancouver)
4. air canada centre(toronto)
5. Yankee stadium(NY)
6.Minute Maid Park (houston)
7. fenway park (boston)
8. saddledome (calgary)
9.Prince George Multiplex (Prince George)
10.Prospera Place (Kelowna)
i havent been to many stadiums so my list might not look like much


----------



## samsonyuen

I think Salzburg or Pyeonchang are the frontrunners, maybe Pyeongchang a little more ahead, because 2006 will be in Italy.


----------



## Iain1974

coldstar said:


> Japan
> Japan is the sole country in Asia who has got all the 5 Rugby World Cup's till now.
> Japan team may be weaker than NZ and SA, but Rugby is quite popular in Japan (especially, in highschools and colleges).


Crowds are up in Japan. I rememebr reading they get about 8-9,000 per game. Better than the Celtic League although some way behind Stade de France's 80,000 last weekend in Paris.


----------



## coldstar

Japan's stadiums for 2011

Sapporo Dome (mobile roof)








Tokyo Ajinomoto Stadium








Oita Dome (mobile roof)
















Yokohama Stadium (one of the biggest stadiums in Asia, and known for the final match of 2002 FIFA World Cup)








Saitama Stadium (also used in the semi-final of FIFA 2002)








Niigata Stadium








Shizuoka Stadium 








Miyagi Stadium or Sendai Stadium
















Kobe Stadium (mobile roof)
















Osaka Nagai Stadium








Toyota Stadium









every stadium has at least 40,000 seats.


----------



## eomer

South Africa can't host both WC 2010 and RWC 2011. 
I think NZ is the best choice.


----------



## atkinson1

I would love it to be in NZ but I doubt we would win it.


----------



## Giorgio

My Favourite is NZ Closely Followed by Japan.


----------



## eomer

*World cup since 1966*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is it possible to determine number of teams of each confederation qualified for WC ? I think that the best thing to do is to consider all WC championships since 1966.

1- The results
Year...Winner.......Finalist..........Third.............Fourth..........
1966......England......Germany........Portugal.........USSR
1970......Brazil..........Italy.............Germany........Uruguay
1974......Germany.....Netherlands....Poland...........Brazil
1978......Argentina....Netherlands....Brazil.............Italy
1982......Italy...........Germany........Poland...........France
1986......Argentina....Germany........France...........Belgium
1990......Germany.....Argentina.......Italy..............England
1994......Brazil..........Italy.............Sweden..........Bulgaria
1998......France........Brazil............Croatia...........Netherlands
2002......Brazil..........Germany.......Turkey............Korea

2- The Ranking
Rank.Team.......Won..2nd...3rd...4th
1-.....Brazil............3......1......1.......1
2-.....Germany.......2......4......1
3-.....Argentina......2......1
4-.....Italy............1......2.......1.......1
5-.....France.........1..............1........1
6-.....England........1.......................1
7-.....Netherlands..........2................1
8-.....Poland..........................2
9-.....Sweden........................1
........Portugal.......................1
........Croatia.........................1
........Turkey..........................1
13-....URSS (Russia)........................1
........Uruguay.................................1
........Belgium..................................1
........Bulgaria..................................1
........Korea.....................................1

3- The analysis
- As we see, Europe and south america won each 5 WC since 1966.
- But, if we considere the 17 team that reached semi-finals, there are 13 European, 3 south American and 1 Asian. 
- Netherlands is the only one finalist that never won WC: this should change as soon as possible.
- Europe get only 14 place for 52 teams when SA get 4,5 place for 10 teams: thats a bit strange. If we except Brasil and Argentina, the average level of SA is not higher than African or Asian one.
- IMO, Europe should get 17 teams, America (COMEBOL and CONCACAF) 6 only, Africa 5, Asia and Oceania 4. But it's my opinion only.


----------



## samsonyuen

Japan would be cool. How much does it cost to host it. Could NZ really not afford it? When did SA host last? I think it'd be cool in Canada...


----------



## Mo Rush

samsonyuen said:


> Japan would be cool. How much does it cost to host it. Could NZ really not afford it? When did SA host last? I think it'd be cool in Canada...



South Africa hosted in 1995, NZ can afford it, it just places much strain on their limited hotel rooms and so forth...Japan could host it..but i think rather 2014, its a bit too early to go to japan....


----------



## dande

How about USA?
Plenty of good stadiums, maybe it 2011 could be for rugby what 1994 was for football in America.


----------



## Mo Rush

dande said:


> How about USA?
> Plenty of good stadiums, maybe it 2011 could be for rugby what 1994 was for football in America.


japan, sa and NZ are the only bid cities....the announcement is due novemeber 17,


----------



## Mo Rush

No matter who wins, i still remember the 95 rugby world cup  was amazing....




















THE FINAL

SOUTH AFRICA 15 NEW ZEALAND 12


----------



## Giorgio

Mo Rush said:


> South Africa hosted in 1995, NZ can afford it, it just places much strain on their limited hotel rooms and so forth...Japan could host it..but i think rather 2014, its a bit too early to go to japan....


NZ has good figures interms of accomodation. Millions of Australian tourists visit New Zealand every year. what makes you think this would cause strain?


----------



## BobDaBuilder

1995 was fantastic. Do they have a statue of Joel Stransky outside of Ellis Park now? That droppie was superb. 

Great to see the Blacks go to water yet again when it mattered.


----------



## gentlejunho

I personally support Japan,

By the way,IS Rugby globally popular sports like football ?

Does Rugby WORLDCUP commercially make a good profits ?
How many countries have interests in this sports.? 

No offence,just out of curiosity.
Thank you.


----------



## gentlejunho

Yes by continent lotation and last bidding history,I think Pyeongchang is ahead


----------



## scar

eomer said:


> - Netherlands is the only one finalist that never won WC: this should change as soon as possible.


I agree.. 2006 sounds like a nice year


----------



## Jonesy55

I think that Europe should get 16, North and South America should be combined and get 7, Asia and Oceania should be combined and get 5, Africa should get 4. Qualifying in North America is always the same teams so combining with South America would make it more interesting. Same for Asia/Oceania.

The hosts and champions should qualify automatically and these places should be taken from their continent's places.(So this time Europe would have 15 + Germany and The Americas would have 6 + Brazil)


----------



## Mo Rush

gentlejunho said:


> I personally support Japan,
> 
> By the way,IS Rugby globally popular sports like football ?
> 
> Does Rugby WORLDCUP commercially make a good profits ?
> How many countries have interests in this sports.?
> 
> No offence,just out of curiosity.
> Thank you.



Yes, the IRB will benefit most if the world cup is held in south africa or japan as revenue made will be high....the sport is globally popular....about 72 countries have an official team...ill find out more exact details


----------



## Kuvvaci

*The Best 30.000 ppl soccer stadium of Europe*

*1.Karaiskaki-Athens, Greece*

















*2.Philips Stadion-Eindhoven, Holland*

















*3.Geledrome-Arnheim, Holland*

















*4.Stade Maurice Dufrasne-Liège, Belgium*

















*5.Volkswagen Arena-Wolfsburg ,Germany*

















*6.MSV Arena-Duisburg, Germany*

















*7.Estádio Aveiro Municipal- Aveiro, Portugal*

















*8.Municipal Dr. Magalhães Pessoa-Leiria, Portugal*

















*9.Stade de Genève-Geneve, Switzerland*

















*10.Wals-Siezenheim-Salzburg, Austria*

















[B11.]St. Mary\'s Stadium - Southampton, England[/B]

















*12.White Hart Lane-Tottenham, England*

















*13.Lokomotiv Stadium- Moscow, Russia*


----------



## Köbtke

Why haven't I heard about the Oviedo one? I didn't even know it existed.

Looks great though.


----------



## Mieres

Köbtke said:


> Why haven't I heard about the Oviedo one? I didn't even know it existed.
> 
> Looks great though.


Sorry, my english is very bad, Oviedo (Uviéu) is a small city in the nort of Spain in the autonomy region of Asturias (Asturies).
The stadium there are 30.000 of capacity, is built in 2000 year, is the house of Real Oviedo veteran team of the spanish premier league but for economical problems played en the 2B league. 

This is the answer of your question?


----------



## Köbtke

Mieres said:


> Sorry, my english is very bad, Oviedo (Uviéu) is a small city in the nort of Spain in the autonomy region of Asturias (Asturies).
> The stadium there are 30.000 of capacity, is built in 2000 year, is the house of Real Oviedo veteran team of the spanish premier league but for economical problems played en the 2B league.
> 
> This is the answer of your question?


Yeah, it does, although I know what the city of Oviedo is and where it is located 

I just hadn't heard of or seen that stadium before, which I found odd, since it looks like one of the maybe three best stadiums in Spain. The last I remember of Oviedo's ground was what's apparently the old one. From when Peter Møller among others played there and the club had a good spell


----------



## Mieres

Köbtke said:


> Yeah, it does, although I know what the city of Oviedo is and where it is located
> 
> I just hadn't heard of or seen that stadium before, which I found odd, since it looks like one of the maybe three best stadiums in Spain. The last I remember of Oviedo's ground was what's apparently the old one. From when Peter Møller among others played there and the club had a good spell



jejeje yes , the bad spell of the club to coincided about the change to new stadium...   the unlucky...jeje
This is the old Carlos Tartiere









The new stadium, is a good stadium, but in my opinion in Spain there are 10 o 12 betters stadiums the Nou Camp, Santiago Bernabeu,Vicente Calderon, Olimpic of Montjuic, Olimpic of Sevilla etc... but the cover (roof) of New Carlos Tartiere is very beautiful and useful because in Oviedo is usual the rain .
I remeber Peter Möller is danish  

Un saludo


----------



## Kuvvaci

it is sooo nice...


----------



## Krzyżak

I think ... Volkswagen Arena-Wolfsburg ,Germany


----------



## gentlejunho

Iain1974 said:


> Current rankings from Rugby Rankings
> 
> 1 (1) New Zealand 91.95
> 2 (2) South Africa 88.99
> 3 (3) Australia 84.85
> 4 (4) France 84.13
> 5 (5) Wales 83.08
> 6 (6) England 82.81
> 7 (7) Ireland 82.14
> 8 (8) Argentina 75.66
> 9 (9) Scotland 74.20
> 10 (10) Fiji 73.47
> 11 (11) Italy 72.78
> 12 (12) Samoa 71.52
> 13 (13) Canada 68.42
> 14 (14) USA 68.31
> 15 (15) Uruguay 67.11
> 16 (16) Japan 65.93
> 17 (17) Portugal 65.57
> 18 (18) Romania 65.48
> 19 (19) Georgia 63.38
> 20 (20) Tonga 62.04
> 21 (21) Morocco 60.65
> *22 (22) Korea 60.44 *
> 23 (24) Chile 59.85
> 24 (23) Namibia 59.38
> 25 (25) Czech Republic 58.91
> 26 (26) Russia 57.85
> 27 (27) Germany 55.18
> 28 (28) Ukraine 54.35
> 29 (29) Hong Kong 54.08
> 30 (30) Spain 53.86
> 31 (31) Paraguay 53.63
> 32 (32) Poland 52.70
> 33 (33) Netherlands 52.63
> 34 (36) Croatia 51.75
> 35 (35) Tunisia 51.32
> 36 (34) Brazil 50.98
> 37 (37) Belgium 50.45
> 38 (38) China 49.73
> 39 (39) Kenya 48.97
> 40 (40) Switzerland 48.70
> 41 (41) Ivory Coast 48.57
> 42 (42) Chinese Taipei 48.28
> 43 (43) Madagascar 47.70
> 44 (44) Moldova 47.57
> 45 (45) Denmark 47.39
> 46 (46) Arabian Gulf 47.37
> 47 (47) Zimbabwe 47.32
> 48 (48) Kazakhstan 47.06
> 49 (49) Sri Lanka 46.79
> 50 (50) Singapore 46.70
> 51 (51) Cook Islands 45.87
> 52 (52) Sweden 45.47
> 53 (53) Venezuela 45.46
> 54 (54) Peru 45.35
> 55 (55) Papua New Guinea 45.09
> 56 (56) Malta 44.96
> 57 (57) Andorra 44.67
> 58 (59) Latvia 43.98
> 59 (60) Trinidad & Tobago 43.97
> 60 (61) Cayman Islands 43.57
> 61 (63) Barbados 43.22
> 62 (64) Uganda 42.75
> 63 (65) Austria 42.71
> 64 (62) Slovenia 42.64
> 65 (66) Thailand 42.14
> 66 (67) Bermuda 41.99
> 67 (68) Senegal 41.50
> 68 (58) Serbia & Montenegro 41.29
> 69 (69) Niue Island 40.96
> 70 (70) Lithuania 40.66
> 71 (71) Guyana 40.35
> 72 (72) Zambia 39.90
> 73 (73) Malaysia 39.83
> 74 (74) Luxembourg 39.47
> 75 (75) St Vincent & the Grenadines 39.3
> 76 (76) Cameroon 39.21
> 77 (77) Solomon Islands 39.06
> 78 (78) Monaco 38.81
> 79 (79) Botswana 38.64
> 80 (80) Jamaica 38.37
> 81 (81) Hungary 38.35
> 82 (82) Guam 38.20
> 83 (83) Swaziland 37.57
> 84 (84) St Lucia 37.57
> 85 (85) Colombia 37.52
> 86 (86) India 37.16
> 87 (87) Tahiti 36.25
> 88 (88) Bahamas 36.12
> 89 (89) Nigeria 36.03
> 90 (90) Bulgaria 35.68
> 91 (91) Israel 35.42
> 92 (92) Vanuatu 34.77
> 93 (93) Norway 34.74
> 94 (94) Bosnia & Herzegovina 33.39
> 95 (95) Finland 29.32


Korea ranked 22 ? Astonishing !!! 

Most Koreans even do not know what the rugby is. :runaway:


----------



## cwilson758

Conseco Fieldhouse - Indianapolis (NBA Pacers)


----------



## oshkeoto

Wrigley and Fenway.






Everyone else.


----------



## [email protected]

the reliant stadium looks really impresive , what is it capacity?


----------



## [email protected]

[email protected] said:


> the reliant stadium looks really impresive , what is it capacity?


69500 finally


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

some LA stadiums that should be included..

Dodger Stadium - Still looks new today after 45 years or so, will be getting 56,000 new seats by the start of the new season. (capacity, 56,000)

Staples Center - Hosts more events than any other arena and has broken numerous attendance records and already ahs a great history with 5 championships in six years, not to mention everything else held there. (Capacity, 18,997 for Lakers, 18,964 for the Clippers, 18,118 for the Kings)

The Colosium - Still beautiful and is packed with 90,000 fans every saturday. Two olympics, world series, Superbowls, etc etc. (Capacity, 90,500)

Rose Bowl - no explanation needed, the Granddaddy of them all. (Capacity, 92,000)


----------



## phillyskyline

I was gonna mention Bronco Stadium, I love that turf - I wish more stadiums would use different colors. Seahwak Stadium is my fav modern facility. Something you may not know - Philly has the largest sports complex in North America (Spectrum, Wachovia Center, Linc, & Citizens Ballpark).


----------



## GNU

Big news from Spain: *Atletico* Madrid is planning to build europes largest football stadium.The capacity is supposed to be *110.000!!!!!* seats.
It will be a total new stadium and not being built on the current site.
The costs will (surprisingly) only be around 120 Mio.Euros!! 

heres the article (in german)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwe...ame=Vicente Calderón&stadt=Madrid&news_id=999


----------



## FCB_Flo

110.000 seats for 120 Mio € -> NO WAY !

If it's true then full respect !


----------



## easysurfer

If the manage to build a stadium with 110 000 seats for €120 then it will most likely have no roof, cramped seats, bad design, poor facilities e.t.c. This is just what i'm presuming, as i doubt the stadium will be outstanding for that kind of budget. Fans aren't so much bothered about enormous capacities but good facilities,comfort,design etc.


----------



## CharlieP

easysurfer said:


> Fans aren't so much bothered about enormous capacities ...


The ones that can't get tickets are!


----------



## Sounder

Most of my favorites have been included already except Husky Stadium in Seattle.


----------



## antigr12

they should do 60000 seats for that price , which also fits more with their fan potential it seems .


----------



## Sparks

It's way to big for them and even the cheapest they could build the stadium would be at least €400 and even then it would be very ordinary.

Still you can see some recent new stadiums have been built very cheapy.


----------



## antigr12

i don't see this stadium as so cheapy , and it could be expanded in the future like aol arena or rhein energy stadion ; borussia monchengladbach , hsv hambourg , fc koln are very popular with 50000 ( 90-100% ) average attendance so why not expand ?


----------



## aCidMinD81

That information about the new Atletico de Madrid stadium was published in a sensacionalist sport newspaper. Here in Spain nobody believes that such a stadium was possible for a club as Atletico.

On the other hand, Valencia C.F. pretends to obtain approximately 800 million € with the selling of the spot where the Mestalla stadium is nowadays. Some high buildins are expected to being built there. Over the benefits, 450 million € will be set aside on a new stadium with a capability of 75.000 spectactators. The club have been dealing with Toyota, Nike, Sony and others to sponsor the new stadium. Next week some projects of the new stadium will be presented, we only know that a HOK Sport project is amog the designs.

The new Valencia C.F. stadium will be built in the right spot:


----------



## megadrinker

My top five:

1. Centre Bell Center (one of the biggest in nhl for the capacity)
2. Fenway park (it has a lot of history and it has the green monster)
3. The olympic stadium in montreal (one of the biggest stadium in canada)
4. The OLD Montreal Forum (the house of the stanley  !! )
5. Qwest Field


----------



## Mo Rush

Could VIP's soggy night hurt NZ Rugby World Cup dream
29 October 2005

Was it the moment when New Zealand began to lose the race for the 2011 Rugby World Cup?

Time will tell, but as the race heats up to host the great event, New Zealand officials must be cursing themselves over an incident that led to one of the Rugby World Cup board's distinguished members storming out of Auckland's Eden Park ground.

It happened in July, during the final test between the Lions and the All Blacks.

France's International Rugby Board representative, Jacques Laurans, was given a seat too near the front to avoid the bad weather which hit that evening.

Laurans is alleged to have put up with the heavy rain for 10 minutes and then stood up, exclaiming to those around him, "This is disgraceful".

He is said to have walked out and returned to his hotel to watch the rest of the match on TV.

Later that evening, it is further alleged, NZ Rugby Union officials, mindful of the potential damage to their image, telephoned Laurans and offered to send a car to collect him for the after-match function. He refused to leave his room.
Advertisement
Advertisement

One RWC insider said: "The word is that this incident was potentially disastrous for New Zealand in the light of their World Cup campaign.

"People are saying that it exposed New Zealand's lack of planning and attention to detail as it was known that bad weather was likely...To allow someone like Laurans to get soaked was a PR disaster for New Zealand rugby."

The vote to decide which country wins the right to stage the 2011 event will be taken in Dublin on November 17. As well as New Zealand, South Africa and Japan are also in the running.

The Rugby Union last night declined to comment until it could verify the details of the incident.


----------



## Mo Rush

Cash benefits might sway 2011 Cup vote to SA

28.10.05 1.00pm

JOHANNESBURG - Francois Pienaar is confident the financial benefits of staging the 2011 World Cup in South Africa will be enough to win the IRB vote next month.

South Africa and New Zealand are both bidding to be the first country to host the World Cup finals twice alongside Japan, who have never hosted rugby's showpiece event.

"We are very happy that we have done an outstanding job in bidding for the 2011 World Cup," Pienaar, captain of the World Cup winning Springbok side of 1995 and chief executive of the 2011 bid, told a media conference.

"Our confidence is high because we have done the best we can. We delivered the best bid book to the IRB, we know that, and South Africa has the best facts and figures."

The International Rugby Board (IRB) will vote for the 2011 hosts in Dublin on November 17 and Pienaar said South Africa staging the event would mean more money for the other founding members of the sport's international governing body.

"The eight founding unions -- South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and the Five Nations teams -- never used to benefit from the World Cup because the profits went to the hosts," he said.

"Now they all stand to get millions and therefore I believe they will back the bid that means the most money for them." Mthobi Tyamzashe, the chairman of the South African bid committee, said he was confident they had covered the two most important qualifications for hosting the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

"The first is the financial success of the tournament and the second is to grow the game," Tyamzashe said. "We believe we have both bases covered.

"Japan is a new frontier where rugby has never been before, while New Zealand would be a sentimental choice as they believe it is their turn."

New Zealand won the trophy when they hosted the first World Cup in 1987, while South Africa did the same on home soil in 1995.

"The day of our final presentation to the IRB will be as big as the 1995 final," Pienaar said.


----------



## Jimmy James

First question - I'm from Australia and what's blowing my mind is the size of attendance at these college games! What is a typical attendance to a college football match in the US vs an attnedance to Pro Football?


----------



## The Mad Hatter!!

lincoln financial,philly
qwest,seattle
brewers stadium,milwaukee
reliant stadium,houston
sbc park,san fran


----------



## Effer

Madison Square Garden.


----------



## eomer

BobDaBuilder said:


> 1995 was fantastic. Do they have a statue of Joel Stransky outside of Ellis Park now? That droppie was superb.
> 
> Great to see the Blacks go to water yet again when it mattered.


Could you explain to me why Mr Louis Luuyt offered a gold watch to the referee of the semi-final ?


----------



## nomarandlee

Jimmy James said:


> First question - I'm from Australia and what's blowing my mind is the size of attendance at these college games! What is a typical attendance to a college football match in the US vs an attnedance to Pro Football?



Well it all depends obviously. I would say there are probably about a dozen schools at least that get between 95k-105k for a home game. I would say there are dozens that that get between 75k-95k. After that you get college games that have 60k all the way down to 20k in Division one college football.


In pro football the biggest NFL stadium is around 85k in Washington. The vast majority of stadiums are between 62-75k though.

I would say the college stadims are bigger because many college programs pool from a larger geographical area. Often times a whole state or half a state will feel attached and root for a State University program. Often people who don't live near one of the 30 NFL cities adopt a State or the closest major college football program as their favorite football team.
Also tickets to most college games are cheeper then NFL games in most cases.
Plus a good % of the student population often goes to a college football games. Withou even having those outside the school come into play that is often times a 20,000-40,000 enrollemant which gives a team a HUGE fan base right from the start at major programs. Then you have alumni which tend to be very loyal and often travel to games and such and you the insane crowds you have at college football games.


----------



## Mo Rush

eomer said:


> Could you explain to me why Mr Louis Luuyt offered a gold watch to the referee of the semi-final ?


it hurts to lose?


----------



## MoreOrLess

The only real change I'd make to qualifing right now(other than world groups) is to strip CONCACAF of two automatic places and give them to europe. As it stands now the single CONCACAF group is about the same standard as one european qualifing group yet they have 3 1/2 spots compaired to 1 1/2, sadly I doubt that will ever happen as FIFA's search for the almighty dollar will always give the USA a safty net.


----------



## Jimmy James

Wow I think the whole college sports system is great. Australia doesn't really have anything like it. Many of our Pro-Atheletes are right out of High School. It would be great for sport in this country if we had some sort of similar University League with Football and Basketball!


----------



## CharlieP

serendib said:


> wht about the 2007 world cup?? who qualified for the world cup ?? hv they had the qualifiers yet ???


The quarter-finalists from the 2003 World Cup qualify automatically and fill the top two places in the four pools. The other 12 places will be decided by a qualifying competition between 87 countries, and the pools that the successful teams will go into has already been decided (my predictions in brackets ):

Pool A:
England
South Africa
Oceania 1 (Samoa)
Americas 3 (Canada)
Repechage 2 (Russia)

Pool B:
Australia
Wales
Oceania 2 (Fiji)
Americas 2 (USA)
As 1 (Japan)

Pool C:
New Zealand
Scotland
Europe 1 (Italy)
Europe 2 (Portugal)
Repechage 1 (Tonga)

Pool D:
France
Ireland
Americas 1 (Argentina)
Europe 3 (Georgia)
Africa 1 (Tunisia)

See http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/QUALIFYING/ for full qualifying details.


----------



## Mo Rush

Bid for the 2011 World Cup hits the final straight
October 30, 2005

By Kevin McCallum

The wise men of the South African 2011 Rugby World Cup bid committee had a plan for when the shrewd men of the International Rugby Board would pay their country a visit for the technical inspection a few months ago.

The IRB team would check into their SAA flight and be immediately upgraded to first class. When they got there they would find the 2011 bid logo on their seats and would be welcomed by the plane's staff by their names.

As they sat down in the plane they would be given a copy of the bid book and other documents relating to their visit. As they took off, a video on their in-seat screens would show images of what South Africa had to offer, detailing the highlights of the bid, the stadiums, the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the 2003 Cricket World Cup and so on.

When they landed in South Africa they would be whisked through customs without even having to go through the nonsense of picking up their luggage.

The main men of the bid committee - Francois Pienaar, the CEO, Mthobi Tyamzashe, chairman and Saru president Brian van Rooyen - would be on hand to welcome them.

The IRB team would each be given a cellphone to use during their stay, which would have all the important numbers should they need any more information. Oh, it was a fine plan, tuned down to the last second.

"But then," laughed Pienaar this week, "SAA went on strike. But it just re-inforced to us what great people we have in this country. British Airways organised us upgrades to first class for the IRB team. Pick 'n Pay had already offered us the use of their company jet to fly the team around. Kitch Christie always said that you must have a green team and a gold team, and we split the IRB guys up. Two of them flew around to look at stadiums, the financial guy came with me and we just carried on as we had planned."

Well, almost. As Pienaar and the IRB's financial expert were driving to Bank City, in Johannesburg's CBD they happened upon municipal strikers.

"They were turning bins over in the road in front of us, dancing in streets around the car," laughed Pienaar. "I just told the guy 'hey, this is democracy in action'."

The IRB team, however, left impressed with what they had seen. Pienaar, Tyamzashe and Van Rooyen returned from a lobbying trip to Scotland, Ireland and France this week in confident if cautious mood.


As bid committees are wont to be, they believe they have presented the best bid book, which includes the best financial returns to the IRB and the biggest scope for growing the game of rugby, their catchphrase being just that. What are the strengths of Japan and New Zealand, Pienaar was asked.

"I suppose you might say that Japan is a new frontier for the IRB, as well as the rather obvious fact that they have a big economy. New Zealand? Well, some may think that it's their 'turn'. They hosted the first tournament in 1987 and haven't had it since, but they did have the chance to co-host the 2003 Rugby World Cup," said Pienaar.

Japan rolled out Martin Johnson and Ieuen Evans to support their bid this week, but South Africa said that they did not see the need to ask former stars to support their bid. They would let it stand on its on.

"There is an emotive element that we are very aware of," said Tyamzashe. "Japan is a new rugby country, New Zealand an old one, but if we're talking about emotion then what better country than South Africa. The 1995 World Cup was rated as the best ever and the potential for growing the game in Africa is enormous."

Ed Griffiths, who wrote the bid book for the SA 2011 bid, has been appointed CEO of the African Leopards, the continental representative team that the bid committee was instrumental in establishing. The plan is to provide training camps at the High Performance centre in Pretoria for the team.

If the African Leopards are the display case of how SA 2011 will grow the game, the nuts and bolts of the bid is how they intend to generate money from the World Cup.

The tournament provides the IRB with 97 percent of its funding and from the 2007 World Cup, the eight founding unions (who hold two votes each) of the board will stand to directly receive a portion of any profits from the tournament. Rugby may still be an emotional sport, but it is also becoming a financially practical one.

The host of the 2011 Rugby World Cup will be announced in Dublin on November 17.


----------



## Mo Rush

Revealed: Mauling for Japan World Cup bid
An outstanding bid to host the 2011 event seems sure to fail because the IRB can make more money by giving it to South Africa instead, writes Nick Cain
THE International Rugby Board’s (IRB) confidential report into the claims of the three countries competing to stage the 2011 Rugby World Cup has concluded that South Africa’s bid is the strongest and damns with faint praise the bid of New Zealand, calling it “safe”. Most controversially, the bid of Japan, originally the favourite and widely recognised throughout the game as the key to globalisation in rugby, is given what many would see as unfair treatment.

We have obtained a copy of the report, produced by an IRB team headed by its chief executive, Mike Miller. It has been produced after visits to the three bidding countries and is meant to be an impartial look at the potential income and impact of each bid, to be used as a guide when the IRB council sits down to vote in Dublin on November 17.

The report’s conclusions list numerous “challenges” that a Japan World Cup would pose, while glossing over serious flaws in the rival bids. The summary makes clear that the IRB considers South Africa to have the strongest all-round credentials. The last paragraph reads: “South Africa offers the greatest potential of the tenders.” The IRB conclusions see South Africa’s positioning in the European time zone as its trump card because it allows “a maximisation of broadcast revenue”. By contrast, they highlight the lesser value to European broadcasters of being in the Japanese time zone. Yet, they omit to say that evening kick-offs in Japan are prime-time Saturday midday viewing in the UK.

The report lists “instability in the South African Rugby Union” as the only major drawback, a reference to the troubled regime of its president, Brian van Rooyen. It makes no mention of the high crime levels in South Africa’s big cities. South Africa’s bid has the largest predicted surplus, with a £69m profit mooted, but this is under suspicion because of the very low figures given for projected costs. There is also little reference to the fact that to award the 2011 Rugby World Cup to South Africa, who also hosted the 1995 tournament, would send the wrong message on the globalisation of rugby.

The report’s conclusions do not mention New Zealand’s inadequate grounds, while its lack of quality hotels is flagged but countered with “the NZRU forecasts that supply would meet demand . . . including cruise liners and camper vans”.

Although the report’s conclusions open by saying: “Japan could clearly host a very good RWC 2011”, praising its strengths in size and standard of venues, commercial programme and globalisation, far more space is allocated to its weaknesses.

The IRB is concerned by the Japanese RFU’s inexperience in hosting big rugby events, but does not indicate how they are supposed to remedy that if they are not awarded any. The IRB expresses concern that £28m of the £48m guarantee is being underwritten by the JRFU and could leave it in debt, whereas the £48m guarantees made by the New Zealand and South Africa bids are underwritten by their governments. However, a Japanese government guarantee is not only against local law, it is also redundant because the JRFU bid will be supported by 20 Japanese corporate sponsors whose GDP is greater than the South African and New Zealand economies combined.

Former Australia coach Bob Dwyer, a supporter of Japan’s bid, fears Japan may not get the opportunity to globalise the sport. “It would liberate the game, and, if we are ever going to be a global sport, how we can ignore Asia, with two-thirds of the world’s population, is beyond me.”

However, the slant of this IRB report bodes ill. There is the spectre of old-school rugby politics coming to the fore, where delegates tend to support those countries who have agreed to send their team to play money-spinning Tests. It is conjecture that the extra forthcoming Tests played by New Zealand against Wales and England are part of that process. Japan may be hard done by in the official report and in the voting carve-up. Whoever wins, the IRB must not pretend that the playing fields are level.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Not sure how far advanced the work on it but their are a few nice video's of Shaktar Donesk's new stadium here...

http://shakhtar.com/cgi-bin/fc-sh/newstad.pl


----------



## GNU

Sparks said:


> It's way to big for them and even the cheapest they could build the stadium would be at least €400 and even then it would be very ordinary.
> 
> Still you can see some recent new stadiums have been built very cheapy.


Borussia Park certainly is not the most expensive stadium.The exterior is ugly but its actually a nice stadium once you are inside.
And the pics you have chosen do not reflect the situation correctly I guess.

Some ore pics:

















































































Even though it might not be the nicest stdium, it has a fanshop,restaurants,vip boxes etc.










































Heres the official stadium website:
http://www.stadion-im-borussia-park.de/


----------



## GNU

aCidMinD81 said:


> That information about the new Atletico de Madrid stadium was published in a sensacionalist sport newspaper. Here in Spain nobody believes that such a stadium was possible for a club as Atletico.
> 
> On the other hand, Valencia C.F. pretends to obtain approximately 800 million € with the selling of the spot where the Mestalla stadium is nowadays. Some high buildins are expected to being built there. Over the benefits, 450 million € will be set aside on a new stadium with a capability of 75.000 spectactators. The club have been dealing with Toyota, Nike, Sony and others to sponsor the new stadium. Next week some projects of the new stadium will be presented, we only know that a HOK Sport project is amog the designs.


75.000!! Wow that sounds fantastic!
Ive seen a rendering of the new stadium and I have to say it looks really impressive.


----------



## Kuvvaci

Kayseri new stadium-30.000 ppl
This stadium will be built in 2006 after Turkey will be the last 3 candiates for EURO 2012










wait for the new projects from Turkey...


----------



## Kampflamm

CharlieP said:


> You calling me "nobody"? :bash:


By "nobody" I was more or less referring to the US. Lacrosse is more popular than rugby over there.


----------



## aCidMinD81

Checker said:


> 75.000!! Wow that sounds fantastic!
> Ive seen a rendering of the new stadium and I have to say it looks really impressive.


Are you refering to this render?










That's just a proposal presented two years ago, I think it was a HOK vision. Next week probably the club will show 4 or 5 new models made by different architects, among them one will be choosen to be built.


----------



## Kampflamm

HOK has designed a lot of American stadiums, haven't they?


----------



## Edson-CMA

aCidMinD81 said:


> Are you refering to this render?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a proposal presented two years ago, I think it was a HOK vision. Next week probably the club will show 4 or 5 new models made by different architects, among them one will be choosen to be built.



Looks very similar to the new Cardinals Stadium... maybe inspired in Allianz Arena too.

But in this case, I dont like it.


----------



## aCidMinD81

^^ I was wrong, it was not a HOK Sport design but an Arup's one.


----------



## Aquarius

New *RCD Espanyol de Barcelona * stadium, under construction, Nowadays it plays in the Olympic stadium of Barcelona

Capacity:* 41.000 spectators*
Cost: *54 milion €*
The top part is a *photovoltaic plate*



























I think that it is similar to the Volkswagen Arena, not?


----------



## LuckyLuke

^ looks great I like the blue design

May 2005 was the start of the construction of a new multi-functional arena. Its location is Theodorstrasse in Düsseldorf-Rath close to the exhibition grounds and the airport. The large facility, which will feature a futuristic design and lend itself to a wide variety of uses, is scheduled for completion in September 2006.

http://www.dome-in-rath.de/









[/QUOTE]


----------



## Aquarius

Also is U/C an interesting ice pavilion in Jaca.


----------



## CharlieP

Last I heard, there were 60,000 registered rugby players in the USA. Not quite nobody, but almost


----------



## eomer

Mo Rush said:


> it hurts to lose?


Like this: yes.


----------



## antigr12

aCidMinD81 said:


> That information about the new Atletico de Madrid stadium was published in a sensacionalist sport newspaper. Here in Spain nobody believes that such a stadium was possible for a club as Atletico.
> 
> i've visited as.com website and it's a true information because there were other articles about this and interviews , so not sensasionnalistic but we can obviously wonder how they could build a 110000 seat stadium with only 110 m euros .


----------



## nomarandlee

That arena in Düsseldorf might be the coolest looking arena I have ever seen.


----------



## aCidMinD81

antigr12 said:


> aCidMinD81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That information about the new Atletico de Madrid stadium was published in a sensacionalist sport newspaper. Here in Spain nobody believes that such a stadium was possible for a club as Atletico.
> 
> i've visited as.com website and it's a true information because there were other articles about this and interviews , so not sensasionnalistic but we can obviously wonder how they could build a 110000 seat stadium with only 110 m euros .
> 
> 
> 
> "AS" gave that information after interviewing a politician of the city where hypothetically the new stadium should be built. Once "AS" published the interview some other articles where writen basing on that information. No one believes Atletico de Madrid needs a 110.000 seats stadium, and least that it would be built with just 110 million euros. Atletico de Madrid general manager has deny his club pretended to build another stadium.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ringil

Loranga said:


> I believe in New Råsunda when I see it!
> Actually, what is it going to be used for except of 4-5 soccer national games per year?


conserts and braging


----------



## hngcm

mikeyraw said:


> Your fucking kidding right?
> 
> Korea, Japan, Australia and Iran are all easily a match for the US and Mexico, they would all beat Costa Rica.
> 
> Costa Rica and T and B should not have an easier passage to the World cup than Australia, Thankgod we are moving to Asia.


None of those teams are a match for Mexico. 

Japan is a good match for the USA and Costa Rica.

But all three are superior to Oz, Korea, and Iran.


----------



## MoreOrLess

hngcm said:


> None of those teams are a match for Mexico.
> 
> Japan is a good match for the USA and Costa Rica.
> 
> But all three are superior to Oz, Korea, and Iran.


Costa Rica are better than South Korea?


----------



## Mo Rush

Financially, SA's World Cup bid is strong

By Peter Bills

A revealing set of financial figures circulated in the past few days has seen South Africa now emerge as favourites to win the race for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

While the sentimental vote might be for Japan, hard-nosed financial considerations are likely to be the final deciding factor when the decision is made in Dublin in 17 days time. And the sums involved have been shown to be massively in favour of the South African bid.

All three bidding countries - South Africa, Japan and New Zealand - are likely to have to guarantee the International Rugby Board a sum in excess of £55million (R650-million) for the right to stage the tournament.

But it is in the field of ancillary rights where South Africa has been shown to be out on its own
The French have had to guarantee the board £48-million (R569-million) for the 2007 event so, four years later, an increase of at least £7-million (R83-million) would seem fair.

But it is in the field of ancillary rights where South Africa has been shown to be out on its own. And this aspect will surely be a key factor.

If the decision is made to go to South Africa, the ancillary rights (covering TV rights, sponsorship and travel), are now estimated to gross probably two and a half times more than would be the case with Japan or New Zealand.

One expert estimated the ancillary rights from a successful South African bid as "perhaps another £50-million (R592,7-million)".

In other words, if the decision goes to Japan or New Zealand, the TV rights and sponsorship negotiators in Britain and Europe, where the serious money is, will reduce by more than half their commercial offers. It is a powerful factor in selecting South Africa.

The reason is the time difference to Britain, Ireland and Europe. World Cups now often see three or four matches held in a single day. It is the only way a lengthy schedule can be accommodated.

But if that were to happen in Japan or New Zealand, it would inevitably mean several matches being shown in mid-morning or around midday back in Europe. Viewing figures would be seriously diminished, thereby reducing the commercial value enormously.

By contrast, South Africa is just one hour ahead of UK time when a World Cup would be played. It would give broadcasters the opportunity for major games to be screened at peak hours. Advertisers would be required to pay top dollar for exposure to such viewing numbers.

Can any sports governing body afford to throw away as much as £25-million (R296-million) to £30-million (R355-million) by one decision? It would be surprising if professional rugby, a sport strapped for cash in almost every playing country, could afford to do so.

The IRB could dress up a decision for South Africa as a positive in terms of growing the game. IRB officials are privately expressing their delight at what is termed "the explosion of rugby" in French-speaking Africa.

Therefore, opting for South Africa as host nation would undoubtedly enhance the spread of the game in that continent, a region where the game remains in its infancy.

The fact that South Africa hosted the event in 1995 is not seen as a factor. In their favour is a rugby-mad country whose people would fill the grounds, a magnificent setting for the tournament, with the hotels, transport and stadiums to host a major world event.

The fact that the Soccer World Cup will be held here in 2010 is another advantage. Huge sums of money are being spent already to transform stadiums and improve facilities.

While it might alarm Fifa in the light of their tournament 12 months earlier, the fact remains that rugby could piggyback on that promising scenario. The biggest factor against New Zealand is that it struggled to cope with 20 000 British & Irish Lions supporters this year.

Some fans had to fly in and out on Test match day from Australia's Gold Coast. Others flew from different cities in New Zealand because there was no accommodation in the Test match venue.

How would they cope with 50 000 to 60 000 visitors? And, apart from Auckland, the grounds are far too small. Crucially, the financial return would be far smaller.

Japan is the best nation of the three in terms of taking the game to a new audience. But under the present system, that may not be enough. If finances are the critical factor, it must go to South Africa.


----------



## mikeyraw

Hahah, your joking mate. Theres no way Costa Rica is better than Iran, Korea and Australia. Korea and Iran are better than the US, nevermind your ranking.


----------



## Loranga

Well, the only way to find out about this is to run a global qualifying play-off tournament!


----------



## schmidt

Heh come on, the other South American teams are pretty good. The eliminatoires over here were VERY even until the final rounds! In the 16th (of 18) round, ALL of the teams could still qualify.


----------



## DiggerD21

I think the FIFA should make one change in the qualifying rounds: They should give oceania one set place for the WC instead of a play-off game between the 1st of the oceania group and the 5th of the south america group. (this years play-off game is Australia vs. Uruguay)


----------



## MoreOrLess

DiggerD21 said:


> I think the FIFA should make one change in the qualifying rounds: They should give oceania one set place for the WC instead of a play-off game between the 1st of the oceania group and the 5th of the south america group. (this years play-off game is Australia vs. Uruguay)


You mean effectively give Australia an automatic place in the WC?


----------



## Zorba

European teams are the strongest. South America has 2 great teams(Brazil, Argentina) and as for the rest of the South American teams....................................... :runaway: 

The North American division is horrendous except for the US and Mexico and there are always strong teams in Africa and Asia.


----------



## Mo Rush

i think the world cup should feature the worlds top 16 teams by rankings of FIFA based on world cup performance..and 4 african spots,and the rest can be sorted out to achieve balance ...perhaps one automatic spot for the previous winners and one automatic spot which already exists for the host....


----------



## dande

*arena design*

I am wondering about biggest desing firms that have done some of the recently built or under construction arenas and stadiums.


----------



## Paulo2004

Morten M said:


> Braga was hated by all the players under the Euro 2004, because it was weird to play in a stadiumj without any fans behind any of the goals.


This is new - all the players????! :bash: I have read many statements of players saying just the opposite! That might be the reason why this stadium has received so many prices for best soccer stadium since 2004.


----------



## Paulo2004

I vote for Aveiro's stadium.


----------



## Mo Rush




----------



## MoreOrLess

While I'm not too fond of the owners Molineux would be my pic...










I don't know what it is about the design(espeically since its not a bowl) but the sound of the crowd is amplifed more than anywhere else I'v ever been with the Palace/Wolves div 1 playoff semi final from a few years ago being the best atmosphere I'v ever witnessed at a sporting event.


----------



## TC03

Why is this thread limited to a capacity of 30.000? Should be 50.000.

Anyway, simply the best 50k capacity stadium is Feyenoord Stadion "De Kuip" in Rotterdam.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Because smaller stadiums are rarely mentioned here otherwise?

The best 50,000 seat stadium in europe for me is between...










and


----------



## vivayo

MoreOrLess said:


> Because smaller stadiums are rarely mentioned here otherwise?
> 
> The best 50,000 seat stadium in europe for me is between...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and



what about Amsterdam Arena, should be there for sure


----------



## hngcm

mikeyraw said:


> Hahah, your joking mate. Theres no way Costa Rica is better than Iran, Korea and Australia. Korea and Iran are better than the US, nevermind your ranking.


We'll see in 2006.

You know, when the referees aren't in favor of korea...


----------



## noidea

*please post pictures of Horse Racecourse*

My last thread was deleted. Can you please post any pictures of a horse racecourse. Thanks


----------



## Melchisedeck

San Siro Horse Racecourse in Milan


----------



## Isaac Newell

Shatin

















Happy Valley

















Tokyo


----------



## GNU

Aquarius said:


> New *RCD Espanyol de Barcelona * stadium, under construction, Nowadays it plays in the Olympic stadium of Barcelona
> 
> Capacity:* 41.000 spectators*
> Cost: *54 milion €*
> The top part is a *photovoltaic plate*
> 
> 
> I think that it is similar to the Volkswagen Arena, not?


I think this stadium is much more sophisticated compared to the volkswagen Arena.
It has a bigger capacity and has a glass facade which goes all around the stadium.
Well done! Espanyol deserves this ground.The Olympic stadium has never been a good venue for football.


----------



## GNU

One question I ask myself is though: does Valencia and Atletico really need these big capacities??
I mean what is their average attendency in the primera division?
would atletico be able to fill a 110.000 seater stadium on a weekly basis?? I doubt it.
Nevertheless its good to hear that there are many developments going on very soon in Spain!
It would be great if any spanish forumer could post some pics of the other proposals of the new Valencia stadium.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^

Those one's in Asia are stunning. The tight turns at Happy Valley must make it tricky for the jockeys. Love Tokyo, that is classy. A couple of the Gulf States in Arabia have some impressive setups also. The "World Cup" is held somewhere there.
There is one in Moscow left over from Tsarist times which is very interesting architecturally and according to my sources they are back in business again. 
There are so many impressive ones in USA, UK, France and Australia I have come across. With the amount of money involved in the sport it is only natural they have huge and impressive grandstands.
Do they race seriously elsewhere in Europe besides Italy, France, UK and Eire?


----------



## GNU

Btw: a little construction update of the stadium in Kaiserslautern:


----------



## Isaac Newell

Hanshin


----------



## JimB

Some pics (taken in September / October) of the £180 million Ascot racecourse redevelopment. It was started in October 2004 and will be ready for the Royal Ascot meeting in June 2006:














































And this is what it will look like when finished:


----------



## spyguy

Churchill Downs (Louisville, Kentucky- Kentucky Derby):


----------



## dande

Aquarius said:


> Also is U/C an interesting ice pavilion in Jaca.



This is what I call cutting edge arena design, awesome, futuristic.


----------



## Guest

Aquarius said:


> Also is U/C an interesting ice pavilion in Jaca.


Really, really awesome arena


----------



## Christos7

New stadium for AEL Larissa in Greece. Larisa is one of Greece's biggest cities after Athens/Thessaloniki with a population of about 250,000. See a picture of it's location below:












The capacity will be 21,000 and this stadium is also included in the bid for Euro 2012 for Greece, which if it is realised will be changed to 30,000. It's the first of it's kind in Greece, as it will have a retractable roof, because conditions in Larissa (kind of in the middle of Greece) can get extreme at times. Very hot in the summer, very cold in the winter. It will be completely funded by AEL and will cost 41 million euros. Some renderings:







































Very exciting.


----------



## Mephisto

Christos7 said:


> New stadium for AEL Larissa in Greece. Larisa is one of Greece's biggest cities after Athens/Thessaloniki with a population of about 250,000. See a picture of it's location below:
> 
> 
> 
> The capacity will be 21,000 and this stadium is also included in the bid for Euro 2012 for Greece, which if it is realised will be changed to 30,000. It's the first of it's kind in Greece, as it will have a retractable roof, because conditions in Larissa (kind of in the middle of Greece) can get extreme at times. Very hot in the summer, very cold in the winter. It will be completely funded by AEL and will cost 41 million euros. Some renderings:
> 
> pics
> 
> 
> Very exciting.


It's just a plain bowl design with a fancy roof.
Just kidding


----------



## reluminate

Kampflamm said:


> HOK has designed a lot of American stadiums, haven't they?


They've probably designed 9 out of every 10 American stadiums/arenas built over the past 20 years.


----------



## Jerv

O Natalense said:


>


This is very good. 2002 fits the diagram as Brazil won it. England and france being classed as similar nations is not far wrong. But I hope someone can stop brazil next year. Doesn't look likely though.


----------



## hngcm

Mexico did beat Brazil at the confederations cup.


----------



## cmc

*Your Changes to a Famous Stadium......*

This thread is about changes you would do to a famous stadium or any sports arena, share with everyone what you would add or take away to a stadium.

One of my ideas is to have added a crown roof to the Berlin Olympic Stadium instead of the roof it has.....









here's an example of a stadium with an added crown roof:
Athens Olympic Stadium
Before:








After:


----------



## bishop

they should stick four goal posts at either end with a centre square and fifty metre lines at either end of the oval also a ten meter goal square between the two centre goal posts and the behind posts need to be shorter


----------



## mikeyraw

Good point, Mexico are a very good side. I still think Asia is a stronger region.

Your right though, the World cup should settle things.


----------



## invincible

Yep, and then we can have games scheduled on the other side of the world instead of places like Launceston and Canberra.

You did miss one of the more important steps though - plant grass on top of the athletics track. They're doing that on the MCG.


----------



## dANIEL2004

This is an axample for how an ordinary big stadium can be a masterpice of contemporary art! Athens olympic stadium is now a jewel for Greece! Its like a huge white sculpture!


----------



## Köbtke

Actually, I think your example of the Berlin and Athens stadiums is really good.

I just arrive at a totally different conclusion than you. I think the Berlin one is extremely well done. Almost perfect. The roof fits together with the old, refurbished stadium brilliantly, creating an interesting and coherent arena for sports in general, and football in particular.

Athens' roof on the other hand, while being interesting in itself, doesn't fit the existing stadium, which ruins both roof and stadium in my opinion. I know people rave about it being a masterpiece, but I just whole heartedly disagree.

Olympiastadion in Berlin is one of my favourite rejuvenation projects of stadium in the world. And the stadium has a history that is practically unrivalled in western stadiums.


----------



## TalB

There are four tracks for horseracing where I live.

Yonkers Raceway, Yonkers, NY

































Belmont Park, Elmont, NY

































































Aqueduct Racetrack, South Ozone Park, NY

























































Meadowlands Racetrack


----------



## cmc

Mexican Stadiums

A stadium that needs some changes is the Azteca Stadium of Mexico City. The stadium needs some color and some new architectural features to it.









Eventough I'm a Chivas of Guadalajara fan, I think the new Chivas' Stadium is missing something, like some tall structures that will make it look more modern.


----------



## cmc

I don't know, but I think the new Wembley Stadium deserves a retractable roof, plus it has the perfect architecture for it. Other than that, it's an amazing stadium.
What do you'll think?????


----------



## -Corey-

Azteca stadium is the largest stadium in the world?


----------



## bubomb

and looked what they knocked down to build it -




























"One entered the city like a god, one scuttles in now like a rat."


----------



## NavyBlue

hngcm said:


> Asia/Oceania 5???
> 
> All the qualified teams from NA could easily beat the best Asian team.....


Well if the South Americans can't beat us, North Americans have NO chance :cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

australia have qualified for the world cup...someday they should host it...people wil turn out in the masses. unlike south africa who have not qualified for 2006 nor would they have qualified if they were not hosts of 2010....ai shame south africa u dont do us proud///


----------



## Mo Rush

south africa out of round one its down to NZ and JAPAN


----------



## Mo Rush

NEW ZEALAND HAVE WON..welldone....


----------



## CharlieP

Well, I didn't expect that. I thought the chances of each country hosting it were - Japan 45%, South Africa 45%, New Zealand 10%. Shows how much I know.

Though New Zealand will really have to pull their finger out in terms of stadium development in the next six years...


----------



## eomer

Kamate Kamate Kaora Kaora...


----------



## atkinson1

Yay Go New Zealand. This is great.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The mail in Australia is New Zealand have done some back-room deals, promising to take the All Blacks to nations just to get their votes.

Definately there is some sympathy voting going on as well because they got out-witted over the 2003 World Cup.

However good luck to NZ. They will do a super job without a shadow of a doubt. Also it might bring some hope and prosperity to somehow stem the tide of the Kiwis migrating to Australia and beyond.


----------



## Guest

BobDaBuilder said:


> The mail in Australia is New Zealand have done some back-room deals, promising to take the All Blacks to nations just to get their votes.
> 
> Definately there is some sympathy voting going on as well because they got out-witted over the 2003 World Cup.
> 
> However good luck to NZ. They will do a super job without a shadow of a doubt. Also it might bring some hope and prosperity to somehow stem the tide of the Kiwis migrating to Australia and beyond.


There's always scandals after some bid .... remember when they said that South Africa won the bid for the Soccer World Cup in 2010 based on sympathy votes ? Remember the scandals that floated around after Sydney won the Olympics bid ?

Regarding the Kiwis over in Oz - well, Howard seems to be doing that by himself - sending Kiwis back to their native land HA HA .... Let's not forget about the people from other Countries, like myself, flocking to the land of the Kiwi.

I was living in South Africa when they hosted the Rugby World Cup and now I will be in NZ for the 2011 RWC .. The RWC makes a huge difference to urban areas and is also great for the psyche of hosts ... I feel privileged to be in New Zealand. Good on ya mates !


----------



## hngcm

uruguay once was one of the strongest teams in SA, what happened to the,?

knocked out in the first round of 2002, not going to 2006....


----------



## eomer

hngcm said:


> uruguay once was one of the strongest teams in SA, what happened to the,?
> 
> knocked out in the first round of 2002, not going to 2006....


Uruguay won WC in 1930 and 1950 when football/soccer wasn't even professional.
But since 1966, it's best result is a 4th place in 1970.

There are only two strong teams in SA: Brazil and Argentina.
Paraguay is a second level team and other are at same level than Bulgaria, Greece or Latvia.

I agree that Australia should host WC in the futur: not in 2014 (it's in Brazil), not in 2018 (it's in Europe) but maybe in 2022.


----------



## mikeyraw

Heres a link to get some idea of the atmosphere, and thats just the warm up.
http://z23.zupload.com/download.php?file=getfile&filepath=9414


----------



## staff

mikeyraw said:


> Heres a link to get some idea of the atmosphere, and thats just the warm up.


Let's just say we Europeans know a thing or two about football atmosphere.


----------



## vivayo

it was a excting game that of Australia vs Uruguay,,, and the atmosphere, well was great, i didnt know that Aussies were so much into football, by looking at the stadium during the game, you could think of a game in europe or latinamerica


----------



## mikeyraw

The Football fans are over looked in Australia, where we have a massive populace of fans. Finally now we will get some plaudits and attention from the rugby and AFL biased media.


----------



## Igrac

Belgrade

Pionir 









Tasmajdan









Belgrade Arena


















Marakana Red Star Stadium


















Partizan Stadium


















OFK Belgrad


















Zemun









Kalemegdan


----------



## Peyre

Londinium.

followed by Athens for sure


----------



## 2005

Which city has the best stadia in the world?

I think we know its a six letter word LONDON.


----------



## Mo Rush

il londona is da bestas


----------



## Guest

London I think


----------



## EllasOle

For football, it's London Hands Down. Too many 20,000+ capacity stadiums that are all in good condition and are 100% covered for any other city in Europe to compare with. An underated city for stadia for me would be Sevilla which has 3 45,000+ stadia and it's not that big of a city. 

For indoor arena's, it is easily Athens. Especially for basketball. Peace and Friendship stadium wasn't even used for basketball at the Olympics and when they deploy extra seats, it can hold about 16,000 spectators and would easily be one of the best indoor arena's in Europe. Then you have the Olympic Sportshall which holds 19,000 and Hellinikon Indoor hall which was built in 2003 and holds 15,000 and looks simply amazing.


Peace and Freindship Stadium
http://www.stadia.gr/sef/sefnew7.jpg

Helliniko Indoor Hall
http://www.stadia.gr/hellinikon/hellinikon.html


----------



## vertigosufferer

The final jigsaw will fall into place when London builds all of it's facilities for the 2012 Olympics.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Some notes on all this:

#Possibly it was a backward step for rugby, but I would like to see Japan improve her standard before she got to host the World Cup. Somehow get them into the Tri-Nations. Don't know, but just hosting it up there seems like it might not make a lasting impact and they'd be out in the group stages anyhow.

#Didn't realise they introduced a visa scheme for Kiwis moving to Oz. I thought all you needed was NZ citizenship and you were essentially allowed to move to Oz with just a NZ passport. I suppose it is not fair for all the citizens of all those other countries in the world who want to move to Oz but cannot. Afterall the Kiwis coming to Oz are only economic migrants. Besides, NZ is a gorgeous country, why the hell would those people want to leave it? Never could understand that, not as if they have some evil despot running the place. (Lange's dead now isn't he?) 

#What SANZAR needs to do in the next 5 years is get Argentina and possibly Japan in the comp. Make it a 5 team comp like the old 5 nations. The Pacific nations are simply not economically viable so forget about them. 



:cheers:


----------



## CharlieP

Just a quick thought on stadia (isn't that what this forum is about? ):

RWC 2003 attendances:

82,957 - Australia v England, Final
82,444 - Australia v New Zealand, Semi-Final
82,345 - England v France, Semi-Final
81,350 - Argentina v Australia, Pool A
80,012 - New Zealand v Wales, Pool D
78,974 - France v Scotland, Pool B
62,712 - France v New Zealand, 3rd Place Playoff
54,206 - Australia v Ireland, Pool A
50,647 - England v Samoa, Pool C
48,778 - Australia v Romania, Pool A
48,496 - Samoa v South Africa, Pool C
47,588 - New Zealand v Tonga, Pool D
46,796 - Scotland v USA, Pool B
46,795 - Fiji v France, Pool B
46,233 - England v Uruguay, Pool C

45,472 - Current capacity of Eden Park, Auckland.

All I can say is I hope they have some BIG development plans for the next six years!


----------



## Nick

Dont get me wrong.I love NZ but Japan should of got it.Its about time the old rugby boys pass the ball out to some of the lesser rugby powers.A very inward anti-global decision in my opinion.Japan has the infrastructure and the fans to fill all the stadiums.Its about time Rugby got out of its old suit and into some funky new clothes.


----------



## mtb_nz

Nick said:


> Dont get me wrong.I love NZ but Japan should of got it.Its about time the old rugby boys pass the ball out to some of the lesser rugby powers.A very inward anti-global decision in my opinion.Japan has the infrastructure and the fans to fill all the stadiums.Its about time Rugby got out of its old suit and into some funky new clothes.


Yeah i thought that Japan would get it... and i mean that isn't a bad thing at all as it would allow the game of rugby to go to a different country and let the game expand with new interest from a different part of the world :cheers:


----------



## mtb_nz

CharlieP said:


> Just a quick thought on stadia (isn't that what this forum is about? ):
> 
> RWC 2003 attendances:
> 
> 82,957 - Australia v England, Final
> 82,444 - Australia v New Zealand, Semi-Final
> 82,345 - England v France, Semi-Final
> 81,350 - Argentina v Australia, Pool A
> 80,012 - New Zealand v Wales, Pool D
> 78,974 - France v Scotland, Pool B
> 62,712 - France v New Zealand, 3rd Place Playoff
> 54,206 - Australia v Ireland, Pool A
> 50,647 - England v Samoa, Pool C
> 48,778 - Australia v Romania, Pool A
> 48,496 - Samoa v South Africa, Pool C
> 47,588 - New Zealand v Tonga, Pool D
> 46,796 - Scotland v USA, Pool B
> 46,795 - Fiji v France, Pool B
> 46,233 - England v Uruguay, Pool C
> 
> 45,472 - Current capacity of Eden Park, Auckland.
> 
> All I can say is I hope they have some BIG development plans for the next six years!


yeah NZ has much smaller capacities in stadiums... but they are working on getting Eden Park up to 65,000 and Jade stadium in Christchurch up to 55,000. So hopefully they will get things sorted soon


----------



## Giorgio

Yea London wins overall by a mile. Athens wins in Arenas i agree. but it isnt enough to make it the best i suppose. God, imagine after the olympics in London...Its will win by 2 miles not just the one...


----------



## XCRunner

1 Summer Olympics
2 FIFA World Cup
3 Tour de France
4 NBA Finals/Playoffs
5 IAAF World Championships
6 Wimbledon
7 Winter Olympics
8 European Championship (football)
9 Ironman Triathalon
10 Formula One


----------



## Atlas

hey, is it "football" in australia, or "soccer"???


----------



## dewback

NavyBlue said:


> Well if the South Americans can't beat us, North Americans have NO chance :cheers:


That wasn't the case in the last Confederations Cup, where the Australians did horribly, while the Mexicans had a fair amount of success (beating Brazil, and almost beating Argentina and Germany).


----------



## BobDaBuilder

What needs to happen now is that the rugby 'powers', such as OZ, NZ, SA, UK and France needs to get nations like Japan, Argentina, USA and Canada more involved.

As it stands now we have 10 proper rugby nations, just. The rest are just cannon fodder.


----------



## NavyBlue

Atlas said:


> hey, is it "football" in australia, or "soccer"???


 Soccer Australia has recently changed their name to *Football Federation Australia* (FFA) and are calling the game Football, but the nickname of our national team still remains the Socceroos for sentimental reasons.



dewback said:


> That wasn't the case in the last Confederations Cup, where the Australians did horribly, while the Mexicans had a fair amount of success (beating Brazil, and almost beating Argentina and Germany).


 That comment was tongue in cheek and wasn't supposed to be taken seriously...but during the Confederations Cup we were coached by Frank Farina (who?)...nuff said. Immediately after that tournament he was replaced by Dutchman Guus Hiddink and the results speak for themselves.


----------



## vivayo

theres no doubt that world cup is the biggest event, even the qualifiers for this tournoment are a national issue in most of the world, justa watch the aussies going crazy, the problems in turkey, the national deception in Uruguay, 

and thats only the qualifiers, wait till the actual world cup,,,

and dont forget american friends that football is also growing in a lot of places, including your oun country, 

In Mexico in importance you have

1.- Football
then more football, 
then more football with international matches
after that
more football with the european tournoments

and then after that, comes maybe baseball, wrestling, or toros (bullfight)

baketball and NFL get some atention in certain parts of the country, but still only the superbowl gets some attention,


----------



## eomer

- "Footbal" is a generic name for several games. 
- "Football Association" is the most known kind of Football all over the world. The word "soccer" is a contraction of "association". FIFA means (in French) Federation Internationale de Football Association.
- Rugby is a kind of football too: for exemple, in the south of France, "football club" meaned generally "Rugby Football club" until 1930. 

So, I think it's more interesting, in the world forum, to say "Soccer" to avoid confusion with American Football, Canadian Football, Australian Rules, Gaelic Football, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Rugby seven, Beach Soccer, Extrem Football, Beach Rugby, Futsal...


----------



## eomer

mtb_nz said:


> yeah NZ has much smaller capacities in stadiums... but they are working on getting Eden Park up to 65,000 and Jade stadium in Christchurch up to 55,000. So hopefully they will get things sorted soon


I never liked Christchurch Stadium...because France never won in it.
I hope that the Scotish tribune will stay in Eden Park....


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The atmosphere at Homebush last Wednesday night was at least 50 per cent noisier and more 'atmospheric' than you get in any stadium in the UK.

It was akin to what you get in Rome or Milan for a major match for certain. 

The one massive positive for me out of the experience was that rival supporters are able to mingle and there is no segregation as well as there is no need for security fences as the public understand they cannot go onto the field.

If only the Europeans could learn from this.

Well done Aussies.


----------



## CharlieP

Martuh said:


> Becaue i don't like american football, i like the one and only football!


One and only? I can think of at least eight different types of football played around the world...


----------



## crazyevildude

1 Summer Olympics
2 FIFA World Cup
3 Tour De France
4 Uefa Europe championship
5 Wimbledon
6 Super Bowl
7 Formula 1 Championship
8. Rugby World Cup
9. London Marathon 
10 Athletics World Championship


----------



## Paulo2004

Lss911 said:


> Where is Municipal de Braga Stadium check box? It`s missing!
> 
> Anyway my vote goes for Aveiro! JUST LOVE IT!!


 :eek2:


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

Morten M said:


> Braga was hated by all the players under the Euro 2004, because it was weird to play in a stadiumj without any fans behind any of the goals.


realy'? lol.. thatsit´s weird,, but its special. stadia very unique.anyway i would like to see ppl behind the net to see da game


----------



## Guest

*We were wrong to oppose NZ, says top Australian * ​
22.11.05
NZ Herald


The Australian who delivered the Olympic Games to Sydney has ripped into the Australian Rugby Union over its failure to back New Zealand's bid for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. 

Rod McGeoch, who was recruited to New Zealand's successful bidding team, told the Herald last night that the ARU vote for Japan could rupture relations between the two countries. 

"To me it's like the underarm incident - it'll go away, but it's so unnecessary ... It's not helped the sentiment between the two countries. 

"The New Zealand Rugby Union believed if they didn't win this time they might never win it. Not being able to count on your partner, I think, is very disappointing." 

Mr McGeoch said the ARU had the right to vote as it pleased, "but as Robert Louis Stevenson said, you have to dine at the banquet of consequences". 

Yesterday, he sent a scathing letter to ARU chairman Dilip Kumar over its vote last Friday in Dublin. 

"The position that the ARU has taken exhibits political naivety at a breathtaking level because it shows a misunderstanding of the consequences of the vote having regard to all of the circumstances," wrote Mr McGeoch. 

In August, Mr McGeoch gave a presentation at what he called a "historic meeting" of the boards of the ARU and the NZRFU. 

"I reminded everybody about the importance of the relationship," he said. 

NZRFU chairman Jock Hobbs and chief executive Chris Moller had "absolutely eyeballed" the ARU delegates and asked, "Have we got your support?" 

Therese Walsh, NZRFU general manager of corporate services, said the ARU gave no assurances, but the union was "extremely disappointed that the ARU chose not to support us". 

"We have a long-standing relationship [with the ARU] which we consider to be very strong, but obviously we will want to discuss this matter." 

ARU spokesman Strath Gordon said last night that the letter had been received. 

"I would understand [the NZRFU's] disappointment, naturally, but I think we've been honest and up-front and explained our position." 

He said the ARU had publicly stated that it would not decide whom it would vote for until the final day. 

"Australia went to the hosting vote with both Sanzar partners putting their hands up for the job. It was a difficult situation." 

Mr Gordon described the relationship between the New Zealand and Australian unions as "terrific". 

"We don't always agree on everything. It would be a miracle if we did. 

"Both parties accept that as the nature of any partnership, and the relationship is mature enough for it to continue." 

Mr McGeoch, who was recruited after leading the bid for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, said voting for Japan would have been justified if the International Rugby Board had asked all its members to vote that way in the interests of the game. 

"Plainly, no such message was delivered or requested by the leadership [of the IRB]. The votes say it all and in those circumstances, for Australia to fail to support New Zealand is beyond my comprehension," his letter continued. 

"It was even put to me, presumably somewhat facetiously, that I would be the only Australian welcome in New Zealand. 

"That is, to put it mildly, an extremely disappointing outcome which in the circumstances before you was totally avoidable."


----------



## TalB

Zorba said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> If it were anywhere besides in the center in NYC it would be considered an out of date, delapidated pit. It is horribly ugly and lacks many of the ammenities that newer arena's offer.
> 
> IMO they should do a complete renovation of MSG.


Mike Dolan does have plans to rennovate it.


----------



## MoreOrLess

cmc said:


> This thread is about changes you would do to a famous stadium or any sports arena, share with everyone what you would add or take away to a stadium.
> 
> One of my ideas is to have added a crown roof to the Berlin Olympic Stadium instead of the roof it has.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's an example of a stadium with an added crown roof:
> Athens Olympic Stadium
> Before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After:


While I'd question the wisdom of renovating the stadium as apose to building a new ground I think they've done an exellent job with the roof. Athens is a poor comparason IMHO as while both stadiums underwent similar restorations it didnt really have any character to begin with so the roof had free reign to become the focus of the stadium. Berlin on the other hand added a roof in keeping with the already strong character of the stadium.


----------



## Atlas

true, but if you notice, in england and other countries there are no fences between the pitch and the spectators. proof of this is how eric cantona was able to do that kung fu kick on one fan some years ago!! hehehe

argentina, on the other hand, cannot control its fans, and must have fences protecting even the policemen


----------



## Martuh

CharlieP said:


> One and only? I can think of at least eight different types of football played around the world...


I don't use the word soccer.


----------



## BrizzyChris

It's quite sad how so many Americans are ignorant to Rugby and Cricket. Two sports played by far more people than NFL, NBA, Baseball and watched by millions more as well. The Superbowl is a blip on the radar compared to the Rugby and Cricket world cups.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^

The coppers in Argentina need to start putting people behind bars, in other words doing their job at football in B.A. Start booking the scofflaws and you won't need fences any longer.


----------



## BrizzyChris

Giving the world cup to Japan would have sent a pretty strong message that the IRB was more concerned about money than about the supporting the traditions and roots of the game.


----------



## bubomb

1.World Cup
2.World Cup qualifiers
3.Friendlies in preparation for World Cup
4.Friendlies in preparation for World Cup qualifiers
5.The Draw for the World Cup
6.The Draw for World Cup qualifiers
7.European Championships
8.European Championships qualifiers
9.Champions League
10.Choosing the World Cup mascot


----------



## Iain1974

So with the next two world cups going to two traditional rugby powers, do you guys think it more likely that 2015 will go to pastures new?

If so then where?

Argentina? Japan? America/Canada?


----------



## eomer

Iain1974 said:


> So with the next two world cups going to two traditional rugby powers, do you guys think it more likely that 2015 will go to pastures new?
> 
> If so then where?
> 
> Argentina? Japan? America/Canada?


It will be probabilly in Europe.
I think about a Celtic bid: Ireland with some matchs in Scotland and Walles.
England could host it too but after London 2012 and just before WC 2018, it would be a bit too much IMO.
Italia could bid too.


----------



## matherto

I'd make all four sides at the Bernabeau the same. 

I wouldn't change a thing about Berlin's stadium, but I would knock down Athens and start again


----------



## johnz88

The roof on the Berlin stadium now looks amazing it makes the stadium look so clean and compact


----------



## eddyk

matherto said:


> but I would knock down Athens and start again


The entire city?


Me...hmmm...


I'ld fill in the open end of every horseshoe designed indoor arena in the UK.











You can see what I mean... ^^

They are designing them over here with gaps in the tier so a stage can go there in concerts...I think it makes it look uncompleted....and a full bowl is a great sight.


----------



## 2005

Looks good that.









 

Oh yeah AGM (Annual General Meeting i.e THFC are PLC) tommorow Levy will talk about stadia then again there will be nothing new and that is FACT! he's doing brilliant job but he'll same nearly the same

Levy last month
"The stadium remains the more difficult of the projects and progress remains very slow as we continue to galvanise an approach that works for the local community and the club alike, something that is unlikely to be solved in the short term as the London Development Authority and central government focus on the 2012 Olympics"

So I really am not getting my hopes up at all deep down I know I wish it wasn't but it is stupid typing this coz I know for fact when I get back from Six Form it will be like Xmas morning but opening the box to find out I've got the same as last year a pair os socks.Not that I get a pair socks but still


----------



## Martuh

Amsterdam ArenA. I'd lower the field and fill up the gap between field and the seats. Plus i'd fill the ugly corners. :bash:

Before:










After:


----------



## matherto

eddyk said:


> The entire city?
> 
> 
> Me...hmmm...
> 
> 
> I'ld fill in the open end of every horseshoe designed indoor arena in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see what I mean... ^^
> 
> They are designing them over here with gaps in the tier so a stage can go there in concerts...I think it makes it look uncompleted....and a full bowl is a great sight.


lol not the entire city, that wouldn't be allowed. Just the stadium, start again and make a football stadium instead of an Olympic one, because they're not gonna get the Games again for a while. And the stadium is boring without the roof, and too busy with it.


----------



## Rausa

New stadium in Malmö, Sweden, is soon to be built. The capacity will be 27.000-30.000 and cost ~44 mil. euros..

I could not find any good pics of the render, but this one is ok:










These are to big to show in the thread

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02912.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02915.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02927.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02930.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02917.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02918.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02919.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02920.JPG

http://www.badanka.com/upload/uploaded/DSC02921.JPG


----------



## Imperial

Some pic from new Korona Kolporter Kielce (Poland) Stadium (underconstruction):

Capacity: 15 000


----------



## Martuh

New stadium for ADO Den Haag (The Hague)




























15.000 seats, with the possibility for 27.000 seats.



Also a new sports centre in Holland's number one booming town; Almere.



















Unfortunately just 3.000 seats


----------



## Mo Rush

asohn said:


> They've probably designed 9 out of every 10 American stadiums/arenas built over the past 20 years.


are american stadiums designed?? dont seem like it


----------



## Genuine

Are they designed? I don't understand you question.


----------



## rantanamo

I would ask the exact opposite.


----------



## goldcoaster12

*New Zealand Winter Olympics*

I think New Zealand should bid for a Winter Olympics. 
They have mountains and snow, and it would be great to see a winter olympics in the southern hemisphere.
What do u think?


----------



## Mo Rush

first try and host the rugby world cup. new zealand IMO wont cope even though i would love to see a commonwealth games there again...


----------



## Martuh

I think Egypt stands a better chance hosting a Winter Olympics.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Well I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Davee

Great idea. Opening and closing in Christchurch, then the different events held all over the South Island. Would be a fantastic show case for the whole of Australasia and the South Pacific!


----------



## XCRunner

Phillips.


----------



## Martuh

New Dutch update:

AZ Alkmaar:


















16.000 seats, second tier is possible for somehwat less then 30.000 seats, it'll be used in the new season, 06/07.

FC Groningen:








20.000 seats, stadium is finished but the infrastructure around the stadium not yet, it'll be opened early January 06.


----------



## XCRunner

Conseco Fieldhouse (Indianapolis)
Wrigley Field (Chicago)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Relient Stadium (Houston)
PNC Park (Pittsburgh)
Miller Park (Milwaukee)
Ford Field (Detroit)
Skydome (Toronto)
Home Depot Center (Carson, CA)
Ohio Stadium (Columbus, OH)


----------



## traveler

The Romans invented the Stadium; the Portuguese reinvented the Stadium. The Braga is a totally new idea in design. But i liked the Aveiro. It is the best Stadium!!


----------



## Martuh

I'd go for White Hart Lane.


----------



## samsonyuen

The Rugby world cup will be awesome in NZ. I think a Winter games there would be really cool too.


----------



## atkinson1

The world cup will be cool but I don't think we could host the olympics.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

atkinson1 said:


> The world cup will be cool but I don't think we could host the olympics.


Remember, the winter Olympics aren't really as big a production as the summer. They could almost be called the "Olympics Light", making the winter Olympics ideal for smaller places. Many of the cities that have hosted the games in the past didn't even have a million people in their metros.


----------



## atkinson1

Yeah I know that but things are hard to get in New Zealand. For example we couldnt even host a V8 Supercars street race in Auckland or Wellington. And we get the WRC but funding is tight - if the government decides not to pay up we'll lose it.


----------



## brummad

brilliant idea


----------



## goldcoaster12

heres a possible logo








Jade Stadium would be home of the ceremonies


----------



## Mo Rush




----------



## Martuh

Nouvellecosse said:


> Remember, the winter Olympics aren't really as big a production as the summer. They could almost be called the "Olympics Light", making the winter Olympics ideal for smaller places. Many of the cities that have hosted the games in the past didn't even have a million people in their metros.


That's because Winter Olympics need good facilities; a bobsleigh track, long, steep skislopes, ice rinks, et cetera. You don't need big metros but you need good facilities.


----------



## goschio

What a great idea. I have heard, that NZ has one of the best winter sport conditions in the wordl. Unfortunately its in the southern hemisphere and the seasons are twisted. But perhaps we can just switch the summer and wintergames if the summer games are in the southern hemisphere as well. Perhaps in Argentina or Chile.


----------



## goschio

check this out:


----------



## cianobuckley

Its got to be the new olympiakos ground. while it may be similar to St Marys and the riverside what it signifies is more appealing.Gone are the days when one would watch a midweek game away in Greece in a half empty oversized stadium with a running track and a really drab atmosphere. this new stadium has been hailed by the very passionate greek fans who now sell it out on a weekly basis.Panathinaikos and AEK Athens jealously had to watch Olympiakos take a great leap ahead of them. This triggered both of the other Athens giants to begin similar projects themselves


----------



## cianobuckley

Its got to be the new olympiakos ground. While it may be similar to St Marys and the riverside what it signifies is more appealing.Gone are the days when one would watch a midweek game away in Greece in a half empty oversized stadium with a running track and a really drab atmosphere. This new stadium has been hailed by the very passionate greek fans who now sell it out on a weekly basis.Panathinaikos and AEK Athens jealously had to watch Olympiakos take a great leap ahead of them. This triggered both of the other Athens giants to begin similar projects themselves. The true winner out of all this is greek football which can be said at last to really be going places


----------



## TalB

Just recently, the new arena for the Nets, which is to be designed by Frank Gehry, has just been put back to the drawing boards, and this is what the latest rendering of it was supposed to look like.


----------



## Zizu

^^ Cannot see any stadium or arena on the rendering!! Just some tilted buildings. :dunno:


----------



## goldcoaster12

An arena that could be used
Westpac Arena:


----------



## atkinson1

goschio said:


> check this out:


I've been to all those places. New Zealand is so amazing like that.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^

LOL.

NZ going for the Winter Games is akin to HG and Roy's campaign for 'Smiggin Holes Winter Olympics'.


----------



## shivtim

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Michigan Stadium- the big house! I believe it's the highest capacity stadium in the US outside of NASCAR type stadiums.

Anyway, I'd second votes for Wrigley Field, Qwest Field, Ford Field, and Notre Dame Stadium, and add in Pacific Bell Park (now SBC park).


----------



## goschio

*Winter Olympics in the Himalaya*

Should we have some winter olympics in the himalayan mountains? 

Perhaps in China, India, Pakistan, Nepal...


----------



## cianobuckley

*Country with the worst quality football stadiums*

to me Italy has only one decent stadium THE SAN SIRO!! 
THe rest of their stadia are either poorly designed or cheply made.
If they want to host another major tournament they have alot of work to do


----------



## 2005

Most south American countries in my opinion the amount of boxes is just too bloody many.


----------



## shaz

thats a really good idea! kay:


----------



## TalB

It's hiding within those building, but the arena does intend to be changed after showing its latest look, which didn't originally change.


----------



## antigr12

agree for italy and san siro , they deserve better , i hope this time for euro 2012 ( if they have it ) they won't make mistakes .


----------



## deëpdïsh

dont know much about football stadiums, but Mexico has great ones


----------



## MoreOrLess

India has a Ski resort near Nanda Devi(7800 meter mountain west of the nepal border) although I'd guess you'd need to be around 3000 meters up to be in the snow line which might cause problems with the reduced air pressure/oxygen levels.


----------



## cianobuckley

What is the official capacity of the one in mexico city? i hear its biger than the nou camp :eek2:


----------



## Zaqattaq

Nepal is way too unstable


----------



## cmc

You mean the Estadio Azteca.........
it has a capacity of 114,000.


----------



## johnz88

mexico has one good one, Azteca, which may also need some modernization to it


----------



## cianobuckley

i hear its the only stadium in the world to have hosted two world cup finals . whats the inside look like?


----------



## matherto

I hate the seats in the Azteca, they should renovate it again.

As far as worst quality......Argentina, there stadiums are crap, I mean look at the state of El Monumental, for a team like River Plate it's absolutely rubbish.


----------



## invincible

The thing about New Zealand is that they could probably build any facility (as long as they don't spend too extravagantly) and it could stay in use due to the thrillseeking nature of the people who visit the area.


----------



## Iggui

i don't think it's a bad idea. "lord of the rings" did a lot to expose the world to the varied terrain of nueva zelanda and i think a winter games is totally within your reach. don't listen to the naysayers. i'm partial to a chilean winter games, but they suck at winter sports (even their skiers aren't good, and they have plenty of ski resorts).

good luck!


----------



## Mo Rush

NZ cant host winter olympics.


----------



## johnz88

Here is the inside of the Azteca Stadium


----------



## GNU

Italy!

Its really a shame because they got such a great league.


----------



## Guest

Poland. Country with 40 million people, in European Unipon and without even one modern stadium. EVEN ONE!!!!

The only light in the tunnel is stadium in Kielce. Under construction now, will be finished. Capacity about 15k.


----------



## GNU

Here are two pics that show the new seats in the Signal Iduna Park:


















One of the corners is supposed to house a new museum until the wc










































some matchday pics:


















the players before the game









under the stands
























a restaurant


----------



## GNU

New pics from Kaiserslautern:































































now thats quite high:  












































the bench


----------



## Iggui

^^great. ?but why?


----------



## Mo Rush

Iggui said:


> ^^great. ?but why?


well...i know im being pessimistic or what not...but they would find it a challenge to host the rugby world cup as a country..!! i have no doubt that they would pull that off...but a winter olympic games is about ONE city...perhaps in the distant future it would be possible but for the moment..they are far from being a top candidate....they simply would not cope...its a country of 4 million...currently even auckland struggles with hosting a rugby tour in terms of acccomodation...it would be a HUGE task...id say just not soon...dont get me wrong though..the beauty of NZ is unexplainable...but hosting a winter olympics...well just not soon...


----------



## northern italian

Siena is going to build a new 11,000 seats basketball arena within 2008


----------



## goldcoaster12

*Stadium Awards:*

I want everyone to give awards to the best stadiums in their country:
In my opinion the Australian awards got to:
Best Atmosphere: Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)








Stadium in the Best Location: WIN Stadium (Wollongong)








Most Historic Stadium:MCG (melbourne)








Most beautiful Stadium: North Sydney Oval (Sydney)








Best multi purpose stadium: Telstra Stadium (Sydney), has hosted pretty much every sport including Gridiron








Best Stadium Overall: Telstra Stadium again!!!


----------



## invincible

Places around the ski resorts are probably more suited to large numbers of tourists than somewhere like Auckland, places like Queenstown have a large population increase every winter but drops off by summer. It's probably not enough for a Winter Games but I think they could do it with a bit of investment.


----------



## Rausa

New national stadium in Sweden!
Yesterday the Swedish football association made the decision to go ahead with their plans to rebuild Råsunda! It will seat 50.000, include a retracable roof, hotel with more than 200 roms, a 28+ floor scraper and more. If everything goes as planned it will be finnished 2010.

Looks beatifull IMO:


































So what do you think? =)


----------



## Tomesh

^^^^ wow that is really an amazing stadium, kind of a pity though since the Rasunda is a real classic stadium  Will AIK play their home matches there ? and where will they go during the time its built ? 

Its probably gonna cost a lot, three tiers for 50,000 is really cool though theyl probably change it ?


----------



## -Jeff-

In terms of American Football stadiums:

1. Ohio Stadium (Columbus, Ohio)
2. LA Coloseum (Los Angeles, California)
3. Soldier Field (Chicago, Illinois)
4. Neyland Stdium (Knoxville, Tennessee)
5. Sun Devil Stadium (Tempe, Arizona)
6. Reliant Stadium (Houston, Texas)
7. Gillette Stadium (Foxboro, Massachusetts)
8. Orange Bowl (Miami, Florida)
9. Mile High Stadium (Denver, Colorado)
10. Arrowhead Stadiun (Kansas City, Missouri)


----------



## Calvin W

Leafs fanatic has it wrong! Any stadium other than the Rogers center would vastly be better. Best location has to go to Mcgill in Montreal. Also best atmosphere Taylor Field, Regina. Hands down!


----------



## johnz88

I don't think he was talking about just in Greece Leafs Fanatic, I have to agree with matherto that yes there is a lot better stadiums then the one in Athens but it isn't crap.


----------



## Zaqattaq

johnz88 said:


> Poland has been through a lot of tough times, like communism which didn't help in trying to build modern nice stadiums and it is only now that Poland is catching up to a somewhat higher level, maybe even enough to host Euro 2012. Wisla is basically building a new stadium(3 new stands which will make a cap. of around 30 000 from 10 500) and there are still more to come. So don't worry about Poland, and now that they are in the EU, just give them some time.


I have no doubt that Poland will build some very impressive stadiums in the coming years.


----------



## CF

Air Canada Centre is not where near the best atmosphere in Canada. Half the people in the arena are wearing suites.

Give that award to the Saddledome or GM Place.


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

CF said:


> Air Canada Centre is not where near the best atmosphere in Canada. Half the people in the arena are wearing suites.
> 
> Give that award to the Saddledome or GM Place.


Ok, I got to give that to you! :cheers: 

I am little biased because I am a huge Leafs fan!


----------



## DrJoe

CF said:


> Air Canada Centre is not where near the best atmosphere in Canada. Half the people in the arena are wearing suites.
> 
> Give that award to the Saddledome or GM Place.


The place is crazy during basketball games. More than hockey is played there you know.


----------



## eddyk

Best Atmosphere....Anfield :banana:
Stadium in the Best Location....That one in Toronto
Most Historic Stadium....Wembley Stadium...New/Old dont care.
Most beautiful Stadium....DUNNO
Best multi purpose stadium....Stade de France


----------



## AVORER

cianobuckley said:


> i hear its the only stadium in the world to have hosted two world cup finals . whats the inside look like?





-ò_ó- said:


> How about that? Azteca Stadium, Mexico City


^^ Azteca Stadium


----------



## rantanamo

For US

Best Atmosphere = Neyland Stadium
Best Stadium Location = SBC Park in San Francisco(nothing comes close anywhere)
Most Historic = Rose Bowl
Most Beautiful Stadium = Keennan Stadium(UNC)
Best Multipurpose = Reliant Stadium
Best Overall Stadium = Reliant Stadium


----------



## nomarandlee

I think it is a great idea. I would love to see it in NZ. Obviously the whole winter in June, July, August might be a challenge but maybe the networks would be ok with the idea of a winter olympics in the southern hempishpere during those months (the networks more then anything decide what is possiable).

As far as not being big enough? Greece was only 8 million or so people and that is for the summer olympics which are MUCH bigger. So the size of the country is not a big issue. And comparing it to things like soccer, rugby, or football tourneys is not a good comparison. For those types of events you need a place with a good many cities, stadiums, and population centers to pull it off. In the winter games you will get many locals and visitors who will go to venues that are not as big but will end up going to their niche events and will go to four or five of them in one relatively small area. In rugby or soccer tourneys you will often just get people who will go to one or two games in their city and that will be it.

The biggest question is what is the nearest city to the mountains (within reason 1-2 hours away) that is close to enough ski infrastructure to make it practical. Are NZ resorts and ski areas a good distance away from its biggest population centers?


----------



## CharlieP

Mo Rush said:


>


Jade Stadium *should* be upgraded by 2011 for the Rugby World Cup. I say "should" because the New Zealanders haven't made much noise about their expansion plans, other than increasing Eden Park in Auckland to (wait for it) 60,000 seats...


----------



## nomarandlee

I love the idea of one there. The only question is local intreast, infrastructure, and money. It would be great to have the winter games somewhere not in Europe, North America, or Japan.


----------



## Guest

Idea is good but it,s a mission impossible


----------



## bravoman

for Germany:

best atmoshphere: Borussia Park (ok, I am biased)










best location: AWD - Arena











most historic: Olympiastadion Berlin




















most beautiful: Zentralstadion















































Best multi purpose: LTU - Arena




















Best Stadium Overall: Allianz Arena


----------



## Giorgio

GREECE:

Stadium in the Best Location: Panathinaiko Stadium

Best Atmosphere: Karaskiaki Stadium

Most Historic Stadium: Olympia Stadium (The most historic in the world)

Most beautiful Stadium (Old/Modern): Panathinaiko Stadium/ OAKA Spyros Louis 

Best multi purpose stadium: OAKA Spyros Louis

Best Stadium Overall: OAKA Spyros Louis


----------



## Mokum

For the Netherlands best atmosphere and most historic stadium the Amsterdam ArenA, no way! The stadium is not even ten years old and 5 minutes for the game ends half of the public already is going home. The best location is also Bull shit, it's build in the most boring neighborhood of Amsterdam.


----------



## Perth4life3

GoldCoaster i'd say best atmosphere would go to either Subiaco Oval or AAMI Stadium (or the MCG) because they have the derbies/showdowns in the afl, you can't really put best atmosphere unless you've been there!


----------



## TalB

This is a quote that was mentioned from Fans for Fair Play, a group of sports buffs who oppose the arena.

"Proposed as a glass-walled oval with a park on top (in winter, a skating rink), the arena is a city planner's nightmare."


----------



## Scba

nomarandlee said:


> I can't decide on the MSG vs. PBC/PNC debate. Both are awesome for differant reasons. One for the view and the other when you walk outside after the game and think I am in the middle of farking Manhatten.
> 
> Looking at those photos I have little doubt are baseball parks are likely the best stadium in the world. So much care and thought goes into design, location, and dimensions (at least usually). I don't care if Europeans call me biased because so many are just beautiful. Modern day cathedrals in my eyes.


I think you could say that. With a football/soccer field, there isn't all that much you can do besides stack seats higher and just fancy the place up. Diamonds allow for a little customization, and placement. I'm not bashing Euro stadiums, but all fields of certain sports retain the same aspects.


----------



## rantanamo

NFL stadiums have done a pretty good job with variety. Look at places like Qwest or Soldier Field or even M&T and their original layouts. Still nothing like baseball though. I have to agree that there is so much care that goes into the stadiums, how they fit into their environment and even how their placement will affect the game. Probably hard to appreciate if you don't understand baseball. 

Anyways, some great locations I forgot were American Airlines Arena in Miami and Cleveland Browns Stadium Both right on the water fronts. I also think the El Paso Sun Bowl are pretty cool too. Its built right into the mountains not just next to them.


----------



## Martuh

rantanamo said:


> NFL stadiums have done a pretty good job with variety. Look at places like Qwest or Soldier Field or even M&T and their original layouts. Still nothing like baseball though. I have to agree that there is so much care that goes into the stadiums, how they fit into their environment and even how their placement will affect the game. Probably hard to appreciate if you don't understand baseball.
> 
> Anyways, some great locations I forgot were American Airlines Arena in Miami and Cleveland Browns Stadium Both right on the water fronts. I also think the El Paso Sun Bowl are pretty cool too. Its built right into the mountains not just next to them.


Some cool pics there. How'd you like this one, litterally built into the mountain:


----------



## dANIEL2004

Which stadium can beat this in the multi-purpose section ??(for the history, Rally Acropolis 2005 awarded as the best WRC) :cheers: 



























:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


----------



## Sikario

They've hosted rally car races in the Stade De France too.


----------



## xXMrPinkXx

dANIEL2004 said:


> Which stadium can beat this in the multi-purpose section ??


The Veltins Arena aka Arena auf Schalke in Gelsenkirchen (Germany) host´s Biathlon and Stock Car Events!


----------



## xXMrPinkXx

Mo Rush said:


> ....when was LTU completed??....


LTU Arena was completed in January 2005!


----------



## Mo Rush

dANIEL2004 said:


> Which stadium can beat this in the multi-purpose section ??(for the history, Rally Acropolis 2005 awarded as the best WRC) :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


this isnt an attack or anything...but cudnt this setup be constructed in most athletic stadiums??? how is your stadium special in that it can host these rallies?? was it custom built? would most athletic stadiums with the amount of space available be able to host these rallies if need be? and then cant they also claim to be able to host rallies?....the stadium is indeed multi purpose.


----------



## SkyscraperGuy

UK:

Best Atmosphere: Liverpool FC, Anfield
































































Most Beautiful Stadium: City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester City FC


----------



## MoreOrLess

If were talking the best multi purpose stadium in the world then what about the Saitama Super Arena in Japan? One entire side of the stadium can move over 70 meters letting it change between a 20,000 seat arena and a 37,000 soccer/rubgy pitch size stadium.

http://www.architectureweek.com/2000/0517/design_2-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saitama_Super_Arena


----------



## KingKong1

^jade is supposably goin to be upgraded to 55,000 so that main stand you see there will be duplicated on the other side.

As for new zealand hosting the winter olympics, well we simply couldn't cope and couldn't afford to do it unless the govt borrowed money which they never do. the 2002 Salt Lake city olympics cost US1.3 billion with up to 160,000 spectators, 5000 media and 2,400 athletes needing to be accomodated every day over the 17 day event, the South Island would sink!! lol


----------



## XCRunner

Atmosphere: Miller Park (Milwaukee)
Location: Soldier Field (Chicago)
History: Wrigley Field (Chicago)
Arcitecture: Ford Field (Detroit)
Beautiful: PNC Park (Pittsburgh)
Multi-purpose: Alamodome (San Antonio)

Overall: Relient Stadium (Houston)


----------



## XCRunner

cianobuckley said:


> i hear its the only stadium in the world to have hosted two world cup finals . whats the inside look like?


Yeah, 2 World Cup Finals in addition to the Olympic Games!!!


----------



## GNU

Martuh said:


> Why the low roofs and the terrible sight?


the height of the roof is absolutely ok if you ask me.
Maybe these pics from top are a bit distorted,nevertheless you won't have any sight problems.
The pillars are a little problem ok,but there are only 4 pillars in the stadium in Kaiserslautern so thats fine with me.

There are many stadiums (also modern ones that have pillars)
Take a look at the Celtics stadium for example.


----------



## matherto

yeah but it wasnt the main stadium. And it still needs new seats and some more colour


----------



## DvW

Everything doesnt matter, English stadiums are the best!


----------



## Loranga

I think the bottom tier @ Azteca stadium should be completely reconstructed, putting the stands much closer to the soccer sideline to get an even tighter atmosphere down at the pitch.


----------



## Mo Rush

*WINTER OLYMPIC VENUES*

Post images and graphics of your favourite winter olympic venues and their designs.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Loranga said:


> I think the bottom tier @ Azteca stadium should be completely reconstructed, putting the stands much closer to the soccer sideline to get an even tighter atmosphere down at the pitch.


NFL fields are narrower than soccer pitchs though remember.


----------



## Kai Tak

My favorite is the Gjovik Fjellhallen [Gjovik Olympic Mountain Hall], used for ice hockey during the 1994 Lillehammer Winter Games. I can't find pictures of it, anyone else have some?


----------



## GNU

This is one of 8 proposals for the new stadium in Valencia, by gmp architects,berlin 










It will have 72.-75.000 seats!!


----------



## GNU

And here are some pics of the new SAP-arena in Mannheim:


----------



## aCidMinD81

Checker said:


> This is one of 8 proposals for the new stadium in Valencia, by gmp architects,berlin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will have 72.-75.000 seats!!


These are the 8 proposals:

*IMG-Hok Sports* Would be build with dark materials, 350 million €










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*ARENA-Evata Architects* Same structure and three different covers.

_- Roof 1_



















_- Roof 2_




























_- Roof 3_





































-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*GMP - SBP - Llanera* The roof is made of photovoltaic cells that are lighted at night. 430 million €



















-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Ferrater-Peñín-OHL* 










































-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*SEEAC Arquitectura*










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Grupo Tremon-FCC* The cheapest project, 240 million €










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------










All the projects have between 72,000/75,000 seats, cost 240/450 million € and should be inagurated in the season 2009-2010. Each one of the projects allows the instalation of an athletics track, Valenci will bid to host de Athetics World Championship in 2010.


----------



## Liwwadden

here some pics of new stadiums in the netherlands: 

this stadium is called euroborg and belongs to soccerclub fc groningen. It also has a bussiness center, a movietheater, a casino and a supermarket. There can sit over 20.000 people

here first the old stadium off fc groningen: 










here the new stadium:



















The second new build stadium is the kooimeerplaza, which belongs to soccerclub AZ from the city of Alkmaar: 




















And the last one is the new stadium for another soccer club named ADO den haag, from the Hague:


----------



## JimB

*World Cup stadium allocation*

I really cannot understand why FIFA can't wait until after the World Cup Finals draw before deciding which stadiums will host which games. It makes no sense. If they can decide that, because of demand for tickets, Germany's three group games will be played at the three biggest stadiums, then they should be able to do the same for other countries.

We now have the ridiculous situation that England will play their three group games at three of the smallest World Cup venues - Frankfurt 48,000, Cologne 46,000 and Nuremberg, the second smallest World Cup stadium, 41,000. But, after the host nation, England will (as usual) have more fans at the World Cup than any other nation. Current estimates suggest that more than 150,000 England fans are expected in Germany next summer. Surely the sensible thing to do would be to make sure that England play their group games in the biggest four or five stadiums?

Meanwhile, there will be games at the biggest stadiums with relatively few fans from the participating countries. For instance:

Poland v Ecuador at Gelsenkirchen - capacity 54,000
Ecuador v Costa Rica at Hamburg - capacity 51,000
Trinidad v Sweden at Dortmund - capacity 67,000
Portugal v Mexico at Gelsenkirchen
Argentina v Serbia at Gelsenkirchen
Sweden v Paraguay at Berlin - capacity 74,000
Argentina v Ivory Coast at Hamburg
USA v Czech Republic at Gelsenkirchen
Czech Republic v Italy at Hamburg
Croatia v Australia at Stuttgart - capacity 54,000
France v Switzerland at Stuttgart
Togo v Switzerland at Dortmund
Tunisia v Saudi Arabia at Munich
Spain v Tunisia at Stuttgart
Saudi Arabia v Ukraine at Hamburg
Ukraine v Tunisia at Berlin

Even Brazil who, like Germany, were pre-allocated Munich, Dortmund and Berlin, will have nowhere near as many fans at the World Cup as England.

As if all that wasn't enough, competing teams will only be allocated 8% of the tickets for each game. Which means that England fans will be allocated only 3500 to 4000 tickets for each game. Utterly ridiculous. The remaining tickets, of course, will fall into the hands of ticket agencies and touts who will sell them on for ten or twenty times face value because they know that the demand is so huge for England games.

I've long thought that the people who run FIFA are fools. This only confirms it.


----------



## Sitback

I know it's stupid. It's not good encouragment for England fans who won't be able to get into the match so will get pissed out on the streets of whatever German city. Which is asking for trouble, best get them into the stadium.


----------



## CmdKewin

So, what you are basically saying is that the England should always play the games in the biggest stadium the country hosting the games has, right?.... There are other 31 nations playing, each one with an equally passion for soccer. France, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden will have an equally number of fans coming to Germany. And you hear nobody complaining that they don't get to play in the biggest stadium available. So live with it


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd guess the main reason the stadiums were pre allocated was so that they could sell the first round of tickets before the draw was made thus making sure that even the less interesting games would have reasonable attendances. 

Looking at the stadiums used though it does seem rather dumb to have the seeded team from group B playing in nothing but small stadiums while the unseeded teams have matchs in the far larger stadiums in Berlin and Dortmund. I'd guess its down to a policey to share the big games around as if you look at fixtures every stadium hosts 4 group matchs, 2 of which feature the seeds. That seems needlessly PC to me(much like using the poor Nuremberg stadium over the LTU arena merely to have more games in the former east) to the point of hurting the competision.


----------



## Sitback

CmdKewin said:


> So, what you are basically saying is that the England should always play the games in the biggest stadium the country hosting the games has, right?.... There are other 31 nations playing, each one with an equally passion for soccer. France, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden will have an equally number of fans coming to Germany. And you hear nobody complaining that they don't get to play in the biggest stadium available. So live with it


This is not true. England by far always takes more fans to the World Cup everytime. We had the most fans in Japan last world cup and every match we outnumbered the other sets of fans in the stadium 2-1. Even Brazil.

England are the only team I know that would fly 40,000 fans out to watch a meaningless friendly with someone like Liechenstein or whoever. When the likes of Italy, France, Spain play friendlys they rarely fill out their stadiums.


----------



## MoreOrLess

CmdKewin said:


> So, what you are basically saying is that the England should always play the games in the biggest stadium the country hosting the games has, right?.... There are other 31 nations playing, each one with an *equally passion for soccer*. France, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden will have an equally number of fans coming to Germany. And you hear nobody complaining that they don't get to play in the biggest stadium available. So live with it


So there are going to be 150,000 Angolans in Germany next summer? While I'd guess Jim is correct and there will be more England fans there than any other visiting nation his point could equally apply to any seeded team(who earnt that seeding on some level however dodgy FIFA's system) that happened to be drawn in group B. 

Selling tickets before the draw(and so having to pre allocate stadiums) is pretty much the norm for World cups or European championships these days so I don't think you can single out 2006 as any worse in that reguard. As I said though the allocation of stadiums does seem needlessly PC, making sure that every stadium has 2 seed games ahead of providing the maxium possible capacity for those games. Compair that to euro 2004 were every seeded team played at least one of their games in the three big stadia.


----------



## JimB

CmdKewin said:


> So, what you are basically saying is that the England should always play the games in the biggest stadium the country hosting the games has, right?.... *There are other 31 nations playing, each one with an equally passion for soccer. France, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden will have an equally number of fans coming to Germany*. And you hear nobody complaining that they don't get to play in the biggest stadium available. So live with it


Complete and utter poppycock. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to comment.

The French have never followed their football team in big numbers. Since next summer's World Cup will be staged only just over theFrench border, they will take more fans than usual. But still nothing remotely to compare to England. I don't think that the French even managed to take 2,000 to Japan and South Korea, even though they were defending champions and joint favourites. England, by comparison, took more than 20,000.

Likewise, the Italians. Never known for travelling in big numbers to the World Cup.

Ditto Spain.

Sweden and Switzerland will bring quite a few but still nothing on a par with England.

Of the teams you mention, only Holland are likely to bring anything like England's vast army of fans. And ridiculously, rather like England, their games will be played at the smaller stadiums, on the whole.

I'm not asking for preferential treatment for England. After all, it's not going to make any difference to the teams whether a game is played in Munich or Leipzig. But it will make a huge difference to the fans. If you can pre-allocate big stadiums for all of Germany and Brazil's group games, then the precedent has been set and it is therefore only sensible to look at what other games will generate the most demand and ensure that those games are also played at big stadiums. Especially since, like Brazil, England are a seeded team. It would be very simple.

Just to give you an idea of the numbers that England take to these tournaments and the lengths they will go to to procure tickets:

Last year, England played Portugal in the quarter final of Euro 2004. The tournament was staged in Portugal. The match was played at Benfica's 65,000 seat stadium in Lisbon. Yet England fans took over half the stadium, even though they were only allocated about 6,000 tickets. The Portuguese were virtually outnumbered in their own stadium.


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> I'd guess the main reason the stadiums were pre allocated was so that they could sell the first round of tickets before the draw was made thus making sure that even the less interesting games would have reasonable attendances.


Good point.



> it does seem rather dumb to have the seeded team from group B playing in nothing but small stadiums while the unseeded teams have matchs in the far larger stadiums in Berlin and Dortmund.


Precisely.


----------



## MoreOrLess

The other side of this is I spose that if you share out the seeded games between stadiums it means the bigger stadiums are left with some of the smaller games. Tunisia vs Saudi Arabia being played in the Allianz Arena hardly strikes me as the best use of resources.


----------



## bubomb

Sitback said:


> This is not true. England by far always takes more fans to the World Cup everytime. We had the most fans in Japan last world cup and every match we outnumbered the other sets of fans in the stadium 2-1. Even Brazil.
> 
> England are the only team I know that would fly 40,000 fans out to watch a meaningless friendly with someone like Liechenstein or whoever. When the likes of Italy, France, Spain play friendlys they rarely fill out their stadiums.


What a load of rubbish. England would take 40000 fans to watch Liechenstein????

HAHAHAHAHA, have you ever heard such rubbish? They would take a max of 4000 for a friendly against Liechenstein, not 40000.

England, Scotland, Holland, Germany do have huge travelling supports, but 40000 against Liechenstein??? Don't talk rubbish. No country in the world would have 40000 fans travelling for a friendly against anybody.

As for giving England the biggest stadiums due to crowd trouble?? Yes, that makes sense, lets reward the English hooligans by giving them the best stadiums. You couldn't make it up.

Want the best stadiums? then go out and wreck the place. That's your logic.

If they cause trouble, they shouldn't be given any stadiums at all.

The reason so many England fans were in Portugal is due to the fact that tens of thousands of Brits go there on holiday each year and expats (although England do have a large travelling support). If most the tickets get sold, then no country should get more stadium space than any other (apart from Germany). 

Most neutrals, like me, will be staying well clear of England games in Germany due to their anti-social, loud mouthed, yobbish fans. The same would apply to Turkey if they had qualified. I was going to follow Sweden (good looking girls) but it looks like I will be travelling to a different part of Germany.


----------



## MoreOrLess

bubomb said:


> Most neutrals, like me.


:lol:


----------



## JimB

I don' think that Sitback's Liechtenstein example was intended to be taken literally. However, it is true that over 20,000 English fans travelled to Geneva for a meaningless, mid season friendly against Argentina.

As to England fans causing trouble, they actually won praise at both World Cup 2002 and Euro 2004 for their excellent behaviour, their vast numbers and the superb atmosphere they generated in the stadiums where they played.

And it's a nonsense to say that England fans were only in Portugal because it is a popular holiday destination among the English. The vast majority of English people take their holiday in Spain or Greece. The fact that last summer, England fans organised their holiday plans to fit in with Euro 2004 doesn't mean that there were any less genuine fans in Portugal. You'll see the proof this summer, when 150,000 English fans are expected in Germany. Normally, hardly any English people take their summer holiday in Germany (and those that do are not the sort who follow the England football team).

Incidentally, Germany are another country that doesn't have a particularly big travelling support. They took at best 5,000 to Japan and South Korea.


----------



## MoreOrLess

From my expereince at euro 2004 the sides with the best traveling support besides England were Holland(lots of non Dutch fans such as myself wore orange for games I'd imagin though), Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Spain(perhaps not a good judge though considering how close it was). The most pathetic were definately the Italians, I went to two games featuring them and there couldnt have been more than a few hundred of them at either.

I don't believe Brazil were actually pre allocated anything BTW Jim as they didnt gain automatic entry as winners.


----------



## Sitback

bubomb said:


> What a load of rubbish. England would take 40000 fans to watch Liechenstein????


Pfft. We'd fill a stadium out against whoever, for whatever purpose. We filled out vast American stadiums for our tour there where we played the US and Colombia with just our 3rd choice players and was a total meaningless friendly. I do not know one other country that would do that for their football team.


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> I don't believe Brazil were actually pre allocated anything BTW Jim as they didnt gain automatic entry as winners.


Brazil were pre-allocated seeds of group F. And they were pre-allocated the same stadiums for their group games as Germany.

I must admit that I had forgotten that Brazil were not automatic qualifiers. I had assumed that they were pre-allocated group F because the holders always play the first game of the tournament, immediately after the opening ceremony. But you're right. Brazil's first game isn't until the evening of 13th June - more than four days after Germany kick off the tournament against Costa Rica.

All of which only further strengthens my argument. If FIFA have made special arrangements for Brazil, then the precedent has been set and they should ensure that none of the best supported teams play all their matches at the smallest stadiums.


----------



## JimB

great prairie said:


> why don't you start your own world cup? and play every game in wembely?


There's no need for facetiousness.

All I'm asking for is a bit of common sense from FIFA. After all, they've made special arrangements for Brazil. Why not also England?

Is it so wrong to hope that real football fans get to see football matches?


----------



## JimB

fman80939 said:


> As this is the World(!) Cup everyone(!) gets their fair share of tickets.
> No reason to shed tears.
> Go and phone Sepp Blatter.
> 
> PS: I wonder how many tickets for Wembley will be available to the general public having seen all those special arrangements and reservation schemes.
> Modern times, i guess.


But I don 't think that everyone will get their fair share of tickets. 8% per competing nation is ridiculously small and all that will happen is that real fans will end up having to buy from ticket touts.

Surely FIFA shouldn't be in the business of financing ticket touts?

As to Wembley, 73,000 tickets (out of 90,000) will be available for the general public.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Yes, that's right, England would take 40000 for a friendly against Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, back on planet earth.....
> 
> There is no doubt at all that Portugal, being a popular summer holiday destination with Brits/expats, helped boost Englands numbers in Portugal. They do have a very big travelling support though.
> 
> As for the guy 'mac', he's is a typical example of why nobody likes the English abroad. Stupid, ignorant, yob who thinks swearing makes him a big man. Known in Britain as a 'chav'. He will go to Germany, drink loads of lager until he cannot walk and make a complete fool of himself.
> 
> The arrogance of the English on these boards is amazing. No wonder everybody hates them. Have they ever heard of the word 'HUMILITY'?
> Why are the arrogant? they never win anything.
> 
> Mind you, it does make it even funnier when the fall flat on their faces.


All I'm asking for is common sense from FIFA. They've already set a precedent by making special arrangements for Brazil. Obviously it's now too late to change anything for 2006 but future World Cups should take into account all teams with big support - not just Brazil. I simply hate to see the despicable ticket touts making a financial killing at the expense of genuine football fans.

Nothing remotely arrogant in that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You, on the other hand, have merely succeeded in showing everyone on this board, yet again, what a bitter, chip-on-shoulder Scot you are. Honestly, is your life so sad that you can find nothing better to do than to troll every thread that involves a discussion of the English?


----------



## JimB

johnz88 said:


> Stop complaining about the stadiums and how you could fill any stadium, who cares I no u could but you didn't get the biggest stadiums and someone else did so deal with it!


Err, yes.....but we're asking that, in future, FIFA look at their policy and show a bit of common sense. After all, they've already made an exception for Brazil. So there's no reason why they can't do the same for other countries.

As others have pointed out, it is ridiculous that, as the seed, England will be the only team in the group not to play in one of the big stadiums.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> All I'm asking for is common sense from FIFA. They've already set a precedent by making special arrangements for Brazil. Obviously it's now too late to change anything for 2006 but future World Cups should take into account all teams with big support - not just Brazil. I simply hate to see the despicable ticket touts making a financial killing at the expense of genuine football fans.
> 
> Nothing remotely arrogant in that. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have merely succeeded in showing everyone on this board, yet again, what a bitter, chip-on-shoulder Scot you are. Honestly, is your life so sad that you can find nothing better to do than to troll every thread that involves a discussion of the English?


Sorry, everything I have said has been 100% accurate. I was replying to the idea that England should be rewarded with bigger stadiums due to their violent fans. To do this would be madness. I was also responding to mickey mouse statements such as England would take 40000 to a Liechtenstein 
friendly. 

For the record, I think bigger supports should get slightly more tickets. Not much though. I guess England fans simply do not realise how much their fans are detested around Europe. Show some humility and respect for other nations and then you will find people will be more accepting of your fans. England fans have a shocking reputation and with good reason.

Loads of neutrals will be going to the World Cup, most of them will stay well clear of England games. Why is that?

You have to learn that the football world does not revolve around England. It's bad enough being arrogant when you win things, but to be arrogant when you constantly win nothing is unbelievable.

Listen to fans from other countries on this board and you will learn how to interact in a normal, respectful manner.


----------



## EllasOle

Don't worry everyone, the English are just ignorant people because they think that only their fans are love the game. They think that only they outchanted the Portugese at the Euro. Before you make a statement like that, I would advise you to find a video of the Portugal vs Greece games and you'll see how to support your country at an away game. Any country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans can be outnumbered 5 to 1 by English and still outchant them PLUS they will be more humble people that aren't snobs and will be friendly to the other fans outside the stadiums.

It's not a coincidence that the four sets of fans that everyone else in Europe hates are the English, Spanish and Italians because ONLY their fans act like they are superior to everyone else and they don't recognize the fact that making a World Cup is a privlege to their countries and their fans. I am certain that the first timer Ukranians will be better fans than the English because they know that making a WC is special and they will treat their team like heroes even if they lose all three of their games.


----------



## bubomb

EllasOle said:


> Don't worry everyone, the English are just ignorant people because they think that only their fans are love the game. They think that only they outchanted the Portugese at the Euro. Before you make a statement like that, I would advise you to find a video of the Portugal vs Greece games and you'll see how to support your country at an away game. Any country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans can be outnumbered 5 to 1 by English and still outchant them PLUS they will be more humble people that aren't snobs and will be friendly to the other fans outside the stadiums.


Well said EllasOle. I'm always amazed how friendly most people are in Europe. England has a lot to learn.


----------



## hngcm

Nicely said.


----------



## Republica

EllasOle said:


> It's not a coincidence that the four sets of fans that everyone else in Europe hates are the English, Spanish and Italians.


Learn to count before you argue a ridiculous argument.

Get back to the point. There is no doubt that common sense is needed, but its probably not realistic to organise the stadiums so the biggest teams play there.

Theres also no doubt that our fans along with the dutch and irish are some of the best. Those such as the croats and turks are incredibly racist and get away with a lot.


----------



## EllasOle

I was going to add the French but I eventually left them out of my criticism. They bug me too but not to the extent of the other three. Thanks for proving my point though. I made a mistake on one post and the Englishman comes in and plays the role of Captain Vocabulary and then puts another person down on something other than what was said instead of making some sort of response on the issue. Good work Champ!!!

I agree about the Dutch and the Irish and just about every other country in Central Europe and Scandinavia, they are all nice and humble people with no grudges and no superiority complexes.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Sorry, everything I have said has been 100% accurate. I was replying to the idea that England should be rewarded with bigger stadiums due to their violent fans. To do this would be madness.


I never argued that they should. I said that it would be sensible to allocate the teams with the biggest supports to the biggest stadiums. FIFA have done it for Brazil. They can therefore do it for other teams. In England's group, quite the opposite has happened. And anyone with an ounce of sense would concede that that is madness.



> I was also responding to mickey mouse statements such as England would take 40000 to a Liechtenstein friendly.


I repeat: I don't think that Sitback's statement was meant to be taken literally. And I also repeat that England recently took over 20,000 to Geneva for a meaningless friendly in the middle of our league season. An incredible number by any standards.



> I guess England fans simply do not realise how much their fans are detested around Europe.


I don't think so. We know, more than anyone else, how our violent minority has cast us as the villains of world football. We have, if you remember, been punished in the past to a level that no other fans have been punished.



> Show some humility and respect for other nations and then you will find people will be more accepting of your fans. England fans have a shocking reputation and with good reason.


Just as Scotland fans also used to have a shocking reputation, particularly whenever they came to England. Again, I repeat: England have taken far more fans to the two most recent major tournaments than any other country and there has not been any trouble at all, with England fans winning praise for their excellent behaviour. Stop living in the past.


----------



## JimB

EllasOle said:


> Don't worry everyone, the English are just ignorant people because they think that only their fans are love the game.


Don't be so utterly ridiculous. No English person has claimed to love football more than anyone from any other country. All we have said is that more England fans travel to watch their team than any other country. Verifiable facts. So stop making false allegations, please.



> They think that only they outchanted the Portugese at the Euro. Before you make a statement like that, I would advise you to find a video of the Portugal vs Greece games and you'll see how to support your country at an away game.


Yet again, you fabricate an accusation. Try reading again and you will find that I only said that the English "virtually *outnumbered* the Portuguese in their own stadium". See? Nothing about singing. And I can easily concede that the Greeks are a passionate fans who really get behind their team.

Is it any wonder that the English have such a bad reputation when people like you are so predisposed to read what you like into what they say and fabricate allegations?!!!



> PLUS they will be more humble people that aren't snobs and will be friendly to the other fans outside the stadiums.


You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. Go on to any of the Olympic threads and tell me that the Greeks are all humble! It seems to me that you don't really know what snob means. And I say to you what I said to bubomb: don't live in the past. The vast majority of English fans - like fans of all nations - are very friendly and just want to have a good time. Try not to be so bigoted in your opinions.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Listen to fans from other countries on this board and you will learn how to interact in a normal, respectful manner.


I neglected to highlight this quote of yours earlier.

One thing I have no need to do is take lectures from you about behaviour on this message board.

I always interact normally, respectfully and amicably with posters from anywhere else in the world. I might disagree with them on occasion but that is my prerogative. And if they are gratuitously rude to me or about my country and if they wilfully misrepresent what I have written, then I will not be overly polite to them in return. That, too, is my prerogative.

You, on the other hand, are a troll - out for nothing more than to stir up hatred and antagonism against the English in any relevant thread that you can find. And that is very sad indeed. Get a life.


----------



## EllasOle

I did generalize too much in my previous posts as I have met many wonderful English, Italian and Spanish people in my life. Most of my comments are based on what the media in these countries depict and unfortunately people from other countries get most of their impressions on other countries mostly through media. The unfortunate is that I think that too many English people believe the hype that their media feeds them and hence the comments from others in this forum. Complaining about the venues that England were given has made everyone else think that the English are ungrateful people that have forgot that the WC is the greatest event in the world. 

The Greek people in the Olympic forums are defending what they believe was unfair media coverage from mainly the English, Australian and American media. My main beef with that issue was the fact that we really didn't even have to waste a quarter of the money that we did on security and I could have guaranteed you that there wouldn't have been a terrorist attack. Yet all this talk about how dangerous the Olympics were going to be. People have to realize that Greeks have been living on this planet on that part of the globe for thousands of years and we were able to live near the countries that are feared of terrorism without any fear of it ourselves. It is simply a matter of politics that had nothing to do with Greece, yet they were dragged into the political war made by other parties and were made to pay for it. On top of that, people criticize the attendance of the games when it is their fault that attendances were lower due to the fear that THEIR countries created.


----------



## bubomb

The guy 'JimB' is simply highlighting my point. Angry, aggressive, nasty replies when somebody disagrees with him, and he is one of the nicer ones!!!

He is very English.


----------



## fman80939

"Dambusters", "10 german bombers"... yea... we love the English.
Every confrontation with them is like a time travel.


----------



## MoreOrLess

EllasOle said:


> Any country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans can be outnumbered 5 to 1 by English and still outchant them PLUS they will be more humble people that aren't snobs and will be friendly to the other fans outside the stadiums.
> 
> It's not a coincidence that the four sets of fans that everyone else in Europe hates are the English, Spanish and Italians because ONLY their fans act like they are superior to everyone else and they don't recognize the fact that making a World Cup is a privlege to their countries and their fans. I am certain that the first timer Ukranians will be better fans than the English because they know that making a WC is special and they will treat their team like heroes even if they lose all three of their games.


That first statement is meaningless to the original question whether its true or not though. The point was not that England fans were "better" but that as you admit yourself there are more of them so it doesnt make sense to play England matchs in small stadiums while the likes of Saudi Arabia vs Tunisia are played in the Allianz Arena.

As for the behavior of England fans I'd agree it was terrible in the past but we have at least made large scale efforts to improve it while many other nations have not and as a result we still see violence after/during games aswell as racist chanting across europe. What troublemakers are left for England are not even the people who go to the matchs in my expereince(I didnt see any trouble outside the stadium even after that last min loss to France in euro 2004 for example) but people who come over to a country to watch the matchs on TV and get drunk. Normally if theres anything more than a few small incidents its as a result of the police or locals mistreating them due to their reputation(not that their blameless either). The reason their reputation survives if you ask me is that the media(espeically ours) tend to focus on it and other nations like to rase the legend of the english soccer holigan as a policical tool, often to draw attension away from their own fans actions. Didnt for example a policeman die at euro 2000 in confrontations between Dutch and German fans? Now I'd not blame that on anything more than an idiot minority of them but its barely remembered these days wereas if it had been England fans we'd most likely have faced serious punishment. I don't believe the dambusters of the great escape themes as sung by English fans are ment to be anti German either but rather a refference to English/British heroism in those events.

To offer an alternative to that view of the English my expereince at euro 2004 was that many fans bought tickets for non England games(seemed like thousands at every game I went to) purely for the enjoyment of high level football in general just as I did. I plan on doing the same in 2006 although so far I'v only got tickets for Brazil/Japan.


----------



## Jonny Gee

JimB and MoreOrLess

All you ever do is argue with anyone who dares to oppose your arrogant views. You seem to enjoy the trouble you cause. 
If you really wanted to talk about football go and do it in the sports section of the UK forum.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jonny Gee said:


> JimB and MoreOrLess
> 
> All you ever do is argue with anyone who dares to oppose your arrogant views, you seem to enjoy the trouble you cause.
> If you really wanted to talk about football go and do it in the sports section of the UK forum.


How are my views arrogant? I don't go around making nationalistic statements I merely sometimes respond to them by stating what I consider to be facts. To say that more England fans travel to international games than pretty much any other country(and my argument wasnt even based on that anyway but rather that all seeds would be on average better supported) is neither arrogant nor nationlistic, its the truth. The original question is IMHO on topic as it related to stadia its just that some other people have choosen to make it purely a football rivalry slanging match.


----------



## FCB_Flo

Why should only cities like Berlin, Munich or Dortmund host major countries ?
Nuremberg, Kaiserlautern, Cologne, Frankfurt etc. are also part of the World Cup !

Off course it's shit, but that's life. 

I live in Munich and didn't get any ticket at all ! They say it's a WORLD cup...
But i don't complain. I'll take the money into the next beer garden and watch it while drinking some real beer.

P.S.: The english fans will outnumber the other teams anyway !


----------



## Jonny Gee

MoreOrLess said:


> How are my views arrogant? I don't go around making nationalistic statements I merely sometimes respond to them by stating what I consider to be facts. To say that more England fans travel to international games than pretty much any other country(and my argument wasnt even based on that anyway but rather that all seeds would be on average better supported) is neither arrogant nor nationlistic, its the truth. The original question is IMHO on topic as it related to stadia its just that some other people have choosen to make it purely a football rivalry slanging match.


If you're so confident that your views are the truth why do you spend so much time arguing with people who think otherwise. 
You're proof that some England fans have got a nasty streak who enjoy looking for trouble.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jonny Gee said:


> If you're so confident that your views are the truth why do you spend so much time arguing with people who think otherwise.
> You're proof that some England fans have got a nasty streak who enjoy looking for trouble.


So thats why I tried to ignore the slanging match direction this thread had taken for aslong as possible? Why not critisize those who actually took this thread in that direction? Yes I'll back up my views but I'm hardly alone in doing that on this forum, I might sometimes defend English/British stadia more than I would others due to my interest and a certain level of pride in them if I disagree with criticism but I don't go around criticisizing other projects based only on nationalism or dislike for a sports club.

As for me having a nasty streak and looking for trouble at games, you don't even know me. I'm about as mild mannered a football supporter as you could find in real life and have never been involved in any kind of confrontation with anyone at or around any match in 15 years.


----------



## Loranga

Sweden is going to play against T&T @ Westfalenstadion , and against Paraguay @ Olympiastadion!!!


----------



## MoreOrLess

Loranga said:


> Sweden is going to play against T&T @ Westfalenstadion , and against Paraguay @ Olympiastadion!!!


I'd guess the former might actually be the better supported of the two since they should get a fair bit of support from people of caribbean desent living in Britan.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> The guy 'JimB' is simply highlighting my point. Angry, aggressive, nasty replies when somebody disagrees with him, and he is one of the nicer ones!!!
> 
> He is very English.


Yawn. I have been nothing but respectful and amicable with anyone who hasn't already been gratuitously rude to me or about my country.

Everyone on this board, however, can see that you are just a troll. You ruined the previous Wembley thread. You ruined the Twickenham thread. And you're now trying to make this thread into a general, free-for-all attack on the English rather than a rational discussion about FIFA's stadium allocation policy.

Utterly pathetic.


----------



## JimB

EllasOle said:


> I did generalize too much in my previous posts


You did more than just generalize. You wilfully misrepresented what I had written and fabricated allegations.



> Complaining about the venues that England were given has made everyone else think that the English are ungrateful people that have forgot that the WC is the greatest event in the world.


But why shouldn't we complain? If you go to a restaurant and receive terrible service or terrible food, do you not complain? If you don't highlight the inadequacies of that restaurant's product, how is that restaurant ever to improve? That analogy applies to every business or institution on the face of the planet.

The same therefore applies to FIFA. No one with an ounce of sense and objectivity would disagree that it is just plain wrong that the seeds of group B will be the only team not to play any of its games in one of the big stadiums, while the other teams will play at least one or even two in the big stadiums. 



> The Greek people in the Olympic forums are defending what they believe was unfair media coverage from mainly the English, Australian and American media. My main beef with that issue was the fact that we really didn't even have to waste a quarter of the money that we did on security and I could have guaranteed you that there wouldn't have been a terrorist attack. Yet all this talk about how dangerous the Olympics were going to be. People have to realize that Greeks have been living on this planet on that part of the globe for thousands of years and we were able to live near the countries that are feared of terrorism without any fear of it ourselves. It is simply a matter of politics that had nothing to do with Greece, yet they were dragged into the political war made by other parties and were made to pay for it. On top of that, people criticize the attendance of the games when it is their fault that attendances were lower due to the fear that THEIR countries created.


I read those Olympic threads for long enough to see that Greek people are equally as capable of arrogance as the English or any other nation on earth. It is not a uniquely English characteristic.


----------



## JimB

Jonny Gee said:


> JimB and MoreOrLess
> 
> All you ever do is argue with anyone who dares to oppose your arrogant views. You seem to enjoy the trouble you cause.
> If you really wanted to talk about football go and do it in the sports section of the UK forum.


This is a message board. It is a forum for discussion - not a forum for everyone to agree all the time.

Besides, this is a thread that I started on the subject of stadiums. It therefore belongs here. Unfortunately, others have tried to hijack the thread and turn it into something else altogether. Not my fault. And I reject the accusation that I am guilty of arrogance. I have only defended myself and my country against gratuitous and unprovoked attacks.


----------



## JimB

Jonny Gee said:


> If you're so confident that your views are the truth why do you spend so much time arguing with people who think otherwise.
> You're proof that some England fans have got a nasty streak who enjoy looking for trouble.


Nonsense. We started with a perfectly reasonable discussion about stadiums and others turned the thread into an attack on the English. It was them who looked for trouble and I'm not the sort of person who will lie down and meekly accept all the shit thrown at me.


----------



## bubomb

"I don't believe the dambusters of the great escape themes as sung by English fans are ment to be anti German either but rather a refference to English/British heroism in those events."


Aye right, who are you trying to kid? We all know it is a typical example of the English mentality. Did they sing those songs against Wales? or any other country? It is clearly a song intended to humiliate Germany. It's embarrassing to watch.

Face it, English football fans, in general, are a horrible group of people. They may not be as violent these days, but they are still as anti-social, loutish and arrogant as ever. 

No doubt JimB will hit me with abuse because I told the truth and he doesn't like it.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> We all know it is a typical example of the English mentality. Did they sing those songs against Wales? or any other country? It is clearly a song intended to humiliate Germany. It's embarrassing to watch.


And Scots never sing Flower Of Scotland, celebrating a military victory against the English nearly 700 years ago? Of course you do. You sing it at every football match, and ten times over whenever you play England. You've now even made it your national anthem. You really are such a hypocrite!



> Face it, English football fans, in general, are a horrible group of people. They may not be as violent these days, but they are still as anti-social, loutish and arrogant as ever.


Wrong. English fans, in general, are as decent as fans from any other country. It is just the violent and loutish minority that give the rest of us a bad name. Would you consider it reasonable if I judged all Scottish people on the basis of the worst of your race? Thankfully, I count many Scots among my friends and can therefore readily distinguish you as just a bad egg.



> No doubt JimB will hit me with abuse because I told the truth and he doesn't like it.


You're the one who has been persistently abusive - on this thread and on any other that might remotely offer you the opportunity to display your bigotry against the English. I, on the other hand, have merely been defending my corner against gratuitous and unprovoked attacks, which is entirely acceptable behaviour - unlike yours.


----------



## bubomb

We sing 'Flower Of Scotland' at EVERY game. That's the difference. You sing dambusters to annoy Germans.

You can't even admit that England fans singing '2 world wars and 1 world cup'/'dambusters' etc is embarrassing. Do you think these are acceptable songs 60/87 years after the wars ended, when a World Cup is being played in Germany? Nobody else will be singing these types of songs, everybody else has moved on.

The fact that you think this is acceptable behaviour shows you're just like the rest of the loud mouthed, yobbish England fans. You simply don't understand why nobody likes England.

Listen and learn from other fans, it's for your own good. Show some humility, stop being aggressive and people will start to accept you into the world of football. If you go to the World Cup - watch the Swedish fans and you will learn how to act in a commendable, decent manner.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> We sing 'Flower Of Scotland' at EVERY game. That's the difference. You sing dambusters to annoy Germans.


I don't sing Dambusters at all, as it happens. And Scottish fans sing Flower of Scotland ten times more often when they play England than when they play any other country. I don't suppose that that is entirely a coincidence. As I said, you're a hypocrite.



> You can't even admit that England fans singing '2 world wars and 1 world cup'/'dambusters' etc is embarrassing. Do you think these are acceptable songs 60/87 years after the wars ended, when a World Cup is being played in Germany? Nobody else will be singing these types of songs, everybody else has moved on.


Excuse me, but when did you see me justifying England fans singing Dambusters? I didn't. It happens. But I don't participate. Every country's fans sings rude songs about certain other countries. It would be a nonsense to claim otherwise. For English fans, it's Germany. For Scottish and Argentinian fans, it's England. You claim to be a Glasgow Rangers fan. Are you trying to tell me that Celtic and Rangers fans never sing (incredibly offensive) songs about the other? You know very well that they do. Well, there you have it. Football fans are like that. They have their pantomime villains and they sing songs about them. Stop being such a Mary Poppins and trying to make out that it is only the English who do it.



> The fact that you think this is acceptable behaviour shows you're just like the rest of the loud mouthed, yobbish England fans. You simply don't understand why nobody likes England.


Yawn. I've already told you that I don't participate. And you are a bigot, simply out to agitate hatred. You're a very sad and bitter individual.



> Listen and learn from other fans, it's for your own good. Show some humility, stop being aggressive and people will start to accept you into the world of football. If you go to the World Cup - watch the Swedish fans and you will learn how to act in a commendable, decent manner.


I don't need lessons in decent behaviour, thanks. You, on the other hand, do.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I personally don't sing either dambusters/great escape either but the fact their sung when England play nations other than Germany IMHO shows its based more on national pride rather than dislike for the Germans much like Flower of Scotland. You'll get the small minority who take things further but thats hardly unique to the English. One thing you won't get anymore is masses of racist chanting which sadly is still alive and well elsewhere.


----------



## bubomb

I'm a bigot? Explain that one? Do you know what bigot means?


"And Scottish fans sing Flower of Scotland ten times more often when they play England than when they play any other country"


Hahahahaha, rubbish, we have only played England once at Hampden in the last 15 years. We always sing it loud and proud. We sing it as loud as we can at every game, so unless we all sneaked in megaphones, it would be impossible to sing it any louder.

Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK population, but in both wars, Scottish soldiers made up 20% of the British army. So per head of population, we suffered more than England during the wars. So how come we don't sing dambusters etc?

We don't because we have moved on. There is nothing wrong with rivalry, but songs mocking the deaths of millions of Germans is unacceptable, especially when the World Cup is in Germany. The world has moved on, but your fans have been left behind and are living in the past.

Listen and learn. Stop arguing and simply listen to those that are trying to help you. Can't you see that all the non English fans on the board are trying to show you what makes a good fan? Just listen to them, that's all it takes.


----------



## Iain1974

bubomb said:


> The world has moved on, but your fans have been left behind and are living in the past.


Erm.......so the 'Remember Bannockburn 1314' flags you see at scottish games are an example of letting go of the past?

And how do you explain the chanting of 'Stand up if you hate England' or is that just your way of being friendly?


----------



## MoreOrLess

bubomb said:


> Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK population, but in both wars, Scottish soldiers made up 20% of the British army. So per head of population, we suffered more than England during the wars. So how come we don't sing dambusters etc?


I'd guess mainly because they don't provide the same seperate identy from the rest of the union that the likes of Flower of Scotland does. The English as the majority are generally less interested in differentiating themselves from Britan as a whole.


----------



## bubomb

Iain1974 said:


> Erm.......so the 'Remember Bannockburn 1314' flags you see at scottish games are an example of letting go of the past?
> 
> And how do you explain the chanting of 'Stand up if you hate England' or is that just your way of being friendly?



I have never seen a 'Remember Bannockburn 1314' flag at a Scotland game. I'm sure there are a few, but hardly any. It's a harmless flag anyway. Bannockburn was so long ago that it cannot offend anybody. 

'Stand up if you hate England' is rivalry. You don't see the Scotland fans mocking the London Blitz. That would be the equivalent of England fans singing the 'Dambusters' to the German fans. We know where to draw the line.

Scotland fans aren't perfect anyway. But they are a hundred times better than England fans.

There is a simple test. Ask any citizen in any European country who they would rather have visit their city. Every single one of them will tell you that they would rather have Scotland fans than England fans. Everybody in Europe will tell you that Scotland fans are infinitely more friendly and sociable.

Just ask the people who live in Nuremberg, Cologne and Frankfurt. Out of all the 32 teams, can you guess which is the last one they wanted in their cities? I will give you a clue, it begins with E.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I'm a bigot? Explain that one? Do you know what bigot means?


Do *you* know what bigot means? You are bigoted regarding anything to do with the English. You are incapable of objectivity. Instead you allow your mind to be clouded by chip-on-shoulder bitterness. You are clearly unreasonably prejudiced about anything the English do or say, which renders any comments you make about them worthless to anyone but yourself.



> Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK population, but in both wars, Scottish soldiers made up 20% of the British army. So per head of population, we suffered more than England during the wars.


Yawn. We're not going to have a discussion about history. Go talk to someone who's interested. And you have the nerve to call the English arrogant! Jeez! 



> There is nothing wrong with rivalry, but songs mocking the deaths of millions of Germans is unacceptable


What songs would those be? It's hysterical. You're making it up as you go along! For your information, the Dambusters theme was about an event which killed millions of............cubic metres of resevoir space. Duh!



> The world has moved on, but your fans have been left behind and are living in the past.


But not the Scots, eh? Bannockburn was 691 years ago and yet, in your words, you still sing Flower Of Scotland "as loud as you can at every game". I suppose it's one rule for you Scots and another for the English? Besides, name me a country whose people don't sing songs about famous military victories in the past. I bet you can't.



> Listen and learn. Stop arguing and simply listen to those that are trying to help you. Can't you see that all the non English fans on the board are trying to show you what makes a good fan? Just listen to them, that's all it takes.


I repeat. I don't need lessons in good behaviour. You do.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> You don't see the Scotland fans mocking the London Blitz. That would be the equivalent of England fans singing the 'Dambusters' to the German fans. We know where to draw the line.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Of all the ridiculous things you have written, this has to be the funniest of the lot. How monumentally thick do you have to be to compare the bombing of strategically important dams in the industrial heartland upon which wartime Germany depended with the senseless and strategically stupid blitz on English cities, in which over 40,000 people died?

In reality, there were deaths as a result of the bombings. That happens in war. The majority of the victims were actually Ukrainian POW's who were being held just below one of the dams. But the vast majority of people who sing about the Dambusters only know the film. And in the film, there are very few deaths on either side. So those who sing the song are only singing a song about the triumph of British ingenuity (Barnes Wallaces' bouncing bombs) and courage (the pilots and crew of the Lancaster bombers) over the enemy. They are not gloating over anyone's death.


----------



## EllasOle

> You did more than just generalize. You wilfully misrepresented what I had written and fabricated allegations.


Hey, take it easy it's YOU that started complaining about something as stupid as the size of the stadiums that England is going to compete in. What is sad is that when England loses, there is always an excuse. I'm sick and tired of it. Just act like regular people and say that your teams weren't good enough or lucky enough to win. Making excuses is the worst thing that a person could do.



> But why shouldn't we complain? If you go to a restaurant and receive terrible service or terrible food, do you not complain? If you don't highlight the inadequacies of that restaurant's product, how is that restaurant ever to improve? That analogy applies to every business or institution on the face of the planet.


No I don't I go there and if I don't like the food or service I don't complain and make a stupid scene, I say thank you at the end and never go back. There are another thousand restaurants in my city that I could go to, so why should I complain if luck has it and I don't like a few of them. That's called being courtious, I guess no one taught you that.



> I read those Olympic threads for long enough to see that Greek people are equally as capable of arrogance as the English or any other nation on earth. It is not a uniquely English characteristic.


Defending something that you believe in is not being arrogant. The Greeks in those forums thought that the media made them the villains and I believe that many misinformed people came and bashed the Athens Olympics because of what the media said. They made a swimming pool without a roof the biggest deal of the Olympics when I know that during the Summer months in Athens, It won't matter. The media made it sound like their athletes couldn't swim because they would sweat too much in the water because it was 35 degrees outside. Give me a break.


----------



## VoytekZ

When I think of Scotland I think:
Being Mean. 
Scottish Ancestry. 
Kilts and Tartan. 
Bagpipes. 
Language. 
Whisky. 
Pubs. 
Haggis. 
Loch Ness Monster. 
The Weather. 
Somehow Football does not come to mind, oh well. Carry on.


----------



## FCB_Flo

JimB said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Of all the ridiculous things you have written, this has to be the funniest of the lot. How monumentally thick do you have to be to compare the bombing of strategically important dams in the industrial heartland upon which wartime Germany depended with the senseless and strategically stupid blitz on English cities, in which over 40,000 people died?


Sorry JimB but you're posting absolutely BULLSHIT !!!

I think most germans know more about german-warcrimes than you do know about allied-warcrimes !

Off course bombing english cities is absolutely inexcusable, but so is the bombing of german cities.


----------



## JimB

EllasOle said:


> Hey, take it easy it's YOU that started complaining about something as stupid as the size of the stadiums that England is going to compete in.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't complain merely for the sake of it. I started what I hoped would be a serious discussion about FIFA and their flawed policy with regards to stadium allocation. Please don't tell me that you think that it is a good and clever thing that the seeds in group B will play ALL their group games at small stadiums while the other (supposedly smaller) teams in the group will play at least one or two games in big stadiums. Well? Surely FIFA have got this badly wrong? No one with any sense can possibly disagree. Therefore it was perfectly legitimate to start a discsussion on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is sad is that when England loses, there is always an excuse. I'm sick and tired of it. Just act like regular people and say that your teams weren't good enough or lucky enough to win. Making excuses is the worst thing that a person could do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the relevance of saying something like that? We're not talking about results. The World Cup is still six months away. No one is making excuses. I'm simply talking about doing the fairest thing for genuine football fans. So please stay on topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if I don't like the food or service I don't complain and make a stupid scene, I say thank you at the end and never go back. There are another thousand restaurants in my city that I could go to, so why should I complain if luck has it and I don't like a few of them. That's called being courtious, I guess no one taught you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing discourteous about complaining, provided you do it in the correct manner. In fact, it's far more courteous and mature to complain than it is to sulk silently and then never give people a second chance to prove themselves. For all you know, the manager or owner of that restaurant / hotel / shop / institution could be completely unaware of things that are going wrong and they will be highly appreciative that you have taken the time to bring it to their attention in a civilized manner rather than them never finding out but suddenly finding themselves out of business / in trouble. That's why some businesses in England will have a little sign on a counter or window saying, "If you're happy with our service / product, please tell others. If you're unhappy with our service / product, please tell us." People want to know when they're doing things wrong - simply because they want to put them right. But I guess that you never thought about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending something that you believe in is not being arrogant. The Greeks in those forums thought that the media made them the villains and I believe that many misinformed people came and bashed the Athens Olympics because of what the media said. They made a swimming pool without a roof the biggest deal of the Olympics when I know that during the Summer months in Athens, It won't matter. The media made it sound like their athletes couldn't swim because they would sweat too much in the water because it was 35 degrees outside. Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not getting into the specifics of those Olympic threads because they were endlessly repetitive and tiresome. I will only repeat that the attitude of some of the Greeks posting on those threads was arrogant in the extreme - particularly with regard to their cultural heritage and the comparative lack of cultural heritage of other nations. I'm not trying to suggest that all Greeks are arrogant or that Greeks are any more arrogant than other nationalities. They're not. They're no better and no worse than anyone else. I only mentioned it as a counterpoint to your wildly generalized and inaccurate accusations about the arrogance of the English.
Click to expand...


----------



## JimB

FCB_Flo said:


> Sorry JimB but you're posting absolutely BULLSHIT !!!
> 
> I think most germans know more about german-warcrimes than you do know about allied-warcrimes !
> 
> Off course bombing english cities is absolutely inexcusable, but so is the bombing of german cities.


Oh Lord! Here we go again! Wilful misrepresentation of what I wrote!

1. I wasn't saying that the blitz was a war crime. I said that it was "senseless and strategically stupid". Had the luftwaffe not been diverted, by Hitler's warped thinking, into bombing London and other cities, and had it instead continued to target all the RAF bases along the south coast of England, then the RAF would have been on its knees within a matter of weeks and the Luftwaffe would have had control of the skies and the German navy could have safely launched an armada on England without threat from the skies.

2. I am perfectly aware, thank you very much, of the bombing of German cities by the allies - and particularly the bombings of Dresden and Cologne. And I believe them to be equally as senseless and strategically stupid (particularly since there was virtually nothing of strategic value in Dresden) as the bombings of English cities by the luftwaffe.

So please stop accusing me of things that I have not written!

Thank you!

Arrrrggghhh!


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Of all the ridiculous things you have written, this has to be the funniest of the lot. How monumentally thick do you have to be to compare the bombing of strategically important dams in the industrial heartland upon which wartime Germany depended with the senseless and strategically stupid blitz on English cities, in which over 40,000 people died?
> 
> In reality, there were deaths as a result of the bombings. That happens in war. The majority of the victims were actually Ukrainian POW's who were being held just below one of the dams. But the vast majority of people who sing about the Dambusters only know the film. And in the film, there are very few deaths on either side. So those who sing the song are only singing a song about the triumph of British ingenuity (Barnes Wallaces' bouncing bombs) and courage (the pilots and crew of the Lancaster bombers) over the enemy. They are not gloating over anyone's death.


You missed the point - Singing songs about the London Blitz would be mocking the deaths of Englishmen. Just like singing 'dambusters/2 world wars and 1 world cup/etc' is sung to mock the fact that Germany lost the war and millions of Germans died in the process.

Are you trying to say that England fans sing Dambusters as a tribute to Operation Chastise and Barnes Wallis?

No. Of course they don't. They sing it to wind up Germans because Germany lost World War 2. 

You are not fooling anybody here. Most English fans wouldn't have a clue who Barnes Wallis was.

I have seen in action England fans singing these songs. They are the types of morons you see getting totally drunk every weekend in British city centres. Loud mouthed lager louts that civilised people cannot stand. They are not singing it as a tribute, they are singing it because they are mindless morons who are simply trying to mock Germany.


----------



## JimB

Does anyone know if there a facility to "lock" a thread? Since I started it and since some people are determined to ignore the initial purpose of the thread and would rather that it became just an excuse to abuse English people, I think that it's time that it was closed.

Nothing is going to come from further discussion, sadly, other than further mud slinging and bigotry. It's a shame that we can't just have a civilized discussion without it degenerating into chauvinism.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I have seen in action England fans singing these songs. They are the types of morons you see getting totally drunk every weekend in British city centres. Loud mouthed lager louts that civilised people cannot stand. They are not singing it as a tribute, they are singing it because they are mindless morons who are simply trying to mock Germany.


And you've also doubtless seen Celtic and Rangers fans in action totally drunk every weekend in cities all over Scotland - singing songs that mindlessly mock the other side about the battle of the Boyne and fenian blood or IRA atrocities etc. etc.

But that's okay, because they're Scottish.

Yet again, your hypocrisy is truly astounding.


----------



## bubomb

I think I should add that the theme of 'Flower Of Scotland' is not about a single victory. It is about how enemies can live together and still have national pride and strength. The song highlights that instead of fighting the English, the best way forward was for Scots to work alongside the English whilst still keeping our own sense of identity.

We sing it as our National anthem. There is nothing anti-English about it at all. Quite the opposite. The line 'Those days have gone now' means that people must move on and leave past differences where they belong - in the past.

Something the English football fans should learn.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> And you've also doubtless seen Celtic and Rangers fans in action totally drunk every weekend in cities all over Scotland - singing songs that mindlessly mock the other side about the battle of the Boyne and fenian blood or IRA atrocities etc. etc.
> 
> But that's okay, because they're Scottish.
> 
> Yet again, your hypocrisy is truly astounding.


A lot of Rangers/Celtic fans are morons, more so than any other club in Scotland. I can admit this. You cannot admit that England (alongside Turkey) have the most moronic fans in Europe. That's the difference.

I am humble enough to admit it, you are too arrogant to admit it.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I think I should add that the theme of 'Flower Of Scotland' is not about a single victory. It is about how enemies can live together and still have national pride and strength. The song highlights that instead of fighting the English, the best way forward was for Scots to work alongside the English whilst still keeping our own sense of identity.
> 
> We sing it as our National anthem. There is nothing anti-English about it at all. Quite the opposite. The line 'Those days have gone now' means that people must move on and leave past differences where they belong - in the past.
> 
> Something the English football fans should learn.


You're not fooling anyone. The venom with which the Scots sing that song makes their feelings about the English quite clear. They only sing the rest of the words because they have to - not because they believe in the sentiment.

I could even suggest that, when singing Flower of Scotland, the Scots are deliberately mocking the English for all the deaths that they suffered in the battle of Bannockburn. But then, I wouldn't want to be quite as ignorantly judgemental as you.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> A lot of Rangers/Celtic fans are morons, more so than any other club in Scotland. I can admit this. You cannot admit that England (alongside Turkey) have the most moronic fans in Europe. That's the difference.
> 
> I am humble enough to admit it, you are too arrogant to admit it.


More wilful misrepresentation.

I have admitted on a number of occasions already on this thread that England do have a minority of violent and unpleasant fans who do a great disservice to the rest of us.

You, however, have arrogantly been absolutely determined to insist that the majority of English fans are violent and unpleasant and that is why I continue to argue against you. There's nothing arrogant about my behaviour at all.


----------



## VoytekZ

That's this john mackie a scottish artist once said about scotland? Its a place "where the men are men and the sheep are nervous". :sly:


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> You're not fooling anyone. The venom with which the Scots sing that song makes their feelings about the English quite clear. They only sing the rest of the words because they have to - not because they believe in the sentiment


Sorry, but that's total bollocks. Utter nonsense.

How many Scotland games have you been to? 

I go to all the home games and some away games. I know how we sing the song. How do you know?

Incidentally, the only time I have witnessed large crowd trouble was when england fans ran amok in Glasgow city centre. What a coincidence!! I have been to dozens of home games, lots of away games, and the only time I have seen mass disorder was when England visited.

The majority of England fans are ill-mannered. They are loud mouthed, arrogant and yobbish. A minority may commit violence, but the majority of them are still rude, crass idiots.

I think I should also point out that my posts refer to England football fans, not the English in general. I have been to quite a few England rugby internationals and you get a much better, more cultured type of fan at England rugby games.


----------



## bubomb

VoytekZ said:


> That's this john mackie a scottish artist once said about scotland? Its a place "where the men are men and the sheep are nervous". :sly:


That's Aberdeenshire. A lonely place where sheep are your friends.


----------



## FCB_Flo

JimB said:


> 1. I wasn't saying that the blitz was a war crime. I said that it was "senseless and strategically stupid".


I said it ! It wasn't just "senseless and strategically stupid". It was a war crime ! (on both sides)



JimB said:


> How monumentally thick do you have to be to compare the *bombing of strategically important dams in the industrial heartland* upon which wartime Germany depended with the senseless and strategically stupid blitz on English cities, in which over 40,000 people died?


Dambuster were also used to demoralize german civilization ! Same to the bombing of London, Coventry etc.


Off course it's not the majority, but there are quite a lot who sing such shit. imo more than what i call an 'minority' !
I've been to quite a few matches against english teams and i nearly allways met some stupid troublemakers. I wasn't seeking for them ;-) 

But back to topic: England's gonna play in small stadiums and some fans may please us with their 'songs'. Same as it ever was


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Sorry, but that's total bollocks. Utter nonsense.
> 
> How many Scotland games have you been to?
> 
> I go to all the home games and some away games. I know how we sing the song. How do you know?


Oh, I see. You are allowed to "know", beyond a shadow of doubt, what every English football fan is thinking when he hums Dambusters but I am not allowed to know how Scots are thinking when they sing Flower Of Scotland.

Riiiiiiggghhhht!

Yet again, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.



> Incidentally, the only time I have witnessed large crowd trouble was when england fans ran amok in Glasgow city centre. What a coincidence!! I have been to dozens of home games, lots of away games, and the only time I have seen mass disorder was when England visited.


Well, you obviously never attended an England Scotland match at Wembley, then. Always loads of trouble and the Scots are every bit as responsible as the English.



> The majority of England fans are ill-mannered. They are loud mouthed, arrogant and yobbish. A minority may commit violence, but the majority of them are still rude, crass idiots.


I repeat. You are a bigot. You are so unreasonably prejudiced towards the English that no one can take your opinion seriously.

I don't suppose that you're interested in the truth, because it doesn't perpetuate your jaundiced view of the English, but here it is anyway. There were 20,000 English fans in Japan and not one incident of trouble. Quite the opposite, in fact. English fans were universally praised for their excellent behaviour and their friendly demeanour. The reason? Because, with the new laws (preventing travel for the minority of trouble makers) effective for the first time, the MAJORITY of decent England football fans were allowed to get on with enjoying the World Cup just like everyone else. Likewise in Portugal, there were 70,000 England fans following the team and not one incident of trouble. Again, England fans were praised for their friendly behaviour. Not only did they create a superb atmosphere at England games but they also turned up in huge numbers to watch games not involving England. That really is the definition of entering into the joyful spirit of major football tournaments.

You don't know anything about the majority of England football fans so please stop talking out of your arse.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Oh, I see. You are allowed to "know", beyond a shadow of doubt, what every English football fan is thinking when he hums Dambusters but I am not allowed to know how Scots are thinking when they sing Flower Of Scotland.
> 
> Riiiiiiggghhhht!
> 
> Yet again, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you obviously never attended an England Scotland match at Wembley, then. Always loads of trouble and the Scots are every bit as responsible as the English.
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat. You are a bigot. You are so unreasonably prejudiced towards the English that no one can take your opinion seriously.
> 
> I don't suppose that you're interested in the truth, because it doesn't perpetuate your jaundiced view of the English, but here it is anyway. There were 20,000 English fans in Japan and not one incident of trouble. Quite the opposite, in fact. English fans were universally praised for their excellent behaviour and their friendly demeanour. The reason? Because, with the new laws (preventing travel for the minority of trouble makers) effective for the first time, the MAJORITY of decent England football fans were allowed to get on with enjoying the World Cup just like everyone else. Likewise in Portugal, there were 70,000 England fans following the team and not one incident of trouble. Again, England fans were praised for their friendly behaviour. Not only did they create a superb atmosphere at England games but they also turned up in huge numbers to watch games not involving England. That really is the definition of entering into the joyful spirit of major football tournaments.
> 
> You don't know anything about the majority of England football fans so please stop talking out of your arse.


Scotland fans cleaned up their act 20 years ago, England haven't. We all know the water cannons will be out in the summer.

As I said, a minority may cause violence, but the majority are loud mouthed and ill-mannered. Just ask the residents of any city in Europe that England have visited.

You may quote Portugal, but one or two tournaments without total mayhem does not make you good fans. I you can go 15-20 years without causing widespread disorder, then you can come back and say things have changed.

You actually class not causing trouble in Portugal as some kind of achievement. Everybody else just classes not causing trouble as normal behaviour.

Well done. You didn't ruin a tournament. You must be so proud. Do you want a chocolate medal?


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Scotland fans cleaned up their act 20 years ago, England haven't. We all know the water cannons will be out in the summer.
> 
> As I said, a minority may cause violence, but the majority are loud mouthed and ill-mannered. Just ask the residents of any city in Europe that England have visited.
> 
> Ask them!


You are a bigot. You will therefore believe what you want to believe in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I don't doubt that England fans still have a bad reputation all over Europe. But that is the unfortunate consequence for the majority of decent English football fans - no one pays them any heed because everyone is too busy concerning themselves with the loutish minority.

Therefore, all England fans are unfortunately tarred with the same brush.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> You may quote Portugal, but one or two tournaments without total mayhem does not make you good fans. I you can go 15-20 years without causing widespread disorder, then you can come back and say things have changed.


Try learning to read properly. I never said that our minority of bad fans were completely gone and that there would never be trouble involving England fans again. I said (and it really is so boring that I have to repeat this just for your sake) that, because of new laws preventing England's bad minority from travelling to the last two major tournaments, the majority of decent England fans were finally allowed to enjoy themselves at major tournaments. 2,000 louts were banned from travelling to Portugal and 70,000 England fans were therefore able to enjoy themselves and participate fully and amicably with every other football fan who was there.

I don't know whether you've ever done maths in your life but - outside of your own strange, bitter, bigoted little world - 70,000 over 2,000 constitutes a very significant majority.



> You actually class not causing trouble in Portugal as some kind of achievement. Everybody else just classes not causing trouble as normal behaviour.
> 
> Well done. You didn't ruin a tournament. You must be so proud. Do you want a chocolate medal?


Try not to be such a fool all your life. I've only had to mention England fans' good behaviour over the past two tournaments because of your persistent abusive behaviour and your bigotry, spite, bitterness and ignorance.


----------



## Iain1974

So, who want's the Scots to join the Premiership? lol

It always makes me laugh how the Scots can chant 'Stand Up if you HATE England' all the way through an international game (I've been there and heard them) and yet their biggest clubs beg to join our league shortly afterwards. It really takes the biscuit to hear them accuse us of anti-scottish racism.

Oh well, thanks bubomb. You're reminding me why I left Scotland.


----------



## bubomb

Iain1974 said:


> So, who want's the Scots to join the Premiership? lol
> 
> It always makes me laugh how the Scots can chant 'Stand Up if you HATE England' all the way through an international game (I've been there and heard them) and yet their biggest clubs beg to join our league shortly afterwards. It really takes the biscuit to hear them accuse us of anti-scottish racism.
> 
> Oh well, thanks bubomb. You're reminding me why I left Scotland.


Sorry, but the vast majority of Rangers fans don't want Rangers in England. We are proud to be Scottish. It's only celtic who want to be in England, because they class themselves as Irish and not Scottish, so they don't care if they leave the Scottish league.

and if you knew anything about Scottish football, you would know that over 80% of those who follow Scotland are not old firm fans. Most travel from Aberdeen, Dundee, Ayrshire etc to watch Scotland.


----------



## XCRunner

Sitback said:


> Pfft. We'd fill a stadium out against whoever, for whatever purpose. We filled out vast American stadiums for our tour there where we played the US and Colombia with just our 3rd choice players and was a total meaningless friendly. I do not know one other country that would do that for their football team.


Fill out the stadiums you say? Stange... because I was at the USA v. Engalnd game in Chicago. There were probably about 3000 unsold seats in the upper deck at Soldier Field. And the stadium was about half-half between the English and the American fans. I'm not saying that this is unimpressive. Filling a stadium 5,000 miles away from your home country with 25,000 fans is impressive. But that's less than half the stadium, not the whole stadium as you claim. Please stop exaggerating.


----------



## fman80939

> "What songs would those be? It's hysterical. You're making it up as you go along! For your information, the Dambusters theme was about an event which killed millions of............cubic metres of resevoir space. Duh!"


And a about 2000 civilians. Lovely people.
We're not singing about the Somme or Dünkirchen anyway, you're obviously living in a time bubble.
This is, in some way, blatant racism, a collective humiliation and vile mockery of a group of people just because of their nationality.
It's only sung when German teams are the opposition, so it's not a general way to celebrate "british heroism".



> "I am perfectly aware, thank you very much, of the bombing of German cities by the allies - and particularly the bombings of Dresden and Cologne. And I believe them to be equally as senseless and strategically stupid (particularly since there was virtually nothing of strategic value in Dresden) as the bombings of English cities by the luftwaffe"


And yet a huge part of ignorant english supporters glorify those events. 



> From AWIMB:
> Atleast at Bremen we get to sing "One Bomber Harris" again
> "Vy iz it zat your towns outskirts are all post vwar buildings?"


Repulsive.
And this is not an exception, this is common mindset. You are humilating yourself with those songs. 
It's like bubomb said, we'll take a horde of drunken scotsmen anytime over your lot, even if you are sober.


----------



## JimB

fman80939 said:


> And a about 2000 civilians. Lovely people.


Nope. A total of just under 1300 people died, of which 750 were Ukrainian prisoners of war. The remainder were split between German military personnel and civilians.



> We're not singing about the Somme or Dünkirchen anyway, you're obviously living in a time bubble.
> This is, in some way, blatant racism, a collective humiliation and vile mockery of a group of people just because of their nationality.
> It's only sung when German teams are the opposition, so it's not a general way to celebrate "british heroism".


I'm not living in any sort of time bubble. Christ on a bike! How many times do I have to repeat that I don't sing any of those songs? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Besides, as I've said before, all countries have songs about past military victories. The point is that the vast majority of those who sing the Dambusters theme are not, as bubomb and you have tried to imply, specifically and deliberately celebrating and mocking the deaths of millions of Germans in World War 2. They are, more generally, celebrating victory.



> And yet a huge part of ignorant english supporters glorify those events.


A huge part? How the hell would you know? Have you travelled extensively with England supporters? Have you polled every single follower of England? Of course you haven't. So stop talking out of your arse. That person who posted on AWIMB (and let's face it - Arsenal fans are not the brightest) is just one person. You simply cannot extrapolate from that that the majority of England supporters hold the same vile views. It's utterly nonsensical and is, in fact, racism on your part to assume that most English football fans do.



> Repulsive.
> And this is not an exception, this is common mindset.


More bollocks. If you must post xenophobic crap, I suggest that you and that bloke on AWIMB go and find a room and shout yourselves hoarse at each other.



> You are humilating yourself with those songs.
> It's like bubomb said, we'll take a horde of drunken scotsmen anytime over your lot, even if you are sober.


I am not humiliating myself because I don't sing those songs. Really, you are being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? And as I've said before, I don't doubt that you'd rather welcome the Scots than the English. That's because our bad minority have given all English fans a bad reputation and, unfortunately, people like you are too bigoted to give those of us decent England fans a chance.

Can we now stop this discussion? We've had a few days of peace and I had hoped that no one would dredge this thread up again.


----------



## fman80939

> Nope. A total of just under 1300 people died, of which 750 were Ukrainian prisoners of war. The remainder were split between German military personnel and civilians.


Hope that makes you feel better. Wonder why you make all that fuss about Coventry then...



> The point is that the vast majority of those who sing the Dambusters theme are not, as bubomb and you have tried to imply, specifically and deliberately celebrating and mocking the deaths of millions of Germans in World War 2. They are, more generally, celebrating victory.


So we are to blame if we don't accept that innocent celebration ? It's just a little banter, you know...
What about italian opposition ? 
Morons.




> A huge part? How the hell would you know? Have you travelled extensively with England supporters? Have you polled every single follower of England? Of course you haven't. So stop talking out of your arse. That person who posted on AWIMB (and let's face it - Arsenal fans are not the brightest) is just one person. You simply cannot extrapolate from that that the majority of England supporters hold the same vile views. It's utterly nonsensical and is, in fact, racism on your part to assume that most English football fans do.


Desperately trying to turn tables on me.... just sad.
Face it, it is folklore, it's a integral part of english terrace culture. Last time (Bayern) against Chelsea the whole "Bridge" entertained themself with that kind of crap, Stuttgart supporters were greeted with spread out arms at Ibrox.... etc pp. 
The announcer told Bayern supporters to sit down because it's "antisocial", didn't hear him telling the Chavs to stop singing that vile crap, obviously this is perfectly acceptable.



> More bollocks. If you must post xenophobic crap, I suggest that you and that bloke on AWIMB go and find a room and shout yourselves hoarse at each other.


Who's the xenophobe ?


----------



## Kampflamm

Hilarious thread. I think all WC games should start at 10pm local time so the English can catch re-runs of Coronation Street before the game.

We all know that the English have a huge following but what are you complaining about? Cologne and Frankfurt are two of the best stadiums out there. Would you rather watch your team play in Stuttgart where you'll be a mile away from the pitch??? Well, would you? Answer me!


----------



## JimB

fman80939 said:


> Hope that makes you feel better. Wonder why you make all that fuss about Coventry then...


Hahahaha! This is ridiculous. I didn't complain about Coventry at all. You're the one who started the discussion about the Dambuster song! You are becoming increasingly obtuse and, considering your starting position, that's some feat!



> So we are to blame if we don't accept that innocent celebration ? It's just a little banter, you know...
> What about italian opposition ?
> Morons.


Do try to keep up. I never said that those songs weren't annoying or offensive. I merely ridiculed bubomb's claim that those England fans who sing the Dambusters theme are specifically and deliberately mocking and celebrating millions of German deaths.



> Desperately trying to turn tables on me.... just sad.


No. What is sad is your determination to view the majority of English fans as, violent, loutish, unfriendly, unpleasant and racist. If you actually took your anti English goggles off for one second, you would know that there are thousands upon thousands of English fans who are as friendly and well behaved as fans of any other nation. 



> Stuttgart supporters were greeted with spread out arms at Ibrox.


Surely not. The Scots are all lovely, jolly little people. Never a harsh word has ever left their mouths. The Scots don't live in the past and dredge up historic enmities. At least, that's what bubomb's been telling us.



> Who's the xenophobe ?


You, of course, for your bigoted views about the English.


----------



## JimB

Kampflamm said:


> We all know that the English have a huge following but what are you complaining about? Cologne and Frankfurt are two of the best stadiums out there. Would you rather watch your team play in Stuttgart where you'll be a mile away from the pitch??? Well, would you? Answer me!


Thank you!

It's good to know that there is someone, at least, as well as me who prefers to discuss the original intention of this thread rather than use it merely as a vehicle for chauvinism.

I understand your point but I'd prefer to put it this way: wouldn't it only be fair that England, as seeds for group B, should play at least one of their group games at Dortmund, Munich or Berlin, where more of our fans would get a chance to see the team? Don't you agree that it is rather ridiculous that, of all the teams in group B, England (the seeds) get to play in the smallest stadiums?


----------



## Kampflamm

That's probably true. Would have been better to switch venues for the Sweden v Paraguay (Berlin) and England v T&T (Nuremburg) games.


----------



## Morten M

Kampflamm said:


> That's probably true. Would have been better to switch venues for the Sweden v Paraguay (Berlin) and England v T&T (Nuremburg) games.


Sweden will have a lot of fans in Germany to. Why should they be moved?
I think they should keep the stadiums as they are, it is a lottery, so it is just bad luck for England.


----------



## Mo Rush

*Same stadium. Different roof?*

*ATHENS OLYMPIC STADIUM*



























*ABUJA NATIONAL STADIUM*


----------



## fman80939

All associations will get their fair share, the English Übersupporters won't enjoy any preferential treatment. If (and that is a big 'if') there are additional tickets available, the FA can claim these.


----------



## JimB

Morten M said:


> Sweden will have a lot of fans in Germany to. Why should they be moved?
> I think they should keep the stadiums as they are, it is a lottery, so it is just bad luck for England.


I'm not suggesting that anything could or should be done for the coming World Cup. It's too late now. It was, however, undeniably a ****-up or (for the conspiracy theorists!) a fix by FIFA to have group B's seeds play all their games at the smaller stadiums and they need to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen at the next World Cup.


----------



## MoreOrLess

fman80939 said:


> All associations will get their fair share, the English Übersupporters won't enjoy any preferential treatment. If (and that is a big 'if') there are additional tickets available, the FA can claim these.


You could argue that England being seeds is an achievement on their part(even if the seeding system is less than perfect) and so merits prefferential or at least equal treatment to those who failed to making the seedings. Brazil have afterall receieved the benefit of thye 3 large stadia because their world champions so the presedent has been set.

As I said I don't think this is some plot agenst England on FIFA's part but rather a result of overly politcally correct allocation of games(which i'd guess is likely FIFA's doing since I remember similar things happening at previous WC's). If you look at the fixture list you'll notice that every stadium hosts 4 games in the opening round and in every case 2 of those games feature seeds. Thats a misuse of resources if you ask me since it leaves you with silly fixtures like Tunisia vs Saudi Arabia being played at the Allianz Arena. What should have been done IMHO was for the bigger grounds to host more seeds games than the little ones.


----------



## BaylorGuy314

Those are incredibly similiar.

It really does look like exactly the same stadium with a different roof. The only obvious differences are the roof and the different colored track.


----------



## FCB_Flo

MoreOrLess said:


> You could argue that England being seeds is an achievement on their part(even if the seeding system is less than perfect) and so merits prefferential or at least equal treatment to those who failed to making the seedings. Brazil have afterall receieved the benefit of thye 3 large stadia because their world champions so the presedent has been set.
> 
> As I said I don't think this is some plot agenst England on FIFA's part but rather a result of overly politcally correct allocation of games(which i'd guess is likely FIFA's doing since I remember similar things happening at previous WC's). If you look at the fixture list you'll notice that every stadium hosts 4 games in the opening round and in every case 2 of those games feature seeds. Thats a misuse of resources if you ask me since it leaves you with silly fixtures like Tunisia vs Saudi Arabia being played at the Allianz Arena. What should have been done IMHO was for the bigger grounds to host more seeds games than the little ones.


Just take it from another point of view.
Every city should be able to watch at least 2 world-class teams ! 
And that is also fair !

Or take it form the following point of view:
What's about a fully controlled reservoir (like Italy'90) for the english team where every group-stage-match is scheduled. 

Once again: It's a WORLD cup ! Every person in the whole wide world has the same possibility to get a ticket for a game !!!


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Surely not. The Scots are all lovely, jolly little people. Never a harsh word has ever left their mouths. The Scots don't live in the past and dredge up historic enmities. At least, that's what bubomb's been telling us.
> 
> You, of course, for your bigoted views about the English.



I thought I said Rangers and celtic have a huge number of morons in their support!!

Maybe I imagined it!!


----------



## fman80939

> You could argue that England being seeds is an achievement on their part(even if the seeding system is less than perfect) and so merits prefferential or at least equal treatment to those who failed to making the seedings. Brazil have afterall receieved the benefit of thye 3 large stadia because their world champions so the presedent has been set.


Argentina, the Netherlands, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, France are all big guns, incredibly none of them will play their group stage matches Berlin, Dortmund or Munich. 
So you are not alone. 



> "a fix by FIFA to have group B's seeds play all their games at the smaller stadiums "


Or Group E's, or group C's, or Group G's, Group D's or Group H's....

Surely a mean sprited fix, targeted solely at the FA and their Übersupporters.


----------



## bubomb

I hope the Germans have made sure their water cannons are working fine. They will need them.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I thought I said Rangers and celtic have a huge number of morons in their support!!
> 
> Maybe I imagined it!!


You also wrote:



> Scotland makes up less than 10% of the UK population, but in both wars, Scottish soldiers made up 20% of the British army. So per head of population, we suffered more than England during the wars. So how come we don't sing dambusters etc? We don't because we have moved on.


Or maybe I imagined it?


----------



## JimB

fman80939 said:


> Argentina, the Netherlands, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, France are all big guns, incredibly none of them will play their group stage matches Berlin, Dortmund or Munich.
> So you are not alone.


Maybe not. But, in that case, FIFA have cocked up even more. Surely it wasn't that difficult to organise that the seeds of each group should play at least one group game at one of the bigger stadiums? Simply incompetence on their part.



> the FA and their Übersupporters.


Try not to be such a facetious prat. No one has claimed that England fans are better than any others.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> You also wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe I imagined it?



Yes, I did write that. Rangers and celtic fans are different to Scotland fans. Rangers and celtic fans make up less than 20% of the Tartan Army.

and the Rangers and celtic fans that are in the Tartan Army are from the well-behaved Rangers and celtic fans.

Ask anybody from Europe what they thought of the Scotland fans when they visited. Then ask them what they thought of the England fans when they visited. Compare and contrast their answers.


----------



## JimB

FCB_Flo said:


> Once again: It's a WORLD cup ! Every person in the whole wide world has the same possibility to get a ticket for a game !!!


This is the crux of the whole matter.

The truth is that the vast majority of tickets will be allocated to sponsors and agencies and those who don't really want them and the only people who will be able to get tickets for the games (other than the ridiculously tiny combined 16% of tickets allocated to the competing teams) will be those who can afford to pay tout prices. And, in the case of England games - when demand will be phenomenal - the tout prices will be exorbitant.

FIFA are effectively bankrolling touts. Soon, I'm sure, they will draft a Touts' Charter, which will enshrine touts' rights while putting those horrible, ordinary, genuine football fans in their place.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Yes, I did write that. Rangers and celtic fans are different to Scotland fans. Rangers and celtic fans make up less than 20% of the Tartan Army.
> 
> and the Rangers and celtic fans that are in the Tartan Army are from the well-behaved Rangers and celtic fans.
> 
> Ask anybody from Europe what they thought of the Scotland fans when they visited. Then ask them what they thought of the England fans when they visited. Compare and contrast their answers.


Completely irrelevant. You said that Scottish people (rather than specifically the tartan army) don't sing Dambusters because Scottish people have moved on. You've been caught out and you're now trying to wriggle out of it!


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Completely irrelevant. You said that Scottish people (rather than specifically the tartan army) don't sing Dambusters because Scottish people have moved on. You've been caught out and you're now trying to wriggle out of it!



Now you are playing on words.

Scotland has 5 million people. They have moved on from Germany and WW2.

Old firm attendances are 110000 each week. Lets say 25% of them sing bigoted songs based on past events. Thats 27500 out of 5 million. That is 0.55%. I rest my case.

Face facts - Scotland fans are better than England fans. You know it, I know it, Europe knows it. No amount of arguing by yourself is going to change this fact.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Scotland has 5 million people. They have moved on from Germany and WW2.
> 
> Old firm attendances are 110000 each week. Lets say 25% of them sing bigoted songs based on past events. Thats 27500 out of 5 million. That is 0.55%. I rest my case.


Oh, but, stereotyping a whole nation on the basis of a minority is the whole point of this thread as far as you're concerned, isn't it?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...



> Face facts - Scotland fans are better than England fans. You know it, I know it, Europe knows it. No amount of arguing by yourself is going to change this fact.


Duh!

We're not actually discussing whether England fans are better or worse than Scotland fans. At least, I've not mentioned anything of the sort. I've merely been responding to your ridiculously bigoted claims about the so called majority of English fans.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Oh, but, stereotyping a whole nation on the basis of a minority is the whole point of this thread as far as you're concerned, isn't it?
> 
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!
> 
> We're not actually discussing whether England fans are better or worse than Scotland fans. At least, I've not mentioned anything of the sort. I've merely been responding to your ridiculously bigoted claims about the so called majority of English fans.


I said my arguments were for English football fans, not England in general. England rugby fans are much nicer people.


----------



## fman80939

> Try not to be such a facetious prat. No one has claimed that England fans are better than any others.


Hilarious, every single post of your lot implies that. "We have the biggest following" "We deserve bigger stadia" "In Portugal we even overwhelmed the home side"
The whole thread revolves around the inadequate treatment of the superior Engerlund crowd, not about discussing the general idiocy of FIFA.
If England had got what you propose, none of you would have called for justice.... even if that meant Argentina, Netherlands etc were still excluded from the bigger stadia.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I said my arguments were for English football fans, not England in general. England rugby fans are much nicer people.


Gross sterotyping and bigotry are still gross stereotyping and bigotry, whether directed at a whole nation or at a set of football supporters.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Gross sterotyping and bigotry are still gross stereotyping and bigotry, whether directed at a whole nation or at a set of football supporters.


Not if it's true.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Bubomb, stop embarrinsing yourself with just ridiculas arguments. Quite amusing that your arguing the Scots are less bigoted than the English when pretty much everything you post onm this forum is evidense is driven by it.



fman80939 said:


> Surely a mean sprited fix, targeted solely at the FA and their Übersupporters.


As I said I don't think its a fix agenst England so please stop trying to use that straw man argument but the fact that one of the seeded teams ends up with the second lowest allocation of tickets in the entire tournament doesnt strike me as good organisation(the likes of Gelsenkirchen while smaller than the big three have 10,000 more seats than Nuremberg). Theres no definitive right or wrong but to me more importance should be attacted to putting the best games on the biggest stage than pleasing local councils. I'm sure the German fans would preffer to watch the likes of Argentia more than they would Togo aswell even if it involves a drive of an hour or two.


----------



## bubomb

MoreOrLess said:


> Bubomb, stop embarrinsing yourself with just ridiculas arguments. Quite amusing that your arguing the Scots are less bigoted than the English when pretty much everything you post onm this forum is evidense is driven by it.


Why would I be bigoted against the English? I said their Rugby fans are fine. I often went on holiday in England when I was young and loved it, and yes, some of my relatives are English. 

It's just their football fans that are bellends.


----------



## JimB

fman80939 said:


> Hilarious, every single post of your lot implies that. "We have the biggest following" "We deserve bigger stadia" "In Portugal we even overwhelmed the home side"
> The whole thread revolves around the inadequate treatment of the superior Engerlund crowd, not about discussing the general idiocy of FIFA.
> If England had got what you propose, none of you would have called for justice.... even if that meant Argentina, Netherlands etc were still excluded from the bigger stadia.


There's a huge difference between stating known facts (that England fans travel in bigger numbers to tournaments than those of other nations) and claiming that England fans are better than those of any other nation. Surely it's not that difficult for you to see the distinction?

And I've already said that Holland, like England, have also been dealt a pitiful hand by FIFA. French and Italian fans, on the other hand, don't travel to international tournaments in huge numbers, so they will not be unduly inconvenienced by playing in smaller stadiums. And because the World Cup is in Europe, Argentina will not have a huge following in Germany either. So of course, I'm not going to make a case for those teams as well.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Not if it's true.


The above statement is merely proof of your bigotry.

You really are a foul hypocrite.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Why would I be bigoted against the English? I said their Rugby fans are fine. I often went on holiday in England when I was young and loved it, and yes, some of my relatives are English.
> 
> It's just their football fans that are bellends.


Saying that England rugby fans are fine doesn't make you any less of a bigot.

It's like the racist who spends half his time telling disgusting jokes about black people but then turning to his black colleague and saying, "No offence, mate. You're alright."


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Saying that England rugby fans are fine doesn't make you any less of a bigot.
> 
> It's like the racist who spends half his time telling disgusting jokes about black people but then turning to his black colleague and saying, "No offence, mate. You're alright."



Don't be so sensitive. Some racist jokes are hilarious. It's just a joke, no harm done. Did you hear about the Scotsman that dropped 50 pence? It hit him on the back of his head.

Why is it always white, middle class people who are offended by racist jokes? My black mate at uni couldn't give a sh!t about racist jokes. He often told them.

This has gone off topic.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Don't be so sensitive. Some racist jokes are hilarious. It's just a joke, no harm done. Did you hear about the Scotsman that dropped 50 pence? It hit him on the back of his head.
> 
> Why is it always white, middle class people who are offended by racist jokes? My black mate at uni couldn't give a sh!t about racist jokes. He often told them.
> 
> This has gone off topic.


It's not a question of whether racist jokes are funny (though they are undeniably in poor taste). It's about the mentality of people who persistently make such jokes. Besides, I only used racist jokes as an analogy. Here's a different analogy:

Indiscriminately abusing English football fans as thugs, louts, racists and yobs but then excusing yourself by saying that that small minority of English people who follow rugby are "fine", is like the racist who spends half his time abusing black people that he doesn't know in a racist manner but then turning to a black colleague and saying, "No offence, mate. You're alright."


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> It's not a question of whether racist jokes are funny (though they are undeniably in poor taste). It's about the mentality of people who persistently make such jokes. Besides, I only used racist jokes as an analogy. Here's a different analogy:
> 
> Indiscriminately abusing English football fans as thugs, louts, racists and yobs but then excusing yourself by saying that that small minority of English people who follow rugby are "fine", is like the racist who spends half his time abusing black people that he doesn't know in a racist manner but then turning to a black colleague and saying, "No offence, mate. You're alright."


Nah, that's a rubbish analogy. It would only work if England football fans weren't yobs. In general, they are.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Nah, that's a rubbish analogy. It would only work if England football fans weren't yobs. In general, they are.


You don't know 99.99999999% of England fans so you can't possibly claim to know what they're like. You base your opinion on all of us on the actions and behaviour of a minority.

Classic bigotry.

You seem to be quite happy with your bigotry. Do you also perceive all Jews as Fagin? All Arabs as Bin Laden?

I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> You don't know 99.99999999% of England fans so you can't possibly claim to know what they're like. You base your opinion on all of us on the actions and behaviour of a minority.
> 
> Classic bigotry.
> 
> You seem to be quite happy with your bigotry. Do you also perceive all Jews as Fagin? All Arabs as Bin Laden?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised.


I have seen England fans in the flesh many times. I know how most of you think and act, as do the poor people of European cities each time you visit.

A minority are violent, a majority are rude, ill-mannered loudmouths.


----------



## alexandros1984

Those 2 stadiums where made by same companies i think or designed be same company something like that but they are other stadiums that look very similiar.


----------



## alexandros1984

Here is something similiar


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> I have seen England fans in the flesh many times. I know how most of you think and act, as do the poor people of European cities each time you visit. A minority are violent, a majority are rude, ill-mannered loudmouths.


You know nothing of the sort. You only think you know because you see the minority of loutish England fans and, as a consequence of your antipathy for and bitterness towards the English, it suits you to assume that all England fans are the same. You therefore pay no heed to the majority of English fans who are as decent as fans from any other nation.

I repeat (since clearly your memory is faulty and your comprehension is limited): 70,000 England fans in Portugal and no trouble, with England fans praised for their excellent behaviour and friendly demeanour. All because 2000 louts and trouble makers were banned from travelling.

Argue with yourself until you are blue in the face or chase your tail for hours on end (both, no doubt, highly productive pastimes by your low standards) but you cannot change the fact quoted above. England's bad fans - for all the high profile shame that they heap upon all decent England fans - are nevertheless very much in the minority. It is only your stubborn arrogance, your ignorance, your stupidity and your bigoted nature that are perpetuating this discussion. Time for you to get another bone to chew. There's a good boy.


----------



## Kampflamm

They're both just boring bowls.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> You know nothing of the sort. You only think you know because you see the minority of loutish England fans and, as a consequence of your antipathy for and bitterness towards the English, it suits you to assume that all England fans are the same. You therefore pay no heed to the majority of English fans who are as decent as fans from any other nation.
> 
> I repeat (since clearly your memory is faulty and your comprehension is limited): 70,000 England fans in Portugal and no trouble, with England fans praised for their excellent behaviour and friendly demeanour. All because 2000 louts and trouble makers were banned from travelling.
> 
> Argue with yourself until you are blue in the face or chase your tail for hours on end (both, no doubt, highly productive pastimes by your low standards) but you cannot change the fact quoted above. England's bad fans - for all the high profile shame that they heap upon all decent England fans - are nevertheless very much in the minority. It is only your stubborn arrogance, your ignorance, your stupidity and your bigoted nature that are perpetuating this discussion. Time for you to get another bone to chew. There's a good boy.



Let's ask the people of Europe then?

When in England come to vist, what have been your experiences, good or bad? Not just the hooligans (as they are banned supposedly, but we all know the water cannons will be out in 6 months time), the normal ones as well.

Anybody in Munich? Did you all have a good laugh with 10000 England fans singing WW2 songs? Were they great fun?

Please let us know about these fun loving England fans.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Anybody in Munich? Did you all have a good laugh with 10000 England fans singing WW2 songs? Were they great fun?


1. How do you know what percentage of England fans were singing WW2 songs? Answer: you don't.

2. Yet another example of your hypocrisy: Persistently telling racist jokes is just harmless banter, according to you. But humming the Dambusters theme is disgusting, disgraceful, vile, loutish and racist. Go figure.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> 1. How do you know what percentage of England fans were singing WW2 songs? Answer: you don't.
> 
> 2. Yet another example of your hypocrisy: Persistently telling racist jokes is just harmless banter, according to you. But humming the Dambusters theme is disgusting, disgraceful, vile, loutish and racist. Go figure.



Millions died in Germany in WW2, so songs glorifying this are wrong. I also wouldn't make racist Jewish jokes about WW2 in front of Jews or Germans, as this would be very offensive.

Making racist jokes in front of people who don't mind then is ok, as it upsets nobody.

Will you admit that these '2 world wars/1 world cup' style songs are wrong to sing whilst in Germany? Yes or No please.

If you say No, then you simply cannot understand why so many people find England fans offensive, and therefore there is no point in explaining it to you. If you say No then you are simply a typical ignorant England fan who has no repect for others. Gerrmans are genuinely disgusted by these songs. Everybody else can see that these songs should not be sung at the World Cup, can you?


----------



## Kampflamm

Vote: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296198


----------



## bubomb

Kampflamm said:


> Vote: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296198



Just as I thought. Thanks for the link.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> Millions died in Germany in WW2, so songs glorifying this are wrong. I also wouldn't make racist Jewish jokes about WW2 in front of Jews or Germans, as this would be very offensive.
> 
> Making racist jokes in front of people who don't mind then is ok, as it upsets nobody.


Millions of Africans have died as a consequence of racism. But, hey, it's okay to make racist jokes? Duh!

If you can't see why making racist jokes isn't merely harmless fun, regardless of who is present, then you really are even more stupid than I thought and you therefore have no right to pass judgement on anyone else's behaviour.

And I've already said on a number of occasions (as you would have noticed, even if you had the attention span of goldfish) that I don't sing any WW2 songs. So it is safe to assume that I don't approve of them.

The difference between you and me, however, is that I have integrity. If something is wrong, it is wrong. You, however, would presumably say that it's quite alright for the English to sing songs "mocking and celebrating the deaths of millions of Germans" as long as there are no Germans present?


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> And I've already said on a number of occasions (as you would have noticed, even if you had the attention span of goldfish) that I don't sing any WW2 songs. So it is safe to assume that I don't approve of them.


It ok to make racist jokes about Africans as long as they are funny and nobody is offended. I probably wouldn't say one in front of an African incase he takes the huff.

Anyway, you have admitted that most England fans are crass idiots. That is a start. Well done.


----------



## JimB

Kampflamm said:


> Vote: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296198


I don't speak German.

What does the poll ask? Who are the most likely fans to cause trouble at the World Cup?

If so, then I would agree that it's most likely to be the English. Sadly, the last two tournamente have been too good to be true and I can't believe that the police security and intelligence operation, preventing the trouble makers from travelling, will work quite as well as it did in 2002 and 2004.

But that still doesn't alter the truth - which is that the vast majority of England fans are as decent and friendly as fans of any other nation.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> It ok to make racist jokes about Africans as long as they are funny and nobody is offended. I probably wouldn't say one in front of an African incase he takes the huff.
> 
> Anyway, you have admitted that most England fans are crass idiots. That is a start. Well done.


I have admitted nothing of the sort.

But I am glad that you have admitted that you are a racist as well as a bigot. That is a start. Well done.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> I have admitted nothing of the sort.
> 
> But I am glad that you have admitted that you are a racist as well as a bigot. That is a start. Well done.



If telling a racist joke makes you a genuine racist, then yes, I am a racist, along with nearly every single person in the UK.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> If telling a racist joke makes you a genuine racist, then yes, I am a racist, along with nearly every single person in the UK.


Hahahahahahaha! Maybe that's what goes on in your bigoted, little world. You do like your gross generalisations on the basis of flimsy evidence, don't you?

I repeat: if you don't understand why telling racist jokes is wrong, regardless of who is present, then you are stupid beyond belief and you have no right to pass judgement on anyone else's behaviour.


----------



## SE9

They do look remarkably similar.

The top tier in the Abudja stadium is slightly higher than the top tier of the Athens stadium.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Hahahahahahaha! Maybe that's what goes on in your bigoted, little world. You do like your gross generalisations on the basis of flimsy evidence, don't you?
> 
> I repeat: if you don't understand why telling racist jokes is wrong, regardless of who is present, then you are stupid beyond belief and you have no right to pass judgement on anyone else's behaviour.



You sound like a nancyboy, politically correct liberal. Grow up. You have never told a racist joke? Christ, you must be the life and soul of the party.

You wouldn't last long in Glasgow if you are that soft.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> You sound like a nancyboy, politically correct liberal. Grow up. You have never told a racist joke? Christ, you must be the life and soul of the party.
> 
> You wouldn't last long in Glasgow if you are that soft.


I'll give you this: you have some front to make those sort of accusations after your endless fannying and whining about the behaviour of the English on this thread.

The truth is, though, that most civilized, intelligent people don't tell racist jokes once they have grown up. And I seem to get on fine at parties without feeling the need to make racist jokes. Doubtless your excuse is that you simply lack the imagination or the wit to do anything else.


----------



## carfentanyl

JimB said:


> The truth is, though, that most civilized, intelligent people don't tell racist jokes once they have grown up.


Bullshit!

I always think it's funny how the people that don't have any (close) friends among other cultures are the ones to get most upset about racist jokes. I am not saying that's you, I'm just stating a general fact.

In my steady groups of friends there are only mixed couples. Couple of Dutch, Indonesians, Antilleans and some more. No one is dating someone the same race, so you can say we're pretty multicultural. Funny thing is that we all make racist jokes about each other and it really gives us some good laughs.

As a matter of fact you can beat racism more with making jokes about each other's differences and laugh about them instead of trying so hard to be political correct. Most of the time it's the political correct people that have the problem, and that's why they try so hard to be political correct...


----------



## JimB

carfentanyl said:


> Bullshit!
> 
> I always think it's funny how the people that don't have any (close) friends among other cultures are the ones to get most upset about racist jokes. I am not saying that's you, I'm just stating a general fact.
> 
> In my steady groups of friends there are only mixed couples. Couple of Dutch, Indonesians, Antilleans and some more. No one is dating someone the same race, so you can say we're pretty multicultural. Funny thing is that we all make racist jokes about each other and it really gives us some good laughs.
> 
> As a matter of fact you can beat racism more with making jokes about each other's differences and laugh about them instead of trying so hard to be political correct. Most of the time it's the political correct people that have the problem, and that's why they try so hard to be political correct...


That's a very different situation and, as it happens, quite the opposite of what bubomb was suggesting. I'm well aware that many people of many races (Jews particularly) tell jokes against their own race and that, among a group of multicultural friends, jokes are made about each others' race.

But for white (for the sake of example) people to tell racist jokes about black people or Asians only among other white people (as bubomb suggested) has far darker implications. If persistent and unchecked, it breeds disrespect - even contempt - for people of other races. It is not a shared humour, like the situation you describe above. It is a one way street only.


----------



## eder1982

estadio jalisco ....guadalajara mexico (65,000)


----------



## reignman

Istanbul Ataturk Olympic Stadium:


----------



## reignman

Istanbul - Sukru Saracoglu Stadium(Fenerbahce) (52.000)










Istanbul - Inonu Stadium (Besiktas) (32.000)


----------



## palberts214

JACA JACA JACA JACA JACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## eomer

*Best WC final since 1966*

In your opinion, what was the best world cup final since 1966 ?
I don't talk about the result but about the game itself.
I think the worst was 1994 with a 0-0 but there were spectacular games too.


----------



## DrJoe

here's a couple random US stadiums from Local Live

Quest Field, Seattle










Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia










Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia


----------



## João Paulo

1970 Brazil vs Italy in my opinion.


----------



## XCRunner

1986 Mexico: Argentina v. Germany.


----------



## bubomb

1986 Mexico: Argentina v. Germany

Maradona won the World Cup on his own. Argentina without Maradona would of been average at best. Many teams at the World Cup were better than Argentina, but with Maradona in he team they became world beaters. Same goes for Napoli. Poor provincial team going nowhere. Maradona arrives and they win 2 Italian leagues in a row and the UEFA cup. He really was a one man team. 

Pele was great, but he was surrounded by superb players which made his role far easier. Brazil would have probably won the World Cup without him.

but Maradona - he won the World Cup on his own. A genuine footballing genius that will never be seen again.


----------



## bubomb

Glasgow Stadiums -


Ibrox -











Hampden -











Parkhead -


----------



## NavyBlue

Best...1970 a Pele inspired Brazil def Italy 4-1



Worst...1994 Brazil def Italy in a penalty shootout :bleep:


----------



## bubomb

As seen here -


----------



## hngcm

I've seen three so far....and no one of them were really good...

'94 brazil vs italy, 0-0 tie....

'98 france whooped brazil

'02 germany didn't really have a chance


----------



## hngcm

AcesHigh said:


> In Brasil the fans are against renovating the stadiums, because they are against SEATS in stadiums.


Right.

Anyways, having seats makes it SAFER.

Instead of hundreds trying to cram in a tight spot (chance of injuries, even death), you have your own little space.


----------



## Loranga

My vote: 1986 Mexico: Argentina v. Germany.


----------



## Zaqattaq

1998


----------



## HoldenV8

Great Britain v Australia, 1992 @ Wembley Stadium (Rugby League).

Well, you didn't specify which World Cup Final it was :runaway:

:jk: Ok ok, so you meant football. Hmmm....I would have to say England v West Germany also @ Wembley.


----------



## perekamuda

Nothing compare to Mexico'86 Argentina-Germany 3-2 Final!
Nothing worst than Italy'90 Germany-Argentina 1-0 Final!

I wish one day we'll see.... Brazil vs Nigeria in World Cup final 
(remember how Nigeria won the Olympic Gold Medal by outclassed both Brazil and Argentina??)


----------



## matherto

Edson-CMA said:


> Ataturk Olympic was built in 2001.... But... where? Can you tell me a reference? Airport, Highway, River?
> 
> I am listing and marking a lot of stadiums around the world.
> I find all of Buenos Aires... All of Sao Paulo... all of London, except Fulham's Craven Cottage... In Istambul, only lacks to find the Ataturk Olympic.
> 
> Berlin Olympiastadion was under construction when they took the pictures.
> It is in the west of the town.


Berlin: 52 30 54 31 N 13 14 28 48 E elevation 212ft Eye alt 2164ft

I think thats right, its near there anyway


----------



## risteri

I think, "nya Råsunda"
50 000 or 60 000 people and it been the biggest stadium in Scandinavia.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sport/0512/24/SPORT-24s69-rasunda-896_368.jpg


----------



## CharlieP

cphdude said:


> Are people there still talking about maybe doing a euroleage? They talked about it a few years ago i remember with teams from Netherland, Belgium, Scandinavia and a few other countries....


I heard Scotland mentioned in a similar proposal...


----------



## Iain1974

CharlieP said:


> I heard Scotland mentioned in a similar proposal...


I really don't see FIFA liking that idea.


----------



## bubomb

It will never happen.


----------



## XCRunner

Parken by far. I see I'm not alone here.


----------



## XCRunner

bubomb said:


> It will never happen.


That's for sure. I'm sure Celtic would love it (and maybe Rangers too) but it's a pipe dream and nothing more.


----------



## hngcm

HoldenV8 said:


> Great Britain v Australia, 1992 @ Wembley Stadium (Rugby League).
> 
> Well, you didn't specify which World Cup Final it was :runaway:
> 
> :jk: Ok ok, so you meant football. Hmmm....I would have to say England v West Germany also @ Wembley.


He said the World Cup.

THE World Cup.

There's only one World Cup that can be the THE World Cup.

And that's the Football World Cup.

Rugby?

Please.


----------



## bubomb

hngcm said:


> He said the World Cup.
> 
> THE World Cup.
> 
> There's only one World Cup that can be the THE World Cup.
> 
> And that's the Football World Cup.
> 
> Rugby?
> 
> Please.



Daft egg chasers


----------



## Guest

As far as I know....Botswana has only one stadium. National Stadium in Gaborone, 22,000 capacity, and rather uninspiring.

But the country with the worst stadiums (that goes for Cricket Stadiums too) is India.


----------



## -ò_ó-

johnz88 said:


> mexico has one good one, Azteca, which may also need some modernization to it


Oh we have a few good ones not just one, and they will build a new stadium in Guadalajara, here some renders http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296880



hngcm said:


> Right.
> 
> Anyways, having seats makes it SAFER.
> 
> Instead of hundreds trying to cram in a tight spot (chance of injuries, even death), you have your own little space.


Agree


----------



## eomer

hngcm said:


> Rugby?
> 
> Please.


This thread is about Football (soccer) World Cup.
I will soon post the same about Rugby


----------



## eomer

*Best RWC final since 1987*

Wich RWC final was the best ?


----------



## Noostairz

BOSH!


----------



## HoldenV8

> He said the World Cup.
> 
> THE World Cup.
> 
> There's only one World Cup that can be the THE World Cup.
> 
> And that's the Football World Cup.
> 
> Rugby?
> 
> Please.
> Yesterday 09:53 PM


Small mindedness lives.


----------



## HoldenV8

As an Aussie I HATE to admit this but for a thriller of a game, 2003.

Johnny Wilkinson should have been shot at birth. Damn Pommy bastard!!!


----------



## Madman

I'm totally biased and proud of it! 1966!!!! The summer of love and great football


----------



## bubomb

Madman said:


> I'm totally biased and proud of it! 1966!!!! The summer of love and great football


and a dodgy Russian linesman!


----------



## Mali

1998-St Denis: France - Brasil


----------



## Mali

Q: Country with the worst quality football stadiums?
A: Most of countries in Eastern Europe.


----------



## bubomb

What about this for a crap national football stadium!!




























nice scenery though!


----------



## -ò_ó-

^^ At least the grass looks ok


----------



## johnz88

Mali said:


> Q: Country with the worst quality football stadiums?
> A: Most of countries in Eastern Europe.


Maybe for European standards the stadiums are bad quality but not in they still have much better quality than Africa, Middle East and even most counries in South America. Take a look at the bids for Euro 2012. Poland/Ukraine and Craotia/Hungary are both in the last 3 and beat out Greece and Turkey and why don't you take a look at the stadiums they are going to build, get more up to date!


----------



## dysan1

those planes flying overhead at Ellis park in 95...with madiba handing over the trophy to franscois pienaar.....more than priceless!!!! Nothing can compare


----------



## Mali

johnz88 said:


> *Maybe for European standards the stadiums are bad quality * but not in they still have much better quality than Africa, Middle East and even most counries in South America. Take a look at the bids for Euro 2012. Poland/Ukraine and Craotia/Hungary are both in the last 3 and beat out Greece and Turkey and why don't you take a look at the stadiums they are going to build, get more up to date!


That's exactly what I was trying to say. Sorry for confusin u. :cheers:


----------



## Reptilikus

*Parken is the greatest*

Parken is the best stadium in Scandinavia. My reasons are: 
1. It is an all-seater stadium!
2. Every seat is covered!
3. It has no columns that effects the view!
4. It has a retractable roof. (Columns are needed when the roof is closed!)

If anyone can beat these 4 demands, surprice me! 
(I know Stockholm is getting a new stadium, but is doesn't exist yet!)


----------



## Mali

Nya Ullevi


----------



## SkyLerm

Spain's stadiums are wonderful too: Santiago Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Estadio de la Cartuja, Mestalla, Vicente Calderon...


----------



## easysurfer

wrong thread, oopps


----------



## EllasOle

Reptilikus said:


> Parken is the best stadium in Scandinavia. My reasons are:
> 1. It is an all-seater stadium!
> 2. Every seat is covered!
> 3. It has no columns that effects the view!
> 4. It has a retractable roof. (Columns are needed when the roof is closed!)
> 
> If anyone can beat these 4 demands, surprice me!
> (I know Stockholm is getting a new stadium, but is doesn't exist yet!)


I've heard before that Parken has a retractable roof but I have never seen a pic of it closed before. So if it does have a retractible roof, can someone post a pic of the stadium while it is closed?


----------



## Morten M

EllasOle said:


> I've heard before that Parken has a retractable roof but I have never seen a pic of it closed before. So if it does have a retractible roof, can someone post a pic of the stadium while it is closed?












But the roof sucks because it needs some extra columns to support the roof, and those columns blocks the view for many of the best seats for football (Including my season ticket seat). So it is only used for football when the weather is very bad, and would have meant a cancelling of the match without it. 
A national team, UEFA cup, Champions League or a normal league match have never been played under the roof, only a couple of Royal League matches and one danish cup match.

Those blacks flags hanging from the roof is called "drapes", and they should make the sound quality better for concerts.


----------



## Köbtke

Morten M said:


> But the roof sucks because it needs some extra columns to support the roof, and those columns blocks the view for many of the best seats for football (Including my season ticket seat). So it is only used for football when the weather is very bad, and would have meant a cancelling of the match without it.
> A national team, UEFA cup, Champions League or a normal league match have never been played under the roof, only a couple of Royal League matches and one danish cup match.
> 
> Those blacks flags hanging from the roof is called "drapes", and they should make the sound quality better for concerts.


The columns-situation should get sorted out (i.e. get rid of columns) when/if they get the D-stand rebuilt, though.

But yes, it sucks that they're needed now. The retractable roof is mainly a concert/other possible indoor'ish events-roof right now. 
The column on the C-stand doesn't block that much of my view though  And anyway, it's really rare that we have weather so bad that it requires a roof for football.


----------



## Gherkin

Gotta be the big one in Sweden, it's the most graceful out of all of them.


----------



## cphdude

Morten M said:


> But the roof sucks because it needs some extra columns to support the roof, and those columns blocks the view for many of the best seats for football (Including my season ticket seat). So it is only used for football when the weather is very bad, and would have meant a cancelling of the match without it.
> A national team, UEFA cup, Champions League or a normal league match have never been played under the roof, only a couple of Royal League matches and one danish cup match.
> 
> Those blacks flags hanging from the roof is called "drapes", and they should make the sound quality better for concerts.


warent there talks about using it against this sundays game against Schalke 04? I thought i heard that?


----------



## bubomb

MY GOD!! When did Parken get a retractable roof? and how come nobody told me!!


----------



## CorliCorso

Didn't you get the memo?

You must've been out.


----------



## cphdude

bubomb said:


> MY GOD!! When did Parken get a retractable roof? and how come nobody told me!!


2001 i believe it was...


----------



## bubomb

CorliCorso said:


> Didn't you get the memo?
> 
> You must've been out.


My secretary will get a good blastin for this outrage!!

This is my favourite Scandinavian stadium - 

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwe...to_ordner=Schweden/stockholms_stadion&id=1454


----------



## Ampsicora

images from outside?


----------



## Reptilikus

*adf*

asdf


----------



## cianobuckley

the delli alpi home to juventus and there two hundred supporters is a perfect example of a disastrous waste of money. the problem with many stadia in italy is that their not actually owned by the clubs for example the olimpico in Rome


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

I'm not sure who has the worst stadiums, obviously there is Africa, but you can't really expect a gret deal there. For a developed country, I'd have to say Poland, and most surprisingly, Italy!



johnz88 said:


> Their playing american football in a soccer stadium because the NFL played one or two actual season games in Mexico to broaden the audience i guess and for money. *They are also thinking about trying to play at Wembly stadium when its finished.* They probably wont get to do that though.


Are you serious??? American football played at Wembley....THE Wembley..the home of (proper) football...is this some kind of joke??? That's like inviting a ******* yokel to give a speech at the Nobel Prsie winners convension...its just not right! If Americans wanna force that shit onto other countries, fine, but you cannot pollute Wembley! No offence intended btw :tongue2: 



DvW said:


> Everything doesnt matter, English stadiums are the best!


kay: English and Spanish stadiums are deffinately the best


----------



## Quintana

De Kuip (Stadion Feijenoord), Rotterdam, The Netherlands









Parkstad Limburg Stadion, Kerkrade, The Netherlands









Arke Stadion, Enschede, The Netherlands









Koning Boudewijn Stadion/Stade Roi Baudouin, Brussels, Belgium


----------



## invincible

Floodlights are here to stay in at least the cricket playing nations - the Telstra Dome's lights led to a lot of fielders losing the ball. It's fine for football, but lights that are merely mounted on the roof just make a small white ball very hard to find.


----------



## Speakerbox

Wolves were the first team to play a football match under floodlights against Honved in Wolverhampton, England.

The match was shown live on BBC1


----------



## 2zanzibar

Great thread! those Eastern Bloc stadiums are superb!


----------



## 40Acres

cool post. The architecture of those light supports are interesting ... being more vertical than american floodlights. I wonder what the difference is in light coverage, vertical as opposed to horizontal. I agree with your assessment, that its great traveling to the stadium and seeing those lights looming in the distance.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Great thread, I too remember as a kid travelling to a game and always looking out for the floodlights. Does anyone know of a Stadium under construction at the moment that will have traditional floodlights?


----------



## DrJoe

Some from baseball


----------



## bubomb

Speakerbox said:


> Wolves were the first team to play a football match under floodlights against Honved in Wolverhampton, England.
> 
> The match was shown live on BBC1



Are you sure? I thought it was Lisburn Distillery on March 25, 1953, who were the first club ever to play a competitive match under floodlights in the British Isles. I don't know about Europe or worldwide though!!

http://blue.srv2.com/~lisburn/Book review - Sunday Life.htm

Wolves v Honved was 6 months later -

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-57029/wolves/flood.htm


----------



## Quintana

The Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam got floodlights in 1934. The first game under artificial lights in Europe was also played here, Ajax - PSV on 23 october 1929. Philips had borrowed tram wires from Amsterdam Public Transport and hung them at 15 metres high across the The small Pitch . It was a miracle that the ball never hit any of the 64 lights.


----------



## invincible

bubomb said:


> Are you sure? I thought it was Lisburn Distillery on March 25, 1953, who were the first club ever to play a competitive match under floodlights in the British Isles. I don't know about Europe or worldwide though!!


The MCG had its first football match played under floodlights in 1879.  The technology wasn't very well developed though - and it took over 100 years before the MCG had the current lights installed in 1985.


----------



## vivayo

Mexico City, Olympic Stadium


----------



## Grollo

Some more info about he MCG light towers:

The MCG light towers were first used for an event on the 17 February 1985, for a World Series Cup one-day international between Australia and England. 

The light tower system comprises of 6 light towers which stand between 72 and 78 metres high (equivalent to a 24 story building) with the head frame a further 10 metres higher (72 to 88 metres overall).

The foundations for the towers consist of 4 reinforced concrete piers which are set down in depth from 7 to 12 metres depending on the sub surface structure. Each of the hollow tubular steel towers contains about 130 tonnes of steel. The diameter reduces from 4.2 metres at the base to 2 metres at the top. There are between 12 and 14 landings connecting ladders inside each tower. The head frames of the towers are angled in at 15 Degrees in order to provide optimum levels of light.

Power to the light towers is supplied off an 11kV electrical ring main into a transformer inside the base of each tower, which reduces the voltage down to 415 volts. The total power consumption at any given time is approximately 1800Kilowatts. 

Total Consumption for a year would be approximately 720,000kWh, this is based upon a running time of 400 hours over a twelve month term.

For comparison, your average 3 bedroom home with an airconditioner and 4 family members consumes approximately 390kWh per month or 4680 kWh per year. 

Each light tower has an average of 140 no. 2KW (2000-Watt) Metal Halide lamps within the head frame. The number of lamps in each tower varies relative to their position to the central wicket area. The lamps have an effective life of approximately 5000 running hours and about 30 lamps on average are replaced each year. 

The vertical design level of illumination is 1500 lux. The most recent checks carried out in February 2004 averaged 1800 lux. The levels of lighting are achieved by the computer generated individual setting of all 844 lamps to predetermined angles to provide maximum coverage of the arena without any shadowed or dark spot areas. Computer simulation of tower shadows was used to position towers so as to minimise shadows on the pitch area. 

Average illumination is 15-20 times that of domestic lighting, which is more than sufficient for the demands of colour TV broadcasting.

You will notice that in the head frame of the towers where the lights are mounted that there are gaps or what appears to be blown lamps, this is in actual fact spaces where lights are not required as they would not improve the optimum level of lighting.

The lights take approximately 10 minutes to become fully illuminated. If the lights are turned off they can not be turned back on for another 15 minutes as they require time to cool down and then warm back up (re-strike time).


----------



## Zorba

The Athens Olympic stadium had huge floodlights before renovation for the 2004 Olympic games. Now the lights are across the roof.

Pre-Olympics:

























During/Post-Olympics:


----------



## BaylorGuy314

*Cy-Fair High School (near Houston, TX) - Two new stadiums (Basketball & Football)*

Very impressive for a state high school. Texas 5A football is the best in the nation.


----------



## BaylorGuy314

Other nice Texas state high school football facilities.

Garland (near Dallas, TX):









Round Rock (near Austin, TX):









DeSoto:

























Jesse Owens stadium (near Dallas):

















Waco ISD Stadium (Waco, TX):

















Kimbrough Stadium (Plano, TX):

















Scharbauer Sports Complex (Midland, TX)









































Dragon Stadium (Southlake Carroll High School- near Dallas, TX):

















Galena Park Stadium (near Houston, TX):











There are tons more that I didn't post. Will post if y'all want to see more. 

Simply amazing for high school facilties.


----------



## 612bv3

High School!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dande

*Standard of biggest stadiums*

I was wondering about standard of big stadiums like the one in Pyong Yang, Maracana, Teheran etc. Are they up to date as far as spectator comfort, amenities. Maracana looks like giant hole that can hold a whole lot of people, it´s legendary but it´s far from being good for spectators.


----------



## Bigmac1212

I guess the phrase "it's bigger in Texas" applies to high school sporting venues.


----------



## mauritius gunner

I sincerely doubt any of these stadiums are upto scratch.

As for Pyong Yang- in a country that cares more for developing WMDs whilst starving its population to death, probably wouldn't even care less if the seats were made out of wood, to someone getting stampeded or plunging to their deaths from the upper tiers at the annual Communist festivals they constantly seem to have there.

The best stadiums are usually much smaller, better quality and more beautiful.


----------



## kingdomca

great venues. Post as many as you like. The only unfortunate thing is perhaps the double sport pitch markings
I think all this american school and college sports is fantastic. I wish we could have that kind of thing in europe instead of small towns hosting low level teams fighting for promotions that their town can never really sustain anyway.


----------



## eddyk

Oh aye, big doesn't mean best when it comes to stadiums.

I'd sooner have the Reebok Stadium in ths country than say...the Pyong Yang.


The Maracana is currently going through a refit...it's now an all seater.


----------



## Iain1974

dande said:


> I was wondering about standard of big stadiums like the one in Pyong Yang, Maracana, Teheran etc. Are they up to date as far as spectator comfort, amenities. Maracana looks like giant hole that can hold a whole lot of people, it´s legendary but it´s far from being good for spectators.


Even the Nou Camp is pretty average once you're inside. And the less said about the old Wembley the better.


----------



## rantanamo

the large US college stadiums are a mixed bag. the majority of seats are typical bench style college seats. The club levels and suite areas though, are as nice as any stadium in the world. Often nicer as to entertain fat cat alumni that donate to the schools and athletic programs. 

The larger NFL stadiums are as nice as any that you'll find anywhere as well with all of the modern amenities.


----------



## MoreOrLess

mauritius gunner said:


> I sincerely doubt any of these stadiums are upto scratch.
> 
> As for Pyong Yang- in a country that cares more for developing WMDs whilst starving its population to death, probably wouldn't even care less if the seats were made out of wood, to someone getting stampeded or plunging to their deaths from the upper tiers at the annual Communist festivals they constantly seem to have there.
> 
> The best stadiums are usually much smaller, better quality and more beautiful.


I wouldnt actually be supprized if Pyongyang has pretty good facilties, it certainly doesnt look like a typical commie stadium and from what I'v heard the north koreans do tend to invest massively in that kind of figurehead project.


----------



## Svempa99

Here are some old pictures of Ullevi Stadium. It was built for the football world cup in 1958 and was expanded for the athletics world championships in 1995. In 1993 everyday league football left Ullevi for the renovated Gamla (old) Ullevi. Since then the number of big events has increased for every year. This year it will host the european championships in athletics. And Rolling Stones will play there the 10th of June.


----------



## bubomb

Estádio Cícero Pompeu de Toledo (Morumbi), São Paulo


----------



## kingdomca

bubomb said:


> MY GOD!! When did Parken get a retractable roof? and how come nobody told me!!


Its more a fold-out roof than retractable. Its a white fabric between steel girders.
It only cost around £10 million and is a simple construction that I think can easily be added to any venue with existing stands of a level height.

A coloumn is needed to support the added weight as the existing roofs werent designed for it but it doesnt matter much as the roof was only added to make Parken a concert venue.


----------



## Liwwadden

Mo Rush said:


> I am also beginning to hate soccer stadiums with athletics tracks how boring and stupid!!!


I totally agree!


----------



## Mo Rush

*ARENAS OF 2006*

TORINO OLIMPICO STADIUM - 2006 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES

MCG - 2006 COMMONWEATLH GAMES

BERLIN OLYMPIC STADIUM - 2006 FIFA WORLD CUP

GO wild....


----------



## Wezza

*Your countries biggest annual sporting event?*

Just like the title says:

What is the biggest sporting event held in your country every year?

For Australia I would probably go with the Melboune Cup.


----------



## moochie

Wezza said:


> Just like the title says:
> 
> What is the biggest sporting event held in your country every year?
> 
> For Australia I would probably go with the Melboune Cup.


For the USA, The Indy 500, the largest single day annual sporting event in the world. Nationally though, the Superbowl is probably bigger.

I'm not a huge fan of either...


----------



## bubomb

Do you mean a competition as in a league, or a one-off game as in a Cup final? The biggest event in Scotland by far is the SPL, but the Scottish Cup final, World Cup qualifiers and some Rugby games have massive interest which is far far bigger than your average SPL game. But the 228 SPL games in total far outweigh one big final/qualifier.


----------



## perthguy78

he said annual event - that suggests an event not a league..!!


----------



## nomarandlee

Then Indy 500?? mmmmm...NO. ....

For the U.S.
1. Super Bowl (by a big margin)
2. National Championship College football
3. world series/baseball
4. college basketball national championship
5. Indy 500 or Kentucky Derby


----------



## bubomb

perthguy78 said:


> he said annual event - that suggests an event not a league..!!


No, the SPL is an annual event. It is played annually and is an event that takes place over a number of weeks every year.

'What is the biggest sporting single day event held in your country every year' is what I think you are trying to say!!


----------



## moochie

nomarandlee said:


> Then Indy 500?? mmmmm...NO. ....
> 
> For the U.S.
> 1. Super Bowl (by a big margin)
> 2. National Championship College football
> 3. world series/baseball
> 4. college basketball national championship
> 5. Indy 500 or Kentucky Derby


Ahem. Google is your friend. In the future, use it before you post. Use this link: www.fuckinggoogleit.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_500
"the largest single-day sporting event worldwide in both on-grounds attendance and international audience (recent estimates placing the latter in excess of 320 million)."

Like the thread asks, The Indy 500 is the biggest annual sporting event in the world, which of course makes it the USA's biggest annual sporting event. 750,000 attend bodily, it's televised worldwide and has participants from everywhere in the world. 

But, as I stated, it isn't the most popular or culturally relevant event in the USA, particularly when you consider tv audience. It's just the biggest. Too bad the thread title is "Your countries *biggest* annual sporting event?", Not "Your countries most popular sporting event that is ignored by the rest of the world", or your little list may have some credibility in relation to this thread.

Yes, believe it or not, the most popular sporting event in the USA isn't the most important sporting event in the world. It's a big world out there... 

By the way, Indy annually has #4 on your list as well.


----------



## Messed Up

Well if you are talking in terms of international standing Australias biggest sporting event is the Australian F1 Grand Prix held in Melbourne.


----------



## KiwiBrit

I would imagine the UK's biggest annual sporting event would be the London Marathon. With almost 50,000 runners and upwards of half a million spectators lining the route

http://www.london-marathon.co.uk/site/spectators/


----------



## Durbsboi

Well it was always the July handicap, or maybe the comrades marathon, but now I thinks its deff the A1 grand prix, in Durban, South Africa


----------



## MoreOrLess

In terms of the amount at stake I'd say the division 1/championship playoff final would be near the top.


----------



## Drunkill

Messed Up said:


> Well if you are talking in terms of international standing Australias biggest sporting event is the Australian F1 Grand Prix held in Melbourne.


I dunno, Melbourne Cup has quite a large number of intenational horses, plus iot's the only sporting event which we get a public holiday (Victoria anyway) then Australian Tennis Open draws a huge crowd to melbourne.


But for the 1 day event, Melbourne Cup followed by AFL Grand final.


----------



## Wezza

Messed Up said:


> Well if you are talking in terms of international standing Australias biggest sporting event is the Australian F1 Grand Prix held in Melbourne.


Yeah i was thinking of that also, but i figured that Melbourne Cup would have more importance to more Australians than the F1 would.

bubomb,
It can be anything, as long as it's a once per year sporting event. It can be some sort if sporting league grand final if that is the biggest etc etc.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

Wezza said:


> Yeah i was thinking of that also, but i figured that Melbourne Cup would have more importance to more Australians than the F1 would.
> 
> bubomb,
> It can be anything, as long as it's a once per year sporting event. It can be some sort if sporting league grand final if that is the biggest etc etc.




for the UK,take your pick out of:
Wimbledon(ok,its over 2 weeks)
The Grand National(largest for betting)
The FA CUP FINAL(traditionally the biggest,but not as important as it used to be
Champoinship play-off final(estimated richest prize in sport,worth around £30million to the winner
The Derby

i think the one that grabs the nations attention the most is the Grand National
(deemed important enought o be sabotaged by terrorists)
The Ashes,when they are played,are hard to beat,but not annual
This year,Englands world cup games will dwarf anything else here


----------



## Quintana

For The Netherlands it is the TT Assen, a motorrace (125cc, 250cc, MotoGP) annually held at the last saturday of june.


----------



## CharlieP

moochie said:


> Too bad the thread title is "Your countries *biggest* annual sporting event?", Not "Your countries most popular sporting event that is ignored by the rest of the world


Or even "Your *country's* biggest sporting event"...


----------



## [email protected]

In France, choose the placing :

*Cycling* : Tour de France 










*Tennis* : Internationaux de France in Roland Garros (French Open)










*Football* : Finale de la Coupe de France (French Cup Final)










*Rugby* : Finale du Championnat de France (French Championship Final)









Tournoi des 6 Nations










*Car Races* : F1 Grand Prix of France in Magny Cours









24h du Mans :










*horse-riding* : Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe









Prix d'Amerique :


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

I'm not really sure what it would be for the Uk (well, England), but probable contenders are:

Wimbledon
The FA Cup Final
6 Nations Rugby League (not really just a British event though)
Silverstone F1 Grand Prix
The Grand National (horse racing)
Championship play-off

Plus, as the Tour De France is actually the biggest annual sporting event in the world, and it will be starting off in London in 2007, then we could also include that as well 

:cheers:


----------



## 2zanzibar

I'm not french but God I wish I was (sometimes!)


----------



## 2zanzibar

Or Italian!










any annual sporting event that involves having to climb this MF is something to be write home about! Ladies n Gentlemen, the Passo de Stelvio in the Giro d'Italia (which, dare I say it, the Giro is topographically far more interesting than the Tour de France)


----------



## DiggerD21

For Germany I would say one of the following:

DFB-Pokal Finale (german football cup final)
F1 Grand Prix of Europe on Nürburgring 
F1 Grand Prix of Germany on Hockenheimring


----------



## EADGBE

For fear of contradiction, I'll define my interpretation of the question:

Your countries biggest annual sporting event? 

where...
'Country' = the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
'Biggest' = most well-attended by paying customers (sorry, the marathon doesn't 'attract' 500,000 - if it's free, there is no implication of spectator involvement)
'Event' = single, distinct gathering at a specific venue for the duration of the competition (not necessarily a single day but if more than one day, defined as taking place over consecutive days). To me this rules out championships like the SPL/Ashes/6 Nations, but not necessarily the rounds therein.

1st Place: Badminton Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 250,000
2nd Place: Burghley Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 200,000
3rd place: British Grand Prix (3 days) Combined attendance 175,000
4th place: Old Trafford Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 150,000 
5th place: Lord's Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 140,000 
6th place: The Open Golf (4 days) Potential combined attendance 120,000

This is really difficult, though and it's no surprise that everyone has their own perception of the question. Candidates that do not make my top 6 are:

The FA Cup Final (90,000 at Wembley/74,000 at Cardiff)
Superbikes or Moto GP at Donington - attendance?
Any 6 nations match at Twickenham (75,000, rising to 82,000)
Any 6 nations match at Murrayfield (68,000)
Any home game involving Manchester United (67,500 rising to 76,400)
The Grand National at Aintree (upto 70,000)
The Epsom Derby (upto 100,000 on Derby Day?)
Cheltenham Gold Cup Day (upto 65,000)

Old Trafford (Cricket Ground)'s official capacity is 30,000; Lords' is 28,000. A maximum attendance at each requires a five-day test, sold out on each day. This is not at all common as it requires a finely balanced game, with a strong England performance and no possibility of rain/bad light delays. i.e. it is more a theoretical attendance figure than an actual one.

The Open takes place at a different venue each year, obviously varying factors such as crowd capacity and accessibility. With golf attendances less well-reported, the figure is more an average level of expectation from one year to the next.

There seems to be a strong horse theme going through this list...


----------



## rantanamo

For the U.S. itself, I'd say:

Going off of ratings and buzz
1.) Superbowl - Unchallenged
2.) Final Four - This may be the first year, the football game beats it in ratings in a long time
3.) Daytona 500 - Surpassed the Indy 500 in the 90s
4.) College Football National Championship - See Final Four. It should go back to normal without this year's star power and super showdown.
5.) Indy 500 - Fading quickly. Kentucky Derby is gaining on you with the quickness.

Nationaly, the Indy 500 simply isn't that big of a deal since the split. Yes, the onsite crowd is huge. The place is huge, but didn't the Brickyard 500 attendance actually beat the Indy 500 the last few years? The ratings are easily beaten by the weekly Nascar events.

Its a shame that the World Series has fallen so far from grace. It had horrible ratings the last few years. 

Interestingly, locally in DFW, I'd say:


----------



## HoldenV8

AFL Grand Final, Melbourne Cup, NRL Grand Final, Bathurst 1000, Clipsal 500. Any of them could be seen as Australia's biggest sporting event.


----------



## KiwiBrit

> For fear of contradiction, I'll define my interpretation of the question:
> 
> Your countries biggest annual sporting event?
> 
> where...
> 'Country' = the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
> 'Biggest' = most well-attended by paying customers (sorry, the marathon doesn't 'attract' 500,000 - if it's free, there is no implication of spectator involvement)
> 'Event' = single, distinct gathering at a specific venue for the duration of the competition (not necessarily a single day but if more than one day, defined as taking place over consecutive days). To me this rules out championships like the SPL/Ashes/6 Nations, but not necessarily the rounds therein.
> 
> 1st Place: Badminton Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 250,000
> 2nd Place: Burghley Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 200,000
> 3rd place: British Grand Prix (3 days) Combined attendance 175,000
> 4th place: Old Trafford Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 150,000
> 5th place: Lord's Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 140,000
> 6th place: The Open Golf (4 days) Potential combined attendance 120,000
> 
> This is really difficult, though and it's no surprise that everyone has their own perception of the question. Candidates that do not make my top 6 are:
> 
> The FA Cup Final (90,000 at Wembley/74,000 at Cardiff)
> Superbikes or Moto GP at Donington - attendance?
> Any 6 nations match at Twickenham (75,000, rising to 82,000)
> Any 6 nations match at Murrayfield (68,000)
> Any home game involving Manchester United (67,500 rising to 76,400)
> The Grand National at Aintree (upto 70,000)
> The Epsom Derby (upto 100,000 on Derby Day?)
> Cheltenham Gold Cup Day (upto 65,000)
> 
> Old Trafford (Cricket Ground)'s official capacity is 30,000; Lords' is 28,000. A maximum attendance at each requires a five-day test, sold out on each day. This is not at all common as it requires a finely balanced game, with a strong England performance and no possibility of rain/bad light delays. i.e. it is more a theoretical attendance figure than an actual one.
> 
> The Open takes place at a different venue each year, obviously varying factors such as crowd capacity and accessibility. With golf attendances less well-reported, the figure is more an average level of expectation from one year to the next.
> 
> There seems to be a strong horse theme going through this list...


Last years Football League play-offs were over 3 consecutive days 28-30 May 2005. With a combined attendance of 150,000 people. 

Interesting to see you have included at least two 'potential' amounts in your list, which I don't think you should include. For example once the play-offs move back to the new Wembley you _could_ have a potential figure of 270,000 (highly unlikely), beating everything you have listed.


----------



## idlewild

Simple question to Bubomb, what is your problem with being continually over-shadowed by the English????

You should be used to it now.


----------



## NavyBlue

For Australia (in no particular order) take your pick...

* Melbourne Cup Carnival - (horse racing) 400k over 4 days
* Australian F1 GP - Melbourne
* AFL Grand Final - Melbourne Cricket Ground (100k)
* Australian Open Tennis - Melbourne (450k over 2 weeks) worlds second most attended tournament
* Indy 500 - Gold coast
* NRL Grand Final - Telstra Stadium (85k - Sydney)

They all hold their own but the Melbourne Cup held on the first Tuesday in November is generally considered as the race that stops the nation.


----------



## EADGBE

KiwiBrit said:


> Last years Football League play-offs were over 3 consecutive days 28-30 May 2005. With a combined attendance of 150,000 people.
> 
> Interesting to see you have included at least two 'potential' amounts in your list, which I don't think you should include. For example once the play-offs move back to the new Wembley you _could_ have a potential figure of 270,000 (highly unlikely), beating everything you have listed.


I would classify the play-offs as not technically the same event, even though they happen on consecutive days because different teams participate on different days. That's why Wimbledon isn't in my list.

Interstingly, there's an Aussie post here since yours. I know it's been debated before but, using my 'Potential' logic, the MCG could attract 500,000. I agree it's not definitive, but equally, it could happen. To some extent, every event has only a potential. We assume but can't guarantee that the next Cup Final at Wembley will attract 90,000.


----------



## Martuh

I think it's the TT Assen for Netherlands. We have some annual major sports events, but not really major. perhaps the Amsterdam or Rotterdam marathon or so.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

*Stadia u DONT like*

Since we have a lot of similar threads why don't we post a picture of a well known major stadium that we DON'T like.


----------



## Madman

Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...


----------



## 2005

Madman said:


> Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...


The colours aren't pretty but it is a fantastic stadium especially on match days.


----------



## 40Acres

estadio azteca ... especially hate the team inside ... though i appreciate its history











Texas A&M Aggies, Kyle Field
Also hate the team inside, and its an ongoing joke on the texas boards that it looks like a tackle box


----------



## Forza Raalte

uke:


----------



## Bigmac1212

Forza Raalte said:


> uke:


Which stadium are you refering to?


----------



## Zorba

^^
The Delle Alpi Stadium in Turin, Italy


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Subiaco Oval in Perth. Looks worse than a Fair ground and they play top level sport there.


----------



## steveowevo

BC Place, Vancouver-- Please don't judge beautiful Vancouver over their ugly stadium (which will hold the 2010 opening and closing cerimonies.) :bash: But it should be a great party anyway!





































:sleepy:


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that Canadian gridiron being played in that stadium? Looks quite similar to American gridiron. The goals are up a bit by comparison while the rest looks the same.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

I have to agree, the Texas A&M Aggies stadiujm is just one big hunk of crap, layered like a dam tool box!

I also think this is one of the ugliest stadiums in the world, the War Memorial stadium in the USA:


----------



## dewback

vivayo said:


>


Well, I wouldn't mind Allianz Arena becoming the replacement of Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego!


----------



## dewback

Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid. I just think that the city deserves something better than that "structure." Well, at least the worse looking Vicente Calderon is likely to be imploded.


----------



## victory

BC Place doesn't look that bad.



> Is that Canadian gridiron being played in that stadium? Looks quite similar to American gridiron. The goals are up a bit by comparison while the rest looks the same.


I think other differences include a field that is 10 yards longer and canadian football has only 3 downs.

----
My pick:
The Gabba, Brisbane








That photo is outdated, the gap is now filled with the big stand going full 360 around the field.

If your going to have a small cricket ground, at least give it some character. Likewise if you are going to have one continuous stand all the way around, at least make it big, intimidating and spectacular. And dont even get me started on the seat colours.








the seats ^^ 

The gabba fails on all accounts and makes for one rather ugly, heartless, and small stadium.


----------



## victory

Well it was a toss up between reliant and allianz, but both have been taken. So I'll take this not-yet-completed beauty.

AZ Carinals Stadium, Arizona. 
capacity 63,000
retractable roof
retractable turf


----------



## 40Acres

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> I have to agree, the Texas A&M Aggies stadiujm is just one big hunk of crap, layered like a dam tool box!
> 
> I also think this is one of the ugliest stadiums in the world, the War Memorial stadium in the USA:



Hmmm.. i dont think i've ever seen that stadium. Where is that? Is that the old Polo Grounds where the NY Giants (baseball) used to play in Brooklyn? If it is, that's a very historical stadium, but looks awful for baseball. Still, that stadium is VERY historic.

Is it the same park? 


















I'm pretty sure it doesnt exist anymore.


----------



## reluminate

^ No, definately not the same. And the Polo Ground was in Manhattan, not Brooklyn


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

Madman said:


> Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...


yeah i like de structure of da stadia de problem is realy the colours.. such a bad taste.
i would prefer it in white,green and brown, much more simple, clean and beautiful
i saw this way in the first project but probably mr Taveira ( arquitect ) didn´t like it. he is weel known for using lots of colours like in Leiria or Aveiro stadium. such an ashole, actualy he made porn videos that u can downolad anywhere on da web :crazy:

and it´s look like Brazil stadium not sporting..


p.s now u can understand why we (benfica fans) call it the "wc" :hilarious


----------



## Marco_

I'm getting sick of this UFO :gaah:


----------



## EADGBE

Top idea for a thread!

My nominee would be the 1996 Olumpic Stadium in Atlanta (pre-Turner Field)










There aren't many pictures of it to be found in this guise but it truly was an eyesore during those games. As a baseball stadium, it looks as good as any other of its era, so it shows the danger of taking stadium versatility too far. 










I also feel that to have what always looked like a baseball-stadium-in-waiting as an Olympic stadium kind of tainted the honour of hosting the games. Every other Olympic City I can think of still proudly uses the 'Olympic' name. In Atlanta, it was a shrine to Mr CNN's ego as soon as the flame went out.


----------



## victory

Well the whole Atlanta games were a travesty and one giant scandal.

They never should have been awarded the games, and had the IOC known about record tampering in the US bid, they never would have been. (it very well could of have been my city if Atlanta hadnt lied its ar$e off)


----------



## Scba

I'm pretty sure that War Memorial Stadium took the wrecking ball sometime around 1990. Ought to look familiar to some people, though...

They put up an absolute gem for the new team, but for some reason, there are virtually no good pictures of the place. :dunno:


----------



## Loranga

In Sweden it must be Vasaloppet, held in the first sunday in March (today that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasaloppet


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Absolutely no question, the super bowl.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

My pathetic hometown stadium, the Metroshithole.........


----------



## TalB

I know many people hate MSG.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Montreal Olympic stadium, eyesore would be generous........


----------



## 40Acres

i still dont know where that War Memorial Stadium is/was in the US.


----------



## memyself and I

took me about 2 sec. to google it and find out ... :bash: 

:jk:


----------



## memyself and I

took me about 2 sec. to google it and find out ... :bash: 

:jk: 

it's in Buffalo.





War Memorial Stadium ~ Home of the American Football League Buffalo Bills


----------



## Durbsboi

^^ very clever, very very clever. its like that dome stadium they had for Korea/Japan


----------



## Durbsboi

I would like to transplant the Telstra dome in Melbourne for the Kingmead cricket ground in Durban. because we luv our cricket here, & everytime we hav a major International, IT RAINS!!!!
*Kingsmead Cricket ground* 









*Telstra Dome*


----------



## Durbsboi

How about this EddyK??









C'mon u reds! U can do it! Beat sum Benfica ass on wed!!!
show them whos the champions of Europe!


----------



## EADGBE

NFLeuropefan said:


> My pathetic hometown stadium, the Metroshithole.........


I've read this view about the Metrodome before and I have to say I'm intrigued. We have some great venues here now in the UK but it wasn't always like that. At 64,121, it's bigger than every Premiership ground except Old Trafford (it's even bigger than Arsenal's new ground) - and it's covered. Even now, only the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is comparable here.

I know it's over 20 years old now and may be showing its age in some ways but really, what's so wrong with it? I used to look at the 'domes' in the NFL (Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta, Pontiac, er, any more?) with real envy. At Minneapolis, there's even a seating orientation for baseball, so it's not as if it's not versatile, is it?

It seems that the age of the 'dome' has passed. Seattle, Houston and Detroit have moved out of theirs, Katrina has damaged the Superdome, possibly beyond repair and the Vikings have been planning to move for a couple of years now. As far as I know, only the Georgia Dome has a secure future. Why though?


----------



## EADGBE

*Top 10 Venues you've been past , but not in*

Following on from the 'My Top 10 [stadia that you've ben in]' and because I'm a little bored, here's another idea for a thread: What are the top 10 stadia/venues you've been past, but not in (by capacity). Again, I'm using worldstadiums.com as my arbiter of capacity.

1. Daytona International Speedway, Daytona Beach, Fl. (capacity: 168,000)
[Holiday to Florida, 1991]










2. Hockenheimring, Hockenheim, Germany (capacity: 120,000)
[Business trip to Germany, 2005]










3. Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (capacity: 98,934)
[Stag party to Barcelona, 2002]










4. New Wembley, London, UK (capacity: 90,000)
[Business trip to London, 2005]










5. Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion, Moscow, Russia (capacity: 84,745)
[College exchange to Moscow, 1991]










6. Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland (capacity: 82,500)
[Business trip to Dublin, 2001]










7. Old Mile High Stadium, Denver, Co. (capacity: 80,270)
[Skiing holiday to Colorado, 1994]










8. Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (capacity: 69,901)
[Business trip to Germany, 2005]










9. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pa. (capacity: 68,532)
[Flight to Las Vegas via Philadelphia, 2002]










10. Texas Stadium, Irving, Tx. (capacity: 65,846)
[Flight back to NY from Denver, via DFW, 1994]


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Man, we really are running out of new thread ideas eh?


----------



## rantanamo

Why?:

1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.
2.) US people like to be outside. 
3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time.
4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)

The only reason you see domes or retractables anymore in the U.S. are because of a desire to host conventions, Final Four, Bowl games or the Superbowl because each require a certain climate no matter the time of year.


----------



## cianobuckley

the delli alpi is horrible


----------



## cianobuckley

the delli alpi is horrible half the seats must be covered in dust


----------



## Giorgio

Aami Stadium.


----------



## Giorgio

Aami Stadium.


----------



## Isaac Newell

rantanamo said:


> Why?:
> 
> 1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.
> 2.) US people like to be outside.
> 3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time.
> 4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)
> 
> The only reason you see domes or retractables anymore in the U.S. are because of a desire to host conventions, Final Four, Bowl games or the Superbowl because each require a certain climate no matter the time of year.


Shame about Busch in St Louis, I liked that one (although I never managed to visit it) It had that 50's space age look about it and it was always full in a good baseball city.


----------



## bubomb

rantanamo said:


> 1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.


Have you ever visited the heavily populated areas of North-East America? The weather is far from 'great' in places like Chicago!!


----------



## Taller Better

steveowevo said:


> BC Place, Vancouver-- Please don't judge beautiful Vancouver over their ugly stadium (which will hold the 2010 opening and closing cerimonies.) :bash: But it should be a great party anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :sleepy:


LOL! I remember one uncharitable media-type in Vancouver refer to BC
Place as a Marshmallow in Bondage!! However, it is covered, and that is
a blessing. Any uncovered stadium in Canada is just begging for problems 
in the winter. 


Re:title of thread, although 'stadium' comes from Latin (as the French
word does, too) I've never seen it reverted to Latin for plural use! Stadia!


----------



## Scba

bubomb said:


> Have you ever visited the heavily populated areas of North-East America? The weather is far from 'great' in places like Chicago!!


I wouldn't really consider Chicago to be part of the northeast...at all. 

And 25 degrees with flurries IS great football weather here. There was a game in Chicago last year where the windchill was waaaay below zero. Stadium? Jam-packed.


----------



## rantanamo

The weather is just fine in Chicago and the Northeast during most of the football season and pretty much all of the baseball season. Most of the time its just cold. An English style roof can't stop the cold.


----------



## Imperfect Ending

The Pontiac Silverdome


----------



## NFLeuropefan

There is nothing more depressing than sitting inside a dome, it's a feeling that you can't get if you're not there. It's ugly, boring, and doesn't breed an atmosphere. People here in MN hate it and want to replace it, we're just to cheap (Minnesotans are true tightwads) to pay for 2 more stadiums. The outside atmosphere could be more like Lambeau in Green Bay, which is maybe the best in the NFL, football in 10 degree weather is great.... One other major problem is that it's SO HOT inside a dome, I almost overheat everytime I go to a game there. When I got to play a football game in the stadium I almost overheated in warmups........ Domes are horrible.....


----------



## victory

> There is nothing more depressing than sitting inside a dome, it's a feeling that you can't get if you're not there. It's ugly, boring, and doesn't breed an atmosphere. People here in MN hate it and want to replace it, we're just to cheap (Minnesotans are true tightwads) to pay for 2 more stadiums. The outside atmosphere could be more like Lambeau in Green Bay, which is maybe the best in the NFL, football in 10 degree weather is great.... One other major problem is that it's SO HOT inside a dome, I almost overheat everytime I go to a game there. When I got to play a football game in the stadium I almost overheated in warmups........ Domes are horrible.....


I disagree.
I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.

Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

BTW, in America the stadiums that house both football and baseball are very ugly, you either have the lines on the baseball field or the dirt diamond on a football field, also, the seating capacities are far different for football and baseball, the average baseball stadium seats around 45-50 thousand, the average football stadium seats ATLEAST 65 thousand, and up to around 90 thousand. Baseball stadiums look terrible with too many seats, and an NFL team wouldn't tolerate a 50 thousand seat bandbox $$$$$$$


----------



## rantanamo

victory said:


> I disagree.
> I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.
> 
> Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.


A fundamental difference from most Americans. The one dome that people seem to really love is Ford Field, and it has huge 'skylights' that make it seem more outdoors than your usual dome.


----------



## Doc Halladay

*Stade Olympique* 
Montreal, QC, Canada










*Texas Stadium* 
Irving, TX, USA










*Monster Park* 
San Francisco, CA, USA


----------



## bubomb

Scba said:


> I wouldn't really consider Chicago to be part of the northeast...at all.
> 
> And 25 degrees with flurries IS great football weather here. There was a game in Chicago last year where the windchill was waaaay below zero. Stadium? Jam-packed.


I went to an American football game when I was in Chicago, and it was cold, wet and miserable (it was in the old Soldier Field). The stadium was almost full but I wasn't the only one wishing it had a roof!! Nobody was shouting - "Hey guys, look at me, i'm wet and cold, ain't I a hardass......YEEEE HAAAAHHH"

I actually left early as the game was so slow and seemed to last forever!! It simply wasn't much fun and in fact was totally shit. I found it bizarre that such a great city didn't have any kind of roof on it's main stadium and was so far behind even the older European stadiums when it came to stadium construction!! 

Chicago was great though!


----------



## rantanamo

Don't care if that was your one time experience. There are 8 home games. The weather might suck for 2 of them at most. Most seasons you get a bunch of cold days. This year they got one snowy game and that was it.

Why didn't you ask some of their real fans why they don't build a dome?


----------



## MoreOrLess

NFLeuropefan said:


> Montreal Olympic stadium, eyesore would be generous........


While it looks less than idea in terms of spectator views and was obviously vastly overpriced I certainly wouldnt call it ugly.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^ it looks quite nice from the outside, but the inside does look abit dodgy.
& wats that big tower for? does it just hold up the canvas roof? or does it serve another purpose?


----------



## Lostboy

Actually I take the side of some of the Americans here, the domes seem sort of stuffy and claustrophobic, as much as can be told from a photograph anyway. That said a small roof above the stands really would be much better, for me stadia seem naked without them, perhaps its a fundamental difference between European and American Stadia Attitudes, but I wouldn't attribute all this to weather, I imagine the weather in Spain and Italy is far better than most of America, yet most of their stadia are roofed.


----------



## bubomb

rantanamo said:


> Don't care if that was your one time experience. There are 8 home games. The weather might suck for 2 of them at most. Most seasons you get a bunch of cold days. This year they got one snowy game and that was it.
> 
> Why didn't you ask some of their real fans why they don't build a dome?


I wouldn't want a dome either, just a good stadium with a nice shiny new roof, or even a retractable like the Reliant (which is clearly the best stadium in the USA).


----------



## Taller Better

I'd say the perfect solution is the retractable dome. I am perfectly happy with the
Rogers Centre in Toronto- on a fine day they open the roof. On an inclement day 
they close it. It takes 20 minutes to open or close it. (photo is not mine):


----------



## rantanamo

Reliant is not clearly the best stadium in the USA. I'd say a few baseball and a couple of football stadiums are better. If you haven't been to a modern baseball stadium, they are incredible venues.


----------



## Lostboy

Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport. 

I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.


----------



## EADGBE

victory said:


> I disagree.
> I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.
> 
> Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.


I've just been to the Millennium Stadium (with roof closed) in Cardiff and I have to say that I was mightily impressed with it. Having said that, I can appreciate that this may indeed be due to its novelty value to me (and maybe that of Victory, too - the Telstra Dome isn't that old, either).

Having read the Americans' views, I'm sure the 80's Domes in the US do have their considerable downsides. Certainly, they're not outwardly as aesthetically pleasing as the MS in Cardiff, the TD in Melbourne, Reliant in Houston or Ford Field in Detroit - but then lots of things from the '80's looked a bit rubbish, so it's hardly surprising that some of the architecture did too. 

Another distinction to make is that the Domes were just that. More recent covered stadia (see above) all now offer a retractable roof. The proposed replacement Vikings stadium (will it happen?) seems to have one too. Next to the flexibility of a roof that can be either closed or opened, I can see that Domes may look a bit, well, basic.

I wasn't decrying anyone's opinion when I asked the question, it's just that we've never gone through the whole rise-and-fall-of-Domes thing here (and probably never will, now). I suppose that, just as I was in awe of the Domes 10 or 15 years ago because I'd never been to an indoor stadium, it's possible that the reverse is true of a generation of NFL fans in those cities who want to sample an 'outdoor' game or better still, get the best of both worlds. 

The closest approximation I can think of is the short-lived plastic pitch fad of QPR, Luton, Preston and Oldham in the 1980's. For a while, they were the shape of things to come, then they just became a source of ridicule.

I suppose the ultimate question is what will happen to them. The last time I saw the Houston Astrodome, it had 10,000 hurricane Katrina survivors in it - ironically, some of whom had been in the Louisiana Superdome! There's a stadium tour you wouldn't want!


----------



## TalB

I find beauty to just be skin deep when it comes to judging stadiums. I never did get what makes it ugly or what makes it best. Afterall, the function is still pretty much the same no matter how it looks. I know a number of stadiums that won't win a beauty contest, but still have very good qualities despite that. BTW, I tend to find building newer sports facilities that are better looking a cause to raising ticket prices from what they were originally.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

When I went to the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, there were about 10,00 people there, a huge crowd for Montreal, it was a holiday. The stadium would shake whenever anyone made any noise, the PA system sounded so horrible that you couldn't even understand it. Also, about 2/3 of the stadium was closed and roped off, being the last year of Expos baseball, they had to save whatever money they could. If all of this weren't bad enough, the stadium is horribly ugly.


----------



## EADGBE

rantanamo said:


> 1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates..


Well, I'm sure Seattle, Minneapolis and Detroit have their fair share of rain and snow in the latter half of the NFL season. I always figured that Houston, Atlanta and New Orleans had the opposite problem and were countering humidity, particularly in the early season.



rantanamo said:


> 2.) US people like to be outside.


Don't we all? Given the climatic considerations above, I'd agree that you'd really want to be outside, though! Especially, when you consider that you're spending, what, three times as long in your seat as we do for Association Football. Two hours at Old Trafford (with 'conventional' roof) is plenty when the North wind's blowing in Manchester!



rantanamo said:


> 3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time..


This I can understand, actually. I'd imagine it's also why the newer capacities are large, but not ridiculously so at the expense of amenities, like with many College stadia. You have to ask why Ford Field is designed to look so good but 'only' offer 65,000 seats. It's obviously not worked out like that by accident. So the Lions lose upto 10,000 fans a game but the experience of seeing them is improved and the risk of empty seats is reduced. BTW, are ticket prices higher for Ford Field than the Silverdome? I'd expect so.



rantanamo said:


> 4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)


I guess that's true but maybe the bit that's difficult for you to understand is that despite all that, all but maybe the top 10 clubs (although not necessarily all their fans) in Europe would swap their limited gound for a Silverdome tomorrow. Just because a 75,000 dome is passé in the US doesn't make it a worthless enterprise everywhere else. What price originality, compared to function?


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport.
> 
> I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.


We can test that out, how many americans like....


----------



## NFLeuropefan

I think that i like it, but I'd to see the whole stadium...........


----------



## NFLeuropefan

> This I can understand, actually. I'd imagine it's also why the newer capacities are large, but not ridiculously so at the expense of amenities, like with many College stadia. You have to ask why Ford Field is designed to look so good but 'only' offer 65,000 seats. It's obviously not worked out like that by accident. So the Lions lose upto 10,000 fans a game but the experience of seeing them is improved and the risk of empty seats is reduced. BTW, are ticket prices higher for Ford Field than the Silverdome? I'd expect so.


You're right on the nuts with that assessment. Yes, the Lions ticket prices are MUCH higher at Ford Field than at the Silverdome. My uncle who lives in the Detroit suburbs is a Lions fan and a regular at their games and who went to the super bowl in a luxury suite regularily has to pay a couple hundred bucks for decent seats. So financially it's a great move for the Lions to be at Ford Field. It is especially important to be able to sell out games if you're an NFL team because your game is blacked out on TV in the local market if it isn't sold out. Since the Lions are a HORRENDOUS team with a bad owner, it was somewhat of a challenge to avoid blackouts when the team was at the Silverdome.........


----------



## BaylorGuy314

Domed stadiums are horrible. 

Trust me, I lived only about 25 minutes from the Astrodome in Houston for many years and we went to a lot of games there. 

First of all, no stadium can be the best at serving to purposes. For instance, a great football stadium will offer horrible sightlines for baseball and vice versa. This is one reason why domes didn't make sense. Many were made assuming there would be revenue from more than one sport or event. People found that watching a game played on a rectangular field in a dome that is round offered horrible sightlines and put you far away from the field. You had a better view sitting at home. Then, switch it over to baseball, and half the stands are practically useless because of the view.

Doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, for games that are traditionally played outside (football, baseball), domes really hamper the feeling of the game. Unlike a retractable roof (which usually has a large amount of glass to "bring the outside in," domes are usually completely shutoff from outside. It could be raining, snowing, 110 degrees, 0 degress, whatever, and you wouldn't know it. At first, this was viewed as a positive, but people quickly realized that being outdoors was part of what made the sport great. 

Third, domes were built with the idea that no games would be cancelled due to inclement weather. While this is true, retractable roofs now solve that same problem, but they still bring the feeling of the outdoors on good weather days when the roof is open. Since the weather is usually good enough to have the roof open, then why build a dome that shuts out good weather most of the time, to save for the bad weather every once in a while?

Most domes were also dingy, very cold or very hot, and were too expensive for their own good. Some domed stadiums went to a fabric-like roof that gave the impression of a sky and could be lit with natural light. This helped, along with the fact that the fabric was usually cheaper than a concrete structure in the same spot.

Not to mention, domes were not very flexible. You could not expand the seating in a domed stadium unless you simply crammed in more seats to the existing areas OR unless you made major, major (and costly) renovations to the roof. Other stadiums, including retractable roof stadiums, that have 4 major load bearing points (like Reliant Stadium in Houston) can be adjusted if needed.

Those are just a couple of reasons I can think of.


----------



## rantanamo

Lostboy said:


> Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport.
> 
> I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.


Excellent post. I like to put stadiums into two categories. Great overall stadiums, and the BEST. The great ones are just great stadiums(technology, innovation, aesthetics) no matter the sport. I'd put Wembley, Telstra Stadium, Reliant, Soldier Field, American Airlines Center and Da Luz type stadiums there. The BEST are great stadiums also, but have that certain 'perfect design' for their respective sport, as well as a great fit for what environment they thrive in. Bernabeu, Allianz, Qwest Field, Paul Brown Stadium, M&T Bank, Safeco Field, SBC Park, PNC Park. Its the whole Conseco Fieldhouse vs American Airlines Center argument. The American Airlines Center remains the most expensive, and pinnacle of arena design in the world. An absolute palace of an arena. But that's just it, I love my hometown venue, but its a hockey/basketball arena, which suffers the lowest tier layout. So its not the greatest, but great for hockey, and not the greatest but great for basketball. Conseco on the other hand, is absolute basketball perfection. It sacrificed hockey functionality(Makes the AAC overal better), but for basketball, Conseco is the ideal, which is why I'd put it a notch above the AAC.

I would say Old Trafford, Bernabeu and Allianz are the best for what they are built for in Europe. You could play American Football at these stadiums, but they ARE what I think of when I think of soccer stadiums for their respective nations. Tight to the pitch stands. Steeper grades. If Dallas was going to build a large soccer stadium from scratch, I would hope Bernabeu was the design inside with the flashy exterior of Allianz. Because of the newness and modern features along with the pure soccer design, I'd say Allianz is the best in Europe. I know there are retractable roofs and retractable fields, and that is great and all, but isn't everything in stadium design if the rest of the stadium isn't perfect for what it's built for. IMHO, Reliant would probably probably be the best in Europe if it were there. Just from reading, it seems Reliant has everything that is wanted by folks here. On the other hand, something about it is missing for an American football stadium. The stadium itself is great, just lacks that something that puts it over the top like I mention in the previous paragraph.

I love Da Luz and Emirates too, but I would rather that the new Cowboys Stadium resemble a combination of the two. The roof of Da Luz and the stadium and exterior of Emirates done in blue. Of course, I'd like no roof, but Jerry wants the Superbowl and Final Four. Guess everyone will be protected during that 1 or 2 games of rain or mist. But this again is what I'm talking about. Excellent, world class stadiums. Just missing those details that an Old Trafford has to the eye of the discriminating soccer stadium junkie. Before people jump on me, read your own threads on Emirates. A lot of what I say is echoed.


----------



## EADGBE

NFLeuropefan said:


> It is especially important to be able to sell out games if you're an NFL team because your game is blacked out on TV in the local market if it isn't sold out. Since the Lions are a HORRENDOUS team with a bad owner, it was somewhat of a challenge to avoid blackouts when the team was at the Silverdome.........


Interesting! So, if you don't sell out, you don't get Live TV coverage, presumably:

a) to avoid the NFL's brand being damaged by images of lots of empty seats being beamed in to millions of TV fans' homes

b) to ensure franchise owners can't blame the TV compaies for ticket sales having been affected by TV coverage.

If we had that rule in the Premiership, only Manchester United and Newcastle would be safe. Arsenal would be okay this season but the jury would be out on them next season! Even Chelsea and Liverpool would not be immune to 'blackouts'...


----------



## 40Acres

EADGBE said:


> Interesting! So, if you don't sell out, you don't get Live TV coverage, presumably:
> 
> a) to avoid the NFL's brand being damaged by images of lots of empty seats being beamed in to millions of TV fans' homes
> 
> b) to ensure franchise owners can't blame the TV compaies for ticket sales having been affected by TV coverage.
> 
> If we had that rule in the Premiership, only Manchester United and Newcastle would be safe. Arsenal would be okay this season but the jury would be out on them next season! Even Chelsea and Liverpool would not be immune to 'blackouts'...


Kind of. Its blacked out in the local markets. Fans of teams that traveled to a non-sold-out venue shouldnt have to suffer for the ineptness of the team they're playing. 

Yes, some teams block-out sections of their stadiums in order to avoid local TV blackouts (The Carolina Panthers or Jacksonville Jaguars do this i think), but the limit is around 65K for the blackout to be avoided. Theory is, that locals are more likely to watch on TV than spend $$$ going to the stadium.

I haven't seen a home Arizona Cardinals game since i've been in Phoenix (6 years), and the radius for a blackout is 60 miles, IIRC.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

EADGBE- The thing is, only 3 of the NFL's 32 teams don't sell out all of their games, that number will probably go down next year to 1 or 2. Really, it's a dumb rule for the NFL, because you lose more money and interest with every game not on TV, it serves no purpose..... Besides, no one goes to games because they can't see them on TV........


----------



## bubomb

*Classic stadium facades*

The 3 biggest classic facades in the UK were Ibrox, Villa Park and Highbury. Now that Villa Park has been destroyed and Highbury about to go, that just leaves Ibrox. Craven Cottage also has a nice facade on their stadium. Let's see some pics of classic facades on stadiums -


Ibrox (Rangers) -











Craven Cottage (Fulham) -











Renato dall'Ara (FC Bologna 1909)




















Olimpiyskiy stadion Luzhniki (Spartak Moskva) -











Olympiastadion (Hertha Berlin) -











Vassil Levski (Bulgarian National Stadium) -











Atleti Azzurri d´Italia (Atalanta Bergamo)











Olímpic de Montjuïc (Espanyol) -











Stockholms Stadion (FC Café Opera) -











Arena Civica (Brera FC)


----------



## Genç

Besiktas Inonu Stadium (before expansion)


----------



## Quintana

Het Kasteel (The Castle), stadium of Sparta Rotterdam:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Bubomb didn't you post something simillar to this some time ago, or are you just wanting to distance yourself from the moderator thread by showing you do post meaningful threads?


----------



## bubomb

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Bubomb didn't you post something simillar to this some time ago, or are you just wanting to distance yourself from the moderator thread by showing you do post meaningful threads?


No, I didn't.

and now you are taking this thread off-topic! I ain't scared of no moderator.....soon I may be one......and then the world :bow:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ Meant to be a compliment


----------



## bubomb

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ Meant to be a compliment


I know....Sorry, I stubbed my toe on a chair and took it out on you. Sorry about that.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

Ibrox is a mediocre British stadium. And a decade ago you struggled to get 30,000. Don't bother to develop eh.......not that you can afford it :rofl:


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> Ibrox is a mediocre British stadium. And a decade ago you struggled to get 30,000. Don't bother to develop eh.......not that you can afford it :rofl:


Oh my God! We have another moron!! Where are these people coming from? A decade ago Rangers were going through their 9 in a row spell, and every game was sold out. 20 years ago Rangers were getting 30000 crowds, not 10 years ago.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/avesco.htm

Average British stadium?? Aye right!! It's obviously one of the best British club stadiums, possibly the best British club stadium (I don't think it is the best, but many do). Riverside stadium is an 'average' British stadium. (and Ibrox IS getting developed in the summer!!)

This **** is obviously a trouble maker, and is almost certainly not a 'new' poster ('Mac' perhaps?). He is attacking every one of my posts and is clearly out to provoke an argument. I will ignore him from now on so that he doesn't ruin this thread.


I like this facade -











Are 'Sparta Rotterdam' Rotterdam's 2nd club? and what is the future for this stadium? as it's a lovely little stadium.


----------



## Köbtke

I'd definately say Germany has the edge right now. Yes, granted, helped along by their hosting of the WC. But still, they're miles ahead as I see it right now. Their nearest competitors, England and Portugal are quite far behind. England is getting maybe three new top notch stadiums to go along with Old Trafford. While Germany now boasts at least double digits in top notch, big stadiums.

I'd actually also say that Portugal boasts better stadiums than England. Fair enough, maybe not down through the ranks but the top stadias are better and more interesting in my opinion.

If we count UK instead of just England, then the UK might just edge ahead of Portugal, thanks to Ibrox in particular.

In my opinion, no other nations get close to these.

So:

Germany

(UK)
Portugal
England


----------



## carlspannoosh

I would say 
Germany or England.
Portugal
Spain
Netherlands
Italy 
France


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

England
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
Portugal
Italy
France


----------



## Lostboy

I agree with the Dane. Germany has 12 World Class Stadia, no-one else can currently match that.


----------



## Socrates

Köbtke said:


> I'd definately say Germany has the edge right now. Yes, granted, helped along by their hosting of the WC. But still, they're miles ahead as I see it right now. Their nearest competitors, England and Portugal are quite far behind. England is getting maybe three new top notch stadiums to go along with Old Trafford. While Germany now boasts at least double digits in top notch, big stadiums.
> 
> I'd actually also say that Portugal boasts better stadiums than England. Fair enough, maybe not down through the ranks but the top stadias are better and more interesting in my opinion.
> 
> If we count UK instead of just England, then the UK might just edge ahead of Portugal, thanks to Ibrox in particular.
> 
> In my opinion, no other nations get close to these.
> 
> So:
> 
> Germany
> 
> (UK)
> Portugal
> England


What this guy ^^ said is spot on.


----------



## Welly

I'm surprised the country with the best stadia in Europe hasn't even got a single mention yet. The European country with the best stadia is, without any doubt whatsoever, Great Britain.

I win.

Thread closed.


----------



## elpolako

my list:

Germany 

Portugal 
UK
Spain, Italy, France


----------



## stadiumfuture

On terms of money (more for less) and quality.

Portugal (great architecture)
Holland (best small stadia in the world)
England (good construction boom)
Germany (good en simple stadia) 
Spain (stadia country of the old era)
Scotland (England in small)
Italy (The worse stadia in Europe, only the San Siro is good)


----------



## bubomb

The answer is simple - Germany (and it always will be unless other countries allow terracing!)


----------



## JacobRit

I think that England can throw up 12 world class stadia now

Football only so no Twickers

OLD TRAFFORD
ANFIELD
NEW WEMBLEY
EMIRATES
VILLA PARK
STAMFORD BRIDGE
CITY OF MANCHESTER STADIUM
ST JAMES PARK
STADIUM OF LIGHT
REEBOK STADIUM
ST MARYS STADIUM
RIVERSIDE STADIUM


----------



## bubomb

JOBINHO said:


> Surely you cant put Portugal in front of Germany, granted Dragao etc are nice
> but across the League in Germany their are equally as nice stadiums but more of them with far more higher capacities.The Olympic Stadium though is somwhat of a Nazi monument even though its quite nice it was Hitlers Design and should of been destroyed. :bash:
> 
> I feel its a hard one though I would place them in this order not using the uk
> 
> 1-Germany
> 2-England
> 3-Spain
> 4-Italy(even though they're crap they're still impressive)
> 5-Portugal
> 6-France
> 7-Holland
> 8-Scotland


It wasn't Hitler's design, it was Werner March's, along with Albert Speer. Albert Speer was one of the 20th century's greatest architects (arguably the greatest). You should read "Albert Speer : His Battle with Truth", one of the best books ever written.

http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/welcom2.htm
http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/news.htm
http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/story.htm


----------



## bubomb

JacobRit said:


> I think that England can throw up 12 world class stadia now
> 
> Football only so no Twickers
> 
> OLD TRAFFORD
> ANFIELD
> NEW WEMBLEY
> EMIRATES
> VILLA PARK
> STAMFORD BRIDGE
> CITY OF MANCHESTER STADIUM
> ST JAMES PARK
> STADIUM OF LIGHT
> REEBOK STADIUM
> ST MARYS STADIUM
> RIVERSIDE STADIUM


You must be having a laugh!!


Signal Iduna Park, Borussia Dortmund, 81.264
Olympiastadion, Hertha BSC Berlin, 76.000
Allianz Arena, FC Bayern München, 69.901
Veltins Arena, FC Schalke 04, 61.524 
AOL Arena, Hamburger SV, 55.989 
Borussia Park, Borussia Mönchengladbach, 54.019
Commerzbank Arena, Eintracht Frankfurt, 52.300 
LTU Arena, Fortuna Düsseldorf, 52.000 
Rhein Energie Stadion, FC Köln, 51.000
AWD Arena, Hannover 96, 49.951
Fritz Walter Stadion, FC Kaiserslautern, 48.500
Zentralstadion, FC Sachsen Leipzig, 44.345
MSV Arena, MSV Duisburg, 31.500 
Volkswagen Arena, VfL Wolfsburg, 30.122

That's 10 at 50000+ (I've not even included Stuttgart 57000, Nürnberg 47559, Werder Bremen 43087)


and a few smaller ones as a bonus -

Karlsruhe, new 45000 stadium
Ruhrstadion, VfL Bochum, 32645 
Dresden, new 32000 stadium
BayArena, Bayer 04 Leverkusen, soon to be 30000
Ostseestadion, FC Hansa Rostock, 30100 
Magdeburg, new 27860 stadium


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> _Also, you'd expect a stadium boom with an upcoming World Cup or Euro bid, but these stadiums have been built in a period when England hasn't had either!_
> 
> Very true. I don't think a single stadium was even significantly refurbished for Euro '96.
> 
> _And btw Lostboy, the thread should have been 'How far has your country's stadia improved in 10 years?' _
> 
> Bloody Hell, Grammar Fascism has spread a lot recently.


Old Trafford (new North stand), Anfield (new Kop), Elland Road (new East stand), Hillsborough (new South Stand), Villa Park (new Holte End), St James' Park (3 new stands) & City Ground (2 new stands) were all extensively upgraded in the period between Euro 92 and Euro 96 (most upgrades took place in 1995). One of the main reasons England won the right to hold Euro 96 was this vast amount of stadium upgrades. Most would of been upgraded even if England didn't host Euro 96, but that applies to Germany and most other countries that hold tournaments. One of the reasons countries are awarded tournaments is because there are large scale refurbishments taking place or planned. FIFA/UEFA see this and say to themselves "hmmmm, that would be a good place to hold the tournament".


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ For once BuBomb, you make a good point! There were a few stadium upgrades as you say, but what Lostboy meant was that there wasn't a *great deal* of stadium work done for Euro 96- no new stadiums, and most of the expansions were done for the actual club the stadium was for, not in preperation for the Euro bid, but I take your point, there was some work done to appeal to the guys who organise the tournament.

The point I, and I think Lostboy, were trying to make, is that this stadium boom going on in England at the moment and over the last few years is being done in a period of time where there is no Euro or World Cup bid in sight, which is quite unusual. So if they ever do make a bid in future years, they won't actually have a lot of work to do, which most countries have to do, though as you say BuBomb, every World Cup country needs to upgrade their stadium situation to have a chance of winning the bid. 

The problem with England is that it has plenty of high quality, pretty high capacity stadiums, but they are not spread around as much as would be preferable, with quite a few of the sadiums in London, and a couple in Manchester. But still, I think there is a deffinate chance of a successful bid if ever they choose to make one, and by the time that happens, more stadiums will have probably been built or expanded! 

Any other countries wanna show how their stadiums have improved in the last 10 years...? ...Anyone???

:cheers:


----------



## Bigmac1212

Let's see. The U.S. is going through one of the massive construction boom. The amazing thing is, it not just only the professional leagues. It's the semi or minor leagues. And, the most interesting thing, it's happening in collegiate sports! I don't know much of high school throughout the nation, but any leagues collegiate up is in the construction/renovation boom.


----------



## bubomb

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> ^^ For once BuBomb, you make a good point! There were a few stadium upgrades as you say, but what Lostboy meant was that there wasn't a *great deal* of stadium work done for Euro 96- no new stadiums, and most of the expansions were done for the actual club the stadium was for, not in preperation for the Euro bid, but I take your point, there was some work done to appeal to the guys who organise the tournament.
> 
> The point I, and I think Lostboy, were trying to make, is that this stadium boom going on in England at the moment and over the last few years is being done in a period of time where there is no Euro or World Cup bid in sight, which is quite unusual. So if they ever do make a bid in future years, they won't actually have a lot of work to do, which most countries have to do, though as you say BuBomb, every World Cup country needs to upgrade their stadium situation to have a chance of winning the bid.
> 
> The problem with England is that it has plenty of high quality, pretty high capacity stadiums, but they are not spread around as much as would be preferable, with quite a few of the sadiums in London, and a couple in Manchester. But still, I think there is a deffinate chance of a successful bid if ever they choose to make one, and by the time that happens, more stadiums will have probably been built or expanded!
> 
> Any other countries wanna show how their stadiums have improved in the last 10 years...? ...Anyone???
> 
> :cheers:


If England bid for the World Cup then I think there will be a massive amount of reconstruction around England, as this is one of the bonuses about holding a World Cup. If you are holding a World cup then it gives you an excuse to rebuild lots of stadiums (even if you don't really need to). Wembley & Emirates would not change, but all the rest would including lots of new stadiums around the country. After all, it will be 12 years away, and by then places like St.James Park & Villa Park will all look a bit old and rubbish.


----------



## XCRunner

Well, the USA has built or renovated countless stadia over the past 10 years but we had pretty good ones to begin with before that. The new ones have about the same capacity, but are more luxurious and more architectually pleasing. Pro stadiums in all sports are starting to set themselves more and more apart from college stadiums (except in capacity) with more ammeneties, etc.

All in all we have great new stadiums, but it's not exactly like the old ones were anything to complain about.


----------



## Durbsboi

Well at the moment SA only have decent rugby & cricket stadiums

Wait for 2010


----------



## Durbsboi

Weel if u saying UK & not just England then, it will be 

1.UK 
2.Germany
3.Portugal
4.Italy
5.Spain
6.France 
7. Turkey (just because Liverpool won it for the 5th time in Istanbul)


----------



## Andy.\\

:eek2: wow


----------



## Paulo2004

traveler said:


> The Romans invented the Stadium; the Portuguese reinvented the Stadium. The Braga is a totally new idea in design. But i liked the Aveiro. It is the best Stadium!!


Thtat's one way of putting it!


----------



## AdidasGazelle

ibrox


:cheers:


----------



## kingdomca

AdidasGazelle said:


> ibrox
> 
> 
> :cheers:


true, Ibrox would have to win this one.

Beyond that I would go for Eden gardens, Calcutta, India.
A cricket ground with 110,000 seats unless they have burned more of them in the too frequent riots.
Its not a place with lots of good views I dont think.

Though India is 3rd world it will no doubt soon have by far the richest sports team in the world.


----------



## CharlieP

AdidasGazelle said:


> ibrox


Beat me to it, you swine


----------



## eddyk

Sorry, I usually steer clear of controversy, and try to stay away from confrontation.

But you bubomb, having a dig at Wembley because it looks like a shopping mall, but then saying the Reliant Stadium 'opens up a can of whoop ass on Wembley'.
When the reliant stadium looks more like a shopping mall than any other stadium on the planet.

Wembley isn't even finished yet...but it does have a larger capacity than the Reliant stadium...which is a huge plus apparently.


----------



## LuckyLuke

East German Stadiums are not bad !!! :cheers:


----------



## +5411

I think in Argentina the best stadiums are:

River Plate Stadium:









Boca Juniors:





Racing Club:



And Unico de La Plata , but i dont have photos.


----------



## Daniel_Portugal

*Portugal* for me! when we see a stadium like this one, and then we see that Portugal have 10 stadiums with this quality along the whole territory.. i think there is no doubts about it. countries like UK or Germany have great stadiums though. about the rest of europe... the whole continent have STRONG traditions in football.. so obviously EVERY E.U. country have GREAT football stadiums, ofcourse!


----------



## WeasteDevil

Argentina? :lol:


----------



## memyself and I

all I can say is that France stadiums are just terrible (except stade de france of course )

marseille 's velodrome is just plain horrible and stupidly conceived ( no roof in the most windy part of the country )

Lens ,St etienne, Rennes are just four stands akwardly linked together .

Lille , a metropolis of 1 million + people ,still don't have a stadium .

the most appaling thing is that it's only 8 years since the world cup and the stadiums already looks like something from the 70's.


----------



## matherto

WeasteDevil said:


> Argentina? :lol:


yeah why not, the stadiums are certainly bad enough, and they had a financial crisis didn't they....


----------



## Daniel_Portugal

i think this thread could be extremely offensive for the chosen ones.... they will think:

"yeah, my country have good stadiums  but is a 3rd world country "


----------



## Daniel_Portugal

double post - delele


----------



## Kampflamm

> Germany have little more than 10 top venues, which are excellent, and then the quality absolutely nosedives. I was surprised just how bad it was.


I think the 12 wc venues are pretty decent. Add to that places like Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wolfsburg, Mönchengladbach and you've almost got an entire league of decent to great venues. Feel free to point out all those superb English venues that are far better than their German counterparts.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

eddyk said:


> Sorry, I usually steer clear of controversy, and try to stay away from confrontation.
> 
> But you bubomb, having a dig at Wembley because it looks like a shopping mall, but then saying the Reliant Stadium 'opens up a can of whoop ass on Wembley'.
> When the reliant stadium looks more like a shopping mall than any other stadium on the planet.
> 
> Wembley isn't even finished yet...but it does have a larger capacity than the Reliant stadium...which is a huge plus apparently.


Ignore this bubum character mate because his anti-English stance on EVERYTHING is boorish. 

:cheers:


----------



## eddyk

I knew this thread was doomed from the start,


I knew that people wouldn't be able to make their choices, and leave it at that.

I knew people would question other peoples choices...which I knew would start arguments.


----------



## WeasteDevil

matherto said:


> yeah why not, the stadiums are certainly bad enough, and they had a financial crisis didn't they....


It's not a third world country!

It might have had a financial crisis, but so did Britain in the late 1970s, taking a loan of 2,300 million from the IMF in 1977. Was Britian a 3rd world country at the time?


----------



## willo

Paulo2004 said:


> Here we have one of those spanish opinions I would say shouldn't count!


so your vote don't count either. 

here is my list in terms of design, beauty,atmosphere and seats:

1.England (good staiums and good projects)
2.Germany.very good stadiums. they are in tie with england
3.Spain
4.Portugal (some nice stadiums except aveiro's one .it needs something bigger to improve the position)
5. Netherlands (the same as portugal.nice stadiums btw)
6.France
7.Italy


----------



## Peyre

Germany
UK
Portugal
Span
Italy


----------



## +5411

:eek2:


----------



## +5411

I understood which was the best stadium of the 3rd world country, I mean, the non-developed ones..but this is not the topic.. As I don't understand much english, I'd rather not going on ... go on with your bussiness and don't laugh about the stadiums and another things of the 3rd world country...thank you and a great greeting from Argentina!...


----------



## Welly

BI_EY said:


> I understood which was the best stadium of the 3rd world country, I mean, the non-developed ones..but this is not the topic.. go on with your bussiness and don't laugh about the stadiums and another things of the 3rd world country...thank you and a great greeting from Argentina!...



Have you been on the glue?


----------



## Isaac Newell

With apologies to all citizens of India

Salt Lake Stadium Kolkatta, East Bengal v Mohun Bagan


----------



## bubomb

MoreOrLess said:


> Whatever your feelings on standing room I don't think its espeically relivant to the question because as has been shown by the pics of german stadia its not so much an architectural consideration as a political one. Thats to say that most stadiums outside germany could if they were allowed to add standing room without much building work(new seat/stands, maybe some different crowd contro,l etc).
> 
> As for Wembley I wouldnt really say its a benchmark for new stadiums beyond the roof simpley because not many totally new 90,000 capacity stadiums are needed.
> 
> 
> 
> As ever your standards change by the post to give the desired outcome. I can remember you singing the praises of Hampden (plus its new luxury facilties) and the Stade De France dispite much larger gaps between stand and pitch not so long ago plus isnt the Reliant's exterior more than a little similar to wembleys?


I never claimed Hampden or Stade De France were better than Wembley or the benchmarks in stadiums!!

Try harder please!!


----------



## bubomb

Kampflamm said:


> I think the 12 wc venues are pretty decent. Add to that places like Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wolfsburg, Mönchengladbach and you've almost got an entire league of decent to great venues. Feel free to point out all those superb English venues that are far better than their German counterparts.


They can't.


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> your biased against England when you dont think Wembley counts but a german american-football stadium counts. That is so biased that its ridiculous.
> do you consider actually consider"Wembley not counting as a football stadium" as a sane comment...
> 
> You are just ridiculous. I didnt actually argue for England at first, as I originally considered Germany and England about equal. It was only after having taken a closer look at the german venues that I changed it to England having the better venues.
> Several german venues simply arent that good. Berlin, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Bremen are among the bigger poor stadiums and outside the top division, the quality is shocking for such a large western country.
> 
> Germany have little more than 10 top venues, which are excellent, and then the quality absolutely nosedives. I was surprised just how bad it was.
> 
> Anyway forget it,cant be bothered with al the childish name calling.
> 
> My personal favorites are actually neither german or english stadiums or rather, not their football stadiums.
> I think Denmark has some great places as I am a big fan of small town 10-15,000 stadiums with good central locations and a mix of (modernised) covered seating and terracing (in front.)
> There a few of those in Denmark as there are in english rugby in places like Northampton, Gloucester, Leicester.
> 
> @ "dutch"
> Holland certainly has a great infrastructure. I disagree, Stadiums dont need to be huge. If more dutch clubs are getting venues comparable to the 30,000 sizes of PSV´s great stadium then that is excellent for a country that size. no need to be concerned with them not being huge.
> That most clubs are so close together is also great for significant travelling support which boosts atmosphere. Holland just needs to keep hooliganism down.


Germany has about 20 superb stadiums with more on they way. Just look at my top division comparison, Germany is WAY ahead!!

I see you are reduced to making things up again! If you can show me a post where I say "Wembley not counting as a football stadium" or even implying it, then I will pay you a £1000 by paypal!


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> true, Ibrox would have to win this one.
> 
> Beyond that I would go for Eden gardens, Calcutta, India.
> A cricket ground with 110,000 seats unless they have burned more of them in the too frequent riots.
> Its not a place with lots of good views I dont think.
> 
> Though India is 3rd world it will no doubt soon have by far the richest sports team in the world.


What a moron, and he wonders why people hate the English!!


----------



## eddyk

Just leave it now bubomb.

You would think you were german yourself.

You have taken the side of German stadiums just to attack english ones.


I myself also picked German stadiums over English ones, but left it at that, you on the other hand are making it your duty to prove everyone who picks england as Number 1 wrong.
It is all quite sad.

This comment by you in reply to what kampflamm said proves my point... 'They can't.'

'They' being the English, the people who you seem to be against.


----------



## bubomb

carfentanyl said:


> @ bubomb
> 
> Holland is actually only two provinces of the total 12. But it has about half the population of the country and it's where the three biggest cities are located; Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag(The Hague).
> 
> I prefer 'the Netherlands', eventhough I'm a Hollander, but somehow foreigners seem to know the name Holland better. Holland was recently ranked as the 10th most valuable brandname if countries were brands. Funny, considering it's not the official countryname.
> 
> Oh yeah, to make things even more confusing, we are called the Dutch!


Thanks for that. Very interesting. I will use 'The Netherlands' from now on.


----------



## EADGBE

This is a really interesting idea for a thread, with one slight drawback. It's not immediately apparent what constitutes the 'Third World'. A simple check on Wikipedia confirms that there is no universally-accepted definition - but then goes to show a map of which countries were in which 'World' at the end of the Cold War.








Blue = 1st World
Red = 2nd World
Green = 3rd World.

I'd always wondered about the term and what the other two worlds were, so I guess I've learnt something by reading this thread.

Anyway, keeping the above map as my guide, I guess I'd have to say my favourite Third World stadium is the Bukit Jalil stadium in Kuala Lumpur. 



















Acoording to worldstadiums.com, it has a capacity of 100,200.


----------



## WeasteDevil

BI_EY said:


> I understood which was the best stadium of the 3rd world country, I mean, the non-developed ones..but this is not the topic.. As I don't understand much english, I'd rather not going on ... go on with your bussiness and don't laugh about the stadiums and another things of the 3rd world country...thank you and a great greeting from Argentina!...


¡Argentina no es un pais del tercer mundo!

Saludos de España.


----------



## bubomb

eddyk said:


> Just leave it now bubomb.
> 
> You would think you were german yourself.
> 
> You have taken the side of German stadiums just to attack english ones.
> 
> 
> I myself also picked German stadiums over English ones, but left it at that, you on the other hand are making it your duty to prove everyone who picks england as Number 1 wrong.
> It is all quite sad.
> 
> This comment by you in reply to what kampflamm said proves my point... 'They can't.'
> 
> 'They' being the English, the people who you seem to be against.


I have not said a single thing 'anti-English'. I said England had the 2nd best stadiums in the whole of Europe. Any normal person would take that as a compliment. It just shows the arrogance of some of the English on this board that they regard 2nd best in the whole of Europe as being 'anti-English'.

If my posts have been 'anti-English', then anybody who has disagreed with me, by your logic, must have been 'anti-German'!! 

What's with this "anti-English" nonsense everytime somebody doesn't agree that England is the best at something or criticises an English stadium??? It simply highlights what a massive inferiority complex some of the English on this board have! It's quite pathetic to be honest!

No doubt this post will be classed as "anti-English" by some pathetic individual!


----------



## antigr12

kingdomca said:


> Well you must have a narrow definition of what is a "major" stadium in Germany if there are only 3 but then again Germany dont have that many decent stadiums. Even some of those that are no longer athletics stadiums, like Bremen, are still negatively affected by their very obvious past as athletics stadiums.
> 
> Taking a closer look at their venues, I was actually quite disappointed, overall they are poorer than I thought, particularly at their second 2.bundesliga. Some very basic facilities there, to say the least,way behind England.
> I must say I am also not impressed with all that fencing and netting.
> 
> Comparing with anything other than all-seater mode is ridiculous. Otherwise the best stadium is probably some african all terraced death trap that would never be allowed in europe.
> all seater is what is used for international competition. UEFA or FIFA standards are the obvious standards for comparing facilities.
> 
> It could be an interesting comparison but you are just so eager to put England down that its irrelevant.
> Twickenham doesnt count, Wembley doesnt count, but the Dusseldorf arena counts though its main team is an american-football team.




the main team in ltu arena is fortuna dusseldorf whatever the level of the team and it receives all their matches , the stadium has been built for wc , it's sure that this club will not stay in regional and come back to bundesliga , american football is just another activity , germany is not usa , the european football clubs have the priority and the opposite in usa .


----------



## bubomb

eddyk said:


> you on the other hand are making it your duty to prove everyone who picks england as Number 1 wrong


You're making things up again!! Lots of posters have picked England, the only person I have argued with is kingdomca. This might have come as a shock to you, but he has also argued with me!! So does that mean he has made it his duty to prove everyone who picks Germany as Number 1 wrong?

Think about it nice and slowly - if 2 people argue about whether Germany or England have better stadiums, then both are just as guilty as each other. Do you understand?


----------



## WeasteDevil

EADGBE said:


> This is a really interesting idea for a thread, with one slight drawback. It's not immediately apparent what constitutes the 'Third World'. A simple check on Wikipedia confirms that there is no universally-accepted definition - but then goes to show a map of which countries were in which 'World' at the end of the Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue = 1st World
> Red = 2nd World
> Green = 3rd World.


Which is absolute rubbish in today's context!


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> I have not said a single thing 'anti-English'. I said England had the 2nd best stadiums in the whole of Europe. Any normal person would take that as a compliment. It just shows the arrogance of some of the English on this board that they regard 2nd best in the whole of Europe as being 'anti-English'.
> 
> If my posts have been 'anti-English', then anybody who has disagreed with me, by your logic, must have been 'anti-German'!!
> 
> What's with this "anti-English" nonsense everytime somebody doesn't agree that England is the best at something or criticises an English stadium??? It simply highlights what a massive inferiority complex some of the English on this board have! It's quite pathetic to be honest!
> 
> No dount this post will be classed as "anti-English" by some pathetic individual!



That post is anti-English.

:cheers:


----------



## bubomb

MoreOrLess said:


> Thats to say that most stadiums outside germany could if they were allowed to add standing room


Every country is allowed standing areas. FIFA/UEFA have not banned a single country from using standing terraces. Any country who has decided not to use standing terraces have done so of their own accord.

New standing terraces are complex procedures as they have to be made safe. This has a huge impact on entry/exits, turnstiles, facilities for much larger crowds in areas of the stadium, crowd monitoring facilities, space around the stadium, first aid areas etc. You also have to have an efficient procedure for changing to seats and back. You have to store 16000 seats somewhere, the terrace has to be a certain width and height etc. All these things and many more have to be taken into account when designing a safe modern large terrace.


----------



## WeasteDevil

Standing is not allowed for a CL match though, neither are those automated electronic advert hoardings.

So, UEFA don't want stading at the matches they organise.


----------



## bubomb

WeasteDevil said:


> Standing is not allowed for a CL match though, neither are those automated electronic advert hoardings.
> 
> So, UEFA don't want stading at the matches they organise.


Yes, but German stadiums were built for the Bundesliga, not the Champions League (the bonus is that they can also be used for the Champions League).

It's really brutally simple - Dortmunds average crowd last season was 77294. This is impossible in a 65718 stadium. Therefore Dortmunds capacity is 81264. End of story.


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> That post is anti-English.
> 
> :cheers:


I rest my case.


----------



## Quintana

Only three of the selected stadiums have character (Philips Stadion, White Hart Lane, Sclessin) which for me is very important for a stadium. Philips Stadion is clearly the best of those three.


----------



## eddyk

I never said you was anti-english because you said German stadiums were better, because like I mentioned...I even said German stadiums were better.
But noboddy is having a go at me though...because i'm not going out of my way to attack others who think otherwise, or to prove others wrong by spending lord knows how long looking up stats and info.

I do concede that it is not just you bubomb, but you are a repeat offender.


----------



## Lostboy

If you look at cultural blocs, then unite German and English Stadia along with the significant Dutch Contributions and Germanic Stadia are easily the best, with no close competitors, and are guaranteed at least third place in the world. Only America and Japan can challenge Germania.


----------



## JOBINHO

Lostboy said:


> If you look at cultural blocs, then unite German and English Stadia along with the significant Dutch Contributions and Germanic Stadia are easily the best, with no close competitors, and are guaranteed at least third place in the world. Only America and Japan can challenge Germania.


??????????????


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> I rest my case.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

BUBOMB, STOP GOING ON AND ON, we've all read the thread and clearly you wanted to downgrade England at any opportunity you got. May be your not anti-english(and i mean maybe!!) but you do post anti-english posts and you know it. so stop with all this pretending, thats a good boy.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Yer, I have to agree with what other people have being saying BuBomb (you knew you'd get no help from me didn't ya  ), you are taking "the side of German stadiums just to attack english ones" as Eddyk rightly said. If you cannot criticise England directly, you will go out of your way to prove that another country is much better then England, and quite frankly, I' getting dam sick of it. You seem to make it your life's work to ruin every thread! You look at the thread titles, you see 'Which Euro nation has the best football stadia?' and you think "oh no, someone might be suggesting England have the best stadiums, I can't allow that!" and you troll through the thread, praising Germany like you are one of them, and putting down England.

You're anti-English, we get it ok! Other people on this thread have suggested different countries then england have the best football stadiums, and yet I, nor anyone else, have taken serious issue with it, cus they make their choice and hear other people's oppinions. Have you ever taken a second to consider why everyone is always having a go at you on this forum?? Take the hint my friend!

You too Kingdomca, just settle down a bit, don't rise to BuBomb's crap, he can't help himself. And I do have to disagree with your point that Germany doesn't have any high quality stadiums; I think at the moment, Germany is just....just ahead of England, cus they have got a higher quanity of high quality stadiums, but with Wembley, Emirates, Twickenham (not a footie stadium, I know), Old Trafford, Liverpool's new ground, possibly Birmingham's new ground, and expansion to other stadiums, England might just edge ahead of Germany in the stadium department. Germany of course has the advantage of just having had a World Cup boom!


I have heard very few people complain about Wembley (apart from the delay that is), and you will always have a few people that don't like new stadiums, but the vast majority of people I've spoken to on this forum, on the web, or at work etc have all loved the look of it! It is quoted by people everywhere as being the best stadium in the world, and I'm not saying this because I'm English (well, part English), it's clear to most people just how magnificent this stadium is, and the fact that it is *Wembley*, the home of football, with it's history and presence, just adds to its grandeur. 

The Relaint stadium is fantastic, yes, but imo, it aint as good as Wembley, and it is not primarily a football (soccer) stadium! And as for Nou Camp, with your talk of it getting an expansion...so what??? I'm sorry, but the Nou Camp is not a nice stadium, and a larger capacity does not make a greater then another!

Thread will close in 5...4...3...2...1....

:cheers:


----------



## NavyBlue

Definitely Germany for me . . . and by quite a margin when you rate the stadiums collectively, but you would expect that from a country with over 80mil people and is just about to host the world cup.


----------



## kingdomca

JACK RABBIT

I obviously never said Germany didnt have quality stadiums. That would be pretty absurd.
I just think its ridiculous that its Bubomb who goes to the most trouble comparing individual stadiums but then does it being so biased.

A fair comparison could be interesting but I do think that most people who have picked germany havent had a look beyond the few excellent ones.

There are around 10 good german stadiums and they are all excellent, but beyond that its really poor. 
2.bundesliga is full of holes in the grounds consisting of perhaps one stand and then uncovered terracing around an atheltics track.

Given that there is little in it comparing the top 5-10-15 stadiums then its more than reasonable to say that England has the best venues based on the very impressive lower league facilities.

This is not anti-german in any way. I think Germany are leading the way in Europe with their stadium developments with terracing and affordable tickets.

But still, right now, I doubt Germany have many stadiums capable of seating 20,000+ people under cover without an athletics track.

Taking a guess I would say they have perhaps 15

The same number in England is probably closer to 50.


----------



## HoldenV8

Having never been to Europe, Ireland or the UK, I can't say which is the best or which country has the best stadiums. However, from TV & picture observations I think that the New Wembley would be the best, when finished of course.

My pick for the best from the region (1 per country)? Rugby AND Football?

New Wembley, London, England (90,000)
Murrayfield, Edinburgh, Scotland (67,500)
Stade de France, Paris, France (79,959)
Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (69,601)
Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland (82,500)
Estadio de Luz, Lisbon, Portugal (65,647)
Estadio Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid, Spain (80,354)
Stadio Giuseppe Meazza, Milan, Italy (87,500)
Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion, Moscow, Russian Federeation (84,745)
Athens Olympic Stadium, Athens, Greece (74,443)
Amsterdam ArenA, Amsterdam, Netherlands (51,324)
Ernst Happel Stadion, Wien, Austria (48,844)
Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi, Istanbul, Turkey (81,653)

But but but.....being a biased Aussie I have to say none are as good as Telstra Stadium in Sydney or the newly rennovated Melbourne Cricket Ground.


----------



## gorgu

Sorry I have to disagree England has the best stadia and du bu jew screw bomb is full of .............................poo!


----------



## gorgu

that really was childish but I just love coming across this little scotlander and slagging him off.

Don't worry not all scots are as closed minded as him, if you go to the Glasgow thread you will find much of worth to chat about!


----------



## Joshapd

Oh people please if someone doesn't like English stadia that doesn't mean he is anti-english and all. I've really had it with some forummer here who keep saying you are bashing the Uk just for saying it isn't number 1. Oh and yeah you will say I'm a Ukbasher now....that is not true is like the country


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

HoldenV8 said:


> Having never been to Europe, Ireland or the UK, I can't say which is the best or which country has the best stadiums. However, from TV & picture observations I think that the New Wembley would be the best, when finished of course.
> 
> My pick for the best from the region (1 per country)? Rugby AND Football?
> 
> New Wembley, London, England (90,000)
> Murrayfield, Edinburgh, Scotland (67,500)
> Stade de France, Paris, France (79,959)
> Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (69,601)
> Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland (82,500)
> Estadio de Luz, Lisbon, Portugal (65,647)
> Estadio Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid, Spain (80,354)
> Stadio Giuseppe Meazza, Milan, Italy (87,500)
> Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion, Moscow, Russian Federeation (84,745)
> Athens Olympic Stadium, Athens, Greece (74,443)
> Amsterdam ArenA, Amsterdam, Netherlands (51,324)
> Ernst Happel Stadion, Wien, Austria (48,844)
> Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi, Istanbul, Turkey (81,653)
> 
> But but but.....being a biased Aussie I have to say none are as good as Telstra Stadium in Sydney or the newly rennovated Melbourne Cricket Ground.



i'd have to strongly disagree with you Holden about Telstra.Went there acouple of years ago and didn't think it was anything special
Comparing Telstra and Wembley would be like comparing a Holden(a Vauxhall to us Poms)and an Aston Martin


----------



## Giorgio

England and Portugal. 

When all the proposed Greek stadiums are built, and if Greece bids for World Cup, maybe we will be up there too.


----------



## bravoman

kingdomca said:


> JACK RABBIT
> 
> 
> There are around 10 good german stadiums


 :rofl:


----------



## Lostboy

_I've really had it with some forummer here who keep saying you are bashing the Uk just for saying it isn't number 1. Oh and yeah you will say I'm a Ukbasher now....that is not true is like the country_

People don't take that attitude, in fact an awful lot of English Forumers prefer German Forumers, and no-one has any problem with anything posted by our continental friends. Just with Bubomb, - in this thread I don't think its particularly bad - because he rubs people up the wrong way. Consequently its not a case of UK Bashing as he comes from another part of the UK, but English Bashing.

Please look up the difference between England and the UK - not meaning this insultingly, but as a seperatist it annoys me when people equate England with the United Kingdom, comes across as rather ignorant.


----------



## kingdomca

Kampflamm said:


> I think the 12 wc venues are pretty decent. Add to that places like Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wolfsburg, Mönchengladbach and you've almost got an entire league of decent to great venues. Feel free to point out all those superb English venues that are far better than their German counterparts.


Well I basically agree with the venues you mention, (except that the 3 athletics venues among the 12 world cup venues arent great.
Perhaps Berlin is decent because it matters less with a big capacity, though its poor when rarely full, but Stuttgart and Nuremberg are poor venues.)

So I would say Germany have at best 10 great World cup venues and then also the few more you added.

England can match these 15 with their best 15.

Its beyond that that Germany remains well behind.

Would be too tiresome to list them all, but basically all but a few of the 44 teams in the top 2 english divisions have better venues than anything outside the the top 15 in Germany as do some 3rd and 4th level english teams like Huddersfield, Nottingham,Darlington and, bizarrely soon MK


----------



## SGoico

What about this ratio of a Champions League team? Qualified for quarter-finals against Internazionale!:

Villareal, Spain 
Capacity: 23000 (Average public affluence is around 17,000)
Population 2005: 46696
Ratio: *1:2.03*


----------



## All

How daft is this thread,

Why when working out the ratio of population to attendances for Newcastle don’t you include Gateshead? Its has a population of 191151 and is only a mile from St James Park, in fact parts of Gateshead are closer to St James park than parts of Newcastle! Of course Newcastle also have a big support in others areas outside Newcastle as well.

How about including Darwin for Blackburn as the ground is on the border of Blackburn and Darwin and I suppose I imagined the Blackburn supporters coach from Preston the other week as well.

For Middlesbrough why not include Stockton on Tees pop 178408?

p.s. Is there any club in the country that doesn’t have a London branch of its supporters club?


----------



## bubomb

Ventura1 said:


> Fair enough, but that statement is correct for every single new stadium in the world, including all of the new stadiums in Germany. However Wembley does have an advantage, this is that it has the name and is built on the site of the old Wembley stadium which has plenty of history! The Allianz Arena doesn't have this now does it?


Yes, new German stadiums have no history, apart from Olympiastadion.

Look at Ibrox, new stadium, but full of history as it has kept its 90 year old stand. Villa Park was the same until they destroyed their main stand. Highbury is about to go the same way.


----------



## Lostboy

Now I'm one of the English Forumers who think that German Stadia are the best in Europe, and clearly so. But the poster from the ruling elite of the Disunited Kingdom, hardly does any favours for this argument. He believes its 18-2. Well good for him, but I imagine no other poster, (I'm talking about the ones who also believe that German Stadia>English Stadia) would end with such an unbalanced result.


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> *No disrespect, but everyone posting on this thread doesn't have a clue and obviously they have never been to half of these countries let alone visit the stadiums in question to offer a worthy opinion.
> 
> I'm actually a UEFA stadium assessor and it's my job to travel throughout Europe rating stadiums, so I happen to be able to speak on this matter with some authority.
> 
> Great Britain has far and away the best stadia in Europe if you count the rugby stadiums there, too. If you're talking just football, then Great Britain just about edges Germany. In fact, on the De Vard Rating System that we use, Great Britain's top 20 grounds score 329.8 points and Germany scores 311.2.
> 
> So there you have it. It's official.
> 
> By the way, when Manchester United complete the quadrants at Old Trafford, this will be the highest rating stadium in Europe. At the minute, Benfica holds the top spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no charge for this devastatingly informative post.


Can you smell it folks? Yes, it's that sweet smell of someone talking shite!













Welly said:


> De Vard Rating System


 :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious


----------



## eddyk

Highbury is not about to go the same way.

The stand will still be there, well, the exterior


"It is impossible for it to the best stadium in the world as it is not a stadium yet. Until the stadium is opened, anybody making that claim is an idiot."

But you have no problem with finding things wrong with a stadium that isn't finished yet?


I agree praising an unfinished stadium and calling it better than any other is a bit weird, but attacking it is just as strange.

Unless you use future tense :crazy:

_Wembley will be the best stadium in the world..._
_Wembley will be the worst Stadium in the world..._


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> JACK RABBIT - I obviously never said Germany didnt have quality stadiums.


Yes you did -



kingdomca said:


> Germany dont have that many decent stadiums


Face it kingdomca, you've been caught out in this thread! Your credibility has gone right down the toilet!!


----------



## bubomb

eddyk said:


> Highbury is not about to go the same way.
> 
> The stand will still be there, well, the exterior
> 
> 
> "It is impossible for it to the best stadium in the world as it is not a stadium yet. Until the stadium is opened, anybody making that claim is an idiot."
> 
> But you have no problem with finding things wrong with a stadium that isn't finished yet?
> 
> 
> I agree praising an unfinished stadium and calling it better than any other is a bit weird, but attacking it is just as strange.
> 
> Unless you use future tense :crazy:
> 
> _Wembley will be the best stadium in the world..._
> _Wembley will be the worst Stadium in the world..._


Highbury will be gone. It will no longer be a stadium in any way or shape. I'm glad they are keeping the facade for the new flats though.


----------



## kingdomca

bubomb said:


> Yes you did -
> 
> 
> 
> Face it kingdomca, you've been caught out in this thread! Your credibility has gone right down the toilet!!


Which part of "that many" do you not understand??

I have said repeatedly that Germany have 10-12 excellent venues and beyond that it is extremly poor.

As for your "caught out" phrase...well not only is it nonsense, it also says everything about how you view these discusions. 
I will not stoop to your sad name-calling level where any issue is long forgotten.


----------



## bubomb

Jonesy55 said:


> How about the best ratio of population to attendance for national football teams?
> 
> I think it would be difficult to beat Wales. Average attendance for the recent world cup qualifiers was 60,000 from a national population of 3m that's 2% of the national population!


Wales was first followed by Scotland in terms of ratio.

Top 5 European Attendance averages for World Cup 2006 qualifiers -

64151 - France (60 million people)
61360 - England (51 million poeple)
54258 - Wales (3 million people)
47177 - Scotland (5 million people)
46667 - Ukraine (48 million people)


----------



## kingdomca

Köbtke said:


> I disagree here. It's particularly in the top stadiums, that I view Germany as being ahead.
> 
> Let's take the biggest-list from both countries (as far as stadiums themselves go, not counting tradition, history, terracing vs. seating etc.)
> 
> Biggest 15 from the top leagues (figures from Stadionwelt.de):
> 
> *Wembley 90.000* – *Westfalen Stadion 81.264*
> (*Wembley*. Although Westfalen/Signal Iduna is a great, great stadium, maybe the best athmosphere wise in Europe)
> 
> *Old Trafford	68.409* – *Olympiastadion 76.000*
> (*Old Trafford*. Because it's a football only stadium, although. As aregular stadium olympiastadion wins in my book)
> 
> *Emirates 61.000* - *Allianz Arena 69.901*
> (*Allianz Arena* wins by a hair. Simply a stunning piece of engeneering. Emirates is too, but Allianz edges ahead for innovation and design)
> 
> *St. James Park 53.094* - *Veltins Arena 61.506*
> (No question, *Veltins'* wins by miles and miles)
> 
> *Stadium of Light 48.353* - *Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion 57.000*
> (I believe *Gottlieb-Daimler* is a better stadium, but the track drags the total score down a bit)
> 
> *City Of Manchester Stadium 48.000* - *AOL Arena 55.989*
> (Close, but *AOL Arena* wins. Simply a better stadium)
> 
> *Anfield 45.362* - *Borussia-Park 54.019*
> (*Borussia-Park* wins)
> 
> *Villa Park 42.799* - *Commerzbank-Arena 52.300*
> (*Commerzbank* wins by miles and miles)
> 
> *Stamford Bridge 42.522* – *LTU arena 52.000*
> (*LTU*)
> 
> *Goodison Park 40.260* - *RheinEnergieStadion 51.000*
> (*Rhein*)
> 
> *Elland Road 40.228* - *AWD-Arena 49.000*
> (*AWD* by miles and miles)
> 
> *White Hart Lane 36.214* - *Fritz-Walter-Stadion 48.500*
> (*Fritz*)
> 
> *Riverside 35.100* - *easyCredit-Stadion (Nürnberg) 47.500*
> (Tough one, can't make up my mind here)
> 
> *Upton Park 35.000* – *Weserstadion 43.000*
> (*Weserstadion*. And that's despite Upton/Boleyn being one of my favourite grounds I've ever attended a match at)
> 
> *Ewood Park 31.367* - *MSV-Arena 31.500*
> (*MSV* wins by miles)
> 
> That's something like 12-2 (considering a tie etc.) to the German stadiums, at least in my opinion.


Well you did overlook Hillsborough but I dont disagree that much except for the fact that you rate athletics stadiums like Berlin,Nurnberg and Stuttgart ahead of Old Trafford, Stadium of Light and Riverside. Cant agree with that at all.
Germany knows more than any how destructive tracks are for football.

Others are close, as you say, and if you use the german stadiums when configurated to fulfill UEFA standards then it will swing Englands way in my opinion.

It could be like this in my opinion

top 12 (UEFA standards) England
top 12 (incl. german standing) Germany
top 50 England, by miles

What makes England the clear winner for me is the fantastic depth of venues. They dont even realise it themselves, I dont think.

Many english fans actually consider many of these venues "boring" but overlook that there is nowhere else where so many small towns would have such quality football venues.

You can barely find an english town with more than 100,000 inhabitants without also finding 25,000 seats under cover with excellent views.

This just doesnt happen elsewhere and as I think football stadiums should also be about towns and not just big cities, England are the clear winner to me.


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> Which part of "that many" do you not understand??
> 
> I have said repeatedly that Germany have 10-12 excellent venues and beyond that it is extremly poor.
> 
> As for your "caught out" phrase...well not only is it nonsense, it also says everything about how you view these discusions.
> I will not stoop to your sad name-calling level where any issue is long forgotten.


I have listed my top 20 German stadiums a few posts below (Germany beat England 18-2). Please feel free to point out the 8-10 that you class as "extremely poor"


----------



## CharlieP

Ventura1 said:


> Sounds like a fun job Welly, cheers for the information!


You mean you believe this clown?


----------



## Welly

CharlieP said:


> You mean you believe this clown?


Keep it up Charlie and I'll ban you.


----------



## eddyk

I'm lost now.

I don't know who to belive.


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> Keep it up Charlie and I'll ban you.


You've got laugh at these full-time losers!! I blame the parents!


----------



## SkyLerm

^^Just dont believe anybody


----------



## bravoman

Köbtke said:


> I disagree here. It's particularly in the top stadiums, that I view Germany as being ahead.
> 
> Let's take the biggest-list from both countries (as far as stadiums themselves go, not counting tradition, history, terracing vs. seating etc.)
> 
> Biggest 15 from the top leagues (figures from Stadionwelt.de):
> 
> *Wembley 90.000* – *Westfalen Stadion 81.264*
> (*Wembley*. Although Westfalen/Signal Iduna is a great, great stadium, maybe the best athmosphere wise in Europe)
> 
> *Old Trafford	68.409* – *Olympiastadion 76.000*
> (*Old Trafford*. Because it's a football only stadium, although. As aregular stadium olympiastadion wins in my book)
> 
> *Emirates 61.000* - *Allianz Arena 69.901*
> (*Allianz Arena* wins by a hair. Simply a stunning piece of engeneering. Emirates is too, but Allianz edges ahead for innovation and design)
> 
> *St. James Park 53.094* - *Veltins Arena 61.506*
> (No question, *Veltins'* wins by miles and miles)
> 
> *Stadium of Light 48.353* - *Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion 57.000*
> (I believe *Gottlieb-Daimler* is a better stadium, but the track drags the total score down a bit)
> 
> *City Of Manchester Stadium 48.000* - *AOL Arena 55.989*
> (Close, but *AOL Arena* wins. Simply a better stadium)
> 
> *Anfield 45.362* - *Borussia-Park 54.019*
> (*Borussia-Park* wins)
> 
> *Villa Park 42.799* - *Commerzbank-Arena 52.300*
> (*Commerzbank* wins by miles and miles)
> 
> *Stamford Bridge 42.522* – *LTU arena 52.000*
> (*LTU*)
> 
> *Goodison Park 40.260* - *RheinEnergieStadion 51.000*
> (*Rhein*)
> 
> *Elland Road 40.228* - *AWD-Arena 49.000*
> (*AWD* by miles and miles)
> 
> *White Hart Lane 36.214* - *Fritz-Walter-Stadion 48.500*
> (*Fritz*)
> 
> *Riverside 35.100* - *easyCredit-Stadion (Nürnberg) 47.500*
> (Tough one, can't make up my mind here)
> 
> *Upton Park 35.000* – *Weserstadion 43.000*
> (*Weserstadion*. And that's despite Upton/Boleyn being one of my favourite grounds I've ever attended a match at)
> 
> *Ewood Park 31.367* - *MSV-Arena 31.500*
> (*MSV* wins by miles)
> 
> That's something like 12-2 (considering a tie etc.) to the German stadiums, at least in my opinion.



Nice comparison but you forgot Zentralstadion in Leipzig (44193).

And since you listed Wembely the olympic stadium in Munich (69866) should also be included.


----------



## Martuh

Welly said:


> Great Britain has far and away the best stadia in Europe if you count the rugby stadiums there, too. If you're talking just football, then Great Britain just about edges Germany.


So there's a objective way to measure subjective things? :weirdo: 

Well of course GB wins when you count the rugby stadiums too. When it's only about football stadiusm Germany wins easy. Well hey, Germandy wins when you include all of the indoor arenas voor basketball, icehockey and handball. And Holland beats GB when you only count stadiums in Amsterdam. It's a thread about football stadiums, as you can see in the title.


----------



## Lostboy

_Well of course GB wins when you count the rugby stadiums too._

I wouldn't say that. Rugby Stadia are very poor with the exception of the national stadium (Twickenham) which is my favourite in all Britain.


----------



## CharlieP

Lostboy said:


> _Well of course GB wins when you count the rugby stadiums too._
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Rugby Stadia are very poor with the exception of the national stadium (Twickenham) which is my favourite in all Britain.


I wouldn't call either the Millennium Stadium or Murrayfield "very poor"...


----------



## Welly

Martuh said:


> So there's a objective way to measure subjective things? :weirdo:
> 
> Well of course GB wins when you count the rugby stadiums too. When it's only about football stadiusm Germany wins easy. Well hey, Germandy wins when you include all of the indoor arenas voor basketball, icehockey and handball. And Holland beats GB when you only count stadiums in Amsterdam. It's a thread about football stadiums, as you can see in the title.


Rugby is football you helmet. 

Anyway, I was talking to Sepp last Tuesday night and in his own words "England now has the best stadia in the world". 

It's widely accepted by us people in the know England leads the way. Only on a forum where a bunch of half-wits, who've probably never even left their own country never mind visit all these stadiums they're so expertly talking about, can Germany's stadia been deemed number one.

Seriously for a minute here, you're dealing with somebody who knows his shit.


----------



## Kampflamm

kingdomca said:


> I have said repeatedly that Germany have 10-12 excellent venues and beyond that it is extremly poor.


Extremely poor? Maybe you might want to rephrase that. I mentioned 15 stadiums earlier on that are all pretty damn good. The 2. Bundesliga also has some decent venues like the Ruhrstadion or the Ostseestadion. England's amount of decent stadiums can't be matched by any country in Europe but I wouldn't call all German stadiums except for the WC venues "extremely poor."


----------



## Martuh

Lostboy said:


> _Well of course GB wins when you count the rugby stadiums too._
> 
> I wouldn't say that. Rugby Stadia are very poor with the exception of the national stadium (Twickenham) which is my favourite in all Britain.


We're not only talking about England. It's the whole GB. Big GB rugby stadiums:

Twickenham - 82.000
Murrayfield - 68.000

That's only the 40.000+ seaters. They'll beat Germany with those.

But when we include the German arenas for indoor sports, and compare them to the British:

Kölnarena Köln- 19.000
Ostbahnhofarena Berlin - 16.000
Westfalenhalle Dortmund- 15.000
SAP Arena Mannheim - 15.000
Color Line Arena Hamburg - 13.000
Olympiahalle München- 12.000
Heinrich Beckhalle Leutershausen - 12.000
Preussag Arena Hannover - 11.000
König Pilsner Arena Oberhausen - 10.000
Brehmstrasse Düsseldorf - 10.000
Ostseehalle Kiel - 10.000

GB can beat this?

GB has:
Evening News Arena Manchester - 17.000
Hallam Arena Sheffield - 13.000
NEC Arena Birmingham - 12.000
London Arena - 10.000

Nope. I think the point here is that it's a football thread. Not a rugby or arena thread.


----------



## bubomb

I have listed 20 German stadiums on the other page, and not one is "extremely poor". You also have Karlsruhe, Dresden and the upgraded BayArena on the way. The problem England has is that it has lots of smallish decent stadiums (Ikea flat-packs), but very few excellent big stadiums. Wembley, Emirates and City of Manchester is about it. All the other big stadiums have all got at least one crap stand or look totally unbalanced!!


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> Rugby is football you helmet.
> 
> Anyway, I was talking to Sepp last Tuesday night and in his own words "England now has the best stadia in the world".


It must be free PC access day at the community centre!


----------



## Lostboy

_I wouldn't call either the Millennium Stadium or Murrayfield "very poor"..._

Read the statement wrong thought he said England not Britain.


----------



## Lostboy

_But when we include the German arenas for indoor sports, and compare them to the British:_

I take your point. And I personally do not class Britain as a country, more of a device in which nations of five and two million can control one of fifty to do its bidding, steal their money, deny them autonomy or recognition. England is twinned with Kurdistan.

However I would say that you can't play football on those arena's you mention, whereas you can (and remember the Millenium is the national stadium of Wales, where football and rugby games are played) play football on without compromising the stadium (as would happen with athletics, baseball or cricket for instance) one bit. Indeed the only stadium which never has Football on it in the whole of the Six Nations that NEVER hosts football is Twickers.


----------



## highburysouljah

what about stadium australia.

AFL, football, cricket, rugby. rugby league and olympics


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> I take your point. And I personally do not class Britain as a country, more of a device in which nations of five and two million can control one of fifty to do its bidding, steal their money, deny them autonomy or recognition. England is twinned with Kurdistan


England must be a really weak country then if it allows countries of 3 and 5 million to steal from it, control it and bully it!!

Why don't you stand up for yourselves?

Either you are talking rubbish or England is feeble? Which one is it?


----------



## bubomb

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Wembley would be the most adaptable



erm.......please explain???


----------



## Lostboy

Scots are devious. And the English are utterly ignorant and need to be awoken before its too late.

When we are in a situation where a Scottish Lord Chancellor tells us we will never ever have a Parliament of our own, no debate, no justification, just telling us thats how it is and always will be - but he is wrong, and has done more for the English Cause than anyone. We are in a situation of India, where the Barbarians controlled one of the oldest civilisations by deception, division and fear.

An English Parliament will sit in York in less than a decade.


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> An English Parliament will sit in York in less than a decade.


Meanwhile......back on planet earth!!

In 10 years time, you will continue to do as you are told.

Enough of your backchat, or you will feel the wrath of my Scottish imperial BOOT!!


----------



## rantanamo

The old concrete cookie cutter bowls were pretty adaptive from baseball to football. The upper two tiers were complete bowls. The lowest tier was basically two half circles that could rotate to straight parallel sidelines and around to a diamond. They looked much better in their two modes than saitama super arena. Others that adapt well are Dolphins Stadium, Metrodome(football, baseball, basketball), Oakland's Stadium(what is the name now?), and Alamodome(best of the basketball domes I think)


*Riverfront Stadium/Cinergy Field*:

baseball









football










*McAfee Coliseum* in Oakland. One sideline's lower deck retracts, and there is a slight lower deck rotation.

football(the lower deck on this side rotates like the rest of the cookie cutters

















baseball(the big outfield stand retracts automatically

















*Qualcomm Stadium* in San Diego(was used by the MLB's Padres before Petco was built)

football:

















baseball:

















American Airlines Center in Dallas has a fully automatic seating system between concert, hockey, basketball and arena football modes that is pretty cool. The stands protrude, extract, raise and lower of hydraulic lifts depending on the event.

Here's a pic of some of the automatic stands









hockey(you can see how even the bottom tier is):









basketball(notice the difference in the lower tier. Stands fully extended and some raised. All automatic):


----------



## rantanamo

I will not even delve into minor league baseball or much of college football. The U.S. sporting venues are constantly being upgraded, torn down and newly built so I'll try to concentrate on the top pro venues and larger colleges and minor leagues parks.

New in the NFL since 1996:

Cleveland Browns
Gillette
Heinz
Invesco
M&T Bank
Paul Brown
Reliant
The Coliseum
FedEx Field
Bank of America Stadium
Ford Field
Lincoln Financial
Qwest Field
Raymond James
New Soldier Field
New AZ Cardinals Stadium

NFL Renovated since 1996:
Alltel
McAfee
Dolphins
Qualcomm
Lambeau Field

not to mention that several were built the previous 5 years, and those that are about to being construction

New MLB Stadiums since 1996:
Comerica
Safeco Field
AT&T
New Busch Stadium
Chase Field
Citizen's Bank
GABP
Miller Park
Minute Maid
PNC
Petco
Turner Field

MLB renovations since 1996:
old Busch Stadium
Angel Stadium
Kauffmann Stadium
McAfee Coliseum
Rogers Centre
Tropicana Field
U.S. Cellular Field

- again, not to mention that several were built the previous 5 years, and those that are about to being construction. There were several built from 1990-1995. Not even gonna attempt the minor league list. I can think of several off hand. Absolute explosion




New to the NBA since 1996:

Philips Arena Atlanta, GA
TD Banknorth Garden Boston, MA
Charlotte Bobcats Arena Charlotte, NC
American Airlines Center Dallas, TX
Pepsi Center Denver, CO
Toyota Center Houston, TX
Conseco Fieldhouse Indianapolis, IN
Staples Center Los Angeles, CA
FedExForum Memphis, TN
American Airlines Arena Miami, FL
Wachovia Center Philadelphia, PA
Rose Garden Portland, OR
SBC Center San Antonio, TX

Major College Footbal renovations/new stadiums since 1996:

good luck with that list, lol
Beaver Stadium
Oklahoma Memorial
Neyland
Doak Campbell
Sanford
DKR
Kyle Field
Ohio Stadium

ahhh...........just too many of those. Think of any major college team and they've likely had a renovation in the last ten years.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Interesting comparasons although as I said I don't view standing room as an architectural consideration....

*Wembley 90.000* – *Westfalen Stadion 81.264* 
(*Wembley*, looks alot better inside and out with a much higher capacity and better facilties.

*Old Trafford	76,200* – *Olympiastadion 76.000* 
(*Old Trafford*. Olympiastadion looks better but as a football stadium I'd take Old Trafford.

*Emirates 61.000* - *Allianz Arena 69.901*
(*Allianz Arena*, both have great exteriors but it has the greater capacity and the better views.

*St. James Park 53.094* - *Veltins Arena 61.506* 
(*Veltins'*) although I'm less enamored with it than I was a couple of years ago.

*Stadium of Light 48.353* - *Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion 57.000* 
*(Stadium of Light)*, similar capacites in all seater mode but it doesnt have a track.

*City Of Manchester Stadium 48.000* - *AOL Arena 55.989* 
(*AOL Arena*) by a hair for me, just looks like it has a more inimate atmosphere.

*Anfield 45.362* - *Borussia-Park 54.019* 
(*Anfield* with a higher seating capacity and much more character.

*Villa Park 42.799* - *Commerzbank-Arena 52.300* 
(*Villa Park*), probabley the hardest pic but even post deadly doug demolition I still think Villa Park has more character, espeically the Holte end(inside and out).

*Stamford Bridge 42.522* – *LTU arena 52.000* 
(*LTU*), looks terrific however ill planned its construction was.

*Goodison Park 40.260* - *RheinEnergieStadion 51.000* 
(*Rhein*), as Goodison was a bit of a dump when i vistsed 5-6 years ago.

*Elland Road 40.228* - *AWD-Arena 49.000* 
(*AWD*, similar capacity and it looks much nicer.

*White Hart Lane 36.214* - *Fritz-Walter-Stadion 48.500* 
(*Fritz*), love those high stands.

*Riverside 35.100* - *easyCredit-Stadion (Nürnberg) 47.500* 
*(Riverside)*, its not great but it doesnt thave a track.

*Upton Park 35.000* – *Weserstadion 43.000* 
(*Upton Park*, much more character and no track.

*Ewood Park 31.367* - *MSV-Arena 31.500* 
(*MSV*) from the pics alough I don't know much about it.

So 8-7 to the Germans for me although when it comes to top level stadia I think their actually a bit furhter than that ahead of us as theres no Munich Oylimpic stadium or Leipzig on that list and I can't be bother to reorganise it(although I spose you could claim the former is no longer a "football" stadium). I'd agree that England has the more strenght in depth though so I spose its really just down to how you weigh that when desiding. Personally I focused more on the larger stadiums if only because I don't have much knowledge of the smaller ones outside the UK.

Long term though I'd say Germany will likely be overtaken as I can't see much devolpment in the next 10-20 years following the WC. In comparason Liverpool, Everton, Man Utd, Newcastle, Tottenham, Villa etc here and Barca, Valencia, Zaragoza, Athleticoetc in Spain are more than likely to expand/redevolp.


----------



## 2zanzibar

Lostboy said:


> An English Parliament will sit in York in less than a decade.


I like your visionary thinking! I'm sick of being demonised as a Londoner, of controlling a socio-political hegemony over the Kingdom, lets see how you lot up there handle it!

1. Germany *DO* have better stadiums in the top flight.

2. the Oliampiastadion though, is a *CRAP* stadium to be holding the final in. Iconic as it is, it has a stupid running track around it. We all know what that does to the atmosphere in stadiums like the Stadio delle Alpi. If they insist on such crowd spoilers, they should've held it in the old olympic stadium in Munich. A progressive piece of architecture thats still, even more contemporary than the Allianz Arena

3. The German system is simply better. Larger attendances, cheap and inclusive ticket prices. Insane atmospheres

4. This discussion on Wembley is absurd. No spectator has stepped a foot inside yet. It is neither a benchmark for the rest, nor has it failed.

5. Wembley though, no matter how you reconfigure it, will always be one of the most valuable historical monuments to football

6. If we talk of German stadia as available for international tournaments - which surely is final criteria for any stadia - then the total capacity will alter. (does anyone know what the modified capacities will be?)

7 the Signal Iduna Park is one pig ugly stadium. This is why it is such a great stadium (for Borrusia Dortmund, not the away team!)

8. whatever is concluded from this thread, its gonna be a fucking excellent WC!!


----------



## Kampflamm

> the Oliampiastadion though, is a CRAP stadium to be holding the final in. Iconic as it is, it has a stupid running track around it. We all know what that does to the atmosphere in stadiums like the Stadio delle Alpi. If they insist on such crowd spoilers, they should've held it in the old olympic stadium in Munich. A progressive piece of architecture thats still, even more contemporary than the Allianz Arena


The Delle Alpi is always empty, that's why it sucks. The Olympiastadion in Berlin is a beautiful stadium. It's not perfect for football but then again the last WC final was held in an athletics stadium as well.

In a sense Berlin was chosen for political reasons as well. It's our capital so you can't really hold the final in Munich again.



> Wembley though, no matter how you reconfigure it, will always be one of the most valuable historical monuments to football


The name...yes. But the new stadium has absolutely nothing to do with the old venue. It's like rebuilding Buckingham Palace as a giant class cube and then calling it a historical monument.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ Its still in the same location as the old wembley where all those historical events happened and it will still be WEMBLEY but better.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful

Sounds like Trigger and his broom. The one he won a daft medal for. Basically he had the same broom for 20 years. . . the only thing he changed was the handle about twenty times, and the brush around twenty five times. But it was the same broom!


----------



## Kampflamm

I know, that was my point about Buckingham Palace. The fact that it's in the same location doesn't really do much for me. Maybe they should have preserved those two towers.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bubomb said:


> erm.......please explain???


 :nuts:


----------



## Welly

Lancashire, England is the home of football, and certainly not the self obsessed capital of Britain. I think you'll find that's more to do with the southern biased British press than any fact in reality.

By the way, did you know that Bramhall Lane staged football matches over 40 years before the home of Scottish football, Hampden Park?


----------



## kingdomca

2zanzibar said:


> Is it just England and Scotland that has this concept of 'home of football'?
> As theres no national stadiums for football in other countries (that I can think of) I imagine that where a country locates its 'home of football' is a seriously contentious issue, especially in Spain and Italy.
> Maybe no other country needs this concept/seperate stadium?


Denmark,Norway and Sweden certainly have national stadiums, though they double as club grounds.

The whole "home" discussion is obviously pointless as there is no real meaning in it. 
There is little doubt that Wembley is the most famous stadium in the world and, as it will certainly be among the top scorers for both size and quality as well, It could easily be considered the number 1 stadium in the world but if its a home its because its the national stadium of the country that invented the game. 

Pointless to me, though,


----------



## Welly

kingdomca said:


> Denmark,Norway and Sweden certainly have national stadiums, though they double as club grounds.
> 
> The whole "home" discussion is obviously pointless as there is no real meaning in it.
> There is little doubt that Wembley is the most famous stadium in the world and, as it will certainly be among the top scorers for both size and quality as well, It could easily be considered the number 1 stadium in the world but if its a home its because its the national stadium of the country that invented the game.
> 
> Pointless to me, though,


Old Trafford is the most famous stadium in the world.


----------



## bubomb

*Stadiums with plants in them*

I love stadiums with nice plants in them. Post your pics of stadiums with nice plants in them -


Commerzbank-Arena


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> By the way, did you know that Bramhall Lane staged football matches over 40 years before the home of Scottish football, Hampden Park?


Obviously. Many stadiums were built long before 1903 in loads of countries around the world!


----------



## bubomb

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> but football is an English game


Is it? I thought it was played around the world by hundreds of countries (and many of them have done it far better than England over the last 100 years). 

Silly me, I didn't realise only England plays football!!! My mistake, sorry!


----------



## Welly

Sadly no longer with us. In the heart of north west England.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART14698.html


----------



## kingdomca

2zanzibar said:


> Not quite. Your Eiffel Tower analogy doesn't quite hold. Wembley is famous for being *a site* of football. Its primary function is to accomodate this. The Eiffel Tower's primary function is symbolic. Wembley isn't. The symbolic dimension of Wembley came later, *when the culture of football began to historicise it. *
> The Eiffel Twer is not a container for anything else other than itself. It was built for itself therefor to replace it would be lose it.
> Wembley Stadium was built for Football. By your reasoning - that the new stadium has nothing to do with the old stadium - is to say that those towers served some intrinsic function to the game. We lose the towers, we lose Wembley as a place of Football....blimey! will the new Wembley give you sudden amnesia!
> The tradition of football, and the tradition of Wembley as the site of English Football is being mantained.


Very well put. Wembley is indeed a container. Its the name,location and what takes place there.

In a construction sense the "real old Wembley" have been gone since before most people here can remmeber probably as The real old Wembley was 100,000 capacity great open venue, not 76,000 with an ugly roof and seats bolted to terraces.

Its great that the name and location lives on, but unlike most brits I wouldnt actually have a problem with its use being changed.
If Chelsea offered a billion pounds for Wembley and it was possible to take Twickenham to 120,000 capacity, I think that should happen.

I expect Wembley to become the greatest stadium in the world. The roof is a ground-breaking innovation and exactly what football needs.
But its a fair point whether a national stadium needs all this quality. Legroom matters so much less for a stadium most people only visit very occassioanllyfor big events than it does for club grounds. Thats where the quality should be.
An exclusively national stadium should focus on being extremly big. Thats its point. People will accept poorer views up in the clouds for most Wembley games compared to club games.
It may be a mistake that Wembley doesnt reflect that.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'v seen a few that have a strange little green plant growing all over the pitch, obviously not stamford bridge though.


----------



## 2005

It has to be England in terms of numbers of quality as well as potiental (Everton, liverpool, Tottenham etc) England beats the rest by a country mile. I like Spain, Germany and Poturgal they all have great stadiums but for England is at stage where they are surpassing the rest and knows it can go a lot further.


----------



## 2005

It has to be England in terms of numbers of quality as well as potiental (Everton, liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham etc) England beats the rest by a country mile. I like Spain, Germany and Poturgal they all have great stadiums but for England is at stage where they are surpassing the rest and knows it can go a lot further.


----------



## bubomb

You can't talk about "potential". I'm sure in 10 years time Germany will have some new stadiums. Stuttgart will almost certainly build a 55000+ football only stadium. Hertha Berlin might as well with the Olympiastadion being used for Cup finals and some internationals. Karlsruher will start work on a new 45000 stadium soon. The BayArena will be upgraded, Dresden are going to build a new stadium. FC Saarbrücken will probably build a new 40000 stadium. Who knows what the stadium situation will be in 10 years time!! Spurs might not have changed at all, Liverpool might still be at Anfield, and i'm almost certain Chelsea will not have changed a thing!


----------



## rantanamo

In college football's SEC conference, the fields are surrounded by hedges


----------



## Kampflamm

Wrigley Field


----------



## Tuesday

What a strange thread. Sorry, my life wouldn't have been complete without me saying that.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I agree potential has nothing to do with the original question but if your talking about it then as I said England and Spain are at the top for me. Even if you just limate it to 30,000 plus stadiums then Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd, Spurs, Everton, Westham, Villa, Fulham, Newcastle, Brum City, Charlton Portsmouth, Leeds, Palace and Wolves are all definate possibilities for renovation/redevolpment. I'v less knowledge of what the smaller Spainish teams maybe planning but a touched up/expanded Nou Camp and those new Valencia plans alone would be very impressive.


----------



## rantanamo

Wow, how did I forget Wrigley


----------



## rantanamo

Raymond James Stadium


----------



## rantanamo

To this outsider, Germany


----------



## Köbtke

2zanzibar said:


> If they insist on such crowd spoilers, they should've held it in the old olympic stadium in Munich. A progressive piece of architecture thats still, even more contemporary than the Allianz Arena


Now, first of all sorry for picking this exact piece of reference to the Olympiastadion in Munich out, but I've often wondered why people seem to like that stadium so much.

I thought it was a disgrace for a club like Bayern München to be playing there. To me, it looks like an Eastern European-type bowl, of the blandest kind, with some clingfilm strung over one side. Admitted, the roof structure, also of the surrounding facilities, was probably quite innovative and might have looked great back in the 70's (like the colour of the seats – DAMN!), but to me, it now looks like clingfilm with debris from an old, stale lunch on it, and the rest of the stadium gives me the same feel.

So, could anyone please explain to my architecturally challenged eye and mind, what's so damned great about the Olympiastadion in Munich?

And one more thing, directly aimed to you, 2zanzibar: The Olympiastdion still more contemporary than the Allianz Arena? Hmm, if contemporary, when applied to a stadium design, means that the stadium shows what's going on in the era it was built, then I can't say Allianz Arena gives the most 2006'ish impression. Although it of course looks extremely modern, it's a tad on the futuristic side on the outside, with a modern version of a bowl-stadium on the inside.
But the Olympiastadion looks more 70's and outdated than That 70's Show and by no means contemporary to the present time, if you ask me.

This is by no means an attack on the stadium, but just a simple question due to me being curious


----------



## Welly

rantanamo said:


> To this outsider, Germany


No disrespect but what does somebody from Texas know about football stadiums? Keep to what you know about.

Germany has some great modern stadiums, but it has no great 'football' stadiums (with the possible exception of Dortmund).

Their best football stadium is a long, long way behind Old Trafford. Trust me on this, I'm an expert on the matter (as is reflected in my pay packet each month).

Thread closed.


----------



## Köbtke

Welly said:


> No disrespect but what does somebody from Texas know about football stadiums? Keep to what you know about.
> 
> Germany has some great modern stadiums, but it has no great 'football' stadiums (with the possible exception of Dortmund).
> 
> Their best football stadium is a long, long way behind Old Trafford. Trust me on this, I'm an expert on the matter (as is reflected in my pay packet each month).
> 
> Thread closed.


You're pretty full of it, aren't you?


----------



## Welly

Köbtke said:


> You're pretty full of it, aren't you?


I will not apologise for knowing my stuff.


----------



## rantanamo

Welly said:


> No disrespect but what does somebody from Texas know about football stadiums? Keep to what you know about.
> 
> Germany has some great modern stadiums, but it has no great 'football' stadiums (with the possible exception of Dortmund).
> 
> Their best football stadium is a long, long way behind Old Trafford. Trust me on this, I'm an expert on the matter (as is reflected in my pay packet each month).
> 
> Thread closed.


If that's how its gonna be, I don't ever want to see another comment on an NFL, college football stadium or baseball park from any member of a non baseball or non American football playing nation. 

I was basing these things on what your own brethren continue to spout as great football stadiums.


----------



## Welly

I'd get more sense from listening to a Saudi Arabian rating the merits of the local ale than from a Yank talking European football stadiums. This thread's not for you, my friend.

Move along.


----------



## Köbtke

Welly said:


> I'd get more sense from listening to a Saudi Arabian rating the merits of the local ale than from a Yank talking European football stadiums. This thread's not for you, my friend.
> 
> Move along.


And apparently not for you either, if you insist that Germany hasn't got any great "football" stadiums.

Yes, Old Trafford is a good stadium, but Germany has a good deal of stadiums equally as good. And as I've pointed out in my earlier comparison, I think Germany has quite a lot more good top stadiums than England.


----------



## Welly

Köbtke said:


> And apparently not for you either, if you insist that Germany hasn't got any great "football" stadiums.
> 
> Yes, Old Trafford is a good stadium, but Germany has a good deal of stadiums equally as good. And as I've pointed out in my earlier comparison, I think Germany has quite a lot more good top stadiums than England.


Can somebody not sort out a bacon thread for this knob-cheese?


----------



## EADGBE

I know this isn't quite the same thing but I have to give a mention to the Kent County Cricket Ground at Canterbury. The only mainstream professional sports ground that I can think of that has a tree in the field of play. Its very existence has required specific additions to the laws of the game for matches played there.

This picture was taken a few years ago.









Interestingly, in 2002 , the tree blew over in a storm but in a move that many people here may say would only happen in England, Kent decided that the character and tradition of the ground demanded a replacement tree, when the laws of the game and perhaps common sense would have said otherwise. As the old tree got diseased and the possibility of storm damage increased, they actually grew a new sapling in a secret location. 

THe new tree was ceremonially planted and as you can see, is doing very well in its privileged position, just inside the boundary at deep point/wide long on


----------



## 2zanzibar

Köbtke said:


> Now, first of all sorry for picking this exact piece of reference to the Olympiastadion in Munich out, but I've often wondered why people seem to like that stadium so much.
> 
> I thought it was a disgrace for a club like Bayern München to be playing there. To me, it looks like an Eastern European-type bowl, of the blandest kind, with some clingfilm strung over one side. Admitted, the roof structure, also of the surrounding facilities, was probably quite innovative and might have looked great back in the 70's (like the colour of the seats – DAMN!), but to me, it now looks like clingfilm with debris from an old, stale lunch on it, and the rest of the stadium gives me the same feel.
> 
> So, could anyone please explain to my architecturally challenged eye and mind, what's so damned great about the Olympiastadion in Munich?
> 
> And one more thing, directly aimed to you, 2zanzibar: The Olympiastdion still more contemporary than the Allianz Arena? Hmm, if contemporary, when applied to a stadium design, means that the stadium shows what's going on in the era it was built, then I can't say Allianz Arena gives the most 2006'ish impression. Although it of course looks extremely modern, it's a tad on the futuristic side on the outside, with a modern version of a bowl-stadium on the inside.
> But the Olympiastadion looks more 70's and outdated than That 70's Show and by no means contemporary to the present time, if you ask me.
> 
> This is by no means an attack on the stadium, but just a simple question due to me being curious


I guess this is somewhat subjective (i'm not an architect) but I suppose I like it for Frei Otto's tensile structure. For me its never really dated. I take your point that the stadium itself is a nondescript bowl, but someone in Munich let this guy have free reign, which is exactly what he did! I can't think of any other stadium at that time that would of gambled on such an idea.
Otto pioneered these lightweight structures, conflating tent design with a more organic geometry. This pre-figures all the Hi-Tech 'look-no-hands' architecture thats ubiquitous today. (see, Rogers, Foster, Piano, Nouvel etc and all bad imitators)
The Olympiastadion can't really be seen as a singular object, as its part of the olympic village. Otto's structure seems to kind of spread organically to try and connect most of its parts. 
Ok, I was being a bit playfull by saying its more 'contemporary' than the AA. What is great about the AA is that it carries on this German tradition of innovative and progressive design. Obviously, Herzog & de Meuron are paying homage to Otto in the AA with their membrane structure and take it alot further (into the realm of spectacle) but somehow it looks retro. This is also one of the great qualities about the AA, they tap into the sci fi design of 50's-60's. But the Olympiastadion remains contemporary because it was such a unique solution to stadium roof design. Its geometry and lightweight methods are still being used today.


----------



## Köbtke

2zanzibar said:


> I guess this is somewhat subjective (i'm not an architect) but I suppose I like it for Frei Otto's tensile structure. For me its never really dated. I take your point that the stadium itself is a nondescript bowl, but someone in Munich let this guy have free reign, which is exactly what he did! I can't think of any other stadium at that time that would of gambled on such an idea.
> Otto pioneered these lightweight structures, conflating tent design with a more organic geometry. This pre-figures all the Hi-Tech 'look-no-hands' architecture thats ubiquitous today. (see, Rogers, Foster, Piano, Nouvel etc and all bad imitators)
> The Olympiastadion can't really be seen as a singular object, as its part of the olympic village. Otto's structure seems to kind of spread organically to try and connect most of its parts.
> Ok, I was being a bit playfull b :eek2: y saying its more 'contemporary' than the AA. What is great about the AA is that it carries on this German tradition of innovative and progressive design. Obviously, Herzog & de Meuron are paying homage to Otto in the AA with their membrane structure and take it alot further (into the realm of spectacle) but somehow it looks retro. This is also one of the great qualities about the AA, they tap into the sci fi design of 50's-60's. But the Olympiastadion remains contemporary because it was such a unique solution to stadium roof design. Its geometry and lightweight methods are still being used today.


Thanks for that response, very informative.

I guess our views on what looks dated and what doesn't differs, although I do like the roof as a structure. But as far as the entire stadium go - as also the case with Calatrava's design for the Athens Olympic stadium - I don't reckon a spectacular roof is enough to make a great stadium. In fact, I think paying so much attention to an essentially useless part for what is going to take place in the structure (bar the fact that it shields the spectators from the elements) can take away something from the stadium as a whole. I have a tendency to dislike too fancy stadiums, as I view overly expressive stadium architecture to take away focus from the game.
(That's why I like the AA so much, because inside the playing area it lets you focus on the game on the pitch, while the remaining architecture is stunning and can rightfully be admired when not attending a game)

But it's a matter of subjective taste, as you also said.


----------



## Kampflamm

Köbtke said:


> You're pretty full of it, aren't you?


Nah, he doesn't get his medication until monday. I hope his behavior will improve tomorrow.


----------



## bubomb

I know some people don't like my posts/attitude, but some do like them as well.

But I think we can ALL agree that "Welly" is a useless ****!


----------



## bubomb

The Munich Olympic Stadium was built 35 years ago!! There are not many stadiums that old that can compare to it. For it's time, it was state of the art.


Giants Stadium was also way ahead of its time (1976) -


----------



## bubomb

EADGBE said:


> I know this isn't quite the same thing but I have to give a mention to the Kent County Cricket Ground at Canterbury. The only mainstream professional sports ground that I can think of that has a tree in the field of play. Its very existence has required specific additions to the laws of the game for matches played there.
> 
> This picture was taken a few years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, in 2002 , the tree blew over in a storm but in a move that many people here may say would only happen in England, Kent decided that the character and tradition of the ground demanded a replacement tree, when the laws of the game and perhaps common sense would have said otherwise. As the old tree got diseased and the possibility of storm damage increased, they actually grew a new sapling in a secret location.
> 
> THe new tree was ceremonially planted and as you can see, is doing very well in its privileged position, just inside the boundary at deep point/wide long on


Fantastic!


----------



## bravoman

Somehow almost everybody from outside England prefers the German stadia. Guess they don't have a clue though...they probably don't even know Sepp Blatter personally...or the come from countries where people simply cannot judge stadia...


----------



## rantanamo

Things consistently said to make a great football stadium on this board:

1.) Roof
2.) Stands perfectly fitting the playing surface
3.) Tall steep stands
4.) Interesting architecture
5.) The English missing standing areas(I've seen them in Germany)

This is strictly from a technical standpoint as the post does just say stadia.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Very pretty.


----------



## Skaros

Some more aerial pics of *Karaiskaki stadium* used by *OLYMPIACOS* FC (Piraeus,Athens) (number 1 on the list of Kuvvaci) 
*the photos are a bit old*


----------



## bubomb

bravoman said:


> Somehow almost everybody from outside England prefers the German stadia. Guess they don't have a clue though...they probably don't even know Sepp Blatter personally...or the come from countries where people simply cannot judge stadia...


They are known as 'fanboys'. England could have stadiums worse than The Democratic Republic of Congo, and the English 'fanboys' would still claim England had the best stadiums in the Universe. They can't help it, as the 'fanboy' is born with no 'Objective' genes!!

The English fanboy is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are bored of English stadiums.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> I know some people don't like my posts/attitude, but some do like them as well.
> 
> But I think we can ALL agree that "Welly" is a useless ****!


Hey bumbum, it's not your posts/attitude that people don't like, it's your culture.

You see the scotch(!) bowl about spouting that they have all this culture yet it ALL boils down to being anti-ENGLISH. The whole meaning of a scotchman is how anti-ENGLISH he is. 

It's the same with the peg-sellers too.

What was it Billy Connolly usd to say?...."Aye...you don't see many English at hampden though"....

Is that right?? The late 80's put an end to the urban-myth about Englishmen travelling to hampden eh bumbum?? Go ask your old fella....

:bash: :bash: :bash: 

:cheers:


----------



## Isaac Newell

I prefer this one


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> Hey bumbum, it's not your posts/attitude that people don't like, it's your culture.
> 
> You see the scotch(!) bowl about spouting that they have all this culture yet it ALL boils down to being anti-ENGLISH. The whole meaning of a scotchman is how anti-ENGLISH he is.
> 
> It's the same with the peg-sellers too.
> 
> What was it Billy Connolly usd to say?...."Aye...you don't see many English at hampden though"....
> 
> Is that right?? The late 80's put an end to the urban-myth about Englishmen travelling to hampden eh bumbum?? Go ask your old fella....
> 
> :bash: :bash: :bash:
> 
> :cheers:


Why would I ask my old man? I was at the game whilst hundreds of English hooligans attacked women and kids in Glasgow city centre. The fact that you are proud of that just shows what an idiot you are.

This may also come as a shock to you, but I don't represent Scotland. Scotland has 5 million people in it!!

Are you a 'chav' by any chance?


----------



## Skaros

@Isaac the side of the stadium seen in your photo above looks nice.. but unfortunatelly the rest of the stadium is like in the 60s...

-By the way a stadium that i like not so much because of its design but mostly because of its location (beside the blue aegean sea) is the Pancretan stadium of Heraclion (Crete island).-


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> Why would I ask my old man? I was at the game whilst hundreds of English hooligans attacked women and kids in Glasgow city centre. The fact that you are proud of that just shows what an idiot you are.
> 
> This may also come as a shock to you, but I don't represent Scotland. Scotland has 5 million people in it!!
> 
> Are you a 'chav' by any chance?


I only attacked the jocks who were waiting at glasgow station for us. They wanted a bit of "English" and got more than they bargained for.

"Only attacked women and kids" eh? I suggest you ask a few old-head jocks about what happened. You are obviously clueless.

Am i proud about how we took the piss out of the jocks on their patch TWICE?? Well of course i am. Afterall, we were warned about these hard scotchmen who forbid us to come to hampden  

EASY EASY EASY


Twickenham>murrayfield

Wembley>hampden

Winbledon>?

Lords>?

Big Brother is watching you bumbum.


----------



## andysimo123

bubomb said:


> Why would I ask my old man? I was at the game whilst hundreds of English hooligans attacked women and kids in Glasgow city centre. The fact that you are proud of that just shows what an idiot you are.
> 
> This may also come as a shock to you, but I don't represent Scotland. Scotland has 5 million people in it!!
> 
> Are you a 'chav' by any chance?


Thats what the English fans do. They attack the 1000s of Women and Children where ever they go.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

bubomb said:


> Is it? I thought it was played around the world by hundreds of countries (and many of them have done it far better than England over the last 100 years).
> 
> Silly me, I didn't realise only England plays football!!! My mistake, sorry!


Good God BuBomb, do you ever get tired of talking crap, or do you actually enjoy it? My statement that' football is an English game' referred to the fact that it is an English-invented game, you idiot, of course football is played all over the world, what the hell did you think I meant. Stop acting like a prat and think before you post! 



bubomb said:


> They are known as 'fanboys'. England could have stadiums worse than The Democratic Republic of Congo, and the English 'fanboys' would still claim England had the best stadiums in the Universe. They can't help it, as the 'fanboy' is born with no 'Objective' genes!!
> 
> The English fanboy is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are bored of English stadiums.


"The English fanboy is out there"...yeah, so is the bitter Scot, and yet you seem to be unaware of this...how strange...

You claimed in a earlier post something about everyone should be entitled to their own oppinion, and yet you are constantly harassing and putting down anyone who even suggests England have the best stadiums, kinda ironic wouldn't ya say? If you take a look back through this thread, about 99% of your posts are in response to someone who suggests that England have the best stadiums, and yet other people have suggested Portugal, or Spain have the best stadiums....where's the criticism...?

There have been quite a few people on this thread not from England, who have said England have the best stadiums, or that it is between England and Germany, so don't give me this crap about it only being English 'fanboys'...where the hell did you dig that term up from anyway, kinda makes you sound like even more of a idiot...but hay, if you wanna use it...

So someone not English saying England have the better stadiums is ok, but if an English person says it he must be a 'fanboy'....yer, good logic! Yes, there are English people on this forum who are overly proud about their country, and let it affect their judgement, but that happens with every country, and being overly proud, imo, is better then being overly bitter!

I myself, and Its AlL gUUd, and Eddyk have all voiced the oppinion that Germany probably has the better stadium situation at the moment, and we are all English (well, I'm not really, but that's a different matter entirely).

Everyone on this thread, and on this forum, has noticed just how anti-English you are, so why do you keep pretending you're not? You are constantly pointing out the worst points of England, ignoring the good ones, criticising anyone who suggests England have the best of something...etc etc etc....I mean, what happened to you..? Did your girlfriend run off with an Englishman or what??? Cus I know quite a few Scots, and get on pretty well with them, and none of them are as bitter towards England as you are. Whatever it is, you need to get over it, cus yet again, you have basically ruined another decent thread with your comments, thanx a lot!

Oh yer, and Welly, I don't know what your deal is either, but you just have to stop, ok...just stop, cus you're starting to piss me off worse then BuBomb!

Man, this thread has deteriorated, and I'm off! I've posted my views, and respected other people's views, it's just a shame some people can't do the same, and I've spent too much time responding to people who I would rather have never had the misfortune to encounter. For future reference, if another decent thread is started about something that might even remotely involve England, please stay away from it BuBomb. You say you are overwhelmed by the number of so called 'fanboys'...so why do you not just stay away, eh?


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> I only attacked the jocks who were waiting at glasgow station for us. They wanted a bit of "English" and got more than they bargained for.


:hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious 

It's a school night son, you better get to bed or you will sleep in.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious
> 
> It's a school night son, you better get to bed or you will sleep in.



Hey knobhead, i'm still in touch with the AFC lads from back then and they are good lads. 

It's a good job a small town in scotland gave us a bit of opposition. 

:cheers:


----------



## bubomb

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> If you take a look back through this thread, about 99% of your posts are in response to someone who suggests that England have the best stadiums, and yet other people have suggested Portugal, or Spain have the best stadiums....where's the criticism...?


The answer is simple. I haven't criticised (wrong word - I prefer disagreed) people who have suggested Portugal or Spain because there is absolutely no debate that these 2 countries don't have the best stadiums in Europe. It's not even worth debating about these 2 countries, as both are so far behind Germany. Germany/England is at least debatable, although Germany clearly wins.


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> Hey knobhead, i'm still in touch with the AFC lads from back then and they are good lads.
> 
> It's a good job a small town in scotland gave us a bit of opposition.
> 
> :cheers:



:rofl:


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> :rofl:



Clueless.

I'm also in touch with a few older jocks from sellic, rangers, hibs(obviously), hearts, airdie, both dundee.......

The BIG hibs fella is a very good friend of mine. 

PM me and i'll tell you more


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> Clueless.
> 
> I'm also in touch with a few older jocks from sellic, rangers, hibs(obviously), hearts, airdie, both dundee.......
> 
> The BIG hibs fella is a very good friend of mine.
> 
> PM me and i'll tell you more


Grow up.


----------



## JacobRit

Shortlist

COM
AOL
Fenerbace


----------



## AdidasGazelle

bubomb said:


> Grow up.


Make your mind up bumbum.

One minute you doubt me the next you tell me to grow up. Telling me to grow up is probably a good shout, however it is still a cop out. 

What town do you live in? Tell me and i bet i know a lad who lives VERY close by. 

Fancy a pint? LOL!

:cheers:


----------



## bubomb

AdidasGazelle said:


> Make your mind up bumbum.
> 
> One minute you doubt me the next you tell me to grow up. Telling me to grow up is probably a good shout, however it is still a cop out.
> 
> What town do you live in? Tell me and i bet i know a lad who lives VERY close by.
> 
> Fancy a pint? LOL!
> 
> :cheers:


No, i'm telling you to grow up because you are talking utter mince. And if you were a real hooligan, I would still be telling you to grow up and I would be laughing at you even louder for being so thick!


----------



## Lostboy

_Somehow almost everybody from outside England prefers the German stadia. Guess they don't have a clue though...they probably don't even know Sepp Blatter personally...or the come from countries where people simply cannot judge stadia..._

1) The First Statement is not true, some people from outside England on this thread prefer English Stadia, and some Englishmen on this thread prefer German Stadia.

2) No-one has a problem with a difference on opinion, certain people are annoyed at Bubomb, who in fairness is largely doing this only for the reaction he gets. He's smart enough to be able to manipulate people for that, but sad enough to do it. Best to ignore it.

Please do not be one of those old fashioned self-hating Germans who were not merely content with hating their own, fine, proud country, but must always swear obedience to Chirac and hate their cultural group.

English and German People are brothers, forged out of the same crucible. Do not be so quick to forget that.


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> Please do not be one of those old fashioned self-hating Germans who were not merely content with hating their own, fine, proud country, but must always swear obedience to Chirac and hate their cultural group


'bravoman' was being sarcastic!

Anyway, I think it is fair to say that this thread has concluded that Germany has the best stadiums in Europe. Well done Germany. It will be interesting to see who has the best stadiums in 10 years time!! I will start a new thread 10 years from today!


----------



## TalB

Scba said:


> That's not really what they meant by adaptable. And we really, really need to find a new picture, I'm getting sick of that one.


This is a newer shot of MSG and like anything else that is in NYC, it has the technology that is known to be complex as well as being known for several events along with luxury suites.


----------



## jesarm

My list is:

- Germany
- England
- Italy and Spain
- Portugal and France

Although for capacit seats, Spanish football Stadium are sure so longer than German and British

(50.000 +)












*St. Nou Camp 98.934*
F.C. Barcelona 












*St. Santiago Bernabeu 80.354*
Real Madrid 











*St. La Cartuja 72.000*
Sevilla City











*St. Vicente Calderón 57.500*
Atletico de Madrid












*St. Lluis Companys 56.000*
Espanyol 












*St. Manuel R. Lopera 55.500*
Real Betis 












*St. R. Sánchez Pijuan 55.000*
Sevilla 












*St. Mestalla 53.000*
Valencia


----------



## DrJoe

Skydome can be converted into pretty much anything.

Quick example 


baseball









soccer









roof open









or closed










Concerts, autoshows, wrestling, basketball. You name it.


----------



## TalB

I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Not sure about the inside of the Volkswagen Arena, but certainly the outside has to be a classic example of a 'Ikea flat-pack' stadium eh, bubomb!


----------



## bubomb

KiwiBrit said:


> Not sure about the inside of the Volkswagen Arena, but certainly the outside has to be a classic example of a 'Ikea flat-pack' stadium eh, bubomb!


erm....No. The roof and the fact that it has 2 tiers and standing areas makes it far better than Ikea flat-packs. The Reebok is also a good example of a smaller stadium that isn't an Ikea flat-pack.


































































With Ikea flat-packs, you are hard pushed to tell the difference between stadiums. Walkers and St.Marys are so similar that only the seat colours are different!! Believe it or not, these photos are all different stadiums in England!! They are decent enough stadiums, but My God are they boring!! 

Ikea flat-packs -


----------



## eddyk

Because they only have 1 bowl and no standing area?

Standing areas were removed from top flight english football to allow families to come in and enjoy the show.

Long gone are the days of being crushed in the stands, or ving the guy next to you spill your pint.

Football is now just as much a day out with the kids, as it is a day out with your mates.


----------



## bubomb

eddyk said:


> Because they only have 1 bowl and no standing area?
> 
> Standing areas were removed from top flight english football to allow families to come in and enjoy the show.
> 
> Long gone are the days of being crushed in the stands, or ving the guy next to you spill your pint.
> 
> Football is now just as much a day out with the kids, as it is a day out with your mates.


Families still go to games in Germany. I much preferred the old days of terracing and meeting your mates in the same place on the terrace each week, having a few drinks before the game and singing songs on the terrace. Most hardcore fans of football will agree with me. The days of packed terraces was what football was all about! Real support among real fans!

Standing areas were removed from UK grounds due to braindead morons not being able to behave themselves. Most UK football fans would love to see some standing areas back in UK grounds. The families can still go and sit in the family seated areas, whilst the lads stand and sing in the terraces.

It's got so bad that I actually got thrown out a ground for the crime of......swearing! The passion has gone from our stadiums!


----------



## EADGBE

Re-reading through this thread, I've realised that no-one's given a mention to the (Veltins) Auf Schalke Arena in Gelsenkirchen, Germany (opened 2001, capacity 61,027). It's a classic example of a venue that is utilised to the absolute maximum. In it's most familiar role, it is the home of Bundesliga side Schalke 04.










As a football ground, it is already held in high esteem. A 5* venue, it has already hosted a Champions' League final. Without any significant alterations to the arena, it is also home to NFL Europe team Rhein Fire.










The key reason for its adaptability is the removeable pitch, here seen being removed, using an air cushion to its site outside the stadium.



















Without the consideration of pitch damage (and with the added advantage of optimum conditions for grass growth outside), the bare floor is ideal to facilitate a wide variety of activities:

Concerts (in this case, Bon Jovi). Suddenly, the hitherto little-known German town of Gelsenkirchen is found on more and more tour dates for bands on the 'stadium rock' circuit










Other types of Concert (in this case, an opera by Puccini).










Exhibitions










biathlon










basketball










Super-cross










If it can be imagined, it's likely it can be done at Auf Schalke. Probably the only limiting factors are the time and cost required to transform the arena so radically, particularly within the football season, when the principle tenant has a regular call on its facilitites. Even faced with all these practical obstacles, it's good to see a venue which is so keen to push the boundaries of what is possible and achieve such a level of versatility.

In a similar vein and in a close second to Auf Schalke, I'd also like to nominate Paris' Palais Omnisport de Bercy. A well-known arena sports and concert venue, regular watchers of the Eurosport channel may have recognised just how frequently and diversely it is employed.

I have fewer pictures of Bercy, but they give a flavour of its significance beyond concerts and the 'usual' arena sports of Basketball and Ice Hockey.

BMX racing. In addition, any number of motor sports from motorbike jumping to the annual Christmas Karting event, at which world champions from all types of motorsport are invited to compete against each other.










Judo:










Jetski. They also have a pretty impressive indoor windsurfing event, which I was hoping to find a picture of. As with the jetski event it involves creating a huge 'pool' on the arena floor. In addition, huge fans are erected at one end of the arena to create the amount of wind necessary:










Can anyone find more pictures of thes diverse events at Bercy?


----------



## Kampflamm

eddyk said:


> Because they only have 1 bowl and no standing area?
> 
> Standing areas were removed from top flight english football to allow families to come in and enjoy the show.
> 
> Long gone are the days of being crushed in the stands, or ving the guy next to you spill your pint.
> 
> Football is now just as much a day out with the kids, as it is a day out with your mates.


It's not like 99% of the average German stadium is made up of standing areas. Terracing is usually limited to the spots where the die-hard fans are.


----------



## Brent H.

TalB said:


> I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.


The option of basking in the sun when its nice out and shutting it up when its cold and rainy is not attractive to you? I dont think its mandatory, I attend Bank or America Stadium in Charlotte quite frequently for Carolina Panthers games and I dont mind that it doesnt have a roof, but its a nice thing to have. I wouldnt want a permanent roof, thats for sure, I dont mind getting a little sun when its nice out.

Also it allows the option of holding major indoor sporting events (final four etc.) without losing the atmostphere for outdoor events.


----------



## bubomb

Great pics of the Veltins Arena. What's happening with Schalke's old ground? as i'm sure I saw some construction work going on.


----------



## EADGBE

EADGBE said:


> basketball


Sorry. This is obviously handball, not basketball. It's getting late...


----------



## dunwyn

Thanks everyone. Keep up the discussion, not just about the roof but also configurations.


----------



## kingdomca

bubomb said:


> Here's another one of kingdomca's "extremely poor" stadiums -
> 
> 
> Volkswagen Arena (Wolfsburg) -


why you spend your time misquoting me I dont know,

I have said Germany have 10 excellent football stadiums + 3-4 athletics grounds.
Beyond that I said they have about 5 decent venues that are good but matched by about 50 english venues.

The rest is what is extremly poor, but this one Wolfsburg is not extremly poor and I never wrote that. Try not to invent claims.

Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.


----------



## kingdomca

I must admit I am amazed if most people believe Germany have "clearly" the best stadiums. 
I certainly overestimated Germany at the beginning of this thread. 

Germany only have 10 truly great stadiums, so those favouring Germany must go by such a narrow range of venues. 
But if so few venues are included, I would say Spain would have to be in there as well.
Facilities are quite basic in Spain, but thats not much different from the standing areas in Germany. 

why is Germany ahead of Spain??


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> why is Germany ahead of Spain??


because their stadiums are miles better.

Just because you have a modern stand with standing terraces, that doesn't mean that stand doesn't have great facilities!! The standing areas in Germany have got just as many facilities behind the terrace/tier as the seated areas have!

2 identical stands with modern facilities - one has seats on the terrace, one doesn't. Both stands still have great facilities.


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> why you spend your time misquoting me I dont know,
> 
> I have said Germany have 10 excellent football stadiums + 3-4 athletics grounds.
> Beyond that I said they have about 5 decent venues that are good but matched by about 50 english venues.
> 
> The rest is what is extremly poor, but this one Wolfsburg is not extremly poor and I never wrote that. Try not to invent claims.
> 
> Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.


Darlingtons ground is poor. It is the king of Ikea flat-packs. It is one of the most boring stadiums on earth! I class the Reebok Stadium as the 7th best ground in England (it's about quality, not just size), and I class the Volkswagen Arena as about the same as the Reebok. The Volkswagen Arena would get in the top 10 in England. There isn't 10 grounds in England as good as the Volkswagen Arena, let alone 50 that you claim!! England simply doesn't have that many top quality stadiums! Most of them have at least one crap stand and look unfinished, and the rest are Ikea flat-packs that all look identical.


----------



## DrJoe

TalB said:


> I don't see anything special with having a retractable roof.


Its pretty self-explanatory. Look at some of these new NFL stadiums being built, they may only be used 10 TIMES!!! a year. Skydome on the other hand always has a full schedule because the retractable roof gives it various different uses other than what it was designed for. Yeah it helps that the MLB plays 81 home games also.


----------



## bubomb

DrJoe said:


> Its pretty self-explanatory. Look at some of these new NFL stadiums being built, they may only be used 10 TIMES!!! a year. Skydome on the other hand always has a full schedule because the retractable roof gives it various different uses other than what it was designed for. Yeah it helps that the MLB plays 81 home games also.


Why do they only play 10 games? Some of these stadiums are really nice, they should use them more often.


----------



## DrJoe

Because the NFL only has a 16 game schedule, 8 at home, 8 on the road. Yeah, it's kind of strange. They might get a couple pre-season games and a playoff game if they are lucky.


----------



## bubomb

DrJoe said:


> Because the NFL only has a 16 game schedule, 8 at home, 8 on the road. Yeah, it's kind of strange. They might get a couple pre-season games and a playoff game if they are lucky.



16 games!! What a bunch of ladyboys!


----------



## DrJoe

bubomb said:


> 16 games!! What a bunch of ladyboys!


Yep. And on the flip side baseball has a marathon 162 game schedule.


----------



## Durbsboi

*India's stadiums have some funky lights too!*

1. Ranji Stadium (Eden Gardens)








2. Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (New Delhi)








3.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Cochin)








4.Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium (Madras)








5.Chinnaswamy Stadium








6.Sree Kanteerawa


----------



## carvin77

"City of Manchester Stadium" kick ass...


----------



## carvin77




----------



## Martuh

*Scottish vs Scandinavian football*

I started this one for the argue in *UEFA boss wants an Irish/Scots/Welsh euro bid*.

*Scandinavia*
Norway - Sweden - Denmark
Population: 4,6 - 9,1 - 5,4 - in total 19,1 million
UEFA Ranking: 19 - 26 - 23
FIFA Ranking: 39 - 16 - 14

Stadiums bigger than 20.000:

Nya Ullevi, 43.000









Parken Stadion, 42.000









Råsundastadion, 37.000 seats









Brondby Stadion, 32.000









Malmö Stadion, 26.500









Ullevål Stadion, 25.000









Århus Stadion, 21.800









Lerkendal Stadion, 21.000









Randers Stadion, 20.000









Gentofte Stadion, 20.000









Best performing teams in European cups - above 100 points:
IFK Göteborg 155,5 points
Rosenborg BK 121,5 points
Brøndby IF 108,5 points


*Scotland*
Population: 5,1 million
UEFA Ranking: 10
FIFA Ranking: 62

Stadiums bigger than 20.000:

Murrayfield, 67.500









Celtic Park, 61.000









Hampden Park, 52.000









Shawfield, 52.000









Ibrox Park, 51.000









Pittodrie Stadium, 21.000









Rugby Park, 20.000









Best performing teams in European cups - above 100 points:
Celtic 287,0 points
Rangers 284,5 points
Dundee United 119,5 points
Aberdeen 112,5 points

To me, Scotland wins.


----------



## Martuh

But when it's about size I think Italy wins. 

San Siro / Giuseppe-Meazza, 83.000









Olimpico, 81.000









San Paolo, 79.000









Delle Alpi, 68.000









San Nicola, 58.000









Artemio Franchi, 48.000









Marc Antonio Bentegodi, 45.000









But they're all poor.


----------



## Lostboy

_But when it's about size I think Italy wins. _ 

Spain beats Italy on size.


----------



## Kampflamm

kingdomca said:


> why is Germany ahead of Spain??


Are you serious? Spain has some decent venues (if you look at size) but they're old. Camp Nou and the Bernabeu are alright but after that it all goes downhill. 

We could compare the 15 biggest stadiums (since you've been claiming that Germany only has 10 decent stadia):

1. *Camp Nou* v Westfalenstadion
_I guess Barca wins this one just because of its sheer size and history. The Westfalenstadion is pretty damn good and imposing as well though._

2. *Bernabeu* v Olympiastadion (Berlin)
_Probably the Bernabeu because it doesn't have a running track. Other than that the Olympiastadion is better though (more modern, better architecture)._

3. Montjuic v *Allianz Arena*
_Not even close._

4. Mestalla v *Veltins Arena*_
Gotta go with the Veltins Arena. It's simply more modern._

5. *Vicente Calderon* v Daimlerstadion
_Difficult choice. You're definitely closer to the pitch in Madrid but the stadium's pretty old and looks bland (like so many other Spanish stadia). I'd still choose it over Stuttgart though._

6. Ruiz de Lopera v *AOL-Arena*
_Not even close again. The AOL-Arena blows Real Betis' stadium out of the water._

7. Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán v *Borussia Park*
_Gotta go with Borussia Park even though it looks pretty cheap. It's more modern and has a roof. Pretty close though._

8. San Mames v *Commerzbank-Arena*
_The San Mames is one of the more interesting looking Spanish venues. The winner's gotta be Frankfurt's stadium though. It's brand new, has an interesting roof and is much bigger (52,300 compared to 40, 600)._

9. Riazor v *RheinEnergie Stadion*
_RheinEnergie wins this one for much of the same reasons as many other German stadiums. It's more modern and it's actually one of my fav venues in Germany. Interesting roof, very close to the pitch...pretty damn good._

10. Estadio La Romareda v *AWD-Arena*








v









Need I say more?

11. Anoeta v *Fritz-Walter-Stadion*
_Anoeta looks great but it has a running track. One of the closest matches though._

12. *Balaidos* v Frankenstadion
_The Frankenstadion sucks, so I'm just gonna give this one to Celta Vigo._

13. La Rosaleda v *Zentralstadion*
_The Zentralstadion simply is more modern._

14. Son Moix v *Weserstadion*
_Difficult choice. I think both stadiums are nothing to brag about. You're a bit closer to the action in Bremen though and the stadium has almost twice the capacity._

15. El Madrigal v *MSV-Arena*
_Pretty close actually. Both stadiums look bland but at the end of the day MSV-Arena is more modern, larger, and it has a roof. _

So it's a decisive 11-4 win for Germany (and I actually forgot to mention LTU-Arena, capacity 52,000) . How you could possibly think that Spanish stadia might be better than Germany's is beyond me.


----------



## Loranga

I miss the glory days of IFK Göteborg!


----------



## 2005

I would say Scotland by a country mile.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful

Germany's get better stadiums than Spain. But Spain's got some decent ones in the pipeline... eg Zaragoza, Seville, Valencia, Espanol, Sociedad etc etc


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

SC Heerenveen in Holland

Heerenveen a village with 40.000 people, now average attendance 21.000, stadium is being extended so all people from the waiting list can attent the matches, new capacity 28.500
so 71.25% of total population fits into the stadium


----------



## Kampflamm

kingdomca said:


> Wolfsburg is among the 5 decent venues but I cant see why this should be better than 50 english venues, including even 3rd and 4th level clubs like Nottingham,Huddersfield, and Darlington.


I'm beginning to think that you either have something against Germany or that you don't have a clue.

People can make up their minds

Wolfsburg






































Darlington (you gotta be kidding me :laugh: )











Nottingham (looks alright but like so many other English stadia, unfinished)





























Huddersfield (looks nice but still not as good as Wolfsburg IMO)


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful

Forest's ground is pretty shite. Huddersfield's cracking though. Hull's another lower league club with a decent ground.


----------



## Kampflamm

Lostboy said:


> _But when it's about size I think Italy wins. _
> 
> Spain beats Italy on size.


Heck, even in size Germany beats 'em all. The combined capacity of the 15 Spanish stadiums I mentioned earlier is 687,288 while that of their German counterparts is 822,824 (admittedly this includes standing areas but it's not Germany's problem that other countries don't have those anymore).


----------



## bravoman

Kampflamm said:


> I'm beginning to think that you either have something against Germany or that you don't have a clue.


you just figured that out?


----------



## Arpels

Europe best football stadia:
- Germany
- UK
- Italy
- Spain
- France
- Portugal 
- Olland


----------



## Kampflamm

bravoman said:


> you just figured that out?


I'm special! :crazy:


----------



## JimB

I'd have to say that Germany are on top at the moment. I'm sure that the World Cup has something to do with that.

However, I think we might see England overtake Germany in ten years or so, especially if England are awarded the 2018 World Cup.


----------



## Lostboy

_Heck, even in size Germany beats 'em all. The combined capacity of the 15 Spanish stadiums I mentioned earlier is 687,288 while that of their German counterparts is 822,824 (admittedly this includes standing areas but it's not Germany's problem that other countries don't have those anymore)._

Yeah, I don't think you can count standing areas for the size and capacity of the stadia, because the potential for numbers in the Nou Camp with terraces would be astronomical, and it says nothing about the size of the stadia.

That said I clearly believe and have stated so time, that the children of Rome, have nothing on us when it comes to stadia.


----------



## Kampflamm

Lostboy said:


> Yeah, I don't think you can count standing areas for the size and capacity of the stadia, because the potential for numbers in the Nou Camp with terraces would be astronomical, and it says nothing about the size of the stadia.
> 
> That said I clearly believe and have stated so time, that the children of Rome, have nothing on us when it comes to stadia.


It doesn't make that big of a difference though. The 12 world cup venues have a combined capacity of 639,638 seats. Add to that the 52,000 seats in Düsseldorf and those 13 stadiums already have more seats than the aforementioned 15 Spanish stadiums.


----------



## MoreOrLess

It really depends how many stadiums you include, the Spainish and Italians would I'd guess have the most capacity in their top 5-10 stadiums, the Germans in their top 10-15 and England if you include everything.


----------



## JimB

A (by no means comprehensive) list of English clubs certain to increase capacity and improve facilities or move to new, bigger stadiums within the next ten years.

In progress and imminent:

Arsenal (from 38,000 to 60,000)
Man Utd (from 68,000 to 76,000)

Planned:

Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000)
Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000)
Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000)
Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+)
Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000)

Not yet planned but inevitable within the next ten years:

Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000)
Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so)
Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000)
West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000)
Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000)

Probable developments:

Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000)
Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000)

This is on top of the number of new grounds being redeveloped / newly built / planned in the lower leagues: MK Dons, Brighton, Cardiff to name a few. And, of course, a huge number of new stadiums have already been completed by lower league clubs.


----------



## 2zanzibar

Doveling said:


> SC Heerenveen in Holland
> 
> Heerenveen a village with 40.000 people, now average attendance 21.000, stadium is being extended so all people from the waiting list can attent the matches, new capacity 28.500
> so 71.25% of total population fits into the stadium


They're insane! Bravo!


----------



## 2005

West Ham have plans to make Upton Park 40,600 soon I don't know where you got 45,000.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> A (by no means comprehensive) list of English clubs certain to increase capacity and improve facilities or move to new, bigger stadiums within the next ten years.
> 
> In progress and imminent:
> 
> Arsenal (from 38,000 to 60,000)
> Man Utd (from 68,000 to 76,000)
> 
> Planned:
> 
> Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000)
> Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000)
> Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000)
> Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+)
> Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000)
> 
> Not yet planned but inevitable within the next ten years:
> 
> Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000)
> Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so)
> Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000)
> West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000)
> Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000)
> 
> Probable developments:
> 
> Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000)
> Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000)
> 
> This is on top of the number of new grounds being redeveloped / newly built / planned in the lower leagues: MK Dons, Brighton, Cardiff to name a few. And, of course, a huge number of new stadiums have already been completed by lower league clubs.


A lot of these won't happen, and who knows what will happen in Italy, Germany and Spain over the next 10 years!! This is what I think will happen in England over the next 10 years -


Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000) - Yes
Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000) - Maybe
Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000) - Yes, but it will be an Ikea flat-pack
Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+) - No chance
Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000) - Maybe
Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000) - No chance
Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so) - No
Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000) - Maybe 45000, but no chance of 55000
West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000) - Yes, but not that big
Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000) - Possible
Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000) - No chance
Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000) - Unlikely


----------



## JimB

2005 said:


> West Ham have plans to make Upton Park 40,600 soon I don't know where you got 45,000.


They did have plans but, after their financial troubles after relegation, I thought that they had put them on the back burner.

As to the 40,600 figure, I would have thought that, in the long term, West Ham would want a higher capacity. Given that the Chicken Run stand is tiny (far smaller than the old West stand - before its redevelopment - on the opposite side) and given that the West stand development added about 9,000 to capacity, I would have thought that an increase in capacity to 45,000 would be easily achievable.


----------



## eievar

my list:

Germany
Spain
Portugal / Italy
England / France

the problem with the spanish ones is that they're quite old, but this isn't always a problem... for example old stadiums like Bernabeu (1947), Nou Camp (1957) and Vicente Calderón (1966), never were as good as they are nowadays, thanks to the great reforms have been done on them, and they have nothing to envy to other more modern stadiums. so they offer all the comfort to the people and perhaps the only bad point with these ones could be the exterior architecture... Nou Camp is really ugly, but Calderon is nice and Bernabeu i think is quite impresive.

besides, other old stadiums will be demolished in a near future: Mestalla (Valencia FC) and Romareda (Zaragoza). here the thread in the spanish forum open by aCidMinD81 about the possible projects for the new Valencia stadium, and a pic of one of them:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=292902









the thread of Zaragoza stadium:

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=178075

then we have other stadiums, for example Ruiz de Lopera (Real Betis), is a completely new stadium, built over the old Benito Villamarin. yes, it has not roof but, who cares? how many times can you see rain in Seville? xD. Anoeta (Real Sociedad) is fantastic, the only problem is the fuckin* running track (the same for Montjuic, the olympic stadium of Barcelona 92)


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> A lot of these won't happen, and who knows what will happen in Italy, Germany and Spain over the next 10 years!! This is what I think will happen in England over the next 10 years -
> 
> 
> Liverpool (from 44,000 to 61,000) - Yes
> Charlton (from 27,000 to 40,000) - Maybe
> Portsmouth (from 20,000 to 35,000) - Yes, but it will be an Ikea flat-pack
> Aston Villa (from 43,000 to 50,000+) - No chance
> Birmingham (from 29,000 to 55,000) - Maybe
> Chelsea (from 42,000 to 55,000 or maybe 60,000) - No chance
> Everton (from 40,000 to 50,000 or so) - No
> Tottenham (from 36,000 to 45,000 minimum and maybe 55,000) - Maybe 45000, but no chance of 55000
> West Ham (from 35,000 to about 45,000) - Yes, but not that big
> Man Utd (from 76,000 to anything up to 95,000) - Possible
> Newcastle (from 52,000 to anything up to 75,000) - No chance
> Leeds, when they return to the Premiership (from 40,000 to 50,000) - Unlikely


Charlton will definitely happen. Plans have already been drawn up. Charlton are in excellent financial health. They sell out every game. No reason for them not to follow up on their plans.

Pompey's new stadium may or may not be an "Ikea flat pack". I haven't seen plans yet. But one or two of the new German stadiums also appear to be Ikea flat packs - soulless and samey. I haven't seen you dismiss them in the same manner. Ikea flat pack stadia may not be ideal in terms of atmosphere but they still offer excellent facilities, sight lines and a comfortable environment in which to watch football.

I believe that Aston Villa have already announced plans to increase capacity. There is no end to Doug Ellis' vanity and he has shown before that he is far more concerned with developing the stadium than developing the team.

Chelsea will definitely increase to at least 50-55,000. Maybe not at Stamford Bridge. But they will increase. Guaranteed. It's not as if they lack the resources - especially if they sell Stamford Bridge.

Everton desperately need a new or redeveloped stadium and there have been a number of options on the table recently for new developments within the city of Liverpool. Again, it is guaranteed that they will not be at Goodison (in its current state and at its current size) in ten years time.

Spurs will either move or redevelop. 45,000 will be the minimum capacity but I think Spurs will be looking to increase to over 50,000 before too long.

Newcastle currently sell out 52,000 every league game. They know that they could sell another 10,000 more comfortably, thereby dramatically increasing revenue. There are technical and legal issues, given the location of St James' Park in the centre of Newcastle. But equally, given the importance of the football club to the identity of the city, I very much doubt that these issues are insurmountable.

Leeds were looking to move to a new 50,000 stadium before their financial meltdown. They had bought a new site, I believe, and plans had been drawn up. Those plans have now been dropped but, with Ken Bates in charge (he loves redeveloping stadiums) and the large fan base I am absolutely certain that Leeds will look to redevelop their main stand (which is both too old and too small) soon after they return to the Premiership.

On a more general level, Germany's recent stadium building activity has largely been encouraged by the imminent World Cup. England are almost certain to host the next World Cup held in Europe - probably in 2018. We can therefore expect a similar increase in stadium development in England - particularly in places such as Leeds, which will be expected to host some games.

As to what might happen in other countries, I agree that they, too, will develop. Italy, however, seems to be downsizing, with both Lazio and Juve planning smaller stadiums than they currently occupy. And I don't expect too much more by way of major stadium development in Germany from now on. After all, you would expect all the new German stadia to have a shelf life of slightly longer than 15 years!


----------



## 2005

JimB said:


> They did have plans but, after their financial troubles after relegation, I thought that they had put them on the back burner.
> 
> As to the 40,600 figure, I would have thought that, in the long term, West Ham would want a higher capacity. Given that the Chicken Run stand is tiny (far smaller than the old West stand - before its redevelopment - on the opposite side) and given that the West stand development added about 9,000 to capacity, I would have thought that an increase in capacity to 45,000 would be easily achievable.


Straight after their promotion WHU resubmiited the plans.



















Also Tottenham Chairman Daniel Levy stated in the match day programme against Brimingham this season that the council said that they could have 45,000 but he turned down the offer as he wanted 52,000.


----------



## 2005

Bubomb I can't help but think that you some times underestimate the size of certain clubs support i.e. Everton & Spur. Both have a big support but yet you enjoy saying that Maybe Spurs could get 45k!! maybe? and Everton have no chance of getting 50k!!

Your opinion is your opinion (which is of course respected) and mine is that Tottenham COULD get 55k and Everton CAN get 50k.


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Charlton will definitely happen. Plans have already been drawn up. Charlton are in excellent financial health. They sell out every game. No reason for them not to follow up on their plans.
> 
> Pompey's new stadium may or may not be an "Ikea flat pack". I haven't seen plans yet. But one or two of the new German stadiums also appear to be Ikea flat packs - soulless and samey. I haven't seen you dismiss them in the same manner. Ikea flat pack stadia may not be ideal in terms of atmosphere but they still offer excellent facilities, sight lines and a comfortable environment in which to watch football.
> 
> I believe that Aston Villa have already announced plans to increase capacity. There is no end to Doug Ellis' vanity and he has shown before that he is far more concerned with developing the stadium than developing the team.
> 
> Chelsea will definitely increase to at least 50-55,000. Maybe not at Stamford Bridge. But they will increase. Guaranteed. It's not as if they lack the resources - especially if they sell Stamford Bridge.
> 
> Everton desperately need a new or redeveloped stadium and there have been a number of options on the table recently for new developments within the city of Liverpool. Again, it is guaranteed that they will not be at Goodison (in its current state and at its current size) in ten years time.
> 
> Spurs will either move or redevelop. 45,000 will be the minimum capacity but I think Spurs will be looking to increase to over 50,000 before too long.
> 
> Newcastle currently sell out 52,000 every league game. They know that they could sell another 10,000 more comfortably, thereby dramatically increasing revenue. There are technical and legal issues, given the location of St James' Park in the centre of Newcastle. But equally, given the importance of the football club to the identity of the city, I very much doubt that these issues are insurmountable.
> 
> Leeds were looking to move to a new 50,000 stadium before their financial meltdown. They had bought a new site, I believe, and plans had been drawn up. Those plans have now been dropped but, with Ken Bates in charge (he loves redeveloping stadiums) and the large fan base I am absolutely certain that Leeds will look to redevelop their main stand (which is both too old and too small) soon after they return to the Premiership.
> 
> On a more general level, Germany's recent stadium building activity has largely been encouraged by the imminent World Cup. England are almost certain to host the next World Cup held in Europe - probably in 2018. We can therefore expect a similar increase in stadium development in England - particularly in places such as Leeds, which will be expected to host some games.
> 
> As to what might happen in other countries, I agree that they, too, will develop. Italy, however, seems to be downsizing, with both Lazio and Juve planning smaller stadiums than they currently occupy. And I don't expect too much more by way of major stadium development in Germany from now on. After all, you would expect all the new German stadia to have a shelf life of slightly longer than 15 years!


This is all speculation! St James' Park will not get increased simply because they can't, there is no room (and they are hugely in debt).

There is no way you can say for sure Chelsea are changing their stadiums, it the moment it's all talk.

You cannot 'guarantee' Everton will not be at Goodison....do you have a crystal ball or something? 

Aston Villa would be nuts to expand, Villa Park is nowhere near close to selling out!

This is all if's and maybe's, until the contracts are signed, nothing is certain!!


----------



## bubomb

2005 said:


> Bubomb I can't help but think that you some times underestimate the size of certain clubs support i.e. Everton & Spur. Both have a big support but yet you enjoy saying that Maybe Spurs could get 45k!! maybe? and Everton have no chance of getting 50k!!
> 
> Your opinion is your opinion (which is of course respected) and mine is that Tottenham COULD get 55k and Everton CAN get 50k.



It is nothing to do with club support, it is to do with infrastructure! Everton might not find a suitable site or the finance to build a new stadium (there must be problems, otherwise they would have done it this year or last year), and WHL has huge problems with transport and lack of area to build stands!

Anyway, there is not a hope in hell Everton could average 50000 a week! They almost never sell out Goodison!


----------



## 2005

bubomb said:


> It is nothing to do with club support, it is to do with infrastructure! Everton might not find a suitable site or the finance to build a new stadium (there must be problems, otherwise they would have done it this year or last year), and WHL has huge problems with transport and lack of area to build stands!
> 
> Anyway, there is not a hope in hell Everton could average 50000 a week! They almost never sell out Goodison!


OK fair enough now that you have have explained it properly I agree with you but I do think that Everton could get 50k if they had the right stadium not one that has restricted views here there and every-fucking-where! well apart from the one stand.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> This is all speculation! St James' Park will not get increased simply because they can't, there is no room (and they are hugely in debt).


Of course they can increase capacity. It won't be easy, because of the nearby housing, but Newcastle United has a strong emotional grip on people within Newcastle. If they really want to increase capacity, I am certain that the local authorities will do all they can do to assist them. It wouldn't be a popular or sensible move within the city to stand in the way of the toon's progress.

As to Newcastle's debt, don't make the common mistake of believing all debt to be, by definition, a bad thing. Debt is what allows us to buy houses. Debt is what gives small companies the wherewithall to grow into big companies. Arsenal are carrying massive debt. In the long term, it will help them to become one of the top five or six richest football clubs in the world. Likewise, Newcastle's debt is well structured. Their debt is purely a consequence of their recent stadium development. But the boost to their income from the redevelopment of St. James' Park more than merely covers their debt and interest repayments. Debt is only a bad thing when it it is badly structured; or at a disadvantageous interest rate; or when it exceeds net assets; or when it is required for unsuitable ends (ie player transfers).

If Newcastle decided that they needed an extra 10,000 seats, they could easily borrow more money on the basis of their strong attendance figures. Sure, that would get them into further debt but it would also grow the company and allow for greater turnover and profit. If you doubt this, read up about a couple called the Wilsons, who appear annually in the Sunday Times rich list. They started off with very little and now own a huge residential property portfolio worth many hundreds of millions - all made possible by the clever use of debt.



> There is no way you can say for sure Chelsea are changing their stadiums, it the moment it's all talk.


I can't say for sure, no. But it's very long odds on that their capacity (wherever they are) will be more than 50,000 within the next ten years.



> You cannot 'guarantee' Everton will not be at Goodison....do you have a crystal ball or something?


I didn't say that Everton would not be at Goodison. I said that they would either be at a new stadium or at a redeveloped Goodison within ten years. 



> Aston Villa would be nuts to expand, Villa Park is nowhere near close to selling out!


I agree. But that's never stopped Doug Ellis before.



> This is all if's and maybe's, until the contracts are signed, nothing is certain!!


Of course. Anything could happen in ten years. Life on earth could cease to exist. Or we could be invaded by creatures from a galaxy far, far away. But it is highly probable that all the clubs mentioned in my list will be active in terms of stadium development over the next ten years.


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> It is nothing to do with club support, it is to do with infrastructure! Everton might not find a suitable site or the finance to build a new stadium (there must be problems, otherwise they would have done it this year or last year), and WHL has huge problems with transport and lack of area to build stands!
> 
> Anyway, there is not a hope in hell Everton could average 50000 a week! They almost never sell out Goodison!


Part of Everton's problem at the moment is that they can cater for only a tiny portion of the corporate hospitality market. Goodison simply doesn't have the facilities. This is depriving them of a big slice of income. They are painfully aware that they will have to do something very soon to increase their revenue generating potential. It is one of the big priorities for the Everton board. None of the suggested schemes for a new stadium have yet materialised but there is another one (involving a major urban redevelopment by a large building contractor) currently under discussion. But make no mistake - Everton are definitely looking to redevelop or move.

Contrary to your claim, White Hart Lane has no problem with lack of space. There is a large amount of unused space behind the West stand and, if they wished, Spurs could increase capacity on that one side alone by more than 10,000 (the current West stand has a capacity of only 6,500). Spurs also own all the land behind the Paxton end and could, if required, increase capacity there by (at a guess) a further 6,000. Lastly, under Alan Sugar, Spurs gained planning approval for a redevelopment of the Shelf side, which would have seen capacity increased by 8,000, with the stand being built over Worcester Avenue. When ENIC took over, they shelved that plan. Only the Park Lane end is currently unsuitable for further redevelopment, because of the residential housing just behind it.

In other words, there is theoretically space to increase capacity at White Hart Lane to 60,000.

As to transport difficulties, don't believe the hype. It is a red herring, perpetuated by Spurs in order to put pressure on the local council. White Hart Lane is no worse off for transport than most other grounds. Try getting away from Old Trafford in a hurry. Or Villa Park. Or Highbury. White Hart Lane is served by two network rail stations within a five minute walk. There are plenty of north - south and east - west bus routes nearby. The north circular is half a mile away and the M25 is not too far up the A10. The nearest tube station is, admittedly 25 minutes away, but there is a Victoria line service track that runs to Northumberland Park - a five minute walk away. It would not take much (effort or money) to convert that service track into a passenger line.


----------



## bubomb

I don't think Newcastle United's debt is a 'good debt'. It is debatable whether they need a much bigger stadium and they are in a danger of doing a Leeds. Their debt is getting bigger with no extra income and they are falling further behind the big teams. If they were to get relegated they would be in deep shit! I can't see them getting any Champions League money in the near future and over the next 5 years I can see them getting lower and lower down the league!


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Contrary to your claim, White Hart Lane has no problem with lack of space. There is a large amount of unused space behind the West stand and, if they wished, Spurs could increase capacity on that one side alone by more than 10,000 (the current West stand has a capacity of only 6,500). Spurs also own all the land behind the Paxton end and could, if required, increase capacity there by (at a guess) a further 6,000. Lastly, under Alan Sugar, Spurs gained planning approval for a redevelopment of the Shelf side, which would have seen capacity increased by 8,000, with the stand being built over Worcester Avenue. When ENIC took over, they shelved that plan. Only the Park Lane end is currently unsuitable for further redevelopment, because of the residential housing just behind it.
> 
> In other words, there is theoretically space to increase capacity at White Hart Lane to 60,000.
> 
> As to transport difficulties, don't believe the hype. It is a red herring, perpetuated by Spurs in order to put pressure on the local council. White Hart Lane is no worse off for transport than most other grounds. Try getting away from Old Trafford in a hurry. Or Villa Park. Or Highbury. White Hart Lane is served by two network rail stations within a five minute walk. There are plenty of north - south and east - west bus routes nearby. The north circular is half a mile away and the M25 is not too far up the A10. The nearest tube station is, admittedly 25 minutes away, but there is a Victoria line service track that runs to Northumberland Park - a five minute walk away. It would not take much (effort or money) to convert that service track into a passenger line.


So why don't they build a 60000 stadium then if everything is rosy? Why wait and fall further and further behind the other stadiums in England?

and why did they build such small stands in the mid 90's if they have all this room and a big support?

There must be problems otherwise work would start this summer on rebuilding WHL. I would be very surprised if WHL is ever bigger than 45000.


----------



## Lostboy

_besides, other old stadiums will be demolished in a near future: Mestalla (Valencia FC) and Romareda (Zaragoza). here the thread in the spanish forum open by aCidMinD81 about the possible projects for the new Valencia stadium, and a pic of one of them:_

That pictures looks fantastic. I have to say on this thread, the Spanish Stadia have been very under-rated. Some might not be modern like Bernabeu, but they look the part, and you get the impression these are European Superpowers in many Spanish Clubs.


----------



## Kampflamm

Traitor...sucking up to the hispanic outpost of Rome. :rant:


----------



## JimB

bubomb said:


> So why don't they build a 60000 stadium then if everything is rosy? Why wait and fall further and further behind the other stadiums in England?
> 
> and why did they build such small stands in the mid 90's if they have all this room and a big support?
> 
> There must be problems otherwise work would start this summer on rebuilding WHL. I would be very surprised if WHL is ever bigger than 45000.


Good questions.

The two stands (Paxton and Park Lane) that Alan Sugar redeveloped in the 90's bear his hallmark - cheap and lacking in foresight or ambition. He only built them because the requirements of the Taylor report would have meant a capacity of only 28,000 had the old stands merely been converted to all seater.

Part of Daniel Levy's problem now is the lack of foresight of previous regimes. All the stands at White Hart Lane were built too small and, other than the West stand, none can really be increased merely by adding another tier since the designs are unsuitable. Which means that completely new stands are needed. And that costs a lot of money, especially in London.

The reason why Levy is holding back, I'm certain, is not because the area cannot cope with a further 9,000 fans. We used to get crowds of 70,000, after all. Furthermore, we received planning approval five years ago for a scheme that would have increased capacity by 8,000. I can't see why the area could cope any less well now with 8-9,000 extra fans than it could five years ago. Nor is it about the lack of money (Spurs agreed loan arrangements with Lazards a few years ago worth £75 million, to be drawn down as and when required).

Levy is, I think, holding back because a tube line and investment in the local area would help to increase local property values. According to leaked plans, Spurs intend to build some residential property - the profits from which would help to pay for the development of the stadium - and obviously increased property values would make such a scheme more attractive. However, if Spurs were to simply go ahead and redevelop White Hart Lane before winning the battle for a tube line at Northumberland Park, then they would have no bargaining power with the local authorities. It is only while the threat of leaving Haringey remains that Spurs can have any hope that they will get the tube line and a subsequent increase in property values.


----------



## bubomb

Actually, in a few years Spain might be 2nd (then again, they might not be!) -


Definites -

New stadium in Valencia - 70000 Valencia CF (2006-2009)
New stadium in Sevilla - 64000 Real Betis Balompié (?)
New satdium in Sánchez Pizjuán - 50000 Sevilla FC (2007)
New stadium in San.Sebastián - 43000 Real Sociedad (2007)
New stadium in Zaragoza - 42600 Real Zaragoza (2006)
New stadium in Barcelona - 35000 RCD Espanyol (2006)
New stadium in Murcia - 30911 Real Murcia CF (2007)


along with -

Camp Nou - 98934 (possible 120000!!!)
Santiago Bernabéu - 80354 (who know how big they will go!)
Olímpico - 57619 
Olímpic de Montjuïc - 55926
Manuel Martínez Valero - 38750 (under reconstruction)
Riazor - 34721
Carlos Tartiere - 29862 (photos below, as I never knew about this one!)


----------



## bubomb

JimB said:


> Good questions.
> 
> The two stands (Paxton and Park Lane) that Alan Sugar redeveloped in the 90's bear his hallmark - cheap and lacking in foresight or ambition. He only built them because the requirements of the Taylor report would have meant a capacity of only 28,000 had the old stands merely been converted to all seater.
> 
> Part of Daniel Levy's problem now is the lack of foresight of previous regimes. All the stands at White Hart Lane were built too small and, other than the West stand, none can really be increased merely by adding another tier since the designs are unsuitable. Which means that completely new stands are needed. And that costs a lot of money, especially in London.
> 
> The reason why Levy is holding back, I'm certain, is not because the area cannot cope with a further 9,000 fans. We used to get crowds of 70,000, after all. Furthermore, we received planning approval five years ago for a scheme that would have increased capacity by 8,000. I can't see why the area could cope any less well now with 8-9,000 extra fans than it could five years ago. Nor is it about the lack of money (Spurs agreed loan arrangements with Lazards a few years ago worth £75 million, to be drawn down as and when required).
> 
> Levy is, I think, holding back because a tube line and investment in the local area would help to increase local property values. According to leaked plans, Spurs intend to build some residential property - the profits from which would help to pay for the development of the stadium - and obviously increased property values would make such a scheme more attractive. However, if Spurs were to simply go ahead and redevelop White Hart Lane before winning the battle for a tube line at Northumberland Park, then they would have no bargaining power with the local authorities. It is only while the threat of leaving Haringey remains that Spurs can have any hope that they will get the tube line and a subsequent increase in property values.


hhmmm, very interesting! Who knows what will happen???


----------



## NFLeuropefan

The game is too rough for more games, guys would get killed...... Besides, the fact that they play few games make the games more important, and thus more interesting, and therefore better for TV and TV ratings.


----------



## NovaWolverine

I have to go with the Alamo Dome in San Antonio, TX. I don't have any pics, but can do NBA, NCAA and NFL, I'm assuming it can do Hockey and Concerts, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it could do baseball either.


----------



## 2005

As many know there were leaked photos I personally think they are the plans but you never know. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=236000

There was a pic of a big residential building as but at the moment something is playing up so I can't put it on here at the mo.

At this moment in time no one has any idea of what the plans are for WHL.


----------



## Jonesy55

bubomb said:


> The Reebok is also a good example of a smaller stadium that isn't an Ikea flat-pack.


Galpharm stadium, Huddersfield is another nice smaller stadium (24,500) in my opinion.


----------



## kingdomca

bubomb said:


> Darlingtons ground is poor. It is the king of Ikea flat-packs. It is one of the most boring stadiums on earth! I class the Reebok Stadium as the 7th best ground in England (it's about quality, not just size), and I class the Volkswagen Arena as about the same as the Reebok. The Volkswagen Arena would get in the top 10 in England. There isn't 10 grounds in England as good as the Volkswagen Arena, let alone 50 that you claim!! England simply doesn't have that many top quality stadiums! Most of them have at least one crap stand and look unfinished, and the rest are Ikea flat-packs that all look identical.





I like the typical small town english stadium. Facilities are light years ahead of what you have elsewhere in europe.

If you actually slam excellent 20-30,000 capacity all covered grounds even at the third or fourth level of english football for having one old stand because then it doesnt LOOK good or its Ikea or whatever, well then we just look at this very differently.

To me its just extremly impressive what lower league clubs build in England, as it shows just how strong football is in England. 

With so many new quality venues its inevitable that many will look similar, especially as they are built by modest small town clubs. 
Other nations can still only dream about getting such a problem.

This thread has only made me more impressed with english stadiums having had a closer look at what exist elsewhere.
I know such praise of England tends to make you somehow blow a fuse and come up with those sad posts where any issue is long forgotten, but dont bother, there is no point.

I can only say that England´s overall stadium infrastructure is simply stunning in my opinion.
It doesnt make England perfect, though, far from it. 

The really sad thing about english football is that all those lower league clubs dont get to make the best of their great facilities, because the cost of going to football there is beyond a joke and leaves far too many venues too empty most of the time.


----------



## rantanamo

Thinking of the ability to do a lot of things, and looking the best doing them, it has to come down to the Astrodome, Veltins, Reliant and the Metrodome. 

I'm pretty sure all of them can do rodeo and other dirt events pretty well.

I think Alamodome has the best basketball setup of all the domes I've seen, and pretty good setup for football



















Metrodome has great football setup, good basketball/hockey setup, and decent baseball setup

























Reliant has the best soccer setup, really nice football setup, decent basketball and no baseball 











Skydome and Astrodome do best in baseball, though Astrodome looks better in the football/soccer setup

I might have to go with the Astrodome believe it or not. Its the one that looks pretty good in any setup.


----------



## kingdomca

MARTUH

You have actually not picked the right stadiums for scandinavia as, at least in Denmark, some the biggest are 20,000 capacities all standing holes in the ground that are big because they remain undeveloped, typically because they belong to lower league clubs. 
You even included Gentofte, which is one of the former homes of FCK, the club that owns Parken.

But though you make scandinavia look far worse than it is, it doesnt change much.

Scotland clearly wins by a mile. They have 4 big stadiums of a quality only matched by 1 stadium in all of scandinavia.

Looking at smaller stadiums, scotland also matches each scandinavian country and as populations are about the same or larger in scandinavia, there is no question that Scotland win this.


----------



## kingdomca

However looking at actual sporting achievment, scandinavia beats scotland easily.
I have to admit, this is particularly Sweden, who have an extremly impressive history and culture of sports, staggering in fact, and massively underestimated. I dont think any such small country can even come close to Sweden. 

Also scandinavia is a main growth market for football.
Currently the topic of a scandinavian super league is again on the table and it will inevitably happen simply because no one is against it.
It will take years to implement and there are lots of issues and at first will only be sweden-denmark-norway. 
Its pretty inevitable though that with time Finland and even the baltics will be included.

Scandinavia isnt exactly a poor place and such a league will have a population base of 30 million+ far richer than for instance Spain.
It raises lots of issues and concerns though.

There are also a few new planned stadiums, such as the famous Rasunda, whcih,will be knocked down soon to be replaced by a 55,000 new stadium in Stockholm, where another 25,000 venue is also being built.


----------



## Kampflamm

I'm not sure if Shawfield is up to UEFA regulations:




























Record Attendance: 94799


Gentofte isn't exactly impressive either:


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> However looking at actual sporting achievment, scandinavia beats scotland easily.
> I have to admit, this is particularly Sweden, who have an extremly impressive history and culture of sports, staggering in fact, and massively underestimated. I dont think any such small country can even come close to Sweden.
> 
> Also scandinavia is a main growth market for football.
> Currently the topic of a scandinavian super league is again on the table and it will inevitably happen simply because no one is against it.
> It will take years to implement and there are lots of issues and at first will only be sweden-denmark-norway.
> Its pretty inevitable though that with time Finland and even the baltics will be included.
> 
> Scandinavia isnt exactly a poor place and such a league will have a population base of 30 million+ far richer than for instance Spain.
> It raises lots of issues and concerns though.
> 
> There are also a few new planned stadiums, such as the famous Rasunda, whcih,will be knocked down soon to be replaced by a 55,000 new stadium in Stockholm, where another 25,000 venue is also being built.



Sweden as international level has done very well at football, but at club level Scotland thrashes them

Who are all these famous Swedish sportsmen and women? Scotland has had loads of famous people in loads of sports (too many to list, but I will if you want!). Outside of football and winter sports (and a tennis player 20 years ago), I haven't heard of any famous Swedish sports stars!!


Also, it is unfair to compare Scandinavia to Scotland, as it is 3/4 countries with a population of 25 million, compared to Scotland's 5 million!! Only one Scandinavian country at a time should be compared to Scotland!! 


Look at the Commenwealth games - Scotland is doing amazing!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/commonwealth_games/medals_table/default.stm


----------



## Morten M

*Stadiums*

It is very impressing that a small country like Scotland have 4 such big and modern stadiums like Ibrox, Hamden, Parkhead and Murreyfied.

Randers are as mentioned a by Kingdomca a holde in the ground, but it currently under total renovation.



















Gentofte stadium are also a hole in the ground, and havn't been used for topfootball since 1992, B1903(My childhood club) played there before they merged with KB and became FC Copenhagen and moved to Parken.

Small good and modern stadiums like Viking Stadion(Stavanger, Norway), SAS Arena (Herning, Denmark), Farum Park (Farum, Denmark), Viborg Stadion (Viborg, Denmark), Aalborg Stadion (Aalborg, Denmark), Fionia Park (Odense, Denmark), Color Line Stadion (Aalesund, Norway), Åråsen (Lillestrøm, Norway), Molde Stadion (Molde, Norway) and Borås Arena (Borås, Sweden) are all a much better examples how Scandinavian stadiums look like.

And their are also a lot of stadium currently under construction:

Parken will be modernised and the "Coca Cola" Stand will be demolished in November. And a new stand like the 3 others and the 4th office tower will be build.

A new "Gamla Ullevi" for football only will be build in in Gothenburg

A new Råsunda is planned in Stockholm

A new 25.000 Söderstadion in Stockholm is planned

New stadium Kristiansand (Norway) is under construction










And especially this new one in Frederikstad Norway is very good. They use som old factory buildings as a model for the new stadium. It would be boring if all stadium looked like SAS Arena and Viking Stadion
























*Football*

At national team level Scotland have been in a down period and are not as good as Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But at club level Rangers and Celtic are much bigger clubs than any Scandinavian clubs and have a much bigger budget for better players. 

*So my ranking is.*

Stadiums:
1. Scotland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Sweden

NT Football:
1. Sweden
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Scotland

Club Football:
1. Scotland
2. Denmark/Norway
4. Sweden


----------



## carlspannoosh

Hull is another little club with a nice stadium.


----------



## bubomb

Hull are actually quite a big club. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the Premiership soon!


----------



## Carter

> Who are all these famous Swedish sportsmen and women? Scotland has had loads of famous people in loads of sports (too many to list, but I will if you want!). Outside of football and winter sports (and a tennis player 20 years ago), I haven't heard of any famous Swedish sports stars!!


It's lame to not include wintersports because then Scotland loses it to the Swedes. 
The national Ice Hockey team is currently the best in the world and they are also olympic champions.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Hmm depends on what you regard as a big club. They might get into the top 40 or 50 but definately not one of the traditional big clubs. Having said that theyre doing well at the moment and might well get into the Premiership before too long.


----------



## bubomb

Carter said:


> It's lame to not include wintersports because then Scotland loses it to the Swedes.
> The national Ice Hockey team is currently the best in the world and they are also olympic champions.


No, it is unfair to include them as winter sports are dependent on a coutries location. It is like saying Australia are crap at winter sports!! It is an illogical statement as they never have the chance to play them!!

Most winter sports are never played in Scotland as they physically can't be played, so it is unfair to make a comparison!! 

You should only include sports where countries can physically play and develop them on a regular basis!! There is snow in areas of Scotland, but not enough for winter sports to be played regularly, and the snow doesn't last long enough. It is only really found in uninhabitable high areas of mountains!

In Glasgow, there was snow for 1 single day in 2005. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian countries are very good at winter sports. They are the very good at them simply because of their location and the fact that their culture has developed over hundreds of years in an area with loads of snow and ice!!


----------



## reluminate

NFLeuropefan said:


> The game is too rough for more games, guys would get killed...... Besides, the fact that they play few games make the games more important, and thus more interesting, and therefore better for TV and TV ratings.


lets not get into this for the hundredth time. 

And Bubomb, don't instigate.


----------



## Lostboy

It should also be remembered that many of the very decent smaller stadia like Hull, Wigan and Huddersfield also host rugby teams, which the rent often helps with income, explaining how they can afford them.


----------



## WeasteDevil

bitxofo said:


> Spain!
> :nocrook:


Daft as a brush!


----------



## Lostboy

_No, ice hockey is mainly played in countries with lot's of snow and ice as the sport developed and evolved in these countries over hunderds of years. _ 

To a certain extent perhaps but Ice Hockey, like most games is not that old a sport (I'm sure people have been mucking about pelting something on ice for years), and your arguements didn't prevent Great Britain from winning the Gold in 1936.


----------



## kingdomca

BUBOMB

I named it "sweden in sports" precisely because you cant make a straight comparison.
But to say that all winter sports just dont count because of geography is ridiculous. Sweden have historically only had grass 5 months a year, thats also quite a limitation.

You have to make an overall comparison which can never be quite fair

I can agree with football, the biggest sport, being a tie, and the 2 biggest individual sports, golf and tennis yield one win each,

But beyond those 3 sports Scotland have only rugby as a major sport compared to all sweden´s many major sports and achievments
whether its all kinds of skiing,ice hockey or handball, not to mention much greater number of olympic medals including if you look at summer games only.

You may not like handball,neither do I, but its easily on par with rugby in the world as is ice hockey, and Sweden is right at the top of both.
We are talking about sports that are very big in countries like the USA, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many others but Sweden downs them all regularly.

No tiresome whining about small population there. 

In contrast Scotland have done nothing in rugby. 

Overall, Sweden wins this easily


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> _No, ice hockey is mainly played in countries with lot's of snow and ice as the sport developed and evolved in these countries over hunderds of years. _
> 
> To a certain extent perhaps but Ice Hockey, like most games is not that old a sport (I'm sure people have been mucking about pelting something on ice for years), and your arguements didn't prevent Great Britain from winning the Gold in 1936.


The exact rules to ice hockey might not be that old, but the basic ingredient to being good at ice hockey - skating on ice fastly and skillfully - has been around in Nordic countries for thousands of years.

As for GB winning in 1936, well Greece won the European Championships in 2004!! You will always get the odd surprise in any sport.


----------



## bubomb

kingdomca said:


> BUBOMB
> 
> I named it "sweden in sports" precisely because you cant make a straight comparison.
> But to say that all winter sports just dont count because of geography is ridiculous. Sweden have historically only had grass 5 months a year, thats also quite a limitation.
> 
> You have to make an overall comparison which can never be quite fair
> 
> I can agree with football, the biggest sport, being a tie, and the 2 biggest individual sports, golf and tennis yield one win each,
> 
> But beyond those 3 sports Scotland have only rugby as a major sport compared to all sweden´s many major sports and achievments
> whether its all kinds of skiing,ice hockey or handball, not to mention much greater number of olympic medals including if you look at summer games only.
> 
> You may not like handball,neither do I, but its easily on par with rugby in the world as is ice hockey, and Sweden is right at the top of both.
> We are talking about sports that are very big in countries like the USA, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many others but Sweden downs them all regularly.
> 
> No tiresome whining about small population there.
> 
> In contrast Scotland have done nothing in rugby.
> 
> Overall, Sweden wins this easily



I have explained why you cannot compare Sweden's winter sports performance to Scotland's!! You can compare Sweden's winter sport performance to other countries who have the geographical conditions to play these sports in a serious manner, but a comparison to countries who don't have these conditions is illogical.

What about Motorsports and Boxing? Why have you missed these out? Do they not have roads/cars or fists in Sweden?

I would say overall, comparing sports that both countries can physically take part in and do so, Scotland is slightly ahead of Sweden. You think differently, but that's life!! Accept it!!

Scotland have done nothing in rugby??? We finished the highest this year for British teams in the 6 nations, and won the Calcutta cup! We are also miles better than Sweden at rugby.

Handball is a ridiculous stupid made-up game, that people in Britain laugh at. Nobody plays it in Scotland - NOBODY. If you include handball, then I can include snooker, and Scotland absolutely thrashes Sweden at snooker. Snooker is played by many countries and Scotland have an amazing record in snooker. If you include 'handball', then I can also include shinty, Highland sports, Horse Racing and many other specific sports that are only played in specific regions around the world.


----------



## Köbtke

Haha.

When talking football grounds and club football, Scotland (amazingly enough) trashes the Scandinavian countries combined.

Although, some of the bigger clubs in Scandinavia are getting closer to the top Scottish clubs.

When we're talking national football, the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland. Some of the best national sides in the World are found in those small countries, particularly Sweden and Denmark.

End of? Yes.


----------



## Lostboy

I don't think there's any suggestion that Sweden is doing better than Scotland at sport. Individual Sport as well, look at athletics the Swedes are very leapy people, doing great in the high jump and triple jump. They got at least 3 or 4 Golds last championship, whilst the Disunited Kingdom could only manage a single one.

The stereotype of the Swede is the tall, blonde, strong guy, the type who got all the girls at university, and I think of Sweden as a particularly athletic nation.

Due to what I hear about the Scottish Diet, Heart Disease, Battered Mars Bars, and Caledonians that I have met, the same is very far from the truth with the average Scot.


----------



## Köbtke

IcyUrmel said:


> In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.
> 
> But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.
> 
> As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?
> 
> TOP Venue:
> *Allianz vs. Wembley*
> Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.
> 
> 
> TOP THREE Venues
> *Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates*
> Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
> But in total a comfortable lead for England
> 
> TOP FIVE Venues
> *Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle*
> Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
> Still a slight lead for England
> 
> TOP TEN Venues
> Top 5 plus *Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover* vs. Top 5 plus *Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton*
> Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
> Germany takes a strong lead
> 
> TOP FIFTEEN Venues
> Top 10 plus *Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen * vs. *Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton*
> Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
> Germany even increasing its lead
> 
> TOP TWENTY Venues
> Top 15 plus *Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld * vs. Top 15 plus *Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan*
> Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
> Germany still in front, but decreasing again
> 
> TOP 25 Venues
> Top 20 plus *Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz* vs. Top 20 plus *Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton*
> Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.
> 
> From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".
> 
> England still has a some more in reserve:
> Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.
> 
> What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.
> 
> *What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,
> 
> but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
> - behind in Top 1, Top 3
> - almost equal in Top 5
> - ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
> - behind in Top 25,
> - far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.*


Hve to join the choir here. Very well done, fair and blanced I'd say. And not only because I agree 

If we boil it down to your post (provided we agree that Germany and England has the best stadiums), then I guess which country ha the best stadiums comes down to whether you put more focus in depth-, or top quality.

By the way, off topic here, isn't Hull the largest city in Europe never to have had a team in top flight football?


----------



## bubomb

IcyUrmel said:


> In my view, Germany and England have a head-to-head race - in the moment. The "moment" started in January, when the last German WC venues were finally finished, and it will end in early autumn, when - besides the emirates stadium - wembley will be finished. Maybe the "moment" of head-to-head will end even earlier, in case some English fans destroy one of our stadiums - what would improve (if it was Nuremberg) or ruin (in Frankfurt or Cologne) the German position in this duel.
> 
> But as this thread mainly discusses the near future (with wembley and emirates taken as "existing"), I will do the same. But I will not take the capacity as a criterium, but the quality. Anyway, I try to be as objective as possible.
> 
> As some of you said before, it all depends on the extend. Do we look at the top venues? Do we look at a "big tournament quantity"? Or do we compare the stadium landscape in general?
> 
> TOP Venue:
> *Allianz vs. Wembley*
> Although in Wembley the distance between first row and pitch seems to be far too wide, this stadium wins against the Allianz Arena. It's not "light years" ahead, but a bit.
> 
> 
> TOP THREE Venues
> *Munich, Dortmund, Schalke vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates*
> Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund, I don't see Schalke behind Emirates. Some may wonder why; they shall have a look at the incredibly flat lowest tier in Emirates, and see the great technical features of Schalke.
> But in total a comfortable lead for England
> 
> TOP FIVE Venues
> *Munich, Dortmund, Schalke, Hamburg and Frankfurt vs. Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, Man City and Newcastle*
> Man City and Hamburg draw in any category, Frankfurt beats St. James' Park because of the technical features and the "complete" design.
> Still a slight lead for England
> 
> TOP TEN Venues
> Top 5 plus *Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Kaiserslautern and Hannover* vs. Top 5 plus *Chelsea, Sunderland, Anfield, Aston Villa and Bolton*
> Berlin beating Chelsea, Düsseldorf beating Sunderland, Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield, Kaiserslautern and Hannover clearly beating Villa Park and Reebok.
> Germany takes a strong lead
> 
> TOP FIFTEEN Venues
> Top 10 plus *Leipzig, Mönchengladbach, Stuttgart, Wolfsburg and Bremen * vs. *Middlesbrough, Hull, Leicester, Tottenham and Everton*
> Clear victories for Leipzig and Mönchengladbach, a slight advantage for Stuttgart, Wolfsburg drawing with Tottenham, Bremen slightly behind Everton.
> Germany even increasing its lead
> 
> TOP TWENTY Venues
> Top 15 plus *Duisburg, Nürnberg, Leverkusen, Rostock and Bielefeld * vs. Top 15 plus *Derby, Southampton, Coventry, Leeds and Wigan*
> Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton closely ahead of Nürnberg, Coventry a little bit better than Leverkusen, Leeds a bit better than Rostock and Bielefeld (to be completed in summer) equal with Wigan.
> Germany still in front, but decreasing again
> 
> TOP 25 Venues
> Top 20 plus *Bochum, Magdeburg, Mannheim, Freiburg and Mainz* vs. Top 20 plus *Birmingham City, Reading, Wolverhampton, West Ham and Charlton*
> Three close German defeats: Bochum against Birmingham, Magdeburg (to be completed in summer) to Reading, Mannheim vs. Molineux. Freiburg and Mainz have no chance against their english counterparts.
> 
> From now on, it becomes extremely hard to find further German venues of a certain quality. The next five might be Karlsruhe, Cottbus, Essen, Aachen, and Paderborn (to be completed in summer), what answers the question of kingdomca with: "beyond 25, it becomes poor, beyond 30, even very poor".
> 
> England still has a some more in reserve:
> Swansea, Darlington, West Brom, Millwall, Norwich, Huddersfield, Blackburn, Ipswich, Stoke, Nottingham, Sheffield Utd., Plymouth, Sheffield W., Crystal Palace, Burnley, Preston North End, Notts County, Fulham, Bradford, Barnsley, Port Vale, Tranmere, Oxford, Watford, Swindon, QPR.
> 
> What means: After Summer, there will be 51 English grounds which have - in my personal view - a certain quality, compared to 30 in Germany.
> 
> *What means in total: Germany may be more or less equal now,
> 
> but from the moment Wembley and Emirates are ready, Germany is
> - behind in Top 1, Top 3
> - almost equal in Top 5
> - ahead in Top 10, Top 15 and Top 20
> - behind in Top 25,
> - far behind in Top 30, ... Top 50, Top 100.*



This is nonsense!!!

City of Manchester equal to AOL??? Total nonsense!!




















Old Trafford will be better than Dortmund???? Rubbish




















Duisburg drawing with Derby, Southampton??? You must be having a laugh!!




















Cologne a little bit ahead of Anfield??? Cologne is miles ahead!!




















Leeds a bit better than Rostock??? Elland Rd is rubbish!!





























As for the top 3? I would much rather have Dortmund, Berlin and Munich than Wembley, Old Trafford and Emirates. Old Trafford is way overrated! Completely unbalanced due to having their main stand less than half the height of the other 3 stands, and no legroom making seating very uncomfortable. I've been to it twice, and I wasn't impressed. The first row of seats is actually below pitch level!! It's big, but that's all it is!


----------



## eddyk

Couldn't you find a worse pic for Old Trafford the City of Manchester stadium and Anfield?


----------



## Welly

If you think Dortmund's a better stadium than Old Trafford then you've either been on the Bostik or you've never been to either ground. My money's on a combination of the two.


----------



## bubomb

eddyk said:


> Couldn't you find a worse pic for Old Trafford the City of Manchester stadium and Anfield?


The pic highlights the problem with Old Trafford and that is that it has one crap stand that totally brings the whole ground down. Dortmund, on the other hand, is an 81000 temple of football that looks finished and complete.


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> If you think Dortmund's a better stadium than Old Trafford then you've either been on the Bostik or you've never been to either ground. My money's on a combination of the two.



Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.


----------



## Welly

bubomb said:


> Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.


Season ticket holder at Old Trafford and actually played at Dortmund's ground 6 times plus watched countless matches there. You, my friend, don't have a clue. I'm on another level.


----------



## bubomb

gorgu said:


> And why the hell did you include Shawfield and not both the excellent Edinburgh grounds of Hibs and Hearts
> 
> Actually guys if you look at the premier league you will see for a country of five million people we do pretty well for footie grounds
> 
> Look at the stadia for
> 
> Rangers
> Celtic
> Aberdeen
> Hearts
> Hibs
> Kilmarnock
> Dundee United
> 
> Livvi have a nice tidy wee ground aswell
> 
> http://www.scottishgroundguide.co.uk/



St.Mirren start work on a new 10000 stadium in July. There is also -


Kilmarnock (18128) -




















Hearts (18008, 1 more stand to rebuild, work starts in July) -











Hibernain (17500, 1 more stand to rebuild) -











Partick Thistle (13079, 1 more stand to build) -











Dunfermline (12558) -




















St. Johnstone (10673) -











Airdrie (10170) -




















Livingstone (10006) -











Clyde (8029, 1 more stand to build) -











Inverness Caledonian Thistle (7512) - 











Falkirk (6200, 2 more stands to be built) -











Hamilton (5300, 2 more stands to be built) -











Stirling Albion (3808) -











Dunbarton (2050) -











East Fife (2000) -


----------



## andysimo123

bubomb said:


> Unlike you, i've been to both. Two Man United games and Germany v Scotland in 2003.


You've only been to Two United games and you think you can comment on Old Trafford. You cant comment on whats good and bad about it.


----------



## eddyk

Welly...noboddy belives a word you say.


----------



## bubomb

Köbtke said:


> When we're talking national football, the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland. Some of the best national sides in the World are found in those small countries, particularly Sweden and Denmark.


Simply not true!! Sweden have a far better record, whereas with Denmark, Scotland have a better record in the World Cup, whereas Denmark have a better record in the European Championships (I have not included years where Denmark or Scotland did not enter tournaments, as this would be unfair) -

1958 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1966 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1970 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1974 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1978 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1982 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1986 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland qualify
1990 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1994 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1998 World Cup, Denmark Quarterfinals - Scotland qualify
2002 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland fail to qualify
2006 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify

In the last 8 years Denmark have done better in the World Cup, but over the last 50 years, Scotland clearly have done better.


European Championships -

1968 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1972 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1976 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1980 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1984 Denmark semis - Scotland fail to qualify
1988 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1992 Denamrk champions - Scotland qualify
1996 Denmark qualify - Scotland qualify
2000 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
2004 Denmark quarterfinals - Scotland fail to qualify

Clearly Denmark do much better in this one.


For Finland and Norway, Scotland have a far far better record in both the World Cup and European Championships. Here is Norway's record (poor) -

World Cup record -
1930 - Did not enter 
1934 - Did not enter 
1938 - Round 1 
1950 - Did not enter 
1954 to 1990 - Did not qualify 
1994 - Round 1 
1998 - Round 2 
2002 - Did not qualify 
2006 - Did not qualify 

European Championship record -
1960 to 1996 - Did not qualify 
2000 - Round 1 
2004 - Did not qualify 


and here is Finlands -

World Cup record
1930 to 1934 - Did not enter 
1938 - Did not qualify 
1950 - Withdrew during qualifying 
1954 to 2006 - Did not qualify 

European Championship record
1960 to 1964 - Did not enter 
1968 to 2004 - Did not qualify 


So I make it in order of success at international level - 

Sweden
Denmark/Scotland, then a massive gap to -
Norway
Finland



At club level, Scotland is miles ahead of all of them, so if you add up club and country, Scotland is the clear winner.


----------



## fman80939

Legroom at OT is quite horrible and somewhat substandard, the infrastructure obviously is somewhat insufficient, although people seem to cope with that.
These technical aspects notwithstanding, i consider OT vastly superior to the SIP, even without the new quadrants.


----------



## bubomb

Köbtke said:


> the Scandinavian countries one by one trashes Scotland.



erm.....please explain how Norway and Finland 'thrash' Scotland at international level??? I think you had better buy some books on football!!

Scotland - 

Qualified for 9 World Cups
Qualified for 2 European Championships


Norway - 

Qualified for 3 World Cups
Qualified for 1 European Championships


Finland -

Qualified for 0 World Cups
Qualified for 0 European Championships


----------



## Welly

You're all going round in circles to show who's best. One side can use past performances in major championships to prove a point and the other side can use Sweden's, Norway's and Finland's vastly superior world ranking to prove their point.

Why don't you all just put your hands up and admit that all countries are pretty crap both internationaly and at club level when it comes to football?


----------



## Lostboy

Ah bless better than Finland, a country which is hardly Scandinavian in any traditional sense, and where Ice Hockey is a far bigger sport than football.


----------



## bubomb

andysimo123 said:


> You've only been to Two United games and you think you can comment on Old Trafford. You cant comment on whats good and bad about it.



erm...no, I think I can actually.


----------



## bubomb

Welly said:


> Season ticket holder at Old Trafford and actually played at Dortmund's ground 6 times plus watched countless matches there. You, my friend, don't have a clue. I'm on another level.



C'mon, you can do better than that!! At least try and make it sound reasonable!!


----------



## Lostboy

Welly, grow up already, with your stupid comments which add nothing to this discussion. Care to explain how Sweden is pretty crap at football? They have a better record against England in recent years than the reverse and have one of the greatest records in the World Cup outside those who have actually won it.


----------



## Welly

Lostboy said:


> and have one of the greatest records in the World Cup outside those who have actually won it.


In clearer English, what you're actually attempting to say (poorly if I may add) is that of all the losers, Sweden are one of the better ones. Bravo for Sweden.


----------



## Welly

bubomb said:


> C'mon, you can do better than that!! At least try and make it sound reasonable!!


I only deal in facts I can prove, my friend.




Facts and medals.


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> Ah bless better than Finland, a country which is hardly Scandinavian in any traditional sense, and where Ice Hockey is a far bigger sport than football.



I'm not saying it's an achievement, i'm merely pointing out that the posters original claim of Norway and Finland "thrashing" Scotland at international football is completely ludicrous!

That's the problem with these Scandinavians on the board, they totally exaggerate all the time!! It might be a language thing and they don't realise they are doing it, or they might simply be a bit thick!


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> Welly, grow up already, with your stupid comments which add nothing to this discussion. Care to explain how Sweden is pretty crap at football? They have a better record against England in recent years than the reverse and have one of the greatest records in the World Cup outside those who have actually won it.



Their clubs are crap though!! Great international team and shite clubs.


----------



## bubomb

Lostboy said:


> I don't think there's any suggestion that Sweden is doing better than Scotland at sport. Individual Sport as well, look at athletics the Swedes are very leapy people, doing great in the high jump and triple jump. They got at least 3 or 4 Golds last championship, whilst the Disunited Kingdom could only manage a single one.
> 
> The stereotype of the Swede is the tall, blonde, strong guy, the type who got all the girls at university, and I think of Sweden as a particularly athletic nation.
> 
> Due to what I hear about the Scottish Diet, Heart Disease, Battered Mars Bars, and Caledonians that I have met, the same is very far from the truth with the average Scot.


The 'average' Scot is fit and healthy and takes part in sports. It's the fatties, smokers, junkies and alcoholics that bring our health rating down. Our fatties, alcoholics and junkies are world class losers, and so this brings the nations health average down to below most other European countries. Nobody can compete with a Scottish alcoholic! They excel in their chosen field!

Before WW1, Scotland had the tallest people in Europe, but unfortunately a huge percentage of them were killed in the War, as per head of population, Scotland and Serbia lost the most people in the War by far!!


----------



## Köbtke

@ bubomb

I see no point in talking about 50 years ago.

Right now, and for a good while back, FIFA rankings or not (as they're always a bit dodgy), the Scandinavian - yes, even Finland - have stronger sides than Scotland, in my eyes.

Sweden and Denmark are always strong sides, Norway is in a bit of a deep right now, but they're also pretty striong, and Finland (if we insist on including them) is at a high right now.

Scotland doesn't compare in my book, well, maybe to Finland and maybe, at a longer shot, Norway. I don't think how many times a country has qualified is a good measure of how strong a country is football wise. 

The qualifying game is always more prone to streaks of bad luck, not being taken seriously enough etc. than finals.

I think a good point is, that Denmark and Sweden in particular, have both won and gotten to finals in big tournaments, Scotland never gets anywhere.

And honestly, I know this is going to sound a bit patriotic, but saying Scotland is along side Denmark when it comes to national football is ridiculous.

I also think it's annoying how people seem to percieve Sweden as a stronger side than Denmark, I think it's pretty close.


----------



## bubomb

Köbtke said:


> @ bubomb
> 
> I see no point in talking about 50 years ago.
> 
> Right now, and for a good while back, FIFA rankings or not (as they're always a bit dodgy), the Scandinavian - yes, even Finland - have stronger sides than Scotland, in my eyes.
> 
> Sweden and Denmark are always strong sides, Norway is in a bit of a deep right now, but they're also pretty striong, and Finland (if we insist on including them) is at a high right now.
> 
> Scotland doesn't compare in my book, well, maybe to Finland and maybe, at a longer shot, Norway. I don't think how many times a country has qualified is a good measure of how strong a country is football wise.
> 
> The qualifying game is always more prone to streaks of bad luck, not being taken seriously enough etc. than finals.
> 
> I think a good point is, that Denmark and Sweden in particular, have both won and gotten to finals in big tournaments, Scotland never gets anywhere.
> 
> And honestly, I know this is going to sound a bit patriotic, but saying Scotland is along side Denmark when it comes to national football is ridiculous.
> 
> I also think it's annoying how people seem to percieve Sweden as a stronger side than Denmark, I think it's pretty close.




I'm not talking about 50 years ago, I'm talking about 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 years ago!!

Scotland absolutely thrash Norway and Finland. Right now Scotland are poor, but that happens to all teams. You can't base a countries overall performance on the present team only, as all teams go through bad patches. Going by your logic, Scotland are far better at rugby than England as we finished above them in the 6 Nations!!! Of course we are not, as for every one good year Scotland has had, England have had 8. 

According to your logic, Australia have a far better record at football than England as last time they met Australia easily won!! This is of course nonsense.

How can Finland have a better record than Scotland at football??? They have never ever qualified for a tournament!! Don't be so stupid!!

Right now, today, loads of countries are better than Scotland at international football, because we have the worst team in our history!! You are comparing us to Finland who you claim are at their highest point!! This is totally unfair. If you are going to make comparisons, then you compare teams over their good and bad spells.

I think you are having difficulty with the English language (i'm not trying to put you down). What you are trying to say is that right now, today, Norway have a better team than Scotland. This is true, as they finished 5 points above us in the 2006 qualifying group. However, they don't have a better "record". "Record" means all performances, past and present -

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=84207&dict=CALD


I should also add, for the "record" -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4214976.stm


----------



## Köbtke

Well, when answering a question about Scottish vs. Scandinavian football, spun out of a "who's to host the European Cup"-thread, I'm assuming we're talking about recent time.

And in recent time, The Scandinavian countries have performed well better than Scotland.

And if we must talk about record, I'll give you Scotland is, seen historically, better than Norway and Finland.


----------



## bubomb

Köbtke said:


> And if we must talk about record, I'll give you Scotland is, seen historically, better than Norway and Finland.


and about the same as Denmark.

Recently (last 10 years), Scotland have done about the same as Norway and miles better than Finland. The last 6 years have been the worst spell in our international history (although we did reach 2 play-offs), compared to some of the best in Norway's and Finland's history. We can only get much better!

add in clubs, and Scotland rules the football waves!! Scotland have won twice as many European trophies as the whole of Scandinavia combined!!!

It should also be pointed out that Sweden alone has twice the population of Scotland, although Sweden do have a superb international record for a country of their size. In total, Scandinavia is about 5 times the size of Scotland!


Your Finland comparison is just stupid!! How the hell can Finland have a better record ('thrash' was the word you used) than Scotland?? Even in the last 6 years (the worst 6 years in Scotland's history), we still have a far better record than Finland. For every tournament, Finland have never finished in a higher position in a qualifying group compared to Scotland.....ever!! In the last 6 years Scotland also managed 2 play-offs, Finland managed nothing!! Finland have never even qualified for a tournament, Scotland have qualified for 11!! Scotland finished 3rd in their 2006 group (same as Denmark), Finland finished 4th!

Maybe I would take you more seriously if you stopped grossly exaggerating all the time. It seems to be a feature of the Scandinavians on this forum!!


----------



## andysimo123

bubomb said:


> erm...no, I think I can actually.


erm... no I think you cant. I've been to Old Trafford 10 times this season. Twice in Stretford end, once at the top of the North Stand, once in the 2nd Tier of the North stand and the others in the Upper East stand. 

Now all the facilities in those parts of the ground seemed good to me actually for just fans the are more than just good. If your in the lower stands you can get a hot dog from the people walking round the pitch. They also have Flat Screen TV's everwhere and their own private channel where we can watch what ever live game they have choosen to show, with all the info you could ever need by the side. The Bars have been improved although it can be hard to get anything at half time. In the South Stand they lock the gates at half time and you can go out and buy a drink. Also befour the match you can book fanszone and chill out befour the game. The amount of stuff United offer fans is silly. I havent even got started on the fans and the team playing the football.


----------



## bubomb

andysimo123 said:


> erm... no I think you cant. I've been to Old Trafford 10 times this season. Twice in Stretford end, once at the top of the North Stand, once in the 2nd Tier of the North stand and the others in the Upper East stand.
> 
> Now all the facilities in those parts of the ground seemed good to me actually for just fans the are more than just good. If your in the lower stands you can get a hot dog from the people walking round the pitch. They also have Flat Screen TV's everwhere and their own private channel where we can watch what ever live game they have choosen to show, with all the info you could ever need by the side. The Bars have been improved although it can be hard to get anything at half time. In the South Stand they lock the gates at half time and you can go out and buy a drink. Also befour the match you can book fanszone and chill out befour the game. The amount of stuff United offer fans is silly. I havent even got started on the fans and the team playing the football.


The facilities were great......for dwarfs!! Anybody over 5'10" is going to have a very uncomfortable 90 minutes!


and you must admit, the South Stand looks shit and totally out of place now.

Good stadium, but i've been in far better!


----------



## andysimo123

I will go with that, thankfully am not 7 foot tall. Some of the seats could do with replacing. They replaced afew sections last season but if you just listen every now and then your'll here someone complaining about them. I hope the new stand has more abit more space but really when you think about, you have a seat in the old days they ethier stood up or they sat on the ground. I remember one game where the whole of the lower east tier where stood up for the whole game giving shit to the away fans. It was like being at a United away game but at home, with Stretford End backing you up. That was the Liverpool game when we won 1:0 possible one of the greatest games I have been to, I didnt use my seat once and when United scored I had never seen anything like it, the whole ground was going mad for the rest of the game, even the Stewards where jumping up and down.


----------



## EADGBE

bubomb said:


> Old Trafford is way overrated! Completely unbalanced due to having their main stand less than half the height of the other 3 stands, and no legroom making seating very uncomfortable. I've been to it twice, and I wasn't impressed. The first row of seats is actually below pitch level!! It's big, but that's all it is!


I will concede that legroom is variable at OT, but you can't presume that the two seats you had represent the whole ground. I've sat in following areas:

South Lower, South Upper, East T1 Lower, East T1 Upper, East T2, North T1 Lower, North T1 Upper, North T2, North T3, West T1 Lower and West T2. 

Some are more roomy than others, and I don't just mean the corporate seats I been in. For example, the increased rake of T3 means that the row in front is much lower than in other areas, increasing the amount of space for your knees. In the T1 Lower seats, this factor is precluded.

I've been to Anfield three times, once in the Main Stand, twice in the Kop. In both cases, I'd say I've never been more cramped, but it would be wildly inaccurate of me to profess that the same is true of the Centenary Stand or the Anfield Road stand.

As for the Westfalenstadion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind but I would say that in my opinion, it's a 'cut and shunt' of a stadium. The terracing is an anachronism, the bench seating is cheap and uncomfortable and if you think the new quadrants at OT are unnecessarily ugly, then look at these!









Is Dortmund a 5* stadium? I'm not sure. I can tell you that OT very definitely is.


----------



## Kampflamm

Welly said:


> Season ticket holder at Old Trafford and actually played at Dortmund's ground 6 times plus watched countless matches there. You, my friend, don't have a clue. I'm on another level.


Playstation games don't count.


----------



## EADGBE

*What's the absolute maximum capacity for a 'standard' football stadium?*

This is a question I've often pondered and seeing a picture of the Maracana on another thread made me think about it again:

If money was no object, what is the upper limit of the number of spactators it is practically possible to surround a football field? I read a quote from someone from Wembley saying the in this day and age, with levels of comfort, legroom amongst other considerations, 90,000 is the absolute maximum - but then they would say that, wouldn't they?

Looking at the Maracana (or Jornalista Mário Filho as it is now known), I know it's not ideal in lots of ways: poor sightlines for the hardly-inclined lower tier, vast expanses between the crowd and the pitch that are wider than a running track or the distance at Old Wembley. But, it has a capacity of 103,000 with almost 80,000 seats. The relatively shallow rake of the second tier means that it's quite possible that a third tier could be added. Even if it was all-seater, what would that bring the capacity to? 160,000? More?









The record is currently held by the May Day Stadium in Pyong Yang, North Korea. While it looks big enough (150,000), the fact it is in one of the world's most secretive countries makes both the true capacity and the level of its facilities open to question. 









Since I sat in it years ago, I have always been quite in awe of the DKR stadium at UT, Austin, TX. A capacity of over 80,000 with three sides on the lower tier and two sides with an upper tier (one large, one small). As it happens, there are plans to extend the smaller of the upper tiers around both completed ends, bringing capacity to around 115,000 (based on planning conditions barring a higher second tier than the smaller, newer 2nd tiered stand). I have always wondered what capacity a fully developed version (identical over tier ends and large upper tier carried on around all four sides) would have. My best guess would be around 180,000









Imagine a large second tier sweeping around somewhere like the Rose Bowl, Pasadena, or Ann Arbor, home of Michigan State, both of them over 100,000 in essentially one deep tier:

















Working on the premise that like a pair of concentric rings, an equally deep second tier must carry a greater capacity, you're looking at grounds with a bona fide capacity of over 200,000 - and I don't think it's an engineeering impossibility...

Anyway, you get the idea. What do you think?


----------



## 2zanzibar

as was said before, the best stadium for the final has been the Azteca, simply awesome, and simply far more exhillirating than anything in this years world cup.
I forgot that Italy 1990 had their final in the Olympic stadium Rome, I always thought it was the San Siro. Infact, a quick check on wikipedia showed that the San Siro didn't even make the semi's!!


----------



## cphdude

so, perhaps we should get back to football?


----------



## Kampflamm

I agree. Who gives a damn about how many troops such and such a country provided for military operation xyz.


----------



## Lostboy

Exactly its got nothing to do with this discussion on football, which clearly shows that the Scandinavians are far superior at football. Is the Scottish League big? Relatively so, but England hosts the world's biggest tennis tournament, and its very very far from being a tennis power.

And these Scots should be very aware that there were major organisations in Scotland trying to secure a deal in which Scotland would become independent but remain neutral of the Nazi's, by no means the majority but this movement was successful. On the other hand no country behaved more admirably under occupation than Denmark - far better than trying to cut a deal with Nazi's.

Guess Scandinavia beats Scotland in more than just sport.

And I'm sorry to just continue in the diversion but total ignorance needs to be put at rest.

_Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!_

1. Look up your history, there were no Scots in Britain at that time only Britons (Welsh) the Scots were in Hibernia at the time.

2. Read Tacticus _Agricola._

Ubi Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.


----------



## cphdude

Well, personaly i dont know much about scotish football, but it sure seam like they have some lager stadiums. Im not really surprised though. As someone has already said here, the whole idea of professional football is only about 25 years old, and up untill 4-5 years ago you could still find clubs in the best leage, excisting mainly on amateur basis. Running a professionel club is something very new, as is the idea of clubs going together, to try and get bigger and have a chance. So far it has mostly been thousinds of very small clubs, and mostly for fun. 

And the money havent been that big either. The best clubs in the Danish leage today, are also those who are doing well financialy. And none of them have huge debts in the million pounds range. They dont have a rich uncle who can make sure they get what they wont, without worring about cost. So they have to be very thrifty and only buy what they can afford. But i do have high hopes for the leages, and as i think it was kingdomce said, i dont want the leage to turn into a leage with only a few rich clubs, with no chance of getting better because everyone else sucks.


----------



## MetroStar

Scotish football was good only at ninties (i mean 1890s not 1990s).Now it is only a parody.Scandinavian football is the future.Espacially Swedish footabll .


----------



## The Boy David

Bubomb and The Hoops: you two are prize idiots.


----------



## kingdomca

The_Hoops said:


> You simply don't understand the Scottish mentality or our military history. Germany could never have occupied Scotland, as we would never have surrendered. We would of fought to the last man!! We are fighters, always have been, always will be!!
> 
> Scottish soldiers are famous around the world for our Bravery. We will never be defeated, we will never be occupied.......as we would rather die!
> 
> Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!
> 
> "Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans.
> 
> In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans. Even women and children would of fought them. Even if we only had knives left, we would still of kept fighting. I have two close friends risking their lives in Iraq right now. Whether they should be there or not is irrelevant......the fact is that when called upon, they answered their country. We will never surrender, we will always fight to the death, and the Dutch should be eternally grateful for that!
> 
> No doubt we will be called upon to save you again in the future, and once again, we will not hesitate to answer that call, as we will never ever stop fighting until the day we die.


What a truly embarrassing post!

I admire the british war effort imensely and consider it perhaps the most crucial effort in human history.
But your suggesting that Scotland is somehow morally superior and would have fought to the last man and all that is just childish nonsense from someone who must have seen too many movies and not understood real suffering.

If England had been defeated and occupied and the nazis came full force at Scotland, are you saying you would have ordered millions of scots into combat?
You would have send 500,000 scottish children armed with sticks and stones to be machine-gunned down? Hardly. Its empty nationalistic nonsense. 

Ever heard of Dunkirk.
British troops were running for their lives in full-speed retreat back over the water.
Without that channel, Britain would have been as doomed as the rest of europe. 
The water offered a chance and it was taken showing remarkable courage and determination and winning enormous gratitude and admiration all over the continent to such an extent that it still has deep impact on a political level in many countries including Denmark, where Britain is seen as the crucial major ally on whose side we always want to be.

Its a huge and controversial issue as to hoe exactly the occupied nations should have behaved, but to say that all continental nations landlocked with Germany should have "fought to the last man" sacrificing millions and millions of lives for symbolic reasons as the "great scotland "would have done is just ridiculous and frankly not something I think the generation of brits who had to the actual fighting, and experince the suffering, would be impressed with.

Churchill himself thought as much, but of course what did he know about true resolve and courage compared to some scots here.


----------



## rantanamo

For those relatively new to the forum, this thread has also been done to death. It was already established that:

- Azteca's video boards are relatively new, so the video board criticisms are moot.
- There is no 100% stand coverage regulation by FIFA, but rather UEFA. FIFA requires certain parts of the stand to be covered. Germany chose to provide more roof than necessary, though not as much as is being said here.
- Stand coverage is defined by the sun. If the sun hits the stand, its not covered.
- Lumens has a larger place in the rules than roof coverage. Roof coverage is more concerned with dignitary and media areas. Lumens are required to a certain level for TV coverage. 
- World Cup, not English Cup. We don't have to have English style soccer stadiums for the world cup.
- This American could care less if our stadiums are fit for the World Cup, or if the World Cup hits our soil ever again. 

Think we established this stuff several times.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I didnt think the Rosebowl was a bad stadium at all but it was a slightly odd choice given the alternatives and the bench seating. Its quite shallow but after this summer is going to be the only world cup final stadium in the last 20 years to not have either a track of a large gap between fans and the pitch.

If the US gets the WC again I'd guess somewhere on the east coast would get the final, the new Giants/Jets and Cowboys stadiums being the obvious choices.


----------



## Scba

It's really a shame that the US had to waste their World Cup bid for the next who-knows-how-long back in the early 90s, when nothing here really conformed to soccer. Stadiums are sprouting up for it everywhere today, and the popularity of the MLS is skyrocketing.


----------



## murdomac

Hello Boy David,

I tried to get an objective overview of Scottish football and what it means to our phsyche a few posts earlier but this thread appears to be too far down the road of irrelevant nonsense. Pity.

By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.


----------



## Iain1974

I haven't read this whole thread but glancing at a few posts reminds me why I'm a less frequent visitor than I used to be.


----------



## Starscraper

Welly said:


> Incorrect. Either get your facts right or don't bother posting.


He's not far off. It was 149,415 set on April 17 1937 between Scotland and England. Also 10,000 extra people apparently snuck in under the barriers.


----------



## The Boy David

murdomac said:


> Hello Boy David,
> 
> I tried to get an objective overview of Scottish football and what it means to our phsyche a few posts earlier but this thread appears to be too far down the road of irrelevant nonsense. Pity.
> 
> By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.


Indeed - your level headed, extremely relevant and mater-of-fact post seems to be lost on some of the folks round here.

If anything though it has proved that not all Scots are mindless barbarians, so thanks 


------


As for the Atlantic league, I has completely forgotten about that! Fergus McCann was one ambitious guy! It was a sound idea, but totally infeasible. Realistically, I don't think there was any way it could have worked (the logistics would be a nightmare!), but it showed the sort of ambition that the Scottish game lacks just now. I can't remember though: was that Atlantic league before or after the Old Firm first started to hint at joining the English Premiership?

It's a good (and more sensible) tangent to go off on though - practicalities aside, do you think the idea would work, creating another "super-league" like the Premiership or La Liga?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

The_Hoops said:


> You simply don't understand the Scottish mentality or our military history. Germany could never have occupied Scotland, as we would never have surrendered. We would of fought to the last man!! We are fighters, always have been, always will be!!
> 
> Scottish soldiers are famous around the world for our Bravery. We will never be defeated, we will never be occupied.......as we would rather die!
> 
> Why do you think the Romans built Hadrian's wall? It was to keep Scots in and to stop us killing Romans. Caledonia (Scotland) could never be defeated, even by the Romans!!
> 
> "Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"
> 
> I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans.
> 
> In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans. Even women and children would of fought them. Even if we only had knives left, we would still of kept fighting. I have two close friends risking their lives in Iraq right now. Whether they should be there or not is irrelevant......the fact is that when called upon, they answered their country. We will never surrender, we will always fight to the death, and the Dutch should be eternally grateful for that!
> 
> No doubt we will be called upon to save you again in the future, and once again, we will not hesitate to answer that call, as we will never ever stop fighting until the day we die.


Ok, now I have to agree with kingdomca here, this is possibly the stupidist and embarrassing comment I have ever had the misfortune to read. You're starting to make BuBomb look like quite a nice guy.
I think it is this bit that makes you looks the worst:

"I'm not sure if they teach WW2 in Dutch schools, as like the French, you have a shameful cowardly past. But always remember, you owe your lives to the bravery and sacrifices of Scots, British, Canadians and Americans."

WTF??? A shamefully cowardly past...? Becasue Scotland was on an island, with never any land invasions against it, its people are considered to be braver then countries attached by land to the rest of Europe, open to invasion by German troops?? You can only fight on up untill a certain point, when it becomes more a matter of wasting millions of lives in a futile attempt at freedom. The French and the Dutch both had resistance fighters repelling the Germans, and never gave up. But obviously the Scottish, protected by the English channel, on their island, safe from danger, were much braver then those cowardly Europeans who who surrendered when they had guns pointed in their faces.... hno:

"In WW2, a tiny percentage of Dutch men fought the Germans. If Germany had invaded Scotland, nearly every single man would have fought the Germans." 

....What on earth makes you say that??? It is all very nice and easy to say 40+ years on what Scottish people would have done if Germany had invaded Scotland, but I doubt if any nation anywhere would have fought with pocket knives and bricks to the death when they were facing armed men with machine guns. In fact, there is so much wrong with your entire post that it would take up an entire page for me to reply to it, so I'm not gonna.

Please, anyone reading this, don't judge all British people by one guy who's seen a few too many war films, and has read too many Scottish-written history books!

I beleive, BuBomb, that this more then qualifies Hoops to be a....what was that term you used...a 'fanboy'....is that it??? I'm sure you just forgot to post your objections to his comments, after all, he isn't English.... 

How exactly did a thread about Scottish vs Scandinavian football get onto the subject of WW2 anyway....???


----------



## murdomac

It is really wierd trying to talk about football with all this rubbish from armchair warriors going on.

But let's persevere.

One of the posts from a Scandinavian friend talked about a league to incorporate the various countries around the Baltic, presumably Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and eventually Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

I do not think this will work. The distances are too great and awkward with players, press fans etc all having to constantly travel by plane and ferry.

But the main reason is that the clubs in these countries are too small and that is unlikely to change.

Yes the national teams punch above their weight and the fans turn out to support them in great numbers and in a most colourful and good humoured way and for that the rest of the footballing world should be greatful.

Scotland on the other hand contains two of the biggest clubs in the world but they will never reach their full potential until they are allowed to play in the (English) Football League. Celtic and Rangers can generate crowds of 50/60,000 week in week out playing agains minor opposition.They should be playing along with Liverpool and Chelsea and Manchester United.

Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain.

Meanwhile the rest of the Scottish professional football would go from strength to strength as the likes of Hearts Dundee and Aberdeen compete on an even playing field.

Scandinavia have produced better players and better national teams in recent years but they will never have a Celtic or Rangers and, as colourful as their national team fans are, no country could match the Tartan Army if only they had a decent side to follow.


----------



## Lostboy

_Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain._

Rubbish. Changing it from an English to a British League will only add a couple of clubs, and I would not expect them to be challenging for even UEFA Cup Places.


----------



## vivayo

invesco field reminds me of a modern, smaller version of Nou Camp in Barcelona, if the end zone were completed as the other 3 sides, it could be the "same"


----------



## 40Acres

hngcm said:


> I like Denver's Invesco Field for a WC final.


LOL, those english* with their pretty white unis would lose their lungs at that elevation. They'd have to shorten the match to 60 minutes. 

* it would happen with any national side, unless Nepal made it to the WCF 

Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.


----------



## vivayo

40Acres said:


> LOL, those english* with their pretty white unis would lose their lungs at that elevation. They'd have to shorten the match to 60 minutes.
> 
> * it would happen with any national side, unless Nepal made it to the WCF
> 
> Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.



What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.


----------



## mrtocsin

rantanamo said:


> - This American could care less if our stadiums are fit for the World Cup, or if the World Cup hits our soil ever again.


And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.


----------



## 40Acres

Scba said:


> It's really a shame that the US had to waste their World Cup bid for the next who-knows-how-long back in the early 90s, when nothing here really conformed to soccer. Stadiums are sprouting up for it everywhere today, and the popularity of the MLS is skyrocketing.


well, without the 94 WC, there would be no MLS, which is a reason why we're leading a nice charge in the WC as it is.

But i agree. The USA held the most profitable and most attended cup in history (both in average attendance [69,000] and total attendence [3.6 million]), and this is even back when there were only 24 teams.  I would like to have seen what we could have done with 32 teams, and possibly 2 more host venues. They dispersement of matches across the country was well done, but now, with all the new stadiums popping up around the country, we would nail this tournament.

These were the old host stadiums:

Foxboro Stadium: Boston,Massachusetts 61,000









Soldier Field: Chicago, Illinois 67,000 









Cotton Bowl Dallas, Texas 67,000 









Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, Michigan 80,000 









Rose Bowl Pasadena, California 91,000 









Giants Stadium East Rutherford, New Jersey 77,000 









Citrus Bowl Orlando, Florida 70,000 









Stanford Stadium Palo Alto, California 80,000 









RFK Stadium Washington, D.C. 56,000 










12 years later, 6 out of those 9 stadiums are obsolete. They went from WC worthy to just an afterthought due to the massive obsession with stadium building in the United States. The only 3 that havent had massive upgrades or been destroyed are Giants Stadium, The Rose Bowl, and the Citrus Bowl.

If the USA were to host this year, it would be:

Cardinals Stadium: Phoenix, Arizona









The Rose Bowl: Los Angeles, California









Reliant Stadium: Houston, Texas









Soldier Field II: Chicago, Ill









Fed Ex Field: Washington, D.C.









Ford Field: Detroit, Michigan









Gillette Stadium: Boston, Mass.









Raymond James Stadium: Tampa, Florida









Giants Stadium: East Ruthorford, N.J.









Quest Field: Seattle, Washington


----------



## 40Acres

mrtocsin said:


> And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.


oh please. way to blow shit out of proportion. :|


----------



## The_Hoops

Lostboy said:


> . On the other hand no country behaved more admirably under occupation than Denmark - far better than trying to cut a deal with Nazi's.


What the **** are you talking about you fucking halfwit? Who tried to cut a deal with the Nazi's? The hundrerds of thousands of Scots who died or were injured fighting them? The millions of men and women who worked non-stop for 6 years building ships and weapons to fight the Germans? 99.9% of Scots would never even have considered 'cutting a deal' with the Nazi's before or during the war.

Do you know how many Scots died or were seriously injured fighting in WW1 and WW2 sacrificing themselves to protect Britain and Europe form tyranny? Hundreds of thousands, many of whom were volunteers!!....and we weren't even invaded!! Denmark was actually invaded, and how many of them died? You can count them on one hand!!

Have you ever visited Scotland? Every city, town and village have Memorials listing endless names of their men who died in battle. Even the smallest villages have got war Memorials and the list of names always seems far far too large for the size of the village/town. In Glasgow, the endless list of names would scare you!! Separate Glasgow transport groups (trams, trains, bus drivers etc) have all got their own individual Memorials as so many died from each different group of workers!

Denmark behaved more admirably??? They fucking surrendered without a fight!! Yes, what real brave men!!! Just another bunch of useless Euro Cowards!! In WW2 Scotland suffered terrible losses!! Per head of population in WW1, Scotland, followed by Serbia, lost more men than any other country in Europe (and we weren't even invaded!!!). In WW2 God knows how many Scots would of been killed fighting the Germans if we had actually been invaded!! The number would of been huge!!

Countries like Finland and Serbia were invaded in WW2 and they still managed to fight. Serbia (part of Yugoslavia at the time) was a very small country, smaller than The Netherlands, but they kept on fighting for the whole of the war. Finland put up a great fight against the might of the Soviet Union. The Greeks (population less than eight million) managed to defeat an Italian army twice its size and with many times its firepower, and then hold off the German and Bulgarian invasion for 2 months. This was longer than any other nation up to that point. The difference was that these countries were not Euro Cowards like Denmark and The Netherlands.

Winston Churchill famously said after the Greek-Italian battle, "From now on we won't say Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks". The measure of resistance was also paid considerable homage to by German officals - Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated at Nurenberg that, "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general.” 


Come up to Scotland and say what you said and I will cut your throat you disrespectful piece of human shit!! Two of my relatives died protecting human waste like you!!

What the **** to they teach these braindead morons in schools these days???


----------



## The_Hoops

With the money from TV Rangers and Celtic would get in England, both clubs would be winning the English league very very soon. It's not going to happen though!


I've done some research on the Glasgow forums, and it appears you are totally hated over there. You have also admitted to being anti-Scottish and a general hater of all things Scottish. So I think it is fair to say that you are simply a bigoted moron. You are going to be negative about Scotland to matter what the situation, so your opinion is illogical and irrelevant as it simply based on a hatred of all things Scottish instead of being based on logical thinking.

You should be banned for admitting you hate Scots as this is clearly racist.


----------



## The_Hoops

Lostboy said:


> 1. Look up your history, there were no Scots in Britain at that time only Britons (Welsh) the Scots were in Hibernia at the time.


So why did they Romans build a wall you fucking clown? Why is there a Roman Bath House in Bearsden (very near Glasgow) 2 miles from my house?

Scotland has been inhabited for 4000 years!! The people in Caledonia at the time of the arrival of the Romans might not have been called "Scots", but they are still the ancient ancestors of modern day Scots. Modern day Scots descend from a mixture of indigenous Picts along with Celts and Scotti who settled in Scotland. Here are some links, I suggest you read them -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonii
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/origin1.html
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/beginning.php
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/romans.php
http://www.scotlandforvisitors.co.uk/history/time1.php

"The Roman occupation of Scotland was never as comprehensive as the occupation of England. Although they built forts and walls, the indigenous tribes, especially in the north, were never very troubled by the might of Rome."

http://heritage.scotsman.com/timelines.cfm?cid=1&id=40522005


Seriously, are you in primary school or something? At the time of the Romans, Scotland (Caledonia) was a populated area!! Read the links you fucking mongol!


"The whole area up to the highlands was covered in villages"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonia

"Hadrian's Wall (Latin: Vallum Hadriani) was a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of Great Britain to prevent military raids by the tribes of Scotland to the north"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall


You better listen harder at school son, because you are heading for a big fail in life!

I'm not going to reply to you anymore, as you are either at school and are not doing well at school, or you are simply a grown man who is not intelligent! I've tried to explain important history to you and educate you, but I am clearly wasting my time!


----------



## 40Acres

vivayo said:


> What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.


Denver is 5,431 feet above sea level, so its not as high as Azteca ... plus Denver doesnt have the choking fumes of Mexico City, so thats always a plus, too.


----------



## The_Hoops

Kuvvaci said:


> rose bowl was the worst. And hosted the worst final because of the UEFA and the the shape of the stadiums. UEFA let the final game to be played under the helly sun in the day time because of European TV hours. And then both Brazilian and Italian players had no power to play properly. stadium has no roof, and other stuffs. Players and fans were burning and at last, match ended up without goal and resulted witht he penalty shoot outs first time at the World Cup history as a shame
> 
> Best stadium was Stade de France of Paris in 1998 and Azteca of Mexico City in 1986.


How was the shape worse than Munich or Olimpico in Rome? Out of all the stadiums, The Rose Bowl and The Azteca had the fans closest to the action. This is just Eurotwats and Donkeyboys knocking the USA for the sake of it!!

A roof wouldn't protect the players from the sun, only the fans. Was there no sun in the Azteca in 86?? Yes there was, and it was a classic final. The 94 final was crap due to the teams, not the sun or lack of roof!


----------



## The_Hoops

mrtocsin said:


> And I think the rest of the World would be very grateful if Americans never touched a foreign soil aswell. Be gone.



I would be thankful if the USA lets you Eurotwats rot next time you go begging to the USA for help!!

"We hate the USA, burn that flag" - 10 years later - "Oh please save us USA, please save us from this evil dictator/country"


----------



## The_Hoops

vivayo said:


> invesco field reminds me of a modern, smaller version of Nou Camp in Barcelona, if the end zone were completed as the other 3 sides, it could be the "same"


no, it would be miles better.


----------



## 2zanzibar

40Acres said:


> well, without the 94 WC, there would be no MLS, which is a reason why we're leading a nice charge in the WC as it is.
> 
> But i agree. The USA held the most profitable and most attended cup in history (both in average attendance [69,000] and total attendence [3.6 million]), and this is even back when there were only 24 teams. I would like to have seen what we could have done with 32 teams, and possibly 2 more host venues. They dispersement of matches across the country was well done, but now, with all the new stadiums popping up around the country, we would nail this tournament.


Great stadiums! real monoliths.

is the Cardinals stadium being built at the moment?










Peter Eisenman is one my favourite architects, but I'm not quite sure what he's up to here.


----------



## EADGBE

To keep jingoism out of this (if it's not already too late), I'd have to say that the old Wembley was not that special as a venue. It would not be in my top three venues - but then neither would the Rose Bowl be:

1 Estadio Azteca, Mexico City (1970 & 1986)
2 Estadio Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid (1982)
3 Stade de France, Paris (1998)

I think the 1994 final should have been played at Giants Stadium, NJ. Three reasons for, one against:

FOR:
A more 'classic' football configuration with close proximity and high, atmospheric stands

5hrs behind Europe, not 8hrs would have given the game a local kick off time three hours later and therefore cooler

East coast, not Californian climate would have been more conducive to fast-fowing football.

AGAINST

Capacity differential of around 12,000.

And one more thing:



> Originally Posted by vivayo
> What is Denver's elevation, because Mexico plays at Estadio Azteca's 2400 meters above sea level, (7894 ft), also Bolivia plays at more than 3000 meters, Chile and Peru have also significant elevations at their national stadiums.
> 
> >Denver is 5,431 feet above sea level, so its not as high as Azteca ... plus Denver doesnt have the choking fumes of Mexico City, so thats always a plus, too.


You're asking what's Denver's elevation? On a stadium forum? erm, does the phrase 'Mile High' sound familiar?


----------



## The_Hoops

The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.

As for heat - 1986, very hot Mexico, best World Cup final ever. 

LA is far more of a football city (S.American immigration), than New York. Look at the crowds in LA -

Romania v Colombia - 91586!! (You would get 35000 in Europe for this kind of game)
United States v Colombia - 93869!!
Sweden v Cameroon - 93194!!
Romania v Argentina - 90469!!
Brazil v Sweden - 91856!!
Sweden v Bulgaria - 91500!!
Brazil v Italy - 94194!!


LA deserved the final! New York was almost 20000 smaller than the Rose bowl for the 94 World Cup, as it's capacity for the World Cup was 77000.


----------



## Iain1974

The_Hoops said:


> The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.
> 
> As for heat - 1986, very hot Mexico, best World Cup final ever.
> 
> LA is far more of a football city (S.American immigration), than New York. Look at the crowds in LA -
> 
> Romania v Colombia - 91586!! (You would get 35000 in Europe for this kind of game)
> United States v Colombia - 93869!!
> Sweden v Cameroon - 93194!!
> Romania v Argentina - 90469!!
> Brazil v Sweden - 91856!!
> Sweden v Bulgaria - 91500!!
> Brazil v Italy - 94194!!
> 
> 
> LA deserved the final! New York was almost 20000 smaller than the Rose bowl for the 94 World Cup, as it's capacity for the World Cup was 77000.



World Cups do revolve around Europe. Hence the silly kick-off times in 1986 and 1994.


----------



## Kampflamm

40Acres said:


> Actually, i'd lay my house down on the US side vs. any national side in this venue because of the elevation ... and the US conditions some in Colorado Springs, i believe.


The US isn't the only country with cities that are located at a high altitude so I'm pretty sure you'd be homeless.


----------



## Kampflamm

The_Hoops said:


> The world does not revolve around Europe (that ended a long time ago). 5/8 hours, who cares? It is the WORLD cup, not the Europe Cup. It was held in the USA, the time in Europe was irrelevant.


Most of the teams are from Europe though, so it makes sense to schedule the games with European viewers in mind.


----------



## The Boy David

Spot on murdomac, I reckon that the Scottish Premier league would grow stronger if the Old firm left it - a level playing field makes for much more interesting games, and where ever there is entertaining football, people will pay good money to watch it. I would definitely disagree with people who say that the Old Firm are the only teams holding the SPL together - I genuinely think their absence would benefit teams like Aberdeen, Hibs, Falkirk etc greatly - it would make the Scottish people more inclined to support their local team, a mentality that does not exist up here just now.


I have to disagree with you, Lostboy. With the addition of Celtic and Rangers, the English Premiership would become even stronger, attracting even more interest worldwide (mostly from American, Canadian and Australian Celtic supporters), and easily fortifying its place as the strongest domestic league in the world. Of course Celtic and Rangers should not be handed Premiership status on a plate, but I'm convinced that they would qualify for the Premiership in the fastest possible manner.


Scandinavian national teams do punch above their weight for the simple reason that all of their best players end up playing in England/Spain/Italy etc. Much like the Irish, these players are quick to move where the big money is, and so leave the home nation leagues with the dregs that are not good enough for top flight football. It's a sad situation, but in reality no-one has benefited more from this than the Republic of Ireland.

Thankfully, (although some would argue that it is little consolation) the best Scottish players get snapped up by the Old Firm, thus staying in the country. However too many good Scottish players have had their careers ruined buy the Old Firm - this is something that needs to be rectified.



-----------



Calm down "The Hoops" or "*Bubomb*" (I know it's you as you put Rangers before Celtic in a previous post), you're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Kampflamm

> By the way Boy David can you remember a few years ago there was talk of an Atlantic League with the bigger Scottish clubs joining with Dutch and Portugese teams to create a league to compare with the bigger countries. I think Fergus McCann was partly behind it when he owned Celtic.


It would make more sense for the Netherlands to join forces with Belgium (this was proposed before but I don't know what happened to that proposal). Having Anderlecht, Club Bruges in the Eredivisie, or a newly created league, would liven things up a bit. 5 to 7 clubs would then have a realistic shot at winning the league (PSV, Feyenoord, Ajax, Anderlecht, Bruges, perhaps Standard Liege and AZ), you can't say that about too many European leagues these days.

The Scandinavian countries already have some sort of combined league: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_League


----------



## The_Hoops

Iain1974 said:


> World Cups do revolve around Europe. Hence the silly kick-off times in 1986 and 1994.



Yup, I remember watching all those games at 5:30am in the morning from Japan/Korea!! and watching Scotland v Denmark at 1am in 1986!! That was really handy!

****!


GMT times-

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/countdown/schedule/

Japan times -

http://web-japan.org/region/wcup/info/matchscd.html


----------



## Burnley

And the last pics (the area around may seem a little muddy but the fotos are old.It wasn't completed yet)
It is located exactly in the Faliro center

























And this is the whole area from space!!!Just magnificent!!!!!!
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/spacepics/Athens_Port_Area_SINA_06_13_04.jpg


----------



## 40Acres

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> So we are not allowed to be critical of American stadia?I new the minute somebody said something negative about the Rose Bowl,the Yanks would throw their toys from the pram


Sure. you're allowed to voice your opinion. and its my right to tell you your opinion is wrong.


----------



## CharlieP

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> The USA wouldn't be able to enter the Rose Bowl as a World Cup stadium these days anyway, not with FIFA's rule that each stadium submitted must have all its seats under cover!


In October 1989 FIFA's minimum criteria were:

Stadia for opening ceremony/final: minimum 80,000, 3/4 covered.
Other stadia: minimum 40,000, main seated area covered.

(Source: The Football Grounds of Europe by Simon Inglis)

So it seems as though rules can be bent as and when required


----------



## Brent H.

By the standards of any pro sport the rose bowl isnt a great stadium, like many have said it has bench seating and is just a giant bowl, also if you like a roof its not so great. Personally, I dont care about a roof. The Rose Bowl's history was made as an American Football venue, and thats what makes it so great. This years Rose Bowl (and national championship game) was great and just adds to the history of this great stadium. Keep in mind the rose bowl is a college stadium and constant upgrades arent necessary and arent always affordable for the school, but like any stadium, the atmosphere, the teams, and the fans have as much to do with it as the architecture and convienence. 

As far as roofed stadiums in the US go, currently in use are:
The New Cardinals Stadium, Glendale, Az: up to 75,000 (under construction)
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Ga: 75,000 (maybe less after the renovations)
Texas Stadium Irwin, TX: 65,675
FOrd Field, Detroit, Mi:70,000
Reliant Stadium Houston, TX: 69,500
Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis, In:63,000-75,000 (estimated) (under construction)
RCA Dome Indianaoplis, In:60,272
Metrodome Minneapolis, Mn: 63,000
Superdome New Orleans, LA: 72,003
Edward Jones Dome St. Louis, Mo:66,000
Carrier Dome Syracuse, New York: 51,000
Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, MI:80,311 (No longer in use)
Astrodome Houston, Tx: 62,439 (no longer in use)
Alamo Dome San Antonio Tx:72,000

Some Partially roofed stadiums include
Qwest Field Seattle, Wa: 67,000
Paul Brown Stadium Cinncinnatti, Ohio:65,535

Baseball Fields which might be able to Host:
Chase Field Phoenix, AZ:48,569 
Minute Maid Park Houston, Tx: 40,950
Miller Park Milwaukee, Wi: 43,000
Safeco Field Seattle, Wa: 46,621
Tropicana Field St. Petersburg, Fl: 43,500 

All of these Stadiums are either partially or fully enclosed, some have retractable roofs. Most of them should be up to World Cup standards. The Baseball fields can be converted to play football. Also there are proposals for new stadiums in New Orleans, a baseball and football field in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and New York City. Any of these could have roofs, although I dont think all of them will be built and they probably wont all have roofs.


----------



## 40Acres

Brent H. said:


> By the standards of any pro sport the rose bowl isnt a great stadium, like many have said it has bench seating and is just a giant bowl, also if you like a roof its not so great. Personally, I dont care about a roof. The Rose Bowl's history was made as an American Football venue, and thats what makes it so great. This years Rose Bowl (and national championship game) was great and just adds to the history of this great stadium. Keep in mind the rose bowl is a college stadium and constant upgrades arent necessary and arent always affordable for the school, but like any stadium, the atmosphere, the teams, and the fans have as much to do with it as the architecture and convienence.
> 
> As far as roofed stadiums in the US go, currently in use are:
> The New Cardinals Stadium, Glendale, Az: up to 75,000 (under construction)
> Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Ga: 75,000 (maybe less after the renovations)
> Texas Stadium Irwin, TX: 65,675
> FOrd Field, Detroit, Mi:70,000
> Reliant Stadium Houston, TX: 69,500
> Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis, In:63,000-75,000 (estimated) (under construction)
> RCA Dome Indianaoplis, In:60,272
> Metrodome Minneapolis, Mn: 63,000
> Superdome New Orleans, LA: 72,003
> Edward Jones Dome St. Louis, Mo:66,000
> Carrier Dome Syracuse, New York: 51,000
> Pontiac Silverdome Pontiac, MI:80,311 (No longer in use)
> Astrodome Houston, Tx: 62,439 (no longer in use)
> Alamo Dome San Antonio Tx:72,000
> 
> Some Partially roofed stadiums include
> Qwest Field Seattle, Wa: 67,000
> Paul Brown Stadium Cinncinnatti, Ohio:65,535
> 
> Baseball Fields which might be able to Host:
> Chase Field Phoenix, AZ:48,569
> Minute Maid Park Houston, Tx: 40,950
> Miller Park Milwaukee, Wi: 43,000
> Safeco Field Seattle, Wa: 46,621
> Tropicana Field St. Petersburg, Fl: 43,500
> 
> All of these Stadiums are either partially or fully enclosed, some have retractable roofs. Most of them should be up to World Cup standards. The Baseball fields can be converted to play football. Also there are proposals for new stadiums in New Orleans, a baseball and football field in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and New York City. Any of these could have roofs, although I dont think all of them will be built and they probably wont all have roofs.



nice informative post, but as previously mentioned ... the rules dont really apply to the US. Its just too damn delightful in June-July to waste time indoors.


----------



## matherto

carlspannard said:


> Rome was quite poor. It was a bit like Berlins stadium. The Final also turned out to be crap. It's very disapointing that Germany haven't delibrately avoided using a track and field venue for the final. Munich Olympic Stadium was almost as good as the Berlin stadium but Germanys biggest football team regarded it as obsolete and now have a real football stadium.
> Italy's 1990 World Cup stadia were regarded at the time as state of the art. They were often mentioned as the model for future development in Britain. Their stadiums were huge with elaborate architecture. It turned out they were almost all white elephants. As a result, as far as I can see, they now only have 2 world class football stadiums Genoa and the San Siro.


I'm sure that Germany would rather have the final in the classic, good looking, intimidating (from the outside) Olympic Stadium in the capital city, than the boring, bland Allianz in Munich. It's mostly about politics, so obviously the final would be in Berlin and I think the Olympiastadion is perfectly adequate for the final. If you've seen the opening ceremony for that stadium, it's far more impressive than the one in Munich.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Berlin is terrific. Possibly the best athletics stadium in the world. Beautiful architecture. I prefer football in a football stadium. Simple as that.


----------



## matherto

I don't think we should have the 2014 finals in South America, their stadiums are awful and they don't really have the funds to build lots of completely new ones.

The USA should probably host it again as they have probably the best stadiums in the world. I would love to see the final in Reliant Stadium as that is my favourite, followed by Qwest Field, but it wouldn't be half bad at FedEx Field (the most likely stadium due to proximity to D.C)

I really don't think the US would use the Rose Bowl as it's too outdated. For California, aren't San Francisco supposedly getting a new stadium? that would be the only one used there. 

To be honest, the only one they could use from 1994 is Giants Stadium, but maybe the Giants and Jets will have new stadiums so they won't use it.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Martuh said:


> WC 2018 - EU?


The only point to such a WC would IMHO to feature all the nations who would struggle to host one by themselves I.E. Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc. If you wanted to have only massive stadiums then an England/Spain co hosted one would provide almost as many anyway...

Nou Camp 98,000-120,000
Wembley 90-100,000
Bernabeu 80,000
Old Trafford 76-95,000
New Valencia stadium 70,000
La Cartuja or New Betis Stadium 70,000
New Anfield 61,000
Emirates Stadium 60,000
St. James Park 52-65,000
New Athletico Stadium 60,000+


----------



## 2zanzibar

The_Hoops said:


> Munich's Olympic Stadium is nothing like new Berlin Olympiastadion. The only thing they have in common is a running track. The new Berlin stadium has amazing facilities from underground media centers and underground car parks to 5 star restaurants, bars, conference halls and even a museum! You also get a decent view of the action due to the first rows of seats being well above pitch level. It is perfect apart from the athletics track and some unavoidable roof supports.


Underground car parks and conference halls might be sexy to some but Berlin has still got to hold the WC final. An athletics track is an athletics track. For 90+ minutes on July 9th its unfortunately going to be in the way


----------



## evgen

Do you know what the regulations are?


----------



## evgen

i think winner world2006 - italy


----------



## gorgu

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Well if that is the case why do scots always whinge about how england gets everything and that they hate the english when infact (by what your saying) its the scots that you hate, looking in the mirror is not always fun is it.
> :rofl:


Stopp generalising my nation you tosser! 

it is only the small minded twats that you give the satisfaction to by rising to their utter nonsense, I think you will find that if you go to the Glasgow forum neither Bubomb or The_Hoops get much credence there! Please don’t make sweeping statement when I am sure having come across Scots south of the border you will have found us to in the most part a king and generous people, unfortunately we do have our elements of white trash!


----------



## pompeyfan

Starscraper said:


> He's not far off. It was 149,415 set on April 17 1937 between Scotland and England. Also 10,000 extra people apparently snuck in under the barriers.


It's true!


----------



## pompeyfan

The Gelredome by a mile


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

MoreOrLess said:


> The only point to such a WC would IMHO to feature all the nations who would struggle to host one by themselves I.E. Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc. If you wanted to have only massive stadiums then an England/Spain co hosted one would provide almost as many anyway...
> 
> Nou Camp 98,000-120,000
> Wembley 90-100,000
> Bernabeu 80,000
> Old Trafford 76-95,000
> New Valencia stadium 70,000
> La Cartuja or New Betis Stadium 70,000
> New Anfield 61,000
> Emirates Stadium 60,000
> St. James Park 52-65,000
> New Athletico Stadium 60,000+


Yer, you would never ever ever get any kind of EU bid, even between the lesser stadium nations such as Portugal, Holland, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine etc. 

While an England-Spain bid would produce probably the best stadium collection for any World Cup in history, there would be arguements about who hosts which games, and in particular, the final, plus you'd have to travel back and forth between the two countries.

And anyway, I think both England and Spain could produce winning bids on their own relatively easily, especially England, which is what I think, and hope, will happen for 2018.

:cheers:


----------



## kingdomca

The_Hoops said:


> What the **** are you talking about you fucking halfwit? Who tried to cut a deal with the Nazi's? The hundrerds of thousands of Scots who died or were injured fighting them? The millions of men and women who worked non-stop for 6 years building ships and weapons to fight the Germans? 99.9% of Scots would never even have considered 'cutting a deal' with the Nazi's before or during the war.
> 
> Do you know how many Scots died or were seriously injured fighting in WW1 and WW2 sacrificing themselves to protect Britain and Europe form tyranny? Hundreds of thousands, many of whom were volunteers!!....and we weren't even invaded!! Denmark was actually invaded, and how many of them died? You can count them on one hand!!
> 
> Have you ever visited Scotland? Every city, town and village have Memorials listing endless names of their men who died in battle. Even the smallest villages have got war Memorials and the list of names always seems far far too large for the size of the village/town. In Glasgow, the endless list of names would scare you!! Separate Glasgow transport groups (trams, trains, bus drivers etc) have all got their own individual Memorials as so many died from each different group of workers!
> 
> Denmark behaved more admirably??? They fucking surrendered without a fight!! Yes, what real brave men!!! Just another bunch of useless Euro Cowards!! In WW2 Scotland suffered terrible losses!! Per head of population in WW1, Scotland, followed by Serbia, lost more men than any other country in Europe (and we weren't even invaded!!!). In WW2 God knows how many Scots would of been killed fighting the Germans if we had actually been invaded!! The number would of been huge!!
> 
> Countries like Finland and Serbia were invaded in WW2 and they still managed to fight. Serbia (part of Yugoslavia at the time) was a very small country, smaller than The Netherlands, but they kept on fighting for the whole of the war. Finland put up a great fight against the might of the Soviet Union. The Greeks (population less than eight million) managed to defeat an Italian army twice its size and with many times its firepower, and then hold off the German and Bulgarian invasion for 2 months. This was longer than any other nation up to that point. The difference was that these countries were not Euro Cowards like Denmark and The Netherlands.
> 
> Winston Churchill famously said after the Greek-Italian battle, "From now on we won't say Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks". The measure of resistance was also paid considerable homage to by German officals - Hitler's Chief of Staff Field Marshall Keitel stated at Nurenberg that, "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general.”
> 
> 
> Come up to Scotland and say what you said and I will cut your throat you disrespectful piece of human shit!! Two of my relatives died protecting human waste like you!!
> 
> What the **** to they teach these braindead morons in schools these days???


your post is just a disgrace. In fact you use the sacrifice of those scottish war heroes to further your own narrow-minded beliefs. Its sad. They wouldnt sign up to your nonsense.
Denmarks role was indeed not great and remains a big issue here, but as Churchill knew,you cannot make a straight comparison between countries in massively different circumstances.

Well, you can if you have no brain activity to cloud the issue


----------



## NFLeuropefan

*Guess the Stadium???*

Let's play guess the stadium!!! The game where you get to guess what stadium is pictured in each photo..... I'll start, anyone feel free to add... Guess away...


----------



## vivayo

Its the Bufalo Bills stadium, Ralf Wilson


----------



## kingdomca

murdomac said:


> It is really wierd trying to talk about football with all this rubbish from armchair warriors going on.
> 
> But let's persevere.
> 
> One of the posts from a Scandinavian friend talked about a league to incorporate the various countries around the Baltic, presumably Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and eventually Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
> 
> I do not think this will work. The distances are too great and awkward with players, press fans etc all having to constantly travel by plane and ferry.
> 
> But the main reason is that the clubs in these countries are too small and that is unlikely to change.
> 
> Yes the national teams punch above their weight and the fans turn out to support them in great numbers and in a most colourful and good humoured way and for that the rest of the footballing world should be greatful.
> 
> Scotland on the other hand contains two of the biggest clubs in the world but they will never reach their full potential until they are allowed to play in the (English) Football League. Celtic and Rangers can generate crowds of 50/60,000 week in week out playing agains minor opposition.They should be playing along with Liverpool and Chelsea and Manchester United.
> 
> Then this "British Premier League" would be by far the best in the world even compared to Italy or Spain.
> 
> Meanwhile the rest of the Scottish professional football would go from strength to strength as the likes of Hearts Dundee and Aberdeen compete on an even playing field.
> 
> Scandinavia have produced better players and better national teams in recent years but they will never have a Celtic or Rangers and, as colourful as their national team fans are, no country could match the Tartan Army if only they had a decent side to follow.


There isnt actually much doubt that a scandinavian league will happen.
It has just been all over the media again and there is no opposition.
Its only a question of what format and when?

It will be Denmark, Norway Sweden only at first. Finland are much weaker as are the baltics where football is basically dead and has to be revived.
Distances arent really a concern. there is already long-distance travelling in Norway and Sweden. There might actually be less travel for some clubs.

Support for football is nothing like Britain, but its not bad compared to europe and there has been serious growth the last several years.
In Denmark many clubs are merged clubs. Its as if pro football was only really begun for real in the 90´s.

Norway have just made a £ 100m tv deal, this is way up on before and comparable to what english football gets per capita and this is for a 26-round summer football league. Its much more than the scottish tv deal.


Denmark´s leading club,FCK, isnt even 15 years old yet owns 40,000 all-seated Parken, has an annual turnover of perhaps £25 million and an average support now up to round 20,000.
This is achieved by 15,000 crowds against minnows and 40,000 for top games.
I cant see why these crowds wouldnt continue to grow even without a scandinavian league but especially with one with less minnows.
I would think AIK Solna would eventually inhabit a planned new 55,000 stadium in Stockholm.

A scandinvian league would feature several capital clubs. Capitals suck-in general wealth an high-earners etc in all countries opening up opportunities for clubs and as scandinavia is already very wealthy, I think clubs will be very competitive. Relative to size. Malmo isnt even a real capital but have secured a long term sponsorship deal at £ 4 million annualy, in relative terms an impressive sum, whith staggering potential

Its just my opinion but I predict a scandinavian league, richer than the spanish league within a decade.


----------



## eli

The NBA wants Real Madrid to join that league too. This is what we are going to do http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=6293576&postcount=50


----------



## cellete

Maccabi said:


> Also it is planned by NBA that Maccabi joins the league sooner that season 2014-1015.So something must be done until then.


Do you have any article or link talking about that? I´m interested in the NBA plans overseas.


----------



## Maccabi

I have also heard about panathinaikos.The have the biggest av. attendance in top 16 and last year they had att. of 18500 people against efes pilsen.Plus that there r many greek in the usa.


----------



## Martuh

Some sort of NBA Europe?


----------



## TalB

This is pretty new to me.


----------



## Socrates

Lostboy said:


> Was that ironic, equating parcelling up England into artificial regions, with the restoration of constitutional recognition of one of the oldest nation-states in the world.
> 
> Yes it has. There is a difference between offering to divide and rule England, and ultimately abolish England, its not the fault that the people of England did not want regional assembilies, which are aritificial constructs.
> 
> England needs a Parliament of its own.


An English Parliament wouldnt be on the same footing as a Scottish one though, due to the substantially extra population that would be governed. SP governs over 5m, an English Parliament would govern over approximately 10 times that. 

Therefore any constitutinal amendments must take account of demographics - regional assemblies governing over comparable populations in comparably sized 'regions' to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Although for the record - I am not in favour of a Scottish Parliament, though since it is in existance I would favour the establishment of an 'equivelant' English institution - if only to preserve the overarching superiority of the UK Parliament and make the nation of Great Britain more distinct internationally from England than it is now.


----------



## cellete

Stern said in 2002 about the possible NBA overseas expansion, but not before the next decade. He mentioned as possible countries to host a new franchise Spain, England, Italy (if I remember well..). He suggested that the capacity of the european arenas should be increased till de NBA standars, but I find a lot of problems to create a sort of European Conference: the calendar witn so many teams (30 now plus 3 or more in the future witn the international expansion), the distance to mantain the NBA competition rythm, the tradition of many european clubs (completly new franchises in Europe will not be popular; instead of a sort of tranformation of the most powerful european clubs could be the solution; the Euroleague is good point to begin I think), FIBA rules, ticket prices etc..

I do the prediction it will be a sort of global competition around the next decade. But the NBA is pure marketing and business, and sport in Europe is pure passion..the mix is not so easy.I also fell we will see a new franchise in Mexico or China (huge market after the Yao Ming impact in the NBA).

So, huge arenas in Europe are welcome. In Spain, already 4 or 5 arenas are more than 10.000.


----------



## Scba

I just don't see that happening, unless a good number of teams can spring up over there to cut travel down. There's already cities chomping at the bit over here to get a team, plus the whole Oklahoma City - New Orleans fiasco.

MLB's been beating around the bush about placing a minor league team in Anchorage, but the idea of travel expenses always cuts it down. If staying in our own continent is even too much...eh.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

I have no idea....


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Martuh said:


> :weirdo: I've got no idea where you're talking about. Can you see the 'WC 2018 - EU?' That means a WC in the European Union, spreaded over the EU-countries. And okay, then don't use Camp Nou, use Bernabeu, I don't care. Still big enough. What I did was to select the biggest (and of course decent) EU-stadiums, but just one per coutry, and select the biggest and best 10 of them.


Ah, sorry man, I misunderstood your post, I thought you were posting the stadiums of countries that you thought could hold a world cup. 

:cheers:


----------



## Walbanger

I don't know Euro basketball, what is it, Balkan states, Greece and Italy are powers and Spain has a good league?
Anyway for fun a Euro conference based on large cities with the proper future arenas; 
London, 02 Arena
Manchester, MEN Arena
Paris, Bercy
Koln, Koln Arena
Berlin, Berlin Arena
Prague, Sazka Arena
Stockholm, Globen Arena
Vilnius, Siemens Arena
Belgrade, Belgrade Arena
Rome, BPA Palace or Eur Arena
Helsinki, Hartwell Arena
Athens, OAKA
Istanbul, Atakoy Sports Complex
Probably plenty more or quality, just can't remember. Especially those in Spain and Russia. Israel would be inclueded I'd imagine.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^ Hey Jack like your signature! here's another one.
*Some days you're the dog, & some days you're the hydrant*


----------



## Durbsboi

Martuh said:


> .......But wouldn't a EU-host be the best WC ever held?


Considering the amount of cool stadiums scatterd across Europe, it would be nice, but at the end of the day who's gonna benifit? Plus plane tickets to the various venues will cost the spectator a peacket! then sponsers come in. It will be a BIG mess!


----------



## Durbsboi

Toadman said:


> I whited out some of the advertising, otherwise it would have been too obvious.


Its the old Queensland REDS stadium, before they moved to suncorp. It had those "Bank of Queensland" boards everywhere!


----------



## Maccabi

In terms of marketing the European team which is closest to NBA is Maccabi.


----------



## MoreOrLess




----------



## eddyk

At MoreOrLess

Mongolia, Thailand, Singapore, Wales?


----------



## CharlieP

Durbsboi said:


> Its the old Queensland REDS stadium, before they moved to suncorp. It had those "Bank of Queensland" boards everywhere!


You're thinking of Ballymore, but it definitely isn't - the end and side stands are wrong. I'm 99% sure it's Townsville in RWC garb...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ London i think quite rightly has its own parliament(assembly)


----------



## Loranga

*Gridiron stadiums in soccer configurations (and vice versa)*

Has anyone got any pictures of Fedex Field in soccer configuration? I have been browsing for it but haven't found anything good. M&T Bank stadium and Bank of America stadium would also be nice to see in soccer configuration.


----------



## MoreOrLess

eddyk said:


> At MoreOrLess
> 
> Mongolia, Thailand, Singapore, Wales?


Mongolia is the closest of those not still not that close.


----------



## Maccabi

These two are the only arena i imagine for MACCABI

1)


















2)


----------



## CharlieP

Martuh said:


> But wouldn't a EU-host be the best WC ever held?


No, it would be one of the worst. The best tournaments are the ones held in a single country, which can then go to town on organising all the special events, inventing a common look and feel to the tournament etc. When you spread a World Cup out you just dilute the effect, as can be seen with the 1991 and 1999 Rugby World Cups, which weren't a patch on 1995 and 2003...


----------



## CharlieP

Kyrgyzstan?


----------



## Maccabi

I little info for those who don't know MACCABI.(R there any???)

http://www.maccabi.co.il/
http://www.maccabifans.co.il/









*
Maccabi Tel Aviv (basketball)*


Maccabi Tel Aviv
Arena Nokia Arena
(commonly Yad Eliyahu)
Tel Aviv, Israel
Club colours Yellow and Blue
President Shimon Mizrahi
Head coach Pinhas Gershon
Assistant coach(es) Dan Shamir
Address 293 HaYarkon st.
Tel Aviv 63504 Israel
Tel: 972-3-6059333
Fax: 972-3-6059992
Website www.maccabi.co.il

Maccabi "Elite" Tel Aviv (hebrew: מכבי תל-אביב) is a basketball team based in Tel Aviv, Israel. It is part of the Maccabi Tel Aviv sports club, and their main sponsors since 1969 have been the Elite confections company, so Maccabi also carries its name.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Overview
* 2 History
* 3 "Pro-" and "anti-maccabists"
* 4 Current Season
* 5 Trophies and Titles
* 6 Current roster
* 7 Famous past players
* 8 External links

[edit]

Overview

To say that Maccabi Tel Aviv is the Israel's best basketball team is an understatement. The club dominates Israeli basketball, collecting 45 national championship titles (including 23 in a row between 1970 and 1992) and 35 national cups. Maccabi is also among Europe's best basketball teams, having won the European cup 5 times since 1977, and finishing second 6 other times.

Although within Israel there are many fan communities behind Hapoel Tel Aviv, Hapoel Jerusalem, Bnei HaSharon, Hapoel Galil Elyon and several others, Maccabi Tel Aviv's is by far the largest, and except for a few hard-core fans of other clubs, almost every Israeli identifies with Maccabi during international competition as representing them. The club became something like second national team, and much more successful than the official one.
[edit]

History

Maccabi Tel Aviv sports club started its basketball activities in the mid-thirties. In 1954, the Israeli Basketball League was founded and Maccabi won the first championship. They have been in control ever since, collecting 45 national championship titles (including 23 in a row between 1970 and 1992) and 35 national cups. The team never finished below the third place in the national league.

In 1958, Maccabi joined international competitions and gradually became one of the best basketball teams in Europe. As of Aug 2005, Maccabi played 577 games in European competitions and won 359 of them, scoring 50012 points to opponents' 48150. Twice (in 1994 and 2004) Maccabi hosted the Euroleague Final Four and four times European All Star event. Seven Maccabi players participated in European All Star Selections: Cohen-Mintz, Brody, Silver, Berkovich, Jamchy, Nadav Henefeld and Oded Katash.

The first European championship was the Championship Cup in 1977, under coach Ralph Klein. In the final game in Belgrade, Yugoslavia Maccabi edged Mobilgirgi Varese 78:77, thanks to Jim Boatwright (26 points), Miki Berkovich, Aulcie Perry and the rest of the team. But perhaps of even bigger symbolic value was the semifinal win over CSKA Moscow. In the eyes of the whole country, it was not only an important win, but kind of revenge on Soviet Union, the country that provided support to Israel's enemies. "We are on the map," - proclaimed captain Tal Brody after the game, - "We are staying on the map, not only in sports, but in everything". Maccabi indeed stayed on the European basketball map, and in 1981 it won another Championship Cup, this time defeating Sinudyne Bologna 80:79.

The crosstown nemesis Hapoel Tel Aviv have been considered the most bitter rival of Maccabi for a long time, but the last title of the "reds" came in 1969. Since that year, the only team to challenge Maccabi successfully in the Israeli championship was Hapoel Galil Elyon in 1993, led by Doron Sheffer and coached by Pinchas "Pini" Gershon. Eventually both Sheffer and Gershon moved to Tel Aviv.

Gershon, considered then perhaps the most vocal "anti-maccabist", came to the town in 1999. The Gershon era in Maccabi proved to be a fruitful one. The team reached the Euroleague final in 2000, falling to the highly touted Panathinaikos in a close game (ironically, former Maccabi and Israeli NT star Oded Katash excelled in the Greek club). Next year in Suproleague finals in Paris, Panathinaikos tried again to stand between Maccabi and the championship, but this time Israeli club, led by Ariel McDonald, Anthony Parker and Nate Huffman, downed the Greeks (81:67). The rivalry continued in 2002, when Pana stopped David Blatt's Maccabi in semifinal.

Before 2003-04 season Gershon came back from retirement, Parker from Italy, Jasikevičius joined the team and in May 2004 Maccabi also came back - to the top of European basketball - trouncing Skipper Bologna in the Euroleague final game in an unprecedented landslide (118:74). They returned to the Euroleague Final Four in 2005, facing tough odds due to the rise of the dominating CSKA Moscow club that was favoured and was also hosting the event. They were also matched in the semifinal against Panathinaikos (once again), known for one of the best defenses in Europe. However, in a scenario that few in European basketball community envisioned, TAU Cerámica stunned CSKA and Maccabees celebrated yet another victory over the Greeks. Maccabi proceeded to defeat TAU Cerámica in a very competitive final 90:78 on May 8, 2005.

Gershon benefited greatly from the last Euroleague title, his third, and has become one of the most sought-after coaches in Europe, not to mention a national hero. However, Gershon has signed with the club for one more season. Meanwhile, Šarūnas Jasikevičius, a key contributor, went to the NBA and several other players left the team.

On October 16, 2005, Maccabi set another milestone in their basketball history when they beat the NBA's Toronto Raptors. It was their first win in over 27 years over an NBA team, and the first win over an NBA team by any Euroleague team in 17 years. Anthony Parker's jumper with 0.8 seconds lifted the Euroleague champion over Toronto 105-103.
[edit]

"Pro-" and "anti-maccabists"

Part of basketball community in Israel sees Maccabi's dominance as a root of various problems of Israeli basketball. Some of them claim that the lack of competitiveness in Israeli basketball causes the fans and the investors to "migrate" to football (which is also very popular in Israel, both as a street game and as a pro sport). Others say that Maccabi signs the most talented local players to more attractive contracts than any other team in Israel can afford and then gives them limited playing time and limited roles behind the stars (mostly of American or European origin), thus hindering the development of domestic talent.

"Pro-maccabists" counter that it is Maccabi's high-level basketball and international success that creates the fan base and that Maccabi gives young players an opportunity to play alongside and against some of the brightest stars of European basketball.

From time to time, ideas arise of reform in Israeli basketball that will prevent Maccabi from trampling the rest of the league and/or will protect domestic players. Some proposals featured measures similar to those introduced by the NBA, such as salary cap or draft. However, so far no significant changes have been made.
[edit]

Current Season

So far Maccabi is nearly perfect in the Israeli League, with 15 wins in 16 games.

In the Euroleague, after a disappointing 3-3 start the team has won 5 straight games and has qualified to the Top 16, where it currently holds second place in Group E with 3 wins in 4 games.
[edit]

Trophies and Titles

* Domestic championships: 45
* Domestic cups: 35
* European championships: 5
o 1977, 1981 - Victories in the European Cup, the direct predecessor to today's Euroleague, officially recognized by FIBA and ULEB as Euroleague titles.
o 2001 - Suproleague title.
o 2004, 2005 - Euroleague titles.
* European finals: 11 (1977, 1980, 1981,1982, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005)
* Intercontinental Cups: 1981

[edit]

Current roster
4 Israel Regev Fanan Point guard/Shooting guard
5 United States Maceo Baston Power forward/Center
6 United States Israel Derrick Sharp Shooting guard/Point guard
7 Croatia Nikola Vujcic Center
8 United States Anthony Parker Shooting guard/Small forward
10 Israel Tal Burstein Point guard/Shooting guard
11 Israel Sharon Sasson Small forward
12 Israel Asaf Dotan Shooting guard
14 Israel Omri Caspi Small forward
15 United States Will Solomon Point guard
20 New Zealand Kirk Penney Shooting guard
23 United States Israel Jamie Arnold Power forward
41 Israel Yaniv Green Center
Updated September 22, 2005
[edit]

Famous past players

* Tanhum Cohen-Mintz
* Miki Berkovich
* Tal Brody
* Lou Silver
* Aulcie Perry
* Moti Aroesti
* Doron Sheffer
* Oded Katash
* Nadav Henefeld
* Doron Jamchi (Israel's top scorer)
* Nate Huffman
* Ariel McDonald
* Šarūnas "Sharas" Jasikevičius










*Maccabi sets records in final!!*

Maccabi scored the most points, 118, in the history of continental finals dating back to the start of European basketball almost 50 years ago.

Maccabi has tied a defensive record in an Euroleague final as Skipper was limited to 13 first-quarter points tonight, tying the previous record which Maccabi already had by limiting Panathinaikos to that amount of points at the end of the first period in the 2001 SuproLeague final.

Maccabi has also set a new record of most points scored in the first half, as the Israeli champs scored 55 in the first half of tonight's final. The previous record was set by Philips Milano (1988) and Kinder Bologna (2001), with 52 points. Maccabi is also the team to have scored more points in the second half of a Final, 63. The last record belonged to Tau Ceramica, when it scored 53 in 2001.

Maccabi is the team who has won a Euroleague Final with the biggest score difference in the end, 44 points. The previous record was set by Olympiakos, when it defeated FC Barcelona in 1997 by 15 points, 73-58.

Maccabi has scored the most field goals in a Euroleague Final, 42. The previous record was set by Tau in 2001, Split in 1989 and Milano in 1988 all with 32.

Maccabi has been the team to dish more assists in a Euroleague final, 31. The previous record was for Barcelona in 1996 with 18.

Maccabi has also set the best percentage in two-point shooting, 74% (28 of 38). The previous one belonged to Panathinaikos since 2000, 63%

Maccabi has also beat the record in field-goal percentage, 69%. The previous one belonged to Tau Ceramica since 2001, 57%.

Maccabi has also set a new record of points in a quarter, with 38.

Maccabi has allowed only 22 rebounds to Skipper Bologna. The previous marks were 23 by Zalgiris in 1999 and Pop 84 in 1991.

Maccabi has been the team to score more two-point shots, 28. The previous record was 27 by Philips Milano in 1988.


----------



## Giorgio

Walbanger said:


> I don't know Euro basketball, what is it, Balkan states, Greece and Italy are powers and Spain has a good league?
> Anyway for fun a Euro conference based on large cities with the proper future arenas;
> London, 02 Arena
> Manchester, MEN Arena
> Paris, Bercy
> Koln, Koln Arena
> Berlin, Berlin Arena
> Prague, Sazka Arena
> Stockholm, Globen Arena
> Vilnius, Siemens Arena
> Belgrade, Belgrade Arena
> Rome, BPA Palace or Eur Arena
> Helsinki, Hartwell Arena
> Athens, OAKA
> Istanbul, Atakoy Sports Complex
> Probably plenty more or quality, just can't remember. Especially those in Spain and Russia. Israel would be inclueded I'd imagine.


Greece and Serbia are superpowers as well as Italy in Eurobasket. 
Greek leauge is arguably the second best in the world with greek club Panathinaikos being the most successful Basketball club in European history. Olympiakos is also a very successful basketball club.


----------



## eddyk

Hampen is used for NFL.
So was old Wembley...I'm guessing New Wembley will be used aswell.

Erm, that's all I know for GB.


----------



## Maccabi

Israel is not a superpower in Eurobasket but it is a superpower in Euroleague with only one good team Maccabi.


----------



## GNU

Id say scotland.

I just love the Ibrox stadium.


























the dressing room


----------



## GNU

Celtic park is also great.


----------



## Loranga

Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears was played at Ullevi, Gothenburg, Sweden on 14 augusti 1988 in front of 33 150 spectators.


----------



## eli

Maccabi said:


> In terms of marketing the European team which is closest to NBA is Maccabi.


Don't forget that Real Madrid Basketball and Real Madrid Football are the same Club, the same institution.


[Gio?gos] said:


> Greece and Serbia are superpowers as well as Italy in Eurobasket.
> Greek leauge is arguably the second best in the world with greek club Panathinaikos being the most successful Basketball club in European history. Olympiakos is also a very successful basketball club.


Why you say that?
It is a great league but I don't think the greek league is the second best in the world, you must count on the spanish league; for example, we have 3 teams in the quaterfinals playoffs of Euroleague.
Panathinaikos is not the most successful Basketball club in European history, it is a fact.

RealMadridBasketball1
RealMadridBasketball2
OfficialWeb


----------



## cellete

I remember some past news about possible future invitations to Real Madrid and FC Barcelona basketball sections to join NBA, Don´t forget TAU Vitoria and Unicaja Málaga, with arenas around 10.000 or even more.

I would say as a possible European Conference into a global competition:

FC Barcelona
Maccabi Tel-Aviv
Real Madrid
Panathinaikos ¿Olympiakos?
CSKA Moscow
Zalguiris Kaunas
Bolonia ¿Treviso?

7 teams instad of the 5 teams in NBA by conference. More ideas? Possible names? Would you keep the club names in an hipotetical global basketball competition?

I would support FC Barcelona. :cheers:


----------



## Maccabi

I will open a new thread about NBA Global expansion


----------



## matherto

Tibet


----------



## cellete

Maccabi said:


> I will open a new thread about NBA Global expansion


That´s a good point; tell me where and maybe put another title like: NBA-FIBA future global competition, since the moment that the NBA is not so far away in level comparing to the past. You only have to watch the last years of national team competitions or the huge impact of international players as Pau Gasol, Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki etc..


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

CharlieP said:


> No, it would be one of the worst. The best tournaments are the ones held in a single country, which can then go to town on organising all the special events, inventing a common look and feel to the tournament etc. When you spread a World Cup out you just dilute the effect, as can be seen with the 1991 and 1999 Rugby World Cups, which weren't a patch on 1995 and 2003...


Yer I totally agree with you there, but I get what Martuh is trying to say. He's thinking more about the greatness of having the top selection of all the best stadiums in Europe for one tournament -Wembley, Bernabeu, Stade De France etc etc. But the actual reality of it, with the distance between countries, and the organisation and all the rest of the problems, kinda takes the gleam off the idea!

:cheers:


----------



## MoreOrLess

matherto said:


> Tibet


Very close.


----------



## Aka

Katmandu, Nepal.


----------



## Scba

Rumor was that the NFL is trying to get a game in at Wembley sometime in the next few years.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Those 3 people walking along the pitch in the bottom right of the picture. Are they the same 'cheeky chappies' we talked about in a previous thread?


----------



## Socrates

KiwiBrit said:


> Those 3 people walking along the pitch in the bottom right of the picture. Are they the same 'cheeky chappies' we talked about in a previous thread?


I don't think we have spoken before.


----------



## KiwiBrit

> I don't think we have spoken before.


If you say so... :yes:


----------



## Socrates

I'm assuming that you think I'm bubomb. Jeez.
Do you think that there is only 1 glaswegian with internet access?
Do Rangers only have 1 supporter?

Do you all have a complex about this guy?


----------



## NFLeuropefan




----------



## NFLeuropefan




----------



## Bigmac1212

That's Kezar Stadium, former home of the San Francisco 49ers.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

That would be Green Bay, Population 90,000 Attendance 70,000. Years ago, there were more people in the stadium then there were in the town....


----------



## ReddAlert

NFLeuropefan said:


> That would be Green Bay, Population 90,000 Attendance 70,000. Years ago, there were more people in the stadium then there were in the town....


Green Bay is 103,000. close!

And they still pack that sucker to capacity in unbelieveabley cold winter days.


----------



## Gecko1989

*Zagreb Maksimir stadium (do you think they will ever finish it?)*

OK guys in the small country of Croatia there is a stadium. It is called Maksimir and right beside a zoo with the same name (which is very nice by the way). Anyway around 1997 they began to upgrade the stadium. Slowly but surly the constuction slowed to a halt. Now suposadly there is a new praposal which should have the constuction resume at the end of 2006 and finish in 2008. However givin the history of the slow constuction do you think they will ever finish it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maksimir_5.jpg


----------



## Durbsboi

^^True it wont be benifiting anyone!


----------



## Maccabi

WE DID GUYS!!!!WE ARE FIRST AND NOW WE R GONNA SWEEP POOR OLYMPIAKOS.WE R GONNA BEAT THEM TWICE,ONE TIME IN NOKIA ARENA AND ONE IN ATHENS!!!

POOR GUYS...


----------



## Giorgio

No chance in hell.


----------



## Maccabi

Would you like to place a little bet with me?If Maccabi wins in SEF you say publicly Maccabi is 1000 times better than any other team in Europe.If Maccabi loses i say Greek teams are 1000 times better than any other teams in Europe.  

R u scared?


----------



## Giorgio

Why would I be scared? The greek clubs are far better than the Israeli


----------



## Maccabi

Than the rest israeli maybe.Than Maccabi i don't think so.What about the bet?


----------



## Simon-maly

*elStadio KIELCE New stadium*

New stadium instead of old :
NEW Stadium will have capacity 15.550 places
It will grant all norms UEFA&FIFA
cost 40 million
http://tomcio.roxtet.com/korona/galeria/index.php


----------



## Maccabi

*NEXT EUROPEAN TEAM TO BUILD A NEW STADIUM*

_*WHICH TEAM WILL BE?*_


----------



## Vilak

Lyon really wants it. they have the support of about everybody and hold the long term credibility to such a stadium.

I thing the idea of inter and milan leaving san ciro un-understadable.
Dito for barcelona.

I also thin that 73/75000 for valencia is too much.


----------



## EADGBE

I've seen renders for Liverpool, Lazio and Galatasaray:

















*Stanley Park, Liverpool (60,000)*









*New Ali Sami Yen, Istanbul (41,000)*

















*Stadio delle Aquile, Rome (40,000)*

Interestingly, Juvé are not on the list and they're looking to move from the Delle Alpi. Have they started to build yet? Is that why they're no included?
















*Juventus Arena, Turin (40,000)*


----------



## diz

Quintana said:


> Unfortunately that's a metro not a city proper


so duh it would be four cities.. :bash: 

Palo Alto
Berkeley
San Francisco
Oakland


----------



## NFLeuropefan

What the hell is korfball???


----------



## Simon-maly

*Match : KORONA KIELCE - ZAGLEBIE LUBIN ( 1-1 )*


----------



## Quintana

NFLeuropefan said:


> What the hell is korfball???


A ridiculous sport. From Wikipedia :



> *Korfball*
> Korfball (in Dutch korfbal, which literally means basketball) is a team ball game. It is mostly played in the Netherlands and Belgium. Korfball differs from other team sports in that it is _a mixed-gender game_: a team consists of four men and four women.
> 
> 
> *How to play*
> Korfball is played indoors or outdoors on a court divided into two halves called zones. In each zone there is a post (3.5m, shorter for the young) with a basket in the top. This is positioned at two thirds of the distance between the centre line and the back of the zone. The ball is similar to the one used for football. There are two teams, each consisting of eight players: two men and two women of each team in each zone (attack and defense).
> 
> Scoring is done by throwing the ball through the other team's basket. After two goals the teams change zones: the defenders become attackers and attackers defenders. At half-time the teams swap halves of the court.
> 
> 
> *History*
> It has been surmised that _korfball is a descendant of basketball through an intermediate Swedish sport called ringboll_.
> 
> The story goes that at the beginning of the 20th century a Dutch school teacher called Nico Broekhuysen was looking for a game that both the boys and the girls in his class could play. In 1902 he played a game called ringboll whilst in Sweden. Back in the Netherlands he devised the rules for korfball.
> 
> 
> *Philosophy of korfball*
> Korfball is a team sport. Individual class is essential but there is no room for individual play. Belonging to a team means teamwork; running with the ball or dribbling is not allowed. A player who receives the ball while running must stop and pass the ball to another player.
> 
> Korfball is a mixed sport. Men and women play side by side. But while women are equal in the tactics of the game, duels are man to man and woman to woman. One man may guard one man and one woman may guard one woman. So it's not two against one and a woman may not defend a man nor may a man defend a woman.
> 
> Third, korfball is a tactical game. Each party tries to win by scoring more goals using tactical skills of the team as a whole. The rules follow this principle and prevent physical strength from dominating the game. That means that physical contact is undesired. Blocking, tackling and holding your opponent are not allowed in korfball.
> 
> The same goes for kicking the ball or hitting it with your fists. Also, one is not allowed to move the post, which would make it harder to score.
> 
> Another rule that makes this a largely tactical game is that a player may not attempt to score when defended. That occurs when the defender is closer to the basket and is facing his/her opponent, and is at arm's length, and is attempting to block the ball.
> 
> 
> *Reputation*
> Korfball is a popular sport (especially in the Benelux area) and featured in at least 42 countries with a national Korfball committee [1]. Its emphasis on the unisex aspect, its "clean" gameplay, outlawing most physical contact and encouraging players to outsmart rather than outmuscle their opposition, contribute to its popularity.
> 
> Ironically, these aspects also often serve as a foil for much ridicule. Korfball players are often ridiculed - both by cynical female and male basketball players - for playing a "neutered and dumbed down" version of basketball, because physical contact and any other ball action than passing are illegal and even fundamental strategies like double-teaming a player are outlawed. Individual skill is so suppressed by the rules, up to the point that it reeks of egalitarianism.
> 
> However, the popularity of Korfball has remained unbroken, there are many players who play both sports, and its role of being the only true unisex team sport makes Korfball unique in the first place.
> 
> 
> *International korfball*
> Originally, korfball was mostly played in Belgium and the Netherlands. It was a demonstration sport during the Olympic Games of 1920 and 1928 (which were held in Antwerp and Amsterdam).
> 
> The foundation of the International Korfball Federation in 1993 and the existence of tens of national federations seem to imply an international popularity for the game, which has been played in the World Games since 1985.
> 
> World Championships have been held every four years since 1978. Most great tournaments are won by the Netherlands or by Belgium.
> 
> New Zealand recently hosted their first international tournament, The Asia Oceania Games, 2004. They came third of a pool of three. They are improving steadily. Canterbury is the strongest region.
> 
> 
> *World champions*
> * 1978 - The Netherlands
> * 1984 - The Netherlands
> * 1987 - The Netherlands
> * 1991 - Belgium
> * 1995 - The Netherlands
> * 1999 - The Netherlands
> * 2003 - The Netherlands


----------



## willo

*Palacio de los deportes, Madrid*


----------



## willo

*Madrid arena, Madrid*


----------



## kingdomca

Loranga said:


> There are many things that UEFA don't like.


UEFA ought to like that sort of stuff, that could increase the number of quality leagues.
Anyway, there isnt much they can do about it if everyone agrees to this in the 2 countries.
I think it will happen and it will be a good thing and with only 2 countries involved they will both get plenty of teams and not really lose much.

Its only wrong when too many countries create something too artificial like the old atlantic league idea.

I think there will soon be a scandinavian league, an alpine league (swis-aus) and a dutch-belgian.


----------



## De Snor

the level of the belgian football competition is very low and even the dutch do only have one team left that can compete with other major teams in Europe.

What Van Basten think's is old news , totally unnecessairy for both countries


----------



## Noostairz

without wanting to harp on about london, this thread got me thinking...

london's stadiums:

1. wembley (90,000) - u/c.
2. twickenham (82,000) - u/c.
3. olympic stadium (80,000, to be reduced to 25,000 after the games) - planned.
3. emirates (60,000) - u/c.
4. stamford bridge (42,449) - rumours of redevelopment up to 50,000.
5. white hart lane (36,214) - on-off rumours of redevelopment/relocation.
6. upton park (35,647) - redevelopment up to 40,500 currently on ice pending financial backing.
7. lords (28,000)
8. the valley (27,111) - plans to redevelop up to 40,000.
9. selhurst park (26,309) - palace could relocate after plans to redevelop faced local opposition.
10. the oval (23,500)
11. the o2 (23,000) - u/c.
12. craven cottage (22,480) - continued speculation regarding redevelopment/relocation.
13. new den (20,146) 
14. loftus road (18,500) - luton are considering moving to a new 15,000 capacity stadium.
15. wimbledon centre court (13,812)
16. wimbledon court one (11,429)

------------------------------

have i missed anything? do the madejski stadium or vicarge road count? both have redevelopment plans.


----------



## th0m

^^ What he said.


----------



## kingdomca

De Snor said:


> the level of the belgian football competition is very low and even the dutch do only have one team left that can compete with other major teams in Europe.
> 
> What Van Basten think's is old news , totally unnecessairy for both countries


erh.. well isnt that exactly the reason he wants that league???


----------



## bosanceros

I think its a great idea, because neither ducth or belgian clubs can keep up with even the subtop from spain (betis wins from az), england etc. also from financial perpective a quality league where we would have every week a top match could be attractive for sponsors and other financial factors like media, tv, merchandising. I really hope this idea gets reality.. otherwise we will have to do with incidental minor successes every 5 years.


----------



## Starscraper

edennewstairs said:


> without wanting to harp on about london, this thread got me thinking...
> 
> london's stadiums:
> 
> 1. wembley (90,000) - u/c.
> 2. twickenham (82,000) - u/c.
> 3. olympic stadium (80,000, to be reduced to 25,000 after the games) - planned.
> 3. emirates (60,000) - u/c.
> 4. stamford bridge (42,449) - rumours of redevelopment up to 50,000.
> 5. white hart lane (36,214) - on-off rumours of redevelopment/relocation.
> 6. upton park (35,647) - redevelopment up to 40,500 currently on ice pending financial backing.
> 7. lords (28,000)
> 8. the valley (27,111) - plans to redevelop up to 40,000.
> 9. selhurst park (26,309) - palace could relocate after plans to redevelop faced local opposition.
> 10. the oval (23,500)
> 11. the o2 (23,000) - u/c.
> 12. craven cottage (22,480) - continued speculation regarding redevelopment/relocation.
> 13. new den (20,146)
> 14. loftus road (18,500) - luton are considering moving to a new 15,000 capacity stadium.
> 15. wimbledon centre court (13,812)
> 16. wimbledon court one (11,429)
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> have i missed anything? do the madejski stadium or vicarge road count? both have redevelopment plans.


Loftus road is home of QPR, not Luton. Also Brentford may move but I don't know how big their new ground would be.


----------



## asdfg

Glasgow does pretty well with three large stadiums for its size:

Celtic Park 61000
Hampden 52000
Ibrox 51000

How many cities have three 50000+ stadia?


----------



## Carter

I don't agree, AZ won from Villareal last year. Villareal is now a champions league quarter finalist. Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV are European topclubs. Feyenoord won the Uefa Cup four years ago. AZ was a Semi finalist in the Uefa cup last year and PSV was a semi finalist in the champions league. 
I see no reason to create a new belgian/dutch league.


----------



## Noostairz

Starscraper said:


> Loftus road is home of QPR, not Luton. Also Brentford may move but I don't know how big their new ground would be.


flippin' heck, how the hell did i get that mixed up! note to self: kenilworth rd. = luton, loftus rd = qpr. :bash:


----------



## Lostboy

_Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV are European topclubs. _ 

I think thats an exaggeration if ever there was one. Ajax in years gone by was a top European Club, it is clearly no longer.

However I'm not sure given the poor showings of the Belgian League, that this would make a huge difference either.


----------



## pompeyfan

Iain1974 said:


> Glazer want's the Bucaneers to play at OT once a season as well.




I bet


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Oh wow, that IS stupid......... I can't believe people actually watch that crap.....


----------



## Edson-CMA

Mexico City?

Buenos Aires I dont think so.
No one in Brazil have 3 large stadiums on the same city.

Our big stadiums are all over the country...

maracana 90.000 in rio de janeiro
morumbi 75.000 in sao paulo
mineirao 75.000 in belo horizonte
...


----------



## Zorba

40Acres said:


> When Jerryworld is built for the Dallas Cowboys, the city will have three:
> 
> Cowboys Stadium 100,000
> Cotton Bowl 68,252
> Texas Stadium 65,846
> 
> 
> Of note: The Cowboys will have called all three 'home' at one point in their history.


Are they actually going to call it "Jerry world"?

Plus, Texas Stadium is not even in Dallas, its in Irving.


----------



## Calvin W

First off. What constitutes the city of London? Isn't it really just the core area, covering a few square miles at best? How many stadiums are anywhere near the city limits.
As for Metro areas numerous places have been mentioned, and I will add one more. Detroit has at least three. Ford Field 65'000, Pontiac Silverdome 80'000, and Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor 100'000+.


----------



## rantanamo

metro is the best measure. City Limits is not fair at all. You have places like Houston that are nearly the size of Dallas County vs a place like Boston which is tiny in comparison.


----------



## 40Acres

Zorba said:


> Are they actually going to call it "Jerry world"?
> 
> Plus, Texas Stadium is not even in Dallas, its in Irving.


gimme a break. It's Dallas metro. Jerryworld is gonna be in Arlington, but Dallas is Dallas ... and Irving is DEFINATELY Dallas. By your standard, half of the major American cities don't have NFL franchises, including Washington D.C., Boston, New York City, Phoenix, etc etc


----------



## Brent H.

Many US cities come close to this feat, with 3 50,000 seaters or 2 60,000 seat stadiums, but none with 3 60,000 seat stadiums that have a regular team or major event.

Los Angeles used to have it, the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum both hold 90,000+, and the current Angels Stadium was also home to the former LA Rams, it used to hold over 60,000 but has since been reduced in capacity now that it is baseball only. 

Also Atlanta in 1996 had 80,000 at olympic stadium, 60,000 at Fulton County Stadium, and 75,000 at the Georgia Dome (also Ga. Tech's 55,000 seat Bobby Dodd Stadium). Since then, Fulton County Stadium has been demolished and Olympic Stadium became Turner field and only has 50,000.


----------



## waccamatt

Threehundred said:


> Los Angeles only has 2 60,000 seat stadiums (Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum..both of which can seat over 90,000 people.)


How many seats are in Dodgers Stadium and Anaheim Stadium?


----------



## MoreOrLess

Carter said:


> I don't agree, AZ won from Villareal last year. Villareal is now a champions league quarter finalist. Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV are European topclubs. Feyenoord won the Uefa Cup four years ago. AZ was a Semi finalist in the Uefa cup last year and PSV was a semi finalist in the champions league.
> I see no reason to create a new belgian/dutch league.


Dutch clubs have been reasonabley sucessful but their obviously finaically intherior to larger clubs which means any sucessful team will quickly have their best players cherrypicked.


----------



## Brent H.

Loranga said:


> Has anyone got any pictures of Fedex Field in soccer configuration? I have been browsing for it but haven't found anything good. M&T Bank stadium and Bank of America stadium would also be nice to see in soccer configuration.


Heres some galaries from a Tecos vs. Atlas match at Bank of America Stadium. This is from July, 2005. Seems like a cool event, never knew they had held some professional matches at BofA Stadium. Ive been to many American Football games there, but never seen soccer.
http://www.ibiblio.org/footy/2005f/0717_atl_uag_ycj.php?page=1
http://www.ibiblio.org/footy/2005f/0717_atl_uag_ycj.php?page=2

http://www.charlotteeaglesfan.com/multimedia/photos/july/071705bonus/index.html



> Glazer want's the Bucaneers to play at OT once a season as well.


Great, Man United fans already hate him, but taking away a home game from Raymond James Stadium would be a perfect way to piss off Bucs fans as well, I dont think United fans want to see the bucs anymore than bucs fans want to see manchester united. Id laugh if it happened though, I cant stand the Buccaneers.


----------



## Brent H.

waccamatt said:


> How many seats are in Dodgers Stadium and Anaheim Stadium?


56,000 for Dodgers Stadium, and 45,000 at Angels Stadium. Before renovations, Anaheim Stadium held 60,000, but they also hosted the LA Rams NFL team at the time.


----------



## hngcm

^^Tecos and Atlas.....two teams that aren't really popular, wonder why they choose them to play. Now an America vs Chivas game would sell out BofA....


----------



## Brent H.

hngcm said:


> ^^Tecos and Atlas.....two teams that aren't really popular, wonder why they choose them to play. Now an America vs Chivas game would sell out BofA....


Maybe its revenge for sending the 49ers and Cardinals to play in Mexico City. :laugh:


----------



## vivayo

Mexico city has

Estadio Azteca 114,500
Olympic Stadium 70,000
Foro Sol, ( Baseball configuration 30,000.... Concerts ( main use) 60,000
Plaza Mexico ( monumental Bull Ring) 45,000
Estadio Azul 40,000
Palacio de los Deportes ( indoor arena) 25,000
Auditorio Nacional (10,000)
Hipodromo de las Americas, not sure, but is big
Plaza 4 Caminos 15,000
Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez,,, ( car racing) maybe doesnt count, but is 100,000 plus


----------



## nikolaidis

Let's keep both competitions separated. The Dutch League isn't that bad, while I still enjoy the Belgian League every weekend. If we can't compete anymore with the European top at the moment...well, than that's our destiny. Who knows what the future brings. 

But why don't they create a Cup of the Low Countries or something, which replaces the domestic cupcompetitions of both countries ? That'd be nice, while both Leagues can preserve their own charming character.


----------



## Quintana

I don't like to see a merger either. Belgian teams are commercially far behind the Dutch ones and there venues are even light years behind (no offense).

Besides this, it wouldn't be a fair competition because of different legislation. For instance, Belgian teams can play with eleven guys from Ivory Coast and pay them minimum wage. In The Netherlands players from outside the EU have to earn at least a few hundred thousands euro's.


----------



## kingdomca

There are alternatives to a straight merger. It wouldnt be great if there were no longer a dutch championship. Many formats could be considered.

The dutch league could for instance be reduced to 10 teams playing just 18 games for the championship. 
In such a league the weak half of teams are gone and the best play the best in a short intense league. crowds would surely go up.

The winner qualifies for the CL and the top 4 join the belgian top 4 for an 8 team 14 game play-off league for a benelux championship and where the rest of the european places are at stake including a further CL spot probably

The 6 dutch teams that dont make the play-off play eachoter twice more to avoid relegation.

Something like that could work well and it would mean a much higher standard of play for the top teams in both countries


----------



## th0m

I think that Dutch fans would rather play other Dutch teams they share a history with, than a Belgian team they care nothing about. I am pretty sure the Belgians feel the same way about the Dutch. It would be nice to have the no.1 of NL play against the no.1 of Belgium, but other then that, I don't really see it happening. But I won't really care either way, not really a huge soccerfan.

I also think a lot of teams would be upset if we went from 18 to 10 teams in the highest division. This would seriously CRIPPLE the soccer-business. I don't see how this will help anybody. Revenue will be lost, no chance for a smaller team to knock of a 'big' team, rivalries get seperated. 

That, plus the fact that the top 4 of NL is better than the top 4 of Belgium (no offense, but I think the Belgians can agree on this).


----------



## Maccabi

Neither do i.I think best arena in Europe in terms of atmosphere is Olympic Stadium in Athens.It is like a Roman Arena!!!

In terms of facilities Evening News arena and Sazka win.

And in terms of Maccabi (Lol) Nokia arena is the best!


----------



## Maccabi

*JOINT-LEAGUES IN EUROPEAN FOOTBALL (ex.Belgian-Dutch,Scandinavian,Alpine and so on)*

*THIS IS THE THEAD TO DISCUSS ABOUT ALL SHORTS OF JOINT LEAGUES.*


----------



## Lostboy

London does have an unusual amount of large stadia. However in regard to the 60K + Stadia it should be remembered London is aided by the "national stadium culture" we have in Britain (Scotland and Wales also have it) most countries would just rotate their stadia for use in international matches, we've got a culture of having it fixed however. The two largest stadia Wembley and Twickenham, are not used by any domestic team, and are only used for England Matches (or Finals in FA Cup's etc), only the smallest is actually as a team stadium.


----------



## Lostboy

_First off. What constitutes the city of London? Isn't it really just the core area, covering a few square miles at best? _ 

The name City of London, applies only to the Central Business District, and was where the original Roman City was located, its also known as the Square Mile.


----------



## dennol

I agree with you about Dutch teams lacking the (financial) resources and the Dutch league being weaker than it’s English, German, Spanish and Italian counterparts.

I also agree that Dutch clubs are not European top (anymore). I was just wondering which teams are?

Chelsea for example are a top team at this moment but don’t have the history. They have the resources to consistently compete at top level but only have been doing so for the last couple of years. The same could be said for Lyon and maybe even Arsenal.

A different example is Bayern Munchen. One of the best European teams in history but not very successful (or just unlucky) in the last four years (ofcourse they won the CL in 2001).

As a result both new-comer Chelsea and Bayern Munchen are actually ranked below clubs like PSV and Porto (UEFA-rankings are based on the last five years)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/trank2006.html


The results and rankings show that Dutch and Portuguese teams can still compete in the Champions League and UEFA Cup.


----------



## rantanamo

I have a ton of pics whenever Imageshack decides to work again


----------



## kingdomca

Celtic and Rangers are not going to join the premiership. They are simply not welcome and thats why its not going to happen.

I dont know about the dutch-belgian thing but I cannot imagine the scandinavian league, later nordic league, not becoming reality in the near future.

The top clubs have suggested it and it has won the backing of the leagues in general and the scandinavian FA´s have basically said they think its up to the clubs and would like to see proposals.
I support it, though I still do hope the overall format will include national championships.

It will be a strong league. The population base will be 30 million+ including some of the wealthiest nations on earth.
There are clubs with great potential like AIK Solna. Playing in Rasunda in Stockholm they got a 24,000 opening day crowd this weekend in poor conditions in an ageing stadium for a very average team. 
With crowds on a long term upward trend it would seem likely they could fill their new 50,000 capacity venue if they perform on the pitch.


----------



## Fern

Aka said:


> Pavilhão Atlântico
> Lisboa, Portugal
> 
> Hosted the ATP Masters Cup 2000, the Youth Basketball World Championship in 1999, one group of the UEFA Futsal Cup, the UEFA Euro 2004 final stage draw, the MTV Europe Music Awards 2005, the majority of the biggest concerts in the country, etc.


Plus the Handball European Champs and more!! 
@Maccabi- it is a top notch arena with very modern and functional facilities and top quality materials and finishing.. and it can hold up to 20.000 spectators!!


----------



## Lostboy

_Chelsea for example are a top team at this moment but don’t have the history. They have the resources to consistently compete at top level but only have been doing so for the last couple of years. The same could be said for Lyon and maybe even Arsenal._

Absolutely. Historically a team like Ajax, Feyenord or PSV are far bigger than Lyon and Chelsea - who have traditionally been amongst the also-rans of English Football. (Arsenal are somewhat different, they are amongst the very best of English Teams, only Man U and Liverpool have comparable domestic records, and they have been in the top English League for over eighty years, they have always underperformed in Europe though). Ajax historically are one of the great clubs, dominating the early eventies. But unfortunately, money is causing things to change. The Dutch League is no longer powerful, Ajax are not a small club but they are not one of the leading ones. Nottingham Forest have a record in the European Cup equal to or better than all but five teams. Its far from being a top club now. 

_The results and rankings show that Dutch and Portuguese teams can still compete in the Champions League and UEFA Cup._

Sure -- you definately punch above your weight, but the problem is you used to weigh a lot more. Ajax used to be giants, huge team well known across the footballing world, respected and feared. There by no means minnows but they're not 

Also I wouldn't read too much in the UEFA Cup, a time was, when it was a very prestigous competition, because it would include the second and third placed teams from places like Italy, Spain, Germany, England, France, Netherlands and Portugal. It doesn't often its the fifth placed team in some of these leagues which is the highest representative of any of the teams. It counts for relatively little - perhaps even less than the Old Cup Winners Cup.


----------



## kingdomca

BobDaBuilder said:


> Its been done, 700 years ago. It was called the Hanseatic League.
> 
> A Scandinavian league with Vilniaus, Riga, Kaunas, Talinn, Helsinki, Stockholm, Oslo, Warsaw etc.. would be great. The current system sucks and is uninteresting.


forget about warsaw but otherwise thats the way its headed.

I think it will start as being a 3-nation league of Denmark,sweden and Norway but will later expand to 7 with Finland and the 3 baltic states. Its not going to grow bigger than that.


----------



## Jonesy55

kingdomca said:


> forget about warsaw but otherwise thats the way its headed.
> 
> I think it will start as being a 3-nation league of Denmark,sweden and Norway but will later expand to 7 with Finland and the 3 baltic states. Its not going to grow bigger than that.


No room for Iceland?


----------



## matherto

Maccabi said:


> *THIS IS THE THEAD TO DISCUSS ABOUT ALL SHORTS OF JOINT LEAGUES.*


STOP POSTING IN GIANT CAPITAL LETTERS


----------



## Maccabi

It is the topic you know.It must be easily readable.


----------



## dennol

I think the English, Spanish and Italian leagues and their top clubs have always been bigger and richer than the Dutch ones. 30 years ago the best Dutch players would allready move to Spain or Italy: Cruijff played for Barcelona in the 70's. Van Basten, Gullit and Rijkaard were bought by Milan in the 80's...

What has changed is that the European Cup/Champions League went from national champions only to a 32-team competition with up to 4 teams from big countries allowed, making it harder for small teams to win it.

What also has changed is that there is no limit to the number of players from EU-countries anymore. So now the rich European clubs can buy as many Dutch, French, Scandinavian etc. players as they can afford. While in the past not the money (they were allready richer back then) but UEFA-rules prevented them from doing so.


----------



## Mr D

De Snor said:


> Face it belgian football is dead, no ressurection possible.


It's this kind of negative attitude that prevents any ressurection! I'm profoundly in love with footbal and I wont have people saying fatalist things about something they don't really care about anyway. (cos thats what I can conclude, isn't it?)
Conservatism keeps everything from reaching higher potentials, and in the end the Dutch league is going to fail as well. It's a simple matter of the survival of the fittest. In football that means financially fittest, but even topclubs like PSV will drown if their competitors lack the strength. 
If a good player chooses a club, he chooses on the basis of his salary and on the basis of the strength of the leaugue as well! 
I'm convinced a joined Beneliga would be healthier both financially as well as sportively...


----------



## Carter

In the Netherlands stadiums are sold out on a weekly bases so we don't need bigger crowds. Also, the Dutch league is competitive enough. In the last six years the top of the league has changed drastically. AZ has a top team, Heerenveen is doing well, Utrecht is a competator, etc. We absolutely do not need the belgian league. Without a doubt. It is as improbable as merging the german league with the Austrian league.


----------



## Carter

@Maccabi, you are an idiot. You really are...oh...and you have to learn English...


----------



## oskarj

Merging the three scandinavian leagues is a good idea, but leave finland out of it, they cant play football and Finland is to far away from the rest of the scandinavian countries. the same goes for iceland, to be honest i dont know one single football club in Finland or Iceland but i do know of all first division teams in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The reason why a merger never will happen is that the smaller teams in scandinavia never would qualify to the first division and therefore they will stop any potential plans for a merger (they simple dont want to lose money), but financialy its a very interesting idea for the bigger teams and it wouldnt be to hard with practical issues on football field (the scandinavian languages is very simular so referees from one of the three countries would be able to speak their language/dialect) and foreign players from the other two countries would understand what he says. im not very possitive merging scandinavian teams with benelux theres no real connection cultuarly with scandinavia and benelux.


----------



## Fern

Portuguese Superliga and Spanish La Liga- 14 CLs altogether and many more Uefa cups and cuo winners cups!!


----------



## kingdomca

Jonesy55 said:


> No room for Iceland?


well youre right, Iceland would be the only possible addition.
If the format was right then there is an outside chance of a Reykjavik team

It would have to be a complete merger, though, for that to happen, as Iceland could never get more than one team involved and that team would struggle to make it in a top league as Iceland isnt exactly a big place.


----------



## vivayo

Jonesy55 said:


> I know that Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro both have lots of footbal teams. Not sure about Mecico City but i'd imagine they do too.



Mexico City has 4 first division teams, ut 3 of them are mayor ones,,,

America tied with Guadalajara as mexico´s most popular team plays in Estadio Azteca 114,500

Cruz Azul very well suported team in the capital and certain parts of the 
coutry At Estadio Azul 40,000

Pumas team from the national university, maybe not a huge fanbase, but big enough to have really good attendances as well. also has a big support as an away team, this fans are very loyal Estadio Olimpico 70,000


----------



## kingdomca

oskarj said:


> Merging the three scandinavian leagues is a good idea, but leave finland out of it, they cant play football and Finland is to far away from the rest of the scandinavian countries. the same goes for iceland, to be honest i dont know one single football club in Finland or Iceland but i do know of all first division teams in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The reason why a merger never will happen is that the smaller teams in scandinavia never would qualify to the first division and therefore they will stop any potential plans for a merger (they simple dont want to lose money), but financialy its a very interesting idea for the bigger teams and it wouldnt be to hard with practical issues on football field (the scandinavian languages is very simular so referees from one of the three countries would be able to speak their language/dialect) and foreign players from the other two countries would understand what he says. im not very possitive merging scandinavian teams with benelux theres no real connection cultuarly with scandinavia and benelux.


The smaller teams are very unlikely to stop it. The 3 leagues, representing all clubs, have welcomed the idea in principal. 
It will only be stopped if there cant be an agreement on the specific format

Its not being rushed, though, as all leagues are going very well and there is no need to force the issue. Even those pushing it are mainly looking for the debate for now. Its not happening tomorrow.

The current suggestion is a 12-team league with 4 teams each from Denmark,norway and sweden and a similar second division.

Youre right, Finland are poor and will not be included, but in the longer run Finland will notice this league and want to get in on it.
The league wouldnt be very old before investors would want a new Helsinki stadium and a team in this league. The same goes for the baltic states. 
Its natural that they get involved when good enough.

It isnt just about finances, though, but about a higher standard of play. The problem with smaller nations is the weak strength in depth.
Top scandinavian teams have beaten anyone on the day, but need better opposition on a regular basis


----------



## hngcm

I think it would be a very good idea.

Just the other day I was thinking how Central America can benefit by joining their leagues together. Usually, it's just two clubs competing for the title year after year while all the other clubs are far behind.


----------



## pompeyfan

NIZCO said:


> Melbourne- The MCG 100,000 capicity and Waverley park was 72,000 (unfortunately has been knocked down and keep grand stadium only 8000 capicty) And Telstra Dome 56,347 capicity


Flemington has 140000 capacity
Albert Park has 100000 capacity


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

Rexfan2 said:


> Flemington has 140000 capacity
> Albert Park has 100000 capacity



don't think we are counting racecources/grand prix circuits


----------



## Durbsboi

Mo Rush said:


> i think durban(south africa) might be close....
> a new 70,000 seater, existing 60,000 rugby stadium..uh..oh just two


Yeh Durban just needs to build another stadium for...Mmm we got one for Soccer, we got one for rugby........I think we need to build an indoor arena for cricket, because everyone knows it always rain at an ODI in durban.

well *IF* your'll are counting race circuits, then Durbs has three, the Durban street track for the A1 series, 110 000!



Mo Rush said:


> Johannesburg
> 
> 95,000 soccer city
> ellis park 60,000 or more
> joburg stadium 40,000ish


Wanderes could be extended too. that stadium is big for nothing, its huge! but the capacity is pittyful


----------



## Mo Rush

Durbsboi said:


> Yeh Durban just needs to build another stadium for...Mmm we got one for Soccer, we got one for rugby........I think we need to build an indoor arena for cricket, because everyone knows it always rain at an ODI in durban.
> 
> well *IF* your'll are counting race circuits, then Durbs has three, the Durban street track for the A1 series, 110 000!
> 
> 
> 
> Wanderes could be extended too. that stadium is big for nothing, its huge! but the capacity is pittyful


WEll..basically any city could have a 110,00 circuit if its a street race most of the seating was temporary or not?....its not really a permanent capacity...please clarify?


----------



## Maccabi

Carter said:


> @Maccabi, you are an idiot. You really are...oh...and you have to learn English...


Wisedom is something people who insult others have never heard of...


----------



## Durbsboi

Mo Rush said:


> WEll..basically any city could have a 110,00 circuit if its a street race most of the seating was temporary or not?....its not really a permanent capacity...please clarify?


WEll the guys who errected rofl the stands to so long to take them down, they are practically permenant! some stands are still being dismanteled! as for the barriers they all piled up at the swimming pool


----------



## Paulo2004

Lisbon has two.


----------



## Quintana

Paulo2004 said:


> Lisbon does.


Lisbon has just one stadium over 60.000 (Da Luz) :sleepy:


----------



## Paulo2004

Quintana said:


> Lisbon has just one stadium over 60.000 (Da Luz) :sleepy:


F.C. Sporting stadium: 

Sitting places - 51.000

Extra seats can be added - 60.250


----------



## Isaac Newell

Kolkata has two 100,000 capacity ones.


----------



## Isaac Newell

vivayo said:


> Mexico City has 4 first division teams, ut 3 of them are mayor ones,,,
> 
> America tied with Guadalajara as mexico´s most popular team plays in Estadio Azteca 114,500
> 
> Cruz Azul very well suported team in the capital and certain parts of the
> coutry At Estadio Azul 40,000
> 
> Pumas team from the national university, maybe not a huge fanbase, but big enough to have really good attendances as well. also has a big support as an away team, this fans are very loyal Estadio Olimpico 70,000


What about Toros Nezahualcoyotl.


----------



## Neda Say

Personnaly I like the idea. It's not a bad idea at all to have smaller leagues to merge in a still small but stronger league, Switzerland and Austria are going to do it. The former yugoslavian coutries do have it in basketballand Scandinavian countries think about it. Scotland, Wales and Ireland have it in rugby.


It makes sense from a geographical and economical point of view however in terms of nationalism, well it's another matter...


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

i like the ideia. i would also like an Iberian league joining (Pt&ES)... the things is small league generates little money.. then less results.. less "big names" to hire.. etc

a team like Vilarreal in La Liga for instance gets more money than Benfica just for TV rights. And Benfica is far better, has much more history, about 10 milion fans around the world and former european footbal power ( hope we can be again soon).
the result is being a portugal team can´t make a world power, u just gotta be in a better league


----------



## reluminate

The 3 biggest stadiums in New York are:
1. Giants Stadium - 80,000
2. Yankee Stadium - 57,000
3. Shea Stadium - 55,000


----------



## Welly

asohn said:


> The 3 biggest stadiums in New York are:
> 1. Giants Stadium - 80,000
> 2. Yankee Stadium - 57,000
> 3. Shea Stadium - 55,000


Giants Stadium is not in New York.


----------



## rantanamo

^Read the entire thread.


----------



## Welly

rantanamo said:


> ^Read the entire thread.


No.


----------



## BaylorGuy314

Houston, Texas:

Reliant Stadium (71,054):










Rice Stadium (70,000):

















Astrodome (62,439):











All of these are in the city proper and within 8-9km of each other.


----------



## egm_ar

Buenos Aires, Argentina, almost does:

River Plate "Monumental": 66,000
Boca Juniors "La Bombonera": 57,000
Independiente "Libertadores": 57,000

Also it has 1 stadium right over 50,000, 5 over 40,000, 7 over 30,000 and 6 over 20,000.

All of these for football soccer only.


----------



## Newcastle Guy

pricemazda said:


> Charlie forgot to add the new Olympic Stadium when its built as well.


Indeed, an 80,000 stadium with a great design! (Though the capacity is going dropped after the olympics they could probably increase it again if need be)


----------



## 40Acres

BaylorGuy314 said:


> Houston, Texas:
> 
> Reliant Stadium (71,054):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rice Stadium (70,000):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrodome (62,439):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of these are in the city proper and within 8-9km of each other.


whats the capacity of minute maid ... and what's its largest attendance ever? I have think it was either opening day of MMP (then, Enron) or World Series game 3 last year.


----------



## Isaac Newell

egm_ar said:


> Buenos Aires, Argentina, almost does:
> 
> River Plate "Monumental": 66,000
> Boca Juniors "La Bombonera": 57,000
> Independiente "Libertadores": 57,000
> 
> Also it has 1 stadium right over 50,000, 5 over 40,000, 7 over 30,000 and 6 over 20,000.
> 
> All of these for football soccer only.


Independiente is in Avallaneda, not Buenos Aires.


----------



## hngcm

^ spain doesn't need Porguese teams....


And I agree that it would be better to have a joint cup between the two.


----------



## Carter

I am not insulting you, I am stating a fact. And what the frack is wisedom? 
You annoy people with useless threads about Maccabi, you use large annoying fonts and your signature is annoying. I see no wisdom, I see an idiot, an annoying one as well.


----------



## Martuh

Of course, Netherlands doesn't need Belgium, but this is a way to stand up against the big leagues and create on of our own. 

Yep, NL and BE used to be one country but this only lasted for 15 years because of failure in equal rights (BE had a bigger population but NL was more powerful in politics). When you make this one fair, we can have a really great league and finally stand up and fight against the big leagues.


----------



## Muyangguniang

Belgie heeft nooit meer inwoners gehad dan NL ,hoe kom je erbij???
of begrijp ik de text verkeerd


----------



## Quintana

Muyangguniang said:


> Belgie heeft nooit meer inwoners gehad dan NL ,hoe kom je erbij???
> of begrijp ik de text verkeerd


Belgium had in fact more inhabitants than The Netherlands in the early 19th century (3.5 million and 2 million respectively). The population of The Netherlands however grew much faster and eventually surpassed Belgium population wise.


----------



## Captain Flaps

*How many cities have 3 or more 50000+ soccer stadiums*

By soccer stadium, I mean one that is more than 50% of the time used to host soccer games, so Twickenham cannot be counted as it has never hosted a soccer game.

Glasgow has three, two of which are UEFA 5 star stadiums -

Celtic Park - 60832
Hampden - 52103, UEFA 5 star
Ibrox - 51600 in July (presently 50549), UEFA 5 star


any other cities?


----------



## Mac

Captain Flaps said:


> By soccer stadium, I mean one that is more than 50% of the time used to host soccer games, so Twickenham cannot be counted as it has never hosted a soccer game.
> 
> Glasgow has three, two of which are UEFA 5 star stadiums -
> 
> Celtic Park - 60832
> Hampden - 52103, UEFA 5 star
> Ibrox - 51600 in July (presently 50549), UEFA 5 star
> 
> 
> any other cities?


**** off BuBomb, you ****, your not wanted here.


----------



## Maccabi

OK it's good.  but i had never heard of it before.


----------



## Captain Flaps

Who is "Bubomb"???

and it's you're or you are, not 'your'


----------



## Maccabi

Rasunda is pure history.The new one is just fantastic.


----------



## Maccabi

There are rumors in Israel that Maccabi administration is considering building a new Arena despite the fact that NOKIA Arena is widely modernised.I have heard they are planning to build it by 2012.


----------



## Captain Flaps

*Bloomfield Stadium (16000) - Tel Aviv*

Home of Maccabi Tel Aviv


----------



## Maccabi

Hey man!Nic pics.I m gonna post some more.

PS.Hey i wanted to open this new thread!!!


----------



## Mac

Captain Flaps said:


> Who is "Bubomb"???
> 
> and it's you're or you are, not 'your'












**** off BuBomb


----------



## Quintana

Looks like it is in desperate need for some renovations


----------



## Durbsboi

^^:rofl: Captain Flaps you really bubomb? I tought you just another insane scotsman.
well all scotts are insane, thats cool. But dont they have a thread simialr to this else where like how many 60 000 stadiums in you city or sumthing like that?


----------



## Maccabi

*CRAZIEST AND MOST EXTREME STADIUM PROPOSAL YOU HAVE EVER SEEN*

Which is the most unbelivablae stadium proposal u have ever seen?Does it look like it is from another Planet?Please share it with us...


----------



## www.sercan.de

stadium for 1.5 bil people

http://www.t-systems.de/de/TopStory/property=blobContent/id=154200/2006-02-15-stadion-pdf-ps.pdf


----------



## www.sercan.de

New Riazor vor Depor
Architect: Peter Eisenmann






























--------------
Max Dudler
1. FC Köln


----------



## North_Beach

Not when 4 out of the 5 are crumbling utter crap stadiums! 

Brazil also had lots of big stadiums, but they are all garbage!

In fact, technically Glasgow has 4 over 50000 if you include Shawfield, which although falling apart, is probably just as safe as most stadiums in Buenos Aires!!


----------



## Calvin W

Sorry guys obviously I'm just a simple Canadian who doesn't understand the huge deal about football or soccer!


----------



## Sir Rene

MEXICO CITY SOCCER STADIUMS 40 000+

AZTEC STADIUM 114 465

THE ONLY STADIUM IN THE WHOLE WORLD HOST OF TWO WORLD SOCCER CUP CHAMPIONSHIPS.










OLYMPIC STADIUM (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO) 72 449










BLUE STADIUM 40 000










NEZA 86 STADIUM 40 000


----------



## North_Beach

Calvin W said:


> Sorry guys obviously I'm just a simple Canadian who doesn't understand the huge deal about football or soccer!


Canadians are great. I'm going to live in London (Ontario) within 2 years!


----------



## North_Beach

Sir Rene said:


> MEXICO CITY SOCCER STADIUMS 40 000+
> 
> AZTEC STADIUM 114 465
> 
> THE ONLY STADIUM IN THE WHOLE WORLD HOST OF TWO WORLD SOCCER CUP CHAMPIONSHIPS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OLYMPIC STADIUM (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO) 72 449
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BLUE STADIUM 40 000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEZA 86 STADIUM 40 000



Capacities are all wrong. Here are the real ones -

Azteca is 105064
Olympic is 63186 (not a football stadium, built for Olympics)
Blue is 35907
Neza is 28500 (not even in Mexico City proper!)

Mexico city only has one football stadium over 40000!! Would the Latin folk please stop exaggerating their stadium capacities as you will not get away with it!!

http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/MEX.html


----------



## 40Acres

Captain Flaps said:


> Those capacities all seem a bit "rounded up" for my liking!! I want EXACT capacities.....or it's your ass!


They're either rounded up or down, whichever was closer. I didnt feel like typing 234556, just zeros.

Besides, if you look up those stadiums highest attendences, i guarantee they are all a thousand or so higher than official capacity.

For example, 80,082 seat DKR stadium in Austin, Texas has personal attendance record vs these universities:

1. 84,082 Nebraska 1999
2. 84,012 Texas A&M 2000
3. 83,891 Texas A&M 2004
4. 83,882 Texas Tech 1999
5. 83,711 Texas A&M 2002
6. 83,687 Texas A&M 1998
7. 83,643 Kansas State 2003
8. 83,596 Texas Tech 2003
9. 83,312 Notre Dame 1996
10. 83,308 Nebraska 2003


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The warmest I ever experienced was a cricket match in Melbourne when it was 44oC.


----------



## EADGBE

I remember standing in a bus queue after watching Sunderland at the old Roker Park one February afternoon. The temperature was nothing spectacular, maybe 2 degrees C, but what made it unbearable was the chill of a ferocious wind coming straight off the North Sea. After 5 minutes of standing in it, you couldn't stop shivering. I'd stood in the Fulwell end for the match itself, so we were all insulated from the weather by the crowd.


----------



## Sir Rene

North_Beach said:


> Capacities are all wrong. Here are the real ones -
> 
> Azteca is 105064
> Olympic is 63186 (not a football stadium, built for Olympics)
> Blue is 35907
> Neza is 28500 (not even in Mexico City proper!)
> 
> Mexico city only has one football stadium over 40000!! Would the Latin folk please stop exaggerating their stadium capacities as you will not get away with it!!
> 
> http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/MEX.html



www.worldstadiums.com 

I trust more in a page called worldstadiums than one called fussballtempel or whatever its name is.


----------



## North_Beach

Sir Rene said:


> www.worldstadiums.com
> 
> I trust more in a page called worldstadiums than one called fussballtempel or whatever its name is.


Worldstadiums.com is utter bollocks. They can't even get the capacity of one of the most famous stadiums in the world right (Azteca hasn't been 115000 for about 10 years)

http://www.mexicanstadiums.com/popular-stadiums.html

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/index.php?template=stadionlisten&land=Mexico

As for the two 40000 stadiums??? Again, one is clearly nowhere near 40000 just by looking at it, and again, both capacities are exactly 40000??? Nearly every stadium on that site is an exact rounded number, and real stadiums are rarely exact rounded numbers. Worldstadiums is badly wrong!! 


Look how badly wrong they have got the 2006 World Cup capacities -

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/tournaments/worldcup2006.shtml


----------



## downtownVital.org

I've been to several NFL games at Lambeau Field that were in the -20 to -30 C range. Probably the coldest though was a late December or early January playoff game that was around 1 or 2 but pouring rain. Very cold.


----------



## CharlieP

Calvin W said:


> But he is WRONG! They are FOOTBALL stadiums not SOCCER stadiums!


No, he's correct, they're both. Captain Flappy presumably specified soccer stadia in the thread he started to exclude stadia like Twickenham which host a different kind of football...


----------



## eddyk

CharlieP said:


> No, he's correct, they're both. Captain Flappy presumably specified soccer stadia in the thread he started to exclude stadia like Twickenham which host a different kind of football...


Damn straight he did.


----------



## tonytowers

So is there any advancement on Glasgow and London? Is it agreed Mexico city also counts? I'm suprised theres no examples in Europe.


----------



## Isaac Newell

North_Beach said:


> Capacities are all wrong. Here are the real ones -
> 
> Azteca is 105064
> Olympic is 63186 (not a football stadium, built for Olympics)
> Blue is 35907
> Neza is 28500 (not even in Mexico City proper!)
> 
> Mexico city only has one football stadium over 40000!! Would the Latin folk please stop exaggerating their stadium capacities as you will not get away with it!!
> 
> http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/MEX.html


UNAM Pumas play all their home games at the olympic stadium. Using your logic Rome has no football stadia, and for over 20 years Munich had no football ground.


----------



## Martuh

Nordrhein-Westfalen has 5 50,000+ stadiums:

Westfalenstadion - 81,264
Veltins Arena - 61,027
Borussia Park - 53,148
LTU Arena - 51,500
Rhein Energy Stadion - 50,997

For the others, I don't know.


----------



## Maccabi

I friend of mine who is an insider in Maccabi told me there will be news soon...


----------



## Maccabi

AZ Alkamaar is also building a new stadium.


----------



## eddyk

_The_ AZ Alkamaar?


----------



## Maccabi

Yes.


----------



## Maccabi

Οκ.They aren't as big as real but still they have a size


----------



## Paulo2004

Crazy indeed.


----------



## OOOOOhhhh BETTY

gruber said:


> Buenos Aires
> 
> Antonio Vespucio Liberti 66449
> Alberto J. Armando "bombonera" 57446
> Libertadores de América 57098
> Estadio José Amalfitani 49747
> Presidente Perón 48800
> Tomás Adolfo Ducó 48314
> Estadio Pedro Bidegaín 42000


Very wrong. Only these ones are in Buenos Aires (and again you have the capacities worng) -

Antonio Vespucio Liberti - 65645
Bombonera - 57446 (37538 standing places)
José Amalfitani - 49540 (28900 standing places)
Tomás Adolfo Ducó - 48314
Pedro Bidegaín - 43494 (24000 standing places)


Presidente Perón stadium is in Avellaneda (48800, of which 21800 standing places)
Indepedientes stadium is in Avellaneda (52823, of which 25000 standing)


So Buenos Aires does have three or more over 40000, but fails to match the Glasgow challenge of three over 50000. It should also be noted that all these Argentinean stadiums are shit!! (apart from Bombonera)


----------



## Durbsboi

ExSydney said:


> From memory,Hitler wanted this stadium as the "permanant" venue for the Olympic Games.


I wouldnt blame him, 405 000!!! no one has the balls to put up a proposal like that, let alone build one!


----------



## _00_deathscar

zaqattaq said:


> *LONDON near 40,000+*
> The greatest footballing city in the world


If by greatest you mean *ZERO* times European Cup winners Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Fulham etc etc...then yes you're right.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^:rofl:

he got you there!


----------



## Karate_Kev

London for its size and wealth is a miserable underachiever in football terms, although Paris, is even worse


----------



## SkyLerm

Olympics


----------



## Lostboy

Summer Olympics
World Cup
...
...
...
...
Regional Football Championships 
World Athletic Championships
Winter Olympics
Rugby World Cup
(Everything Else)


----------



## cianobuckley

Karate_Kev said:


> London for its size and wealth is a miserable underachiever in football terms, although Paris, is even worse


Yeah but Paris only has one decent football club (PSG) which are relatively young in football terms whereas London has Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham etc


----------



## cianobuckley

a world cup would see the development of several stadia with the olympics just one or two stadia and several useless indoor arenas.Also the olympics is more so hosted by a city and the world cup is hosted by a country.


----------



## Durbsboi

Soccer World Cup deff!
& its coming here in 2010!!!

to comment on Ex-Sydney remarks, people just go to the olympics to say "they went to the olympics" most of the people that go to the olympics are the locals, just to see whats going on, becuase its something new to their city & they want to be apart of it, they is no real passion behind them going there. Meanwhile at the soccer world cup its a whole lot different, not only the locals travel in their numbers but the whole world comes to support their country & at the rate soccer is growing FIFA is being forced to set strict rules for the host countries to have high capacity seating stadia for the events. & as cianobuckly pointed out, the olympics is hosted by a city, the world cup is hosted by a country.

See you in 2010!


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

BobDaBuilder said:


> Now the World Cup of Soccer is something special. I wouldn't mind having that down under.
> 
> We will get it at the expense of old England in 2018 who have already hosted it.


As much as I think a World Cup in Australia would be fantastic, I don't think Australia has the stadiums for even a decent starting bid, and the government aint likely to shell out a load of cash to build a whole new bunch by the time the bidding process comes around. I'd say it's most likely to be England hosting WC 2018, or possibly Spain.

Anyway, for me, there is no bigger tournament then the football World Cup, it is just beond anything else in all of sports! And I have to say that over recent years, the Olympics has lost a lot of its grandeur for me. 

:cheers:


----------



## gruber

it's a problem diffused in a large number of Capital Cities.
Roma won nothing in EUrope and close to nothing in Italy (in the most part of popular sports).
Berlin, Paris, London have the same bad tradition...


----------



## NFLeuropefan

No doubt the World Cup, even in America you can sell out almost every game.... No one really gives a shit about the olympics, and the world cup is life or death....


----------



## Lostboy

_No one really gives a shit about the olympics, *and the world cup is life or death....*_

You severely understate its importance.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Sadly, I don't know of anyone here in America that does anything more than pretend to care about the olympics. In Europe, South America, Africa, and a lot of Asia, the World Cup is the obsession of entire countries for the whole year....


----------



## Lostboy

I wasn't referring to the Olympics in my post.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Ohhhhh......................................................................................................................

I get it, sarcasm is hard to detect online....


----------



## Lostboy

Wasn't being sarcastic either .

There is a famous phrase in England: 

"Football's not a matter of life or death... its far more important than that."


----------



## _00_deathscar

World Cup obviously.

Does anyone have stats for which final was viewed more around the world?

Brazil vs Germany WC Final 2002

or

Liverpool vs AC Milan European Cup Final 2005


----------



## Lostboy

No, but can say with certainty that the former will have had a few hundred million more viewers. Though the latter would still blow away such "monumentally huge" events as the Superbowl.


----------



## _00_deathscar

I'm not so sure the gap will be as wide as you think it will - I have a feeling Liverpool vs AC Milan may have topped it.

In any case, what a game! Wonder how many times it's been watched.


----------



## sydney_lad

Sydney - Telstra Stadium - 82,000.


----------



## andysimo123

Have a guess where this is.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Gosh I wonder........
:bash:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd




----------



## Lostboy

For a now 75K+ Stadium, OT is a bit of an anti-climax.


----------



## OOOOOhhhh BETTY

Doesn't look 75000. I guess it's all those cramped seats that does it!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ ur right its 76,000


----------



## Quorn

OOOOOhhhh BETTY said:


> Doesn't look 75000. I guess it's all those cramped seats that does it!


mo' leg room at theater o' lovely dreams than any other football clubs ground in britain wiff da exception o' sunderlands an' leicester-------fact! you know das right!


----------



## OOOOOhhhh BETTY

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ ur right its 76,000


Quick....get me a corset!!!....my sides have split!


----------



## CharlieP

OOOOOhhhh BETTY said:


> Doesn't look 75000. I guess it's all those cramped seats that does it!


The roof has a lot to do with it as well...


----------



## dave8721

40Acres said:


> Ann Arbor, Michigan - Michigan Stadium - 108,000
> State College, Pennsylvania - Beaver Stadium - 107,000
> Knoxville, Tennessee - Neyland Stadium - 104,000
> Columbus, Ohio - Ohio Stadium - 104,000
> Pasadena, California - Rose Bowl - 93,000
> Athens, Georgia - Sanford Stadium - 92,000
> Los Angeles, California - L.A. Colessium - 92,000
> Landover, Maryland - Fed Ex Field - 92,000
> Baton Rouge, Louisianna - Tiger Stadium - 92,000
> Gainsville, Florida - Ben Hill Griffin Stadium - 89,000
> Auburn, Alabama - Jordan Hare Stadium - 89,000
> Tuscaloosa, Alabama - Bryant Denny Stadium - 84,000
> College Station, Texas - Kyle Field - thousands of sheepfuckers
> Tallahassee, Florida - Doak Campbell Stadium - 83,000
> Norman, Oklahoma - Gay Stadium - lots of inbreds
> Clemson, South Carolina - Memorial Stadium - 81,000
> South Bend, Indiana - Notre Dame Stadium - 81,000
> Birmingham, Alabama - Legion Field - 81,000
> Madison, Wisconsin - Camp Randall Stadium - 81,000
> Pontiac, Michigan - Silverdome - 80,000
> Columbia, South Carolina - Williams Brice Stadium - 80,000
> East Rutherford, New Jersey - Giants Stadium - 80,000
> Austin, Texas - DKR Stadium - 80,000
> Kansas City, Missouri - Arrowhead Stadium - 80,000
> Jacksonville, Florida - Altell Stadium - 77,000
> Denver, Colorado - Invesco Stadium - 76,000
> Miami, Florida - Dolphins Stadium - 76,000


For big games the Orange Bowl in Miami brings in temporary bleachers in the open end zone which pushes the capacity up to almost 80,000, though the official "permanent" capacity is just below 75,000 at 74,177. For example the 1976 Super Bowl there drew 80,187.


----------



## Martuh

OOOOOhhhh BETTY said:


> Quick....get me a corset!!!....my sides have split!


Let's all sit on bleachers!


----------



## 40Acres

lets all riot for losing 1-2!


----------



## Paulo2004

I'd say OLympics. Portugal will soon get them. :lol:


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Lusitania???


----------



## _00_deathscar

Lostboy said:


> Wasn't being sarcastic either .
> 
> There is a famous phrase in England:
> 
> "Football's not a matter of life or death... its far more important than that."


"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed by that attitude - I can assure you, it's much more important."
Bill Shankly.


----------



## Quorn

_00_deathscar said:


> "Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed by that attitude - I can assure you, it's much more important."
> Bill Shankly.


yeea an' afta hillsborough it showed how mad stupid dat comment wuz sho 'nuff!


----------



## Nils

A stadium doesn't get a official uefa 4 or 5 star rating just because it meets the requirments of the uefa. as far as i know a stadium is only considered to be included in this list if the stadium (or the city where the stadium is located) passes a proposal to the uefa for uefa cup or CL league final (i assume that the same applys for any euro proposal as well). only in this case the uefa stadium evaluation commision (or somesthing like that) rates the stadium. this is what i heard. this is the reason why the allianz arena is not included today (same reason for many other stadiums as well of course). however, munich made an application for the CL Final 2008 or 2009 a few weeks ago. So it will be rated within the next 12 months.


----------



## Nils

Pics of the planned expansion of the Weserstadion in Bremen:


----------



## Martuh

Nils said:


> Pics of the planned expansion of the Weserstadion in Bremen:


Got an url?


----------



## NavyBlue

CharlieP said:


> The roof has a lot to do with it as well...


People sit on the roof???


----------



## 2zanzibar

gruber said:


> San Siro
> 
> 1) Minimum capacity of 50,000 (5 star venues) or 30,000 (4 star venues)
> ok, 84.309 the real effective capacity (press, disables, sky boxes etcetera)
> 
> 2) All seats must be individual with backrests
> ok
> 
> 3) Playing pitch dimensions of 105 x 68 m
> ok, (105 x 68)
> 
> 4) Minimum distances between the playing field boundaries and the retaining wall: Sidelines 6m, Goal lines 7,5m
> ok
> 
> 5) No perimeter fencing around the playing area
> *There is all around!*
> 
> 6) First-rate dressing rooms for both teams and the referees (equal size and furnishings for both teams, spacious, bright and clean)
> ok
> 
> 7) Direct, private and protected access for both teams and the referees, from their dressing rooms to the playing area, and for their arrival at / departure from, the stadium
> ok, teams and referees can enter in San Siro using a private tunnel from the streets to the 2 undergroun level of the stadium
> 
> 
> 8) Suitable and appropriately equipped dope-testing room
> ok
> 
> 9) Suitable and appropriately equipped room for the UEFA Delegate/Referee Observer
> ok
> 
> 10) Floodlighting of a minimum intensity of 1400 Lux (eV) in the direction of the main camera, and 1000 Lux (eV) towards the other areas of the stadium, plus an efficient emergency power supply system able, if necessary, to provide instantaneously and without interruption, the equivalent light intensity values
> ok
> 
> 11) A modern and efficient public address system which ensures that messages may be delivered to public areas, inside and outside the stadium, clearly and distinctly, during the event, and which is not diminished by sudden surges in crowd noise levels, nor vulnerable to failure of the main power supply
> ok
> 
> 12) A permanent TV surveillance system in colour, covering all public areas inside and outside the stadium, which is capable of producing instant still photos
> ok
> 
> 
> *so, the only one problem is the perimeter fencing around the playing area.
> *


So can't the San Siro host a CL final? thats a traversty!
Maybe this is why the AA hasn't been passed, because it also had fencing around the pitch


----------



## MoreOrLess

The AA's fence is easily removable I think, the San Siro also has large numbers of seats without backs.


----------



## Kampflamm

Quorn said:


> read it carefully bro he said MINIMUM!!! sho 'nuff!


Freal?! Iz yo really from da boogie-down South Bronx, bro?


----------



## FCB_Flo

MoreOrLess said:


> The AA's fence is easily removable I think, the San Siro also has large numbers of seats without backs.


That's right! At least the seats at the lower tiers behind the goals haven't got any backrests.

In terms of soccer and atmosphere, San Siro is one of the most impressive stadium in the world.
But when it comes to comfort, safety etc. it's absolutely not comparable to the new ones. Not even close to!


----------



## GASpedal

That's not "perimeter fencing", imho. There needs to be a little fencing. Every modern stadium has something like that or a little concrete wall.









This one is, but it's removable.


----------



## freddiewa

Lima
Estadio Monumental U - 80 000 (it really is 60 000 + 20 000 in boxes = 80 000)


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Wow, from Lima.... The only person in Peru with internet access.......


----------



## Quorn

ah th'o't it iz mo' likely he'son holiday in uh developed country. he can't really be posting from peru. can he :eek2: ???? just like mammy.


----------



## Peyre

Londinium has Twickenham and Wembley on its way


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Its AlL gUUd said:


> may aswell add London to that, when they next update it.
> 
> in general i think some of the ranking rules are quite ridiculous, and if a stadium is given 5 star status, i think IMO the stadium should at least look nice; Hampden?


Why would you add London when London has zero 5 star stadiums??? They may, or may not have two stadiums awarded 5 stars in the future, but many cities may or may not have two stadiums awarded 5 stars in the future. Madrid might have 2 next year!!

If's and maybe's mean nothing.

Hampden held the 2002 Champions League final which was a huge success and the stadium was widely praised, especially the stunning facilities in the South stand and the superb atmosphere in the whole stadium. It was such a success, that Hampden has been chosen for 2007 UEFA cup final.

“We have been to finals in Milano and Barça, but nothing like this,” shouts Klaus. “Even the taxi drivers step out of the cabs and carry our bags. It is amazing.”

http://www.london2012.org/en/news/archive/2005/april/2005-04-20-10-45.htm

http://sport.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=340&id=527912002


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> dis here rules out ibrox then cuz da home dressing room iz far bigger than da away one. you know das right!


Ibrox is a UEFA 5 star stadium.





Quorn said:


> an' dis here rules out glasgow from ever holding da final ag'in cuz nahh way iz dat strip o' grass an' uh hut an international airport. also da hotels up dere iz flea pits in the hood



I guess I must have imagined the 2002 Champions League final at Hampden Park, Glasgow!!

No doubt I will also be imagining the 2007 UEFA Cup final at Hampden Park, Glasgow!!!


----------



## mrstar

Quorn said:


> an' dis here rules out glasgow from ever holding da final ag'in cuz nahh way iz dat strip o' grass an' uh hut an international airport. also da hotels up dere iz flea pits in the hood


Is there a 5 star stadium in Stains Mr G?

Hampden's facilities are world class, hence it's constant praise from UEFA and fans alike.

Ibrox also, a classy venue.

(i'm a Celtic fan btw)


----------



## Keanu Reeves

tv123 said:


> so explain me this:
> 
> Minimum capacity of 50,000 (5 star venues)
> Ernst-Happel-Stadion capacity 49 844


If you read the original link, you will see "Ernst-Happel-Stadion's capacity can be brought up to 50000 by temporary stands"

The lighting quotes on the link are for the average throughout the whole stadium, not the 1400 required in the direction of the main camera. All stadiums on the list will be able to generate a minimum intensity of 1400 Lux (eV) in the direction of the main camera.


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> Ibrox is a UEFA 5 star stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I must have imagined the 2002 Champions League final at Hampden Park, Glasgow!!
> 
> No doubt I will also be imagining the 2007 UEFA Cup final at Hampden Park, Glasgow!!!


correct me if I'm wrong but da 2002 Champions League final wuz in da past? Are ya saying once uh stadium reaches 5 star it says dere forever?? 

deez iz recently updated guidelines an' I wuz simply commenting dat if deez iz indeed correct, then Ibrox an' Glasgow fall short on deez two points. It iz uh fact dat da home dressing room at Ibrox iz nearly double da size o' da away one. I th'o't da 5 star rating o' Ibrox will soon be downgraded ta 4 if it hasn't happened already peep this shit


----------



## Quorn

> No doubt I will also be imagining the 2007 UEFA Cup final at Hampden Park, Glasgow!!!


4 star stadiums can hold uefa cup finals. you shooting yourself in da foot wiff every post Jus' like Orenthawl James.


----------



## Noostairz

Socrates said:


> What doesn't 'look nice' about Hampden?


looks lopsided and dated and the stands are too far away from the pitch.



















next question.


----------



## Quorn

edennewstairs said:


> next question.


where do babies come from? sho 'nuff!


----------



## Keanu Reeves

The dressing rooms at Ibrox are the same size for both teams, I have been in them during a tour. 

Once a stadium reaches 5 star, it stays 5 star, unless they rebuild the stadium and it has to be evaluated again.

Hampden Park is holding the 2007 (in the future) UEFA cup final, so of course it it still 5 stars. Glasgow has the biggest Airport in Scotland, and has loads of top hotels, which is one of the reasons UEFA love Glasgow. They also love Hampden because of the facilities and the amazing atmosphere a full Hampden produces.


----------



## Quorn

> Once a stadium reaches 5 star, it stays 5 star, unless they rebuild the stadium and it has to be evaluated again


wrong bro!!!




> Hampden Park is holding the 2007 (in the future) UEFA cup final, so of course it it still 5 stars


wrong ag'in bro please see muh ma fuckin other post---4 star stadiums can hold uefa cup finals you know das right!


----------



## Quorn

> The dressing rooms at Ibrox are the same size for both teams, I have been in them during a tour


awww yeea an' dat'swrong as well bro da home dressing room iz much bigger


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> 4 star stadiums can hold uefa cup finals. you shooting yourself in da foot wiff every post Jus' like Orenthawl James.


but Hampden holds 52000! A 4 star stadium cannot hold under 50000. So Hampden must be 5 star.

http://www.scotiafootball.com/hampden-park.htm


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> awww yeea an' dat'swrong as well bro da home dressing room iz much bigger



You are talking rubbish. I have been in them, you don't even know what street the main stand at Ibrox is on!! I feel an 'ignore' coming on strong!!


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> but Hampden holds 52000! A 4 star stadium cannot hold over 40000. So Hampden must be 5 star.
> 
> http://www.scotiafootball.com/hampden-park.htm


wrong bro uefa 4 star needs in excess o' 30,000 seats an' hampden has dis here nahh maximum and shit.


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Think about this slowly - the requirements for a 4 star or 5 star are the exact same apart from capacity!. So if Hampden is a 4 star stadium as you claim (which we all know it is not), then it would automatically become 5 star as it's capacity is over 50000.

Do you understand? The requirements for 4 and 5 star stadiums are the same apart from capacity. So if a stadium meets these requirements and is under 50000, then it is 4 star, if a stadium meets these requirements and is over 50000, then it is 5 star. That is why it is impossible for a stadium over 50000 to be a 4 star stadium!!


----------



## Quorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UEFA_4_star_stadiums



> Note that a few 4-star stadiums seat over 50,000, but do not meet all the required criteria for 5-star status.


see bro ah just know far mo' about dis here subject than ya ya'll is mad stupid. :guns1:


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> Think about this slowly - the requirements for a 4 star or 5 star are the exact same apart from capacity!. So if Hampden is a 4 star stadium as you claim (which we all know it is not), then it would automatically become 5 star as it's capacity is over 50000.
> 
> Do you understand? The requirements fro 4 and 5 star stadiums are the same apart from capacity. So if a stadium meets these requirements and is under 50000, then it is 4 star, if a stadium meets these requirements then it is 5 star. That is why it is impossible for a stadium over 50000 to be a 4 star stadium!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wrong again bro please see muh link hahahahahaha!!!!ya iz seriously oput o' yo' depth here and shit.


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:UEFA_4_star_stadiums
> 
> 
> 
> see bro ah just know far mo' about dis here subject than ya ya'll is mad stupid. :guns1:



Simply not true. Please name these 4 star stadiums that hold over 50000?

Hampden if 5 star, as every stadium link on the internet will tell you. Only 5 star stadiums hold Champions League finals.


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> Simply not true. Please name these 4 star stadiums that hold over 50000?
> 
> Hampden if 5 star, as every stadium link on the internet will tell you. Only 5 star stadiums hold Champions League finals.


ah know hampden iz 5 star nowhere did ah say it wasn't isimpy said wiff da new guidlines out it would struggle ta keep it. 

ya said A 4 star stadium cannot hold under 50000

hahaha dat iz just not true. yo' iz jivin' rubbish an' ive produced da link ta prove it and git Sheniquah's ass back ova' heeah.


----------



## Quorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Baudouin_Stadium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadio_San_Nicola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şükrü_Saracoğlu_Stadium

all 3 o' therse stadiums iz 4 star stadiums check out dere capacities an don't make me pull mah gat!


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> ah know hampden iz 5 star nowhere did ah say it wasn't isimpy said wiff da new guidlines out it would struggle ta keep it.
> 
> ya said A 4 star stadium cannot hold under 50000
> 
> hahaha dat iz just not true. yo' iz jivin' rubbish an' ive produced da link ta prove it and git Sheniquah's ass back ova' heeah.


Why would the struggle to keep it?? Did they chop parts of Hampden off last week or something? Did they take the lights away or remove seats or something? There are no 'new' guidelines!! Those guidelines are the same as they were 5 years ago. 

even if those guidelines were new (which they are not), Hampden would easily meet all the guidelines.

Please explain whcih ones you think it wouldn't make?


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> Why would the struggle to keep it?? Did they chop parts of Hampden off last week or something? Did they take the lights away or remove seats or something? There are no 'new' guidelines!! Those guidelines are the same as they were 5 years ago.
> 
> even if those guidelines were new (which they are not), Hampden would easily meet all the guidelines.
> 
> Please explain whcih ones you think it wouldn't make?


so ya at least admit ya wuz wrong on da capacity part. pimp-tight. as fo' what hampden fails on rubbish airport an' hotels dey iz both 3rd world ya gots ta admit w0rrrrrrd!


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Baudouin_Stadium
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadio_San_Nicola
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şükrü_Saracoğlu_Stadium
> 
> all 3 o' therse stadiums iz 4 star stadiums check out dere capacities an don't make me pull mah gat!



None of them are 4 star stadiums i'm afraid. Wikipedia is written by fans of the subject, and so is very inaccurate. These are the only 4 star stadiums (all under 50000) -

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html


I could go on Wikipedia and write a page about Aberdeens stadium and claim it is a 5 star stadium!! Doesn't mean it's true though!! Think little man...think!


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> None of them are 4 star stadiums i'm afraid. Wikipedia is written by fans of the subject, and so is very inaccurate. These are the only 4 star stadiums (all under 50000) -
> 
> http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html
> 
> 
> I could go on Wikipedia and write a page about Aberdeens stadium and claim it is a 5 star stadium!! Doesn't mean it's true though!! Think little man...think!


hahaha you clutching at straws muh ma fuckin *****. ah be right an' ya iz wrong 100%. ya iz so far out o' yo' depth just like mammy.


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> so ya at least admit ya wuz wrong on da capacity part. pimp-tight. as fo' what hampden fails on rubbish airport an' hotels dey iz both 3rd world ya gots ta admit w0rrrrrrd!



If it fail on airports and hotels, then why is it holding the 2007 UEFA Cup final?

"Compulsory requirements for hosting a UEFA Cup Final 

19) International airport(s) able to cope with huge extra demands of UEFA final (capacity for up to 80 charter flights per day in addition to regular flight) airports must be operational day and night 
20) Adequate hotel accommodation, for UEFA and its partners, at least 1000 five-star hotel rooms (UEFA Champions League) / 500 five star hotel rooms (UEFA Cup) are needed. In addition, enough other hotel accommodation in all types of category must be available"


the airport requirements are the same for UEFA Cup finals and Champions League finals. For hotel rooms, Hampden meets both the requirements for Champions League finals (held it in 2002), and UEFA cup finals (holding it in 2007).

Have you ever been to Glasgow? It has a huge tourist industry, and has a huge amount of hotels.

I know you are trying to be funny, but i do enjoy proving you wrong.


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> hahaha you clutching at straws muh ma fuckin *****. ah be right an' ya iz wrong 100%. ya iz so far out o' yo' depth just like mammy.



C'mon, you can do better than that. That was rubbish!


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> If it fail on airports and hotels, then why is it holding the 2007 UEFA Cup final?
> 
> "Compulsory requirements for hosting a UEFA Cup Final
> 
> 19) International airport(s) able to cope with huge extra demands of UEFA final (capacity for up to 80 charter flights per day in addition to regular flight) airports must be operational day and night
> 20) Adequate hotel accommodation, for UEFA and its partners, at least 1000 five-star hotel rooms (UEFA Champions League) / 500 five star hotel rooms (UEFA Cup) are needed. In addition, enough other hotel accommodation in all types of category must be available"
> 
> 
> the airport requirements are the same for UEFA Cup finals and Champions League finals. For hotel rooms, Hampden meets both the requirements for Champions League finals (held it in 2002), and UEFA cup finals (holding it in 2007).
> 
> Have you ever been to Glasgow? It has a huge tourist industry, and has a huge amount of hotels.
> 
> I know you are trying to be funny, but i do enjoy proving you wrong.


hahaha dat iz fo' da champions league final not uefa final ya iz so wrong AGAIN!!!!!!! 

hahaha ya still th'o't uh 4star stadium can't hold 50,000 fo' god'ssake hahahahah!!! keep provong me 'wrong' an dat boil on mah ass. :dj:


----------



## Kampflamm

Quorn said:


> where do babies come from? sho 'nuff!


Yo, cut the mofo some slack, ya hear me, bro?


----------



## Kampflamm

If ya' dudes wanna propuh'ly rap t'Quo'n, plum click on dis link! Right on!

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/


----------



## Kampflamm

Wow, the translation for this site is great!

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialec...city.com/showthread.php?p=8040632#post8040632


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quorn said:


> hahaha dat iz fo' da champions league final not uefa final ya iz so wrong AGAIN!!!!!!!
> 
> hahaha ya still th'o't uh 4star stadium can't hold 50,000 fo' god'ssake hahahahah!!! keep provong me 'wrong' an dat boil on mah ass. :dj:



As far as airports go, the Champions League final is the exact same as the UEFA Cup final. (and Hampden will have held both in the very near future)

No stadiums in Europe are 4 star and hold over 50000. (don't trust wikipedia)

You don't seem to understand that in 2002, Hampden held the Champions League final, and so meets all the requirements to hold a Champions League final. The requirements in 2002 are the EXACT same as they are now.


It's fair to say that I have proven you wrong on all counts. Anybody else got something interesting to say, as this guy's act is getting old!!


----------



## Quorn

Keanu Reeves said:


> As far as airports go, the Champions League final is the exact same as the UEFA Cup final. (and Hampden will have held both in the very near future)
> 
> No stadiums in Europe are 4 star and hold over 50000. (don't trust wikipedia)
> 
> You don't seem to understand that in 2002, Hampden held the Champions League final, and so meets all the requirements to hold a Champions League final. The requirements in 2002 are the EXACT same as they are now.
> 
> 
> It's fair to say that I have proven you wrong on all counts. Anybody else got something interesting to say, as this guy's act is getting old!!


weak bro.


very weak w0rrrrd!


----------



## Quintana

Keanu Reeves said:


> None of them are 4 star stadiums i'm afraid. Wikipedia is written by fans of the subject, and so is very inaccurate. These are the only 4 star stadiums (all under 50000) -
> 
> http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html
> 
> 
> I could go on Wikipedia and write a page about Aberdeens stadium and claim it is a 5 star stadium!! Doesn't mean it's true though!! Think little man...think!


The list from fussballtemple.net is inaccurate. It doesn't mention the Philips Stadion - among others - which is a 4 star stadium (and hence, the venue for this years UEFA Cup final)


----------



## Quorn

Quintana said:


> The list from fussballtemple.net is inaccurate. It doesn't mention the Philips Stadion - among others - which is a 4 star stadium (and hence, the venue for this years UEFA Cup final)


he don' let untruths stop him otay buh-weet


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Quintana said:


> The list from fussballtemple.net is inaccurate. It doesn't mention the Philips Stadion - among others - which is a 4 star stadium (and hence, the venue for this years UEFA Cup final)



It did have Philips Stadium, but they removed it at the last update for some strange reason. I'm sure it will soon be back. Probably just a silly mistake.


----------



## Socrates

edennewstairs said:


> looks lopsided and dated and the stands are too far away from the pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> next question.


Next question: how can you say it looks dated by looking at a picture of the top of the roof?
Hampden in no way looks dated my friend, I have been in it reasonably recently and it is certainly not dated. 
As for the seats being too far from the pitch - that is true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't 'look nice'.

And as for it looking lopsided: WHAT on earth are you talking about? The South stand is larger than the other 3, but it is not that much larger, and it is incorporated very nicley. The aesthetics are so pleasing in fact, that it the stadium does not look lopsided, but instead the South Stand looks more like a "centre point" feature.


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Hampden looks pretty good to me. Not amazing or anything, but still nice. When full or almost full, the atmosphere at a Scotland game is stunning -


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ sorry but that stadium just does not look good, it needs to be redeveloped or something, even my scottish friends agree on this


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ already said that on the previous page


----------



## Keanu Reeves

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ sorry but that stadium just does not look good, it needs to be redeveloped or something, even my scottish friends agree on this


That is your opinion. Many of my English friends think Wembley looks awful from the outside, others think it looks good. Obviously Hampden is no Wembley, but that doesn't mean it is not a worthy stadium.

Hampden has been a huge success for the SFA, so they have no resaon to redevelop it. It only cost £68 million for 52103 seats. It will have had two European finals in 5 years (including the big one - Champions League Final!!), 4th highest average crowds in Europe for WC2006 qualifying rounds, many sold out concerts, lot's of money from the Museum and money from renting out the halls/executive facilities in the South Stand and sold out Scottish Cup and League Cup finals every year (it also hosts the semis of both tournaments).

It is not a great stadium, but it is one that has to be visited to be appreciated. A full house in Hampden produce an amazing atmosphere. Unless you have been, you wouldn't know how good the atmosphere is!

Why would they redevelop it? A prettier stadium will not bring in any more money!!

The only problem with Hampden is it's size. Considering Scotland can get the 4th highest crowds in Europe despite having a poor team, then this means a good Scootish team would easily sell 100000 just like in the good old days. 52000 was far too small for games against the likes of Belarus last year (tens of thousands missed the game as it was sold-out weeks in adavnce), so god knows how many Scotland would get if they had a half decent team!!

Hampden really needs to be about 80000, and even this would be too small if the Scottish team started to become a decent team and would still be too small for Scottish Cup finals featuring either Rangers or Celtic (which is normally the case).

To turn Hampden into an 80000 stadium would cost at least £100 million, money that the SFA simply doesn't have.


----------



## Quorn

> *if* the Scottish team started to become a decent team


iz da world'sbiggest ever IF? dis here nig iz hilarious Ya' dig?


----------



## Kampflamm

Iz you just a ****** tryin' to acts all black n'stuff?


----------



## Keanu Reeves

They can't get any worse. The stadium is still too small even with the rubbish team at the moment. 4th highest average crowds in Europe for WC2006 qualifying rounds, with tens of thousands unable to get tickets for games against teams like Belarus!! Every Scottish Cup/League Cup final sold out with thousands unable to get tickets (tens of thousands if Rangers or Celtic are playing!!

52000 is far too small for Gretna v Hearts in the Scottish Cup final next month. Hearts have estimated that they will get well over 50000 ticket applications!! Gretna estimate they will get about 15000 applications (they have been given 10000 tickets).


----------



## freddiewa

I don't get your jokes.


----------



## Lostboy

es lo mismo para mi.


----------



## Kampflamm

It certainly looks better than some of the cookie cutter small stadiums that are being (or have been) built in Germany (Magdeburg, Duisburg, Mönchengladbach).


----------



## GNU

The new stadium for Karlsruhe.

It will have between 40.000 and 45.000 seats.










:cheers:


----------



## ReddAlert

the New Orleans Saints. 1967 is not that long ago though. The Saints will most likely move to L.A.


----------



## harsh1802

victory said:


> The MCG is 100,000+, and in much better shape than eden gardens.
> 
> Lords is nowehere near half of 80k. It's max capacity is 28,000.


My mistake on LORD'S..............  

MCG's capacity is 100k+ i agree, but i think it is restricted to around 99000 due to some regualtions.

On Eden gardens, i can say only this......It's the best stadium in the world to enjoy cricket!


----------



## Bawkey

see, thats a tough one. I mean, the Dodgers are the king of the LA market, which is obviously #2 only behind NYC where the Yanks are the king. I think Brooklyn should have retained a team, and is more deserving then many other places. But that said, LA did too. Basically, I wish someone else other than the Dodgers had moved, but it was probably still a +small+ step up for the Dodger franchise. 

The Giants, I dont have as much a problem with their move.


----------



## Boot Wheat

harsh1802 said:


> My mistake on LORD'S..............
> 
> MCG's capacity is 100k+ i agree, but i think it is restricted to around 99000 due to some regualtions.
> 
> On Eden gardens, i can say only this......It's the best stadium in the world to enjoy cricket!


Yeah it must be amazing to sit in that heat as you shit your grundies for the 5th time in 4 days due to the dodgy grub, and watch a gang of the local loons set fire to the stand you're in because their side are getting their arses kicked (again).


----------



## DrJoe

The Pittsburgh Penguins have threatened to move if they don't get a new arena. They have been in Pittsburgh since 1967.


----------



## victory

harsh1802 said:


> My mistake on LORD'S..............
> 
> MCG's capacity is 100k+ i agree, but i think it is restricted to around 99000 due to some regualtions.
> 
> On Eden gardens, i can say only this......It's the best stadium in the world to enjoy cricket!


MCG's capacity is only lower at the moment because they havnt finished converting it from commonwealth games mode, and before that the new stand wasn't complete. 

And if you enjoy fearing your life then i imagine eden gardens would be a great ground :jk:


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Minnesota Vikings, if they don't replace the Metrodome, they'll be in LA, what a shame.....


----------



## Downs

I know not much as been said, but I wouldnt be suprised to see the Oakland As move in the next 10 years either.


----------



## harsh1802

Boot Wheat said:


> Yeah it must be amazing to sit in that heat as you shit your grundies for the 5th time in 4 days due to the dodgy grub, and watch a gang of the local loons set fire to the stand you're in because their side are getting their arses kicked (again).


 :blahblah: :blahblah: 

losers always whine!


----------



## alesmarv

The *LARGEST* Stadium in the World is Strahov, its in Prague(Czech Republic). It seats nearly 250,000 people, unfourtunetly it is falling apart and is barly used. They want to tear it down but havent done it yet after nearly 15 years of talking about it.

http://www.answers.com/topic/strahov-stadium































Some of these pictures are fairly old since the Stadium doesnt get used much now a days.


----------



## eddyk

Yes, i've seen recent pictures of the stadium

No seats left, weeds growing up through the stands, the pitch is just a sea of mud and weeds.


You say it's rarely used...i'd be surprised if it's even used at all.


----------



## The Game Is Up

I think the following will move:

1. Minnesota Twins - I read that they can leave the Metrodome after 2006.
2. Atlanta Hawks - Not even Dominique Wilkins drew people in. 
3. Oakland Raiders - We can never count them out.
4. Charlotte/New Orleans/Whatever Hornets - They always seem on the move to somewhere.
5. Pittsburgh Pirates - The city's in bad shape and one of the teams would have to go. I think the hockey team stays.


----------



## alesmarv

Sparta Praha uses it for practice, and they still have concerts at the stadium here and there. But I dont think they use the stands, they just use the open area.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Giants Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ 80,242










I often find it funny that a town called East Rutherford New Jersey has a large ground. :lol:


----------



## alesmarv

..


----------



## samsonyuen

The Sonics (since '67) are also threatening leaving Seattle.


----------



## Lostboy

How do Americans feel about this kind of franchising out and relocation? Is it just completely accepted?


----------



## vertigosufferer

London will temporarily have 3 stadiums over 75,000+ by the time 2012 comes along  Well, presuming Wembley will have actually been completed by then.


----------



## savas

The Deutsches Stadium would have been a copy of the Panathinaiko Stadio in Athens, Greece... only 7 times bigger...!!!


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Not only happens in the USA, also in Oz and England.

The South Melbourne FC relocated to Sydney in 1982.
Fitzroy FC relocated to join Brisbane in 1997.

Both were insolvent and the league moved them by force.

North Melbourne Football Club 20?? to the Gold Coast. They have already dropped the location name from the team and have briefly flirted with Sydney and Canberra where they have been unwelcome.

Footscray Football Club will be shunted off sooner or later to god knows where. Maybe SE Qld or western Sydney. They also have dropped their original name to make the transition smoother.

The people are not exactly happy about it. Infact it practically causes riots. Don't know how North and Footscray supporters can stand what is slyly being done to their clubs.


----------



## Guest

Lostboy said:


> How do Americans feel about this kind of franchising out and relocation? Is it just completely accepted?


Not only in US:

In Poland soccer teams Amica Wronki and Lech Poznań will join in next year. In practise Amica will move to Poznań and became a part o Lech team.


----------



## Kampflamm

Marco_ said:


> are you serious?
> a soccer stadium that looks like a baseball-stadium.. f**king ugly :bash:


Why does it look like a baseball stadium? Maybe you're misinterpreting the 2nd pic. It would have been an enclosed stadium.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Without American loans, equipment, steel, oil and technology Russia now would be German "liebenraum". Hitler should never have bothered with Stalingrad as well he was a tactical buffoon. That was a big kick in the nuts for the Germans in 1942, they were gone from then on.

So it was a lot more than just Soviet men and women that drove back the Krouts.


----------



## Mo Rush

Captain Flaps said:


> Deutsches Stadion (405000), and it would of been built if the Russians hadn't won the war. Work started on it, but was halted because of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full scale test model -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thirdreichruins.com/misc_sites2.htm
> 
> http://www.nuernberg.de/tourismus/rundgaenge/reichsparteitagsgelaende_e/e_d_stadion.html


the dam russians.


----------



## Durbsboi

AcesHigh said:


> New Maracanã Stadium with retractable roof... actually, I dont think today´s material technology would permit the building of such huge spherical glass roof!!


Bly me, thats fuckin amazing! you gotta have big cohones to design that & expect them to build it with out laughing at you!


----------



## GNU

an inofficial proposal for the new stadium in Aachen:










The capacity will probably be around 30 to 35.000


----------



## Paulo2004

*Latest world soccer ratings.*

Mar 06 
1 Brazil 0 830 -5 
2 Czech Republic 0 779 -10 
3 Netherlands 0 774 -14 
4 USA 1 760 -4 
5 Spain 1 759 -4 
6 Mexico 1 758 -4 
7 France 1 754 -6 
8 Portugal 2 753 -2 
9 Argentina -4 753 -12 
10 England -1 744 -12 
11 Denmark 3 738 2 
12 Nigeria 0 737 -1 
13 Turkey -2 733 -10 
14 Italy -2 731 -7 
15 Cameroon 0 723 -3 
16 Sweden 0 717 -8 
17 Japan 1 709 -3 
18 Egypt -1 708 -6 
19 Greece 2 699 -5 
20 Germany 3 699 -1 
21 Tunisia 3 694 -4 
22 Iran -3 692 -13 
22 Uruguay 1 692 -7 
24 Croatia -5 690 -15 
25 Romania 1 687 -4 
26 Costa Rica -1 686 -8 
27 Colombia 3 684 -2 
28 Poland -2 682 -9 
29 Senegal -1 681 -8 
30 Korea Republic 1 678 -5 
30 Republic of Ireland -1 678 -9 
32 Côte d'Ivoire 0 668 -3 
33 Paraguay 0 657 -9 
34 Saudi Arabia 0 655 -5 
35 Switzerland 0 651 -6 
36 Morocco 1 649 -4 
37 Russia -2 648 -9 
38 Bulgaria 1 642 -1 
39 Ecuador -1 636 -8 
40 Norway -1 634 -9 
Rank Team +/-Rank 
Mar 06 Pts:
Apr 06 +/-Pts:
Mar 06 
41 Ukraine 1 616 -8 
41 Honduras 2 616 -7 
43 Slovakia -2 615 -12 
44 Australia 0 614 -7 
44 Jamaica 1 614 -6 
46 Serbia and Montenegro 0 612 -4 
47 Trinidad and Tobago 2 607 0 
47 Israel 0 607 -8 
49 Finland -1 604 -6 
50 Ghana 0 602 -3 
51 South Africa 1 598 -6 
52 Guinea 4 597 3 
52 Iraq 3 597 1 
54 Bahrain 0 593 -6 
55 Zimbabwe -2 590 -12 
56 Zambia 1 583 -8 
56 Belgium -6 583 -22 
58 Angola 2 578 1 
59 Togo -1 574 -6 
59 Uzbekistan 2 574 1 
Rank Team +/-Rank 
Mar 06 Pts:
Apr 06 +/-Pts:
Mar 06 
61 Guatemala -3 572 -8 
62 Scotland 0 564 -3 
63 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 563 -1 
64 Belarus -1 559 -6 
65 Mali -1 556 -8 
66 China PR 5 549 0 
67 Chile 0 548 -8 
67 Peru -1 548 -9 
69 Latvia -1 547 -8 
70 Congo DR 4 546 -1 
71 Slovenia -2 544 -10 
71 Venezuela -1 544 -7 
73 Kuwait -1 541 -7 
74 Wales 2 540 -4 
75 Hungary -3 538 -10 
76 Austria -1 537 -8 
76 Qatar 1 537 -6 
78 United Arab Emirates 2 536 -1 
79 Cuba -1 533 -8 
80 Estonia 0 533 -6 
81 Panama 0 526 -6 
82 Oman -1 524 -8 
83 Jordan 0 519 -6 
84 Canada 1 517 0 
85 Libya -1 515 -4 
86 Albania 2 514 0 
87 Algeria -2 511 -6 
88 Korea DPR -1 509 -6 
89 Burkina Faso 1 503 0 
90 Syria -1 502 -4 
91 FYR Macedonia 0 492 -5 
92 Singapore 0 483 -1 
93 Rwanda -1 478 -6 
94 Kenya 0 476 -7 
95 Sudan 0 473 -7 
96 Northern Ireland 2 471 -1 
97 Uganda 1 470 -2 
97 Iceland 0 470 -7 
99 Lithuania -3 465 -13 
100 Cyprus -2 464 -8


----------



## tv123

4. Usa

the biggest joke ever


----------



## Sitback

I really really can't work out these ratings? USA better then Spain, Argies, England? Ha Ha Ha

Czech Republic 2nd best team in the world? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## Guest

Abismal - Fifa rankings need a good change. We havent played since our 3-2 win over Argentina and we still keep dropping. Its laughable :hahaha:


----------



## brummad

AcesHigh said:


> New Maracanã Stadium with retractable roof... actually, I dont think today´s material technology would permit the building of such huge spherical glass roof!!


i have an ashtray that looks just like that


----------



## Danger! 50000 volts

Czech Republic 2nd in the WORLD????? WTF have they won?

Their only half decent players are Baros, Risicky, Cech.

They didn't even come top of their group qualifiers.

What a load of pish.

USA? Yeah, cos I can see them faring well against teams like Holland, Spain and England.

I think this is the FIFA referees prefered standings at the end of the WC or something, I mean if Gamal Ghandour, Byron Ruales or Urs Myer is there, well.... anything can happen.


----------



## AcesHigh

Brazil has a huge difference upon the 2nd place... *51* points!!!
From 2nd to 3rd the difference is only 5 points
From 3rd to 4th its 14 points
4th to 5th: 1 p
5th to 6th: 1 p
6th to 7th: 4 p
7th to 8th: 1 p
8th to 9th: 0 p
9th to 10th: 9 p


----------



## oskarj

Danger! 50 said:


> Czech Republic 2nd in the WORLD????? WTF have they won?
> 
> Their only half decent players are Baros, Risicky, Cech.
> 
> They didn't even come top of their group qualifiers.
> 
> What a load of pish.
> 
> USA? Yeah, cos I can see them faring well against teams like Holland, Spain and England.
> 
> I think this is the FIFA referees prefered standings at the end of the WC or something, I mean if Gamal Ghandour, Byron Ruales or Urs Myer is there, well.... anything can happen.


what about nedved, koller, jankulovski, Galasek, Thomas and Smicer? Why dont you know football before you make dum comments like that, otherwise i agree USA is absolute crap and Czech republic doesnt belong amongst top 5 maybe top 10.


----------



## .B.

tv123 said:


> 4. Usa
> 
> the biggest joke ever



Hey gyus.In Europe teams have to play against very capable oponents so it is dificult to collect many points.In N.America they play in theri crappy laughably easy tournaments they beat Canada and Cayman islands and they collect points.This is how it works.The points collected in Euro Tournament are equal to points collected in ''Gold Cup''.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Was up in LA a couple of years back and spoke to a number of local yocals on that very subject.
> 
> The concensus with Los Angeles folk is they "don't deserve a team." They have had 2 teams and people did not show up. That is just bullshit about stadiums being dodgy and located in bad suburbs. They had NFL at all the stadiums there and it made no difference.
> 
> Also the local teams in LA appears to be uni teams, UCLA and USC which was a big shock for somebody who had no idea uni sports had any spectator appeal. (I played Uni cricket and football in Oz and you'd be lucky to get your dog to stay awake for the match and not wander off, let alone dragging a gf along for a Sat arvo)
> 
> As for the New Orleans Saints, I'd go and plonk 'em at Yankee Stadium. Close to Long Island, Manhatten and the eastern side of NYC. The Giants and Jets are stuck over in New Jersey. I cannot see a problem selling out 60,000 seats in NYC for football. Ice hockey and basketball wouldn't have the following it does which probably explains why the Nets and Islanders don't always pack 'em in.
> 
> Bottom line is NYC for long term growth, like a blue chip co. and with plenty of corporate opportunities, tv etc. Isn't about 50 per cent of the US media based in NYC also? What size would the New Orleans media market be?



I don't think you get it........ New Yorkers already have 2 TEAMS!!!! The market is completely saturated.... Plus, New Orleans sold out all of its games for the last 3-5 years before Katrina....... New Orleans is a great football town of 1.2 million people.... 
Oh, and also, LA is a really good football market, it's just that they played in 2 of the worst stadiums in the NFL and with some pretty happy horshit teams and bad ownership for years..... It has NOTHING to do with fan apathy.... If you put a team in LA, in a nice new stadium, they would easily sell out every game....


----------



## MoreOrLess

Sitback said:


> I really really can't work out these ratings? USA better then Spain, Argies, England? Ha Ha Ha
> 
> Czech Republic 2nd best team in the world? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


The USA at no. 4 stands out much more than the Czech Republic at no.2 to me, people seem to forget that the latter were actually many peoples pic to win euro 2004 where they certainly played the best football of anyone involved IMHO. Combined with Czechoslovakia they actually have a great record at the european championships with a win, a runners up spot and three semi final appearances.


----------



## muc

Well, todays German team is definitely not the pinnacle of football, but come on.. 2 places behind Egypt?


----------



## Quintana

michal-skoczen said:


> Not only in US:
> 
> In Poland soccer teams Amica Wronki and Lech Poznań will join in next year. In practise Amica will move to Poznań and became a part o Lech team.


Mergers aren't the same thing as relocations. Mergers are pretty common in The Netherlands (and many other countries for that matter), a lot of our (professional) clubs are the results of mergers. Most mergers take/took place between clubs from the same towns (for instance FC Utrecht) but sometimes between clubs from different towns (for instance AZ Alkmaar). 

Relocations are almost completely unknown over here. The only one I can think of is Zwarte Schapen (meaning Black Sheeps, named after their former nickname. They were founded in the 1950's as BVC Amsterdam for the sole reason to play professional football, something that was a taboo and considered a sin by many) from Amsterdam. The team played in the lower amateur leagues for many years without any success or hope for a better future. Hence, about a decade ago they moved to the newly built town of Almere (the Milton Keynes of The Netherlands, horrible place), changed their name several times and finally joined the professional Dutch first division (second and lowest professional level after the Eredivisie) using the horrible name FC Omniworld...


----------



## Quintana

Well, Egypt won the latest Africa Cup if I'm not mistaken. When was the last time the Germans won a match that really mattered? I tend to say the semi-final in 2002 against South Korea.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Everyone knows the fifa rankings are a lughing stock :hahaha: :lol: :laugh: :hilarious :rofl: :rofl: 

USA 4th - they gained a place for drawing with Jaimica!!!???!!! We all know the reason behind this is Money, Fifa want to get to the american market, 

apparently the USA are better then Argentina, England, Italy Portugal, Spain, Mexico :wtf:


----------



## Aka

*Euro 96*
Czech Republic - final
Portugal - quarter finals

*World Cup 98*
Czech Republic - not qualified
Portugal - not qualified

*Euro 2000*
Czech Republic - group stage
Portugal - semi finals

*World Cup 2002*
Czech Republic - not qualified
Portugal - group stage

*Euro 2004*
Czech Republic - semi finals
Portugal - final

*World Cup 2006 qualifiers*
Czech Republic - qualified in second
Portugal - qualified in first without defeats

*FIFA Ranking*
Czech Republic - 2nd
Portugal - 8th

Yeah, right...


----------



## AcesHigh

@AKA: lol, thats so true!!


fortunatelly, Brazil ranking is very correct:

World Cup 1994: Champion
World Cup 1998: vice-champion
World Cup 2002: champion
World Cup qualifiers 2006: qualified in first

Copa América 2004: Champion
Copa América 2001: quarter-finals
Copa América 1999: Champion
Copa América 1997: Champion
Copa América 1995: Vice Champions

Confederations Cup:
2005: Champions
1999: vice champions
1994: Champions

only country to participate in EVERY WORLD CUP. Only country to win the World Cup FIVE TIMES. In route to a sixth time!


----------



## .B.

I know that both of them were beaten by Greece and they r still 19.    
:weirdo:


----------



## AcesHigh

Brazilian clubs have also won 7 times the Intercontinental Cup... the same as Italy, but less than Argentine clubs, who won it 9 times.


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

sorry but France USa and Czech Republic are easily "misplaced"


----------



## Aka

.B. said:


> I know that both of them were beaten by Greece and they r still 19.
> :weirdo:


I know Steaua and Crvena Zvezda were european champions and Arsenal, Valencia and Chelsea not.


----------



## Aka

AcesHigh said:


> Brazilian clubs have also won 7 times the Intercontinental Cup... the same as Italy, but less than Argentine clubs, who won it 9 times.


That doesn't count for the ranking. And who the hell cares about Intercontinental Cup? That stupid cup that was played in one match at 11 a.m. GMT??? :hilarious



AcesHigh said:


> fortunatelly, Brazil ranking is very correct


No one questions that indeed. Only the fools.


----------



## AcesHigh

Aka said:


> That doesn't count for the ranking. And who the hell cares about Intercontinental Cup? That stupid cup that was played in one match at 11 a.m. GMT??? :hilarious
> 
> 
> 
> No one questions that indeed. Only the fools.



oh well, South Americans care, and thats why we continually win it and prove South American clubs are better even if they have less money. Maybe when you europeans start caring about it, you may be able to prove your clubs are better in the PRACTICE, not only in THEORY.


----------



## ReddAlert

nomarandlee said:


> Baseball on the other hand something needs to be done. It would make me sick to see another baseball team in NYC but maybe there needs to be another team in that market so that the Yanks and Mets wouldn't have unfair advantage of a monopoly of the NYC market which gives them a certain unfair advantage.
> .



another baseball team in NYC makes me sick to my stomach. America is a big country--we should spread the love. Nobody wants to agree with me, but Indianapolis should be the next team to get an MLB team. Kick the Astros out of the N.L. Central and do some reconfiguring with the divisions, perhaps move the Astros to the A.L. West or move the Pirates to the N.L. East.


----------



## 40Acres

Hey, i'm one of the biggest US soccer fans on here, and even _I_ know that we are 11 spots overrated. 

My thoughts when i saw that: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

cough ..

BWHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH ..

Its still kinda cool for us though, even though i don't beleive it. And yet, Mexico was awarded our #1 seed.


----------



## Aka

I don't know. It's too in the middle of the season and now it's even worse! Honestly, we do care more about the Champions League.


----------



## Brent H.

NFLeuropefan said:


> I don't think you get it........ New Yorkers already have 2 TEAMS!!!! The market is completely saturated.... Plus, New Orleans sold out all of its games for the last 3-5 years before Katrina....... New Orleans is a great football town of 1.2 million people....


I was under the impression from most Saints fans I have talked to that they did not sell out and home games were blacked out on TV.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

They only sold out two games last season, but none of those games were in New Orleans, so they weren't blacked out.


----------



## nomarandlee

ReddAlert said:


> another baseball team in NYC makes me sick to my stomach. America is a big country--we should spread the love. Nobody wants to agree with me, but Indianapolis should be the next team to get an MLB team. Kick the Astros out of the N.L. Central and do some reconfiguring with the divisions, perhaps move the Astros to the A.L. West or move the Pirates to the N.L. East.


 
Indy could probably manage a team pretty well but they wouldn't be my top choice. The Indy market already is considered a shared market by Cinncy and the Chicago teams. It would be one of the better choices though. 
The first thing I would do is get the team out of Tampa. I love baseball but even if I lived down there that is the one stadium where I would dread to go watch a game. 
A team in Portland, Vegas, and maybe Charlotte make the mostsense. I think there could be use for one more west coast team and Vegas and SLC both have a lot of growth.


----------



## Brent H.

NFLeuropefan said:


> They only sold out two games last season, but none of those games were in New Orleans, so they weren't blacked out.


Obviously, theres no way they could sell out Tiger Stadium under those conditions, but I was refering to the years before that. I know I heard many Saints fans complaining about blackouts long before the Hurricane.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Sometimes they would get blacked out because they didn't sell out games within the 72 hour minimum.... Also, during the '90s, like a lot of teams, they didn't sell out many games..... That's probably what they were referring too........


----------



## ReddAlert

nomarandlee said:


> Indy could probably manage a team pretty well but they wouldn't be my top choice. The Indy market already is considered a shared market by Cinncy and the Chicago teams. It would be one of the better choices though.
> The first thing I would do is get the team out of Tampa. I love baseball but even if I lived down there that is the one stadium where I would dread to go watch a game.
> A team in Portland, Vegas, and maybe Charlotte make the mostsense. I think there could be use for one more west coast team and Vegas and SLC both have a lot of growth.


I would love to see an MLB team in Vegas...however, I doubt it will ever happen. Charlotte would be nice...but it seems they get some new expansion every year. Portland sounds intriguing, but is it a baseball town? To be quite honest I dont know to much about it...but I always hear it brought up in MLB relocation discussions. Ditto with SLC. 

I agree about Tampa. That stadium is disgusting. I cringed when I could see it from a cruiseship as we departed Tampa Bay. Not only should they leave Florida, but the Marlins should leave. 

What do you guys feel about Omaha, Birmingham, Louisville, Alberquerque, Vancouver, Monterrey, Mexico City, or San Juan for MLB baseball?


----------



## hngcm

Well, it's actually being built.


----------



## hngcm

AcesHigh said:


> oh well, South Americans care, and thats why we continually win it and prove South American clubs are better even if they have less money. Maybe when you europeans start caring about it, you may be able to prove your clubs are better in the PRACTICE, not only in THEORY.


And that's why most of Brazil's squad is in Europe...

Mexico can take on Brazil any day of the week, even tuesdays.


----------



## Scba

I'd love for the US to get an upset win in the whole thing. Heh.

"Football? Soccer? What's the big deal, it ain't that hard."


----------



## Brent H.

ReddAlert said:


> I would love to see an MLB team in Vegas...however, I doubt it will ever happen. Charlotte would be nice...but it seems they get some new expansion every year. Portland sounds intriguing, but is it a baseball town? To be quite honest I dont know to much about it...but I always hear it brought up in MLB relocation discussions. Ditto with SLC.
> 
> I agree about Tampa. That stadium is disgusting. I cringed when I could see it from a cruiseship as we departed Tampa Bay. Not only should they leave Florida, but the Marlins should leave.
> 
> What do you guys feel about Omaha, Birmingham, Louisville, Alberquerque, Vancouver, Monterrey, Mexico City, or San Juan for MLB baseball?


Obviously I like the idea of baseball in Charlotte, but it wont work, it might happen but it wont work. Right now we have two major pro franchises and 3 big NASCAR races as well as ECHL hockey and AAA baseball. The Charlotte market is saturated at the current size. Also I know that if charlotte ever got a baseball team that they would be just like Tampa Bay, Kansas City, or Pittsburgh. They would never spend the money to compete with teams like the Yankees. I prefer the city of charlotte put some money towards building a nice downtown ballpark for the Charlotte Knights rather than try to attract the majors, that way we dont spend hundreds of millions on a team that will probably never be good unless its an accident or MLB trys to level the playing field.

I think that the best place to move the Marlins or the Devil Rays would be San Antonio, theyre begging for another pro-franchise and since NFL is unlikely, baseball seems good. I think Vegas would be a better fit for the NBA, theyre have the all star game there next year.


----------



## Scba

It sounds like Florida is leaning towards San Antonio. I don't like it.

I think Portland deserves it much more. Texas already has two teams, and as big as that area is, the entire northwest has one team, with nothing between San Francisco and Seattle. Baseball's been around in Portland for 100 years, and they've had the Portland Beavers for who knows how long. They've already got a sweet 20,000+ capacity park that would bring in more fans than what Florida's got now even without renovations and upgrades. San Antonio doesn't have anything even close to that, so they'd have to either build an entire new park before they moved in, or somehow configure the Alamodome for baseball.

But I think everyone's shyness and uncertainty with the entire west coast will keep it in the heartland. 




ReddAlert said:


> What do you guys feel about Omaha, Birmingham, Louisville, Alberquerque, Vancouver, Monterrey, Mexico City, or San Juan for MLB baseball?


Actually, I think that Omaha would have the best shot down the road. The population is on the way up, people out there have passion for the sport. Take a look at the college world series; they'll be drawing 30,000 a game pretty soon out at Rosenblatt. But I doubt most of the country knows anything about that. ZOMG, corn farmers!!


----------



## Doc Halladay

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Was up in LA a couple of years back and spoke to a number of local yocals on that very subject.
> 
> The concensus with Los Angeles folk is they "don't deserve a team." They have had 2 teams and people did not show up. That is just bullshit about stadiums being dodgy and located in bad suburbs. They had NFL at all the stadiums there and it made no difference.
> 
> Also the local teams in LA appears to be uni teams, UCLA and USC which was a big shock for somebody who had no idea uni sports had any spectator appeal. (I played Uni cricket and football in Oz and you'd be lucky to get your dog to stay awake for the match and not wander off, let alone dragging a gf along for a Sat arvo)
> 
> As for the New Orleans Saints, I'd go and plonk 'em at Yankee Stadium. Close to Long Island, Manhatten and the eastern side of NYC. The Giants and Jets are stuck over in New Jersey. I cannot see a problem selling out 60,000 seats in NYC for football. Ice hockey and basketball wouldn't have the following it does which probably explains why the Nets and Islanders don't always pack 'em in.
> 
> Bottom line is NYC for long term growth, like a blue chip co. and with plenty of corporate opportunities, tv etc. Isn't about 50 per cent of the US media based in NYC also? What size would the New Orleans media market be?


It won't work man. There's already 2 teams in NYC and the sports market there has already chosen their favorite teams. Football fans are as passionate as they come and won't just switch teams because there's a new option. There's also the Philadelphia Eagles, Baltimore Ravens, Washington Redskins, and New England Patriots in the not-so-distant area as well.

I personally think the Saints should stay in New Orleans unless attendance completely dwindles off.


----------



## nomarandlee

> ReddAlert]I would love to see an MLB team in Vegas...however, I doubt it will ever happen.


 Yea, it has some drawbacks but it also has some real good pluses as well. 



> Charlotte would be nice...but it seems they get some new expansion every year.


 Thats true. They also don't seem like the best of pro sports fans around but the size and geographical nature (not any team between Atlanta and DC) would work in its favor.



> Portland sounds intriguing, but is it a baseball town?


 I think it could be. It works in Seattle and San Fran. Portland is a very X-games granola type of city where a tradiontal sport like baseball might be too "untool" and not indivualistic enough to be a big. I think they would still get a good number of fans though.



> Ditto with SLC.


 I think SLC would maybe be the best after Portland. They might be odd but they are kind of opposite then Portland. With how much they embrace the Jazz I think a baseball team would really fly. In a very family oriented city where summer season is kind of the downtime compared to its ski season I think baseball could really work there.



> Not only should they leave Florida, but the Marlins should leave.


 I think if Miami and Tampa both had good stadiums they would have a fighting chance (especially Miami). It doesn't seem like the autorities and people want to pony up though and I can't say I blame them.




> What do you guys feel about Omaha, Birmingham, Louisville, Alberquerque, Vancouver, Monterrey, Mexico City, or San Juan for MLB baseball?


 All possiable to some degree but definately behind those others already talked about.


----------



## kavok

I really think MLB should put a team in Mexico City. The city is obviously big enough, and being the capitol city there is more than enough money to support it. Additionally, I think it would be really good for the league and the game in further marketing the sport outside the U.S. There is a huge hispanic population that loves baseball, why not give them a team in Mexico to root for?


----------



## nomarandlee

> I think that the best place to move the Marlins or the Devil Rays would be San Antonio, theyre begging for another pro-franchise and since NFL is unlikely, baseball seems good. I think Vegas would be a better fit for the NBA, theyre have the all star game there next year.


 Ughh...S.A. would be pretty far down on my list. It just seems most Texans are so apathetic to baseball and if Dallas and Houston even with their size fail to really thrive and they are considerably bigger. I think two teams is Texas is likely enough. If S.A. promises Loria a big enough stadium and lots of perks maybe in his eyes it would fly though.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^Where?


----------



## Culiat

hngcm said:


> Well, it's actually being built.


Guadalajara, Mexico


----------



## Durbsboi

What the Hell is USA doing in 4th place!!!! What they played Canada 1000 times & beat them by more than 5 goals on each occasion? that bullshit! we will see how this '4th' ranked team does in the WC come June, if they done make it to the final four, these guys who rank the teams have major problems.............

on a lighter note, its nice to see South Africa in the top 100, & guess what we might get Sven after WC 2006!


----------



## Durbsboi

^^oooh nice, lools cool, but why do most South Americans & Mexican stadiums opt for the oval type of pitch? instead of the normal rectangle, so the fans can be close to the field.


----------



## rantanamo

A little bitter? I think its been stated on here that no one likes the FIFA ranking system.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^Not really, I know USA got some quality players, & they beat Brazil a few times, but dno if the top 5 material, you know wat I mean?


----------



## MoreOrLess

I can sympathise with FIFA a little as with all qualifying and every other major competision being regoinal its not easy to come up with a hard and fast ranking. However the unbalanced nature in which they've given out WC spots in order to try and encourage the growth of football in Asia and North America hardly helps.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

LOL, USA ranked 4th. Maybe Donald Rumsfeld does the figures for FIFA in his spare time?


----------



## Kampflamm

Quintana said:


> Well, Egypt won the latest Africa Cup if I'm not mistaken. When was the last time the Germans won a match that really mattered? I tend to say the semi-final in 2002 against South Korea.


We haven't had any games that matter since 04 (no qualifying round for the wc). This is why we're so far down the list as well.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I thought that teams hosting a major championships were aloud to nominate certain friendlies as ranking matchs to make up for the lack of qualifing?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Last match the USA played: Germany 4-1 USA .....and Germany arn't even half the great team they were a few years ago.

What is it with FIFA's rankings...?? Why can they never get it right? They base it on really crappy issues, and totally ignore the general, factual concensus of the whole world. I mean, yes, they may have faced the big hitters like Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemalaa few times :laugh: so naturally they move up to 4th in the world-yes, I said WORLD- rankings.

Good God...England played the USA in a friendly last year with a totally unexperineced side, with basically no big name, first team players.... on the USA's home soil, and England still beat them 2-1. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming Americans for this ****-up, it's purely those idiots at FIFA that are trying desperately to get to the American market by making them feel like they are high up in the world rankings.

But it pisses me off when really good teams out there who have to face difficult opposition all the time, and who have built up really good teams with world classs players, and proved their worth, get landed with a crappy ranking.

It should go something like:

1 Brazil 
2 England
3 Portugal
4 Czech Republic 
5 Netherlands 
6 Spain
7 Argentina
8 France
9 Italy
10 Germany

Now don't get in a fuss about that list, you may not agree with some of the positions, and you may think your own country deserves to be up there, but the places arn't that important, it's just basically what the top 10 should be made up of.

But anyway, lets all wait till the World Cup, then we can let the teams do the talking! How long is it now...49 days and 6 hours (from this post) I believe!  Can't wait!!!

:cheers:


----------



## dave8721

nomarandlee said:


> I think if Miami and Tampa both had good stadiums they would have a fighting chance (especially Miami). It doesn't seem like the autorities and people want to pony up though and I can't say I blame them.
> QUOTE]
> 
> The Marlins were offered as much as $400 million by the local governments in Miami but there was about a $25 million funding gap (because the State wanted no part of the deal) and the Marlins wouldn't agree to be on the hook for cost overruns (which always happen) so they decided to look for better offers elsewhere.
> 
> San Antonio is offering half of what Miami offered but is under the dilusion that you can build a retractable roof stadium for only $250 million.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

USA plays in North America for its "serious" matches.

Even if you had both USA and Mexico in Oceania they would be fighting for 2nd spot with New Zealand.


----------



## victory

BobDaBuilder said:


> USA plays in North America for its "serious" matches.
> 
> Even if you had both USA and Mexico in Oceania they would be fighting for 2nd spot with New Zealand.


USA would slaughter New Zealand.


----------



## decapitated

Kampflamm said:


> It certainly looks better than some of the cookie cutter small stadiums that are being (or have been) built in Germany (Magdeburg, Duisburg, Mönchengladbach).


Come on, you can't campare Borussia Park in Mönchengladbach with this little stadium.


----------



## Aka

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> It should go something like:
> 
> 1 Brazil
> 2 England
> 3 Portugal
> 4 Czech Republic
> 5 Netherlands
> 6 Spain
> 7 Argentina
> 8 France
> 9 Italy
> 10 Germany
> 
> Now don't get in a fuss about that list, you may not agree with some of the positions, and you may think your own country deserves to be up there, but the places arn't that important, it's just basically what the top 10 should be made up of.


Of course I don't. Portugal is always kicking England's ass. :hahaha: (but that doesn't mean we should be 2nd, not at all)


----------



## Guest

Arr you were lucky  Campbells goal should'a stuck


----------



## tommygunn

The USA are better than France and Argentina no chance.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Last match the USA played: Germany 4-1 USA .....and Germany arn't even half the great team they were a few years ago.
> 
> What is it with FIFA's rankings...?? Why can they never get it right? They base it on really crappy issues, and totally ignore the general, factual concensus of the whole world. I mean, yes, they may have faced the big hitters like Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemalaa few times :laugh: so naturally they move up to 4th in the world-yes, I said WORLD- rankings.
> 
> Good God...England played the USA in a friendly last year with a totally unexperineced side, with basically no big name, first team players.... on the USA's home soil, and England still beat them 2-1. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming Americans for this ****-up, it's purely those idiots at FIFA that are trying desperately to get to the American market by making them feel like they are high up in the world rankings.
> 
> But it pisses me off when really good teams out there who have to face difficult opposition all the time, and who have built up really good teams with world classs players, and proved their worth, get landed with a crappy ranking.
> 
> It should go something like:
> 
> 1 Brazil
> 2 England
> 3 Portugal
> 4 Czech Republic
> 5 Netherlands
> 6 Spain
> 7 Argentina
> 8 France
> 9 Italy
> 10 Germany
> 
> Now don't get in a fuss about that list, you may not agree with some of the positions, and you may think your own country deserves to be up there, but the places arn't that important, it's just basically what the top 10 should be made up of.
> 
> But anyway, lets all wait till the World Cup, then we can let the teams do the talking! How long is it now...49 days and 6 hours (from this post) I believe!  Can't wait!!!
> 
> :cheers:


As I said I can see FIFA's dilemma a little, if you give out ranking points based on quality of opposition faced(which itself needs some kind of ranking) then teams outside of europe and south america are going to find it impossible to get into the higher spots.

I personally don't care about the rankings as an end to themselves but if/when they start to have an effect on seedings or the number of placings at a world cup it becomes more of an issue. As has been said I think FIFA have made a none to subtle atempt to expand into North America and Asia, most likely to try and open new revenue streams not under UEFA control. Most obviously when the world cup expanded from 24 to 32 teams the europeans did not get any extra spots while CONCAF's allocation rose to 3 1/2 spots and the AFC's(asia) to 4 1/2 spots. Based on merit both should have a maxium of two spots IMHO with the other 5 shared between Europe, South America and maybe Africa.


----------



## great prairie

Its AlL gUUd said:


> USA 4th - they gained a place for drawing with Jaimica!!!???!!! We all know the reason behind this is Money, Fifa want to get to the american market,


I agree the US shouldn't be in the top 10 but no one in America has any idea about these rankings....


----------



## Aka

SimLim said:


> Arr you were lucky  Campbells goal should'a stuck


It was a foul, only you can't see that. But we weren't expecting anything else...

Euro 2000: Portugal-England, 3-2
Euro 2004: Portugal-England, 2-2 (p.k.: Portugal)

Champions League: FC Porto-Manchester United, 2-1 ; Manchester United-FC Porto, 1-1
UEFA Cup: Middlesbrough-Sporting, 2-3 ; Sporting-Middlesbrough, 1-0
Champions League: Benfica-Manchester United, 2-1 ; Benfica-Liverpool, 1-0 ; Liverpool-Benfica, 0-2

I can't remember Campbell in any of them.


----------



## João Paulo

I think this ranking is a big joke. There are some countries that benefit from the ranking just because they are located in areas where football is just too weak, competition is very low, an example of this is the USA. USA are forth in the ranking, maybe because they play against coutries with no expression in football except for Mexico.


----------



## Guest

Only me - the whole flaming nation, even the scots were with us on that decision 

A keeper with a 2 foot head start should never get freekicks so easily for such a minimal amount of contact not to mention it was your own player who "fouled" your flimsy keeper :runaway: 

Anyway, Im not that bothered it was a while ago now. but why have you picked out sporadic results of club football matches? :dunno: that ones got me


----------



## Aka

SimLim said:


> Only me - the whole flaming nation, even the scots were with us on that decision


You = English



SimLim said:


> A keeper with a 2 foot head start should never get freekicks so easily for such a minimal amount of contact not to mention it was your own player who "fouled" your flimsy keeper :runaway:


If my granny had wheels she would be a taxi. When a player touches the keeper inside the 6-yard box is ALWAYS a foul, except when he reaches the ball first. But hey, let us menace the ref's family.



SimLim said:


> Anyway, Im not that bothered it was a while ago now. but why have you picked out sporadic results of club football matches? :dunno: that ones got me


Sporadic? All of them have 6 or less years. Since 2000, only Leeds beat a portuguese team: Marítimo twice. The giant Marítimo..........


----------



## Guest

Nice little clip of what the English think of European football 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjH2_L1RMLg&search=Euro 2004


----------



## Aka

Yeah, we all know you're not european.


----------



## Guest

Were the only part that try and play by the rules


----------



## Guest

Ohh i've got myself angry again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ORP_Gv5Rs&search=Euro 2004


----------



## Aka

SimLim said:


> Were the only part that try and play by the rules


No, you just can't play good football. It's not in your blood. That's why you can only stop Ronaldo by kicking him in the nuts, is not a norwegian-english type of player.


----------



## Aka

SimLim said:


> Ohh i've got myself angry again
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ORP_Gv5Rs&search=Euro 2004


Thanks for showing the world I'm right.


----------



## Guest

Aka said:


> Thanks for showing the world I'm right.


Hows it a foul? honestly - you really think thats a foul? my god you guys are women.

neither Terry or Campbell had eyes on anything else but the ball. It really is a no brainer.


----------



## Aka

Football rules. It wasn't me who made it. Yes, it's a crappy law, but it's the law.


----------



## Aka

And by the way...



SimLim said:


> Were the only part that try and play by the *rules*


But when is Campbell...............................


----------



## rantanamo

horseshoe
"winged"
saddle roof
bowl


----------



## Simon-maly

KORONA KIELCE vs WISLA KRAKOW 15.000 Spectators


----------



## Giorgio

Crappy old Bowl shape with a crappy calatrava roof that is suspended on an 80m high arc and has a span of more than 300m :weirdo:


----------



## Kampflamm

Stadium design hasn't really changed that much since the days of the Coliseum.


----------



## vivayo

maybe baseball has the most diferent designs because of its field shape,,,, other than that, most stadiums have a rectangular - bowlish shape, since football - athletics - rugby - american football- all of the have rectangular grounds


----------



## TalB

40Acres said:


> Women play basketball? What's next, voting?


They had to right to vote in US elections since 1920, but I guess you were living under a rock all that time.


----------



## ReddAlert

Whoa, are we talking about two teams in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area? No offense, but I would say no to that.


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

nomarandlee said:


> Maybe another team in Dallas would thrive (it will not happen though). I am not even entirely sure if Chicago and the Bay area should have two teams .


Dallas/Arlington should work on actually getting people to come to a Rangers game much less worrying about a new team. The Stadium sits over 49,000 yet the Rangers only averaged about 32,000 last year. 

Looking at it from a MLB standpoint I'm not sure there are any places they can/could go other than where they already are. The problem is they've put expansion teams in places they shouldn't be. Florida alone is a bad place for baseball. Fans in FLA are mostly transplants from other areas and creating new teams isn't going to get much of the market down there. The Dolphins are big because they had history and had Marino to draw in fans, the Heat didn't appear on the radar until Shaq came, and who cared about the Bucs before the Dungy-Super Bowl years? Even today the Dolphins still have some of their games blacked out due to not filling the stadium. It was a major mistake for MLB to expand to Florida, now they're gonna have to try to fix it.

San Antonio? I'm not sure that's a good enough market as a whole to support a baseball team. They do a GREAT job of supporting the Spurs but you have to remember that's 41 spread out games. It's a lot easier to draw 30-40k every couple of nights, every couple of weeks rather than drawing 40-50k every night for a week and a half. 

Baseball in Charlotte would be a joke, look at the Bobcats. When you look at some of the better sports cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.--there's not a lot of opportunity if any to expand to these places. You're not going to put a new team in NY, where would you put it, upstate? I think there's clearly a corner on the market with the Mets and Yankees. Chicago has two teams, Boston? I guess it's possible to put it some where in New England but the Red Sox have such a strangle hold on the baseball market, finding fans to purely be behind a new team would be difficult.

The only team in MLB that should be moved right now is the Marlins. There are teams like The Royals where the city can and will support the team the owner just needs to stop being so cheap and put out a team that can contend. It's a joke how the owners of the Royals, Twins, Devil Rays, etc. can just pocket the revenue sharing money w/o spending it. The MLB should in the next CBA put a clause that you have to take 90% of the revenue sharing you recieve and put it back out onto the field. The weaker teams will become stronger and you know what they say about the chain being as strong as it's weakest link and all...


----------



## nomarandlee

> BostonSkyGuy]Dallas/Arlington should work on actually getting people to come to a Rangers game much less worrying about a new team. The Stadium sits over 49,000 yet the Rangers only averaged about 32,000 last year.


 Oh, that is what I was saying. Some Texas defenders got pretty mad at that suggestion that baseball doesn't thrive in Texas (just because many good players come from there and there are good college teams doesn't mean that it translate to die hard support for the pro-franchises). And that is not a rip on Dallas or Houston because I am not sure if even optimal ot have Chicago or the Bay region to have two teams.





> Florida alone is a bad place for baseball. Fans in FLA are mostly transplants from other areas and creating new teams isn't going to get much of the market down there.


 Thats true. And southern baseball fans (and sports fans in general with a few exceptions) seem to be more fickle with their pro sports teams. I think if the Marlins got the right stadium in the right location though that baseball still could thrive there.
The Tampa area? Forget about it. The stadium is one thing but even if they had a lnice stadium I am not sure if that would be a very thriving market.





> New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.--there's not a lot of opportunity if any to expand to these places. You're not going to put a new team in NY, where would you put it, upstate?


 Even though I would hate I think a thrid team in NYC might make sense possiably. The Mets and Yankees would never allow it though. But it would be benificial for the rest of MLB to make those two teams share the market even further more with a third team.
Anywhere else in NY state? No way.




> The only team in MLB that should be moved right now is the Marlins. There are teams like The Royals where the city can and will support the team the owner just needs to stop being so cheap and put out a team that can contend. It's a joke how the owners of the Royals, Twins, Devil Rays, etc.


 I would want the D-Rays moved before the Marlins. But they are both near the top. The A's in Portland or somewhere else might also make sense but if they can find a new home in the Bay Area and want to stay God bless em'.




> can just pocket the revenue sharing money w/o spending it. The MLB should in the next CBA put a clause that you have to take 90% of the revenue sharing you recieve and put it back out onto the field. The weaker teams will become stronger and you know what they say about the chain being as strong as it's weakest link and all


 That and there needs to be some sort of ceiling. The advanatage the Yanks have in terms of the NYC market just make the whole economics obscene. Baseball gets real old when the Yanks can literally get the best free agent every off-season and effectevly buy an All-Star deam (the only reason why they haven't won the last 5 years is because thankfully Cashmen is largely a dope).


----------



## pompeyfan

*Fornebu Arena, future*








Fornebu Arena

future (2007)


----------



## pompeyfan

must apologise for the small pics, but have got some anyway.


How do you make the pics bigger???


----------



## pompeyfan

unfortunately i don't know the capacity, but it looks like a good stadium none the less, it will be the home of StabaekFC.


----------



## pompeyfan

it will hold football and concerts etc


----------



## pompeyfan

any more thoughts?


----------



## highburysouljah

what country?


----------



## victory

vivayo said:


> maybe baseball has the most diferent designs because of its field shape,,,, other than that, most stadiums have a rectangular - bowlish shape, since football - athletics - rugby - american football- all of the have rectangular grounds


But Cricket and Athletics are different. Australian football is too (cricket shape)


----------



## pompeyfan

highburysouljah said:


> what country?


Stabaek is in Norway i am pretty sure


----------



## pompeyfan

approx 15000 seats from some sources, but the only ones that are trustworthy (club and constructors) websites are in a language i don't understand


----------



## 40Acres

nomarandlee said:


> Oh, that is what I was saying. Some Texas defenders got pretty mad at that suggestion that baseball doesn't thrive in Texas (just because many good players come from there and there are good college teams doesn't mean that it translate to die hard support for the pro-franchises).


Thats not it at all. you said that Texas wasn't a die hard baseball state, and i'm telling you that it is. Sure, if we were in the Bronx or Queens market, and it was the only game in town, we would probably average more than 39K. As it is, Texas is a huge baseball state, with 2 MLB teams with solid fan support, and 6+ college teams that average more than most minor league teams who are competative on the national stage, not including the Texas League AA and AAA system, and top rate high school baseball (as evidenced by the number of Texas-bred pros in MLB). So, all in all, i would say Texas would be the #1,2 or 3 market for baseball in terms of interest and tradition. Cali would be up there too, and maybe Florida. 

Missouri, Illinois, New York, and the New England area really can't compete with TX for baseball prowess in terms of starpower, number of competative leagues, players, and overall interest. 

There needs to be another team in TX if California has 4 teams. Its a HUUUUUUGE untapped market.


----------



## highburysouljah

looks really nice of a small stadium


----------



## JimB

Goofy -

Give it up. You're wrong. EADGBE is right.

Nat Lofthouse was a BOLTON WANDERERS player for his entire career.


----------



## Goofy

JimB said:


> Goofy -
> 
> Give it up. You're wrong. EADGBE is right.
> 
> Nat Lofthouse was a BOLTON WANDERERS player for his entire career.


Incorrect. That pic doesn't even look like Shankly for God's sake! It's definitely Nat. 100%.


----------



## EADGBE

Goofy said:


> No disrespect mate but I've forgotten more about seat design that you'll ever know. I was born with a plastic seat on my head. That's Finney and Lofthouse. Answer me this then, which team's mascot is called Lofty The Lion?
> 
> Correct. Named after? Nat Lofthouse.


No disrespect is taken, mate, yours is a flawless argument...

...if it was not for the fact that it is *Bolton Wanderers* for whom Lofty the Lion acts as mascot.









*Lofty the Lion, with the Premiership trophy, for some reason, yesterday*

Are you sure you weren't born with a plastic seat *in* your head - instead of a brain?

I'm sure you have indeed forgotten a great deal about many of the things you profess to know about. Unfortunately, the ability to retain information tends to make for more well-informed and credible debating ability


----------



## Eat poor people

Goofy (also known as 'Welly' and some gansta guy who's username I can't remember) is trying to be like Bubomb, but is failing in two very important points. First of all he is not as funny as Bubomb, and second of all, Bubombs knowledge of Stadiums was outstanding, whereas Goofy constantly gets his facts wrong, like when he was trying to argue that Hampden wasn't a UEFA 5 star stadium.

C'mon Goofy, you need to spend a bit more time doing your homework before you can even think about stepping into the shoes of the great Bubomb!!


----------



## Goofy

EADGBE said:


> No disrespect is taken, mate, yours is a flawless argument...
> 
> ...if it was not for the fact that it is *Bolton Wanderers* for whom Lofty the Lion acts as mascot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lofty the Lion, with the Premiership trophy, for some reason, yesterday*
> 
> Are you sure you weren't born with a plastic seat *in* your head - instead of a brain?
> 
> I'm sure you have indeed forgotten a great deal about many of the things you profess to know about. Unfortunately, the ability to retain information tends to make for more well-informed and credible debating ability


Look can we just agree to disagree? It seems people on this site can't have a debate without getting offensive and juvenile. I respect your views (even though they're 100% incorrect) and you should respect mine.

Billy Shankly! :lol:


----------



## JimB

Goofy said:


> Incorrect. That pic doesn't even look like Shankly for God's sake! It's definitely Nat. 100%.


And doubtless in your world black is white and 2+2=5.

:wallbash:


----------



## Goofy

Eat poor people said:


> Goofy (also known as 'Welly' and some gansta guy who's username I can't remember) is trying to be like Bubomb, but is failing in two very important points. First of all he is not as funny as Bubomb, and second of all, Bubombs knowledge of Stadiums was outstanding, whereas Goofy constantly gets his facts wrong, like when he was trying to argue that Hampden wasn't a UEFA 5 star stadium.
> 
> C'mon Goofy, you need to spend a bit more time doing your homework before you can even think about stepping into the shoes of the great Bubomb!!


err...ok bubomb whatever you say


----------



## JimB

Eat poor people said:


> Goofy (also known as 'Welly' and some gansta guy who's username I can't remember) is trying to be like Bubomb, but is failing in two very important points. First of all he is not as funny as Bubomb, and second of all, Bubombs knowledge of Stadiums was outstanding, whereas Goofy constantly gets his facts wrong, like when he was trying to argue that Hampden wasn't a UEFA 5 star stadium.
> 
> C'mon Goofy, you need to spend a bit more time doing your homework before you can even think about stepping into the shoes of the great Bubomb!!


Hello, bubomb.


----------



## Eat poor people

Spend more time with your head in the books young pea-brain! Only then will you reach the path to great Stadium knowledge!


----------



## EADGBE

Eat poor people said:


> Goofy (also known as 'Welly' and some gansta guy who's username I can't remember) is trying to be like Bubomb, but is failing in two very important points. First of all he is not as funny as Bubomb, and second of all, Bubombs knowledge of Stadiums was outstanding, whereas Goofy constantly gets his facts wrong, like when he was trying to argue that Hampden wasn't a UEFA 5 star stadium.
> 
> C'mon Goofy, you need to spend a bit more time doing your homework before you can even think about stepping into the shoes of the great Bubomb!!


Well said - bubomb!

A little immodest of you but we can overlook that. I did have my suspicions that it is Welly - but if it is, I'd be a little disappointed. He was far funnier and more obnoxious as Welly. It's like he's been on some kind of medication in this guise!

I can't believe he wasn't being that wrong on purpose. Arguing with him is like shooting particularly stupid fish in a very small barrel.

Anyway, it's a form of entertainment, I guess....


----------



## Eat poor people

JimB said:


> Hello, bubomb.


Hello, pleased to meet you. I am Bibomb, Bubomb's younger brother.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

bjfan82 said:


> I'm surprised to see that no one mentioned one of the Buffalo teams. The Bills have been here for 47 years, the Sabres for 36. There is zero chance of the Sabres leaving, but the Bills on the other hand may be different. With the new collective bargaining agreement our owner (Ralph Wilson) has been on the news every other night talking about how he can't assure the Bills will stay here forever. As far as I'm concerned, if the Bills don't move by 2008 to L.A. (which I don't think will happen anyways) we'll be in good shape because after Los Angeles there aren't any other markets just screaming for an NFL team. The NFL all but promised a team in LA by '08, so hopefully no one will offer Ralph Wilson $1 billion for the Bills to move them there.
> 
> I've been reading through the last five pages of this thread and I would say the Pirates probably won't move because of the new stadium, but I wouldn't rule it out because they are losing money and have a losing product on the field. My feel for teams moving would be the Penguins, Twins, Saints, Chargers (only to LA), Vikings, and maybe the Colts. I haven't really heard about too many other teams leaving their cities. I would've said the KC Royals and/or KC Chiefs but they just approved stadium repairs to keep the teams there.


Well, they obviously won't move the Colts, they have a new stadium being built, and as for the Chiefs, there was no chance they would move with all of the fans that they have, 

BTW, I believe the KC stadium deal was shot down.........


----------



## pompeyfan

so we meet again, welly


----------



## pompeyfan

cool


----------



## moxwax

ICE PALACE (officially St. Pete Times Forum)
Tampa Bay, FL, USA
capacity: 25000
use: ice hockey, concerts

outside:

























inside:


----------



## Durbsboi

So is it shankleys face on the seats or not?


----------



## Giorgio

Why would Albania need an Olympic Stadium? :?


----------



## Martuh

Ahoy Rotterdam:










10.000 seats. And I thought I'd read somewhere that it was going to be expanded to 15.00 seats but I can't find anything about it now.


----------



## Martuh

They hosted the Olympics?


----------



## Giorgio

No. lol.


----------



## JimB

Durbsboi said:


> So is it shankleys face on the seats or not?


Yes!!


----------



## Durbsboi

Where's Albania? :?:


----------



## dANIEL2004

A stadium about 30,000 people would be very enoygh I think.


----------



## rantanamo

My favorites

American Airlines Center


























Perhaps the ultimate indoor stadium, Ford Field

























when you can't build new stands because of historic buildings, add them to the concourse


----------



## rantanamo

can't think of many permanent ones in the U.S. besides this:

Invesco











and the Linc


----------



## Durbsboi

I thought that Invesco was called mile high?


----------



## rantanamo

Mile High Stadium = demolished.









Invesco Field = Invesco Field @ Mile High as it was built next door and wanted a connection to the past.


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

Durbsboi said:


> Where's Albania? :?:



Grow up man.


----------



## Durbsboi

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> Grow up man.


I'm serious, I havent heard of Albania before


----------



## Durbsboi

Ahh dam, I loved that floating stand.


----------



## JimB

I love that new Denver stadium.

Beautiful, curvy shape.

IMO, by far the best of the new US stadiums.


----------



## tv123

Durbsboi said:


> I'm serious, I havent heard of Albania before


----------



## Durbsboi

Oh thanx, so its on the Arabian sea


----------



## Giorgio

Durbsboi said:


> I'm serious, I havent heard of Albania before


Quick facts:

Above Greece. 

A GDP of just under 20 billion 

About 3 Million population

Capital is Tirana


----------



## kostya

I expected to see this thread started by some crazy albanian


----------



## tv123

Durbsboi said:


> Oh thanx, so its on the Arabian sea


you are funny :sleepy:


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

The new and improved O2 Arena (The Dome) in London. 
Capacity: 23-26,000
Status: Undergoing major refurbishments to the inside, constructing a proper indoor arena and leisure facilities (restaurants, shops etc).
Year of expected completion: 2007




















































:cheers:


----------



## The Hunted

^^ Looks great.


----------



## R.J. MacReady

*Elevated front rows of seating*

If you look at most the new German stadiums, the front rows are elevated above pitch level thus giving the people on these seats a much better view. At older grounds where the front seats come down to pitch level, the view is terrible as your head is at the height of the players stomach (sometimes lower), so you can't accurately tell what is going on across the pitch. Everybody I know hates being in the first rows of seats if there is no elevation.

My question is, why aren't all knew grounds built with elevated front rows? Some new stands/stadiums still have pitch level front row seating which results in a terrible view of the action???

I shown some exmples below -


Good elevation -

























































BAD elevation -


----------



## Kampflamm

At least 200,000 seats.


----------



## Socrates

A gap for elevation is, in essence, unutilised space. As long as people continue to pay to sit in the front seats right at the bottom, clubs will not elevate them, as it will cut off revenue streams. EG there are probably 2 rows at the front that would have to go to make the front elevated to a height that would placate you, 

2 x 800 seats at £25 a pop = £40,000 lost revenue per game. 

With these extra seats the clubs can afford to employ another overpaid fairy with a questionable haircut and penchant for roasting teenagers. 

Plus, young children often like sitting in the front rows to be nearer the players.


----------



## Drogba

*THE END*

THE END


----------



## archifreese

^why couldnt you just lower the field as opposed to raising the stands. 
i believe Ohio State University in america did it and got rid of the running track adding a few thousand seats and being able to get the front rows elevated (which it previously wasn't).


----------



## Socrates

archifreese said:


> ^why couldnt you just lower the field as opposed to raising the stands.
> i believe Ohio State University in america did it and got rid of the running track adding a few thousand seats and being able to get the front rows elevated (which it previously wasn't).


Its the same thing. If you lower the pitch - more space becomes available for more rows of seating, which could bring in more £££. I could only see more rows not being added if there was no chance they could be sold.

And lowering the pitch costs money also, so if it isn't going to make the clubs money - what would be the point? 

Clubs are profit seeking enterprises and as such, the rules of capitalism dictate what they do.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Socrates said:


> Plus, young children often like sitting in the front rows to be nearer the players.


Indeed, I'm sure there are more than a few people who like being so close to the action(at least compaired to being in the equivalent of the 3rd row in these raised stadiums) plus I think you lose something when a player can't score a goal then go right up to the fans. As someone said I can see the reason for it in US football with all the people on the sidelines but I preffer lower stands in europe.


----------



## Isaac Newell

It's probably to make hosting concerts easier. They are multi purpose stadia and in most cases probably not owned by the club themselves.

Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands is a good example of this.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Isaac Newell said:


> It's probably to make hosting concerts easier. They are multi purpose stadia and in most cases probably not owned by the club themselves.
> 
> Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands is a good example of this.


I'm pretty sure rantanamo's right, you can so many people on the sidelines of NFL games you wouldnt be able to see anythign from some seats.


----------



## R.J. MacReady

You cannot seriously be saying you would prefer to be sitting at pitch level compared to a seat 1m above pitch level. Being 1m above pitch level means you are still just as close to the action, but with a much better view. If I got a season ticket at pitch level I would return it. It is by far the worst seat in a stadium. You cannot tell what is happening on the other side of the pitch!!


----------



## Goofy

Some people like sitting in the first few rows at pitch height, some people do not. A stadium with pitch height seats gives this option. A stadium with elevated seats does not.

Simple.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Mods, make sure you IP ban him this time.


----------



## Socrates

MoreOrLess said:


> Mods, make sure you IP ban him this time.


Grow up and stop being such a drama queen.


----------



## rantanamo

couldn't see a thang if the front row wasn't high. Too many players, coaches, officials and reporters on an NFL sideline. Even where there are less people behind the endzones, you'd still have a hard time following the game on the other end of the field.


----------



## www.sercan.de

from fifa stadium handbook


----------



## MoreOrLess

Socrates said:


> Grow up and stop being such a drama queen.


Its pretty obvious who it is and while the subject isnt quite as obvious flamebait as normal this is going to go downhill fast.


----------



## eddyk

Socrates said:


> Grow up and stop being such a drama queen.


What the heck are you defending him (bubomb) for?


----------



## Goofy

MoreOrLess said:


> Its pretty obvious who it is and while the subject isnt quite as obvious flamebait as normal its equally obvious this is going to go downhill fast.


No disrespect MoreOrLess, but have you actually stopped to listen to yourself?

Turn it in you turd.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Goofy said:


> No disrespect MoreOrLess, but have you actually stopped to listen to yourself?
> 
> Turn it in you turd.


Typed while watching TV.......obviously.


----------



## R.J. MacReady

MoreOrLess said:


> Its pretty obvious who it is and while the subject isnt quite as obvious flamebait as normal this is going to go downhill fast.


Yeah, grow up ya fanny!


----------



## R.J. MacReady

www.sercan.de said:


> from fifa stadium handbook



Thanks for that. First time I have seen that! Cheers.


----------



## highburysouljah

Good elevation = bad atmosophere


----------



## Brent H.

Heres a small rendering of a new Stadium for Charlotte's AAA baseball team the Knights. It should be about 10-15,000 seats. The Knight currently play about a little south of Charlotte in Fort MIll, SC and attendence is horrible because most people wont drive 20 minutes to the middle of nowhere to see a game, putting it downtown in a nice new ballpark would probably create more interest in the team.


----------



## victory

Definatly not the best, but my favourite:










Thunderdome at Calder Park raceway, Melbourne, Australia.


----------



## ol_hh

ha.. this is a work for many years as a hobby. I travelled to more than 400 stadiums in europe by myself, so I asked people from outside europe...


----------



## Iggybumtastic

*Arabic stadiums*

Here are some stadiums from some Arabic countries -


New one in Egypt -



















Cairo -











New one in Morocco -



















Stade Hassan II (Morocco) -











Stade du 7 novembre (Tunisia) -






































King Fahd Stadium (Saudi Arabia) -


----------



## nomarandlee

*What EU football stadium would you suggest...*

to go for a first timer? I thought to myself, some Europeans love to lecture Americans on "footy". So I thought of a topic you could lecture on about. If you were to suggest one European football stadium to an American (or really any foreigner) to best take in just one time for the "footy" experience in terms of atmosphere, stadium, competitiveness, and what a prototypical European football what would it be? Please don't necessarily go with your favorite team or choose tourneys like the World Cup etc.

I might go to Europe at the end of the summer and I want to catch a game and want suggestions where the one place is that I should get my arzze into a seat to watch a game and get the epitome of experience..


----------



## vivayo

hye me to, i'll be in europe, from mid july to august 8,,,

I'll be in London ( hope to see Wembley in person), Prage, Munich, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Paris, and Amsterdam..


----------



## vivayo

i know that theres a lot of big clubs in cities i'm visiting ( Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, etc), but really like Nomarandlee, i'll like a great experience, my bets will be with some roman tifossi, or paris saint germain fans, or amsterdam ..

but lets listen to the european guys.


----------



## Wader

vivayo said:


> i know that theres a lot of big clubs in cities i'm visiting ( Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, etc), but really like Nomarandlee, i'll like a great experience, my bets will be with some roman tifossi, or paris saint germain fans, or amsterdam ..
> 
> but lets listen to the european guys.


You do realise you're going during the close-season? All the big teams will be off around the world playing meaningless pre-season friendlies before the season starts at the end of August.

Old Trafford would be the ultimate though if you could ever get here during the season.


----------



## vivayo

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: 

mmaaaaa,,, not even some league will start, or cup tournaments????

international frienlies?????


----------



## Wader

vivayo said:


> :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
> 
> mmaaaaa,,, not even some league will start, or cup tournaments????
> 
> international frienlies?????


No, it's World Cup year which means an even later start to pre-season training for most players. You'll get the lower league teams playing friendlies among each other at that time.

I'm not sure what date the Community Shield game at Cardiff is this year. That is like a showcase opener to the season between the winner of the Premiership (Chelsea) and the FA Cup winner (likely to be West Ham United). Tickets would be obtainable and I'd recommend it (decent stadium and decent crowd). Last year it was on the 7th August. I'll try and find a date for this year.


----------



## Wader

August 13th.


----------



## vivayo

thanks wader,.. still i wont made it, since i come back in august 8,,, but again thanks,,,,


----------



## Wader

vivayo said:


> thanks wader,.. still i wont made it, since i come back in august 8,,, but again thanks,,,,


If you want a great experience, go and watch England play Pakistan in the cricket at Old Trafford cricket ground in a one day international on 27th July. It will be rocking. You can also walk across the road and have a stadium tour of Manchester United's football ground on the same day.


----------



## Martuh

You might catch AZ - PSV (or even better; Ajax - PSV) in August for the Dutch Super Cup. It's played in Amsterdam Arena but there's no date set yet. Usually it's in early August or something, last year it was August 5th, and the stadium is always half-empty so there'll be no problem getting tickets. It should be a nice match but the atmosphere's going to be worthless I can tell you that.

I'm not sure what match it's going to be. This sunday, Ajax - PSV is the match for the Gatorade Cup, the Dutch cup. The Super Cup is the match between the cupwinner and leaguewinner. PSV has won the league but they might win the cup also and since they can't play their own team, the second team of the league (in this case, AZ) participates in the Super Cup. The Super Cup is called Johan Cruijff Schaal btw.
When PSV wins the Gatorade Cup this Sunday, you'll see AZ - PSV.
When Ajax wins the Gatorade Cup this Sunday, you'll see Ajax - PSV.

Amsterdam Arena is Ajax' stadium, so when Ajax plays in the Super Cup there should be more people on the stands and a way better atmosphere. I'll keep you updated who wins.


----------



## Durbsboi

I'd say Anfield, the best atmosphere, best crowd, best team, best manager, the stadium.........its okay.


----------



## Carter

I would also suggest Liverpool, for the Netherlands one could choose Groningen, Feyenoord or Twente. Those games usually have the most atmosphere.


----------



## MoreOrLess

vivayo said:


> i know that theres a lot of big clubs in cities i'm visiting ( Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, etc), but really like Nomarandlee, i'll like a great experience, my bets will be with some roman tifossi, or paris saint germain fans, or amsterdam ..
> 
> but lets listen to the european guys.


Many of the big clubs stadiums(Nou Camp, Old Trafford, Anfield) do have tours you can take and musesums you can visit outside matchdays.


----------



## Isaac Newell

In Spain, watch Sevilla in the Sanchez Pizjuan, always full. 

If you want intensity go to Istanbul and Sukru Saracoglu (Fener)

If you want atmosphere in England go to a Championship Match.


----------



## CharlieP

I've heard they're playing a few games in Germany in the summer...


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

New Wembley (when its finished), Old Trafford, Emirates (possibly...when its finished of course), Allianz Stadium

.....those are the ones you should really check out!

:cheers:


----------



## Fillet Tower

Different day, same old crap.


----------



## Flip-Flop

Maccabi said:


> First of all i can see that you only mean football club despite the title of the thread which is just clubs.
> 
> My list:
> 
> *England* - Manchester United,Arsenal,Liverpool (almost equal,the only top clubs through history)
> 
> *Wales* - Cardiff (I don't know)
> *
> Scotland* - Celtic,Rangers (almost equal)
> *
> France* - Marseille
> *
> Germany* - Bayern Munich
> *
> Spain* - Real,Barcelona (Real is clearly biggest as they have won 9 european championships in football and 10 i think in basketball when barce only 2 in total football-basketball.Real is clearly on the most succesfull clubs in the world but barce represents another area and an other ideology so it must be included either)
> *
> Portugal* - Benfica,Porto (almost equal)
> 
> *Ireland* - Linfield (I don't know)
> 
> *Italy* - AC Milan,Juventus (Milan better in Europe,Juve better in Italy)
> *
> Holland* - Ajax
> 
> *Austria* - Rapid Vienna
> 
> *Greece* - Panathinaikos,Olympiacos (almost equal-Panathinaikos most succesful club in world sports history,more than 474 worldwidely recognised titles,most than any other multisports club in the world www.wikipedia.og/panathinaikos)
> 
> *Norway* - Rosenborg
> *
> Sweden* - Gothenburg
> *
> Israel* - Maccabi Tel-Aviv
> 
> In some countries you can't say which one is better e.x. Scotland,Spain,Italy so at least 2 clubs must be inclunded.Do you agree with my ratings?


I said Europe. Can we leave Israel out of this please.


----------



## Maccabi

Yeah I agree.We had better stop this conversation now cos will end up fighting with each other.I personally quit.


----------



## Danish_guy

_00_deathscar said:


> Worldwide standing/support.
> Success.


FC Barcelona is the club in the world with the most members. (last time i checked it was something like 118000)


----------



## _00_deathscar

Flip-Flop said:


> Count the charity shield if you like. We've won it more times.


Okay then, in that case League Cups and UEFA Cups and Super Cups too. We trump you lot.




Flip-Flop said:


> Richer history!!! Quality.
> 
> 
> Only a Liverpool fan would argue they were as big as United. We both know that.


Sure, in that we dominated Europe. What's more need to be said?




Flip-Flop said:


> And we've won the FA Cup 11 times.


Whoops forgot about that. Anyways hopefully we shall make it 7 soon.

And yes I was tempted to check. 

But now I leave again...if you ask me personally it's a toss-up between the two. But each to their own...


----------



## al74

Uruguay - Peñarol
Argentina - Boca Juniors
Brasil - Flamengo


----------



## _00_deathscar

Which part of the word "Europe" do you not understand?


----------



## Isaac Newell

Schalke 04


----------



## _00_deathscar

By the way, Israel's inclusion is justified I believe - Israeli teams play in the European Cup, and Israel plays in the UEFA zone for FIFA (due to politicial problems)


----------



## Flip-Flop

_00_deathscar said:


> By the way, Israel's inclusion is justified I believe - Israeli teams play in the European Cup, and Israel plays in the UEFA zone for FIFA (due to politicial problems)


Which part of the word "Europe" do you not understand?


----------



## _00_deathscar

And had you specified, at the beginning of the thread, whether it was teams that play in Europe or are geographically in Europe?


----------



## _00_deathscar

Danish_guy said:


> FC Barcelona is the club in the world with the most members. (last time i checked it was something like 118000)


118 000? Members? How do you qualify as a member? Register on the official site?


----------



## Flip-Flop

_00_deathscar said:


> And had you specified, at the beginning of the thread, whether it was teams that play in Europe or are geographically in Europe?


The "country in Europe" part of the question was a clue.


----------



## [email protected]

France : Marseille and PSG in the Past and Lyon today, monaco is really good too but this year :s


----------



## _00_deathscar

Think St. Etienne were bigger than PSG in the past.


----------



## decapitated

For me there is nly one big club in the world. Take a look on my avatar


----------



## _00_deathscar

Flip-Flop said:


> The "country in Europe" part of the question was a clue.


Good point.

They do still play in Europe though - their clubs and their national team.


----------



## Isaac Newell

In France, the old fashioned big clubs are Lens, Marseilles, and ASSE.


----------



## Isaac Newell

The biggest clubs are those with nationwide support, and that support could have been caused by a single event or a short single period in history. Trophies do not really come into it, it could be because a team captured the imagination of the public at one time and is still talked about now.

Feyenoord are Holland's nationwide team because of their working class roots, the same for Schalke in Germany. Juventus are big because they are supported by the people of Southern Italy. Their match against Inter is the national derby.

In Brasil it is Corinthians "O Timao" the big team or "O Timo do Povo" the team of the poor.


----------



## Maccabi

decapitated said:


> For me there is nly one big club in the world. Take a look on my avatar


Whcih team is that?I have never seen it before. :weirdo:


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

I think England is rare in this respect as it has 4 big clubs, 3 of which are in the G14: Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. I don't know any other league that has as many big name clubs; most countries in Europe have just one or two. Then you've also got clubs which are verging on big name status such as Newcastle and Tottenham. I'd have to say Man U are the biggest from England at the moment though.

:cheers:


----------



## _00_deathscar

Chelsea aren't a big club, and I think even the Manc will agree with me on this one.

They're just newcomers who've got a sugar daddy who likes a little toy.

Think Jack Charlton and Blackburn - except I believe Charlton was actually a fan of the club?


----------



## Flip-Flop

Correct. Chelsea are small time. 

Britain's top 5 clubs would be something like:

1. Manchester United
2. Celtic
3. Liverpool
4. Arsenal
5. Newcastle United

Chelsea wouldn't get a sniff. Clubs like Spurs, Everton, Rangers and Man City are bigger than Chelsea.


----------



## Roar

Isaac Newell said:


> The biggest clubs are those with nationwide support, and that support could have been caused by a single event or a short single period in history. Trophies do not really come into it, it could be because a team captured the imagination of the public at one time and is still talked about now.
> 
> Feyenoord are Holland's nationwide team because of their working class roots, the same for Schalke in Germany. Juventus are big because they are supported by the people of Southern Italy. Their match against Inter is the national derby.
> 
> In Brasil it is Corinthians "O Timao" the big team or "O Timo do Povo" the team of the poor.


Interesting, becuase of Arsenal's geographic location; demographicly speaking they could get huge amounts of "support" if they were to win the Champions League in a fortnight? Combine this with a 14th League title/ And or retainment of the Champions League if we were to win it initially and in my eyes Arsenal would be virtually equal to United in terms of trophy haul.

United were extremely lucky that they won several titles on the emergence of sattelite TV as in my opinion that aided their rise.


----------



## Socrates

Flip-Flop said:


> Correct. Chelsea are small time.
> 
> Britain's top 5 clubs would be something like:
> 
> 1. Manchester United
> 2. Celtic
> 3. Liverpool
> 4. Arsenal
> 5. Newcastle United
> 
> Chelsea wouldn't get a sniff. Clubs like Spurs, Everton, Rangers and Man City are bigger than Chelsea.


Rangers are the biggest club in Britain perhaps with the exception of Man U.


----------



## _00_deathscar

Errr....


----------



## **** ***

Socrates said:


> Rangers are the biggest club in Britain perhaps with the exception of Man U.


as a non english and non scottish i must...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## eomer

Here is my list

England - Liverpool
Wales - Cardiff (I don't know any else)
Scotland - Rangers
France - Marseille by far
Germany - Bayern Munich
Spain - Barcelona
Portugal - FC Porto
Italy - Juventus
Belgium - Anderlecht
Netherland - PSV
Austria - Rapid Vienna
Greece - Panathinaikos
Turkey - Galatasaraï Istambul
Norway - Rosenborg Trondheim
Sweden - Malmoë
Monaco - AS Monaco
Switzerland - FC Basel
Ukraine - Dynamo Kiev
Russia - Spartak Moscow
Brasil - Flamengo
Argentina - Boca Junior
USA - NY Cosmos


Have I missed many obvious ones or do you disagree with any?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Isaac Newell

Manchester Utd
Liverpool
Arsenal
Chelsea

China's not interested in the rest. They are what the Americans would call "small market teams". Teams with loyal, large followings, but only a limited growth potential.


----------



## Flip-Flop

eomer said:


> Here is my list
> 
> England - Liverpool
> Wales - Cardiff (I don't know any else)
> Scotland - Rangers
> France - Marseille by far
> Germany - Bayern Munich
> Spain - Barcelona
> Portugal - FC Porto
> Italy - Juventus
> Belgium - Anderlecht
> Netherland - PSV
> Austria - Rapid Vienna
> Greece - Panathinaikos
> Turkey - Galatasaraï Istambul
> Norway - Rosenborg Trondheim
> Sweden - Malmoë
> Monaco - AS Monaco
> Switzerland - FC Basel
> Ukraine - Dynamo Kiev
> Russia - Spartak Moscow
> Brasil - Flamengo
> Argentina - Boca Junior
> USA - NY Cosmos
> 
> 
> Have I missed many obvious ones or do you disagree with any?


[/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## _00_deathscar

Isaac Newell said:


> Manchester Utd
> Liverpool
> Arsenal
> Chelsea
> 
> China's not interested in the rest. They are what the Americans would call "small market teams". Teams with loyal, large followings, but only a limited growth potential.


Chelsea's position will fluctuate, depending on Mourinho/Abhramovic.

Three years ago, it could've been argued that position was taken up by Newcastle.

Roll back 2 years before that and it's Leeds.


----------



## andysimo123

I wouldnt call Chelsea a big club just because they won the league. There are loads of teams in the English League that are miles bigger than Chelsea. Newcastle, Liverpool, Westham, United, Arsenal, Spurs, Leeds and Wolves.


----------



## Quintana

Isaac Newell said:


> The biggest clubs are those with nationwide support, and that support could have been caused by a single event or a short single period in history. Trophies do not really come into it, it could be because a team captured the imagination of the public at one time and is still talked about now.
> 
> Feyenoord are Holland's nationwide team because of their working class roots, the same for Schalke in Germany. Juventus are big because they are supported by the people of Southern Italy. Their match against Inter is the national derby.
> 
> In Brasil it is Corinthians "O Timao" the big team or "O Timo do Povo" the team of the poor.


As much as I hate to admit it (I don't like them), Ajax is the biggest club in The Netherlands. They have the biggest support (also the least loyal) and the biggest trophy cabinet. They are the most hated team in The Netherlands as well. Both Ajax and Feyenoord (and to a lesser extend PSV) have fans all over the country.

My guesses are:

England: Manchester United
Scotland: Rangers
Germany: Bayern München (either Schalke, Dortmund or Mönchengladbach as the no.2)
France: Olympique Marseille (with AS Saint-Etienne as no.2)
Spain: Real Madrid
Italy: Juventus
The Netherlands: Ajax
Belgium: RSC Anderlecht
Portugal: SL Benfica (by miles, apparently 60% of Portugal's population supports them)
Greece: 1. Olympiakos, 2. Panathinaikos, 3. AEK
Russia: Spartak Moskva
Ukraine: Dynamo Kiyev
Denmark: Bröndby IF or FC FC København
Sweden: IFK Göteborg
Norway: Rosenborg BK
Austria: Rapid Wien
Switzerland: FC Basel or Grasshopper Zürich


----------



## Isaac Newell

andysimo123 said:


> I wouldnt call Chelsea a big club just because they won the league. There are loads of teams in the English League that are miles bigger than Chelsea. Newcastle, Liverpool, Westham, United, Arsenal, Spurs, Leeds and Wolves.


As Chelsea continue to buy top players they will develop a new supporter base, amongst kids, immigrants, overseas supporters. The World changes and as Chelsea hog the TV channels and newspapers, their support will grow to the detriment of other clubs. 

Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea. 

These clubs will pull away from all other clubs in Britain.

Newcastle, Wolves, Leeds, West Ham, Villa, Rangers, Celtic are all strictly small market with no growth potential unless one of them buys a Beckham type player and one of them will not appear for another 20 - 30 years.


----------



## yido362

Isaac Newell said:


> As Chelsea continue to buy top players they will develop a new supporter base, amongst kids, immigrants, overseas supporters. The World changes and as Chelsea hog the TV channels and newspapers, their support will grow to the detriment of other clubs.
> 
> Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea.
> 
> These clubs will pull away from all other clubs in Britain.
> 
> Newcastle, Wolves, Leeds, West Ham, Villa, Rangers, Celtic are all strictly small market with no growth potential unless one of them buys a Beckham type player and one of them will not appear for another 20 - 30 years.


You obviously know nothing about English football. 

Spurs are well capable of catchning the others. The only difference between Spurs and Arsenal is that the Arsenal have had a top manager for 10 years. if Tottenham do well over the next 10 yeras under Jol they can get back to being in the nationas elite again.

Leeds to a lesser extent are also capable under the right manager.


----------



## Isaac Newell

You will notice that Tottenham is not on any of my lists. Why,? because I'd forgotten about them. Yes I would say Tottenham do have growth potential, they are a very big club. However they need to get moving, Arsenal will have 24,000 more seats than Tottenham soon, Chelsea will have about 19,000 more seatsin the future. Tottenham need to build or move and then they may eventually add to their two league championships.
At the moment though Tottenham's support is strictly regional, as is Arsenal's and Chelsea's.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Isaac Newell said:


> As Chelsea continue to buy top players they will develop a new supporter base, amongst kids, immigrants, overseas supporters. The World changes and as Chelsea hog the TV channels and newspapers, their support will grow to the detriment of other clubs.
> 
> Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea.
> 
> These clubs will pull away from all other clubs in Britain.
> 
> Newcastle, Wolves, Leeds, West Ham, Villa, Rangers, Celtic are all strictly small market with no growth potential unless one of them buys a Beckham type player and one of them will not appear for another 20 - 30 years.



In terms of real supporters, Rangers are the 2nd the biggest club in Britain. Rangers sold 650000 strips in Scotland last year, only Man United sell more strips in the UK (and only slightly more). Celtic have a higher average attendance than Rangers, but this is only because their stadium holds more. Nearly every club in Scotland who has Rangers or Celtic as an away team, gets a bigger attendance when Rangers visit their stadium.

http://stats.football365.com/dom/SCO/teams/Rangers.html
http://stats.football365.com/dom/SCO/teams/Celtic.html

Clubs like Liverpool/Arsenal might have millions of mickey mouse fans in China/Denmark etc due to TV coverage of the Premiership, but in terms of real supporters (people who travel to watch games) their supports are absolutely tiny compared to Rangers. Liverpool can't even sell out Anfield for a lot of games despite playing in a massive league!!

An example was Arsenal's laughable support for a Champions League Semi-Final. They took 2000 fans to Spain for the most important game of their history. One week later, Rangers took 12000 fans to Derby for a friendly!! Even Hibs took 1500 to an unknown Ukrainian city this season for a 1st round UEFA cup tie. Hearts took 4000 to Switzerland for a run-of-the-mill UEFA cup tie last year. Arsenal fans will try to make excuses, but 2000 for a Champions League Semi-Final is pathetic. Arsenal are NOT a big club if they can only generate an away support of 2000 for such a massive game!!

Rangers record attendance at Ibrox is 118567, this is the kind of support Liverpool/Arsenal can only dream about.

Rangers are Champions League regulars, yet they still take 10000+ to every away game they play in Europe. They took 18000 to Munich for a normal Champions League game a few years ago, 12000 to Porto this year and 20000 to Villareal for a last 16 game this year. Arsenal/Liverpool can only dream of these kind of supports. 

Put Arsenal/Liverpool in the Scottish league, and their attendances would be about 20000 a game. Put Rangers in the Premiership and they would easily get 80000+ a game. No English club could get 50000 every week whilst playing teams like Livingston every week in a league like the SPL.

Arsenal/Liverpool may have millions of people who say "Arsenal is my favourite team", but these are not real 'supporters'. Real supporters go to games. Some guy in China saying 'I flucking love Liverpool' is NOT a real supporter!!


As for the who is the biggest club in Scotland, here are some facts so you can make up your own mind (these are facts, not opinions) -


Higher average attendance in the 116 Scottish league years -

Rangers - 108 
Celtic - 8 (and only because their stadium is now bigger)


League titles -

Rangers 51
Celtic 40


League Cup -

Rangers 24
Celtic 13


Scottish Cup -

Celtic - 33
Rangers - 31


European trophies -

Celtic 1 (I must admit the EC is much better than the ECWC)
Rangers 1


Record home attendance -

Rangers - 118567
Celtic - 92000


So make up your own mind!


----------



## hngcm

^^ Good luck getting WC tickets.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Quintana said:


> As much as I hate to admit it (I don't like them), Ajax is the biggest club in The Netherlands. They have the biggest support (also the least loyal) and the biggest trophy cabinet. They are the most hated team in The Netherlands as well. Both Ajax and Feyenoord (and to a lesser extend PSV) have fans all over the country.
> 
> My guesses are:
> 
> England: Manchester United
> Scotland: Rangers
> Germany: Bayern München (either Schalke, Dortmund or Mönchengladbach as the no.2)
> France: Olympique Marseille (with AS Saint-Etienne as no.2)
> Spain: Real Madrid
> Italy: Juventus
> The Netherlands: Ajax
> Belgium: RSC Anderlecht
> Portugal: SL Benfica (by miles, apparently 60% of Portugal's population supports them)
> Greece: 1. Olympiakos, 2. Panathinaikos, 3. AEK
> Russia: Spartak Moskva
> Ukraine: Dynamo Kiyev
> Denmark: Bröndby IF or FC FC København
> Sweden: IFK Göteborg
> Norway: Rosenborg BK
> Austria: Rapid Wien
> Switzerland: FC Basel or Grasshopper Zürich


Spot on, This list is perfect. I'm not sure about Switzerland and I would choose Brondby for Denmark (far more league trophies).


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Isaac Newell said:


> You will notice that Tottenham is not on any of my lists. Why,? because I'd forgotten about them. Yes I would say Tottenham do have growth potential, they are a very big club. However they need to get moving, Arsenal will have 24,000 more seats than Tottenham soon, Chelsea will have about 19,000 more seatsin the future. Tottenham need to build or move and then they may eventually add to their two league championships.
> At the moment though Tottenham's support is strictly regional, as is Arsenal's and Chelsea's.



any talk of a new Chelsea stadium is exactly that .... talk!


----------



## Martuh

Muyangguniang said:


> Belgie heeft nooit meer inwoners gehad dan NL ,hoe kom je erbij???
> of begrijp ik de text verkeerd


Paps, in 1815-1830 waren we één land. Toen was er net de Industriële Revolutie en ging het heel goed met Wallonië dus de Zuidelijke Nederlanden hadden veel meer inwoners dan de Noordelijke Nederlanden. Frans was er toen veel machtiger dan Nederlands. Echter beide Nederlanden hadden gelijke rechten wat de Zuiderlingen in het verkeerde keelgat schoot en uiteindelijk werd men onafhankelijk van Nederland.


----------



## Isaac Newell

The number of away fans is no reflection on a club's size. Barcelona and Real Madrid have relatively small numbers of travelling supporters yet Besiktas can muster 55,350 in neutral Gelsenkirchen for a match against Chelsea. Does that make Besiktas bigger than Barcelona. Shirt sales again is no reflection, it just reflects the maturity of the market. Some teams are in mid cycle when it comes to shirts, others have just flogged them to death that the market demands something different. Size of any sports team can only be measured in the number of people willing to shell out on all products, shell out on watching them on TV and following them in the media.

The biggest club in Europe by support, once all the non European fans are taken from the equation, are Juventus.


----------



## Martuh

^^ Already sold out long time. Black markets tickets price can go up to some thousands of euros.

But again, please specifiy the dates when you're in which city. I'd guess you want to see matches and not empty stadiums. Mostly the interesting mid-season games are Super Cups as I already said.


----------



## Flip-Flop

Reasons why Rangers are bigger than Celtic please. I'm not knocking it, I'm genuinely interested in the reasons why.

Many thanks.


----------



## Flip-Flop

Isaac Newell said:


> The biggest club in Europe by support, once all the non European fans are taken from the equation, are Juventus.


You were doing well until that bit.

Than I pissed my pants.


----------



## andysimo123

The new Beckham type player is already here, hes called Wanye. There is more hype over him and hes making money than Becks was when he was 20. By the time hes 30 he can be way bigger than Becks. 

Also why are Chelsea going to have 19,000 more seats in the future and also it wouldnt matter because they could never fill a 50,000+ ground every week, never mind a 60,000 ground. London already has too many clubs and Arsenal have their new ground so its going to be even harder for anyone to build a new ground. The next new ground that someone gets its likely to be the new olympics stadium and its after 2012, 6 years away.

Just because someone buys a shirt it doesnt mean they are a real fan. A real fan is someone has supported their club through bad and good over years and years. Example, My dad has supported United all his life and hasnt brought a United shirt in about 20 years but he goes to all the United games. In the treble year he didnt miss a home game or any away European game. Thats a real supporter. 

Also the Scotttish League isnt really very exciting its just Rangers and Celtic. Trust, Arsenal and Liverpool are way bigger than Rangers, they are just small fry compared. Also I dont know where you got Arsenal only took 2000 to Villareal, I heard all the pubs round the ground where full of Arsenal fans.


----------



## Martuh

In Germany, Dortmund is way bigger then Munich. In fact, Dortmund has the best spectator average of Europe. Not just Germany, it's the best visited club of Europe.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Flip-Flop said:


> Reasons why Rangers are bigger than Celtic please. I'm not knocking it, I'm genuinely interested in the reasons why.
> 
> Many thanks.


Higher average attendance in the 116 Scottish league years -

Rangers - 108 
Celtic - 8 (and only because their stadium is now bigger)


League titles -

Rangers 51
Celtic 40


League Cup -

Rangers 24
Celtic 13


Scottish Cup -

Celtic - 33
Rangers - 31


European trophies -

Celtic 1 (I must admit the EC is much better than the ECWC)
Rangers 1


Record home attendance -

Rangers - 118567
Celtic - 92000


----------



## Flip-Flop

Martuh said:


> In Germany, Dortmund is way bigger then Munich. In fact, Dortmund has the best spectator average of Europe. Not just Germany, it's the best visited club of Europe.


Yeah that's because they pay the knobs to watch them.


----------



## hngcm

^^Well you can still apply for conditional tickets.

All I know is that I have my tickets for the Mexico vs Portugal game.


----------



## Martuh

www.google.com


----------



## Flip-Flop

Iggybumtastic said:


> Higher average attendance in the 116 Scottish league years -
> 
> Rangers - 108
> Celtic - 8 (and only because their stadium is now bigger)
> 
> 
> League titles -
> 
> Rangers 51
> Celtic 40
> 
> 
> League Cup -
> 
> Rangers 24
> Celtic 13
> 
> 
> Scottish Cup -
> 
> Celtic - 33
> Rangers - 31
> 
> 
> European trophies -
> 
> Celtic 1 (I must admit the EC is much better than the ECWC)
> Rangers 1
> 
> 
> Record home attendance -
> 
> Rangers - 118567
> Celtic - 92000


What's the current turnover of the two? Trophies won doesn't really cut it with me.


----------



## chester84

*Favourite Stadium Roof Design*

Haven't seen a thread about this topic so i thought i should start one off and also thought it would be interesting to see everybodys favourite stadium roof design along with any views on stadium roof design in general.

I'll start off with Oita Stadium, Japan.

This is my favourite stadium roof because of its simple main arch structure and its unique eliptical design which gives it its 'big eye' nickname. The roof incorporates teflon membrane panels which have 25% light-permeablity which means the stadium is naturally lit during daylight hours.


----------



## Isaac Newell

andysimo123 said:


> The new Beckham type player is already here, hes called Wanye. There is more hype over him and hes making money than Becks was when he was 20. By the time hes 30 he can be way bigger than Becks.
> 
> Also why are Chelsea going to have 19,000 more seats in the future and also it wouldnt matter because they could never fill a 50,000+ ground every week, never mind a 60,000 ground. London already has too many clubs and Arsenal have their new ground so its going to be even harder for anyone to build a new ground. The next new ground that someone gets its likely to be the new olympics stadium and its after 2012, 6 years away.
> 
> Just because someone buys a shirt it doesnt mean they are a real fan. A real fan is someone has supported their club through bad and good over years and years. Example, My dad has supported United all his life and hasnt brought a United shirt in about 20 years but he goes to all the United games. In the treble year he didnt miss a home game or any away European game. Thats a real supporter.
> 
> Also the Scotttish League isnt really very exciting its just Rangers and Celtic. Trust, Arsenal and Liverpool are way bigger than Rangers, they are just small fry compared. Also I dont know where you got Arsenal only took 2000 to Villareal, I heard all the pubs round the ground where full of Arsenal fans.


Wayne's ugly.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

andysimo123 said:


> The new Beckham type player is already here, hes called Wanye. There is more hype over him and hes making money than Becks was when he was 20. By the time hes 30 he can be way bigger than Becks.
> 
> Also why are Chelsea going to have 19,000 more seats in the future and also it wouldnt matter because they could never fill a 50,000+ ground every week, never mind a 60,000 ground. London already has too many clubs and Arsenal have their new ground so its going to be even harder for anyone to build a new ground. The next new ground that someone gets its likely to be the new olympics stadium and its after 2012, 6 years away.
> 
> Just because someone buys a shirt it doesnt mean they are a real fan. A real fan is someone has supported their club through bad and good over years and years. Example, My dad has supported United all his life and hasnt brought a United shirt in about 20 years but he goes to all the United games. In the treble year he didnt miss a home game or any away European game. Thats a real supporter.
> 
> Also the Scotttish League isnt really very exciting its just Rangers and Celtic. Trust, Arsenal and Liverpool are way bigger than Rangers, they are just small fry compared. Also I dont know where you got Arsenal only took 2000 to Villareal, I heard all the pubs round the ground where full of Arsenal fans.


Arsenal and Liverpool have tiny supports compared to Rangers. I mean real supporters, not guys in China who watch them on the TV. The only reason Arsenal and liverpool have bigger turnovers is because of the league they play in. Put Rangers in England and they would dwarf Arsenal and Liverpool. Put Arsenal/Liverpool in Scotland, and their stadiums would be 75% empty!!

Just ask any Derby County fan, they now know just how massive Rangers are.

Can Arsenal/Liverpool take 12000 fans to a friendly in Derby? No. Can Arsenal/Liverpool take 10000+ to every single game they play in Europe? No. Could Arsenal/Liverpool get 50000 every week against the likes of Livingston? No.


----------



## Socrates

andysimo123 said:


> Also the Scotttish League isnt really very exciting its just Rangers and Celtic. Trust, Arsenal and Liverpool are way bigger than Rangers, they are just small fry compared. Also I dont know where you got Arsenal only took 2000 to Villareal, I heard all the pubs round the ground where full of Arsenal fans.


Villareal only has about 4 pubs so it wouldn't be hard.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Flip-Flop said:


> You were doing well until that bit.
> 
> Than I pissed my pants.


Apparently it's true. But they all live in Southern Italy.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Flip-Flop said:


> Trophies won doesn't really cut it with me.


what kind of football fan are you????


----------



## matherto

Oita is a cool stadium, just like most of the stadiums from the 2002 WC, I like some of the german ones like Wolfsburgs and Duisburgs. But I can't think of my favourite design. I just know however that someone might pick Allianz's, in which case they will be severely misguided


----------



## Flip-Flop

Iggybumtastic said:


> what kind of football fan are you????


With regards club size, numbnuts.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

bigger clubs tend to win more trophies incase you didn't notice!!


----------



## Isaac Newell

10 million Juventus Fans in Italy but I cannot get a link that shows it without having to read about 8 pages.


----------



## Martuh

10 million Juventus fans :rofl: 

That's why their average is only 20,000 a match.


----------



## Flip-Flop

See, you can't compare turnover between say Rangers and Arsenal because they're different leagues and stuff, and for what it's worth, I agree Rangers and Celtic would blow them out of the water if they played down here, but Rangers and Celtic share the same city, league, television deals etc. I'd say the team with the bigger turnover of the two, is currently the bigger club of the two. Simple.

Any figures from say the last 5 years?


----------



## **** ***

Martuh said:


> 10 million Juventus fans :rofl:
> 
> That's why their average is only 20,000 a match.


they have 5000000 disabled and 4980000 armchair fans


----------



## chester84

Yeah i particularly like Wolfsburgs, very unusual design, it sort of reminds me of Seoul Stadiums roof, although i prefer the one in Seoul.


----------



## Flip-Flop

Iggybumtastic said:


> bigger clubs tend to win more trophies incase you didn't notice!!


"Tend" is the key word in that statement.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Flip-Flop said:


> See, you can't compare turnover between say Rangers and Arsenal because they're different leagues and stuff, and for what it's worth, I agree Rangers and Celtic would blow them out of the water if they played down here, but Rangers and Celtic share the same city, league, television deals etc. I'd say the team with the bigger turnover of the two, is currently the bigger club of the two. Simple.
> 
> Any figures from say the last 5 years?


Yes, celtic have a slightly bigger turnover due to the fact that they have an extra 10000 season ticket holders (their stadium has 10000 more seats). This year Rangers will have a bigger turnover due to the fact they got about £15 million form the Champions League and Celtic got £1.40. Per season ticket holder, both clubs have almost identical turnovers.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Martuh said:


> 10 million Juventus fans :rofl:
> 
> That's why their average is only 20,000 a match.


They watch on TV. That's where the real attendance figures are. We live in a digital age.


----------



## Flip-Flop

If both clubs had 100,000 seater stadiums, which do you think would have the higher average attendance?

For what it's worth, I do prefer Rangers. I hate that shower of shite. They're the scouse of Scotland. I'm just not convinced Rangers are a bigger club. Yet.


----------



## Flip-Flop

Isaac Newell said:


> They watch on TV. That's where the real attendance figures are. We live in a digital age.


That makes Walford Town the biggest club in Britain then.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Flip-Flop said:


> If both clubs had 100,000 seater stadiums, which do you think would have the higher average attendance?
> 
> For what it's worth, I do prefer Rangers. I hate that shower of shite. They're the scouse of Scotland. I'm just not convinced Rangers are a bigger club. Yet.


At the moment, both would get about the same. 100000 would be far too big whilst playing in Scotland. Only Old-firm games and European games would sell out.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Flip-Flop said:


> That makes Walford Town the biggest club in Britain then.


No but it means Eastenders is more popular than Manchester United.


----------



## gorgu

..............


----------



## johnz88

For the best experience of true "footy" atmosphere I'd say go to any Borussia Dortmund game, seeing that German league fans are the craziest in Europe.


----------



## gorgu

Iggybumtastic said:


> European trophies -
> 
> Celtic 1 (I must admit the EC is much better than the ECWC)
> Rangers 1


Yup that’s right you are still trailing Aberdeen as the only Scottish team to have ever won two European trophies, Woohoo suck on that wide B(h)oys!


----------



## Flip-Flop

It seems to me they're pretty evenly matched. Celtic have the bigger ground, Rangers have the better ground. Rangers have won more titles, Celtic have won the big one. Turnover is pretty similar depending on the success of that particular season.

I think it's going to come down to which of the two clubs' female fans are the most fuckable. Do you get more totty at Celtic Park or Ibrox?


----------



## 1907rauf

eomer said:


> Here is my list
> 
> England - Liverpool
> Wales - Cardiff (I don't know any else)
> Scotland - Rangers
> France - Marseille by far
> Germany - Bayern Munich
> Spain - Barcelona
> Portugal - FC Porto
> Italy - Juventus
> Belgium - Anderlecht
> Netherland - PSV
> Austria - Rapid Vienna
> Greece - Panathinaikos
> Turkey - Galatasaraï Istambul
> Norway - Rosenborg Trondheim
> Sweden - Malmoë
> Monaco - AS Monaco
> Switzerland - FC Basel
> Ukraine - Dynamo Kiev
> Russia - Spartak Moscow
> Brasil - Flamengo
> Argentina - Boca Junior
> USA - NY Cosmos
> 
> 
> Have I missed many obvious ones or do you disagree with any?


[/QUOTE]

FENERBAHCE is definitely the biggest club in Turkey no question about it! 

Has the largest number and most loyal fans, most league titles, biggest stadium, biggest attendance and best facilities all by far. Also is the club with most official members and the club with biggest budget by a long long shot Fenerbahce is officially amongst Europe's 20 richest clubs. Don't expect any other team to win the Turkish title for years to come and if there is a team that can be successfull internationally consistently it is Fener. It shouldn't surprise you if some really big international signings are made this summer as it is the 100th anniversary of the club.

One lucky golden generation put together with transfers that are causing a team to get bankrupt won the UEFA and supercup for Galatasaray but now they can't even deliver their players paychecks. Whereas Fenerbahce is growing consistently (Going on to our 3rd consecutive league title at the moment) with the support of a huge fanbase and humiliating Galatasaray as usual on the pitch as 2 weeks ago 4-0. hehehehe


----------



## Flip-Flop

> FENERBAHCE is definitely the biggest club in Turkey no question about it!
> 
> Has the largest number and most loyal fans, most league titles, biggest stadium, biggest attendance and best facilities all by far. Also is the club with most official members and the club with biggest budget by a long long shot Fenerbahce is officially amongst Europe's 20 richest clubs. Don't expect any other team to win the Turkish title for years to come and if there is a team that can be successfull internationally consistently it is Fener. It shouldn't surprise you if some really big international signings are made this summer as it is the 100th anniversary of the club.
> 
> One lucky golden generation put together with transfers that are causing a team to get bankrupt won the UEFA and supercup for Galatasaray but now they can't even deliver their players paychecks. Whereas Fenerbahce is growing consistently (Going on to our 3rd consecutive league title at the moment) with the support of a huge fanbase and humiliating Galatasaray as usual on the pitch as 2 weeks ago 4-0. hehehehe


I hate Galatasaray with a passion but have to admit they are by far the biggest club in Turkey. Far bigger than FENERBAHCE.


----------



## Socrates




----------



## 1907rauf

Socrates said:


> ^^ Looks like a nice place to visit actually. Not the stereotypical diarrhea inducing stadium I would expect for a turkish team



The stadiums you are thinking about are probably Galatasaray or Besiktas and yes they do have a habit of inducing diarrhea :cheers:


----------



## Flip-Flop

1907rauf said:


> The stadiums you are thinking about are probably Galatasaray or Besiktas and yes they do have a habit of inducing diarrhea :cheers:


But they both have a far, far better atmosphere, especially Galatasaray.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

thats the fans, not the stadium.


----------



## ReddAlert

that stadium is really cool, never seen it before.

Milwaukees Miller Park has an interesting roof shape. Its like a big folding fan or a green shell. From afar, it can look like a giant spider.


----------



## asdfg

*Celtic vs Rangers* 

Ground capacity 60,830 vs 50,411

Average attendance 2005/06: 58,149 vs 49,214

Record attendance: 146,433 (European club record) vs 118,567 

Final SPL position 2005/06 season: 1st vs 3rd (yes *3rd* in a two horse race!)

European coefficient 2006: 23rd (60.023) vs 48th (43.023)

Turnover (2005): £62.17m vs £55.1m

Annual Financial Reports 2005: http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2005_Report.pdf vs http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/c/0,,5~3306,00.pdf

Here is the SPL records page, makes interesting reading http://www.scotprem.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Records/0,,10002,00.html

I think the stats speak for themselves... although it's also worth mentioning that the Celtic supporting fanny is of much higher quality than the fat horrible munters who support Rangers....


----------



## 1907rauf

I wonder why Galatasaray has lost the last 7 games in Sukru Saracoglu including scores like 6-0 and 4-0 if they have better atmospheres. I tell you why: because their players legs start shaking when they come out on the field. If you want to learn more about Fener go to www.antu.com become a member go to the english language forum and ask for some videos and think again or wait untill your team has to come to Sukru Saracoglu one day. I have to sleep now. 

One more thing. Ask any Besiktas, Galatasaray, or Trabzonspor (the three biggest clubs after Fener) fan which game is their biggest game of the season, and who their biggest rival is they will ALL say Fenerbahce I think that says enough.


----------



## Flip-Flop

"much higher quality"










:runaway:


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Iggybumtastic said:


> Message to all those from outside Europe - avoid England games if you don't want a broken nose!! As soon as an England fan hears your accent he will attack you like a wild animal!!


You are really pathetic mate! Cretins like you shouldn't be allowed access to the internet, you're embarassing yourself more then anyone else hno:


----------



## Iggybumtastic

asdfg said:


> *Celtic vs Rangers*
> 
> Ground capacity 60,830 vs 50,411
> 
> Average attendance 2005/06: 58,149 vs 49,214
> 
> Record attendance: 146,433 (European club record) vs 118,567
> 
> Final SPL position 2005/06 season: 1st vs 3rd (yes *3rd* in a two horse race!)
> 
> European coefficient 2006: 23rd (60.023) vs 48th (43.023)
> 
> Turnover (2005): £62.17m vs £55.1m
> 
> Annual Financial Reports 2005: http://www.celticfc.net/corporate/reports/2005_Report.pdf vs http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/c/0,,5~3306,00.pdf
> 
> Here is the SPL records page, makes interesting reading http://www.scotprem.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Records/0,,10002,00.html
> 
> I think the stats speak for themselves... although it's also worth mentioning that the Celtic supporting fanny is of much higher quality than the fat horrible munters who support Rangers....




146433 is NOT celtics record attendance. That was for a Scottish Cup final against Aberdeen at neutral Hampden. So it is as much Aberdeens record attendance as it is celtics. This is a HAMPDEN record, it is not a celtic record. Are you trying to say Aberdeens record attendance is 146433?

Celtics record home attendance is 92000.


Rangers for the last few years have been in debt thus restricting their finances. They now have the debt down to £10 million, whereas celtics debt is now £30 million. Rangers now have one of the best managers in Europe, and he will have £20 million to spend in the summer. Celtic have Gordon Strachan.

Rangers are the only Scottish club to ever have made the last 16 of the Champions League.

The futures bright, the futures Orange!


----------



## Socrates

^^ Last 8 season 1992-93.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

It was the last 4 in reality due to the format of the tournament -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_1992-93


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Flip-Flop said:


> "much higher quality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :runaway:



**** Sake....what a MUNTER!


----------



## Socrates

Iggybumtastic said:


> It was the last 4 in reality due to the format of the tournament -
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League_1992-93


In reality it should have been last 2 since Marseille later got stripped of the cup for bribery. 
Rumour has it AC Milan tried to get Marseille's name replaced with Rangers/ AC Milan.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

You have been warned folks. Beware the England fan!


----------



## Disraeli

Socrates said:


> In reality it should have been last 2 since Marseille later got stripped of the cup for bribery.
> Rumour has it AC Milan tried to get Marseille's name replaced with Rangers/ AC Milan.



As I recall didn't Milan want to replay the final against Rangers?


----------



## Iggybumtastic

Unfortunately they were not stripped of the Champions League title, and remain the only French club to have won it. They were stripped of their French League title.


----------



## Socrates

I thought they were, or at least is is a debated issue within UEFA? Either way: that should've been our year.


----------



## Iggybumtastic

No, it was debated and it was left the way it was (too much hassle to arrange another final 6 months later)


----------



## rantanamo

Gotta go with Miller Park too. Absolutely beautiful.


----------



## Socrates

The roof on the Main stand at Ibrox is pretty impressive. It blends modern steal with a traditional facade, the result being a fine blend between old and new.

















Stunning. 
Although it does impact the view of the spectators ever so slightly. Although the view of the pitch is excellent, the other sections of the stadium are cut off from view.
This sloping roof seems to be all the rage these days, with Arsenal FC incorporating a similarly sloping roof into their new stadium.


----------



## Maccabi

Wales: TNS


----------



## www.sercan.de

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Well, apart from Liverpool, that's pretty much a correct list for the biggest clubs of those countries.


yeah
just saw it
ManU has got more titles


ManU:
League: 15x
Cup: 11x
CL: 2x
Cup Winners Cup: 1x
Supercup: 1x
Worldcup: 1x
TOTAL: 26

Liverpool:
League: 18x
Cup: 6x
CL: 5x
UEFA:3
Supercup: 3x
TOTAL: 24
but if count european cups 2x or 1,5x than i think Liverpool is better


----------



## Loranga

*Renovation vs. new construction*

We're in a time where it is happening a lot in the world of stadiums. In some situations decisions are taken to renovate an old stadium, in other situations decisions are taken to build a new stadium.

Which are the pros and cons of renovation an old stadium or building a new one do you think?


----------



## decapitated

Maccabi said:


> Whcih team is that?I have never seen it before. :weirdo:


Legia Warsaw


----------



## Slipper

decapitated said:


> Legia Warsaw


Never heard of them. What sport do they play?


----------



## tv123

Slipper said:


> Never heard of them. What sport do they play?


polish football team


----------



## eddyk

New Construction - 

Pros: Up to date facilities.
Cons: Loss of History

Renovation -

Pros: History kept
Cons: Facilities may still be out of date, and compromises may be made...if it's just adding seats, rather than an upgrade of facilities.



I know i'd sooner have New Anfield though than a redeveloped one.


----------



## Maccabi

ok.from poland i know polonia warsaw and wisla.Those teams are very popular in greece.But i have never heard of that legia.Is it a division?


----------



## Liwwadden

One thing is for sure, PSV is the biggest (at this moment) in the Netherlands.


----------



## 1907rauf

www.sercan.de said:


> TURKEY:
> 
> Besiktas JK:
> League: 10x
> Cup: 6x
> 
> Fenerbahçe SK:
> League: 16x
> Cup: 4x (last 1983 )
> 
> Galatasaray SK:
> League: 15x
> Cup: 14x
> Europe: 1x UEFA cup 1x Supercup
> 
> BTW
> according to the TFF poll, GS has got 34% fans, and FB 32%



Sercan saying that Galatasaray has more fans than Fener is nothing but a joke. If you have sooooooo many fans why is your little 20 000 stadium always half empty? Why is your club on the verge of bankruptcy? Why can't you sell a fraction of the merchandise that Fener does? Why can't you sell a fraction of the season tickets or jerseys Fener does? Why can't you put together enough money to build a stadium for the past 5 years and counting if so many people are REAL SUPPORTERS. That poll is not FANS it is sympathizers! People who rarely watch football but have a team that they tell people when theyre asked what team they support. They dont watch the games on TV, dont buy merchandise, jerseys, or go to games. They never watched football before GS won the UEFA cup and now when people ask they say I support Galatasaray. The real number of FANS is obvious by the season tickets, merchandise sales, jersey sales, club CARD sales, and the pathetic amount of money Galatasaray was able to draw in with their begging campaign a month ago when none of these so called fans put a cent in the club to save it from bankruptcy.

How big a club is has nothing to do with amount of Cups won! All real football fans that now what the sport is about will agree on that! How big a club is is measured by the amount of people that are FANS of the club, who dedicate their lives to it, who spend their limited salary on their team, who follow it anywhere it goes, who support it ALWAYS AND FULLY NO MATTER WHAT!! NOT JUST WHEN THEY WIN A TROPHY.

Galatasaray is a more famous club Sercan but surely even you know it's a lie if you say that Fenerbahce is not the Biggest club in Turkey. Yes, yes, I know you do. Don't be sad it's the way it has always been and always will be. You should support your club no matter what and for what it is! Not try to spread false info and say that it is something it is not.


----------



## matherto

www.sercan.de said:


> yeah
> just saw it
> ManU has got more titles
> 
> 
> ManU:
> League: 15x
> Cup: 11x
> CL: 2x
> Cup Winners Cup: 1x
> Supercup: 1x
> Worldcup: 1x
> TOTAL: 26
> 
> Liverpool:
> League: 18x
> Cup: 6x
> CL: 5x
> UEFA:3
> Supercup: 3x
> TOTAL: 24
> but if count european cups 2x or 1,5x than i think Liverpool is better


I think that regardless of the number of cups we or Liverpool have won, we are the bigger team, we're richer (despite the Glazer debt), we've got more fans (all over the world, which is basically what makes it a bigger club), the stadium is bigger and we're more famous (I know it's debatable) but because of our immense sucess in the 90's (sure Liverpool had the 70's and 80's) we gained much more fans and became the richest and arguably the biggest club in the world


----------



## Slipper

Galatasaray definitely have the most fans in Turkey.


----------



## www.sercan.de

lol
since 1997 there were around 20 polls
and in 18 of them GS had the most fans

the Ali Sami Yen Stadium is old and not modern
look at your average attendance in your old stadium

At GS the chief or other people don't invest their own money in the club (like Abrahamovic)

Merchandising?
Altough you are champion for the last 2 years, you have earned onyl 2 mil more than GS

according to FB chief Aziz Yildirim you sold this year 214.000 jerseys
GS sold only 134.000 of the centenary jersey

look at your own Film
only 14.500 watched it in 10 weeks in 52 cinemas

while 64.000 watched the GS movie in onyl 4 weeks in ~20 cinemas

turkeys biggest stadium is the Atatürk Olimpiyat
last year you played a friendly vs Everton
there were 25,000 in the stadium

GS played in 2002 a friendly vs Olympiakos in the Ataürk Olimpiyat
79,414 inside
and 
12,000 outside the stadium

FB don't own land in Istanbul
the value of all GS ground/land is 800 mil $-US


----------



## www.sercan.de

and the GS magazine is 2nd in the most selling list in Turkey
no1 is National Geographics Turkey


----------



## Stevens

*National stadia*

For or against national stadia?


----------



## kaunaz

What do you have in mind? A stadion for football national team? Of course yes.


----------



## Stevens

*National stadia*

The money spent on most national stadia are better spent on indoor pitches around a country as most national stadia are white elephants and indoor pitches should help improve the health of nation and give people more things to do rather than hang around causing trouble for society.

The most sucessful sporting nation to date the USA (based on the number of Olympic medals won) does not have a national stadium.


----------



## Genç

Well said, Sercan. kay:


----------



## Lostboy

It also has sports in which there are not too many internationals to be played, or if there are, they do not get the interest from American Viewers that the superbowl, world series etc, get.

In sporting terms America though extraordinarily successful, is a bit of an anomaly.


----------



## Socrates

www.sercan.de said:


> and the GS magazine is 2nd in the most selling list in Turkey
> no1 is National Geographics Turkey


That could just mean that Galatasaray fans can read, and fans of the other teams can't.


----------



## Socrates

The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game. 

In a European league, only playing against top draw prestigous teams, European stadiums could mostly be twice the size they are now and sell out. But most teams don't have enough loyal fans to fill their stadium every second week against the weaker and less glamourous teams of their domestic leagues. 

Not many teams can fill their present capacity against the shitty teams of their domestic league. Some can, but not many. Having huge stadiums would only be feasible if they could be filled every time. If the season was only 6 games long and the team only played against the best the continent had to offer, each and every game would be a sell out even with a vastly increased capacity.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Martuh said:


> Btw; NFL stadiums don't have capacities like 99,000 or 90,000. They all go between 63,000 and 80,000.


You mean between 58,000 and 92,000


----------



## Lostboy

_The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game. _ 

In a way thats even more impressive, that American Clubs can afford to construct these huge stadia and not have frequent games to supplement their incomes from. Just shows how big the television rights are.


----------



## Socrates

Lostboy said:


> _The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game. _
> 
> In a way thats even more impressive, that American Clubs can afford to construct these huge stadia and not have frequent games to supplement their incomes from. Just shows how big the television rights are.


Not really, they can guarantee demand for every single game. 
TV rights probably make it possible, but most sport is reliant on TV money now. 

EPL - £1.7bn for 3 years. WTF!


----------



## Lostboy

_Not really, they can guarantee demand for every single game. 
TV rights probably make it possible, but most sport is reliant on TV money now. _ 

They can, but overall, I'm sure due to fewer games being played in the NFL the overall annual attendance for a team is smaller than the biggest European Leagues, which is an impressive feat considering just how rich the NFL is. 

_EPL - £1.7bn for 3 years. WTF!_

Its probably unimpressive compared to NFL Comparisons, but its not insignificant, that amount of money would represent probably a sizable amount of the military budgets of some of the smaller Eastern European Countries.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Socrates said:


> Hampden's design is not an admission that those days are gone, it is just illustrative of the fact that the SFA had no cash, but needed a stadium fit to hold internationals.
> 
> They've got a good return on the money they spent on the stadium, its still a 5 star venue that as of May next year will have hosted 2 European finals. Its not the Hampden of old, and its not the new Wembley, but it didn't cost 3/4 of a billion £ either.


sadly Hampden looks like it has not been looked after all that well, can't they dig the pitch down and add more seating?


----------



## Disraeli

Even though Wembley looks like it will be a great stadium it was good when we were having the 'England road show'. Using grounds in the North, Midlands and the south meant that more people got a chance to see the team.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Disraeli said:


> Even though Wembley looks like it will be a great stadium it was good when we were having the 'England road show'. Using grounds in the North, Midlands and the south meant that more people got a chance to see the team.


i think after a couple of years, the friendlies may move around the grounds again


----------



## Socrates

Its AlL gUUd said:


> i think after a couple of years, the friendlies may move around the grounds again


If thats true then that was £700m well spent then.


----------



## yure323

*"bouncing stands"*

From an article from the Washington Post :


> *Atmosphere......:* It's all about atmosphere. All buildings (stadiums included) look sterile on paper. I will hold my opinion until the place has been broken in a little, say a season or two. It took 9 years the Break-in Fed-Ex, it wasn't until this past football season that the place seemed to develop any character. I think it is interesting that the designers are looking to duplicate the "bouncing" of RFK's 3rd base line. That could be cool.
> 
> *David Nakamura:* If they can recreate the bouncing stands, that would make a lot of Washingtonians happy.
> 
> *David Nakamura:* One other point about bouncing stands -- architect Marshall Purnell pointed out that at RFK those stands bounced because of a design flaw. Now they'd have to recreate it and worry about liability issues if someone got hurt.


Could a new stadium with bouncing stands be built and be safe enough ?
I really love seeing the stands bounce at DC United's games.


----------



## Zorba

I love RFK stadium and the bouncing stands.


----------



## vivayo

that about $3 bn, in USD

thats kind of low, but still big if you consider the size of the english market against the american market,, ( 50 million against 295 millon,,, thats almost 6 times)

so a comparable real value will be a multiplication by 6, that goes to 18 bn USD,,,

how much is the NFL deal???


----------



## Socrates

When the bears do the bouncy at the Piggery, the whole LL stand has been known to bounce up and down


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> When the bears do the bouncy at the Piggery, the whole LL stand has been known to bounce up and down


Same thing happens to the rest of the stadium when Celtic score against Rangers at Parkhead (i.e. every single time there's a game there, usually multiple times).


----------



## asdfg

vivayo said:


> that about $3 bn, in USD
> 
> thats kind of low, but still big if you consider the size of the english market against the american market,, ( 50 million against 295 millon,,, thats almost 6 times)
> 
> so a comparable real value will be a multiplication by 6, that goes to 18 bn USD,,,
> 
> how much is the NFL deal???


$8 billion according to this. Not really that big considering the population of the USA. Or is there another package on top of that?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7868621


----------



## Kampflamm

Esta ready por some futebol?


----------



## themongrel

how many lower league professional teams are there in the US? theres 92 in england (plus a few in the conference) and most of the big leagues in europe are the same. i'll bet that if you got the total number of attendance in a weekend in europe it'll be alot higher then the US


----------



## Socrates

asdfg said:


> Same thing happens to the rest of the stadium when Celtic score against Rangers at Parkhead (i.e. *every single time there's a game there*, usually multiple times).


Celtic 0-0 Rangers, April 23rd, 2006


----------



## rantanamo

asdfg said:


> $8 billion according to this. Not really that big considering the population of the USA. Or is there another package on top of that?
> 
> http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7868621


That's only CBS and FOX. The NFL also has ESPN, DirectTV, and NBC. The ESPN deal for Monday Night Football is 1.1 billion per year and the NBC deal for Sunday Night Football(the NFL got hosed here for its highest rated slot) is $600 million per year. The total package is $3.735 billion per year until 2011 starting this fall. That's would be 11.2 billion over the course of the next 3 years and 22.4 billion through 2011. If the last contract is any indicator, expect lots of upwards jumps in this contract. Not bad for an unknown, unpopular, nothing sport.

As for a European league of stadiums, see the NFL stadi fit for CL or EU stadia fit for NFL thread. I think you'd have bigger stadiums, but that's not what the NFL is about. The NFL is more about first class stadiums like Allianz, Emirates or Da Luz. If you want big big stadiums, that's more of the college football thing.




> how many lower league professional teams are there in the US? theres 92 in england (plus a few in the conference) and most of the big leagues in europe are the same. i'll bet that if you got the total number of attendance in a weekend in europe it'll be alot higher then the US


This is hard to compare because of the difference in sport infrastructure. The way college football is played, it would probably be considered professional anywhere else. There are 117 division 1 college football teams, which is the highest division and largest universities. These are the pics that we usually show when we're talking about college football. There is also Division IAA, Division II and Division III which have more teams than Division I. You also have the Arena Football League, Arena II and Semi Pro. I'd say there are at least 500 teams of what would be deemed professional or semi-professional.


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> Celtic 0-0 Rangers, April 23rd, 2006
> [/IMG]


Exception to the rule (and doesn't really count because Celtic weren't trying due to the fact that we've won the league again (fly the flag)).


----------



## asdfg

Robocop said:


> I only ever use "real world meanings", as we (not you) are the poeple!!


"Poeple"????

I thought it was spelled "peepul"...


----------



## Iain1974

The £1.7Bn is only for league games.

There are also international rights, highlights packages, Champions League, FA Cup and League Cup rights to add into the equation.

Interestingly, Premier League clubs tend to get less than half their revenue from TV rights. Looking at ticket prices will give you a clue as to why that is.


----------



## asdfg

Robocop said:


> then why are you trying to convince him and yourself???
> [/img]


Not at the match at Ibrox today plastic fanboy?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Robocop said:


> Tell me which one of these two posts is more offensive/rude/argumentative, and once you have made your mind up, please tell me why you singled out my post and not the other one.
> 
> 
> Post number 1 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post number 2 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One rule for some and another for others by the looks of it!!


it wasn't that post specifically, i was saying in general why do u have to get banned?


----------



## Robocop




----------



## asdfg

Robocop said:


>


Translated as "no I wasn't at Ibrox today because despite constantly verbally spunking all over the place, I've never actually seen the inside of it because I'm a clueless fake fan."

Too easy.


----------



## Robocop

Its AlL gUUd said:


> it wasn't that post specifically, i was saying in general why do u have to get banned?


Bubomb now has an auto-ban no matter what he does due to having multiple accounts in the past. Even if he became the nicest most po-English guy on the board, he would still be banned.


I'm glad i'm not him!


----------



## Robocop

asdfg said:


> Translated as "no I wasn't at Ibrox today because despite constantly verbally spunking all over the place, I've never actually seen the inside of it because I'm a clueless fake fan."
> 
> Too easy.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Robocop said:


> Bubomb now has an auto-ban no matter what he does due to having multiple accounts in the past. Even if he became the nicest most po-English guy on the board, he would still be banned.
> 
> 
> I'm glad i'm not him!


i'm sure if u behaved yourself you will be fine 
banter is fine but u do go overboard sometimes


----------



## asdfg

Robocop said:


>


Cheers. I believe in the union too.


----------



## Robocop

Go away!! The more things change, the more they stay the same!!


----------



## Robocop

Its AlL gUUd said:


> i'm sure if u behaved yourself you will be fine
> banter is fine but u do go overboard sometimes



I know, but bubomb may as well go more overboard now as he will be banned even if he doesn't!! He will be banned no matter what due to other posters reporting his IP as soon as they spot him (even if he has done nothing wrong)!!

I'm glad i'm not him!!


p.s - I would also agree with the figure 8,542 - although this does change the fact that most of Ulster is in Northern Ireland and not Ireland (real world meaning)


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> _The reason for the US NFL having larger stadia as a rule: they only play big games and can fill it for every game. _
> 
> In a way thats even more impressive, that American Clubs can afford to construct these huge stadia and not have frequent games to supplement their incomes from. Just shows how big the television rights are.


Its the public that normally pays for the stadiums, I remember reading that something like $12 billion of public money had been spent on them in the last couple of decades. Whether they make up for that or not in terms of income I don't know but the way the sport is structured seems to be based on giving the teams/franchinses that barginning power by allowing them to move that european football clubs lack.


----------



## Socrates

*What in your opinion is the most important aspect in a stadium?*

Following on from a discussion with a colleague, it became clear to me that many people attribute different levels of importance to different aspects of sports stadiums. 

For me (as a football fan) the most important aspect is the 'fear factor'. I like stadiums that make opposition players want to plaster their undercrackers, so that my team wins. 

But there are people here who seem to think other aspects are more important. Perhaps quality of the pitch, unobstructed views, catering/executive/club facilities, atmosphere (although this isn't an aspect of the stadium, more the supporters that inhabit it, although the stadium may affect this), transport links, exterior, etc.

What to you is the most important aspect of a stadium?

(PICTURES WOULD BE HELPFUL)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

i think the 'fear factor' as you put it is important but how do you define that? capacity? atmosphere? size of the stadium?


----------



## canarywondergod

i'd have to go with astmosphere, im not bothered with facilites as long as the seat i sit in is comfortable enough, one of the best matches i went to was the norwich vs. birmingham divison 1 play off final a few years back at the millennium stadium. The roof was closed and with 70,000 crazed football fans in that tight stadium the atmosphere was electric (if not a little deafening!)and even though my team lost (im a norwich city fan btw) it was one of the best days out ive ever had and worth every penny of the ticket.


----------



## asdfg

Capacity, atmosphere and design are the most important elements for me. 

I don't really give a damn about the exterior, although a nice modern exterior like that on the Allianz or New Wembley never fails to impress me.


----------



## Socrates

Its AlL gUUd said:


> i think the 'fear factor' as you put it is important but how do you define that? capacity? atmosphere? size of the stadium?


A combination of things I think. Basically its the impression the players get when they run out of the tunnel, which I suppose is made up by atmosphere, size of the stands, number of people there etc.

The 'fear factor' is Celtic Park's one saving grace. I can't imagine any player would enjoy running out to the sight of 50 odd thousand rabid tarriers salivating and shouting vile abuse at them. (50,000 because the tunnel comes out of the "main" stand which is tiny in comparison, and would scare no one). 









And close up:
















Video: greeting opposition players http://media.putfile.com/Rangers-Getting-Abuse
Video: attacking the referee http://www.zippyvideos.com/1754606634072276/may99/

Knowing 60,000 unwashed hooligans were itching to attack you would put most people off their work.

Other grounds, although nice places, may not be as intimidating for opposition players. For example Emirates with its 'no expense spared' attitude will attract gentlemanly supporters who will scare no one.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

asdfg said:


> Capacity, atmosphere and design are the most important elements for me.
> 
> I don't really give a damn about the exterior, although a nice modern exterior like that on the Allianz or New Wembley never fails to impress me.


i agree, exterior isn't important as long as the interior is good


----------



## Isaac Newell

Ali Sami Yen








Toumba


----------



## Big Jock's Secret!

I disagree. I never understand the publics obsession with toilets. I have a rock hard bladder, so only need to piss after 3/4 pints. I simply time things right and go for a piss before entering the stadium. As for a big shite, again, it once a day, maybe twice, so simple timing means you don't need to drop the kids off at the pool during a game. Even if I had the turtles head something awful, I would never use the toilets in a stadium. I only shite in quality bogs (my own), and would never lower myself to shitting in public toilets.


What kind of lowlife would release his guts in a stadium toilet??? This excludes celtic fans, as they live in public toilets (council houses)


----------



## victory

Big Jock's Secret! said:


> I disagree. I never understand the publics obsession with toilets. I have a rock hard bladder, so only need to piss after 3/4 pints. I simply time things right and go for a piss before entering the stadium. As for a big shite, again, it once a day, maybe twice, so simple timing means you don't need to drop the kids off at the pool during a game. Even if I had the turtles head something awful, I would never use the toilets in a stadium. I only shite in quality bogs (my own), and would never lower myself to shitting in public toilets.
> 
> 
> What kind of lowlife would release his guts in a stadium toilet??? This excludes celtic fans, as they live in public toilets (council houses)


Ever been to a cricket match?


----------



## Big Jock's Secret!

Drunk Aberdeen fan at a Celtic Park toilet (although I don't think it is celtic park, their bogs are much worse!!) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC10SPesms4&search=aberdeen fan at parkhead


----------



## Big Jock's Secret!

victory said:


> Ever been to a cricket match?



No, thankfully. That's a bit different, as I think cricket games last all day. I meant football.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Europeans are in for a real shock pretty soon. History and the past mean bugger all when you are talking money.

Do you really think clubs like Man U will continue playing against sides like Wigan in the future?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Big Jock's Secret! said:


> What kind of lowlife would release his guts in a stadium toilet??? This excludes celtic fans, as they live in public toilets (council houses)


you at it again hno:


----------



## Durbsboi

True that,who does shit in a public toilet?
I've been to plenty cricket Test matches & ODI's I always empty'd my bowels up home first, so u go there as hungry as a lion  Then u fill up again with da chicken Tikka from da ****'s :eat:


----------



## Socrates

asdfg said:


> Thank you tocino. If anyone wants to see what makes a good stadium, watch this video.


That must be the biggest hypocritical farce I have ever seen. Celtic fans signing a song about solidarity against terrorists and offering condolances in song for the tragedy in Madrid, yet every other game sees Celtic fans singing pro IRA songs and waving ETA and basque flags.

A recent article about the Celtic chief exec being embarrassed about celtic's IRA loving supporters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/4982304.stm

And here you can hear them in full voice (2 minutes in)
http://www.bolt.com/fatfink/video/817200?cn=STREAM_fatfink_video_large_PAGE1

UTTERLY DISGUSTING BUNCH OF HYPOCRITICAL TERRORIST LOVING SCUMBAGS


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> That must be the biggest hypocritical farce I have ever seen. Celtic fans signing a song about solidarity against terrorists and offering condolances in song for the tragedy in Madrid, yet every other game sees Celtic fans singing pro IRA songs and waving ETA and basque flags.
> 
> UTTERLY DISGUSTING BUNCH OF HYPOCRITICAL TERRORIST LOVING SCUMBAGS


Please stay on topic and keep your bitter rants to yourself.

P.S. Too easy.


----------



## Socrates

^^ It wasn't me who posted the video, nor was it me who was signing about the joys of terrorism.


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> ^^ It wasn't me who posted the video, nor was it me who was signing about the joys of terrorism.


No, but it was you who went off on a rather embarassingly bitter rant. Let's just say your thread (which was started as a troll) has backfired big style for you.

It's cool though. You've properly let your guard down now so we all know what you're really like. You Rangers fans really do your club proud on this forum!


----------



## crisishit

*ST AUSTELL HAS 4*

CARLYON ARMS FC SUNDAY LEAGUE TEAM PLAY AT THE 92000 SEAT PAR ATHLETICS TRACK, TREGONISSEY AT THE 64500 SEAT PENRICE SCHOOL PITCHES, DUKE OF CORNWALL WERE BASED AT 51000 SEAT POLTAIR PARK & WE SOMETIMES HAVE A KICK AROUND WITH A COKE CAN AT THE 58000 SEAT ALDI CAR PARK. BEAT THAT.


----------



## Fruit Machine

I remember a Champions League away game against Anderlecht and celtic fans could be heard singing disgusting IRA songs for the whole first half as some drunk ones were in the main stand beside the camera. It was so bad that a celtic official got the fans removed from the area beside the camera at half time so that they could not be heard live on TV around Europe. 

Remember celtic fans mocking American Rangers player Claudia Reyna after the New York terrorist attack -

"A man in the Celtic section of the crowd was seen to imitate a plane as Reyna stepped up to take a corner during the match at Ibrox. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1572616.stm


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> I remember a Champions League away game against Anderlecht and celtic fans .....


What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the _most importance aspect of a stadium_, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?


----------



## Socrates

asdfg said:


> No, but it was you who went off on a rather embarassingly bitter rant. Let's just say your thread (which was started as a troll) has backfired big style for you.
> 
> It's cool though. You've properly let your guard down now so we all know what you're really like. You Rangers fans really do your club proud on this forum!


Honestly, how has this back fired? This is a classic example of being celtic-minded. Celtic fans do disgusting things, and I should be embarrassed for pointing it out?


----------



## Socrates

asdfg said:


> What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the _most importance aspect of a stadium_, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?


You and your friend Tocino were happy to talk about celtic fans when it was complimentary


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> Honestly, how has this back fired? This is a classic example of being celtic-minded. Celtic fans do disgusting things, and I should be embarrassed for pointing it out?


Yes, you should be embarassed for bringing an irrelevant, off-topic and bitter rant into a thread *you* started.


----------



## asdfg

Socrates said:


> You and your friend Tocino were happy to talk about celtic fans when it was complimentary


We were? Really?

If you look back, both of us were discussing *atmosphere* - which directly relates to the topic of the thread i.e. the most important aspects of a stadium.


----------



## Fruit Machine

asdfg said:


> What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the _most importance aspect of a stadium_, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?


then why did you post a video showing the (hypocritical) behaviour of celtic fans?

who is Bubomb?


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> then why did you post a video showing the (hypocritical) behaviour of celtic fans?


I didn't you moron.

Apology accepted.


----------



## Fruit Machine

Yes, my mistake, you didn't, but you didn't criticise the guy for posting it, yet you say to me "What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the most importance aspect of a stadium, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?"


You should of said that to the guy who posted the video, instead of praising him....so you are still a bead rattler!! 

rattle those beads boy...RATTLE them!!


----------



## asdfg

Why should I critisise the guy who posted it?

He posted a beautiful and poignant moment when Celtic fans fittingly paid tribute to a terrible tragedy that happened on the same day in Madrid. Goes to show what a stadium that promotes atmosphere and a fantastic support can achieve!


----------



## Fruit Machine

then why did you say to me -

"What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the most importance aspect of a stadium, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?"

Either the behaviour of fans should be posted/talked about, or they shouldn't be posted/talked about!! Which one is it bead rattler?

Out of curiosity, did celtic fans have any beautiful and poignant moments when IRA bombs resulted in terrible tragedies around the UK? Or do they pick and choose what terrorist attacks to use so they can play the good guys in front of the cameras and turn on the crocodile tears?


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> then why did you say to me -
> 
> "What relevance does the behaviour of Celtic fans have to the most importance aspect of a stadium, bubomb? In fact what relevance does it have to stadiums at all?"
> 
> Either the behaviour of fans should be posted/talked about, or they shouldn't be posted/talked about!! Which one is it bead rattler?


I realise you're struggling with this but it's really not a difficult concept. 

It's *irrelevant* to discuss the general behaviour of Celtic fans in this thread... the only exception is below...
It's *relevant* to discuss Celtic fans in this thread if it's directly related to the atmosphere generated in a stadium
Now let's just move on before you embarass yourself further.



Fruit Machine said:


> Out of curiosity, did celtic fans have any beautiful and poignant moments when IRA bombs resulted in terrible tragedies around the UK? Or do they pick and choose what terrorist attacks to play the good guys in front of the cameras?


Please stop discussing off-topic matters. This is of no relevance to stadiums.


----------



## Fruit Machine

asdfg said:


> [*]It's *relevant* to discuss Celtic fans in this thread if it's directly related to the atmosphere generated in a stadium
> [/list]
> .


So if it relevant to talk about the atmosphere that celtic fans make in their stadium after Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Spain, then it must also be relevant to talk about the atmosphere they make after IRA terrorist attacks in the UK. So tell me, is the atmosphere in the stadium as 'beautiful and poignant' after an IRA terrorist attack?


This isn't the Jock Stein child rape scandal you know!! You can't brush this one under the carpet!


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> So if it relevant to talk about the atmosphere that celtic fans make in their stadium after Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Spain, then it must also be relevant to talk about the atmosphere they make after IRA terrorist attacks in the UK. So tell me, is the atmosphere in the stadium as 'beautiful and poignant' after an IRA terrorist attack?


I can't remember Celtic ever playing a game on the day of an IRA attack so I'm afraid I can't answer the question.


----------



## Fruit Machine

asdfg said:


> I can't remember Celtic ever playing a game on the day of an IRA attack so I'm afraid I can't answer the question.



I can, and the atmosphere was quite noisy, due to all the shouting and songs in support of the IRA.


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> I can, and the atmosphere was quite noisy, due to all the shouting and songs in support of the IRA.


You can? Date, match and bombing please?


----------



## Fruit Machine

asdfg said:


> You can? Date, match and bombing please?



every single game featuring celtic away from home for the last 30 years has had IRA chanting. Every single celtic home game before Fergus McCann had IRA chanting. So any of those games that occured on the same day as an IRA attack answers your question.


----------



## asdfg

Fruit Machine said:


> every single game featuring celtic away from home for the last 30 years has had IRA chanting. Every single celtic home game before Fergus McCann had IRA chanting. So any of those games that occured on the same day as an IRA attack answers your question.


So no actual evidence. Let's move on then.


----------



## Fruit Machine

asdfg said:


> So no actual evidence. Let's move on then.


So are you actually saying celtic fans have never sung IRA songs????? Get a grip sonny. You ain't fooling anybody!! I live in Scotland, so you can't fool me!! Every single football fan in Scotland will confirm celtic fans sing IRA chants/ songs.


----------



## great prairie

MoreOrLess said:


> I very much doubt they'd ever try simpley because the fans are more interested in their clubs tradisional rivarys, Liverpool/Everton, Man Utd/Man City or Arsenal/Spurs are bigger games for them than verus Inter Milan.


Rivalries don't go away in a NFL style league, they would probably get stronger. All of those english clubs would probably be in the same division, which would make the games more important. Every season in the NFL you play your division rivals twice(1 home, 1 away), there are 4 teams in each division so that is 8 of 16 games. You have to win in your division to make the playoffs.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Do the New York Giants play the New York Jets?


----------



## archifreese

^yes they do though not often.


----------



## rantanamo

traditional rivalries seem to always stay intact in the NFL. The Dallas Cowboys' biggest rival is the Washington Redskins. Geographically, they should have been moved from the NFC East a long time ago, but they remain. Their next rivals are probably Philadelphia and then New York Giants. All have been kept in the same division, though Tampa or Carolina should have switched places with them long ago.

and are the Jets and Giants really rivals? Its like in baseball where I wouldn't call Oakland and SF or LA Angels and LA Dodgers rivals. Don't think Oakland and SF are football rivals either.


----------



## Fruit Machine

If European football ends up like the NFL then it would be the death of the game. I for one would refuse to watch such fake made up teams. It will never happen thankfully.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

And Euro teams aren't made up???


----------



## Fruit Machine

No, most grew and developed from local communities over 100 years ago. Most clubs were formed for the benefit of local communities and the players were local boys/men. Some clubs formed from working mens groups/miners/shipbuilders etc or were formed from army groups/divisions to give the men something to enjoy away from work/war.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Browns - Steelers, as close to a European rivalry as they come.


----------



## Fruit Machine

Browns!!!!!!! sounds like a jobby!!


----------



## Neda Say

If an esl is to born it won't be an esl Bob. The name will be European Football League, the game isn't called soccer on this side of the atlantic. I like the names of some teams especially Paris Revolutionaires, I like it. But you can have Abramovitch and Murdoch... They are not the first multimilionaires in the sports Louis Dreyfus, Berlusconi and a bunch of all business oriented guys have been here for a while... 
The idea of a football league nfl styles is good but tough to translate in something real.
Real-Arsenal is good, Real beating Barcelona is even better and if it gives them a national championship they got it all... Europe as something that doesn't exist in the united states a bunch of Nations proud of their own (meaningless for some soccer history)... Abrahamovitch might try to get something done with Murdoch and a few other g14 owners... the fans might like it for a while. But teams will still want to have a crapy Real-Atletico cause the point is that there is more or at least the same amount of money there and more prestige and more pride... 

Money can top it except when your home team take a beating every week in the EFL. fan won't come to the stadium to see their team lose... In the US they do in Europe not so much Madrid has more chances to win a liga than an ESL in the liga tey are the top dogs in the EFL they might lose everyweek.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

If Europe had a league comprising the top 32 teams from various countries, European soccer would be a lot more interesting. I think the reason would be parity. Every year, for the most part, you have the same teams dominating the individual leagues. Combine them all and you have one hell of a competitive league. Imagine Barca, Real Madrida, the Milan teams, Juve, Roma, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester U., Lyon, Fayenhoord, Ajax, etc. etc. all in the same league. Have them in divisions seperated by country. Playoffs are 16 teams, and the Euro League Championship. To maintain the value of the smaller leagues, like serie B, etc. have the bottom team from each division leave to be replaced by the top team of the minor leagues. 

I think that would do wonders for competition, rivalries, and team equality. The only other thing i think Europe should do with soccer is have a salary cap. It is essential for equal competition.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

*North*
Isle Division
Arsenal
Man U. 
Chelsea
Liverpool
Tottenham
Blackburn
Celtic
Rangers

North Euro Division
Bayern Munich
Hamburg SV
Werder Bremen
PSV Eindhoven
Fayenoord Rotterdam
AJAX
AZ Alkmaar
Schalke 04

*South*
West 
Barcelona
Real Madrid
Valencia
Osasuna
FC Sevilla
Lyon
Bordeaux
FC Porto

Mediterranean
Juventus
AC Milan
Inter Milan
Roma
Lazio
Fiorentina
Lille
Chievo Verona




...These teams battle it out for the European Club Championship, with the rest of the current leagues trying to become champions of their intracountry championships so that they can take the place of the worst team from each of the divisions.

Sort of like Champions League except you would only play Euro Super League games while in the Euro Super league, rather than in addition.


----------



## Iain1974

ASupertall4SD said:


> I think that would do wonders for competition, rivalries, and team equality. The only other thing i think Europe should do with soccer is have a salary cap. It is essential for equal competition.


Salary cap? Have a day off mate.


----------



## pompeyfan

annoying people


----------



## pompeyfan

Fruit Machine said:


> then why did you post a video showing the (hypocritical) behaviour of celtic fans?
> 
> who is Bubomb?


Once again, that would be you


----------



## Guest

ASupertall4SD said:


> *North*
> Isle Division
> Arsenal
> Man U.
> Chelsea
> Liverpool
> Tottenham
> Blackburn
> Celtic
> Rangers
> 
> North Euro Division
> Bayern Munich
> Hamburg SV
> Werder Bremen
> PSV Eindhoven
> Fayenoord Rotterdam
> AJAX
> AZ Alkmaar
> Schalke 04
> 
> *South*
> West
> Barcelona
> Real Madrid
> Valencia
> Osasuna
> FC Sevilla
> Lyon
> Bordeaux
> FC Porto
> 
> Mediterranean
> Juventus
> AC Milan
> Inter Milan
> Roma
> Lazio
> Fiorentina
> Lille
> Chievo Verona
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...These teams battle it out for the European Club Championship, with the rest of the current leagues trying to become champions of their intracountry championships so that they can take the place of the worst team from each of the divisions.
> 
> Sort of like Champions League except you would only play Euro Super League games while in the Euro Super league, rather than in addition.



and where do the hundreds of other professional clubs around the UK and Europe fit in to this plan? In England for example, the supports of the teams ouside the top 10 far outweigh the number of fans who support the top 10. What happens to the supports of those 82 clubs outside of the top 10? In Scotland, more fans pay to watch non old firm teams each week than those who pay to watch Rangers and Celtic. What happens to these teams/fans?


----------



## BobDaBuilder

If they bring in the "Euro Soccer League" then they can finally ditch those useless cup competitions and have a proper finals/playoff system to decide the premier team.

At the moment in England you have the ludicrous situation which seems to happen every year where the championship is all wrapped out months before the season ends. With a "Grand Final" in England Chelsea could get their lunch cut by an upstart right at the end of the season which keeps interest up, unlike the ridiculous "Euro system" in place currently.

When they bring in the ESL, it will be 20 odd clubs. The Group 14 plus a few add ons all playing each other twice so it will be around 38/40 game season. Cannot wait.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

i thought i explained it. the other teams not of the elite league, play as normal. in lesser cups all vying for a chance to gain entrance via lower league championships into the main super league. lowest of the super league teams are relegated to the lesser leagues. it creates a drive to the main league, steady competition to win those leagues, and a drive to not be on the bottom in the super league.

as for the salary cap, i really want someone of the opposite mindset to explain this to me. why are you so against it? in the NFL, the cap has created an opportunity for the lesser markets to win, using strategy and managing skills, player development. in baseball, however, without the cap, the same teams are ALWAYS in it. The yankees spending 150 mil a year will never not be a dominant team, and the devil rays, only able to spend 40 or so, will NEVER be in it. their players get too pricey once developed and leave to bigger markets. You see the Kansas City Chiefs consistently competing with the likes of the NEW YORK giants. Why because of a salary cap. 

So, please...why is a salary cap an awful idea? Do soccer leagues want Juve to ALWAYS win the league, with Inter and AC milan right behind, Roma nearby, and maybe ONCE in a decade the likes of a lesser market team. I dont see how that is interesting at all to watch.


----------



## cockrates

Sofa's


----------



## Nils

The first page of this thread was interesting...


----------



## Stevens

*What in your opinion is the most important aspect in a stadium?*

people?


----------



## Stevens

*National Stadia for or against their existance?*

Please discuss the pros and cons of any country having a national stadium?

thanks


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^

There is an investigation of sorts going on in Italy now I saw on the news as to why Juventus "somehow" manage to win the league in Italy every season.


----------



## Stevens

*Stadia with athletics tracks?*

Stadium should they have an athletics track and jump pit around the pitch?


----------



## gruber

Stevens said:


> Some well-known national stadiums allegedlly according to Wikipedia are:
> 
> *Argentina *
> El Monumental (football)
> Australia
> Melbourne Cricket Ground (Australian rules football, and athletics)
> Telstra Stadium (rugby league, rugby union, and football)
> The Australian cricket team plays at a range of grounds throughout the country. The Melbourne and Sydney cricket grounds are the major venues.
> Belgium
> King Baudouin Stadium (football and athletics)
> Brazil
> Maracanã (football)
> Bulgaria
> Vasil Levski National Stadium (football and athletics)
> Canada
> Commonwealth Stadium (football and athletics)
> China
> Beijing Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
> England
> Lord's Cricket Ground (cricket)
> Twickenham (rugby union)
> Wembley Stadium (football, rugby league)
> Finland
> Helsinki Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
> France
> Stade de France (football, rugby union, and athletics)
> Germany
> Olympiastadion (football and athletics)
> India
> Eden Gardens (cricket)
> Salt Lake Stadium (football and athletics)
> Ireland
> Croke Park (Gaelic games)
> Lansdowne Road (football and rugby union)
> Israel
> Ramat gan stadium (football and athletics)
> Italy
> Stadio Olimpico (football and athletics)
> Japan
> Nissan Stadium (football and athletics)
> Tokyo Dome (baseball)
> South Korea
> Seoul Olympic Stadium (football and athletics)
> Mexico
> Estadio Azteca (football)
> Netherlands
> Olympisch Stadion (athletics)
> New Zealand
> Eden Park (rugby union and cricket)
> Norway
> Ullevaal stadion (football)
> Bislett stadion (athletics)
> Paraguay
> Estadio Defensores del Chaco (football)
> Peru
> Estadio Monumental "U" (football)
> Portugal
> Estádio do Jamor (football and athletics)
> Russia
> Luzhniki Stadium (football and athletics)
> Scotland
> Hampden Park (football)
> Murrayfield (rugby union)
> South Africa
> FNB Stadium (football)
> Newlands Cricket Ground (cricket)
> Newlands Stadium (rugby union)
> Uruguay
> Estadio Centenario (football)
> Wales
> Millennium Stadium (football and rugby union)
> 
> which is the best and why?


there's an error on that Wikipedia list.
in Italy we haven't any National Stadium!
the Stadio Olimpico in Rome is the home of Roma and Lazio for football and is a location for a Grand Prix of Atlethic.
nothing more!

Italy national team of football play matches in the whole Italy, and for the must part of time it play in small-medium size city and not in the top 5 cities.
except for big matches or in the past for Euro and World Cup.
in the last 10-15 years the National Team played very often in mid-size cities of South-Central Italy, where there are very few football clubs at top level (in the first 2 Divisions) and people is "hungry" of football.

the first match of Italy was played in Milan at the Arena Stadium (that still exists and host the home matche of the third team of Milan, the Brera FC, with a capacity of 30.000 people all seats and it's located in the city centre).
then for many decades the city with more caps was Milan, that is the capital of Italian Football and also the city with the biggest stadium of the country.
only in the end of 80's Roma became the city with more caps.
San Siro have another record. it's the only stadium of Italy where the National Footbal Team never lost a match!

_Italian National Team played 52 time in Rome _ 

10 matches at the Stadio Nazionale del Partito Fascista during the 30's (today the stadium is called Flaminio and hosted Rugby matches)
42 matches at the Stadio Olimpico from the mid 50's

_Italian National Team played 50 time in Milano_

36 matches at San Siro from the 30's (where never lost)
6 matches at the Arena in the 20's
6 matches at the old Lombardia Stadium in the 20's 
2 matches and the Velodromo Vigorelli in the 20's


----------



## eddyk

If it's an athletics stadium, or wants to host atheletics...then yes.

Pour example...


----------



## highburysouljah

track and jump pit no no no they suck unless its olympics


----------



## eddyk

Does anyone know of any stadia that were built with athletics tracks that have never been used?


----------



## CharlieP

Stevens said:


> Stadium should they have an athletics track and jump pit around the pitch?


Er, some should, yes - otherwise where are you going to hold the Olympics, European and World Championships, European and World Cups, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Goodwill Games etc. etc. etc.?


----------



## dande

There´s a difference between olympic style stadiums with a lot of space between the track and the first row compared to stadiums where spectators are right next to the outer lane like Zurich (Weltklasse), Oslo (Bislet), Monaco, Stockholm stadium just to name a few.


----------



## CharlieP

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> There is an investigation of sorts going on in Italy now I saw on the news as to why Juventus "somehow" manage to win the league in Italy every season.


I don't really follow soccer, but I have a strong feeling it's something to to with them having more points than all the other teams...


----------



## GNU

2 said:


> No, Berlin is the stadium I class as Germany's national stadium. It is the most famous, most classy, it is in the capital and it hosts cup finals.


there is no national stadium in Germany. And there will probably never be one.
We are a federalistic country. It just doesnt work here.
The Olympiastadion may have been the centrepoint for sports under the Nazis, but thats about it really.

If we argue on the historical context, then the Olympic stadium in munich would probably snatch the title


----------



## eddyk

I keep thinking it's going to be sad to see the end the England road trip round the country....but i'm sure after the first game is announced at Wembley I wont care anymore.

I honestly didn't know which way to vote on this one.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

Supposedly Juventus has been getting "extra" good treatment from referees according to the accusations.

Could well be sour grapes.


----------



## Guest

I would still class Berlin as a sort of German national stadium as it is a huge stadium, it is very classy and grand looking, it's in the capital and will be used for the World Cup final as well as German Cup finals.

To a lesser extent, I class the Olimpico in Rome as an Italian national stadium due to it being a large modern stadium in the capital that held the last World Cup final in Italy. In these countries they may not be classed as national stadiums, but to most foreigners, these stadiums give the impression of national stadiums (mainly bacause they are big and in the capital).


----------



## Guest

It is sour grapes.


----------



## gruber

A Pet Shop Boy said:


> I would still class Berlin as a sort of German national stadium as it is a huge stadium, it is very classy and grand looking, it's in the capital and will be used for the World Cup final as well as German Cup finals.
> 
> To a lesser extent, I class the Olimpico in Rome as an Italian national stadium due to it being a large modern stadium in the capital that held the last World Cup final in Italy. In these countries they may not be classed as national stadiums, but to most foreigners, these stadiums give the impression of national stadiums (mainly bacause the are big and in the capital).


It's a bad and wrong impression.
Italia team never palyed in Roma until the mid 30's, cause in Roma there aren't stadium!
from the end of the fascism to the 70's there was just one stadium that had the criteria that you wrote: the biggest and located in the biggest city: San Siro in Milan. (San Siro was and is the main stadium of Italy and Milan is the biggest city of the country).
the World Cup of the 90 had the final match in Roma only for a geographical reason: Roma is settled in the middle of Italy, Milan in the North. so, Roma is a perfect location for National Event as the final of the World Cup.
but not sure, cause it's the Capital of Italy!
the OLimpico is one of the worst stadium of the world to see a footbal match!
there is the atlethic field, is a bowl stadium with dozens of meters between the field and the seats!
and at the end, Roma have a sport tradition close to ...zero.
sports in Italy means Milan, Turin, Bologna, Genoa.

In the 4 principal sports of Italy (Football, Basketball, Volleyball and Rugby) the clubs outside North Italy that won National Championships are:

Football: 5 in Roma, 2 in Napoli, 1 in Cagliari.
Basket: 4 in Roma, 1 in Caserta
Volleyball: 3 in Roma, 1 in Catania
Rugby:5 in L'Aquila, 5 in Roma and 2 in Napoli.

that's all!

the only Milan's teams won in the 5 principal sports around 140 National Championships!


----------



## Guest

gruber said:


> It's a bad and wrong impression.
> Italia team never palyed in Roma until the mid 30's, cause in Roma there aren't stadium!
> from the end of the fascism to the 70's there was just one stadium that had the criteria that you wrote: the biggest and located in the biggest city: San Siro in Milan. (San Siro was and is the main stadium of Italy and Milan is the biggest city of the country).
> the World Cup of the 90 had the final match in Roma only for a geographical reason: Roma is settled in the middle of Italy, Milan in the North. so, Roma is a perfect location for National Event as the final of the World Cup.
> but not sure, cause it's the Capital of Italy!
> the OLimpico is one of the worst stadium of the world to see a footbal match!
> there is the atlethic field, is a bowl stadium with dozens of meters between the field and the seats!
> and at the end, Roma have a sport tradition close to ...zero.
> sports in Italy means Milan, Turin, Bologna, Genoa.
> 
> In the 4 principal sports of Italy (Football, Basketball, Volleyball and Rugby) the clubs outside North Italy that won National Championships are:
> 
> Football: 5 in Roma, 2 in Napoli, 1 in Cagliari.
> Basket: 4 in Roma, 1 in Caserta
> Volleyball: 3 in Roma, 1 in Catania
> Rugby:5 in L'Aquila, 5 in Roma and 2 in Napoli.
> 
> that's all!
> 
> the only Milan's teams won in the 5 principal sports around 140 National Championships!



Yes, I know all that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are going to associate any large stadium in the capital as a countries national stadium.


----------



## gruber

A Pet Shop Boy said:


> Yes, I know all that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are going to associate any large stadium in the capital as a countries national stadium.



not here in Italy, not in Germany, not in Netherlands....and many other countries.
National Stadiums are a tradition of only 2 type of State:
the British ones, or the ones that were formerly colonies of England and the Dictatur!
during Fascism in Italy we had a National Stadium in Roma (but the National Team played everywhere)
During the Nazism there was a National Stadium in Berlin.
during the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco there was a National Stadium in Sevilla.
during the Stalinism and also for many years after the death of Stalin there was a National Stadium in Mosckva.

the only country that is an exception of that 2 categories is the France, but 'cause it's a Nation with a strong centralism (political, ecnomical, in the sports and also for population - Paris have 1/5° of the entire population!).

in all the countries that have a Federalist constitution, in all the countries as Italy that have strong Regional differences, in all the countries where there was never that tradition...there isn't a National Stadium.
and this happened in the MOST part of the Countries of the World.

In Spain the most beautiful stadium, and also the biggest is in Barcelona, in Italy the most beautiful and biggest is in Milan, in Germany for many years was in Munich and now in Dortmund, in Turkey is in Istanbul, in the formerly USSR it was in Kiev, in USA it isn't sure in Washington, in Brasil isn't located in Brazilia, in Australia main stadium are in Sydney and Melbourne and not in Canberra, as in Canada are in Toronto and Montreal and not at Ottawa!

so, i think that only FEW countries have a National Stadium (England, Ireland, Scotland?, India, Pakistan, Malaysia....North Korea...).
so in your list i think there are more or less 8 or 10 right National Stadiums.
all the rest ...are supposions. your, and also completely wrong.


----------



## rantanamo

With current stand technologies, it shouldn't be necessary to build stands that permanently have the track exposed unless its specifically an athletics stadium and is always used as such.


----------



## Guest

gruber said:


> not here in Italy, not in Germany, not in Netherlands....and many other countries.
> National Stadiums are a tradition of only 2 type of State:
> the British ones, or the ones that were formerly colonies of England and the Dictatur!
> during Fascism in Italy we had a National Stadium in Roma (but the National Team played everywhere)
> During the Nazism there was a National Stadium in Berlin.
> during the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco there was a National Stadium in Sevilla.
> during the Stalinism and also for many years after the death of Stalin there was a National Stadium in Mosckva.
> 
> the only country that is an exception of that 2 categories is the France, but 'cause it's a Nation with a strong centralism (political, ecnomical, in the sports and also for population - Paris have 1/5° of the entire population!).
> 
> in all the countries that have a Federalist constitution, in all the countries as Italy that have strong Regional differences, in all the countries where there was never that tradition...there isn't a National Stadium.
> and this happened in the MOST part of the Countries of the World.
> 
> In Spain the most beautiful stadium, and also the biggest is in Barcelona, in Italy the most beautiful and biggest is in Milan, in Germany for many years was in Munich and now in Dortmund, in Turkey is in Istanbul, in the formerly USSR it was in Kiev, in USA it isn't sure in Washington, in Brasil isn't located in Brazilia, in Australia main stadium are in Sydney and Melbourne and not in Canberra, as in Canada are in Toronto and Montreal and not at Ottawa!
> 
> so, i think that only FEW countries have a National Stadium (England, Ireland, Scotland?, India, Pakistan, Malaysia....North Korea...).
> so in your list i think there are more or less 8 or 10 right National Stadiums.
> all the rest ...are supposions. your, and also completely wrong.


You seem to be struggling with the concept that i'm talking about the opinions of people outside of Italy, mainly people in the UK.

Most football fans in the UK, if asked to name the national stadium in Italy, would reply Rome. This is what they would reply regardless of whether is it is factually wrong or not. I class national stadiums as mostly large stadiums in a countries capital, so to me Rome is the national stadium of Italy. This may not be what Italians think, but that is irrelevant to me. The fact that Rome held the World Cup final also helps to make it Italy's national stadium in my opinion.


Even though the San Siro is a far better football stadium, I will always class the Olimpico as Italy's national stadium.


Also, it wasn't my list, and the best stadium in Germany, in my opinion is Berlin and the best in Spain is in Madrid.

Scotland has 2 national stadiums (one in my personal opinion).


an 80000+ stadium in the capital of a country and the stadium held the biggest sporting event in the world - the World Cup final......that for me is almost the very definition of a national stadium.

Of course this is all just my own opinion, and I realise you are from Milan so you will obviously have some kind of spaghetti rivalry going on between cities, but you have to realise that Mussolini has gone and people are now allowed to have different opinions.


----------



## Where's Tyler?

Any football stadium with an athletics track circling the pitch should not be allowed to charge spectators more then £5 to watch the football. (Although us Brits do not build football stadiums with tracks round them so the price should be the equivelant in Euros for our continental friends who do)


----------



## Lostboy

Although I generally agree that football stadia should not be built with running tracks, its led to the problem that in England at least we do not have a first-rate athletics stadium anywhere (until presumably the Olympics). This is probably one of the reasons we've gone from an athletics superpower, to what we are today. Athletics is scorned and mocked in this country.


----------



## rantanamo

There is no large first rate athletics venue in the U.S. either. Most are small, stadiums built for college athletics. Most meets, professional or amateur are either indoors or at these small(20-30,000 seat collegiate athletics specific stadiums) venues. Some of the larger college stadiums recently got rid of their tracks, so I can't think of any. Husky Stadium maybe?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Stevens said:


> Stadium should they have an athletics track and jump pit around the pitch?


you didn't word that properly,
If the stadiums is for Athletics(mainly) then Yes of course, pretty straight forward.

i think u meant should a football(etc) stadium have an athletics stadium then of course no.


----------



## pompeyfan

hi Socrates


----------



## XCRunner

It makes the stadium worse if athletics is not the primary sport (which it usually is not), but if it is, then there should be. I seem to be pretty much reiterating what everyone else has said. IMO though, there are far too many football stadiums that have unecessary tracks around them, while at the same time there are far too few quality athletics stadiums around.


----------



## tocino

Where's Tyler? said:


> (Although us Brits do not build football stadiums with tracks round them so the price should be the equivelant in Euros for our continental friends who do)


Wrong


----------



## João Paulo

If it is an Olympic or athletic Stadium my answer would be yes, but if it is only a soccer stadium i´d vote for no.


----------



## victory

> Yes, I know all that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are going to associate any large stadium in the capital as a countries national stadium.


Yes, this is Australia's National Stadium...








The magnificant Canberra stadium. Capacity: A whopping 25,000.

:jk:


----------



## Durbsboi

No, obviously, unless they gonna do something like Sta Denis, where by, the bottom bowl moves forward to hide the track so to speak, but still its gonna be quite a distance for the guys higher up. & someone metioned what stadium has an athletics track & they dont use it, If anyone from Istanbul is reading this, can you please clarify if they use that running track or not? I know its an olympic stadium but I just want to know if its been used?


----------



## gruber

A Pet Shop Boy said:


> You seem to be struggling with the concept that i'm talking about the opinions of people outside of Italy, mainly people in the UK.
> 
> Most football fans in the UK, if asked to name the national stadium in Italy, would reply Rome. This is what they would reply regardless of whether is it is factually wrong or not. I class national stadiums as mostly large stadiums in a countries capital, so to me Rome is the national stadium of Italy. This may not be what Italians think, but that is irrelevant to me. The fact that Rome held the World Cup final also helps to make it Italy's national stadium in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Even though the San Siro is a far better football stadium, I will always class the Olimpico as Italy's national stadium.
> 
> 
> Also, it wasn't my list, and the best stadium in Germany, in my opinion is Berlin and the best in Spain is in Madrid.
> 
> Scotland has 2 national stadiums (one in my personal opinion).
> 
> 
> an 80000+ stadium in the capital of a country and the stadium held the biggest sporting event in the world - the World Cup final......that for me is almost the very definition of a national stadium.
> 
> Of course this is all just my own opinion, and I realise you are from Milan so you will obviously have some kind of spaghetti rivalry going on between cities, but you have to realise that Mussolini has gone and people are now allowed to have different opinions.


i respect your opinion...also if is a stupid opinion, as in that case.
i explained you that that list can be thinked only by some people, as you (Englishman).
and, as in many case English people think that the world is only something around THE Island (UK) and thinked to that entity (the world) that MUST be very similar to THE Island.

it's obvious that the world isn't a UK suburb, and so if you wrote a list of National Stadium with UK criteria about all the world can be only a stupid small game, nothing more.

i think that this forum is good also to link people from all the world, and to have a large vision of the different cultures.

unfortunally when you wrote something like this:
"Most football fans in the UK, if asked to name the national stadium in Italy, would reply Rome" i can only explain you that it's a mistake and try to explaine why.
after that you wrote that the UK vision of the world is the right one....

so i think that should be better if you come back to write on a Forum of English Beers or on a Forum of UK Lovers.
in that way you'll never find different opinions and sure, you'll never find someone that thinks to the world in a different way than the your.

have a happy life in your small island.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger

A Pet Shop Boy said:


> Most football fans in the UK, if asked to name the national stadium in Italy, would reply Rome.


I disagree I don't think that MOST football fans in the UK would say that at all. Maybe a FEW might mistakenly think that, but MOST would say that there is no national Stadium in Italy.


----------



## Lostboy

_i explained you that that list can be thinked only by some people, as you (Englishman)._

He's Scottish, not English.


----------



## Loranga

If there will be a NFL(NHL/NBA/MLB) style league I really think there could and should be lots of teams outside England/Germany/Italy/Spain/France. Hope for a team in Stockholm with a new 65000 arena. :cheers:


----------



## Detective Jack Cates

tocino said:


> Wrong


By the looks of it that was built by the Romans more than 2000 years ago.


----------



## Lostboy

I'd like to see a franchise in Scandinavia, maybe one of the Island Teams could be relocated, or one of the Turkish Teams.


----------



## Lostboy

_Wrong_

No, not wrong. It was built as an athletic stadium, with athletics being its primary purpose and function. And you know as well as I do - or should do, if your not just an overseas fan whose idea of following English Football, is to know the name of the team you support and nothing else - that it is merely a temporary measure that Brighton took reluctantly (travelling to Gillingham to play home matches is hardly ideal) until they get a proper stadium sorted out, which hopefully should be soon. The current plans for the stadium look magnificent.

It was not built for football, but for athletics.


----------



## Aquarius

Barcelona Dragons played in the World League of American Football from 1991 and 1992, and in NFL Europe from 1995 to 2003.


----------



## ExSydney

victory said:


> Against.
> 
> But really that is in the context of Australia, where there is none, and should be no definitive 'national stadium'.


A little known fact is that Australia DID have an official National Stadium between 1977 and 1990.In 1990 the athletics track was ripped up and was no more.


----------



## highburysouljah

Man city stadium is a perfect example in what to do after olympic games or com wealth


----------



## CharlieP

ExSydney said:


> A little known fact is that Australia DID have an official National Stadium between 1977 and 1990.In 1990 the athletics track was ripped up and was no more.


Which stadium was that? Bruce Stadium? :?


----------



## ExSydney

CharlieP said:


> Which stadium was that? Bruce Stadium? :?


yep...

The National Athletics Stadium in Canberra was built in 1977 and renamed Bruce Stadium in 1990 as the track was ripped out.In 1997,the ground was then reconfigured into a rectangular shaped field and renamed Canberra Stadium.

RIP Australia's National Stadium

note: still remains the venue that holds the Womens 400m and Womens 4x100m track and field World Records way back in 1985!


----------



## GNU

A Pet Shop Boy said:


> Most football fans in the UK, if asked to name the national stadium in Italy, would reply Rome. This is what they would reply regardless of whether is it is factually wrong or not. I class national stadiums as mostly large stadiums in a countries capital, so to me Rome is the national stadium of Italy. This may not be what Italians think, but that is irrelevant to me. The fact that Rome held the World Cup final also helps to make it Italy's national stadium in my opinion.


I think you have to respect the fact that the concept of having a national stadium simply doesnt exist in some countries.
France and Britain may be the prominent two european counries that have a national stadium, however, most of the other bigger states dont have one.
You mostly find national stadiums in countries that are more centralized.
As Germany being a country with a heavy federalistic approach, it just doesnt work here.


----------



## Lostboy

_France and Britain may be the prominent two european counries that have a national stadium, however, most of the other bigger states dont have one._

Britain doesn't have a national stadium. Please have the decency of not confusing England with Britain, it gets very frusrtating and tiresome, and shows a lack of respect.


----------



## victory

ExSydney said:


> yep...
> 
> The National Athletics Stadium in Canberra was built in 1977 and renamed Bruce Stadium in 1990 as the track was ripped out.In 1997,the ground was then reconfigured into a rectangular shaped field and renamed Canberra Stadium.
> 
> RIP Australia's National Stadium
> 
> note: still remains the venue that holds the Womens 400m and Womens 4x100m track and field World Records way back in 1985!


Hey then it looks like i was actually half-right when I posted this, albeit with tongue-in-cheek...



victory said:


> Yes, I know all that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are going to associate any large stadium in the capital as a countries national stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is Australia's National Stadium...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magnificant Canberra stadium. Capacity: A whopping 25,000.
> 
> :jk:
Click to expand...


----------



## GNU

Lostboy said:


> _France and Britain may be the prominent two european counries that have a national stadium, however, most of the other bigger states dont have one._
> 
> Britain doesn't have a national stadium. Please have the decency of not confusing England with Britain, it gets very frusrtating and tiresome, and shows a lack of respect.


Yeah sorry my fault.

I meant national stadiums in Britain in general.


----------



## MoreOrLess

eddyk said:


> I keep thinking it's going to be sad to see the end the England road trip round the country....but i'm sure after the first game is announced at Wembley I wont care anymore.
> 
> I honestly didn't know which way to vote on this one.


While I like the idea of at least the friendlies touring around the county I think the move away from Wembley is one of the reasons they've become such dull worthless affiars. Playing at Wembley ment a great deal to both our players and perhaps more importantly the opposition which ment the games themselves were much more keenly contested.


----------



## Isaac Newell

MoreOrLess said:


> While I like the idea of at least the friendlies touring around the county I think the move away from Wembley is one of the reasons they've become such dull worthless affiars. Playing at Wembley ment a great deal to both our players and perhaps more importantly the opposition which ment the games themselves were much more keenly contested.


I see, play the decent games at Wembley and throw the shit to the provinces. Playing at Wembley means nothing to a player who regularly competes in the Champions League.


----------



## TalB

Although rennovations may seem bad for a number of old stadiums and arenas, it does bring them up to date along with the others w/o having to demolish it and build something totally new.


----------



## Iain1974

ASupertall4SD said:


> as for the salary cap, i really want someone of the opposite mindset to explain this to me. why are you so against it? in the NFL, the cap has created an opportunity for the lesser markets to win, using strategy and managing skills, player development.



We don't like salary caps. We like competition. With a franchised system working with the same budgets you cannot, by definition, have a truly competitive league.


----------



## victory

Iain1974 said:


> We don't like salary caps. We like competition. With a franchised system working with the same budgets you cannot, by definition, have a truly competitive league.


That is not true, in fact that is totally false.

Look at Australia's AFL or NRL.

Both leagues are made up of clubs (Australian football and Rugby League clubs respectively).

AFL has 16 teams, NRL has 15 teams, both have salary caps and both are fiercly competitive to the bitter end of the season.

The salary cap promotes competition, you never (definitively) know who will make the 8 and who will win the grand final.

And teams performance goes up and down from year to year.

Take the NRL and compare it to Englands Rugby Super League. In Eng's RSL only 3 sides (the same 3 sides) ever have a chance at winning the league. In Australia's NRL you have around 6 sides this year realistically vying for the title, next year you will have different sides in with a chance. It is much more interesting to watch, and more viable as a successful competition.

Worried about quality? the NRL even with its salary caps is far above the quality of the English League.

The English FA Premier League is not competitive at all, in fact by the end of the season the only focus is on who will lose and be relegated. Anybody else see something wrong with just hoping your team doesn't lose so it can be totally outplayed by far superior clubs for another season? thats just not sport.

Salary caps are great.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^

Except for the fact the AFL is compromised by allowing the Sydney and Brisbane clubs an extra million to spend on players compared to all other clubs and the 3 bottom clubs are completely out of their depth in the league. Just painful to watch a lot of the matches because it is so uncompetitive.

Any wonder they have won the last 4 of 5 premierships.

You've been listening to too many AFL propagandists "Victory"!


----------



## ASupertall4SD

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Except for the fact the AFL is compromised by allowing the Sydney and Brisbane clubs an extra million to spend on players compared to all other clubs and the 3 bottom clubs are completely out of their depth in the league. Just painful to watch a lot of the matches because it is so uncompetitive.
> 
> Any wonder they have won the last 4 of 5 premierships.
> 
> You've been listening to too many AFL propagandists "Victory"!


I think looking at the differences between Major League Baseball and the NFL should show why a salary cap would be the best idea European Soccer has ever utilized. A capless league allows for those surprise success stories, but over a longer period of time, teams that are more able to spend are consistently dominant whereas the smaller market teams are successful for a short time, and then must reload with talent because players get too expensive. This creates the Yankees, Red Sox of the world, Juve, AC and Inter, etc. 

In the NFL, you use player development and salary cap management to create dynasties. Smaller teams can gain and maintain power. You have the major market teams that are successful like the cowboys at time, and then you have teams like the Chargers who are creating success through smart management, teams like the Seattle Seahawks, the new England Patriots. They can be both real good or real bad depending on how they manage their cap and develop players. 

And do we really need to ask which league is the healthier more popular league in the money driven world that both leagues find themselves in? No, the NFL and it SALARY CAP are way more successful and fun to watch as a fan.

Europe needs the salary cap, and quick!


----------



## NavyBlue

ASupertall4SD said:


> In the NFL, you use player development and salary cap management to create dynasties. Smaller teams can gain and maintain power. You have the major market teams that are successful like the cowboys at time, and then you have teams like the Chargers who are creating success through smart management, teams like the Seattle Seahawks, the new England Patriots. They can be both real good or real bad depending on how they manage their cap and develop players.


 No need to sell the SC to us Australians . . . in fact our SC and draft system was based on American models.



> And do we really need to ask which league is the healthier more popular league in the money driven world that both leagues find themselves in? No, the NFL and it SALARY CAP are way more successful and fun to watch as a fan.


 My club suffers under the rules governing salary caps and draft mainly due to our own miss management and failure to embrace it, and there's no doubt we would prosper under the free market and zone system we used to have but IMHO the competition itself is the better for it.



> Europe needs the salary cap, and quick!


 What I find disappointing about European leagues is the monotony of it. The rich clubs will always dominate and the less financially endowed clubs seem to just be making up the numbers.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

There is hope though. I have several Italian import friends who are nothing short of ecstatic that Serie B is adopting a salary cap as a test. 

Can you tell my friends aren't fans of the Juve, AC, Inter or Roma. THey actually root for a smaller team, and wish to actually have a chance in hell.


----------



## victory

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Except for the fact the AFL is compromised by allowing the Sydney and Brisbane clubs an extra million to spend on players compared to all other clubs and the 3 bottom clubs are completely out of their depth in the league. Just painful to watch a lot of the matches because it is so uncompetitive.
> 
> Any wonder they have won the last 4 of 5 premierships.
> 
> You've been listening to too many AFL propagandists "Victory"!


Yes that is one flaw, because they (sydney and brisbane) do not have a "true" Salary Cap.

If they did it would be good.

BTW, I fo for Essendon (the richest, biggest, most successful club), so you would assume I hate salary caps because without them my team would always be top 3 (compared to 15th currently), but I am still a fan of salary caps. 

The NRL has got it right, look at Nth Queensland, a few years ago they were hopeless, last year they made the final, they are currently second on the ladder. Same thing with Wests, a battler who won it last year. The only smight on the NRL's system is that Sth Sydney still exist, no Salary Cap will make them competitive.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

A good question to ask is... 

who will wisen up and set up a salary cap first, Major League Baseball or the various European Soccer Leagues?

My money is on the soccer leagues. Baseball is hopeless.


----------



## nomarandlee

ASupertall4SD said:


> A good question to ask is...
> 
> who will wisen up and set up a salary cap first, Major League Baseball or the various European Soccer Leagues?
> 
> My money is on the soccer leagues. Baseball is hopeless.



I would agree. To many east coast and NYC backers who beleive that the Yankees (to a smaller extent Boston as if only to set up an interesting rival) ARE baseball and in fact bigger then the game. I know many Yankee backers that actually try to sell you that it is good for the Yankees to be able to get the top free agent every year and for them to be able to dominate. If they actually had a good GM then they would be close to unbeatable. Thankfully they don't have one of the smartest GM's in baseball.

I have the idea of salary caps because I think money should be able to flow freely wherevever it may. However baseball with its anti-trust exemption is not really playing in the basic rules of capitolism either.


----------



## samba_man

Nice ones!


----------



## Loranga

ASupertall4SD said:


> You are definitely right. I was just picking teams that i could think from the major leagues. I think there should be representation from everywhere.
> 
> The main thing though is that the best teams are all in a singular league playing each other and only each other for a Super league championship.
> 
> And my other point was, the individual country leagues would still have incentive and be a draw for fans because those teams would be fighting for entrance into the super league kicking out the lower tier teams of the super league.
> 
> I think that would make the European Soccer Community much more interesting. I hate always, always, always seeing Juve, Inter, and AC Milan in the top 3 year after year after year after year. They should be playing in


I agree, it feels that Sevilla - Middlesborough is a more inter-national game, whereas Arsenal - Barcelona feels more global...


----------



## NavyBlue

victory said:


> BTW, I fo for Essendon (the richest, biggest, most successful club)


Steady on there son . . . the bombers are none of the above.

btw...did you have a nice mothers day


----------



## Quintana

I'm puzzeled. The one in Marrakech is supposedly holding 70,000 once finished. How on earth is that possible? It looks like a 25,000 seater to me :?


----------



## victory

NavyBlue said:


> Steady on there son . . . the bombers are none of the above.
> 
> btw...did you have a nice mothers day


Most successful, definatly, 16 Premierships will couch for that (Carlton may also have 16, but they are almost bankrupt ATM).

Biggest: In Melbourne at ;east, the only reason some other teams are larger is because they dont have to compete in a city with 8 other clubs. 

Richest, they sure are.

Lets not talk about today's results, Rather than dwell on the fact that my AFL team went from 2nd last to last this weekend in a bottom of the table clash, I choose to celebrate the fact that my NRL team went from 2nd to First in a top of the table clash, Come on the Melbourne STORM!


----------



## Bender

Quintana said:


> I'm puzzeled. The one in Marrakech is supposedly holding 70,000 once finished. How on earth is that possible? It looks like a 25,000 seater to me :?


I agree, looks like a 35,000 seater max.

This is going to be a crampy stadium


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

well i think we can't tell until we see a person next to the stands in those pictures


----------



## Giorgio

I cant wait for Dubai to build the stadium with a capacity of 1,000,000 :|


----------



## www.sercan.de

http://www.morocco-2010.com/Video/Stadiums/Marrakech.asf


----------



## Iain1974

I think what some people are failing to appreciate is that if the Premier League introduced a salary cap then most of the best players would leave for Italy/Spain immediately. While I've nothing against a limit of perhaps 60 or 70% of revenue being spent on player wages in reality common sense and the free market should have placed a similar 'restriction' on the teams. If such a cap were introduced it would still mean we could keep the element of competition that we so cherish. Though it would prevent the likes of Chelsea and their sugar-daddy being able to invest however much they like in bringing in some of the finest players from around the world. Overall I'd still prefer the system we already have. The talk at this stage is that Chelsea will bring in 3 players this summer, Eto, Shevchenko and Ballak, threee fantastic players who I'd love to see in the Premier League, even if they're not playing for my team. Does anyone honestly think this caliber of player would be coming if the Premier League had a salary cap? So, are we better off without a salary cap? Of course we are.

Another misconception is that some kind of European League would be incredibly popular. It wouldn't. Most people want to see their team win their own league as a number one priority and the Champions League/UEFA Cup as a secondary issue.

Another problem with the system is what would happen to all the smaller clubs that dream of the chance to get promoted to the Premier League? Where is the room for the likes of Wigan and Reading?

The only examples of sucessful salary cap system I've ever seen are in minority sports where there is only one league (of any consequence). In a sport with broader appeal like football there is no dominant league able to enforce it's will on the entire sport.

See, it all comes down to competition.


----------



## Koweitien

Jaber Al Ahmed Stadium in Kuwait (60,000)



















Image by Faisal.


----------



## thesmallprint

doesnt get much cooler than that


----------



## atlaslion

marrakesh









tanger


----------



## atlaslion

íraq:










Abu dhabi:


----------



## atlaslion

íraq:










Abu dhabi:










saudi arabia:










Qatar:





































Lebanon:



















Tunisia


----------



## atlaslion

algeria:


----------



## atlaslion

egypt:


















Morocco:


----------



## Quintana

www.sercan.de said:


> http://www.morocco-2010.com/Video/Stadiums/Marrakech.asf


Well that explains a lot. You can fit two pitches in there instead of one. Still, it will be very cramped indeed.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

I agree that a salary cap would only work if all leagues adopted the policy. Otherwise, the players would leave that league for the uncapped leagues. So, if it were to work, then all leagues would have to adopt the cap. 

Even if the super league isnt a popular idea amongst european fans, having all the leagues capped would create a chance for teams like reading and wigan because it would be HOW they spent their money, not HOW MUCH. 

but the entirety of FIFA needs to enforce this action, and then let parity and competition blossom.


----------



## vertigosufferer

EADGBE said:


> Google Earth is worldwide and satellite images only. Microsoft's Local Live is satellite of US only, but with aerial (i.e. shot from an aeroplane) images if about a dozen cities.
> 
> That's why the quality is better and the angle is more oblique than the satellite images, which are always more or less taken from the vertical.
> 
> Hope this helps


Cheers - Didn't realise there was something similiar to Google Earth that Microsoft had been involved in.


----------



## zee

i found a placemark which pins all the major football staduims;

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php?Number=35038


----------



## Iain1974

But there is already a chance for teams like Wigan and Reading. Wigan have had a much smaller budget than many other Premier League teams last season yet they've excelled and I for one was expecting them to drop down straight away. You're dead right about the critical factor being how the money is spent, not how much. Look at Real Madrid. They've underperformed for a few seasons yet have a colossal budget and more star players than they know what to do with. Literally.


----------



## sisig

AT&T Park, San Francisco


----------



## skaP187

nice stadia, a shame of the atletic tracks, but that's just me and my footballfetish I gues, specialy the Jaber Al Ahmed Stadium in Kuwait I like.


----------



## Durbsboi

Allianz arena (u/c)


----------



## ratoronto

I agree with Toronto's Rogers Centre ... the world's first retractable stadium roof!


----------



## pompeyfan

*Stadium Websites*

this thread is about websites dedicated to stadiums.

World Stadiums 

Stadium Guide 

Any more???


----------



## archifreese

http://ballparks.com/ but some parts are severely outdated (olympics)


----------



## savas

about greek stadia and arenas stadia.gr


----------



## pompeyfan

excellent


----------



## Ivan Drago

stadionwelt.de and stadiony.net are good resources. Neither are written in English though, so if you don't speak German or what appears to be Polish then you'll just have to make do with looking at the pictures.


----------



## XCRunner

I've been to World Stadiums countless times, but I've never been to The Stadium Guide before. Excellent site, it is.


----------



## decapitated

Ivan Drago, it is Polish indeed


----------



## eddyk

www.footballgroundguide.co.uk

It has a cool message message board also it's not just British stadia.


----------



## cmc

www.fussballtempel.net


----------



## pompeyfan

XCRunner said:


> I've been to World Stadiums countless times, but I've never been to The Stadium Guide before. Excellent site, it is.


The Stadium Guide is the best


----------



## CorliCorso

eddyk said:


> www.footballgroundguide.co.uk
> 
> It has a cool message message board also it's not just British stadia.


Don't forget its sister site, http://www.scottishgroundguide.co.uk/ for Scottish League grounds.

Scottish non-League grounds
http://freespace.virgin.net/snl.online/index.htm

Irish grounds
http://www.ifgrounds.com/

Don't know of a site dedicated to Welsh grounds, but there is this
http://www.welsh-premier.com/stadia.php


----------



## Walbanger

www.austadiums.com is a great site for Australian and New Zealand stadiums and Arenas. It also has a healthy Forum community.


----------



## JOBINHO

1-GERMANY, Ammenities, Safety, Size
2-England, " "not as many large stadia though.
3-Spain, Size, Aesthetics
4-Italy,Crap but Classic
5-Portugal
6-France
7-Holland
8-Scotland
9-Turkey
10-Romania

All agreed?


----------



## Köbtke

LOL. Where did Romania at 10 come from?

I'd put Portugal at number 3. And I'd also say, that Holland's got better stadiums than France, bar of course the obvious big one. Scotland might also even edge ahead of France. French stadiums are a disgrace, like their club football.


----------



## JOBINHO

Köbtke said:


> LOL. Where did Romania at 10 come from?
> 
> I'd put Portugal at number 3. And I'd also say, that Holland's got better stadiums than France, bar of course the obvious big one. Scotland might also even edge ahead of France. French stadiums are a disgrace, like their club football.


Ok then Denmark at 10 jus for you.


----------



## al74

1.- Portugal
2.- Germany
3.- England
4.- France
5.- Spain
6.- Italy
7.- Holland
8.- Switzerland
9.- Scotland
10.- Austria


----------



## Lostboy

Portugal First? You have to be kidding.


----------



## XCRunner

Rexfan2 said:


> The Stadium Guide is the best


It has more in-depth info. but it's just European football stadia. World Stadiums has all types of stadia, from all over the world. I like them both though.


----------



## Gtr82

A good example would be Neyland Stadium on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The stadium holds 108,000 people and the original lower part of the stadium that held about 20,000 people was built in 1921.

UT is currently starting phase one of a five phase, 8-12 year project to renovate the concourse, bathrooms, suites, etc, etc. It is going to cost about $107 million for the upgrades and renovation throughout the inside and outside of the stadium. Estimates for a brand new stadium like Neyland that holds a little over 100,000 people are $400-$600 million dollars.


----------



## pompeyfan

XCRunner said:


> It has more in-depth info. but it's just European football stadia. World Stadiums has all types of stadia, from all over the world. I like them both though.


They Still have plenty from all around the world


----------



## pompeyfan

depends. If you get a stadium like San Siro, personally i believe that no matter how many times they renovate the ground it still looks old.

Then again you get a stadium like Kobe Wing Stadium, where a minor set of renovations changes the entire complexion of the stadium


----------



## Durbsboi

San Siro is one of the most amazing stadiums in the world, sure it has like a million ramps but the styling is unique, they should complete the bowl now.

See some stadium are built to expand, eg: San Siro, old trafford & some are built to stay as they are, eg: Benfica stadium & emirates. Most mordern Stadia are designed as features to the aream taking away that old boring stadium look that we all associated to, some people say these new designs make the stadium look like shopping malls, but thats just their opinions, some people like all types of stadiums it all depends on what the client/ team wants & what suits the area.

So it really depends, yes it is cheaper on the whole to build a new stadium but if the exsisting stadium has provision for expansion, why go through all that trouble?


----------



## Loranga

As DurbsBoi notes, we have to differ from "expansion" and "renovation". Some stadia are better than others when coming to the capability to expand.


----------



## JimB

Sorry, but it's just plain wrong to say that building a new stadium is cheaper than renovation.

I'd agree that, on a seat for seat basis, it is probably cheaper to build a completely new stadium. The difference is, however, that renovation rarely involves the whole stadium. Certainly in England, renovation has usually meant redeveloping one stand at a time.

If a club has, say, a 40,000 capacity stadium and wants to increase to 50,000, then it is far cheaper (if at all possible) to add 10,000 seats by redeveloping one stand than to build a brand new 50,000 stadium.

The reason why new stadium builds are so rare in England is that English clubs own their own stadia and therefore have to bear the full burden of the costs of building them. Therefore, redevelopment is the preferred option because it can occur over a number of years, thereby spreading the cost. Not always so in other countries, where the stadia are owned and paid for by the local government.

On another point, I see some posters talking about renovated stadia (such as the Westfalenstadion) as looking messy. That's typical of this board, I'm afraid. There is a heavy bias towards what is new and without aesthetic flaw. It is the standpoint of someone who is interested in architecture for its own sake - as if it exists in a vacuum.

The truth of the matter, however, is that football fans (those whose opinion really matters) like tradition. Of course they want decent facilities too, and good sight lines. But not at the expense of character. They like their stadia to have little idiosyncrasies.

Give me an awkward looking, redeveloped Westfalen or Fritz Walter stadion any day over a pristine looking, uniform but ultimately characterless stadium like Aufschalke or Allianz Arena.


----------



## tv123

Aquarius said:


> The new ice rink in Jaca...
> under construction..


 ^^ cool


----------



## skaP187

Finaly I thread on this forum about stadiums and nothing but stadiums!
great pics. Let me check if I can put something on to. If I can work out how to do it!
Later


----------



## EADGBE

*Which Stadium Builds Have the Best Websites to Track Their Progress?*

Stadium builds and renovations are usually long, tortuous and expensive affairs and it's not surprising that your average contractor doesn't really want to spend much time thinking about the level of information and pictures available to curious members of the public, especially if a deadline is looming.

Unfortunately for them, they need to understand that they're not working on just another building. By definition, a stadium is a place that connects to large numbers of people, engendering a sense of ownership, pride and belonging that often overtakes all rational and objective analysis. In short, their PR needs to be more effective than when undertaking almost any other type of project. Even national monuments and iconic skyscrapers struggle to match the huge interest that a stadium build can generate. 

So, with a few well-known examples in progress at the moment, I thought it would be interesting to compare the efforts of their respective websites to see who wins the battle off the pitch (so to speak), the battle to keep punters informed even if it risks upsetting the contractors...

*Wembley Stadium, London, UK:*

Might as well start with this one - it's probably the most prominent stadium project in the world at the moment and not always for the right reasons, as we all know. Net effect: it needs a pretty good website to counter all the snide comments it gets in the media.










What do we get? Well, a live webcam section (of sorts) - delayed fuzzy shots with about a minute interval, all taking pictures of 'different' parts of the stadium from virtually the same angle. An internal webcam would have been a great idea any time since about summer 2005, when the bowl has been in existence. Also, what is the point of the Arch webcam? What else is going to change on that now?

We do get the 'Photo Diary', a montage of about 6 seemingly random arty shots every moth, which cannot be copied using your right mouse button (Why? is it an official secret or something? Do the people at Wembley’s website think we haven't heard of screen-dumping or the CTRL+C command?) For this, they must win some sort of award for the most pointless attempt at pointless security.










*Twickenham Stadium, London, UK:*

Next up is Twickenham. They’ve decided not to bother with the live webcam idea but do at least provide decent quality photos of the internal bowl from set locations, allowing the viewer to determine exactly how much is visibly different since the last photo was released. Instead of a regular monthly update, I also prefer the fact that updates seem to be done more often is something significant has happened and can be seen, usually with more images. Maybe this is purely supposition on my part or maybe the people who run the RFU’s website are slightly more aware of the needs to keep the public’s curiosity satisfied.










*Emirates Stadium, London, UK:*

Completing the London triumvirate is Arsenal’s swanky new Emirates Stadium at Ashburton Grove. As I type, the Emirates Stadium Webcam link from arsenal.com is currently linked to the following image:










Possibly, this is a security move to deter London’s criminals from using the webcam as a lookout for whatever nefarious activities they have planned there. You can imagine Arsenal not wanting to advertise the fact that there’s hardly anyone about after hours but a webcam that only works 9-5 is hardly 21st Century, is it?

Anyway, there’s also an image gallery with small-ish pictures taken at seemingly indeterminate intervals. Mostly, they give a good variety of images and it does seem that the photographer had acces to all areas. The only problem I had was that Arsene Wenger seemed to be on lots of the pictures. Anyone would think he was topping up his income with a bit of labouring on the side!










In fairness, Arsenal have created a fair chunk of website to cover the advent of the Emirates Stadium, with an entire section header on their homepage dedicated to it. Being cynical, I’d have wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that unlike the pther two, a headline sponsor is involved. Also, as a club side who are moving, not renovating, maybe they still feel they need to ‘sell’ the stadium a little harder to their fans. This incentive to try harder is perhaps why they have appeared to take the idea more seriously.

*Old Trafford, Manchester, UK:*

Hmmm, it pains me to say it but United’s online stadium build updates were probably the worst of the lot. There was no webcam, all the photo gallery stuff was taken from outside the ground and only chucked onto the ‘Man Utd Pics’ photo sales website section as a bit of an add-on. The impressive stuff only got going when there were seats and boxes to sell and even then there wasn’t that much of it. Curious fans like me were stuck with waiting for infrequent updates on the website and snatched glimpses of the progress over Clayon Blackmore’s shoulder while watching MUTV.










*In Summary…*

Let’s face it, no rugger fan is going to argue with anyone proposing to increase the capacity at Twickers, ditto United fans at OT and the Wembley saga is now that protracted that foreign despots must be considering doing the same thing with their own national stadia as a means of torturing their own people. Yes, all three were happily ambivalent when it came to keeping the punters as informed as possible, all clearly feeling they’d done enough when to many of us, they’d done the bare minimum. 

I’m afraid I have to give Arsenal the Stadium Build PR Award, but largely for the reasons outlined above. Yes, I’m a cynic but it strikes me as no coincidence that the project that was potentially the most likely to meet with customer resistance was the one that tried hardest to keep those same customers updated with as many visuals as it could.

Does anyone know of a current project that keeps their website visitors more informed than any of these? I sincerely hope so!!


----------



## Seth Gecko

EADGBE said:


> Possibly, this is a security move to deter London’s criminals from using the webcam as a lookout for whatever nefarious activities they have planned there. You can imagine Arsenal not wanting to advertise the fact that there’s hardly anyone about after hours but a webcam that only works 9-5 is hardly 21st Century, is it?


Had the webcam been running 24/7, how much activity do you think would have been observable at the dead of night, in the dark, with no workers on site? 
Cynical is not the word my friend.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

scouserdave


----------



## invincible

SSC seems to be the best unofficial resource for construction updates. Especially with the MCG, since it still hosted matches during construction and half of Melbourne's train network passes around it. 

Their official site also had a webcam and a photo gallery, and there's also the OmniCam which is a webcam atop a building's spire which provided decent views of almost everything around the city. Then there were a few of the webcams with web control interfaces that weren't secured and open for everyone to access.


----------



## GNU

The new mainstand in Bielefeld uc


















The red seats in the Weserstadion in Bremen will be replaced with green ones.
Hopefully we will soon see the proposal for the new stadium


















And the new Porsche arena in Stuttgart has juts been inaugurated


----------



## GNU

doublepost


----------



## EADGBE

Seth Gecko said:


> Had the webcam been running 24/7, how much activity do you think would have been observable at the dead of night, in the dark, with no workers on site?
> Cynical is not the word my friend.


Then what word is?

Enlighten me. In fact enlighten _someone_ one day...


----------



## The Communards

*Official PDF's from UEFA (4/5 star stadiums)*

He delivers again, here are the official pdf's fresh from UEFA themselves, proving once and for all that Celtic Park has zero stars. The other pdf shows the exact requirements for 4/5 star rating.

http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-1.pdf
http://pictures.footymad.net/upload/247/284217-2.pdf

This is the real deal, use this whenever you need to refer to 4/5 star stadiums. Athens is a surprise, I didn't know that was a UEFA 5 star stadium!! A few of the capacities will need updated (Old Trafford, Ibrox and Villa Park)


----------



## Seth Gecko

Foolish. 

It doesn't take a genius to realise that there is no point in having a webcam running all night when theres nothing to see and no light to see it in. 

Think McFly, think!


----------



## The Communards

Yeah, think before you post EADGBE! A webcam in my bog would be more useful than a night one at a stadium


----------



## Seth Gecko

If this guy had eadgbe doing his homework for him he would've got kicked out of school!


----------



## Seth Gecko

You like Jimmy Somerville a lot eh?


----------



## The Communards

I'm a big fan of famous puffs!


----------



## The Communards

I love all 3 Back to the Futures....the first is an 80's classic!!


As for 'EADGBE' - http://tinyurl.com/n5tsp


----------



## canarywondergod

i dont see the santiago bernabeu in that list, which was made a 5* stadium in 2003 when the roof was finished on the last stand, so that list is out of date by a number of years. explains why a number of the other stadiums are out of date figure wise too. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Bernabéu_Stadium


----------



## The Communards

Santiago Bernabeu is NOT a UEFA 5 star stadium. Do you know how Wikipedia works? It is written by fans of a subject, so that page would have been written by a Real Madrid fan, and he was talking shite. What difference would a roof make??? Nou Camp is 5 star and it doesn't have a roof! Half the stuff on Wikipedia is nonsense. The Santiago Bernabeu's upgrade was finished in 2004, not 2003, so this Real Madrid fan doesn't know his arse from his elbow!!

Think about it!! If Athens is on the list (upgraded in 2004), then this means a 2003 (according to the Madrid fan) Bernabeu did not get 5 star status (proving the Madrid fan is talking nonsense)!! Also on the list is Olympiastadion in Berlin, and that only opened with it's upgraded 5 star status in late 2004, so the list is very up-to-date. All the capacities are spot on apart from Villa Park. They obviously haven't visited that stadium since it was awarded 4 star staus.

The pdf's were emailed by UEFA from their media office 2 days ago, so they are the most up-to-date lists available!!!

Next please!


----------



## Noostairz

The Communards said:


>


^ tip  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tp)
v. tipped, tip·ping, tips 
v. tr.
To push or knock over; overturn or topple: bumped the table and tipped a vase. 
To move to a slanting position; tilt: tipped the sideview mirror slightly downward; a weight that tipped the balance. 
To touch or raise (one's hat) in greeting. 
*Chiefly British. 
To empty (something) by overturning; dump. 
To dump (rubbish, for example). *


----------



## canarywondergod

The Communards said:


> Santiago Bernabeu is NOT a UEFA 5 star stadium. Do you know how Wikipedia works? It is written by fans of a subject, so that page would have been written by a Real Madrid fan, and he was talking shite. What difference would a roof make??? Nou Camp is 5 star and it doesn't have a roof! Half the stuff on Wikipedia is nonsense.
> 
> Think about it!! If Athens is on the list (upgraded in 2004), then this means a 2003 Bernabeu did not get 5 star status!! Also on the list is Olympiastadion in Berlin, and that only opened with it's upgraded 5 star status a few months ago, so the list is very up-to-date. Karaiskakis Stadium opened well after the Bernabeu upgrade, and the Karaiskakis Stadium is on the list!!! Explain that??? I will explain it for you...the Bernabeu is NOT 5 star!
> 
> The pdf's were emailed by UEFA from their media office 2 days ago, so they are the most up-to-date lists available!!!
> 
> Next please!


all right ok, my bad! whats happened to villa park recently then to warrant the capacity info to be wrong?


----------



## DrasQue

Yeah! Istanbul Ataturk :rock:
I was suprised about Athens' olympic stadium when i first knew it was a 5 star stadium,too
But both of them lookin impressive


----------



## Dare to Love

Quintana said:


> The list is incomplete. Philips Stadion is missing on the 4 star list. It hosted this years UEFA Cup final so it should clearly be there.



The list is the most up-to-date available as it was sent out from UEFA’s media office about a week ago. Philips Stadion is 4 star as it held the UEFA Cup final a few weeks ago, but UEFA probably only update the list once a year, maybe less, so Philips Stadion will appear on the next update. Why don’t you email them and ask for an update you lazy ****!! Do I have to do all the work??? You do your best and bellends like this have a go at you???


----------



## Dare to Love

cphdude said:


> This is really exelent, thank you. You wouldnt happen to know where I can find the UEFA demands for hosting a euro cup tournament, would you?



Sorry I don't, but I am working on it. I will update you soon on my progress!


----------



## SGoico

The two biggest stadiums and their surroundings in *Barcelona *city 

Camp Nou (Home for FC Barcelona football team)









Estadi Olímpic (where the Olympic Games were held)


----------



## Zorba

To all the non-believers, yes Athens is a 5 star stadium. Which is why it's hosting the 2007 Champions League final(which only 5 star stadiums can do). 

Not bad for an "old bowl with a new roof" as Mo Rush likes to call it.


----------



## Seth Gecko

EADGBE said:


> (1) If you think that's the most important issue to discuss here, then save yourself the trouble of replying and the rest of us from reading it.
> 
> (2) At least you're being honest about your pathetic motives. It kind of throws into question what your definition of an idiot is, though.
> 
> (3) I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was a limit on points made per post - ooh, and I'm on my third one here! If the level of conversation is too sophisticated for you then you could always try this site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks very much, by the way!
> 
> Remind me, when was the last time I ruined someone else's thread by descending into irrelevant and obscene subject matter?
> 
> At least it got 'Communards' banned but while 'Seth Gecko' remains, he'll do it again and again. I suspect they're the same person anyway. Throw in the Glasgow connection and you don't have to be Taggart to work out who it really is.
> 
> Any hope of a return to topic here?


Another bog standard pseudo intellectual post from yourself eadgbe. It doesn't take Taggart to figure out you have no idea what you're talking about, or who you're talking to, but I guess you don't quite have the intellect that old Taggart has/had, and so you plod on in ignorance. 

But thanks for the link to the bob the builder site, if only the rest of your posts contained something as useful as that!


----------



## Dare to Love

The fact that he still can't work out that Bubomb and Socrates are two different people just proves that he is no 'Taggart'!!


----------



## Venezuelacom

*Copa America 2007 Stadiums*









*Venezuela will host Copa America (the oldest soccer championship in the world (1916)) in 2007. For that Venezuela has the job to build new stadiums, transportation ways, hotel * facilities, etc.. Take a look at the new stadiums..

*Luis Ramos Stadium
Capacity: 40000
City: Puerto La cruz*

























*Polideportivo Cachamay
Capacity: 35000
City : Puerto Ordaz*

























*Estadio Metropolitano de Maturin
Capacity: 40000
City: Maturin*

























*Estadio Olimpico UCV
Capacity: 40000
City: Caracas*

















*Estadio Agustin Tovar ''La Carolina''
Capacity: 30000
City: Barinas*

















*Esatdio Pueblo Nuevo
Capacity: 42500
City: San Cristobal*

















*Estadio Pachencho Romero
Capacity: 35000
City: Maracaibo*

















*Estadio Metropolitano
Capacity: 40000
City: Merida*









*Estadio de Barquisimeto
Capacity: 40000
City: Barquisimeto*


----------



## matherto

interesting, but unfortunately only two of the stadiums are suitable for football


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

no offence, but they aren't great looking stadia and why all those Athletic tracks???


----------



## rantanamo

My guess for why some of the larger stadiums aren't 5-stars are some of the lighting requirements and handicapped areas. I could see handicapped problems in some older stadiums. As far as the lighting, Athens would have had to meet HDTV lighting requirements which are something like 1800-2400 lumens(depending on the native broadcasting resolution of said network). Otherwise, there is not much that is stringent about the requirements. Any large new stadium in a major metropolitan area should be able to meet these requirements. Especially as HDTV spreads and disabled legislation because more regulated.


----------



## Dare to Love

Celtic Park has over 60000 disabled seats!!


----------



## Dare to Love

Its AlL gUUd said:


> no offence, but they aren't great looking stadia and why all those Athletic tracks???


maybe they like athletics!


----------



## Dare to Love

It's quite impressive for a smallish poor South American country like Venezuela. You have to put things into perspective!


----------



## The Hunted

Any construction pics?


----------



## Seth Gecko

Eadgbe is the sort of guy Jim Kerr named his band after!


----------



## Dare to Love

or Peter Jackson's classic comedy horror -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103873/


----------



## samba_man

fANTASTIC


----------



## Seth Gecko

Brilliant! Heres eadgbe: :?


----------



## Mo Rush

maybe its an athletics competition..just kidding...love venezuela..the girls from there are BEAUTIFUl! best of luck to venezuela hope to see these stadia complete...im sure the tournament will be awesome...


----------



## Dare to Love

Seth Gecko said:


> Heres eadgbe: :?


who starred in the film -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112697/


----------



## Venezuelacom

Thanks for all the comments, u have to realize taht it is the first time venezuela is the hosting country of such an important socce tournament like this one.. Thta is why most of the stadia has to be build., i do not think they look that bad, all of them got somethin special, as well as how the are integrated to that caribbean enviroment taht sorrounds them.


----------



## cphdude

Dare to Love said:


> Sorry I don't, but I am working on it. I will update you soon on my progress!


exelent, thank you very much...


----------



## Aka

At least Copa America will have some decent - some look quite cool - venues which is seldom seen. Yet... the competition is next year and you only have renders?


----------



## Venex

This is a photo of last december when the Metropolitan venue of Mérida was used for the openning of the national games. The stadium is not already built but its quite advanced in the construction, i will release somo photos soon.



You can see other photos of the same stadium at:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadio_Metropolitano_de_Mérida


----------



## EADGBE

Seth Gecko said:


> Eadgbe is the sort of guy Jim Kerr named his band after!


If only there was a band called The Arrogant Bastards so I could counter your uber-intelligent wit.

You know nothing about me and still you remain convinced of your own importance. When was the last time you actually contributed something constructive to a thread on here? Any guise will do, banned or current (for that read about-to-be-banned)

Your contributions of late are a litany of second-rate one-liners, tired innuendo and constant self-infatuation. Kapflamm had the best idea.


----------



## Dare to Love

EADGBE said:


> If only there was a band called The Arrogant Bastards so I could counter your uber-intelligent wit.
> 
> You know nothing about me and still you remain convinced of your own importance. When was the last time you actually contributed something constructive to a thread on here? Any guise will do, banned or current (for that read about-to-be-banned)
> 
> Your contributions of late are a litany of second-rate one-liners, tired innuendo and constant self-infatuation. Kapflamm had the best idea.



off-topic again!!


----------



## Guaro15

Aka said:


> At least Copa America will have some decent - some look quite cool - venues which is seldom seen. Yet... the competition is next year and you only have renders?


All stadiums are under construccion!


----------



## aleCUK

San Cristobal Casa Mayor De La Vinotinto





http://www.comandosur.com.ve/copa_america.htm
http://www.copamerica-2007.com.ve/index.asp?conten=sedes
:cheers:


----------



## ·.·´¯`·.·JoSé·.·´¯`·.·

Dare to Love said:


> It's quite impressive for a smallish poor South American country like Venezuela. You have to put things into perspective!


:toilet::toilet::toilet::toilet::toilet:


----------



## Dare to Love

·.·´¯`·.·JoSé·.·´¯`·.· said:


> :toilet::toilet::toilet::toilet::toilet:


Ok, if that's your attitude then it's shit!! Fucking Diego's!


----------



## Venezuelacom

Dare to Love said:


> Ok, if that's your attitude then it's shit!! Fucking Diego's!



Dare to love . Dont get mad at us, but I see ur first comment kinda of rude. Im sure taht was not ur intention, but it may be out of line 4 some ppl


----------



## Aka

Metropolitano's roof reminds me Estádio Algarve's one.


----------



## Aka

By the way, which one will host the final?


----------



## Dare to Love

Venezuelacom said:


> Dare to love . Dont get mad at us, but I see ur first comment kinda of rude. Im sure taht was not ur intention, but it may be out of line 4 some ppl


I was defending the stadiums!! Your population is smallish (25 million), and in terms of infrastructure your country is behind most European countries, so taking that into account, I was stating that the stadiums are quite impressive! No reason for you to be offended!


----------



## hngcm

Why so many athletic tracks....

Mexico va ganar esta copa.


----------



## Venex

^^ Why not? , I don't know about the rest of the country but in the case of Mérida, the stadium belongs to a greater sport complex so that’s why it has the track. I guess the take advantage and built many things in one 

About the final, there's no information of the posible host of the final game but i guess it could be in Caracas or Maracaibo. About the openning game, i think it will be host in Mérida or Puerto Ordaz.


----------



## EADGBE

Venezuelacom said:


> Dare to love . Dont get mad at us, but I see ur first comment kinda of rude. Im sure taht was not ur intention, but it may be out of line 4 some ppl


Unbelievably, I'm inclined to defend bubomb here. I was thinking the same thing as he did when I read through the thread. It's unfair to expact a country like Venezuela to have 8 or 10 50,000+ stadia, all especially for football.

Economic reality has to intervene somewhere. That's why you have the 30k-40k gounds that double as athletics venues. It's unfair to expect otherwise and it's a bit unfair to have a go at anyone who points this out. It's a bit like like saying "Don't patronise us!".

I understand what you mean about 'some people' but they should read the posts a bit more carefully and be a little less ready to perceive every reference as a criticism. The stadia are not to my taste but I'm never going to visit them. What's important is that they are fit for the purpose for which they are intended.

I hope Sky are showing the CA (next summer?), as in previous years. I'd like to see the finished versions as well as the games played in them.


----------



## skaP187

they will never be ready on time... (manana manana manana :cheers: , can't get n with the thing on it damned) and I realy do not understand what is up with the atletic tracks...like atletics is a big sport in Venezuela, I would love to see some lady sprinters form Venezuela though...believe me I would have noticed. 
Are they for safety reasons or something. For the rest the're okay I guess, well let's:cheers: another. untill manana (damn.)


----------



## CharlieA

*How could you make a new ground with character?*

Like many on this board, I also hate all the new generic stadiums (Riverside, Walkers, etc) so I was wondering what could a company do to make a new stadium have some character? I'm thinking about the 28,000-size stadiums, like the Walkers, how could you make it original? I'm thinking something like a different roof, or perhaps 2 smaller tiers rather than one all the way round. 

Please post your thoughts and comments!


----------



## EADGBE

I think the Reebok is the definitive '30k stadium that breaks the mould'. I drove up Rivington hill a couple of weeks ago and looked down onto the ground. It was a sunny day and it just looked superb. It's just so perfectly proportioned and laid-out. And it's not bad when you go in it, either.

I agree with almost all the points made. It would need to be truly distinctive in some way. Rooflines and stand 'flow' are the most obvious ways to govern this but remember, even the Allianz is ostensibly a 3-tier Walkers with a fancy roof. That says to me that distinctiveness doesn't have to challenge everything we cite as uninspiring for the sake of it. It just has to do what it sets out to do incredibly well.

I also totally agree with the point about Abramovich. However much money they have or trophies they collect, Chelsea will ever have the class of, say, Barcelona because they are fundamentally opposite in their nature. I'd rather live in a democracy than an oligarchy. And I'd take the cheapest seat at the Nou Camp over the best suite at the Bridge any day.

I didn't know that Hull were going to 'mirror' the main stand at the KC. That would be good.


----------



## NeilF

EADGBE said:


> I didn't know that Hull were going to 'mirror' the main stand at the KC. That would be good.


(UN)fortunately, I've been living there for the past few years, and apparently because of the success of the Rugby League team, more capacity is needed. I honestly can't tell you if it needs to be or not. I'm more of a union man myself. I've been to a few Hull City matches though, and even then, it's only the away end that's empty. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result. The K.C. is the most inspiring bulding in Hull.


----------



## Seth Gecko

NeilF said:


> I'm more of a union man myself.


----------



## nomarandlee

Though I am not sure if they would be the same for European taste I am going to go for what seems to work best for U.S. stadiums.... 

1. Put the stadium in the middle of a neighborhood. One where both the stadium and community around it can thrive and have a mutual dependancy and gives both a sense of charechter that is hard to replicate. This obviously means little if any parking lots and near PT. 
2. Have one end of the stadium at least partially look out onto downtown, landmark, or a scenic part of the city. Though symetrical stands seem to be popular with Europeans here there is a sense of sameness when you do this. In American stadiums ones which have a sense of space beyond the stadium they often give a stadium a very unique feel. 
3. Stands as close and tight as possiable up the field (definatley shared by both Europeans and Americans). 
4. High is not good. While inclined seating is good getting too high is bad. It is a delicate balence. The lower you can hold down tiers down to ground level (within reason) the better. If too high once thinks he is looking at overhead view on your AE sports game system.


----------



## pompeyfan

the outside of the stadium should have a scoreboard


----------



## Mo Rush

I think setting is very important. Any stadium trying to achieve what may be an elusive quality called "character" has to take its surroundings into account. A stadium that respects the architectural influence around it, fits well into the skyline of the surrounding region, and offers some sort of historical or traditional attachment would go a long way in achieving character. A reasonable yet moderate capacity always helps in bringing spectators closer to the action allowing for a more intimate feel. I think removing uneccessary clutter in and around a stadium can help too, nothing too dramatic or over the top in terms of the design is a pro, use materials that arent to painful on the eye, and in most cases bringing the people to the stadium and making it truly theirs can help build a stadiums character...


----------



## Giorgio

Allianz Arena.


----------



## bobo_greek

*When is google earth going to update cities so we can see the stadiums*

i was just wondering when google earth is going to update many of their cities so we can see the stadiums? for example athens olympic stadium and the mcg are still shown under construction.


----------



## Calvin W

Hey Google has updated a lot in the last week. Cut them some slack. Check out what HAS been updated!


----------



## bobo_greek

does it matter what version i am using?


----------



## MrCopy

Los mas bonitos de todos a mi parecer son el de Merida y el de la Campiña en Barquisimeto.

Saludos.

_____________________________________________________


But the pretty ones of all to my to seem are the one of Merida and the one of the Countryside in Barquisimeto. Greetings.


----------



## carlisle

I think there are a couple of modern stadiums in the UK with some character... namely the Stadium of Light, Sunderland and Eastlands, Manchester City.

There are many aspects which make modern stadiums have less character so I have picked out one thing I would like to see:

Many old stadiums are rectangular, this fits in perfectly with the stadium's surroundings. Highbury is a good example of this but there are many more, with one or more sides of the stadium creating a street frontage facing the houses opposite. This is missing in many modern stadia, which are often oval shaped (not that they need to be) and this shape does not fit in with the surroundings, creating large areas of open space at the corners which can only really be used for car parking. Yes, car parking has to be somewhere, but it doesn't have dominate the stadium's setting; maybe a multistory car park down the road with a little bit of disabled and VIP parking on the stadium site itself. If the stadium is to be oval shaped then the area around it can be filled in with a distinctive yet traditional network of streets (oval streetscapes can be very distinctive, many cricket grounds have oval streetscapes around them), these streets can contain hotels, community facilities, shops, bars and other facilities which are usually all consolidated within the one building.

Also I like the American idea of providing a vista towards some distinctive local feature.


----------



## CharlieA

Yes a lot of older London grounds (Loftus Rd, Highbury etc) are rectangular, and open out right onto the street. This makes the tube and public transport a lot easier to get to the ground, as parking spaces are never obvious. We don't have the luxury of available, affordable space .


----------



## Irish Blood English Heart

Love it, has a lot more charecter than similar sized new stadiums in the UK. And very cheap too!


----------



## Enzo911

Esos renders los hace un estudiante de 1º de arquitectura. No me atrae ninguno


----------



## Puente del Mundo

There are a couple of very nice stadiums, nevertheless, I've never liked the name, "Copa America" because is not.

It is a South American tournament where 2 or 3 central or north american teams are invited, I realize that the football quality of South America is way superior than the rest of the continent, but I just wanted to point my desagreement with the cup name.


----------



## hngcm

All you need is Mexico and the USA, it's not like the rest of the CONCACAF teams have a chance to win it.


----------



## SLAA

*Is there any Third World Country with an Olympics Stadium??*

Is there any Third World Country with an Olympics Stadium??


----------



## skaP187

Mexico city?


----------



## globocentric

SLAA said:


> Is there any Third World Country with an Olympics Stadium??



This remark is infested with racist connotations and ignorance. I am certainly not impressed. Are you trying to degrade the so called subjectively and arbritarily classified third world countries?


----------



## skaP187

globocentric said:


> This remark is infested with racist connotations and ignorance. I am certainly not impressed. Are you trying to degrade the so called subjectively and arbritarily classified third world countries?



eh, that's a :eek2: full. I think it is just a question no?


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Russia has not bulldozed its old 1980 one has it?


----------



## kostya

Is Russia a third world country???


----------



## Giorgio

Not at all.


----------



## crossbowman

kostya said:


> Is Russia a third world country???


neither is Mexico


----------



## Maltaboy

globocentric said:


> This remark is infested with racist connotations and ignorance. I am certainly not impressed. Are you trying to degrade the so called subjectively and arbritarily classified third world countries?


I agree


----------



## panamaboy9016

*Ummm...*

Third World countries are countries like El Salvador,Guatemala,Belize,Nicaragua,Honduras,Bolivia,Paraguay,Philippines....I don't think they would have an olympic stadium...And yes,Mexico is not a 3rd world country. If people consider Colombia to be a 3rd world country then they have an olympic stadium. 

Here you have some stadium informations in Colombia....


----------



## panamaboy9016

*Yeah...*



globocentric said:


> This remark is infested with racist connotations and ignorance. I am certainly not impressed. Are you trying to degrade the so called subjectively and arbritarily classified third world countries?


I agree as well..


----------



## ÜberMaromas

:sleepy:


----------



## another_viet

the term "third world country" is politically incorrect and offensive

if u want to ask this question please use "underdeveloped, developing or developed nation"


----------



## khayam

"Third World" is not an offensive term in itself, in fact "underdeveloped" is quite offensive, because it implies that there is only one measure of development and classifies countries accordingly. I dislike "developing" as well.
"third world" doesn't involve a hierarchy as many people assume, it is not saying that there is a "first" "second" and "third" worlds. 
It is in fact a French term in relation to the term "tiers etat" that existed before the French revolution, when the representative assembly during the monarchy(etats generaux) gave the majority of the population (bourgeoisie, peasants and other commoners) a small representation and very little voting power, while the elites and the aristocracy monopolized voice and representation. 
So, "third World" was a political term, refering to a "silent" and underrepresented majority. Which is quite accurate. 

In fact, I like the term "third world", nowadays people tend to find it "outdated" and "too political", so they use "neutral" terms like "developing countries" where they imply that the difference between the West and the Rest is purely economic and technical....


----------



## Manila-X

The term "Third World" doesn't exist anymore. It's either underdeveloped, middle or industrialized


----------



## 40Acres

you people need to update your definitions of the term "third world" country. During the Cold War, it was a common monicker for the developing countries undecided which concept of government to follow ... the USSR being "first world" communist, the USA being 2nd world "capitalist". The 3rd world had the option which system to follow, and were mostly poor, developing nations, thus the term "3rd world nation" has a negative connotation due to the economic strife of most of them.


----------



## Krazy

*ABU DHABI: AL JAZIRA STADIUM & TOWERS*

Design and details revealed last June

*AFL designs Abu Dhabi Al Jazira Club*



















Leading stadium architect AFL has revealed its winning designs for a new US $59 million (AED215 million) stadium for Al Jazira Football Club in Abu Dhabi.

The designs won AFL the first place in an international competition run by the club, beating off strong competition from around the world, including entrants from Germany, America, Canada and France. The new 40 000 seater two tier Mohammed Bin Zayed stadium will incorporate two spectacular corner developments containing commercial office space and luxury apartments. It aims to significantly improve the spectator experience by replicating features of UK premiership grounds.


----------



## Krazy

some more renderings



















The Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club will be one of the region's most modern sporting facilities. The development will be complete in October this year. Spread over 2200 square meters and overlooking Al Jazira Club Stadium, the total cost of the two, new 15 storey towers accounts to USD 36 million. One of the two towers will solely serve as commercial office space, while the other will comprise luxurious residential apartments. The timeframe for completion as stated in the agreement is 22 months, effective from the beginning of next July 2007- being the project commencement date.


----------



## Krazy

some updates by BinAlain

06-06-06


----------



## smussuw

When is it expected to be done? 2029? :hilarious


----------



## al74

acordate muerto de hambre quien te dio de comer cunando ustedes los del primer mundo estaban en plena guerra mundial, acordate un poco reverendo hijo de .......acordate también adonde vinieron los españoles, portugueses, italianos, irlandeses y demás cuando en sus países se cagaban de hambre........respetá un poco pelotudo


----------



## koolkid

^ ummmmm
what was that about?

PS: Hey mAROMAS !!


----------



## Diboto

panamaboy9016 said:


> Third World countries are countries like El Salvador,Guatemala,Belize,Nicaragua,Honduras,Bolivia,Paraguay,Philippines....I don't think they would have an olympic stadium...And yes,Mexico is not a 3rd world country. If people consider Colombia to be a 3rd world country then they have an olympic stadium.
> 
> Here you have some stadium informations in Colombia....


I agree... even if most people ignore the facts, countries like Mexico, Colombia, etc.. have a much better infrastructure and higher development levels than most centroamerican, southeast asian, african countries, etc...

Therefore, one can´t call all of them 3rd world (which is a very offesnive term and should no longer be used). Instead, there are different levels of development: some countries are industrialized, some of them are almost fully developed, some are developing and the others are less developed.


----------



## koolkid

You are so right Diboto.


----------



## Modernization

WANCH said:


> The term "Third World" doesn't exist anymore. It's either underdeveloped, middle or industrialized


China has the 4th largest economy. Comparing to France(6), the UK(5).etc..would you call China middle or industrialized?? Sometimes, I think the term "third world' is easier to use because it has a broader meaning...just my opinion.:cheers:


----------



## jetmty1

skaP187 said:


> Mexico city?



MEXICO IT IS NOT THIRD WORLD, ITS A DEVELPOING COUNTRY. OR CALL IT 2ND WORLD IN A 1,2,3 BASIS, ITS A NATION WITH MONEY (BETWEEN THE FIRST 10 ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD) IT IS JUST NOT DISTRIBUTED AS IT SHOULD.


----------



## eklips

2nd world stood for the soviet-block nations.

Developing, under-developed, developed are very meaningless expressions.


----------



## pompeyfan

knowing how quickly Abu Dhabi develops in comparison to Wembley,

TOMORROW!!!


----------



## pompeyfan

:lock:


----------



## Manila-X

Modernization said:


> China has the 4th largest economy. Comparing to France(6), the UK(5).etc..would you call China middle or industrialized?? Sometimes, I think the term "third world' is easier to use because it has a broader meaning...just my opinion.:cheers:


It's like Malaysia. Would you consider Malaysia "Third World"?

Anyway, I think this thread will be doomed to oblivion

:lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock:


----------



## SLAA

*It's ok*

I respect what some viewers have said about my comments, but what I merely meant by third-world were poor countries, which war and money issues. They weren't at all meant to be racist. I would know that because I come from a third world country! As I said its not meant to be racist: its just a fact...


----------



## hkskyline

The Third World still exists. China is still considered Third World actually. It is a developing country, but certainly not up to First World (Western) standards. The Second World doesn't exist anymore. That was the USSR-block.

I think the Olympic movement is trying to be more inclusive by giving poorer countries a chance to host the games. After all, it's not just a rich Western club.


----------



## Krazy

smussuw are u blind or can you not see the construction pictures? the progress is really good and we can expect completion within a year for the stadium and maybe a little more time for the towers


----------



## ttownfeen

With the cost of the Olympics, could any non-super-rich nation afford them? I mean, as it is, most of the recent Olympic host cities from the super-rich countries have incurred massive debt from hosting the Games.


----------



## Danish_guy

from the outside it looks more like a NASA building than a stadium.


----------



## smussuw

well Krazy, Ive seen the construction pictures of Sheikh Zayed mosque and it doesnt look like it is going to finish anytime soon  :runaway:


----------



## vince_rilian

errr... why would you ask about an OLYMPIC STADIUM.... olympic stadiums are only built for the olympic games! maybe you should have used: LARGE CAPACITY STADIUM.... or STADIUM with N+ capacity (N=any number)

yup, this thread should be closed.....


----------



## skaP187

I think it's about time to close this thread (you were right globocentric... I admit)


----------



## hkskyline

ttownfeen said:


> With the cost of the Olympics, could any non-super-rich nation afford them? I mean, as it is, most of the recent Olympic host cities from the super-rich countries have incurred massive debt from hosting the Games.


The IOC has been trying hard to send the Games to South America and Africa. Back a few years ago, there was great anticipation that Africa would be able to win a bid. While there is a significant cost in building the infrastructure for the Games, I think there is more open-ness nowadays to bring he Olympic movement to the developing world than 50 years ago.

China is not a super-rich country, yet Beijing is still capable of building all the facilities for 2008.


----------



## rantanamo

China as a whole is pretty super-rich. Plus you can't discount the governmental control over monies in comparison to others.


----------



## skaP187

jetmty1 said:


> MEXICO IT IS NOT THIRD WORLD, ITS A DEVELPOING COUNTRY. OR CALL IT 2ND WORLD IN A 1,2,3 BASIS, ITS A NATION WITH MONEY (BETWEEN THE FIRST 10 ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD) IT IS JUST NOT DISTRIBUTED AS IT SHOULD.


Why you think I put a questionmark there you peace of .... :bash: 
Nice stadiums there though


----------



## skaP187

What are the criteria for un olympic stadium? there are loads of stadiums in Africa with atletic tracks if that's the case


----------



## SLAA

vince_rilian said:


> errr... why would you ask about an OLYMPIC STADIUM.... olympic stadiums are only built for the olympic games! maybe you should have used: LARGE CAPACITY STADIUM.... or STADIUM with N+ capacity (N=any number)
> 
> yup, this thread should be closed.....


ERRRRRRRRRRRRR....That's what my question was...Is there a third world country with an Olympic Stadium? I'm sure its not THAT hard to understand?? 

No maybe this thread doesn't need to close..


----------



## Mo Rush

i thought melbourne was boring athens was probably the best


----------



## Giorgio

Any Pics of Melbourne? I cant really remember but I liked how it was on some buildings.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

panamaboy9016 said:


> Third World countries are countries like El Salvador,Guatemala,Belize,*Nicaragua*,Honduras,Bolivia,Paraguay,Philippines....I don't think they would have an olympic stadium...And yes,Mexico is not a 3rd world country. If people consider Colombia to be a 3rd world country then they have an olympic stadium.
> 
> Here you have some stadium informations in Colombia....



Hey! At least we're cool so...yeah. :cheer:


----------



## samba_man

nice


----------



## Canadian Chocho

wilty said:


> How old are you Socrates? 14? 15 tops. Did your mum let you go to school today in short trousers as it was nice and warm?
> 
> Hold on a second mate I think somebody has started a new thread *MOST BEAUTIFUL STADIUM IN THE WORLD* you better get on there quick and post another 15 pics of Ibrox.


LOL


----------



## christoph

I'm looking forward to Berlin's fireworks on Sunday. I expect it to be awesome, just as the whole WC 06 was.


----------



## Mo Rush

Canadian Chocho said:


> LOL


double LOL


----------



## spyguy

^Did they even factor in the neighborhood around? What makes games more enjoyable is what you can do before and after the game, and Wrigleyville definitely beats out US Cellular in this regard.

Basically everything else, from bathrooms to food, can be changed and will change as Wrigley is renovated.

But developing a nice neighborhood around the Cell is going to take much longer.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

It'll be the finest 5,500 seat basketball stadium in the world!

Gotta love those EU dollars!


----------



## XCRunner

Scba said:


> I'm done praising Fenway...the beauty just isn't there for me anymore. Wrigley still deserves to be in the Top 3 no matter who's taking count, though. The environment is still fantastic, and the simple, subtle additions work. Fenway is becoming too commercial.
> 
> There is NO WAY that the San Fran park, whatever it's named now, is #1. If it was built out in the mountains and not on the cove, it'd be condemned by now. There's nothing fantastic about it, except for the view and the splash.
> 
> Was it Bill Plaschke who said that it smelled like garlic fries? It's got some funk...


Thank You!! Fenway is DEFINETLY too commerical now. But I must disagree that Wrigley is still in the Top 3. Half the people there are not there for the baseball, they're there to drink beer and just for the sake of being there. They don't want to watch the game, it's so annoying. If it wasn't for Wrigley drawing in fans no matter how dismal the Cubs get, the Tribune Co. might actually be held accountable for making the team good.

Bill Plaschke, along with all the idiots on Around the Horn can kiss my ass, they're a bunch of loud mouths and that's it.

PNC in Pittsburgh looks INCREADIBLE, and PetCo in San Diego looks awesome aswell. I can vouch for the fact that Miller Park in Milwaukee is one of, if not the best park in baseball. The new parks really have come a long way, and they are truly amazing.


----------



## Giorgio

Athens Olympic Stadium.


----------



## hngcm

^ Petco will get even better as the neighborhood around it (East Village) gets better and better with residential projects and whatnot.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

XCRunner said:


> Thank You!! Fenway is DEFINETLY too commerical now. But I must disagree that Wrigley is still in the Top 3. Half the people there are not there for the baseball, they're there to drink beer and just for the sake of being there. They don't want to watch the game, it's so annoying. If it wasn't for Wrigley drawing in fans no matter how dismal the Cubs get, the Tribune Co. might actually be held accountable for making the team good.


So true. I've been a Cubs fan my entire life, and I just get the sense that there are so many people who jump on the Cubs bandwagon and root for them because it's the popular thing to do, not because they are hardcore baseball fans. Many Cubs fans annoy the shit out of me.


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

For those of you who say Fenway is "too commercial" would you care to elaborate? Do you mean stuff like the Coke Bottle above the Wall and various signage around the park?

If that's the case, you guys do realize that in when built in 1933 the Green Monster was COVERED in advertisements right? So in reality, aside from things like the Coke Bottle, and various signs around the park, it's less commercialized than it originally was.


----------



## alfista159

- Munich's Olympic Stadium
- Calatrava Athen's Olympic Stadium
- Alianz Arena
- Braga Stadium


----------



## alfista159

Athens fireworks was the best I've seen in a Stadium!


----------



## AndyKane

Fenway too commercial? What about all those parks with CORPORATE SPONSORED NAMES? I'll only give AT&T Park credit due to its great surroundings and atmosphere (I was there on holiday for Barry's 71st homer of the 01 season). I'm a Giants and Red Sox fan, but that has no influence in saying that Fenway still is a great place to watch baseball.


----------



## TalB

New stadiums don't mean anything to me. So what if Wrigley Field and Fenway Park aren't as cool as many of the newer ones. Does the design really matter? I have a feeling that newer stadiums just leave for no room for being one of a kind.


----------



## sakor1

Some from Commonwealth Games at the MCG in Melbourne, sorry they are small but you get the idea:























































Had them going off all over the city too...










Stu


----------



## ReddAlert

In a way, yes they kind of lost a bit due to every other stadium building "old style". I still consider Wrigley the greatest stadium in America however. While I havent been to every stadium, I feel that this is probally the best place to experience a ballgame like people did back in the day. 

New stadiums are going with these old, more cozy styles--which is great for the game. The days of monstrosities like Olympic Stadium, Astrodome, the Metrodome, Tropicana Field and lifeless looking, cookie cutter stadiums like Shea or Angel Stadium before the renovations are over. There are few bad baseball stadiums left in America...which is part of the reason why Wrigley, Fenway, or Dodger Stadium arent "all that special" anymore. The new retractable stadiums have so much more life and dont feel like an alien gladitorial arena anymore. Outside Dolphins (aka Pro Player) Stadium, Tropicana, Shea, Metrodome, RFK, and the Colliseum in Oakland...every other stadium is pretty cool. Add to the fact that the Twins are getting a great new ballpark, the Nationals are moving to a new stadium soon, and the two Florida teams are probally going to move...America will boast only good MLB stadiums.


----------



## XCRunner

^^Excellent observation. Except I wasn't aware that Dodger Stadium was ever considered "all that special."


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

I don't think these two have been the best or amongst the best ballparks in baseball for quite awhile. In terms of amenities, comfort, and convenience neither of these two parks are even in the top 10.

That's really not the point of Fenway or Wrigley. If the owners/ownership groups wanted to, I'm sure they could find ways to build a new stadium with spacious seats, tons of luxury boxes, hundreds of concessions, and loud HD scoreboards. That's not what the fans of the Red Sox go to see. I can't speak for the Cubs fans because I don't know enough to talk about them, so when I don't know, unlike others on this forum--I won't comment.

The Red Sox have become synonymous with Fenway and vice versa. The signage on the park doesn't bother me, the smallest park in all of baseball and conversely the most expensive tickets in baseball don't matter to me. What matters to me and 99% of Red Sox fans is the product on the field. The Sox have been competitive for AT LEAST the last decade or so, which is more than you can say about most of the teams in baseball. 

Would I like a new ballpark? For the comfort and convenience absolutely. But when I go to Fenway and sit down I'm doing something that people have been doing since 1912. The Monster and the hand operated score board are unique, and really can't be duplicated with the same feel they have here. The updates this new ownership group has done on the park have been great. The seats on the monster, the pavilion seats out in right, and also behind home have been a big hit. 

I don't care about new stadiums like Petco or Miller Field, there's nothing there that makes me say "Oh wow, there's a field I have to go see a game at." Based on the numbers of out of towners at Fenway without rooting interest just to see a game, and those who come to take the tour, I'd say Fenway is still a major draw just for the park itself.


----------



## Giorgio

cool, I wish they lasted longer though in Melb.


----------



## ReddAlert

XCRunner said:


> ^^Excellent observation. Except I wasn't aware that Dodger Stadium was ever considered "all that special."


yeah, I dont think the stadium itself is all thats special, but the location is quite unique. Thanks though!


----------



## ReddAlert

BostonSkyGuy said:


> I don't care about new stadiums like Petco or Miller Field, there's nothing there that makes me say "Oh wow, there's a field I have to go see a game at." Based on the numbers of out of towners at Fenway without rooting interest just to see a game, and those who come to take the tour, I'd say Fenway is still a major draw just for the park itself.



thats somewhat arrogant, thinking that there is nothing special to see at the newer stadiums. Yeah, Im sure Petco doesnt hold a candle to Fenway in histoyr and ambience...but that doesnt make it not worth visiting. Miller Park boasts much that cant be done at Fenway and offers a new experience.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

Isn't Wrigley undergoing a hefty renovation to update the facility to code?

I also thought Fenway has had things done to it too, besides the seats on the Monster.

:grouphug:


----------



## TalB

The only people who diss Shea Stadium are those who hate the Mets. :no:


----------



## crossbowman

christoph said:


> I'm looking forward to Berlin's fireworks on Sunday. I expect it to be awesome, just as the whole WC 06 was.


No fireworks? or was it me only that didn't see them on tv? :? 

I guess they weren't too happy with the result...


----------



## DiggerD21

There were fireworks in Berlin. Not as massive as in Athens or Melbourne, but still nice. They had a lot of confetti though.


----------



## crossbowman

^^ really? the confetti is all i saw...pity i missed it


----------



## LuckyLuke

Yep, it was nice firework.

Here are some picture from the re-opening ceremony 2 years ago.


----------



## Durbsboi

Berlins fireworks were okay, those showers made it look like theres a dome over the stadium.

When I saw Sydney's fireworks in 2000, i thought no way in hell could ever beat that...........then came athens! whooa!


----------



## Giorgio

yes it looks like a cool dome thingy!!


----------



## dANIEL2004

I expected something better last night in World Cup..


----------



## LuckyLuke

^^ that's the Berliner minimalism


----------



## crossbowman

*Torino 2006* firework display























































I think the person behind this was the same that was responsible for Athens 2004 firework displays.


----------



## dANIEL2004

Fireworks in OAKA, Athens, still unbeatable ;-) I m looking forward to Beijing!























http://www.csmonitor.com/blogland/oly2004/images/0830_fireworks.jpg[/IMG]


----------



## christoph

the fire work was really a huge disappointment, such as the opening and closing "ceremony" but I think WC is not the Olympics. Olympic fireworks might just be better.


----------



## 2005

Anyone got pics from the opening cermony at Manchester for the comonwealth games back in 2002?


----------



## Canadian Chocho

erm


----------



## Canadian Chocho

meh...


----------



## Kampflamm

OK, terrific.


----------



## Noostairz

:lol:


----------



## ReddAlert

TalB said:


> The only people who diss Shea Stadium are those who hate the Mets. :no:


I prefer the Mets over the Yankees and BoSox...but thats about it. I think Shea Stadium is nothing special...very plain looking. The new stadium looks to be a large improvement.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

If Canada were to ever host it I guess the final would either take place at the Rogers Centre in Toronto, BC Place in Vancouver, Stade Olympique of Montreal or Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton but I guess they would have to install a roof, or it could be in a completely new stadium.


----------



## Martuh

Replying to the beginning of the topic:

If USA's to host a new WC, I'd use the following stadia:

CA: Rose Bowl - 93.000
ML: FedEx - 92.000
FL: ALLTEL - 77.000
NY: Ralph Wilson - 74.000
TX: Reliant - 71.000
PA: Lincoln Financial - 70.000
MA: Gillette - 69.000
MI: Ford Field - 65.000
AZ: Cardinals - 63.000
IL: Soldier Field - 62.000

But according to biggest size only:
MI: Ann Arbor - 108.000
PA: Beaver - 107.000
TN: Neyland - 104.000
OH: Ohio - 102.000
CA: Rose Bowl - 93.000
LI: BR Tiger - 92.000
AL: Bryant Denny - 92.000
GA: Sanford - 92.000
CA: LA Memorial - 92.000
ML: FedEx - 92.000

That's sick... all WC stadiums larger than 90,000 seats. But hey, all of these almost fall apart.


----------



## TalB

Please don't say the word BoSox, b/c it sounds like Yankees fans and other fans of team are saying that the players went through botox.


----------



## ReddAlert

TalB said:


> Please don't say the word BoSox, b/c it sounds like Yankees fans and other fans of team are saying that the players went through botox.


sorry, I just make things easier for myself. How about I call them the BoSucks? :scouserd:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

TalB said:


> The only people who diss Shea Stadium are those who hate the Mets. :no:


I always liked Shea.


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

ReddAlert said:


> sorry, I just make things easier for myself. How about I call them the BoSucks? :scouserd:


Yeah we know you dislike the Red Sox. Especially after your post in the TO forum. Instead of being anti-Red Sox why don't you take up a Pro-Brewer stance. Oh wait...nevermind. They're not going anywhere.

And Shea stadium is horrible. I don't hate the Mets, aside from anyone on the Red Sox and Tejada/Guerrero, Wright is my favorite player. Shea is like a Tropicana field without the dome.


----------



## Durbsboi

^^That was so crap that they deleted every thing from the games.

How many kilo's of pyro was on the glass roof of athens?


----------



## Giorgio

^^ Would have been heaps...They went on for so long.


----------



## ReddAlert

BostonSkyGuy said:


> Yeah we know you dislike the Red Sox. Especially after your post in the TO forum. Instead of being anti-Red Sox why don't you take up a Pro-Brewer stance. Oh wait...nevermind. They're not going anywhere.
> 
> And Shea stadium is horrible. I don't hate the Mets, aside from anyone on the Red Sox and Tejada/Guerrero, Wright is my favorite player. Shea is like a Tropicana field without the dome.


How do you know I hate the Red Sox? I dont think I ever said anything anti-BoSox on here. What does me saying I prefer the Blue Jays over the Sox, Yankees, and Orioles have to do with anything? The Yankees and Boston Red Sox have the two highest payrolls....making the AL East one of the most predictable and boring divisions in baseball. I know how Sox fans like to consider themselves blue collar, but in reality..they are blue collar only the the Yankees. 

Yeah, shit on the Brewers--they may not be as good as Boston. Then again, your payroll is oh...about, hmm.....70 million dollars more than the Brewers. And to be quite honest, the Brewers are a far more interesting team to watch than Boston. Pure young and unheard of talent. We may not have as many wins as Boston, but we sure have more come from behind and bottom of the 9th victories. Come 5 years from now, you will just have to buy up all our talent so you can compete.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

2005 said:


> Anyone got pics from the opening cermony at Manchester for the comonwealth games back in 2002?


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

ReddAlert said:


> How do you know I hate the Red Sox? I dont think I ever said anything anti-BoSox on here.


Nah calling them the BoSucks isn't being negative or anti-Red Sox. Or this quote of yours from the Blue Jays thread in the Toronto Forum



ReddAlert said:


> god, I hate Boston almost as much as the Yankees. Just for your info, most people I talk to (even my dad) are cheering the Jays to win the East this year.


Whoops! You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure out your intense dislike for the Red Sox. That's okay though, it's not something I take personal. I just find it humorous you go out of your way to jab the Red Sox and Fenway Park.



> What does me saying I prefer the Blue Jays over the Sox, Yankees, and Orioles have to do with anything? The Yankees and Boston Red Sox have the two highest payrolls....making the AL East one of the most predictable and boring divisions in baseball. I know how Sox fans like to consider themselves blue collar, but in reality..they are blue collar only the the Yankees.


So because we support our team we're not blue collar fans? Yeah that make sense. I guess anyone who goes out to support something en masse isn't blue collar. Great rationale there. I guess since Milwaukee supports...uh...what does your city actually support? Maybe the Bucks when they become better.

If the AL East was so predictable then why do the Blue Jays fans even bother making a thread? Their team isn't going anywhere anyways, right? Why bother playing the game at all, why not just GIVE the AL East title to the Yankees. Payroll in baseball only does so much.



> Yeah, shit on the Brewers--they may not be as good as Boston. Then again, your payroll is oh...about, hmm.....70 million dollars more than the Brewers.


See I wouldn't have said anything about the Brewers or Miller Park if you didn't go out of your way to diss Fenway and the Red Sox. It sucks when someone comes after your team for no reason, doesn't it?



> And to be quite honest, the Brewers are a far more interesting team to watch than Boston. Pure young and unheard of talent. We may not have as many wins as Boston, but we sure have more come from behind and bottom of the 9th victories. Come 5 years from now, you will just have to buy up all our talent so you can compete.


I like the Brewers. I do think they have some nice players and that they're interesting to watch. More interesting than the Red Sox? I don't think so. It's a matter of perspective. There's a lot more Red Sox games on national television. That doesn't make them any better than the Brewers. 

I don't know if you have more come from behind wins than the Red Sox. I can't find the most recent stats but at the end of June the Brewers had like 22 and so did the Red Sox.

As for Young Talent? I don't know that you have better young talent. Position players? I'll give you that. Weeks and Fielder are two of the better younger players in the game. Pitching Wise? You have Turnbow and Bush. The Red Sox have Papelbon, Lester, Hansen, and Del Carmen all pitching in pressure situations.

You can't blame the Red Sox or the Yankees for being in a bigger market or for having the fan support (both in tickets and media outlets/tv) to be able to go out and get players. If the Brewers did this you wouldn't be complaining. If the Brewers fans filled the park every night and watched games enough for the Brewers to develop their own network much like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, etc. have they'd be able to spend too.


----------



## boricuosa102

*COLISEO DE PUERTO RICO (PUERTO RICO ARENA)*

The New Coliseum in Hato Rey (the “gold mine” of Puerto Rico) can hold up to 18,500 seated people. It cost approximately $252.6 million, according to the Caribbean Business. The coliseum has 34 bathrooms, 30 concessions, a first aid center, ample dressing rooms for the artists and/or sportsmen/women. Every aspect of the new coliseum is regulated by the NBA and NHL standards. Its first activity is posted to be held this up coming Saturday and will be a Salsa concert. There’s expected to be approximately 10,000 spots for parking, all in the immediate (walking distance) surrounding areas.


----------



## boricuosa102

NBA: Detroit Pistons vs. Miami Heat el Mar, 10 de Oct


----------



## boricuosa102

THE CHAMPIONS OF THE NBA ARE COMING...TO PUERTO RICO


----------



## boricuosa102

RICKY MARTIN'S CONCERT IN COLISEO DE PUERTO RICO


----------



## Durbsboi

[Gioяgos] said:


> ^^ Would have been heaps...They went on for so long.


Yeh, must be some hectic load barring glass they had, because not only the weight of the fireworks but also the impact it would have had on the glass went exploding. facinating stuff.


----------



## jamesinclair

I hate to say it but.....

Why does Puerto Rico need an NHL stadium?


----------



## mankawabi

^^ It meets NHL specifications "just in case". I'm not sure if ice hockey will ever become a popular sport here but, ice skating is quite nice if you live under the tropical sun


----------



## Loranga

Martuh said:


> Replying to the beginning of the topic:
> 
> If USA's to host a new WC, I'd use the following stadia:
> 
> CA: Rose Bowl - 93.000
> ML: FedEx - 92.000
> FL: ALLTEL - 77.000
> NY: Ralph Wilson - 74.000
> TX: Reliant - 71.000
> PA: Lincoln Financial - 70.000
> MA: Gillette - 69.000
> MI: Ford Field - 65.000
> AZ: Cardinals - 63.000
> IL: Soldier Field - 62.000


I would use M&T Bank Stadium (69.000) in Baltimore, Maryland and maybe also Heinz Field in Pittsburgh and Bank of America stadium (74.000).


----------



## Kampflamm

Why would you choose Buffalo over NYC?


----------



## Mo Rush

beautiful


----------



## empersouf

Nice stadium, they have nice girls in PUerto RIco, dont they:naughty:


----------



## ReddAlert

First off, I dont know what I said that was so bad about Fenway. Yes, Miller Park does offer more in some regards--as it is a ballpark from the new century. 

You have to understand that people tire of seeing the Red Sox and the Yankees endlessly. There are reasons why we dislike these teams. Whenever I want to see Brewers highlights...all they talk about are whats happening regarding these teams. Sometimes, I never get to see the highlights for the Brewers. Yes, I understand Milwaukee is a much smaller market than New York or Boston--but the constant media love of them pisses me off. I dont have beef with all Red Sox fans....but all these raving idiots on t.v. get old. And this proves true with Yankee Stadium, as well as Fenway--but I cant stand these yuppies in their 2,000 dollar coats wearing their tattered Sox hats. Personal pet peeve...dont think too much of that and the whole Sox/white collar thing. 

I do think payroll has alot to do with success. The Yankees and Sox have the two highest....and are always a contender for WS championships. Next in line are the White Sox and Mets...one of whom is a defending WS Champion, the other is usually good and red hot this year. Big money allows these teams to pick up aces and sluggers like Pedro Martinez and Jim Thome. Following those teams are of course the Cubs, who usually are good but are always hurt and are poorly managed in my opinion. We got teams like the Braves who owned the N.L. for a decade. On the flip side, you have teams like the D-Rays, D-Backs, Brewers, Pirates, Reds, Royals, Rockies, Marlins etc. who are sometimes good, but making the playoffs is very rare. A playoff appearance for the Brewers would be a big deal in Milwaukee...its old hat in New York. 

And I would complain about Brewers fans at the game...some of them that is. I have noticed the amount of bandwagon jumping last season and now. It is kind of annoying hearing people who would only talk about how great the Packers are start bragging about the Brewers. I have been watching this team since I can remember--and being 20 years old, they have sucked every year for the most part. Milwaukee is a smaller market with an overabundance of teams and activities...especially in summer. There is suprisingly alot to do here in Milwaukee..which detracts from peopel going to baseball games.

And I do think the Red Sox have some good talent. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy watching Big Papi bat or that goofy idiot in the outfield...but I think the Brewers at this point are more exciting. Why?


----------



## ReddAlert

Because our current starting lineup (and those in the minors and DL) are the players of the future in my opinoin. The players that will be in Boston and New York when Milwaukee cannot afford them.


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

ReddAlert said:


> First off, I dont know what I said that was so bad about Fenway. Yes, Miller Park does offer more in some regards--as it is a ballpark from the new century.


I don't know, I guess I just got tired of seeing you bash the Red Sox. It wasn't just you either, I probably overreacted.

The thing that makes Fenway and Wrigley unique is the fact that there aren't any other parks like them. That was my point about Petco and Miller Field not having that factor that makes me say "Oh, I have to go see a game there!" I think with all these newer stadiums/parks they all offer plenty of amentities and great sound systems, etc. but they don't have the history of a Fenway Park. I don't have a problem with any of the newer parks/stadiums I just think that aside from a few fields (Baltimore, San Fran, Pittsburgh) there's very few that stand out. 



> You have to understand that people tire of seeing the Red Sox and the Yankees endlessly. There are reasons why we dislike these teams. Whenever I want to see Brewers highlights...all they talk about are whats happening regarding these teams. Sometimes, I never get to see the highlights for the Brewers.


That's understandable. I think whenever something isn't relavant to you, you get tired of hearing about it. I'm tired of hearing about Barry Bonds. Anything that has to do with him, steroids, the home run crown, etc. makes me want to change the channel...and I usually do. Like with the whole Brett Farve "will he or won't he retire?" I'm sure to you that was relevant and something you cared about. To me? I was as tired of that as I am hearing about Barry Bonds. Regardless of how much pub my local teams get, and they admittedly get a ton, certain things I just don't want to hear about for 5 minutes of every Sports Center/Highlight show. So I understand 100% where you're coming from on this.




> Yes, I understand Milwaukee is a much smaller market than New York or Boston--but the constant media love of them pisses me off. I dont have beef with all Red Sox fans....but all these raving idiots on t.v. get old. And this proves true with Yankee Stadium, as well as Fenway--but I cant stand these yuppies in their 2,000 dollar coats wearing their tattered Sox hats. Personal pet peeve...dont think too much of that and the whole Sox/white collar thing.


I don't see the constant media love with these two teams. Constant media attention? Sure. A lot of the media secretly or openly dislikes the Yankees and the Sox and the Mets, etc. The fact that these teams have the players that they do and also play in places like Boston and New York contribute to them always being talked about. Like I said before I can see how if you aren't in Boston or New York or a fan of the team--how it can get old, quick. 

The Suits with Hats or whatever you wish to label them, I don't know why the bothers you so much. There's a ton of corporate people who go to Sox games (And other MLB games for that matter) and I don't understand why that bothers you. I think it's a good thing that people from all backgrounds and social classes can go out and enjoy a game. Sure when I go to Fenway I don't sit behind the plate, or in the luxury boxes but a lot of times I see people around me in suits having come straight from the office. If I was a construction worker and came plastered with concrete and dirt and some boots, it wouldn't be different.



> I do think payroll has alot to do with success. The Yankees and Sox have the two highest....and are always a contender for WS championships. Next in line are the White Sox and Mets...one of whom is a defending WS Champion, the other is usually good and red hot this year. Big money allows these teams to pick up aces and sluggers like Pedro Martinez and Jim Thome.


I agree, payroll has an impact on the amount of success a team has. But there are other things that contribute as well. How good a team drafts and scouts is more important than signing a few free agents. Having a stocked farm system allows teams not only to promote from within having a player under their control at minimum dollars for 6-7 years, but also to trade those players for something they need during the season or in the off-season.

Look at the Red Sox they have basically at their impact relievers being brought up from within their own system. Their closer Papelbon, and two of their three set-up men (DelCarmen/Hasen) Also their starting first basemen and Right Fielder. I'd like to see more youth on the team, but there are few teams who have brought up a whole team of players and won with them. The Yankees are in trouble even with the highest payroll in the game because they don't have enough in their farm system. They cannot promote from within to help their club (unless you count Melky Cabrera and Andy Phillips as big additions, and I don't) and they cannot trade from their system for the starting pitching or the middle of the order bat they need right now.

If the Brewers had the payroll the Red Sox had, would they be better? Absolutely. They'd probably be in first place. But not because of the payroll, but because of the players they've developed. If you gave the Brewers the 67 million difference between them and the Sox, they could add another front line starter, a lead-off hitter, some bullpen help, and some other pieces. The difference is, last year and the 5-10 years before that the Brewers needed a hell of a lot more than that to win. This year and the end of last year Fielder, Weeks, and Turnbow made that club 100% better than it was for most of 2005. Sheets being injured doesn't help, but you have to remember he took a paycut to stay with the Brewers because of their "mid-market" image. He wouldn't have done that with the Red Sox. Just one example, it doesn't make up the 67 million, but the Sox have a lot of mistake contracts (Matt Clement for 9 million for example) that they can afford to hand out because if the players doesn't pan out (and he hasn't) it's not that big of deal. If the Brewers invest 9 million or someone and they suck? That's more than 15% of their payroll.




> And I would complain about Brewers fans at the game...some of them that is. I have noticed the amount of bandwagon jumping last season and now. It is kind of annoying hearing people who would only talk about how great the Packers are start bragging about the Brewers. I have been watching this team since I can remember--and being 20 years old, they have sucked every year for the most part. Milwaukee is a smaller market with an overabundance of teams and activities...especially in summer. There is suprisingly alot to do here in Milwaukee..which detracts from peopel going to baseball games.


I agree with the bandwagoners. Since this new ownership has bought the team, things have gotten much better in terms of being a Red Sox fan. The park is much cleaner and improvements have been made, they actually draft well and have stocked the farm systems to one of the better systems in baseball. Before the system was barren with no real prospects. Since then Fenway has almost become a place to be seen, like some hot shot restaurant or club. Certain people come just to go and have zero clue about baseball. It's annoying sure, but think about it--would you rather have these bandwagoners or the Brewers in last place? I'd rather have these idiots here than the old ownership group, you take the lesser of two evils I guess.

There's a shitload to do in Boston too. People just love the Red Sox. In a similiar way to people there loving the Packers. No matter what's going on (And there's plenty to do here as well in the summer) people support the team. I don't think having things to do detracts from people wanting to go to a game, if it does (I'm talking about Milwaukee) then...those aren't baseball fans. 

As for more exciting? That's not something you can prove, so you're right. To you the Brewers are more exciting. I can't disagree. I like the Brewers, they have a good rotation (Capuano is from around here I think) and their position players are good as well. Hall should be playing over Koskie and they need to upgrade Centerfield (Clark isn't a favorite of mine) and add some bullpen depth and then you can't complain. I'm not picking on the Brewers just giving an observation. The Sox need a 5th starter, and bullpen help as well. I find the Sox more exciting to watch, but that's probably because they're relavant to me. If the Sox make the playoffs you won't care, if the Brewers do--I'm sure you'll be pumped and vice-versa.


----------



## ultras67

wilty said:


> er..................nothing. Just a 1970's design flopped on top of a pile of old bricks. Apparently that warrants it a mention.



oh dear, never let the facts get in the way of an internet "expert" and idiot.


----------



## ultras67

if the OP is still looking at the thread he might consider taking in some early InterToto Cup games, there are some surprisingly big names in there each year.

2006 UEFA Intertoto Cup third round
First leg: 15 July (except Hertha v Moskva on 16 July)
Second leg: 22 July
Winners enter UEFA Cup second qualifying round
AJ Auxerre (FRA) v FC Farul Constanta (ROM)
Larissa FC (GRE) v Kayserispor (TUR)
Villarreal CF (ESP) v NK Maribor (SLO)
Maccabi Petach-Tikva FC (ISR) v Ethnikos Achnas FC (CYP)
Grasshopper-Club (SUI) v KAA Gent (BEL)
Olympique de Marseille (FRA) v FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (UKR)
Hertha BSC Berlin (GER) v FC Moskva (RUS)
SV Ried (AUT) v FC Tiraspol (MDA)
Newcastle United FC (ENG) v Lillestrøm SK (NOR)
Kalmar FF (SWE) v FC Twente (NED)
Odense BK (DEN) v Hibernian FC (SCO)


----------



## Bahnsteig4

Don't forget that the Euro 2008 qualifications begin this August/September!

A collection of matches that could be of interest, stadium-wise:

Belgium - Kazakhstan, Aug 16 (Constant Vanden Stock, Brussels)
Italy - Lithuania, Sept 2 (Some Italian stadium, perhaps Olimpico, Meazza)
Germany - Ireland, Sept 2 (Stuttgart, Daimler-Stadion, definitely worth a visit)
England - Andorra, Sept 2 (Old Trafford)

!!! France - Italy!!! Sept 6 (Stade de France)

Netherlands - Belarus, Sept 6 (PSV Stadium, Eindhoven)


----------



## Paulo2004

davidkunz/VIE said:


> Don't forget that the Euro 2008 qualifications begin this August/September!
> 
> A collection of matches that could be of interest, stadium-wise:
> !!! France - Italy!!! Sept 6 (Stade de France)QUOTE]
> 
> This game will be interesting to watch.


----------



## ReddAlert

> I don't know, I guess I just got tired of seeing you bash the Red Sox. It wasn't just you either, I probably overreacted.
> 
> The thing that makes Fenway and Wrigley unique is the fact that there aren't any other parks like them. That was my point about Petco and Miller Field not having that factor that makes me say "Oh, I have to go see a game there!" I think with all these newer stadiums/parks they all offer plenty of amentities and great sound systems, etc. but they don't have the history of a Fenway Park. I don't have a problem with any of the newer parks/stadiums I just think that aside from a few fields (Baltimore, San Fran, Pittsburgh) there's very few that stand out.


No, I understand what you mean about Fenway and Wrigley. They are old stadiums and no new stadium will give the same experience. I wouldnt say its just sound systems either for newer stadiums like Miller Park. There is alot of unique stuff to see at an average Brewers game--such as the famous tailgating scene and the racing sausages. Sadly, we dont have a liederhosen clad Bernie Brewer taking a face first slide from his birdhouse like Chalet into a big glass of beer underneath a huge keg. Or the Harley that went around the warning track during pitching changes. Granted, baseball is baseball--but I still wouldnt say there is no reason to visit any of these new stadiums. I wouldnt go out of my way for them. Then again, I dont think I would go to Boston just for Fenway either. 




> That's understandable. I think whenever something isn't relavant to you, you get tired of hearing about it. I'm tired of hearing about Barry Bonds. Anything that has to do with him, steroids, the home run crown, etc. makes me want to change the channel...and I usually do. Like with the whole Brett Farve "will he or won't he retire?" I'm sure to you that was relevant and something you cared about. To me? I was as tired of that as I am hearing about Barry Bonds. Regardless of how much pub my local teams get, and they admittedly get a ton, certain things I just don't want to hear about for 5 minutes of every Sports Center/Highlight show. So I understand 100% where you're coming from on this.


Yeah, I think everyone is about tired of him. Thats another flaw of ESPN...nonstop coverage of him. And dont get me wrong--we all got tired of this Brett Favre retiring crap. Even die hard Packer fans were sick of the waiting stuff. The problem is that you dont get to hear what you want to hear. I never got to hear good playoff matchups and discussion for the Bucks-Pistons series---all they would do is suck Lebron off and ignore basically everyone else beside Cuban. 





> I don't see the constant media love with these two teams. Constant media attention? Sure. A lot of the media secretly or openly dislikes the Yankees and the Sox and the Mets, etc. The fact that these teams have the players that they do and also play in places like Boston and New York contribute to them always being talked about. Like I said before I can see how if you aren't in Boston or New York or a fan of the team--how it can get old, quick.
> 
> The Suits with Hats or whatever you wish to label them, I don't know why the bothers you so much. There's a ton of corporate people who go to Sox games (And other MLB games for that matter) and I don't understand why that bothers you. I think it's a good thing that people from all backgrounds and social classes can go out and enjoy a game. Sure when I go to Fenway I don't sit behind the plate, or in the luxury boxes but a lot of times I see people around me in suits having come straight from the office. If I was a construction worker and came plastered with concrete and dirt and some boots, it wouldn't be different.


Yeah, I do realize there will always be attention for Boston and NYC....they are two huge markets. New England and the New York Metro are a pretty damn big area that far exceeds the population of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Washington State. 

And my "suits" thing is just a personal pet peeve..probally something that only I dislike. I realize everyone loves the Sox in New England...but I just have a thing for young people in expensive clothes wearing their Boston Sox hat. What was worse however, was the NBA playoffs this year in Miami. I hated seeing all these beautiful (probally money loving ho's) hanging out with some old rich guy. These people probally wouldnt know anything about the team or the game of basketball itself. And another thing that bugs me about the Sox is that Jimmy Fallon movie--that guy bugs the shit out of me...no offense to Boston or Fallon. 

Just wait till the Cheeseheads movie comes out. The Packers are similar to the Red Sox is that they have a huge following and are worshiped as god in Wisconsin. There is a dislike for the Packers, of course in Chicago, but other places as well because of the attention they get. I love the Packers and have busted inanimate objects because of their failure on the field..but I can realize why some people hate them. Our fans are very well travled..packing other stadiums much like Boston, New York, and Chicago fans do.


I


> agree, payroll has an impact on the amount of success a team has. But there are other things that contribute as well. How good a team drafts and scouts is more important than signing a few free agents. Having a stocked farm system allows teams not only to promote from within having a player under their control at minimum dollars for 6-7 years, but also to trade those players for something they need during the season or in the off-season.


yeah, a good farm system is crucial. But as the Brewers have shown--it takes far to long. You need veterans and great players. You wouldnt realize how long we waited to have a somewhat competitive team. Teams like the Crew, the Twins, and Nationals/Expos have good farm systems--but it never pushes them over the top. Minnesota has been good for quite awile, but they will probally never win the A.L. Its hard when you have to face loaded Yankees, Sox-White and Red in the playoffs. In the same regard, its difficult trying to compete with teams like the Cardinals that have good veteran players up and down their lineup. 



> Look at the Red Sox they have basically at their impact relievers being brought up from within their own system. Their closer Papelbon, and two of their three set-up men (DelCarmen/Hasen) Also their starting first basemen and Right Fielder. I'd like to see more youth on the team, but there are few teams who have brought up a whole team of players and won with them. The Yankees are in trouble even with the highest payroll in the game because they don't have enough in their farm system. They cannot promote from within to help their club (unless you count Melky Cabrera and Andy Phillips as big additions, and I don't) and they cannot trade from their system for the starting pitching or the middle of the order bat they need right now


That is what I love about the Yankees. They have so many good players, but just cant do it because of their pitching and injuries. .



> If the Brewers had the payroll the Red Sox had, would they be better? Absolutely. They'd probably be in first place. But not because of the payroll, but because of the players they've developed. If you gave the Brewers the 67 million difference between them and the Sox, they could add another front line starter, a lead-off hitter, some bullpen help, and some other pieces. The difference is, last year and the 5-10 years before that the Brewers needed a hell of a lot more than that to win. This year and the end of last year Fielder, Weeks, and Turnbow made that club 100% better than it was for most of 2005. Sheets being injured doesn't help, but you have to remember he took a paycut to stay with the Brewers because of their "mid-market" image. He wouldn't have done that with the Red Sox. Just one example, it doesn't make up the 67 million, but the Sox have a lot of mistake contracts (Matt Clement for 9 million for example) that they can afford to hand out because if the players doesn't pan out (and he hasn't) it's not that big of deal. If the Brewers invest 9 million or someone and they suck? That's more than 15% of their payroll.


Yeah, thats the dillema we are having with Carlos Lee. He wants 15 million a year and there is no way we should pay that. He is an RBI machine and the center of our offense. If we had a payroll like the Sox, we could keep him. 

Bad contracts are a killer. Thats why I love our GM....probally one of the best in baseball. He has a ability for picking dimonds from the rough..like Turnbow who was nothing before the Brewers installed him in the bullpen. Or the infamous Richie Sexson trade that essentially gave us a 20 game winner (Capuano), another starting pitcher (Junior Spivey, who we later traded for Tomo Ohka), a firstbasemen who we made into somewhat of star, getting a two good players for him (Lyle Overbay), and some other decent players. If we had a garbage GM..this team would be trash. I think the Brewers are pretty rare in this category. 





> I agree with the bandwagoners. Since this new ownership has bought the team, things have gotten much better in terms of being a Red Sox fan. The park is much cleaner and improvements have been made, they actually draft well and have stocked the farm systems to one of the better systems in baseball. Before the system was barren with no real prospects. Since then Fenway has almost become a place to be seen, like some hot shot restaurant or club. Certain people come just to go and have zero clue about baseball. It's annoying sure, but think about it--would you rather have these bandwagoners or the Brewers in last place? I'd rather have these idiots here than the old ownership group, you take the lesser of two evils I guess.


I am kind of half and half on the issue. I like a crowded Miller Park, but I absolutely hate some of the fairweather fans that come with bandwagoning. I think it would be more of a problem in Boston where random idiots brag about the Sox, but werent doing it before that historic playoff run. 

BTW...what do you think about Theo Epstein and all his drama?



> There's a shitload to do in Boston too. People just love the Red Sox. In a similiar way to people there loving the Packers. No matter what's going on (And there's plenty to do here as well in the summer) people support the team. I don't think having things to do detracts from people wanting to go to a game, if it does (I'm talking about Milwaukee) then...those aren't baseball fans.


yeah, this city has way to much to do per capita. The metro area is only 1.7 million..but we have the activites and events of a city of much greater. The Sox are one of those teams that people just love. The Brewers are infamous and somewhat loved---known for being losers, an unpopular tax for our new stadium, etc. For some reason, the Packers can have their season tickets sold out every year since 1964 or something...yet have sucked majorly some decades and years. 




> As for more exciting? That's not something you can prove, so you're right. To you the Brewers are more exciting. I can't disagree. I like the Brewers, they have a good rotation (Capuano is from around here I think) and their position players are good as well. Hall should be playing over Koskie and they need to upgrade Centerfield (Clark isn't a favorite of mine) and add some bullpen depth and then you can't complain. I'm not picking on the Brewers just giving an observation. The Sox need a 5th starter, and bullpen help as well. I find the Sox more exciting to watch, but that's probably because they're relavant to me. If the Sox make the playoffs you won't care, if the Brewers do--I'm sure you'll be pumped and vice-versa.


Oh, I dont expect you or America to be more excitied. America likes to watch stars and big markets. I just think right now, this team will be the future and its exciting seeing a team playing togheter that everyone has been talking about for years. Capuano came out of nowhere and was a 20 game winner last year, looking to do the same this year. We just need Sheets to stay healthy--but then again, he is starting to become similar to those two injury prone idiots 90 miles south. 

BTW....is there any talk of trading Manny in Boston?


----------



## BostonSkyGuy

ReddAlert said:


> No, I understand what you mean about Fenway and Wrigley. They are old stadiums and no new stadium will give the same experience. I wouldnt say its just sound systems either for newer stadiums like Miller Park. There is alot of unique stuff to see at an average Brewers game


True. There are some things that go on at the Brewers game that I'd probably get a laugh at--the sausage thing for example. I'm just not into that whole thing though. Having all that "entertainment" for me in uncessary during the 7th inning stretch or between innings. I love baseball for the game, I don't need anything besides the game being played to have a good time at the game. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, if people enjoy it--good for them. They're paying to be there, they should have fun. Sports are entertainment. I just don't like that kind of thing personally, I didn't like when the Celtics started doing that kind of stuff, but I understand in this A.D.D. "I want it and I want it now!" world that attention spans are limited.



> Granted, baseball is baseball--but I still wouldnt say there is no reason to visit any of these new stadiums. I wouldnt go out of my way for them. Then again, I dont think I would go to Boston just for Fenway either.


No, you're right. I'm doing a piss poor job of getting my point across on this topic. When I went into how I wouldn't go some where or have the urge to go some place just because it's new, I wasn't saying that all the parks are the same asthetically. I was just saying with so many new parks you rarely get the feel of watching the game in a place like Fenway. If you're not a huge baseball fan (I'm not saying you aren't) then it's tough to understand. I think I can liken it to Lambeau Field. That's one of the shrines of the NFL, you can't compare it to the newer stadiums because the newer stadiums in terms of size, and amenities are much better. But in terms of seeing a football game in a place where it's been played so long and having a sense of history and being surrounded by fans who LOVE football and the Packers, that's special. It's the same thing here.





> Yeah, I think everyone is about tired of him. Thats another flaw of ESPN...nonstop coverage of him. And dont get me wrong--we all got tired of this Brett Favre retiring crap. Even die hard Packer fans were sick of the waiting stuff. The problem is that you dont get to hear what you want to hear. I never got to hear good playoff matchups and discussion for the Bucks-Pistons series---all they would do is suck Lebron off and ignore basically everyone else beside Cuban.


We're 100% on the same page here. ESPN KILLS stories. Let's face it when something is about our team our interest in that story or game is much, much greater than when our team isn't involved. How much do you enjoy/care about the Super Bowl? How much do you enjoy/care about it when the Packers are in it? ESPN hypes and plays up all these stories from Farve to Bonds to now this Roethlisberger thing to the point that no one cares anymore. Their playoff coverage in all sports is geared towards whichever team has the best player or craziest personality, etc. That's why I'm glad we have NESN (New England Sports Network) and the regional Fox affiliate so I can get local stories and local spin on national ones as well. I'm sure you have something along the lines of those networks there and I'm willing to be that you get more out of them than you ever would from ESPN.





> Yeah, I do realize there will always be attention for Boston and NYC....they are two huge markets. New England and the New York Metro are a pretty damn big area that far exceeds the population of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Washington State.


I think it also has to do with the rivalry between the two, the history of the two teams in Major League Baseball itself, the star players they have, and the fact that more often than not--they're good. It doesn't hurt to have the 1st and 5th/6th television markets being involved.



> And my "suits" thing is just a personal pet peeve..probally something that only I dislike. I realize everyone loves the Sox in New England...but I just have a thing for young people in expensive clothes wearing their Boston Sox hat. What was worse however, was the NBA playoffs this year in Miami. I hated seeing all these beautiful (probally money loving ho's) hanging out with some old rich guy. These people probally wouldnt know anything about the team or the game of basketball itself. And another thing that bugs me about the Sox is that Jimmy Fallon movie--that guy bugs the shit out of me...no offense to Boston or Fallon.


Understood. I don't see a ton of young people at the games in suit jackets or expensive clothes with Sox hats on. I think your impression of the overall fan base is a bit off. Most of the true die hard fans cannot afford to go the games. They're the highest priced ticket in baseball and so you do get a lot rich, snob types who go to see and be seen. The fan base overall or the majority of the fan base should I say are working class people who grew up loving the Red Sox and loving baseball. 

The "Fever Pitch" movie was horrible. If it wasn't about the Sox, I wouldn't have seen it. And I didn't even see it until a few months ago when it was on HBO. It wasn't something I'd pay to see. Aside from the female fans and Jimmy Fallon lovers, people here thought that movie sucked. They're always making fun of it and no one conciders it a classic or a great movie by any means.




> yeah, a good farm system is crucial. But as the Brewers have shown--it takes far to long. You need veterans and great players. You wouldnt realize how long we waited to have a somewhat competitive team. Teams like the Crew, the Twins, and Nationals/Expos have good farm systems--but it never pushes them over the top. Minnesota has been good for quite awile, but they will probally never win the A.L. Its hard when you have to face loaded Yankees, Sox-White and Red in the playoffs. In the same regard, its difficult trying to compete with teams like the Cardinals that have good veteran players up and down their lineup.


You're right about that. It takes a long time to develop players and bring them up through the system. I think the Brewers have done a much better job in recent years doing this, especially since for a team with a 60-65 million dollar payroll, having impact guys making the minimum or slightly more is a must. The Red Sox are finding out it's better to integrate young players with the veterans so that when you spend money on guys like Clement who's sucked and Foulke who's been injured that combined $17 million can be supplemented by having John Lester and Manny Del Carmen making the minimum. Those guys (Foulke/Clement) are mistakes the Sox can afford to make, the Brewers can't. That's what sucks about the current system. 





> Yeah, thats the dillema we are having with Carlos Lee. He wants 15 million a year and there is no way we should pay that. He is an RBI machine and the center of our offense. If we had a payroll like the Sox, we could keep him.


I heard he wanted 5-years, 55 million. That's not too bad for a guy who hits 30-40 Home Runs and will drive in 100-110 runs. That is in terms of the Red Sox, they can shell out that cash no problem. For the Brewers that's like 15% of their payroll. I actually want Carlos Lee, I hope the Sox go after him this offseason. We have Trot Nixon making like 8-9 million and he's hitting about .315 but only has 6 home runs. We need some power from Right Field. 




> Bad contracts are a killer. Thats why I love our GM....probally one of the best in baseball. He has a ability for picking dimonds from the rough..like Turnbow who was nothing before the Brewers installed him in the bullpen. Or the infamous Richie Sexson trade that essentially gave us a 20 game winner (Capuano), another starting pitcher (Junior Spivey, who we later traded for Tomo Ohka), a firstbasemen who we made into somewhat of star, getting a two good players for him (Lyle Overbay), and some other decent players. If we had a garbage GM..this team would be trash. I think the Brewers are pretty rare in this category.


Agreed. Doug Melvin has done a great job building that team. He pretty much pulled a fast one on the Diamondbacks getting Capuano and Spivey for Sexson. We had Ohka, traded him for Urbina at the deadline a few years back. I think Bush will end up being a solid pitcher. He's got the stuff to be, trading Overbay who they didn't really have a spot for with Fielder coming up for a pitcher like that is grand theft. I'm of the thinking that you always trade a hitter for a pitcher if they're even because pitching wins championships. Bush isn't even to Overbay right now, but I think he'll end up being better in the long run. Plus you have Fielder, great trade.

Speaking of heists getting Villanueva for TJ Ford? Unbelievable. 




> I am kind of half and half on the issue. I like a crowded Miller Park, but I absolutely hate some of the fairweather fans that come with bandwagoning. I think it would be more of a problem in Boston where random idiots brag about the Sox, but werent doing it before that historic playoff run.
> 
> BTW...what do you think about Theo Epstein and all his drama?


Trust me, it's better to have the park filled and interest in the team with the inclusion of some bandwagoners and fair weather fans than to have an empty stadium, and a crappy team. I don't remember this ever being the case with the Sox (the empty stadium, we've had crappy teams) but I saw it with the Celtics. The Celtics and Bruins, more so the Bruins have been run into the ground by ownership in the last decade. The Celtics ownership seems to be back on track after the Rick Pitino debacle, he set the team back ten years, no joke. 

I think there was always interest in the Sox before the 2004 Playoff Run. I just think there's a lot more people who have been turned on to them, especially the women/girls when Johnny Damon came to town. There's a lot of girls who go the park who have ABSOLUTELY no clue what they're talking about. For example I went to the game earlier this year and there was a group of girls (20-25ish) behind me. Alex Gonzalez laid down a sacrifice bunt, moving the runner to third, everyone in my section cheered. This girl goes "Why are they cheering, he made an out?" I said "He sacrificed the guy over to third with one out" she turned and said "He sucks!" I laughed. Then another one of them when Mike Lowell was coming up said "Ugh this guy is going to make an out" I said "Why do you say that?" she says "He hasn't been good lately". I replied "He's batting .320" the girl says "He sucked last time he batted." I told her "He got a double last time up" and she stared at me for a second and said "Well...he looks OLD!" These are the types we get at the park now, it's horrible. There are plenty of people who love baseball and the Sox that would love to be at a game. When people like her are there I can't help but think it's a waste. Every team has them I guess, it's just irritating. We call them "The Pink Hats" they come wearing their pink Sox caps (be happy the Brewers don't have these).

As for Theo...I think the drama was more with the front office. Larry Luccino who's a big part of it is a pain in the ass. I remember during the Varitek negotiations in his free agent year, he pissed Varitek off during negotiations to the point Varitek didn't want him there anymore. His job is the business aspect of the team and he was getting too involved with the baseball operations. Making things public that should have been kept in house, and generally making it harder for Theo. I understand where Theo was coming from.

Saying that--I think Theo is a bit overrated. Sure he's made some GREAT moves. Like getting Ortiz off the scraphead and trading junk to the Diamondbacks for Schilling. He's also made some moves I question like signing Matt Clement for 8-9 million a year, and trading Arroyo to the Reds for Pena. Like I said when even, I always keep pitching over hitting, except in rare occasions. Having question marks like Schilling (health) Clement (performance) and Wells (health) and then trading a starter was a dumb move in my opinion. Now if Wily Mo Pena ends up being a Carlos Lee type, I'll eat my words, but for this season they could have used Arroyo.




> Oh, I dont expect you or America to be more excitied. America likes to watch stars and big markets. I just think right now, this team will be the future and its exciting seeing a team playing togheter that everyone has been talking about for years. Capuano came out of nowhere and was a 20 game winner last year, looking to do the same this year. We just need Sheets to stay healthy--but then again, he is starting to become similar to those two injury prone idiots 90 miles south.


I think the Brewers are exciting as a baseball fan. I'm just not sure the rest of the country who might enjoy baseball but don't see much aside from their local team and some of the bigger clubs understand the Brewers. The team is filled with young talent and good pitching. I think they're a playoff team with Sheets. Hopefully people will see what they're doing and appreciate it. 



> BTW....is there any talk of trading Manny in Boston?


No, not really. In the offseason when he supposedly wanted to be traded, then didn't there was talk of a Manny for Miguel Tejada trade. People got wood over that because at the time we had no shortstop and I think people get emotional over this team and just want to make changes. Manny has a love-hate relationship with the fans/the city and the same thing goes for the fans/city--we have a love/hate relationship about him. It makes no sense from a baseball standpoint to trade Manny unless they get someone who can fill his spot in the order or come close. Carlos Lee would do that, but there are very few bats in the league that would that the Sox can acquire and few, if any can be had for him straight up. Manny always puts up .300-40-120 which are crazy numbers. We (the fans)and the team just have to put up with his mood swings and quirks. It's worth it, although in the moment he seems like a pain in the ass sometimes.


----------



## TalB

ReddAlert said:


> sorry, I just make things easier for myself. How about I call them the BoSucks? :scouserd:


Maybe I should call the Brewers the Drunkards or the Alchololics after having so many loosing seasons, and I find Miller Pk to be very overrated.


----------



## Leineweber

davidkunz/VIE said:


> Don't forget that the Euro 2008 qualifications begin this August/September!
> 
> A collection of matches that could be of interest, stadium-wise:
> 
> Germany - Ireland, Sept 2 (Stuttgart, Daimler-Stadion, definitely worth a visit)


Sorry game's sold out...


----------



## ReddAlert

TalB said:


> Maybe I should call the Brewers the Drunkards or the Alchololics after having so many loosing seasons, and I find Miller Pk to be very overrated.


If you wish. We in Milwaukee really could care less...unlike you Eastcoasters. Then again, our team doesnt have a payroll over a hundred million--so losing is expected. And nobody in Milwaukee ever brags about how good our team is like Mets and Yankees fans do...even though they have been made bitches by teams with lesser payrolls. At least I dont have to deal with the Giant disapointment you have to watch each fall, as well as your Lombardi trophy Jet setting away. And how bout them Knicks? If that team had a movie made of it--it would be called the Money Pit and star Tom Hanks.

And whats overrated about Miller Park? Who overrates it anyway--beside people who travel to stadiums all over the country? The media doesnt talk it up at all. 

Good post btw BostonSkyGuy! Interesting read man. Sorry I couldnt respond to all of it.


----------



## pauliezaz

2006-07-18
Today's photos.

From the east side






It'll be parking-lot (i think)






Indoor







Arena is near the newest Siauliai buildings: Register center and the newest Siauliai blocks


----------



## Mo Rush

is the round or circular arena becoming more common?


----------



## RC8

Don't worry, most won't be ready in time. Supposedly they wanted to use the Estadio Universitario in Caracas, but they haven't installed absolutely nothing yet.

The Venezuelan government is terrible, and the only places I can assure you will be ready are San Cristobal and Merida, as the people from that part of Venezuela actually works.


----------



## Gabo

Alejandro! good thread!!!

More information for the Stadiums of the COPA AMERICA 2007 

*Map of the seats* 









*Caracas*
**ESTADIO OLÍMPICO DE LA CIUDAD UNIVERSITARIA* (OLYMPIC STADIUM OF THE UNIVERSITY CITY)








The Olympic stadium of the UCV, located within the same one, is to few meters of one of the stations of the Meter of Caracas (underground). It has capacity for 20,000 people in gradería general and 7,500 in the put a roof on central tribune, which gives a gauging him for 27,500 people. It has a parking with capacity for 1,800 vehicles. This stage counts on the "Project of Extension and Modernization of the Stage Polideportivo Cachamay" with a view to the Glass. With this one project it is tried to obtain the extension of the gauging of 35,000 to 40,000 spectators, an Official Theater box for 100 people with armchairs, local hall VIP for foreign leaders, authorities and special guests, dressing rooms for 4 football teams, control room antidopaje, improvements in the area of the parking, among others

*Maracaibo*
**ESTADIO PACHENCHO ROMERO* (PACHENCHO ROMERO STADIUM)








The Pachencho Romero has a capacity of 26,000 spectators, but a first draft of modernization with a view to the Glass America Venezuela 2007 exists that will allow him to reach a gauging of 35,000 people. In this one stage already international games of the Eliminatory stature of the South American to the Glass of the World have been made

*Barquisimeto*
**"No Name"*








With this project, Barquisimeto hopes to count on a Modern stage, with facilities of first, worthy one to lodge a as important event as the America Glass. In addition it will allow the city to decide on seat for future events. This stage will count on 2 giant screens of high resolution for the benefit of the games, concerts and concentrations. I will have 80 boxes for information transmission: it presses, radio, television and Internet. , the 4 in and 8 inclines corners the stage 4 power station within the construction. Two entrances with attendance to the discapacitado one by gradería

*Puerto La Cruz*
**ESTADIO OLÍMPICO LUIS RAMOS* (OLIMPIC STADIUM LUIS RAMOS)








Puerto La Cruz it presents the project of preparation and renovation of the Complex Olympic Stage Sport Luis Branches. This one stage will have a gauging of 40,000 spectators. It is located to little 150 meters of the Av. Intercomunal and has direct visual connection with the same one and its environs the complex has within himself an ample central seat (30,000 m2 approx).

*Ciudad Guayana*
**ESTADIO CACHAMAY* (CACHAMAY STADIUM)








This stage counts on the "Project of Extension and Modernization of the Stadium Polideportivo Cachamay" with a view to the Glass. With this one project it is tried to obtain the extension of the gauging of 35,000 to 40,000 spectators, an Official Theater box for 100 people with armchairs, local hall VIP for foreign leaders, authorities and special guests, dressing rooms for 4 football teams, control room antidopaje, improvements in the area of the parking, among others.

*San Cristobal*
**ESTADIO PUEBLO NUEVO* (STADIUM NEW TOWN)








San Cristóbal is the seat of the Sport Táchira, this one is the Venezuelan club with greater number of incursions in the Glass Liberating of America with 11 and, according to the South American Confederation of Fu'tbol (CONMEBOL), the Sport Táchira is the ninth better club of Suramérica, and according to the registries of the FIFA, this in square 98 of the world-wide ranking of clubs. San Cristóbal counts on the stage "Polideportivo de New Pueblo", also known like the Cathedral Venezuelan Soccer. The Polideportivo New Town, is located at the end of the Av. Spain, sector New Town, in front of, Bullring San Juan the parish Baptist and at the moment it has a gauging for 27,500 people. This one account with a project of extension and modernization, with which it is tried, among other things: The construction of a Main Tribune with a capacity for 15,000 people, maintaining graderías existing. To project in Main Tribune, Theater box for Authorities, Official Theater box VIP and Theater box of Press. To generate different accesses between Theater boxes and Main Tribune. To design Cover for Main Tribune. To elevate the capacity of the parking of 100 to 230 vehicles. Also it will be used, according to agreement with the C.A. Bullring, his parking that has capacity for 2,500 vehicles.

*Maturin*
**ESTADIO METROPOLITANO MATURIN * (MATURIN METROPOLITAN STADIUM)








This city presents the project to us for the construction of the Metropolitan Stadium of Maturín, which will have gauging for 40,000 spectators and will be located in an adjacent zone to Maturín, in addition m2 will count on a parking with capacity for 3,700 vehicles in a 183,000 area of.

*Merida*
**ESTADIO METROPOLITANO DE MERIDA* (METROPOLITAN STADIUM OF MERIDA)








Mérida presentS the Project for the construction of the Metropolitan Stadium of Mérida, which will be able to become best of the country thanks to its architectonic design. It will have a gauging that will oscillate between 35,000 and 40,000 seats. Land of game with the maximum measures. The enclosure will be fit to the new realities of present soccer

*Barinas*
**ESTADIO AGUSTIN TOVAR "LA CAROLINA"* (STADIUM AGUSTIN TOVAR "THA CAROLINA)








At the moment a remodeling project exists to turn to the stadium Agustín Tovar "the Carolina", in a worthy seat of the Glass America Venezuela 2007. It will be managed to extend the gauging to a number of 30,000 thousand people, being fulfilled each position with the comfort regulation and security. It is told on an independent Official Theater box the Theater box of the Local Authorities, Control room of Antidopaje, Illumination, Ticket office, Playground, Olympic Mesh and the Security of the Enclosure. The relocation of the press box sets out that will be equipped with all the technical requirements.

All information
http://www.copamerica-2007.com.ve/index.asp?conten=sedes


----------



## zee

some nice stadiums there


----------



## Zaqattaq

edit didnt see this page 

I asked "What the hell is Korfball?"

I think Korfball needs a bit more exposure so no shame in asking it again










hooray for Korfball :banana:


----------



## TEBC

I like what Venezuela is doing, We should give more prestige to the oldest soccer competition between nations. Copa America has almost the same potential of Panamerican games, It is possible to be as good as Euro cup. But not many countries give importance to them. I liked that Mexico will host in 2009. Im favor to open the Cup for all American countries, and extend to 16 teams like Euro. But im against inviting teams from other continents... JUST FOR AMERICANS!!


----------



## hngcm

^^ Didn't know Mexico was hosting in 2009

And I agree, expand to 16. 

Have the ten Conmebol teams + the 6 teams that made it to the final round of CONCACAF WC qualifying. 

But there's no way it'll reach the level of the Euro Cup...

There's Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and then......


----------



## LMCA1990

Gabo: why does this map include de claimed territory???








-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, nice stadia but bad capacity (the biggest has a capacity of 52.000). I hope they trigger soccer's growth in Venezuela???


----------



## Scba

*Hawaii to bid for 2009 WBC?*

I'm just not buying this at all, but some chairmen in Hawaii think that they can land it. :nono: 

Not many people know this, but Aloha Stadium IS convertable to baseball configuration. The grandstands actually move around on a track to set up different format, sort of like what Mile High Stadium had. But since renovations are about to occur that would either keep the field as competely football or baseball, they need to choose. Football seems obvious, since they have the Pro Bowl and College Football, and are going to try for a Super Bowl bid.

The idea of having the WBC in between N. America and Asia is a great idea, but the facilites just aren't there. The 50,000 seta snooze of a stadium that Aloha is, and 4,321-seat Wes Murakami stadium are the only facilities that could host it, and I'm thinking that'd be a step backwards. Does Aloha Stadium have any chance of pulling off the baseball upset here?

And if not, who or what region ought to hold the WBC in 2009?


----------



## panamaboy9016

*Highly doubt it!*

I think the places that will get the WBC will be the South and the North in the US and countries in Latin America like Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Panama.


----------



## Gabo

Because this territory is from Venezuela and Chavez said that in all map of venezuela incluyed the terrtory clamed, because thi is territory of venezuela and no from Guyana ... more later I tell you in spanish


----------



## RC8

The Claimed Territory does not belong to Venezuela, for christ sake, they speak english! 

How can Guyana be a state when they have no representation in the capital city, it makes no sense at all. They deserve to be independent. Look at Canada, the people from Quebeq want independence, but at least if you speak french in Ottawa 50% of the people will get what you're saying. In Venezuela no one speaks english, and the president can't pronounce 'bush' correctly. 

Venezuela should let Guyana be, everything is different, from the language, to the architecture, and while forcing them to be part of Venezuela we are keeping them out of the commonwealth, which is a damn good thing to be part of.


----------



## Gabo

... But England in the century XVII violated the soberany from Venezuela.. In this time Venezuela and Guyana have a very dscussion and others for ths territory


----------



## eddyk

Kings Dock Arena Liverpool

























Pic by AD Williams


----------



## guerreritoboy

that modern stadiums!, in the peruvian America Cup are very ugly!


----------



## RC8

Gabo said:


> ... But England in the century XVII violated the soberany from Venezuela.. In this time Venezuela and Guyana have a very dscussion and others for ths territory


But that's in the past, are you saying that Mexico should include Texas in their map? Or Peru and Bolivia should include Northern Chile in their territory? No, that's in the past. Thinking about the future, it's better for Venezuela to not have to worry about a minority that has nothing to do with the rest of the country, and it's better for Guyana to develop as an English speaking independent nation who can take care of themselves without having to be part of a system such as the Venezuelan, that has other priorities first. It's the best for both territories to be separate in the long term, and I think Chavez is being pretty stubborn in matter.

The stadiums look nice indeed, but the only one where I have seen any progress is in the Merida one.


----------



## Gabo

U have reason.... but it's no is my problem! If venezuela have Guyana Esequibo good.. If Venezuela don't have Guyana Esequibo... good!


----------



## tonytowers

Shame they have to plonk that big squre concrete car park in front of it


----------



## Mo Rush

kings dock arena is going to be fantastic..


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

eddyk said:


> Kings Dock Arena Liverpool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pic by AD Williams


Looks very good. Do you have any interiors pics of the arena? Also, the capacity?


----------



## TEBC

hngcm said:


> ^^ Didn't know Mexico was hosting in 2009
> 
> And I agree, expand to 16.
> 
> Have the ten Conmebol teams + the 6 teams that made it to the final round of CONCACAF WC qualifying.
> 
> But there's no way it'll reach the level of the Euro Cup...
> 
> There's Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and then......



Yes, in 1986 they decide all the host countries until complete all 10 countries of Conmebol. Than It was:
87- Argentina
89- Brasil
91- Chile
93- Equador
95- Uruguai
97- Bolívia
99- Paraguai
2001- Colombia
2004- Peru
2007- Venezuela

Mexico wanted to host in 2007 but it was agreed that only after all 10 countries host will be Mexico time, so in 2009 it will be the host. It will be great.

Copa America 2009 and Panamerican Games in Guadalajara 2011

hope after that, Canada or USA decide to host also.

When I said that would be same level as Euro, I was saying that Copa America should have the same importance to americans as Euro is for europeans. I know that will never be the same, America is not that rich, but effords like Venezuela is doing constructing new arenas are great.


----------



## Bigmac1212

I can't say which 4 American staidums are the best. However, I can put in 4 biggest stadia in the U.S.:

Michigan Stadium
Ann Arbor, Michigan

















Beaver Stadium
University Park, Pennsylvania

















Neyland Stadium
Knoxville, Tennessee

















Ohio Stadium
Columbus, Ohio


----------



## pompeyfan

well, i think it looks nice


----------



## Abdi

*Best 50,000 - 59,999 capacity european stadium*

So i would like to see your views, if you going to post please have a pic or link with it and the capacity please.

Well heres mine.

Info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_ArenA

Pic - http://www.globalstadia.com/campo_ajax3.jpg


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

Dragão stadium for miles


----------



## SkyLerm

^^No doubt that's one of da bests.


----------



## Anna Maria

*Color Line Arena, Hamburg*

Here's an another "moody" picture from the Color Line Arena in Hamburg










Opening: 8th November 2002
Costs: 83 Mln Euros
Construction Time: 16 Months

Winner of "Arthur Award 2005", Best European Venue.
More than 450 events since opening.

Max. Field: up to 87m x 44m

74 + 3 skyboxes
3 Restaurants
4 Bars
20 Fast-Food-Outlets
Sauna

Seats:
Ice Hockey, Handball, Basketball, Indoor Soccer: 13,000
Boxing: 15,000
Motocross: 11,000
Music Concerts: up to 16,000 (depends on stages)

Artists:
Peter Gabriel (2), Elton John (2), Eric Clapton (2), Mark Knopfler / Emmyllou Harris, US 5,
Shania Twain, Simply Red, Tom Jones, Eagles, Santana (2), Billy Joel, Oasis, The Corrs,
Bon Jovi, Christina Aguilera, Shakira, David Bowie, Kylie Minogue, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, 
Bryan Adams (2), James Blunt, Placebo, Radiohead, Nena (2), Mariah Carey, Phil Collins, 
Depeche Mode, Robbie Williams, Lionel Richie, Foo Fighters, A-HA, Usher, Backstreet Boys, 
Joe Cocker, Snoop Dogg, Bruce Springsteen, DJ Bobo, Meat Loaf, R.E.M, Ronan Keating, 
Rammstein, Sting, Britney Spears, Lenny Krawitz, Pink, Il Divo / Hayley Westenra, Cher,
Jamiroquai, Bloodhound Gang, Anastacia, Harry Belafonte, Nickelback, Roger Whittaker, Cure,
Monty Roberts, Justin Timberlake, Whitney Houston / Natalie Cole / Dionne Warwick, 
Nightwish, Marilyn Manson, Eros Ramazzotti (2), Helmut Lotti, Andre Rieu (4),
Smokie / Sweet / Tremeloes / Hot Chocolate / Suzi Quatro / "Kingsize" Taylor,
Westernhagen (2), Böhse Onkelz, Pur, Grönemeyer, Ärzte (2), Udo Jürgens (3),
Dieter Thomas Kuhn, James Last, Tokio Hotel, Udo Lindenberg, Lotto Karl King (2),
Franz Ferdinand, Rolf Zukowski, Peter Maffay, Fettes Brot, Die Toten Hosen,
Flippers, Die Fantastischen Vier, Xavier Naidoo and many more.

Classic: Aida (3), Carmen (3), Nabucco, Carmina Burana

Sport Events (until July,2006):
Ice Hockey, Figure Skating, Handball, Basketball, Indoor Soccer, Motocross, Boxing, Wrestling, Equestrianism

Home-Teams:
Hamburg Freezers - Ice Hockey
HSV Hamburg - Handball

Web: www.colorline-arena.com


----------



## Abdi

yeah thats a good one, st james' park is good.


----------



## TeKnO_Lx

Mo Rush said:


>


Estádio do Dragão - Porto

Arquitecto: Manuel Salgado
































































































































http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnVNYaROyk&search=estádio Dragão
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3xRjXPYbA&search=estádio Dragão

hands down..


----------



## Seth Gecko

It seems you've attended the bubomb school of overkill!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Seth Gecko said:


> It seems you've attended the bubomb school of overkill!


surprised u havnt mentioned a certain stadium that u love,


i'll nominate Newcastle Utd's St James Park


----------



## godblessbotox

Estádio do Dragão is amazing... i want to hug it!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

[Gioяgos] said:


> *Peace and Friendship Stadium,Piraeus*
> 
> During Construction in the 80's: Rare Images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an arena from the very early 80's!


It reminds me of this:


----------



## Seth Gecko

Great Britain - 4 BEST:

Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow:



Twickenham Stadium, London (currently undergoing redevelopment):










Millenium Stadium, Cardiff:










Emirates Stadium, London:


----------



## sakor1

In Australia it would have to be:

MCG (Melbourne)

Telstra Stadium (Sydney)

Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)

Telstra Dome (Melbourne)

Although honourable mentions to some smaller, but certainly still good/ picturesque stadiums being; GABBA (Brisbane), Aussie (Sydney), SCG (Sydney) and Adelaide Oval (Adelaide). The Major stadiums in Perth and Adelaide need some big work IMHO.

Stu


----------



## kagevrtugol

Seth Gecko said:


> Great Britain - 4 BEST:
> 
> 
> Emirates Stadium, London:


I'm sorry but that is Estádio da Luz, in Lisbon, Portugal


----------



## Boards

That Dragao stadium is bleak, sterile and souless. Looks like a multi-storey carpark with seating. Best Stadium 50,000 - 59,999? Ibrox of course.


----------



## Master Blaster

Scotland - 

Ibrox (51444)










Murrayfield (67500)










Hampden (52103) -










Stade De Nonce (60832)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Boards said:


> That Dragao stadium is bleak, sterile and souless. Looks like a multi-storey carpark with seating. Best Stadium 50,000 - 59,999? Ibrox of course.


ha ha was waitin for that 1


----------



## Master Blaster

Too many for a best one, maybe a top 5 - in no order -

Dragoa
Estádio Alvalade XXI
Ibrox
AOL Arena
Commerzbank-Arena


----------



## Enzo911

Mestalla!


----------



## chester84

skaP187 said:


> What's the thread? biggest or nicest???
> It's hard to read no (emirates would be on the list in that case)
> stay with the facts... because this was such an easy thread to fill in


skaP187, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Seth Gecko you crack me up, I'm still chuckling now from that Estadio da luz piccy under Emirates name, and the fact that somebody thought you had geniunely made a mistake!!! :lol:

Anyway in terms of my opinion I agree with Its All Guud's list.


----------



## Abdi

yeah the AOL ARENA is great.


----------



## Zorba

A few photos of the beautiful AOL Arena:










































































:cheers:


----------



## The Concerned Potato

Amsterdam Arena's interior makes up for the horrible exterior

i'd have to agree that Dragao is THE best. amazingly this stadium only cost £67m (E98m) 










sexy indeed


----------



## Mad Billy

Amsterdam Arena is overrated. A 'modern art' stadium design that will age quicker than a sun-soaked granny and stands far away from the pitch with a 'tank ditch' between the fans and the pitch!


----------



## RSG

sakor1 said:


> In Australia it would have to be:
> 
> MCG (Melbourne)
> 
> Telstra Stadium (Sydney)
> 
> Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
> 
> Telstra Dome (Melbourne)
> 
> Although honourable mentions to some smaller, but certainly still good/ picturesque stadiums being; GABBA (Brisbane), Aussie (Sydney), SCG (Sydney) and Adelaide Oval (Adelaide). The Major stadiums in Perth and Adelaide need some big work IMHO.
> 
> Stu


I agree with these. I will add some pictures though.

MCG











Telstra Stadium











Telstra Dome










Suncorp Stadium


----------



## Seth Gecko

Picking a favourite has been harder than I thought, among those listed already I would pick 

Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen)
Ibrox Stadium (Glasgow) 
Estádio Alvalade (Lisbon)

as well as Fortuna Dusseldorf's LTU Arena, which was most unlucky not to be included as a venue for the World Cup. 



















Very nice.


----------



## ØlandDK

^^
I agree, the LTU Arena is amazing, but isn't the Veltins Arena larger?

I'm a big fan of the german stadiums:
Borussia Park (M'Gladbach)

















LTU Arena (Düsseldorf)

















Rhein Energie Stadion (Cologne)

















and then the AOL-arena


----------



## wonker

kagevrtugol said:


> I'm sorry but that is Estádio da Luz, in Lisbon, Portugal


Thought so, needed a couple of looks!


----------



## wonker

SE9 said:


> urgh... now I can't decide between *Lords, Centre Court - Wimbledon, Old Trafford, Hampden Park, Twickenham* etc... I'll let someone else decide.


Lords by far, a mixture of old and new.


----------



## Oxtail Soup

Can most the German stadiums be included? If you taking Bundesliga capacity then yes, but out goes the Veltins Arena as it is over 60000. If you take the UEFA capacity, then Borussia Park, Cologne and Frankfurt are all under 50000!


----------



## Giorgio

The Concerned Potato said:


> Amsterdam Arena's interior makes up for the horrible exterior
> 
> i'd have to agree that Dragao is THE best. amazingly this stadium only cost £67m (E98m)


I dont think its amazing at all...it looks pretty cheap to build to me (but looks cool)


----------



## Fern

^^ Perhaps because we can keep to budgets...


----------



## Oxtail Soup

I am very surprised that Portos stadium was built on budget, as it is a well known fact that these latin types tend to be very lazy and work-shy. Hats off to them if they worked hard on this stadium though!


----------



## panamaboy9016

*Well,*

In the US the biggest stadiums are the football stadiums, mainly college football stadiums, so I'll give the 4 biggest, but definitely not the 4 best and modern stadiums,

Michigan Stadium- Capacity of 107,501(Home of the Michigan Wolverines)

















Beaver Stadium- Capacity of 107,282(Home of the Penn. State Panthers)

















Neyland Stadium-Capacity of 104,075(Home of the Tennessee Volunteers)

















Ohio Stadium-101,568(Home of the Ohio State Buckeyes)


----------



## Oxtail Soup

Terrible USA stadiums - some have benches and they don't even have roofs!!!! I would of thought they could at least afford to build roofs!!


----------



## Isaac Newell

Oxtail Soup said:


> something, something, something, Rangers, something, something, something, 80,000 a game, something, something, something, bigger than you, something, something,


yawn


----------



## panamaboy9016

*The reason why,*



Oxtail Soup said:


> Terrible USA stadiums - some have benches and they don't even have roofs!!!! I would of thought they could at least afford to build roofs!!


Normally college stadiums were made back in the 1920's and 30's so they didn't have the technology of building a roof. The new COllege Stadiums do have roofs, but the old College Football stadiums don't, that's why they are so big with no roofs. I mean, I can show you football stadiums with roofs but that's not the largest stadiums in the US. Not even NFL stadiums are bigger than College Football stadiums or should I say NCAA.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Oxtail Soup said:


> something, something, something, Rangers, something, something, something, 80,000 a game, something, something, something, bigger than you, something, something,


yawn


----------



## Oxtail Soup

When will it ever end?


----------



## Oxtail Soup

There's a troll loose!!


----------



## canarywondergod

ive always wanted to know how they can pack so many people into a relatively small area?i mean looking at the top capacity, it doesnt look anywhere near as big as say the nou camp, do they have standing areas or something or does using benches instead of seats really increase capacity that dramatically?


----------



## Christos7

Greece

1) Olympic Stadium, Athens - 72,000




















2) Karaiskaki Stadium, Pireas - 35,000




















3) Kaftanzoglio Stadium, Thessaloniki - 28,000

















-



















4) is really a toss up between 3-4 stadiums, but my personal fav out of them:

Panthessaliko Stadium, Volos - 23,000


























-


----------



## crossbowman

panamaboy9016 said:


> Michigan Stadium- Capacity of 107,501(Home of the Michigan Wolverines)


 mg: This one looks colossal! :runaway:


----------



## Scba

Something that Europeans may not understand is that College Football stadiums, the larger ones at least, are made purely for atmosphere. If you go to a game, you're going with the content of jumping up and down and getting loud and rowdy. Most of the stands are for students and alumni, so you know exactly what you're going to get. Quality or beauty doesn't matter that much, it's all about the capacity.

Besides, why build a place with fifty suites and a full roof when it's only going to be filled to capacity a 6-10 times a year?


----------



## Abdi

Im very suprised france dont have any good stadiums except stade de france, there really isnt anything else.


----------



## Malso

crossbowman said:


> mg: This one looks colossal! :runaway:


reminds me of the old Hampden Pk Glasgow, enormous terracing


----------



## KiwiBrit

> Originally Posted by *Abdi*


What about the Stade Velodrome?

http://www.stadiumguide.com/velodrome.htm


----------



## Nils

KiwiBrit said:


> What about the Stade Velodrome?
> 
> http://www.stadiumguide.com/velodrome.htm


it's capacity is OVER 59.999 so it can't be included in this list. Btw it is not competitive in my opinion.


----------



## Abdi

KiwiBrit said:


> What about the Stade Velodrome?
> 
> http://www.stadiumguide.com/velodrome.htm


yeah ok include that.


----------



## skaP187

The good old Feyenoord stadium 'de kuip' (bathtub in bad english)
from the outside it's ugly, from the inside it's a jewel my opinion, true footballstadium allready about 75 years old and not realy changed in lay out.
cap. 51.180
















































Man it's a classic.


----------



## skaP187

Oxtail Soup said:


> Can most the German stadiums be included? If you taking Bundesliga capacity then yes, but out goes the Veltins Arena as it is over 60000. If you take the UEFA capacity, then Borussia Park, Cologne and Frankfurt are all under 50000!



IMO only seats count, but hey that's me!


----------



## skaP187

this is a nice one,
Betis Sevilla, Manuel Ruiz de Lopera 
cap. 55 500 
I like it, three serious tires on three sides (and one side is let's see diffrent...)


----------



## skaP187

yep I like the Betis Sevilla one!


----------



## Seth Gecko

Oxtail Soup said:


> Can most the German stadiums be included? If you taking Bundesliga capacity then yes, but out goes the Veltins Arena as it is over 60000. If you take the UEFA capacity, then Borussia Park, Cologne and Frankfurt are all under 50000!





skaP187 said:


> IMO only seats count, but hey that's me!


If the stadium falls within the 50,000-59,999 range either in 'UEFA mode' or 'Bundesliga mode' then they can be included, otherwise you're excluding them on a technicality. So both veltins and commerzbank are in!


----------



## Abdi

yeah remember when betis scored against chelsea in the champions league, the whole stadium was lit up.


----------



## Disraeli

I'm surprised that Betis's stadium holds 55,000. From those pictures I would say it held more.


----------



## matherto

skaP187 said:


> this is a nice one,
> Betis Sevilla, Manuel Ruiz de Lopera
> cap. 55 500
> I like it, three serious tires on three sides (and one side is let's see diffrent...)


IMO it would only be impressive if they finished it, and tbh, it looks like a dump


----------



## matherto

skaP187 said:


> The good old Feyenoord stadium 'de kuip' (bathtub in bad english)
> from the outside it's ugly, from the inside it's a jewel my opinion, true footballstadium allready about 75 years old and not realy changed in lay out.
> cap. 51.180
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man it's a classic.


I really dislike the way theyve crammed seats in the bottom tier, in fact, I really just dislike De Kuip


----------



## USAPatriot

Impressive number are NASCAR Racing stadiums which hold over 100,000 fans. Thats just seating, not counting RV's or people standing and watching. Some hold much much more.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^

Siauliai's club will then be able to play in Euro leagues now it has a big enough stadium. Bad news for Zalgiris!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

No asian stadiums?


----------



## Sir Costa

What about the Winning Eleven stadiums??
There are some stadiums in the game I've never seen before. 2 stadiums in Africa (Vodapark and the other one) and 1 in Europe (Sweden, I can't remember the name).

I hope you could help with pictures of this stadiums, and (if possible), pictures of all the stadiums of Winning Eleven 10.

Thanks!


----------



## victory

RSG said:


> I agree with these. I will add some pictures though.
> 
> MCG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telstra Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telstra Dome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suncorp Stadium


A more recent picture of the upgraded MCG...


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

*list of sports attendances around the world*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures


----------



## eddyk

Is football not that popular in Brazil then?


----------



## Zaqattaq

College American football has much higher attendance than the NFL but this list only shows professional sports


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

zaqattaq said:


> College American football has much higher attendance than the NFL but this list only shows professional sports


 if you look further down,it has a list for college and amatuer sports.the first list is pro-sports..read the whole thing
it does say that it is missing information on certain places/competitions


----------



## EADGBE

Interesting. 

Everyone raves about The Premiership as a 'product', but 33,875 is a bit paltry as an average, really. 

So, what will this season be? Since last year, Arsenal have opened the Emirates, a gain of nearly 22,000 seats and United have added 8,000 to the Quadrants. Balance that with the fact that Sunderland (49,000), Birmingham (30,000) and West Brom (28,000) have been replaced by Watford (22,000), Reading (24,000) and Sheffield United (33,000) and the seating gains at United and Arsenal are almost cancelled out. In fact, I calculate that there are only 2,187 more seats this season out of about 750,000 in total. 

With similar fill rates to last year, the figure for next season will go up by about 115 to 39,380. Not much, and that very much depends on Arsenal selling out Emirates every game as they did Highbury...

05/06 Capacity ............T. Attend.............Ave. Att.............Fill %

Arsenal............38,419............725,499............38,184............99%
Aston Villa............42,573............648,124............34,112............80%
Birmingham City............30,016............520,448............27,392............91%
Blackburn Rovers............31,367............399,288............21,015............67%
Bolton Wanderers............28,723............480,036............25,265............88%
Charlton Athletic............27,111............497,721............26,196............97%
Chelsea............42,360............796,131............41,902 ............99%
Everton............40,260 ............700,347............36,860 ............92%
Fulham............22,500 ............392,430............20,654 ............92%
Liverpool............45,362 ............840,491............44,236 ............98%
Manchester City............48,000 ............814,269............42,856 ............89%
Manchester United............67,600 ............1,306,528............68,765 ............100% 
Middlesbrough............35,100 ............540,799............28,463 ............81%
Newcastle United............52,387............988,609............52,032 ............99%
Portsmouth............20,220............376,951............19,840 ............98%
Sunderland............49,000............644,180............33,904 ............69%
Tottenham Hotspur............36,240............685,399............36,074 ............100%
West Brom. Albion............28,003............482,667............25,404 ............91%
West Ham United............35,647............641,109............33,743 ............95%
Wigan Athletic............25,138............391,587............20,610 ............82%

Total/Average 746,026............12,872,613............33,875............86%
39,265 

06/07 Capacity............T. Attend.............Ave. Att............Fill %

Arsenal............60,000 ............1,133,032............59,633 ............99%
Aston Villa............42,573 ............648,124 ............34,112 ............80%
Blackburn Rovers............31,367 ............399,288 ............21,015 ............67%
Bolton Wanderers............28,723 ............480,036 ............25,265 ............88%
Charlton Athletic............27,111 ............497,721 ............26,196 ............97%
Chelsea............42,360 ............796,131 ............41,902 ............99%
Everton............40,260 ............700,347 ............36,860 ............92%
Fulham............22,500 ............392,430 ............20,654 ............92%
Liverpool............45,362 ............840,491 ............44,236 ............98%
Manchester City............48,000 ............814,269 ............42,856............89%
Manchester United............76,000 ............1,444,000............76,000 ............100%
Middlesbrough............35,100 ............540,799 ............28,463 ............81%
Newcastle United............52,387............988,609 ............52,032 ............99%
Portsmouth............20,220............376,951 ............19,840 ............98%
Reading............24,225............377,426 ............19,865 ............82%
Sheffield United............33,000............514,140 ............27,060 ............82%
Tottenham Hotspur............36,240............685,399 ............36,074 ............100%
Watford............22,000............342,760 ............18,040 ............82%
West Ham United............35,647............641,109 ............33,743............95%
Wigan Athletic............25,138............391,587............20,610............82%

Total/Average 748,213............13,004,648............34,223............87%
39,380 

Still, it's much better than Serie A or La Primera Liga...


----------



## invincible

A graph I made that shows historic AFL attendances. Information from AFL site, no reliable information for finals before 1901 or season matches before 1921.










Reasons for the drop in finals attendances: The peak of 1970 quickly dropped due to a change in the way the finals were played (6 matches instead of 4) and the opening of Waveley Park which only had a capacity of 75,000. In the 80s and 90s, clubs from outside Melbourne (with smaller stadiums) joined the league.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

invincible said:


> A graph I made that shows historic AFL attendances. Information from AFL site, no reliable information for finals before 1901 or season matches before 1921.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons for the drop in finals attendances: The peak of 1970 quickly dropped due to a change in the way the finals were played (6 matches instead of 4) and the opening of Waveley Park which only had a capacity of 75,000. In the 80s and 90s, clubs from outside Melbourne (with smaller stadiums) joined the league.



Invincible....i'd imagine the home and away figures have one up in recent years due to clubs leaving their traditional homes,to groundshare at larger venures like the MCG and Telstra Dome....thinkn the same goes for the NRL..with more games being staged at the Telstra Stad in Sydney


----------



## invincible

It's a shame that running a football club in Australia isn't profitable and many have to rely on the AFL to bail them out. No club could fund a redevelopment themselves, and Carlton wanted to sell their ground (which is the only ground that actually has a decent seated capacity) to the AFL.

Incidentally, some clubs now play a few home games in smaller cities such as Launceston, Canberra and the Gold Coast. But keep in mind Waverley Park was built as a neutral ground in the 70s and used until the smaller Docklands Stadium/Telstra Dome was completed.

Of course, most of the clubs' traditional grounds were way too small and only ever fitted 20,000 people by squashing them into the terraces. They're also in a pretty bad shape on the whole, with clubs preferring to spend their money on things like training facilities.


----------



## matherto

Seth Gecko said:


> Great Britain - 4 BEST:
> 
> Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow:
> 
> 
> 
> Twickenham Stadium, London (currently undergoing redevelopment):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millenium Stadium, Cardiff:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emirates Stadium, London:


I had to laugh at the Emirates bit, but you're sorely mistaken, neither the Emirates or Twickenham shoild be in there, and tbh, neither should Ibrox


----------



## matherto

Sir Costa said:


> What about the Winning Eleven stadiums??
> There are some stadiums in the game I've never seen before. 2 stadiums in Africa (Vodapark and the other one) and 1 in Europe (Sweden, I can't remember the name).
> 
> I hope you could help with pictures of this stadiums, and (if possible), pictures of all the stadiums of Winning Eleven 10.
> 
> Thanks!


there is one stadium from South Africa

Cuito Cuanavale is the stadium you referred to as Vodapark (Vodacom Park in Bloemfontein), but this is a mistake, someone once suggested it was it, since then it has stuck in PES/WE circles, but it looks nothing like it, it actually looks like Estadio Capwell in Guayaquil, Ecuador, but not completely like it

The Swedish stadium is Rasundastadion

And I suppose if you thought Cuito Cuanavale was Vodacom Park, you probably think Nakhon Ratchasima is Seoul WC Stadium, which it isn't either, it's King Fahd Stadium with two tiers all the way around


----------



## caco

Brazil:

Mário Filho Stadium (Maracanã), capacity: 80.000, owner: City of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro/RJ










Magalhães Pinto Stadium (Mineirão), capacity: 80.000, owner: State of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte/MG









Cícero Pompeu de Toledo Stadium (Morumbi), capacity: 75.000, owner: São Paulo FC, São Paulo/SP









Plácido Castelo Stadium (Castelão), capacity: 70.000, owner: State of Ceará, Fortaleza/CE


----------



## Flyboy41

Some of those Brazilian Stadiums are reminicent of the "cookie cutter" stadiums from the USA built during the '60s and '70s


----------



## joedellasandro

The figures for Australian Rules Football are staggering considering Australia's relatively small population.


----------



## Andaluz

Spain:

Camp Nou - Barcelona - 98.000




























Santiago Bernabeu - Madrid - 82.000




























New Stadium - Valencia - 70.000










La Cartuja - Sevilla - 60.000


----------



## caco

Maracanã Stadium, july 1950, Final of the IV World Cup, Brazil 1 x 2 Uruguay:

Attendance: 199.526


----------



## Christos7

The figures for the Greek Lague are not actually 100% correct.... as they come from http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm and I have talked to the admins over there, and they count a match ban (no fans) as 0 fans attended, and a few teams recieved those bans during the season, so really the numbers are lowered dramatically. You can look at it both ways, it is 0 fans attended thus accurate, or since it was a ban and no fans were there it should not count towards the total games played.


----------



## jamesinclair

eddyk said:


> Is football not that popular in Brazil then?


Oh it is. But just because everyone talks about the teams doesnt mean theyll go watch them.

In Brasil, the games arent aired on TV in the market they are played in (and in the market where the away team is from). Just pay-per-view. However it is on radio.

I remember in May, Globo, the biggest broadcaster decided to air a couple of games. The games were played Wednesday instead of on the weekend, and at 9pm instead of 4 or 6. 

The game I watched had a stadium attendence of 250. Of which only 50 had payed for a ticket. 

This is a first division game.

Games not on TV get a higher attendence. 10,000 for big teams, 5,000 for less popular teams. 20,000 for rivalry matches.

However, also note that this counts only the main league, not 2nd division and seperate cups. teams are relegated, so fans of a team continue to watch in the 2nd division. Libertadores, Sudamericana and Copa do Brasil are important.

Libertadores games do get sold out. Yesterdays game in Sao Paulo, (Sao Paulo - Chivas Guadalajara) had 66,860 people.


----------



## kingdomca

EADGBE said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Everyone raves about The Premiership as a 'product', but 33,875 is a bit paltry as an average, really.
> 
> So, what will this season be? Since last year, Arsenal have opened the Emirates, a gain of nearly 22,000 seats and United have added 8,000 to the Quadrants. Balance that with the fact that Sunderland (49,000), Birmingham (30,000) and West Brom (28,000) have been replaced by Watford (22,000), Reading (24,000) and Sheffield United (33,000) and the seating gains at United and Arsenal are almost cancelled out. In fact, I calculate that there are only 2,187 more seats this season out of about 750,000 in total.
> 
> With similar fill rates to last year, the figure for next season will go up by about 115 to 39,380. Not much, and that very much depends on Arsenal selling out Emirates every game as they did Highbury...
> 
> 05/06 Capacity ............T. Attend.............Ave. Att.............Fill %
> 
> Arsenal............38,419............725,499............38,184............99%
> Aston Villa............42,573............648,124............34,112............80%
> Birmingham City............30,016............520,448............27,392............91%
> Blackburn Rovers............31,367............399,288............21,015............67%
> Bolton Wanderers............28,723............480,036............25,265............88%
> Charlton Athletic............27,111............497,721............26,196............97%
> Chelsea............42,360............796,131............41,902 ............99%
> Everton............40,260 ............700,347............36,860 ............92%
> Fulham............22,500 ............392,430............20,654 ............92%
> Liverpool............45,362 ............840,491............44,236 ............98%
> Manchester City............48,000 ............814,269............42,856 ............89%
> Manchester United............67,600 ............1,306,528............68,765 ............100%
> Middlesbrough............35,100 ............540,799............28,463 ............81%
> Newcastle United............52,387............988,609............52,032 ............99%
> Portsmouth............20,220............376,951............19,840 ............98%
> Sunderland............49,000............644,180............33,904 ............69%
> Tottenham Hotspur............36,240............685,399............36,074 ............100%
> West Brom. Albion............28,003............482,667............25,404 ............91%
> West Ham United............35,647............641,109............33,743 ............95%
> Wigan Athletic............25,138............391,587............20,610 ............82%
> 
> Total/Average 746,026............12,872,613............33,875............86%
> 39,265
> 
> 06/07 Capacity............T. Attend.............Ave. Att............Fill %
> 
> Arsenal............60,000 ............1,133,032............59,633 ............99%
> Aston Villa............42,573 ............648,124 ............34,112 ............80%
> Blackburn Rovers............31,367 ............399,288 ............21,015 ............67%
> Bolton Wanderers............28,723 ............480,036 ............25,265 ............88%
> Charlton Athletic............27,111 ............497,721 ............26,196 ............97%
> Chelsea............42,360 ............796,131 ............41,902 ............99%
> Everton............40,260 ............700,347 ............36,860 ............92%
> Fulham............22,500 ............392,430 ............20,654 ............92%
> Liverpool............45,362 ............840,491 ............44,236 ............98%
> Manchester City............48,000 ............814,269 ............42,856............89%
> Manchester United............76,000 ............1,444,000............76,000 ............100%
> Middlesbrough............35,100 ............540,799 ............28,463 ............81%
> Newcastle United............52,387............988,609 ............52,032 ............99%
> Portsmouth............20,220............376,951 ............19,840 ............98%
> Reading............24,225............377,426 ............19,865 ............82%
> Sheffield United............33,000............514,140 ............27,060 ............82%
> Tottenham Hotspur............36,240............685,399 ............36,074 ............100%
> Watford............22,000............342,760 ............18,040 ............82%
> West Ham United............35,647............641,109 ............33,743............95%
> Wigan Athletic............25,138............391,587............20,610............82%
> 
> Total/Average 748,213............13,004,648............34,223............87%
> 39,380
> 
> Still, it's much better than Serie A or La Primera Liga...


And its much much much more expensive to watch football in England and given that the percentage of seats sold is so high, I actually think the numbers for England are very impressive.

you exagerrate the influence of the relegated teams as sunderland did not have capacity crowds.

Arsenal will surely sell-out but I think the capacity increases may be cancelled out by drops elsewhere, like Blackburn and other small clubs where it has just become too
exepensive

What the figures on that site really shows, is just how much sports-attendance is a phenomenon of the english-speaking world.


----------



## Guest

Sport attendences should only be judged on percentage. Thats where UK and German fans come to the front. In certain countries you can walk into stadiums for free. 

In both countries represented, you must pay huge prices and because of the restricted ticket allocations games which would be a sell-out tend to be 2,000 short to keep in with police and security restrictions.

If you look at percentage attendences for each league the Premiership and Championship are in the high 90's low 70's for each team. Move away to Italy and it drops as low as 30% for some teams.

Although saying that. Englands 2nd tier football is still the 5th most watched league in Europe. That says something.


----------



## ReddAlert

damn, America does pretty damn well in regards to sports on that list. College football attendance is great---a much more exciting football (and basketball for sure) than the proffesional leagues.


----------



## 2005

Tottenham Hotspur............36,240............685,399............36,074 ............100%

 

Come on Tottenham make the ground bigger!


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

ReddAlert said:


> damn, America does pretty damn well in regards to sports on that list. College football attendance is great---a much more exciting football (and basketball for sure) than the proffesional leagues.



with a population of 300 million living in the worlds richest country,i'd bloody well think America should do well on that list
but have a look at the UK,and the Aussies,if you really want to be impressed


----------



## kingdomca

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> with a population of 300 million living in the worlds richets country,i'd bloody well think America should do well on that list
> but have a look at the UK,and the Aussies,if you really want to be impressed


But even considering the large population of the US, they still do well on that list.

Its impossible to compare north america, UK and Aus really as its different sports, different prices, different number of games, cost of attending, availability of tickets, capacities etc.

The only clear thing is that there are 3 places so far ahead of the rest, that its almost ridiculous. Strange.


----------



## GNU

Werder Bremen is to expand their stadium from 43.000 to 53.000 seats.
the stadium will be transformed into a pure football stadium.
The work could begin at the end of the year and the costs will be around 50 million euros (~65million dollars).










http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/index.php?template=news&news_id=940


----------



## GNU

Damn there are 2,419 games being played in the MLB?
Quite amazing.

18,965 as an average attendance for the NFL europe is also not bad I guess.

Its sad to see though that the attendance in Italy has gone down by 14,8 percent compared to the last year.
And I think that the next season might not be much better.


----------



## Kampflamm

They should have torn down that piece of crap years ago and built a new football stadium in its place. That way they might have hosted a couple of world cup games as well.


----------



## eddyk

Kings Dock Arena



> The visitor destination 'complex' comprises a 10,000 capacity Arena; an auditorium with a capacity of 1,350; a multi-purpose hall of 3,600 sq metres; total exhibition capacity of 7,000 sq metres; and 18 additional meeting rooms.
> 
> 
> 
> The Arena has the flexibility to accommodate events from rock and pop concerts to children's entertainment, and from ice shows to international sporting events including tennis, boxing and gymnastics. The Convention Centre has been designed to be extremely flexible, capable of accommodating a wide range of meetings of varying size.


----------



## Abdi

very interesting thanks


----------



## GNU

Kampflamm said:


> They should have torn down that piece of crap years ago and built a new football stadium in its place. That way they might have hosted a couple of world cup games as well.


Yeah maybe but keep in mind that they invested quite a lot of money into the stadium in the last decade.
They put in exec boxes and they just redeveloped part of the exterior.
They will nevertheless pull down the stands behind the goals and rebuilt them.


----------



## Abdi

cacobianchi said:


> Maracanã Stadium, july 1950, Final of the IV World Cup, Brazil 1 x 2 Uruguay:
> 
> Attendance: 199.526


is that it


----------



## GNU

Heres another nice pic of the Koelnarena:










SAP arena in Mannheim:


















Tui arena in Hannover:


----------



## matherto

Abdi said:


> is that it


well to be honest, Brazil only has one good stadium, and the Maracana isn't it


----------



## caco

The best Stadium of Brazil:

Kyocera Arena (ex-Arena da Baixada), capacity: 32.000, owner: Clube Atlético Paranaense, Curitiba/PR


----------



## caco

And the 2nd...

Edgar Proença Olimpic Stadium (Mangueirão), capacity:56.600, owner: Pará State, Belém, PA


----------



## Abdi

cacobianchi said:


> The best Stadium of Brazil:
> 
> Kyocera Arena (ex-Arena da Baixada), capacity: 32.000, owner: Clube Atlético Paranaense, Curitiba/PR



yeah i like that stadium if only it went ythe whole way round.


----------



## mikeeagle

That list wouldn't be complete without the four largest *Lichtenstein* stadiums:

Rheinpark-Stadion Vaduz (4,548)











Rheinwiese Schaan (2,230) 











Sportpark Eschen-Mauren (2,050)











Leitawis Triesenberg (2,000)










:cheer:


----------



## thesmallprint

joedellasandro said:


> The figures for Australian Rules Football are staggering considering Australia's relatively small population.


if youve seen the game you'll understand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GClrwzgGxAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMSbGYvtgGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_--AC_rhRCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qk2ziEe19I


----------



## Eureka!

Canadian Chocho said:


> I'm in love with Do Dragão!!!


Me too!! :drool: The bars on top of the roof look a bit like the Telstra Dome in Melbourne aka "the Phone Dome" (Telstra is an Ozzie telecommunications company)

Biggest in Australia have been posted but I thought i'd post the capacities.

MCG- 100,000 (Melbourne)
Telstra Stadium- 83,000 (Sydney)
Telstra Dome- 56,000 (Melbourne)
Suncorp- 52,000 (Brisbane)


Some of these stadiums are very interesting. I like the first one and New Stadium in Valencia or something like that.


----------



## matherto

mikeeagle said:


> That list wouldn't be complete without the four largest *Lichtenstein* stadiums:
> 
> Rheinpark-Stadion Vaduz (4,548)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rheinwiese Schaan (2,230)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sportpark Eschen-Mauren (2,050)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leitawis Triesenberg (2,000)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheer:


at least the country looks like a beautiful place


----------



## Canadian Chocho

What's the population of Lichtenstein anyway?


----------



## XCRunner

Well, as already stated, listing the 4 best (not necessarily biggest) stadia is harder for the US because it's hard to compare basketball w/ American football w/ baseball; the stadia are just too different. So my Best 4 will try to balance them all. Also, my list takes "best" to mean modern, architecually pleasing, good amenties, etc. Aura, mystique, history, etc. are not taken into account. That list would look very different. In no order, I'd say they are:

Relient Stadium (Houston, football)
Soldier Field (Chicago, football)
Miller Park (Milwaukee, baseball)
Conseco Fieldhouse (Indianapolis, basketball)


----------



## XCRunner

What's all this talk about the EPL being so impressive? I'm not saying it isn't, but shouldn't we be talking about Germany if we are talking about impressive attendance figures. According to this the Bundesliga's avg. attendance per game was nearly 7000 more than the Premiership's.


----------



## mikeeagle

Canadian Chocho said:


> What's the population of Lichtenstein anyway?


Over 33,000!

Wikipedia - Liechtenstein 

I wanted to start a *Top 10 England vs Liechtenstein stadiums* thread but there aren't enough stadia in Liechtenstein. I guess I'll do Germany vs England instead.


----------



## Lostboy

I think its more the football league in general. The Championship and League 1 depite being lower tiers often have impressive attendances.


----------



## Eureka!

^^^lol!!! Liechenstein does look pretty with all the trees and mountains. Their stadiums just need a little work...


----------



## Jayme

Camille Chamoun Stadium Beirut, Lebanon




















it has hosted the Arab Games in 1997 the Asian cup in 2000 and will be hosting the 2009 Francophone Games


----------



## Eureka!

Just one comment on the largest arena can it have a retractable roof? It would still be inside. If so here is Telstra Dome in Melbourne. Capacity is 53,300. Apparently (info from a site I can't remember)the Liverpool Stadium was modeled on Telstra Dome.

Telstra Dome





And also the new stadium to be built in the Olympic Park Precinct. It will have a capacity of around 20,000 and will easily be able to be extended to 25,000. Melbourne can't build a new rectangular stadium with a capacity of over 20,000 till 2010 because of a contract with Telstra Dome. It is expected to be finished in 2008 and cost $100 million Aussie Dollars.

New Stadium


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Very Interesting! Love numbers and that was fun to look at. Im going to the Barcelona, Chivas game at the LA Colisieum tomorrow and all 92,500 seats have been sold for some time now. cant wait.


----------



## victory

Eureka! said:


> ^^^lol!!! Liechenstein does look pretty with all the trees and mountains. Their stadiums just need a little work...


not really, a country with a population of under 40,000 has no need for any big or even decent stadiums.

To put it in perspective, it has the same population as a small insignificant country town in Australia such as Dubbo.

That is why their biggest stadium is of the same standard as my local amatuer clubs.


----------



## Eureka!

I know it doesn't need stadiums but they still aren't great. lol. Imagine all of Liechenstein in the Telstra Dome... 

53,000 56,000 same thong lol.. Thanx i'll edit.


----------



## Eureka!

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> with a population of 300 million living in the worlds richest country,i'd bloody well think America should do well on that list
> but have a look at the UK,and the Aussies,if you really want to be impressed


Richest in the world per capita or in total???


----------



## kingdomca

XCRunner said:


> What's all this talk about the EPL being so impressive? I'm not saying it isn't, but shouldn't we be talking about Germany if we are talking about impressive attendance figures. According to this the Bundesliga's avg. attendance per game was nearly 7000 more than the Premiership's.


Its way way way way cheaper to attend football in Germany compared to England, where its getting ridiculous.

Germany have almost double the population but fewer teams in their league.

The % of seats sold in England is still higher than Germany, where capacities are higher than in England because its the only major league in europe that allows standing areas.

The have only just gone past England for the first time ever, connected to the bulk world cup modernisation of venues.

Lower leagues are higher in England

England´s other sports are also attracting far higher crowds than Germany´s other sports.


Whats happening in Germany is great, but interest in footall is much higher in England


----------



## TEBC

4 biggest of 4 small countries

*STADE LOUIS II, MONACO* 18 523
































































*HONG KONG, CHINA HONG KONG STADIUM* 40.000



















*ESTÁDIO DE MACAU* 15.000



















*SAN MARINO STADIO OLIMPICO* 2.200


----------



## skaP187

skaP187 said:


> So these are not in it yet (I scrolled trouht the whole thread, or did I miss a page)
> Here we go
> Bilbao (very not sure... but well)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murcia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depor fucking dreams, a shame they did not go through with this!


Some more picks of La Coruna, this would have been an alien city landscape or something, very cool, but it didn't stick I guess


----------



## skaP187

Valencia, I believe a cap. of 70.000








































































As shown under, this stadium will have the option of atletics and football in one stadium, without beeing to far from the field in case of footballgames




























I think this will be a great stadium, with the caracteristic, futeristic Spanish architecture. (might be a non Spanish designagency, but atleast they know what they like in Spain/Valencia)


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Here is Nicaragua:

Estadio Dennis Martinez (30 100):









Estadio Nacional de Futbol (20 000) <- Think its U/C, this is just a render.









Estadio Héroes Mártines (8 000):









Estadio Cacinque Dirangén (7 500):









They are in serious need of a tune up!


----------



## XCRunner

^^I'd just like to clarify about my last post that I was talking only about the top flight leagues in each country. Nothing about the Football League or the lower German divisions. As far as that goes, there's no question there's more domestic interest in England.


----------



## kingdomca

XCRunner said:


> I think domestically the leagues are probably on equal footing. That is to say, the EPL is as popular in England as the Bundesliga is in Germany. I think the difference in money (and by extension fan interest) is in foreign/overseas markets. The EPL is the most watched sporting competition in the entire world, and it's not becuase of English fans alone watching the games on TV. The reason there is so much more money in the Premiership than the Bundesliga is becuase of the millions and millions of followers the Premierleague has internationally, followers that the Bundesliga does not have. This also explains why the Bundesliga has higher ticket sales but still less money; their clubs make much much less globally off of TV rights and merchandising. I can think of only one German club (Bayern Munchen) that is on par with the likes of Arsenal, Man U, Chelski, and Liverpool as far as globall following is concerned.


Yes the english premiership is more popular globally, but overseas income is still relatively insignificant for european leagues.

It has far more to do with matchday income. Matchday income for a club like Arsenal will absolutely dwarf a club like Borussia Dortmund despite Dortmund having a bigger capacity.
It does matter whether you are selling £8 tickets or £50 tickets.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

invincible said:


> Out of curiosity, how much does it cost for a ticket? As a student, going to the football here is cheaper than a night at the movies.
> 
> General admission at the MCG and Telstra Dome:
> Adult: $18.50 (US$13, €11)
> Concession: $11 (US$8.40, €6.50)
> Junior (6-14 years): $2.20 (US$1.60, €1.30)
> 
> Children below the age of 6 get in for free.




well,for my team.QPR,I pay £500 for a season ticket.Matchday prices are about £25.
Premier league matchday tickets seem to vary,according to the club,but anything from £25-£45 
season tickets can vary too.I know Charlton do one for under £400,but the likes of Chelsea nd Arsenal,your looking at nearer a grand


----------



## GASpedal

kingdomca said:


> Yes the english premiership is more popular globally, but overseas income is still relatively insignificant for european leagues.


That's true.



kingdomca said:


> It has far more to do with matchday income.


No. It has to do with domestic TV deals and how the money is distributed.
Bayern Munich e.g. gets 100 Mio. less than big Italian clubs alone out of domestic TV deals - each season.

1. the Bundesliga is marketed as a whole. No German club can sell TV rights on their own. Which means less income for the big ones.
2. the earned money is distributed in a way that even the smaller clubs still get a decent amount of money - again to the account of the bigger clubs.

Clubs like Hamburg, Bremen, Leverkusen etc. could earn more money and Bayern Munich would be near equal in terms of TV income with other big european clubs if they marketed the TV rights on their own.

/Edit: I forgot: You also have to consider that pay-TV is almost demonised in Germany, because there is a long tradition of comprehensive free TV broadcasting of the Bundesliga. Free TV also meaning more viewers but less income for the clubs.


----------



## kingdomca

GASpedal said:


> That's true.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It has to do with domestic TV deals and how the money is distributed.
> Bayern Munich e.g. gets 100 Mio. less than big Italian clubs alone out of domestic TV deals - each season.
> 
> 1. the Bundesliga is marketed as a whole. No German club can sell TV rights on their own. Which means less income for the big ones.
> 2. the earned money is distributed in a way that even the smaller clubs still get a decent amount of money - again to the account of the bigger clubs.
> 
> Clubs like Hamburg, Bremen, Leverkusen etc. could earn more money and Bayern Munich would be near equal in terms of TV income with other big european clubs if they marketed the TV rights on their own.
> 
> /Edit: I forgot: You also have to consider that pay-TV is almost demonised in Germany, because there is a long tradition of comprehensive free TV broadcasting of the Bundesliga. Free TV also meaning more viewers but less income for the clubs.


yes the german league sell their tv rights collectively, but so does England, only the english tv deal is bigger and their matchday income far higher and thats why they can share the tv-money while top english clubs are still able to compete with the top italian clubs who screw their own league completly financially which leads to the endless chaos and self-destruction in italian football.

Both tv-income and matchday income is higher in England than Germany despite England being a far smaller country. There is more interest in England, but german fans do get a far better deal.
Introduce some "german pricing" in english football and crowds would rocket, especially in the lower leagues where few clubs reach capacity.

As it is I wouldnt be surprised to see the german second league average to top the english second level this year. A relegated club like Koln will no doubt achieve higher averages than any 2nd level english club because prices arent a joke.

The problem in english football is that new stadiums seem to be so much more expensive to build in England compared to elsewhere. I dont know why that is. I think they do have more of the money-making business facilities in new english stadiums like the Emirates but it cant explain the difference

It means that too many english clubs are stuck in too small too old and massively overpriced venues.


----------



## GNU

kingdomca said:


> Interest in football is way higher in England compared to Germany.
> The 2 nations are of similar wealth per person but there is far more money in the english game despite Germany being the far bigger country.
> 
> Why is that if its not because of a far higher interest?


maybe because you are charging up to 60 pounds for a Charlton versus Portsmouth match?
Thats one reason.
The other was that we had the Kirch-crisis which lead to small TV-deals.
However we have a new deal since this year which is around the same as the Premierleagues deal.
Also we havent (yet) sold the name rights for the Bundesliga.
In Britain you have the *Barclays* Premierleague, and the Coca-Cola championship etc..
And I already gave you a comparison between the Sportschau and Match of the day.





kingdomca said:


> As for other sports, rugby alone attracts more than icehockey, handball and german-NFL combined do in Germany and add I would think cricket does the same and again England is far smaller than Germany and most of these tickets are also way more expensive.


rubbish.
I just checked the stats.
The Ice-hockey league in Germany is doing fine.
Just have a look at all the arenas that are and have been built in Germany.
In Britain you simply dont have these facilities.
And cricket doesnt even have big stadiums.
theres Lords and the Oval.
They are both rather tiny.
And the Rugby league doesnt attract more than Ice-Hockey,Handball and Basketball combined.
We have the biggest Ice-Hockey and Handball league here, and our Basketball league is way bigger than in Britain.
the sport itself is far more popular here.

Btw: The DFL (the german Icehockey league) infact has attracted* 2,034,222* viewers last season whereas the Guinness rugby league has attracted only *1,355,820*.
To be fair though the average attendancy in the Rugby league was twice as high than in the DFL.
The cricket league btw. has attracted only *544,820* viewers in only 79 games.
The Handball Bundesliga however has attracted *1,390,158* viewers in 306 games.


----------



## GNU

kingdomca said:


> Both tv-income and matchday income is higher in England than Germany despite England being a far smaller country. There is more interest in England, but german fans do get a far better deal.


the matchday income is higer because much more money is charged.
I actually do belive that the Premierleague probably charges higher prices for tickets than any other professional league.
What happens then is, that the attendancy figures are dwindling and the clubs wont feel the need to enlarge their stadiums.

Btw: How much does the Premierlague get with its TV deal overall?
I think that the Bundesliga and the Premierleague are not far apart on this matter.
The Bundesliga gets around 1,26 Billion Euros (1,6 billion dollars) for the next 3 years.


----------



## kingdomca

Checker said:


> maybe because you are charging up to 60 pounds for a Charlton versus Portsmouth match?
> Thats one reason.
> The other was that we had the Kirch-crisis which lead to small TV-deals.
> However we have a new deal since this year which is around the same as the Premierleagues deal.
> Also we havent (yet) sold the name rights for the Bundesliga.
> In Britain you have the *Barclays* Premierleague, and the Coca-Cola championship etc..
> And I already gave you a comparison between the Sportschau and Match of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rubbish.
> I just checked the stats.
> The Ice-hockey league in Germany is doing fine.
> Just have a look at all the arenas that are and have been built in Germany.
> In Britain you simply dont have these facilities.
> And cricket doesnt even have big stadiums.
> theres Lords and the Oval.
> They are both rather tiny.
> And the Rugby league doesnt attract more than Ice-Hockey,Handball and Basketball combined.
> We have the biggest Ice-Hockey and Handball league here, and our Basketball league is way bigger than in Britain.
> the sport itself is far more popular here.
> 
> Btw: The DFL (the german Icehockey league) infact has attracted* 2,034,222* viewers last season whereas the Guinness rugby league has attracted only *1,355,820*.
> To be fair though the average attendancy in the Rugby league was twice as high than in the DFL.
> The cricket league btw. has attracted only *544,820* viewers in only 79 games.
> The Handball Bundesliga however has attracted *1,390,158* viewers in 306 games.


You dont understand cricket and rugby. There are several competitions and much focus on national teams.

Cricket has a total attendance for the 18 first class teams and the national team at about 2½ million.
The total rugby crowds are probably 3-4 million for all international and first level club game. Then there is actually another version of rugby which adds another 1½ million 

Many of these rugby and cricket tickets are very expensive and difficult to get hold of. 

This easily beats german icehockey and handball, (though of course these figures are for the german league only and would be a bit higher if international games were included but it wouldnt change much)



Then there is horseracing, almost 6 million attending over a year. 

And of course lower league english football crowds are also still much higher than Germany.

Non football:

cricket 2½ million
Rugby U 4 million
rugby L 1½ million
Horses 6 million

compared to

Icehockey 2 million
Handball 1½ million
german-nfl ½ million
??? 
very rounded numbers obviously


----------



## GNU

kingdomca said:


> You dont understand cricket and rugby. There are several competitions and much focus on national teams.
> 
> Cricket has a total attendance for the 18 first class teams and the national team at about 2½ million.
> The total rugby crowds are probably 3-4 million for all international and first level club game. Then there is actually another version of rugby which adds another 1½ million
> 
> Many of these rugby and cricket tickets are very expensive and difficult to get hold of.
> 
> This easily beats german icehockey and handball, (though of course these figures are for the german league only and would be a bit higher if international games were included but it wouldnt change much)
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is horseracing, almost 6 million attending over a year.
> 
> And of course lower league english football crowds are also still much higher than Germany.
> 
> Non football:
> 
> cricket 2½ million
> Rugby U 4 million
> rugby L 1½ million
> Horses 6 million
> 
> compared to
> 
> Icehockey 2 million
> Handball 1½ million
> german-nfl ½ million
> ???
> very rounded numbers obviously


I just wrote an extensive answer to your post but when I posted it the server was down :bash: 
So Ill keep it short this time

First of all:

Cricket gets only *1m* per year.
Rugby gets *3m*

Now you mention horseracing. Keep in mind that wintersports are immensely popular here in Germany.
They attract millions of viewers on TV.
I could also mention the DTM or other motorsport franchises that attract more than in Britain.
(The Formula one alos attracts more here btw)

And the lower football leagues in Britain do not get much more viewers than here in Germany.

the Bundesliga gets 7.000 more per game on average than the premierleague.
The 2nd Bundesliga however only gets 4.000 less than the Championship.
Keep also in mind that lower german leagues are not featured in that list since they are regarded as amateur leagues (kind of like College Football)


----------



## kingdomca

Checker said:


> I just wrote an extensive answer to your post but when I posted it the server was down :bash:
> So Ill keep it short this time
> 
> First of all:
> 
> Cricket gets only *1m* per year.
> Rugby gets *3m*
> 
> Now you mention horseracing. Keep in mind that wintersports are immensely popular here in Germany.
> They attract millions of viewers on TV.
> I could also mention the DTM or other motorsport franchises that attract more than in Britain.
> (The Formula one alos attracts more here btw)
> 
> And the lower football leagues in Britain do not get much more viewers than here in Germany.
> 
> the Bundesliga gets 7.000 more per game on average than the premierleague.
> The 2nd Bundesliga however only gets 4.000 less than the Championship.
> Keep also in mind that lower german leagues are not featured in that list since they are regarded as amateur leagues (kind of like College Football)


 german amateur football is nothing like the NCAA. Its just amateur because pro football isnt sustainable at that level in Germany.
But yes german lower league crowds are catching up. Thats my point about the problems with the cost of attending games in england. 

You have changed cricket crowds from ½ to 1 million but still its not all included.
Its like this..very roughly

County championship ½ million
twenty cup ½ million
1 day league + cup ½ million
England national team, all games 1 million 

Rugby is difficult to look at for just England as the game is centred around competiton between the british nations, thus basically "english" money flows into the other nations.
But for all UK Ireland it seems to be like this:

english premiership 1.355.000
Celtic league 571.000
Heineken 971.000
6-nations 841.000 
British home games v Southern hemisphere est. 500.000

I make that 4.2 million. this does include games in France in Heineken and 6-nations but certainly very close to 4 million british alone and
then of course the "other rugby code" could be added meaning another 1.5 million taking total british rugby crowds well past 5 million.

Comparing total crowds, (not just averages in football), for major sports in all Britain and Germany also shows the difference in numbers attending.

Britain
Football premiership 12.872.000
championship 9.724.000
league-one 4.271.000
league-two 2.482.000
conference 913.000
scottish 3.687.000


total british league-football : 33.949.000 

Germany

Bundesliga 12.872.000
BL-2 4.415.000
Regional 2.155.000

total german league-football : 19.442.000

far higher numbers in England despite tickets being far more expensive , and of course Germany being a significantly larger nation.
Sure there are many more teams in the british numbers but thats because they attract crowds worth counting that far down. Lower german leagues may add a bit to the numbers but probably less than even lower brtish leagues.

Non football
Britain

Rugby 5 million
cricket 2½ million
horses 6 million

thats 13½ million for Britain´s other major sports

germany 

Icehockey 2 million
handball 1½ million
German-nfl ½ million

thats 4 million for Germany´s other major sports.

Add to football and its: Britain 47½ million, Germany 23½ million and british numbers are kept down far more by sell-outs and expensive tickets in all the sports 
Its pretty obvious as Wikipedia themselves conclude that sports attendances are highest in the english-speaking world, then followed by the rest of the developed the world


----------



## jamesinclair

Here are the latest attendence stats for the Brasilian main league, Brasileirao Serie A. Currently the league is in mid season.

Position Team Average Attendence 
1°) Grêmio-RS....22.594
2°) Internacional-RS....21.192
3°) Cruzeiro....17.748
4°) Santa Cruz....16.274 
5°) Fluminense....13.679 
6°) Vasco....13.326 
7°) Fortaleza....13.222 
8°) Flamengo....12.667 
9°) Atlético-PR....10.914 
10°) São Paulo....10.744 
11°) Corinthians.…10.494 
12°) Figueirense....10.415 
13°) Palmeiras....10.036 
14°) Botafogo-RJ....9.154 
15°) Santos....8.552,50 
16°) Paraná Clube ....7.736 
17°) Goiás.…6.499 
18°) Ponte Preta....6.491 
19°) Juventude....3.916 
20°) São Caetano....1.740 

In terms of location on the current performance chart


01 São Paulo
02 Paraná
03 Santos
04 Cruzeiro
05 International
06 Fluminense
...
19 Fortaleza
20 Corinthians


Im actually going to a Paraná Clube game this weekend, they expect 15,000 people. Last game had 7,000


----------



## Anna Maria

Checker said:


> Now you mention horseracing. Keep in mind that wintersports are immensely popular here in Germany.
> They attract millions of viewers on TV.
> I could also mention the DTM or other motorsport franchises that attract more than in Britain. (The Formula one alos attracts more here btw)
> ...
> the Bundesliga gets 7.000 more per game on average than the premierleague.


This Wikipedia compilation deals with live attendances, not TV, so inserts like Formula1 etc are only confusing here.
BTW, if motorsport franchises in Germany then snooker in Britain, ok?

Also statistical game averages mean nothing. Only total figures count.
Imagine a music concert (only one that year) in a small city like Bremerhaven with 7,000 folk music fans, and, on the other side, about 750 gigs in Hamburg (700 in small clubs, 50 in a big arena) with a total attendance of maybe 750,000.
Small city average: 7,000
Hamburg average: 1,000
Such numbers mean nothing, or is music in Bremerhaven more important than in Hamburg?


----------



## GNU

kingdomca said:


> german amateur football is nothing like the NCAA. Its just amateur because pro football isnt sustainable at that level in Germany.
> But yes german lower league crowds are catching up. Thats my point about the problems with the cost of attending games in england.


No. It is of course sustainable as a professional league.
Its juts a different philosophy.
Like College football in the US. They could also make it professional but they dont want to.
And they are comparable. The 3rd divisions get more specs (also on average) in England, then again there are about a zillion teams in the championship.
So you cant really compare the overall figure.



kingdomca said:


> You have changed cricket crowds from ½ to 1 million but still its not all included.
> Its like this..very roughly
> 
> County championship ½ million
> twenty cup ½ million
> 1 day league + cup ½ million
> England national team, all games 1 million
> 
> Rugby is difficult to look at for just England as the game is centred around competiton between the british nations, thus basically "english" money flows into the other nations.
> But for all UK Ireland it seems to be like this:
> 
> english premiership 1.355.000
> Celtic league 571.000
> Heineken 971.000
> 6-nations 841.000
> British home games v Southern hemisphere est. 500.000
> 
> I make that 4.2 million. this does include games in France in Heineken and 6-nations but certainly very close to 4 million british alone and
> then of course the "other rugby code" could be added meaning another 1.5 million taking total british rugby crowds well past 5 million.



No. Im right with my figures. you cant just include international games.
We are talking about domestic sports here.
If you do that then I could do it aswell.
You also just cant include figures *for the whole of Britain*.
Scotland,Wales etc all have their own leagues so you cant just include them because it seems convenient.
The figures that Ive given for Cricket and Rugby are correct.



kingdomca said:


> Comparing total crowds, (not just averages in football), for major sports in all Britain and Germany also shows the difference in numbers attending.
> 
> Britain
> Football premiership 12.872.000
> championship 9.724.000
> league-one 4.271.000
> league-two 2.482.000
> conference 913.000
> scottish 3.687.000
> 
> 
> total british league-football : 33.949.000
> 
> Germany
> 
> Bundesliga 12.872.000
> BL-2 4.415.000
> Regional 2.155.000
> 
> total german league-football : 19.442.000.


again could you tell me why *youve just switched from english football to british football?????*
You cant include the scottish,welsh leagues.
they are independant.
at the same time I could also include the austrian or swiss leagues but they are also independant.
Just get your facts straight.
Ive given the correct figures according to Wikipedia.
And agin I stress that winter sports are very popular here in atttendances as is the DTM etc..
But I dont have the time to search out attendancy figures for that now.



kingdomca said:


> Add to football and its: Britain 47½ million, Germany 23½ million and british numbers are kept down far more by sell-outs and expensive tickets in all the sports
> Its pretty obvious as Wikipedia themselves conclude that sports attendances are highest in the english-speaking world, then followed by the rest of the developed the world


Complete rubbish.
For a start we are talking about *english and not British figures.*
youve just started to inlcude the stats for Scotland.
Again I could also inlude the stats for Austria or Switzerland hre.
Secondly you are forgetting winter sports,motor sports etc,etc...
I could also inlude lower Ice-Hockey leagues etc..


----------



## GNU

Anna Maria said:


> This Wikipedia compilation deals with live attendances, not TV, so inserts like Formula1 etc are only confusing here.
> BTW, if motorsport franchises in Germany then snooker in Britain, ok?


Snooker???
Im quite a Snooker fan and I know that it gets some attendancies during big tournaments but overall it doesnt make any difference.
They usually play in small halls and have a few hundred specs but not more.
Dont confuse live audiences with TV figures.
And dont compare the DTM or Formula 1 with Snooker thats just bizarre.



Anna Maria said:


> Also statistical game averages mean nothing. Only total figures count.


Nonsense.
If you would only count total figures than the Championship would be one of the best attended leagues in Europe.
You are forgetting however that there are a zillion teams playing in the Championship whereas other leagues only feature 18 teams.
So the average attendancy is the most important factor here.


----------



## kingdomca

checker,

I included british figures because a sport like rugby is centred around inter-british competition

I then used Britain for all the sports, since my point was about higher attendances in the english speakingworld and since all of the UK is still significantly smaller than Germany why is it so wrong. 
Its just rather obvious to wikipedia and just about everyone else that sports-attending is the highest in Britain, Australia and north america


----------



## GNU

kingdomca said:


> checker,
> 
> I included british figures because a sport like rugby is centred around inter-british competition
> I then used Britain for all the sports, since my point was about higher attendances in the english speakingworld and since all of the UK is still significantly smaller than Germany why is it so wrong.


Fine so I can include all of the german speaking world aswell?
I could also include austrian or swiss sports?



kingdomca said:


> Its just rather obvious to wikipedia and just about everyone else that sports-attending is the highest in Britain, Australia and north america


Its not obvious and its simply not true.
The Bundesliga attracts 7.000 more per game on average. That alone is quite a difference.


----------



## JimB

Checker said:


> The Bundesliga attracts 7.000 more per game on average. That alone is quite a difference.


Only because:

1. The average capacity of Bundesliga stadia is much higher than that of Premiership stadia.

2. Bundesliga ticket prices are much lower than Premiership ticket prices.

If Premiership stadia were, on average, as big as Bundesliga stadia and if Premiership ticket prices were, on average, the same as Bundesliga ticket prices, then there can be little doubt that average Premiership attendances would be at least as high as Bundesliga attendances. More likely, in fact, they would be higher.

Also, I don't think you can discount the numbers attending the lower divisions in England just because, according to you, there are a "zillion" teams. The point still remains that the demand to watch live lower league football in England is much greater than it is in Germany.

The large numbers of fans attending lower league matches in England are clearly fans that are lost to the Premiership - therefore having a knock on effect on potential Premiership attendances. This phenomenon doesn't affect the Bundesliga to anything like the same degree.

Finally, just to emphasise, Germany's population exceed's England's by more than 30 million.

P.S. One other point to consider:

The Premiership has 20 teams. The Bundesliga has 18 teams. An average attendance figure will always favour the league which has the fewest teams. For example, if the Premiership only contained 18 teams and we dropped the two that were worst supported last season, its average attendance would have risen to 35,400.

Similarly, if the Bundesliga contained 20 teams and we included the two best supported second level teams in Germany, the average attendance would have dropped to 39,718.


----------



## JimB

Checker said:


> Btw: How much does the Premierlague get with its TV deal overall?
> *I think that the Bundesliga and the Premierleague are not far apart on this matter*.
> The Bundesliga gets around 1,26 Billion Euros (1,6 billion dollars) for the next 3 years.


Not far apart........if you call $1.5 billion not far apart!

The latest three year EPL domestic television deal for live games involved the sale of six separate packages (after the EU insisted that no one broadcatser could win the rights) to Sky and Setanta. Total value is £1.7 billion or $3.16 billion over three years:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2006050806

http://www.footballeconomy.com/rep_may_03.htm

P.S. This figure does not include the rights for overseas broadcast of Premiership matches. Nor does it include the BBC's Match of the Day highlights deal.


----------



## Mario Golf

This is hilarious - the English simply cannot accept that Germans are simply miles better and more passionate about their football. Bigger stadiums, terracing, singing for 90 minutes, bigger crowds, much more passionate fans with atmospheres, fan displays and colour which is miles ahead of anything found in English stadiums!!

Why are the English so surprised??? Their international team is a world joke that has done nothing in 40 years and has been outperformed by teams like Greece, so why should their league be any better?? It's simply another case of deluded English people who think they are the best in the world at something, but every sane person outside of England clearly sees that England are utter crap at football!!

Remember all the posts about England have a good chance of winning the World Cup???? Totally deluded fools!! They will never change!


Germany have won 6 major tournaments and been in 12 finals (the last was 4 years ago) 
Italy have won 5 major tournaments and been in 8 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
France have won 3 major tournaments and been in 4 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
Netherlands have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 18 years ago)
Czechoslovakia have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 30 years ago)
Spain have won 1 major tournament and been in 2 finals (the last was 22 years ago)
Greece have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 2 years ago)
Denmark have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 14 years ago)
England have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 40 years ago!!!)

Look at their record, the 9th best in Europe!!!! We haven't even taken into account South America!!!!!!!


----------



## Mario Golf

kingdomca said:


> scottish 3.687.000



Get your facts right, Scotland is 4.372.392, out of a population of 5 million!! Remarkable!!


----------



## MG2

That first link is awesome! What an amazing game 

MG2


----------



## Anna Maria

Mario Golf said:


> This is hilarious - the English simply cannot accept that Germans are simply miles better and more passionate about their football. Bigger stadiums, terracing, singing for 90 minutes, bigger crowds, much more passionate fans with atmospheres, fan displays and colour which is miles ahead of anything found in English stadiums!!
> 
> Why are the English so surprised??? Their international team is a world joke that has done nothing in 40 years and has been outperformed by teams like Greece, so why should their league be any better?? It's simply another case of deluded English people who think they are the best in the world at something, but every sane person outside of England clearly sees that England are utter crap at football!!
> 
> Remember all the posts about England have a good chance of winning the World Cup???? Totally deluded fools!! They will never change!
> 
> 
> Germany have won 6 major tournaments and been in 12 finals (the last was 4 years ago)
> Italy have won 5 major tournaments and been in 8 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> France have won 3 major tournaments and been in 4 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> Netherlands have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 18 years ago)
> Czechoslovakia have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 30 years ago)
> Spain have won 1 major tournament and been in 2 finals (the last was 22 years ago)
> Greece have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 2 years ago)
> Denmark have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 14 years ago)
> England have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 40 years ago!!!)
> 
> Look at their record, the 9th best in Europe!!!! We haven't even taken into account South America!!!!!!!


Amazing!
Maybe you don't know, but it's a thread about Wikipedia figures and NOT a propaganda thread. Goebbels sends his regards!


----------



## Anna Maria

Checker said:


> Im quite a Snooker fan ...


Many thanks! Your reply is a clear evidence, that I'm right.
You and me watching snooker on TV, and cause I never saw DTM (though living in Germany), TV-snooker is more popular than TV-DTM, inside our tiny community!
You love statistics, you got it!



Checker said:


> Snooker???
> Nonsense.
> If you would only count total figures than the Championship would be one of the best attended leagues in Europe.
> You are forgetting however that there are a zillion teams playing in the Championship whereas other leagues only feature 18 teams.
> So the average attendancy is the most important factor here.


Many words, but no content.
Once again: an average stat value is a complex result, and it's just impossible to take into consideration all the circumstances how the figures to be evaluated.

Two quotations:
It is easy to lie with statistics. It is hard to tell the truth without it. (Andrejs Dunkels)
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Leonard H. Courtney)

So, you'd better learn mathematics and statistics than watch Bundesliga.


----------



## Lostboy

How many names does that damn Celt get through.


----------



## JimB

Mario Golf said:


> This is hilarious - the English simply cannot accept that Germans are simply miles better and more passionate about their football. Bigger stadiums, terracing, singing for 90 minutes, bigger crowds, much more passionate fans with atmospheres, fan displays and colour which is miles ahead of anything found in English stadiums!!
> 
> Why are the English so surprised??? Their international team is a world joke that has done nothing in 40 years and has been outperformed by teams like Greece, so why should their league be any better?? It's simply another case of deluded English people who think they are the best in the world at something, but every sane person outside of England clearly sees that England are utter crap at football!!
> 
> Remember all the posts about England have a good chance of winning the World Cup???? Totally deluded fools!! They will never change!
> 
> 
> Germany have won 6 major tournaments and been in 12 finals (the last was 4 years ago)
> Italy have won 5 major tournaments and been in 8 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> France have won 3 major tournaments and been in 4 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> Netherlands have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 18 years ago)
> Czechoslovakia have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 30 years ago)
> Spain have won 1 major tournament and been in 2 finals (the last was 22 years ago)
> Greece have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 2 years ago)
> Denmark have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 14 years ago)
> England have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 40 years ago!!!)
> 
> Look at their record, the 9th best in Europe!!!! We haven't even taken into account South America!!!!!!!


Hello, bubomb!

Just for a laugh, let's take your post at face value, rather than the trolling that it was meant to be!

1. No one is discussing atmosphere or flags and flares at football matches.

2. No one is discussing the English national team.

We are only discussing attendances.

Glad we got that sorted. Run along now, you little scamp (bless your little, cotton socks!).


----------



## GNU

Anna Maria said:


> Many thanks! Your reply is a clear evidence, that I'm right.


If you like to believe that :lol:



> You and me watching snooker on TV, and cause I never saw DTM (though living in Germany), TV-snooker is more popular than TV-DTM, inside our tiny community!
> You love statistics, you got it!


lol?
The DTM is on TV. 
And Snooker is not popular in Germany. What the hell are you talking about.
The Snooker community is tiny here.
a friend of mine plays quite big tournaments here in Germany but you wont see them in TV because theres no interest.
However you do see the DTM on TV.
It is highly promoted and there are lots of popular drivers in there, some of them coming from Formula 1 like Jean Alesi.
Honestly: You dont seem to know much about sports or attendancy figures.




> Many words, but no content.


Just figure what Ive stated and look for other threads where we have discussed this topic thoroughly.
Anna Maria with all respect: You dont seem to know much about sport statistics and your claim that only the overall atendancy counts shows that.
Maybe you want to read into the european leagues and how they are built up before you comment on this topic. 



> Once again: an average stat value is a complex result, and it's just impossible to take into consideration all the circumstances how the figures to be evaluated.


All the circumstances?
It really isnt as difficult as you try to make it.




> Two quotations:
> It is easy to lie with statistics. It is hard to tell the truth without it. (Andrejs Dunkels)
> There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Leonard H. Courtney)


Absolutely: I just remember that I was being bashed before the last german elections because I refused to believe the statistics which saw the CDU/CSU miles ahead of the SPD.
However Anna, we are talking about sport attendancies here.
You can count all the poeple that go into a stadium and pay for a ticket.
Sure there are some differences but you can of course compare the Premierleague and the Bundesliga based on the average attendancy figures per matchday.
You cant compare the whole attendance because the Bundesliga for example features only *18 * teams whereas the Premierleague features *20 *.
Its a different philosophy.
Therefore the average attendancy is the best comparison that we have.
But also with 18 teams the Bundesliga still has a bigger overall attendance than the Premierleague. 



> So, you'd better learn mathematics and statistics than watch Bundesliga.


thanks for the advise Anna :lol:
Ill try to remember it


----------



## kingdomca

Mario Golf said:


> This is hilarious - the English simply cannot accept that Germans are simply miles better and more passionate about their football. Bigger stadiums, terracing, singing for 90 minutes, bigger crowds, much more passionate fans with atmospheres, fan displays and colour which is miles ahead of anything found in English stadiums!!
> 
> Why are the English so surprised??? Their international team is a world joke that has done nothing in 40 years and has been outperformed by teams like Greece, so why should their league be any better?? It's simply another case of deluded English people who think they are the best in the world at something, but every sane person outside of England clearly sees that England are utter crap at football!!
> 
> Remember all the posts about England have a good chance of winning the World Cup???? Totally deluded fools!! They will never change!
> 
> 
> Germany have won 6 major tournaments and been in 12 finals (the last was 4 years ago)
> Italy have won 5 major tournaments and been in 8 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> France have won 3 major tournaments and been in 4 finals (the last was 0 years ago)
> Netherlands have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 18 years ago)
> Czechoslovakia have won 1 major tournament and been in 3 finals (the last was 30 years ago)
> Spain have won 1 major tournament and been in 2 finals (the last was 22 years ago)
> Greece have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 2 years ago)
> Denmark have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 14 years ago)
> England have won 1 major tournament and been in 1 final (the last was 40 years ago!!!)
> 
> Look at their record, the 9th best in Europe!!!! We haven't even taken into account South America!!!!!!!


amazing post. Not even remotely connected to the topic.

one can just feel the desperate need of an obsessively negative scot to relieve his frustrations by repeatedly presenting lengthy statistics that reveals nothing but his own bitternes.

I think funding should be made avialble for a special home where such scots could gather and tell eachother all these things endlessly


----------



## kingdomca

JimB said:


> Not far apart........if you call $1.5 billion not far apart!
> 
> The latest three year EPL domestic television deal for live games involved the sale of six separate packages (after the EU insisted that no one broadcatser could win the rights) to Sky and Setanta. Total value is £1.7 billion or $3.16 billion over three years:
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2006050806
> 
> http://www.footballeconomy.com/rep_may_03.htm
> 
> P.S. This figure does not include the rights for overseas broadcast of Premiership matches. Nor does it include the BBC's Match of the Day highlights deal.


thats incredible figures. up 66% on what was already the biggest football tv-deal. $1 billion per year and thats just for the live matches.
I hope it can help some of stadium plans to become reality.

Ideally, though not realistic, more of the cash should go to clubs willing to spend on their facilities, which is a long-term investment in football, rather than to clubs just offering even higher salaries to attract players


----------



## GNU

Some updated pics from Kaiserslautern:


----------



## CharlieP

yure323 said:


> Is the field some sort of retractable roof ? If it is, then this stadium could hold big conventions, which will bring a lot of money to Valencia CF.


I doubt you'd be able to hold conventions around all the hydraulic lifting gear and other gubbins!


----------



## Sin Titulo

Red Bull Park, Harrison, New Jersey (New York City).


----------



## Benjuk

*Straylia* 

I love football (soccer) stadiums, but it's almost impossible to argue against the MCG as Australia's finest stadium...

_Melbourne Cricket Ground_ - Melbourne, Victoria - 100,000










_Telstra Stadium (Olympic Stadium)_ - Sydney, NSW - 83,500










_Telstra Dome_ Melbourne, Victoria - 64,000









(incidentally, my office overlooks TelstraDome from the 33rd floor, it's an inspiring sight)

_Aussie Stadium_ - Sydney, NSW - 41,000










Suncorp Stadium would be fifth - the saddest thing is that in a sports mad nation, there's nothing else worth shouting about - all the others are either too small or too old to get excited about from an architectural point of view.


----------



## jamesinclair

This is the old design for the red bull stadium


----------



## skaP187

Well, the new one is better, what can I say? way better!


----------



## yure323

DC United's new digs are going to be very cool, the stadium's going to have a hotel attached to it, very similar to Boca's stadium : 
http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/MLS/dcu/stadium/poplar_point/


----------



## Gabo

The renovation and construction of the stadium in Vzla is very great!!


----------



## Sin Titulo

Real Salt Lake, Sandy (Salt Lake City) Utah.

Stadium + development.

Funny aside: They had David Beckham at the official groundbreaking today. :lol:


----------



## Sin Titulo

Colorado Rapids, Prairie Gateway, Commerce City (Denver) Colorado.

Opening spring 2007.


----------



## Sin Titulo

Toronto FC, Exhibition Place, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Opening spring 2007.


----------



## Jackie003

GOOOOO TORONTO FC!


NYC stadium looks good but lacks in location considering its in another state.


----------



## EADGBE

McAfee @ Oakland? Surely that very specific stand orientation must mean that it hosts both the A's and the Raiders?

The only thing with NFL/MLB is that 8 fixtures on top of 81 isn't that big a deal. RFK seems to be in the lead (for the US) so far with what, 97?

Rugby (and FA Cup Finals) at The Oval 100 years ago is not really equivalent, to my mind because it was so long ago, there was less tradition, fewer games and a not today's pressure to have the surface ideally suited to whatever sport is being played on it. In short, I'd say it would have been far more accepted. I still feel that playing so many AFL games a season at the G and then playing cricket on it is astonishing enough to compare with playing say all Harlequins and England fixtures at Lord's.

It just shows the sense of 'this is my toy' ownership amongst the various sports bodies here that just isn't the same anywhere else in the world. I guess it's the price you pay for being the country that introduces formal, organised sport to the world. Far too rigid in lots of ways.


----------



## FCB_Flo

Allianz Arena: 19th May 2005 -> 13th May 2006: 49 football matches


----------



## kingdomca

EADGBE said:


> McAfee @ Oakland? Surely that very specific stand orientation must mean that it hosts both the A's and the Raiders?
> 
> The only thing with NFL/MLB is that 8 fixtures on top of 81 isn't that big a deal. RFK seems to be in the lead (for the US) so far with what, 97?
> 
> Rugby (and FA Cup Finals) at The Oval 100 years ago is not really equivalent, to my mind because it was so long ago, there was less tradition, fewer games and a not today's pressure to have the surface ideally suited to whatever sport is being played on it. In short, I'd say it would have been far more accepted. I still feel that playing so many AFL games a season at the G and then playing cricket on it is astonishing enough to compare with playing say all Harlequins and England fixtures at Lord's.
> 
> It just shows the sense of 'this is my toy' ownership amongst the various sports bodies here that just isn't the same anywhere else in the world. I guess it's the price you pay for being the country that introduces formal, organised sport to the world. Far too rigid in lots of ways.


If other sports were played at english cricket grounds surely they would just use drop-in wickets as has been used in Australia for a decade now.

Anyway, I disagree. I dont like this over-use of multi-shared grounds. 

England could easily do as Melbourne. 

destroy Lords, the new emirates, Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane, Upton park and let all them all share Wembley.

then destroy the Oval , the Valley, Craven cottage, selhurst park, Loftus road and let all them all share Twickenham. 

Its what they call " ground rationalisation " in Australia and I dont think there is anything good about it except the financial savings. Most MCG events take place in a less than half-full Stadium. terrible. Its a great venue but an awful way to use it. 
Historically the australian clubs did have their real home grounds and still try to retain them as training venues to at least pretend to have a home and some identity in a their own location.


----------



## MILIUX

I remember that Madison Square Garden was the most profitable followed by Acer Arena (Sydney Superdome).


----------



## CharlieP

kingdomca said:


> Anyway, I disagree. I dont like this over-use of multi-shared grounds.


I don't have a problem with ground sharing per se, but it's a bad thing when:

(a) you end up with grounds that are a compromise to suit two sports and end up being a bad solution for both - New Zealand's rugby/cricket grounds are a prime example, as are American stadia such as Candlestick Park. Conversely, using the same stadium for soccer and rugby doesn't present any real problems, though PSG fans probably don't like the extra room at both ends of the Parc des Princes, and hurling and Gaelic football co-exist perfectly well.

(b) a team ends up in a stadium far, far bigger than its support warrants (e.g. Edinburgh at Murrayfield, NRL teams at Telstra Stadium etc.), especially when as you say they've left their more intimate home ground...


----------



## GNU

New stadium in Kayseri (Turkey) which is now uc.
Will take 2 years to finish.
capacity will be around 32.000 
apparently they are also going to include restaurants and a cinema into the stadium.


----------



## NeilF

CharlieP said:


> I don't have a problem with ground sharing per se, but it's a bad thing when:
> 
> (a) you end up with grounds that are a compromise to suit two sports and end up being a bad solution for both - New Zealand's rugby/cricket grounds are a prime example, as are American stadia such as Candlestick Park. Conversely, using the same stadium for soccer and rugby doesn't present any real problems, though PSG fans probably don't like the extra room at both ends of the Parc des Princes, and hurling and Gaelic football co-exist perfectly well.
> 
> (b) a team ends up in a stadium far, far bigger than its support warrants (e.g. Edinburgh at Murrayfield, NRL teams at Telstra Stadium etc.), especially when as you say they've left their more intimate home ground...


Of course Gaelic and Hurling exist perfectly well. The pitch is the same layout, size and the game goalposts are used. At the same time, however, GAA, Rugby and Football, as proposed for the new Northern Ireland multi-sports complext, don't sit together so well, both on the capacity and pitch size side of things. Unlike with an athletics track, for football and rugby at the Maze stadium, there is likely to just be enormous grass verges around the pitch which will make watching the game especially difficult.

And a slight correction - Edinburgh Gunners never really had a "home" as it were. A few years ago, there were only two Scottish rugby superdistricts - Edinburgh and Glasgow, now there are three, including the Border Reivers. Glasgow can't afford to return to Hughenden and Edinburgh Reivers became the Gunners and were basically left with nowhere else to go, due to financial problems. It's a ground sahre based on financial necessity, rather than stadium restrictions. 

My vote would have to go to either Celtic Park or Ibrox. Given their size, they are never really used for anything other than football - concerts, internationals, semi-finals and finals are held at Hampden, so they do little more than Celtic and Rangers home games.


----------



## kingdomca

CharlieP said:


> I don't have a problem with ground sharing per se, but it's a bad thing when:
> 
> (a) you end up with grounds that are a compromise to suit two sports and end up being a bad solution for both - New Zealand's rugby/cricket grounds are a prime example, as are American stadia such as Candlestick Park. Conversely, using the same stadium for soccer and rugby doesn't present any real problems, though PSG fans probably don't like the extra room at both ends of the Parc des Princes, and hurling and Gaelic football co-exist perfectly well.
> 
> (b) a team ends up in a stadium far, far bigger than its support warrants (e.g. Edinburgh at Murrayfield, NRL teams at Telstra Stadium etc.), especially when as you say they've left their more intimate home ground...


Well, I think there are many other considerations such as the identity of clubs. Groundsharing has happened in english football, though not on permanent basis. Charlton shared for a long time, 5-10 years, I think and suffered. 

Also I think its more difficult to get planning permission for a 100 game-per-year large stadium rather than 25 games,particularly in London.

I like stadiums that fit well into their area on non-match days, ideally including facilties that can be used by the local community, and then in return, the area accepts some reasonable levels of congestion on a limited number of match days. 

A big shared venue would probably have to be located more isolated from where people actually live, perhaps outside the city in the middle of a giant car park.


----------



## Gabo

Saben cuando seleccionan los grupos y los equipos?


----------



## Sparks

The San Siro has got to be up there in terms of football use, with all the european games played in addition to the league games of both AC and Inter.


----------



## EADGBE

...and by that logic, I suppose the Stadio Olimpico with Roma/Lazio - for the moment, at least. Have Torino moved from the Delle Alpi yet?

Does anyone have the usage rate for the Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen? Schalke and Rhine Fire, plus any number of concerts, internationals and a plethora of other events. There are some great pictures somewhere of it hosing a Biathlon event (Nordic skiing and rifle shooting), where the whole playing area was transformed into a snow course.


----------



## Dreamlıneя

Gabo said:


> Saben cuando seleccionan los grupos y los equipos?


Ni idea.. Todavia no se sabe cuales van a ser los equipos invitados


----------



## invincible

EADGBE said:


> The usage of the MCG is even more astounding to us in England when you consider that it is one of Australia's premier cricketing venues. Here in England, there's an awful lot of opposition to anything that is likely to damage the 'square', let alone the wicket itself. CharlieP, could you ever imagine a rugby match being played at Lord's (which would be the equivalent of AFL at the G)?! The MCC members would be spluttering into their gins with every scrum or tackle.


The MCC (that's the Melbourne Cricket Club I'm referring to here) isn't complaining because their members get reserved seats for every single match (of any sport) at the MCG. That's why all the tickets can sell out and still leave a few thousand empty seats.


----------



## invincible

docker said:


> go afl go.
> 
> never realised how big aussie rules was here, compared to other sports around the world.
> 
> when perth gets a larger stadium the average overall would rise by 1000 or so.


And then it's just our friends at Adelaide who need a bigger stadium. And maybe Brisbane when the bandwagon returns.


----------



## Calvin W

In the past, 5-10 years ago. The Skydome in Toronto hosted MLB(81 games) CFL (9 games) and NBA (42 games). Total of 132 sporting events. Throw in concerts, trade shows and conventions. Over 150 events. The NBA has moved out so the total is lower now.
In 1974-75 Shea stadium in NYC hosted both the NY Mets and Yankees. That total alone is 162 games. Throw in the NY Giants and Jets for 16 games and total is 178 sporting events. That is an amazing 1 game every 2 days! I don't think any stadium World wide has ever managed that!


----------



## nyrmetros

Giants Stadium here in NYC/NJ hosts 2 NFL teams, 1 MLS team, and many concerts each year, plus other events such as motocross, religious crap, etc....

Giants have 8 home games plus preseason and playoff games.
Jets have 8 home games plus preseason and playoff games
Red Bulls have 16 home games plus playoffs, friendlies, and intenrational games

Several college football and soccer games are held there, as well as marching band contests, and high school soccer and football.

Bon Jovi and Springsteen alone probabvly have 20 days each or some crazy number like that.

And it was Named 2003 #1 TOP-GROSSING STADIUM WORLDWIDE by Billboard magazine


----------



## NavyBlue

EADGBE said:


> The usage of the MCG is even more astounding to us in England when you consider that it is one of Australia's premier cricketing venues. Here in England, there's an awful lot of opposition to anything that is likely to damage the 'square', let alone the wicket itself. CharlieP, could you ever imagine a rugby match being played at Lord's (which would be the equivalent of AFL at the G)?! The MCC members would be spluttering into their gins with every scrum or tackle.


There's no damage to the cricket square due to playing AFL games because it's not there during the winter months. The MCG use 'drop in' pitches which are curated elsewhere and literally dropped in after the football season. Also as invincible said, the 100k+ MCC members don't mind as they have 25,000 seats reserved for themselves all year round. :bash:


----------



## hngcm

®Alejandro® said:


> Ni idea.. Todavia no se sabe cuales van a ser los equipos invitados


Mexico y los Estados Unidos?


----------



## CharlieP

Sparks said:


> The San Siro has got to be up there in terms of football use, with all the european games played in addition to the league games of both AC and Inter.


I doubt it gets near the baseball stadia in terms of usage though - each tenant will play 17 games in Serie A, around three(?) Italian Cup games, then let's say for example that one has a good European run and plays 12 home Champions League games and the other just 6. That's still under 60 games a year...


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The MCG is able to stage footy and cricket unlike Lord's in London simply because of the weather. I believe the Oval used to stage rugby and soccer a long time ago.

From this time of the year all you need to do to grow lawn is water and it grows in days. We don't get frosts like you do over in Blighty.

What may surprise as well is practically every cricket ground around the country, no matter what level is also used for football in the winter.

The split with the council generally works out to be Oct 1 to March 31st = cricket, April 1st to Sept 30th footy. Mind you, Sept is finals time and most grounds are not used and are able to be prepared for cricket season. Some grounds can be dodgy in the first couple of weeks of the cricket season, but a heavy roller can fix that up.

Dedicated grounds are becoming a little more common, but for most situations it is not necessary. You can split the costs by having co-tennants.


----------



## GNU

Ill post a few more pics of Kaiserslautern 



































































Here you can clearly see how the stadium has been built into the rock of the small mountain its built on:
































#


----------



## Dreamlıneя

hngcm said:


> Mexico y los Estados Unidos?


Mexico creo que ya esta confirmado.. De hecho aparece como equipo oficial en la pagina de la copa ... Estados Unidos todavia no se sabe, pero ya manifestaron que quieren participar!


----------



## pompeyfan

Checker said:


> New stadium in Kayseri (Turkey) which is now uc.
> Will take 2 years to finish.
> capacity will be around 32.000
> apparently they are also going to include restaurants and a cinema into the stadium.


i've never seen that design before, reminds me of the AZ Cardinals Stadium


----------



## Eureka!

Guys you forgot (I think) about the preseason of AFL or the "nab cup". How many matches is that. Plus in the Commonwealth Games it was used for athletics and the opening and closing ceremony. The closing ceremony was absolutly amazing!!!


----------



## GNU

^^ Yeah I know. looks quite similar


----------



## EADGBE

Calvin W said:


> In the past, 5-10 years ago. The Skydome in Toronto hosted MLB(81 games) CFL (9 games) and NBA (42 games). Total of 132 sporting events. Throw in concerts, trade shows and conventions. Over 150 events. The NBA has moved out so the total is lower now.
> In 1974-75 Shea stadium in NYC hosted both the NY Mets and Yankees. That total alone is 162 games. Throw in the NY Giants and Jets for 16 games and total is 178 sporting events. That is an amazing 1 game every 2 days! I don't think any stadium World wide has ever managed that!


NBA in the Skydome? That's nuts! Did they ever manage to sell out or did they do something with temporary seating like I've seen done with one of the college teams - and I think Seville Athletics Stadium for the Davis Cup(tennis)? Any chance of pictures?

Also, all four main NY MLB/NFL franchises in Shea Stadium in the mid-70's? Why was that? I though Giants Stadium was already built by then. Was Yankee Stadium being renovated? Why else would the Yankees playing at the home of the Mets?


----------



## ASupertall4SD

indoor sports arenas take the cake for sure. i am not sure which one has the most events, but as an example, the los angeles staples center hosts games for the lakers, the clippers, the kings(NHL), the Avengers(arena football), and the sparks. I dont think any other single sports arena houses as many franchises, so this one may have the most events. that is 41 laker events , 41 clipper events , 41 sparks events, 41 kings events , 8 avenger games, and then you have concerts and other sports. To show the regularity of those events, using only august to december of this year, the staples center has 19 events including tim mcgraw concert, tool concert, cirque de soleil, WWE wrestling, boxing matches, bull fighting league. The offseason for basketball is likely the busy time for these sorts of events, so guestimate that in september there will be 11 events, and then do that with the other 4 months of NBA offseason and that is 55 events. That would total 41+41+41+8+41+55 or 227 events in one year for the Staples Center, or 1 every 1.5 days.


----------



## Breakwood

The Rogers Centre in Toronto hosts 81 Blue Jays games a year, 9 regular season Argonauts games (A CFL team plays 2 more games then an NFL game), 1 preseason Argonaut game, a couple soccer games (last year 2, this year 1) plus concerts, and other shows (Toronto Auto Show, Boat show, etc.)

Oops somebody beat me to the Skydome/Rogers Centre. But I frogot the Rogers Centre will also host an NCAA bowl game in January of next year.


----------



## Calvin W

Arenas are not included in this thread, Supertall. Strictly stadiums. Check the very first post.


----------



## Calvin W

EADGBE said:


> NBA in the Skydome? That's nuts! Did they ever manage to sell out or did they do something with temporary seating like I've seen done with one of the college teams - and I think Seville Athletics Stadium for the Davis Cup(tennis)? Any chance of pictures?
> 
> Also, all four main NY MLB/NFL franchises in Shea Stadium in the mid-70's? Why was that? I though Giants Stadium was already built by then. Was Yankee Stadium being renovated? Why else would the Yankees playing at the home of the Mets?


The stadium used only a portion of the seats. This has actually happened numerous times in the NBA and even the NHL. I know that Detroit Pistons did it in the Pontiac SilverDome and Tampa Bay Lightning Did it in the SunCoast Dome? Usually it is done because it is the only option available.

As for Shea Stadium Hosting all four. You are right Yankee Stadium was being renovated and Giants Stadium was not yet built.


----------



## ASupertall4SD

whoops, apologies.


----------



## dave8721

Dolphins Stadium in Miami has to be up there. It has 81 baseball games a year (plus the occasional post season run), 8 NFL regular season games plus 2 or 3 preseason games (plus the occasional post season run), 5 or 6 games for Florida Atlantic University (college football) as well. Plus the Orangle Bowl Game plus the Super Bowl this year. Add to that the occasional concert and this place gets some use.

Edit: This year FAU is only playing one of their games at Dolphins Stadium


----------



## dave8721

Qualcom in SD used to be up there too before the Padres left. They had Baseball (Padres), Football (Chargers), College Football (SD State) & the Holliday Bowl and the occasional Super Bowl.

The Metrodome in Minnesota has the Twins (baseball), Vikings (football) & the Gophers (College Football)


----------



## Scba

There are some baseball stadiums that occasionally hold over 300 games a year, but I don't think any of them crack the 10,000 mark for capacity. 

Fargo, ND, and Hutchinson, KS have fields like this, but their capacities are only 3,000 or so.


----------



## Lucky Luke

This is proposed new stadium of Legia in Warsaw. It's expected to cost 462.5 milion zlotys ( around 115-120 milion Euros ). It will have 35 000 seats, closing roof and 2 500 vehicle underground car park.














































The decision will be made till end of October and if it is accepted then the start of works will begin in summer-autumn 2007 and end in Late 2009.


----------



## skaP187

I like it!!! specialy from the outside


----------



## GNU

It looks much bigger than 35.000.
Kind of in the region of the LTU arena in Duesseldorf.
I hope they are going to built this. I like the design.


----------



## Brent H.

Calvin W said:


> The stadium used only a portion of the seats. This has actually happened numerous times in the NBA and even the NHL. I know that Detroit Pistons did it in the Pontiac SilverDome and Tampa Bay Lightning Did it in the SunCoast Dome? Usually it is done because it is the only option available.


The Hawks actually own the single game NBA attendence record at 62,046 when they played a game against the Bulls in the Georgia Dome, Im pretty sure it was in the 90s when Jordan was still playing.

Also, in 1989 and 1990, the Metrodome hosted the Twins, Vikings, Golden Gophers, and Timberwolves.


----------



## EADGBE

I'm pretty sure that I saw an All-Star game at the Georgia Dome on TV quite a few years ago. There was a crowd of over 35,000, so I knew it wasn't in a traditional arena.


----------



## decapitated

Checker said:


> Is it HBM from the Netherlands?


Well, I'm not sure they're from Holland, but yes that's the company. Further information about the new arena: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=386186


----------



## nyrmetros

The most used stadium in the USA has to be Giants Stadium. But if you can prove me wrong please do so.


----------



## NavyBlue

nyrmetros said:


> The most used stadium in the USA has to be Giants Stadium. But if you can prove me wrong please do so.


How about you first prove yourself right...


----------



## victory

Giants stadium?

what maybe 24 NFL games per year...

what else?

It wouldn't even be the most used in NY/NJ, let alone the USA.


----------



## EADGBE

JJB Stadium, Wigan:










Wigan Athletic (football):

19 x Premiership games
2 x Carling Cup*
2 x FA Cup*
2 x Pre-season friendlies*

Wigan Warriors (rugby league):

14 x Super League games
3 x Challenge Cup*
1 x Pre-season friendlies

Great Britain Lions (rugby league):

1 x Tri-Nations game

= 44 fixtures.

Still not a lot for a ground with two tenants. I'm sure the groundsman would disagree, though!


----------



## nyrmetros

victory said:


> Giants stadium?
> 
> what maybe 24 NFL games per year...
> 
> what else?
> 
> It wouldn't even be the most used in NY/NJ, let alone the USA.



Giants Stadium here in NYC/NJ hosts 2 NFL teams, 1 MLS team, and many concerts each year, plus other events such as motocross, religious crap, etc....

Giants have 8 home games plus preseason and playoff games.
Jets have 8 home games plus preseason and playoff games
Red Bulls have 16 home games plus playoffs, friendlies, and intenrational games

Several college football and soccer games are held there, as well as marching band contests, and high school soccer and football.

Bon Jovi and Springsteen alone probabvly have 20 days each or some crazy number like that.

And it was Named 2003 #1 TOP-GROSSING STADIUM WORLDWIDE by Billboard magazine


I could be wrong, but this is a heavily used venue. I'm not sure any other NFL stadium is used as much as this one is.


----------



## Scba

I'm still not buying it. Just about any baseball park at any level would still have more events than Giants Stadium. The Oakland stadium even hosts both sports!


----------



## Gabo

Yo habia leido en el periodico el tiempo hace un año "y que" iban a invitar a Italia, Portugal y España.... eso lo dudo mucho, pa mi q fue un rumor ahi!


----------



## Dreamlıneя

Yo tambien habia leido eso. Pero no creo que lo hagan debido al tema de que es copa America y no todos los equipos de America participan para que vengan a invitar a Italia, España y Portugal que son de Europa.. No lo creo conveniente! Deberian hacer la copa con todos los paises de America y ya!


----------



## RC8

No sean huevones y hablen en ingles. Sino vayanse a algun foro Venezolano de mala muerte, la gracia de Skyscrapercity es que gente de todas partes del mundo puede hablar de arquitectura sin que nigun idiota se ponga a hablar en castellano o en algun idioma distinto al ingles, gracias a lo cual gente de toda America, Asia, Oceania y el Medio Oriente, ademas claro de Africa y Europa, puede entender el contenido aqui expresado.

^^^ I basically asked them to speak in English so that everyone can understand what they're talking about. 

I think that the Copa America should be exclusively for American teams, otherwise it would completely loose it's meaning.


----------



## hngcm

True true, that and they'd easily win the thing...


----------



## smackfu

Giants Stadium Calendar. The darker boxes are days with events. 

More than I thought, but still not the winner. For instance, September has 10 occupied days, but most other months are lower than that. I assume we aren't counting the flea market.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Zenit's new home :shock: 
62.167 
the winner project


















the other ones
http://www.fc-zenit.ru/info/page.phtml?id=304


----------



## skaP187

Zenit who? St Petrusburg? nice stadium by the way, it's massive!


----------



## www.sercan.de

are there other Zenits??!! 
yes
St. Petersburg


----------



## skaP187

sounds a bit alien doesn't (if you say it a couple of times fast) Wasn't there something simular in Zagred or something, or is the sun burning on my head again?
ZenitzenitzenitzenitZenitzenitzenitzenitZenitzenitzenitzenitZenitzenitzenitzenitZenitzenitzenitzenit!!!!!!


----------



## Quintana

Zenith is Russian for star if I'm not mistaken. Nothing alien about it. skaP187 on the other hand sounds like a meteorite....


----------



## skaP187

Zenit/Star/Alien/Meteorite... do I need say more...
I like the city though so GO ZENIT!!!


----------



## GNU

www.sercan.de said:


> the other ones
> http://www.fc-zenit.ru/info/page.phtml?id=304



I would have liked to see this one being built


----------



## GNU

some updated pics from the stadium in Magdeburg uc:


----------



## MrVlad

Here's pictures of winner project of Zenit's stadium (its are big to post at forum so click on the links to see its).

http://www.gorzakaz.org/acts/JP1.jpg
http://www.gorzakaz.org/acts/JP2.jpg 
http://www.gorzakaz.org/acts/JP3.jpg
http://www.gorzakaz.org/acts/JP4.jpg


----------



## GNU

^^ It seems to have a retractable field?
How sure is it that its going to be built that way?


----------



## lindenthaler

new stadium for Partizan Belgrade, the tearing down of current stadium will happen at the end of this season:

(35 000 seats)


----------



## Giorgio

wow that looks nice!


----------



## highburysouljah

its looks nice in the pics but thats about it i reckon


----------



## samba_man

Good Question


----------



## Gabo

®Alejandro® said:


> Yo tambien habia leido eso. Pero no creo que lo hagan debido al tema de que es copa America y no todos los equipos de America participan para que vengan a invitar a Italia, España y Portugal que son de Europa.. No lo creo conveniente! Deberian hacer la copa con todos los paises de America y ya!


All team of America!!!!


----------



## frank hannover

I dislike stadiums with superdome roofs and so on .A new stadium should combine being modern but still being just a football stadium . Another aspect is of course the atmosphere. In a recent poll where they questioned soccer players from all 18 german Bundesliga clubs they quoted Hamburgs AOL Arena the favourite one.


----------



## Malso

matherto said:


> that is quite simply, bollocks


to you maybe, but to me Hampden in king; only one dissapointment, it's no longer 140 000


----------



## cinosanap

---


----------



## cinosanap

Hampden is a magnificant stadium only let down by its capacity.
I think Ibrox Stadium is an even beautiful stadium but is let down by the team that play in it. :scouserd: 

PS: St James is a horrible looking stadium!


----------



## TEBC

would be great for Hawaii


----------



## TEBC

any new photos??


----------



## jamesinclair

It depends what format they go with. All one country, or split?

If split, they can do korea for asian games, Mexico for north america games, Dominican Republic for Latin American games, and Venezuela for the remaining ones.

And then the semis and finals will probably happen in the US again. How about New York or Boston this time? 

Hawaii doesnt make sense. Its inconvenient for everyone time wise.


----------



## Scba

This thread is two months old, I'm not sure why that guy bumped it.

Hawaii decided to revert Aloha Stadium to all-football from now on, so it's definitely not going to happen.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

I hope they include more countires for the WBC, like Nicaragua.


----------



## MillenniaL

*approved : the Wall stadium, Qatar .*

*The Wall Stadium * is one of a kind, unique in form, emerged from green shallow dune. The slanted colossal structure dominates on the surrounding areas by its solid form and height at the same serving as the main stand for spectators. Moreover the green dune serves as parking areas for spectators and canopy on the top of the stands.

The football playfield punctures the serene green dune at centre thus exposing the nature of the structure.

A new air conditioning system would be used in this open stadium so if I'm not mistaken it going to be the first opened air conditioning stadium in the world

*Number of floors: B+G+4
Height: 60m
Plot area: 200,000sqm
Total built-up area: 233,775
Designed: MZ & Partners
Location:the state of Qatar, Doha.*


www.mzandpartners.com

**************************************************








































































































































































 .


----------



## ÜberMaromas

Wierd but not bad


----------



## Calvin W

Can't see it actually being built. At least in the current form. Just seems a bit odd and definitely too much green!


----------



## MillenniaL

"Wierd" that's why i like this project


----------



## MillenniaL

Calvin W said:


> Can't see it actually being built. At least in the current form. Just seems a bit odd and definitely too much green!


you will see it in real life in few years coz it's been approved :scouserd: and nothing imposible in architecture :wave:


----------



## SaRaJeVo-City

those new stadiums look very cool...


----------



## Durbsboi

the first one looks cool. Does the "_stadium 5 juillet_" hold 80 000 people? cos if it does, just imagine when the bowl is complete! :eek2:


----------



## Quintana

According to World Stadiums it is 66,000, with the ones in Oran and Annaba both holding 50,000. It puts the rather small looking stadium in Setif at 20,000 (a huge difference from the 65,000 claimed by the topic opener).


----------



## misterdz

Durbsboi said:


> the first one looks cool. Does the "_stadium 5 juillet_" hold 80 000 people? cos if it does, just imagine when the bowl is complete! :eek2:


looks at and levels you!!!
it is derby match usma vs mca 
is very crazy !!! 
how Rio of janeiro has!!! with the maracana!!! 


http://www.dzfoot.com/videos/mcausma201005.wmv

http://www.dzfoot.com/videos/usmamca06.wmv


----------



## Mo Rush

where can i found out more about the first rendering you posted?


----------



## misterdz

Quintana said:


> According to World Stadiums it is 66,000, with the ones in Oran and Annaba both holding 50,000. It puts the rather small looking stadium in Setif at 20,000 (a huge difference from the 65,000 claimed by the topic opener).


in 2003 at the time of the derby mca-usma the stage OF July 5 full A cracks!!! 99.000 person present, the FIFA has rapeler has the order the federation and the Algerian league of football for quil puts the world stage at the standards, it fu to close during a temp for restoration and to bring back exactly it 75.000 place asise has but the stage can contain 80.000 upright and assi aujourdhui, that of annaba and oran 60.000 places setif more than 45.000 place blida 55.000 places…


----------



## CharlieP

*2009 Rugby World Cup Sevens host bids*

Now that the deadline for submissions has closed, the rugby unions of Arabian Gulf, Australia, Kenya, Netherlands, Russia, South Africa and USA are all in the running to host the 2009 Rugby World Cup Sevens.

An Arabian Gulf tournament would unquestionably be in Dubai, and a Kenyan one in Nairobi, but I don't know what the host cities would be under the other bids...


----------



## Dreamlıneя

*ADVANCES - SEPTEMBER 2006*

*Advances - September 2006*​
*MERIDA STADIUM*

























































*"CACHAMAY" STADIUM*

































*JUANA "LA AVANZADORA" STADIUM*

















































































*PUERTO LA CRUZ STADIUM*

















































*"PACHENCHO ROMERO" STADIUM*


































*"PUEBLO NUEVO" STADIUM*


----------



## Venezuelacom

*ADVANCES in Stadiums for COPA AMERICA 2007-*

*This is how the stadiums look by now*











®Alejandro® said:


> *ESTADIO METROPOLITANO DE MERIDA*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO CACHAMAY - Pto. Ordaz*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO JUANA "LA AVANZADORA" - Maturin*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO JOSE ANTONIO ANZOATEGUI - Pto La Cruz*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO "PACHENCHO ROMERO" - Maracaibo*
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO "PUEBLO NUEVO" - San Cristobal*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO MONUMENTAL DE BARQUISIMETO*
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO AGUSTIN TOVAR "LA CAROLINA" - Barinas*
> 
> *PROYECTO*
> 
> 
> 
> *AVANCES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESTADIO OLIMPICO DE LA UCV - Caracas*
> 
> *AVANCES*


----------



## Calvin W

*Top 75 World Arenas*

The following list from Pollstar Magazine list the top grossing arenas world wide. The figures are for all events hosted by the arenas excluding professional sports. IE, No hockey basketball arena football etc. 
The list basically counts concerts, tradeshows, conventions etc. 

I am particularily proud of #52, Saskatoon. At 11 300 seats it is one of the smaller arenas on the list and in a city of 230 000 one of the smaller cities on the list.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Oh c'mon MSG isn't THAT great!


----------



## Calvin W

No it isn't but it has a shit load of events each year. That's what puts it near the top.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Pffft! Hey the ACC is at 11!


----------



## Calvin W

Yeah but look at Montreal! #4


----------



## DrJoe

So why don't professional sports count? Between preseason and regular season the ACC hosts around 100 NHL and NBA games alone, yearly.


----------



## Calvin W

They eliminated professional sports to level the field. The list is put out by an entertainment managment firm. So they are obviously looking at it from a different view. Look at MSG they host NBA and NHL all games soldout, and yet they still have other events which bring in huge numbers!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Calvin W said:


> Yeah but look at Montreal! #4


Never been to the Bell Centre, I'm sure its a nice place though.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Go Manchester!!!! Top stuff!!

...one of the shortest posts I've ever made... 

:cheers:


----------



## TEBC

estan avanzadas las obras de algunos


----------



## Dreamlıneя

*Maturin Stadium*


----------



## Dreamlıneя

*Advances*


----------



## BobDaBuilder

An idiotic poll really. So MSG and the other arenas which stage pro sports every other night also are unavailable that day for trade shows.

Never ceases to amaze how some organizations twist facts and figures to suit their own purposes to push something.


----------



## christoph

Only one German Arena? That list is a joke.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

^^ I would have added Kolnarena


----------



## Calvin W

BobDaBuilder said:


> An idiotic poll really. So MSG and the other arenas which stage pro sports every other night also are unavailable that day for trade shows.
> 
> Never ceases to amaze how some organizations twist facts and figures to suit their own purposes to push something.


Not really a poll. These are actual numbers of attendees for non sporting events. Despite the fact that MSG is so busy with sports events it is still #2 so obviously it is used quite frequently. #75 on the list is used for quite a few sporting events as well. Mainly hockey. But it has more open days than MSG. So why isn't it higher?


----------



## Jaybird

YAY! The JLC (John Labatt Centre) was 45th! Incredible. Lots of good venues up there.


----------



## Neda Say

The Bell centre deserves to be all the way up there. The acoustic is very good for a hockey arena, the seats are way closer to the action than at most modern arenas even when you're pretty high up in the stands.

Montreal Rocks!


----------



## Zorba

Horrible list for so many reasons.


----------



## Calvin W

This list is horrible? Why? I think it is what it is. A list for people in the entertainment industry. These are the top 75 arenas last year in terms of attendance for nonsporting events. Plain and simple.


----------



## andysimo123

Manchester does it again, biggest league ground in the country and busiest arena by quite away.


----------



## TalB

Keep in mind that the list on the number of total tickets, not about the quality of the arenas.


----------



## Calvin W

TalB said:


> Keep in mind that the list on the number of total tickets, not about the quality of the arenas.


Exactly it is a list dealing with absolute numbers. No opinions.


----------



## andy_wakey

MEN Arena definitly deserves top spot


----------



## Reptilikus

*Kolding, Denmark - New arena project - cap. 22.000*

A new arena is in planing in the city of Kolding in Denmark.
Cap. 22.000
Funded by private ínvestors.


































The city of Kolding only has a population of 65.000, so it is the plan that it shall attract people from all over Denmark and maybe the North part of Germany.
A really risky strategy, when there are several plans for an arena in the capital Copenhagen, an arena is being build in the city of Malmö, near Copenhagen (cap. 12.500), and the fact that Hamburg already has an arena (Color Line Arena cap. 13.800)

In addition to that does the city of Kolding only has a great male handball team, but no ishockey team and no basketball team, so it is very unlikely that the arena is going to be used on a daily basis. 
Not a good sign!


----------



## Calvin W

Makes no sense to build such a large arena for little or no use! One would think it was being built in North America!


----------



## Alle

Partly reminds me of scandinavium here in GBG. So its supposed to be a icehockey-/basketballpurpose arena? I have a hard time finding the demand for it.


----------



## Reptilikus

The plan is that it can be the only big Arena in Denmark, and therefore attract international koncerts and sports events. 
The arena shall be placed near the highway, so it is easy to drive to.

Like i said before it is the plan that it would be the arena for the hole country of Denmark, but I doubt that very much. 
I don't think that people from the capital Copenhagen will drive for more than 100 miles to see a concert. 

There is a general problems with big arenas in Europe, and that is that they are bad business!
There a too few events in the arenas because we doesn't have the same tradition for seeing indoor sports like basketball and ishockey. 
Even arenas in big cities like Stockholm have problems with the economy. 

The people with the project seems very determined to build if, if the get the permission, but even if they build if, I still think it is a bad investment. 

But it may look great!


----------



## hngcm

cuando empieza la copa?


----------



## cphdude

^^Personaly I still feel it is more like a covered stadium, then a arena. And I dont think it is the right place. This is too big for smaller concerts and daily sports will not attract that many people in jylland. It is not big enough for the big concerts that have been in Jylland in the last few years, so what are they really planing on doing there...?

I think they should still do the arena in copenhagen, where there is actually be a need for it....

The good thing about it is that for football it will get 35.000 seats and if we want to have a euro bid with sweden, that can be used...


----------



## cphdude

AKing said:


> Partly reminds me of scandinavium here in GBG. So its supposed to be a icehockey-/basketballpurpose arena? I have a hard time finding the demand for it.


Well, from what I understand they are planing on using it for everything from football, hockey and handball, to speedway, boxing and swimming. In addition it can be used for concerts and special events...


----------



## Reptilikus

cphdude said:


> ^^
> The good thing about it is that for football it will get 35.000 seats and if we want to have a euro bid with sweden, that can be used...


Where did you hear that? 

I have read that the arena will have a capacity of 35.000 - for concerts. 

I don't really even think that the arena is big enough to a football field, with or without seats...


----------



## TalB

I am glad that Continental Airlines Arena is not at the bottom.


----------



## Mo Rush

very very very nice


----------



## cphdude

Reptilikus said:


> Where did you hear that?
> 
> I have read that the arena will have a capacity of 35.000 - for concerts.
> 
> I don't really even think that the arena is big enough to a football field, with or without seats...


From this article, where it says that it will also be used for football and will have a 35.000 capasity. I dont know how thay are planing on doing that, but it seams they are planing on doing that...



> En stor grøn ufo med plads til 35.000 tilskuere til alt fra fodboldkampe, ishockeymatcher, svømmestævner, rockkoncerter og operaopførelser.


http://avisen.dk/kolding-faar-multiarena-171006.aspx


----------



## Dreamlıneя

hngcm said:


> cuando empieza la copa?


June 26, 2007


----------



## ReddAlert

Calvin W said:


> This list is horrible? Why? .


Because alot of the list is U.S. and not Europe.


----------



## DiggerD21

I would like to know if all those arenas have serious concurrence (concert halls or open air concert grounds etc.) in their area.


----------



## Calvin W

ReddAlert said:


> Because alot of the list is U.S. and not Europe.


It is a list arenas that report their stats to pollstar magazine. If European arenas don't report then they are not on the list. End of story.


----------



## skaP187

... but but it is a footballstadium!!! In the beginning all stadiums where more or less with atletic tracks no or is I confused, in either way it is goning to look good!!! (need to hurry up a little bit though)
How many stadiums are there going to be build? maybe they could try to get the WC 2014 if Brazil does not get there planns ready soon enough


----------



## TalB

If you have a complaint than write to ever made that list rather than throwing a temper tantrum here.


----------



## Dreamlıneя

skaP187 said:


> ... but but it is a footballstadium!!! In the beginning all stadiums where more or less with atletic tracks no or is I confused, in either way it is goning to look good!!! (need to hurry up a little bit though)
> How many stadiums are there going to be build? maybe they could try to get the WC 2014 if Brazil does not get there planns ready soon enough


They are building 3 new stadiums.. The others 6 are under remodeling, but they are gonna be like new.. just 2 stadium will be without tracks. 

In the last visit to the stadiums, representatives from CONMEBOL said, that we will have stadiums for a World cup!... I hope we can host the cup, even though is too difficult.


----------



## pompeyfan

lovely, reminds me of the Oita Stadium.


----------



## kingdomca

I cant see much wrong with these plans. I think those that dismis it here somewhat overestimate the project.. Its just a rather basic 22,000 stadium with a fixed roof, which cost little. 

Cost is only about 400 million DKK, around £35m . Its not a fortune, its not a mega super arena, and there could be enough events to make it worthwhile, I think...as do others since its being privately financed ( I think)


----------



## pompeyfan

kingdomca said:


> I cant see much wrong with these plans. I think those that dismis it here somewhat overestimate the project.. Its just a rather basic 22,000 stadium with a fixed roof, which cost little.
> 
> Cost is only about 400 million DKK, around £35m . Its not a fortune, its not a mega super arena, and there could be enough events to make it worthwhile, I think...as do others since its being privately financed ( I think)


yeah, for denmark a 22000 seat stadium is perfect. A cheap, futuristic and aesthetic stadium, perfect!


----------



## Reptilikus

Reptilikus said:


>


Maybe I have had a wrong estimate of the size of the floor, and maybe is big enough for soccer.
If have searched the net, but haven't been able to find any info on the floorsize. 

If the floorsize is big enough to football (soccer) is changes the situation a bit, but not much.
Soccer is the by far the biggest sport in Denmark, and the dome is therefore more attractive, and has better possibilities for becoming a good investment. 

The reason why it doesn't change the situation much is the fact that Kolding hasn't got a soccer club is the best Danish division, and therefore doesn't have a lot of spectator. The last match only had 650 spectators!
So maybe is great to have a big dome to play soccer-matches in, but if there isn't any need for it, then what's the difference?

Some has said that the dome is a got idea, because it then can be used in a future EURO application for Denmark, but then people forget that UEFA has a minimum of 30.000 cap. for EURO stadiums....
In other words: The dome is then to small!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

*BMO Field* in Toronto, Canada:


----------



## Calvin W

Good to see Canadian tax dollars spent on something useful.


----------



## kingdomca

Reptilikus said:


> Maybe I have had a wrong estimate of the size of the floor, and maybe is big enough for soccer.
> If have searched the net, but haven't been able to find any info on the floorsize.
> 
> If the floorsize is big enough to football (soccer) is changes the situation a bit, but not much.
> Soccer is the by far the biggest sport in Denmark, and the dome is therefore more attractive, and has better possibilities for becoming a good investment.
> 
> The reason why it doesn't change the situation much is the fact that Kolding hasn't got a soccer club is the best Danish division, and therefore doesn't have a lot of spectator. The last match only had 650 spectators!
> So maybe is great to have a big dome to play soccer-matches in, but if there isn't any need for it, then what's the difference?
> 
> Some has said that the dome is a got idea, because it then can be used in a future EURO application for Denmark, but then people forget that UEFA has a minimum of 30.000 cap. for EURO stadiums....
> In other words: The dome is then to small!


It isnt being built for football, simple as that.

Football will probably be a theoretical possibility but its unlikely to happen. Denmark already have 3 20,000+ football stadiums and it certainly wouldnt be the lower league small town local team that would play there. Kolding is mainly about handball. the traditional football club in the area is the neighbouring same-size town of Vejle where a new 10,000 capacity football stadium is being built.

The point of this facility will be versatility. 
It is planned to work as a 5,000 capacity arena but then be able to "open up" under the large roof for big events with 22,000 cap (35,000 for concerts with people on the "field") where the selling point is its geographical position at the centre of Denmark (as all major events cant be placed in copenhagen as both Madonna and Rolling stones opting for Jylland this year shows.)

Denmark have 4 pro leagues, football, ice hockey, handball men/ women,
Kolding have 2 pro teams, (handball men and women), both of which might play in the arena in the long rung. perhaps they can attract a nearby regional hockey team as well, but particularly in the short term all sorts of events will be key, and I think they can attract quite a lot.

The question is really whether the "multiness" will work well, but considering the likely events, I think it will. For everything but football.


----------



## cphdude

^^I dont now if it will be for football or not, and what the capacity will be, I am only refearing to the article that mentioned football and 35000. It that is so, it can be used for a euro game. 

Yes its true thay had Madonna and Roling Stones in Horsens. But only because they cared more about money then anything else. So they put 80.000 people in a field...Great...But what does this have to do with this stadium/arena? Its not gonna hold 80.000 people for a concert and so the money is less. So why should Madonna or roling stones or whomever use this venue? Its too small for the big shows and concerts, too big for hockey, football, and maybe also handball. To far away to be used for everyday use....So what is the point??


----------



## skaP187

yeah looks good, even better with a blue sky behind but that's just a matter of waiting. (no roof? it is Canada no?)


----------



## GregPz

Shameful, primitive sport hno:


----------



## skaP187

yeah I know, that's why I like it! (it's culture man, culture and tradition )
but I like the arenas/ plaza de torros as buildings too, they are beautifull, very good for concerts and stuff to.


----------



## Victhor

They still don't know what is going to be used for, bullfights is an option, but most bullrings in Spain are used mainly for concerts and other kind of spectacles and shows, and they offer bullfights rarely, only in town fairs, and for tourists.


----------



## skaP187

Bullfights are not held specialy for tourists. it is a real 'sport' with a very deep and long tradition. It is still a big thing in Spain, you can see it a lot on television too. It is true that they do a lit of other things in a bull fight ring, but they are mainly bullfightrings.


----------



## mdiederi

Lucia Bose, widow of matador Luis Miguel Dominguín, showing Picasso's bullring plans.








AP photo


----------



## skaP187

what da f... get that woman out of there (nice haircolor though) and zoom in on the designs!


----------



## eli

I love LA PLAZA DE TOROS DE MIJAS (1900), a little but beautiful bullring...










It is oval (not a circle) due to the orography.


----------



## skaP187

I feel a new thread coming, about bullstadiums/ plaza de toros!


----------



## misterdz

vilak: its stadium very useful and are awaited by all the suportor because much club is without stadium. 
the wages in Algeria its 110 euro, the price of the ticket its 10euros but the stadium are filled .
algeria its steps worse than of the other country it ya of poverty as in all the country of the world but PEOPLE LIVE WELL IN ALGERIA RETURNED BY ANYBODY AND RAISED FOR a same COUNTRY Of Africa… 
me I gain 100euros I full step ... 

LOOK AT video 11th day of the championat of 1st DVISIION you will see that the stadium are small compared to the number of suportor.
http://www.dzfoot.com/videos/11ej2206.wmv

and for the pleasure the big derby usma-mca!
http://www.dzfoot.com/videos/usmamca06.wmv

SORRY TRANSLATES WITH a translator!


----------



## misterdz

stadium omar hamadi


----------



## RSG

This looks awesome. Like an old WWII hanger.


----------



## misterdz

final of the cup of Algeria 2005-2006 between the mca and the usma 2 rival club ! 1 super match 1 super day and 1 super night in the street of Algiers !


----------



## Jim856796

misterdz said:


> stadium hamed zabana in oran 60 000 places


Those 2 outdoor gymnasiums next to the stadium in this photo would work better as indoor gymnasiums.


----------



## tq

*My Dinh Sport Complex, Hanoi (Vietnam)*

*My Dinh National Stadium*
Architect: Chinese Architect






















*Water Sport Complex *
Architect: Italian Architect
Inspiration: Wave


----------



## Quintana

Any pictures of the inside?


----------



## tq

*Interior*

...from Bang's post:

Water Complex











































Information here: http://www.piscinecastiglione.it/english/grandi_referenze_hanoi.html


----------



## hoangduong

I like it :cheers:


----------



## ÜberMaromas

Nice pics...


----------



## tq

*My Dinh National Stadium*


----------



## Mo Rush

very cool


----------



## Bigmac1212

*Papa John's Cardinal Stadium gets upper deck*

Here's the site:

Papa John's Cardinal Stadium expansion approved

Here's the rendering:


----------



## cinosanap

1) What's with the name?
2) I've never really liked American Football stadiums as a lot of them look too similiar. I'm afraid that it is the same with this. The stands also look like temporary ones. 4/10


----------



## Calvin W

Looks similar to what?

Are there plans for further expansion?

This will be big enough for now but one would imagine it will go further.


----------



## 3tmk

cinosanap said:


> 1) What's with the name?
> 2) I've never really liked American Football stadiums as a lot of them look too similiar. I'm afraid that it is the same with this. The stands also look like temporary ones. 4/10



Papa John's is a pizza company who's bought the naming rights of the stadium.


----------



## 40Acres

cinosanap said:


> 1) What's with the name?
> 2) I've never really liked American Football stadiums as a lot of them look too similiar. I'm afraid that it is the same with this. The stands also look like temporary ones. 4/10


two things. In all of sports, with possibly the exception being baseball, college football stadiums are the most varied worldwide. This is because rarely do you see a stadium torn down in favor of rebuilding, rather, they add additions as they are needed. This leads to some unique architecture in the college level. There are over 250 college football stadiums and few of them look similar. 

Secondly, being as you are from scotland, i'm sure you are a major fan of footy stadiums, which, are the definition of uniformity. And i'm saying this as a huge world football fan.

I will agree that the stadium does nothing for me. I just don't really like the U of Louisville, and the stadium name is all that is wrong with sports.


----------



## rantanamo

I always thought they'd add a smaller deck above the whole stadium, rather than just one sideline.


----------



## CharlieP

Why don't they put some seats in that empty end?


----------



## Malvern1

what a tacky name for the building, they should have chosen a better sponsor


----------



## rantanamo

Its no different than being named Emirates Stadium or Allianz Arena. You just prefer those company names. Likely they just take the highest bidder, like any stadium.

As for why not the empty end:
a.) That's likely their alumni center/training facilities, etc. They want it to have a nice field view as long as possible.
b.) During the West Virginia game(their biggest in a long time), people were allowed to sit on that grass slope.
c.) You have to use the pro football logic with this. If I'm going to expand first, I should expand where I can fit the most suites the most easily and have normal seats where I can charge the most. Its no different than DKR. They expanded the side opposide the pressbox and original suites first with an upper deck. Now DKR is expanding/renovating endzone seats. This stadium will take on the same pattern, most likely. The open end will be last. When they do build an upper deck over the closed endzone, that will be a loud mother. Could be 30 years before that happens, if ever.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

Malvern1 said:


> what a tacky name for the building, they should have chosen a better sponsor


That is still better than what the Arizona Cardinals and Phoenix Coyotes have done as of late:

Cardinals Stadium --> *University of Phoenix Stadium* [The stadium is in Glendale, AZ not Phoenix] :yes:
Glendale Arena --> *Jobing.com Arena* :doh:

:grouphug:


----------



## The_Big_O

Cardinals Stadium --> *University of Phoenix Stadium* [The stadium is in Glendale, AZ not Phoenix] :yes:
Glendale Arena --> *Jobing.com Arena* :doh:

:grouphug:[/QUOTE]

1. U of P is one of those adult colleges (it still sounds bad though)

2. WTF was going thru their heads when they accepted that bid from Jobing.com? I know, I know. $


----------



## RR1991

*To which NOT FOOTBALL stadium have you been?*

I've been to:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/heerenveen_thialf.shtml
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/rotterdam_hazelaarweg.shtml


----------



## Martuh

a lot...


----------



## ØlandDK

Isn't the Hazelaarweg Stadion a football stadium?


----------



## matherto

Knowsley Road, St. Helens
Headingley (both), Leeds
Old Trafford Cricket Ground
The Jungle, Castleford
Odsal Stadium, Bradford
Twickenham


----------



## ØlandDK

I think the only one I've been to must be:
Headingley Stadium, Leeds


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Do arenas count?


----------



## Calvin W

^^ Probably not but almost all North American stadiums count. Cause they aren't soccer stadiums!


----------



## hngcm

Petco Park


----------



## Quintana

Oelanddk said:


> Isn't the Hazelaarweg Stadion a football stadium?


No, it's a Hockey stadium (fieldhockey that is, not icehockey).


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

*are there environmentially friendly stadiums or projects going on in the world now*

Yes I read about old trafford installing a wind turbine to porvide power for the stadium and surrounding housing. I also saw a report on the discovery channel about an Arena in Germany or Austria I beleive that circulates anti freeze and water to provide hot water for about 500 homes in the neighboorhood. 

Could some forumers post information on these types of projects. 

Thanks in advance JIm jones


----------



## Mo Rush

instead of "jim jones" at the end of every post, simply place it in your signature.


----------



## Rausa

The westside stadium in NY was going to be enviromentally friendly with windturbines at the top.. There where some other features too but i don't remember what exacly..




Jonestowncultinpicto said:


> I also saw a report on the discovery channel about an Arena in Germany or Austria I beleive that circulates anti freeze and water to provide hot water for about 500 homes in the neighboorhood.


Thats Stade de Suisse Wankdorf in Switzerland i think..


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

interesting to say the least . I can remember the look of the stadium or arena that was in the report and the one you have pictured Is not it. But it is good to see environmential practice taking advantage of new construction espeically with stadia. I believe if public building could all start doing this that have limited use of electrical power it would be a good diversifying of revenues Espacially when most of these stadiums in north america atleast are very heavily publicly funded.

Good to see the swiss taking advantage of a stadium construction with instlainng renewable energy. 

How do you sign MO rush ?????

Thanks JIm jones


----------



## CharlieP

Can we make it clear at an early stage if you're talking about all kinds of football or association football (soccer) only? To my mind matherto has listed five football stadia among his answers...


----------



## Benjuk

Durham's Riverside Cricket Ground (although I went to play football at the adjoining all weather facility).
Gateshead Athletics Stadium (although I went for a concert rather than an athletics meet).
Murrayfield (concert)

Plough Lane, Wimbledon (not sure what is was they were doing, but it certainly wasn't football... And they beat my lads 2-1 as well.)


----------



## Calvin W

Taylor Field
Commonwealth Stadium
Canad Inns Stadium
McMahon Stadium
Griffiths Stadium


----------



## Eureka!

Rausa said:


> The westside stadium in NY was going to be enviromentally friendly with windturbines at the top.. There where some other features too but i don't remember what exacly..


That NY stadium looks great but you said WAS GOING to be enviromentally friedly. Is it still???


----------



## Rausa

It was going to be the main stadium in New Yorks olympic 2012 bid and Jets new home, but it was scrapped due to financing problems..


----------



## CharlieP

Mo Rush said:


> instead of "jim jones" at the end of every post, simply place it in your signature.


Can you tell Subliving over in the Leeds forum too?


----------



## Eureka!

Rausa said:


> It was going to be the main stadium in New Yorks olympic 2012 bid and Jets new home, but it was scrapped due to financing problems..


Come over to Melbourne and build it now please! It doesn't have to be used just decoration!!!


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

that is a fanastic looking stadium I have found some more info on some eco friendly stadiums . apparently a big thing now is the use of flyash mixed into concrete . Several Stadia under construction are are doing it. 

Jim jones


----------



## Calvin W

Hey jim just go to quick links at the top of the page. Then edit signature.


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

Calvin W said:


> Hey jim just go to quick links at the top of the page. Then edit signature.



ah thanks bunch Calvin


----------



## EADGBE

Eureka! said:


> Come over to Melbourne and build it now please! It doesn't have to be used just decoration!!!


Yeah, 'cos, like, Melbourne really needs a new stadium, doesn't it?


----------



## Calvin W

Don't know if this fits the bill but, 

Solar panels to help power ballpark for Great Lakes Loons
Associated Press

MIDLAND, Mich. - The new home of the Great Lakes Loons will use solar energy to help power the minor league ballpark.

Dow Corning Corp. and Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. have donated 168 solar panels located outside of Dow Diamond's right field fence and adjacent to the outfield parking lot. The panels are designed to generate enough energy to operate the stadium's scoreboard, the Midland Daily News reported.

Representatives from both companies showed off the panels Friday. Hemlock Semiconductor makes the polycrystalline silicon that is the main component of the panels and Dow Corning makes protective coatings.

"We're delighted to offer this completely renewable energy source to the Michigan Baseball Foundation and the mid-Michigan community," said Marie Eckstein, vice president and general manager of Advanced Technologies and Ventures at Dow Corning.

The panels, which will operate year-round, will be connected to the stadium's main power grid and they also will be tied to the grid Consumers Energy uses to supply the state with power.

The stadium's power most likely will be switched on in February.

"We want the stadium to be the best minor league baseball stadium in the country," said Paul Barbeau, president and general manager of the Great Lakes Loons.

He said there is a focus on environmentally friendly technology at the stadium. For example, crushed red brick from a Dow Chemical building is being recycled and used to make the warning track.

The stadium's name is in recognition of the signature red diamond that has been Midland-based Dow Chemical's logo for more than 100 years. The team will begin playing there in 2007 after moving from Battle Creek.


----------



## Eureka!

EADGBE said:


> Yeah, 'cos, like, Melbourne really needs a new stadium, doesn't it?


Well there's supposed to be building a rectangular one now but i think it's back to the drawing board as the Melbourne Victory (soccer team) and Melbourne Storm (rugby league team) have been getting bigger crowds and have outgrown it's capacity already. 

As I said build it just for decoration


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

Calvin W said:


> Don't know if this fits the bill but,
> 
> Solar panels to help power ballpark for Great Lakes Loons
> Associated Press
> 
> MIDLAND, Mich. - The new home of the Great Lakes Loons will use solar energy to help power the minor league ballpark.
> 
> Dow Corning Corp. and Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. have donated 168 solar panels located outside of Dow Diamond's right field fence and adjacent to the outfield parking lot. The panels are designed to generate enough energy to operate the stadium's scoreboard, the Midland Daily News reported.
> 
> Representatives from both companies showed off the panels Friday. Hemlock Semiconductor makes the polycrystalline silicon that is the main component of the panels and Dow Corning makes protective coatings.
> 
> "We're delighted to offer this completely renewable energy source to the Michigan Baseball Foundation and the mid-Michigan community," said Marie Eckstein, vice president and general manager of Advanced Technologies and Ventures at Dow Corning.
> 
> The panels, which will operate year-round, will be connected to the stadium's main power grid and they also will be tied to the grid Consumers Energy uses to supply the state with power.
> 
> The stadium's power most likely will be switched on in February.
> 
> "We want the stadium to be the best minor league baseball stadium in the country," said Paul Barbeau, president and general manager of the Great Lakes Loons.
> 
> He said there is a focus on environmentally friendly technology at the stadium. For example, crushed red brick from a Dow Chemical building is being recycled and used to make the warning track.
> 
> The stadium's name is in recognition of the signature red diamond that has been Midland-based Dow Chemical's logo for more than 100 years. The team will begin playing there in 2007 after moving from Battle Creek.



Even thou it might not be considered a full blown stadium( and I dont know the size to be quite honest) I think it fits. 
I love good news stories like that bleive or not calvin . I am seeing quite a few stadiums , schools and athletics fields going to Photovoltaic solar power.

There is a high school in alberta that has gone alternative energy for part of its power and they were consideing powering the score board of their athletics field with solar. 

It is all good but especially for sport stadiums. They can have a good source of cost savings for operation and a secondary source of income that can benefit the comunity as a whole


----------



## Calvin W

It is class A ball with seating for 5500. They will have 186 solar panels in total.

http://www.loons.com/#


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

Calvin W said:


> It is class A ball with seating for 5500. They will have 186 solar panels in total.
> 
> http://www.loons.com/#




Looks like a great development and hey larry parish being involved in the team is very cool . Photovoltiacs for electric systems with limited daily use and requiring a power service run to the location starts to make Solar viable. 

Thanks for the link calvin.


----------



## Eureka!

The more solar power the better. If all the stadiums in the world were solar powered, millions less tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted.


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

Eureka! said:


> The more solar power the better. If all the stadiums in the world were solar powered, millions less tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted.



so is that millions of tons less thru there own use or what they could prevent by powering the grid when games were not being played?


----------



## Eureka!

Either. 1 lightbulb can put over a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during it's lifetime. Imagine a whole stadiums lightbulbs, scoreboards, signs, toilets etc all powered by solar. If you use low watt light bulbs you can save 1/2 a ton of carbon dioxide emissions.


----------



## Jonestowncultinpicto

Eureka! said:


> Either. 1 lightbulb can put over a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during it's lifetime. Imagine a whole stadiums lightbulbs, scoreboards, signs, toilets etc all powered by solar. If you use low watt light bulbs you can save 1/2 a ton of carbon dioxide emissions.



Well in regards to toilets I saw that the use of roof rainwater is being included in a stadiums plans for filling the toilets of a stadium . I believe it is the new minnesota twins stadium.


----------



## AcesHigh

*Help, information needed about architecture of football (soccer) arenas!!*

I am designing my own stadium in 3D Studio.

But for it, I need some info.

Whats the height and depth of the concrete steps (stands) where the chairs are placed above?? I heard FIFA minimum is like 80cm of depth. But what about height and inclination?


And what are the dimensions of a stadium chair?


----------



## AcesHigh

found this on the Stadium Design thread... awesome! Thanks Rausa!!


----------



## nomarandlee

*Suite deals aid revenue (article)*

Wasn't sure where to put this, but thought it was a good read especially for this section. it focuses more on Chicago but its a good report on the economics of suites in stadiums in general.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...79dec18,0,7195162.story?coll=chi-business-hed

*Suite deals aid revenue*
*Sports teams are adding plush skyboxes that come with a variety of perks for season-ticket holders to increase their cash streams and boost the value of their individual franchises*

By Susan Chandler
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 18, 2006


When the Bears unveiled final plans for a renovated Soldier Field, it looked like the team was taking a step backwards in at least one respect: the number of seats in the stadium was declining to 61,500 from 67,000. Fewer fans should equal less ticket revenue, right?

*Since 2003, when the new stadium opened its gates, revenue for the team has soared by 52 percent, and the value of the franchise has ballooned to more than $1 billion, according to some estimates. The reason: skyboxes*.

Among other amenities,* the Bears added 133 luxury suites that rent annually for an average of $140,000, with some going for as much as $200,000. *Although they represent a small fraction of overall seating, the boxes have an outsize effect on the bottom line. The Bears get to retain all the revenue generated by the luxury suites under National Football League rules. Revenue from regular seats must be shared with visiting teams.

"With the rising cost of running professional sports franchises, teams, and the facilities themselves in some cases, are looking for as many ways as possible to make money. They are looking for ways to maximize their real estate," said Lee Esckilsen, a professor in the Center for Sports, Entertainment and Event Management at Johnson & Wales University in Providence, R.I.

Back in 1991 when the new Comiskey Park (now U.S. Cellular Field) opened, the stadium's 100 luxury suites were considered a novelty. But since then, nearly every professional team, and a growing number of college and even high school teams, have jumped into the skybox game, building dozens of new stadiums to accommodate them.

With thousands of elite suites around the country, and nearly 500 in Chicago alone, competition for clients has never been stronger. *As prices approach $400,000 a season in some markets, even popular teams must find creative ways to attract new clients and retain old ones, sports consultants say*. As competition has accelerated, teams have poured on the extras.

The Bears, who are having their best season in 20 years, allow their luxury suite customers access to a private club lounge during the game, and the organization will make travel arrangements for them to attend games in other cities, including lining up hard-to-find tickets.

Suiteholders at the United Center, home to the Bulls and Blackhawks, receive annual gifts such as digital cameras, iPods and flat-screen TVs. Those who inhabit the skyboxes at U.S. Cellular Field get to party on the field with former White Sox players.

Such perks come on top of the traditional benefits of being a season-ticket holder, which typically include preseason parties, the chance to hobnob with players and owners and the opportunity to shoot baskets on the team's court or skate around its rink.

"The luxury suites have become more and more important to the financial success of the teams," explained Brooks Boyer, vice president of marketing for the White Sox. "The stakes have been elevated."

It's not hard to figure out why teams want luxury boxes and their slightly downscale cousins, club seats, which are more-comfy individual seats that come with access to special lounges and food options such as made-to-order pizza. They maximize revenue and increase profitability, sports economists and executives say, which in turn maximizes the selling price of franchises.

"Why does Indianapolis need a new stadium? It doesn't have sufficient suites, concourse areas or club seats," said Marc Ganis, president of Sportscorp. Ltd., a Chicago-based sports-industry consulting firm, explaining why the home of the Colts football team, built in 1984, is obsolete. *In 2008, the Colts plan to unveil Lucas Oil Stadium, with 26 mini-suites that will rent for $40,000; 98 luxury suites starting at $74,500; and eight field suites, perched 30 feet from the end zone, for $90,000 each.*

Are there too many luxury suites chasing too few deep-pocketed customers? That depends on the market and the team's record, sports consultants say. Some teams like the White Sox say they would build fewer luxury suites if they had it to do all over again. In fact, the Sox will have 91 suites for the 2007 season after converting nine of the original 100 into an expanded press box.

"In almost every major city, if you provide the right kind of seating package, with parking, their own elevators and bathrooms, people are willing to pay for it," said Esckilsen, who also runs his own stadium consulting firm, Entertainment Sports International. "The buildings that don't have trouble selling suites and club seats are the teams with successful records."

The Cubs are the notable exception. Wrigley Field, which has 60 executive suites, has a long waiting list for them despite the fact the lovable losers brought up the rear of their division this year. With a landmark stadium constraining the team's ability to add more skyboxes, the Cubs' parent, Tribune Co., the owner of this newspaper, has added premium seating in other ways to help meet some of that demand.

Last year, Tribune overhauled the bleacher section by adding a party room called the Batter's Eye. The private box accommodates 100 people per game, which includes food and beverage. The cost is $200 per person or $20,000 per game. The stadium also has added other differentiated sections such as the Sheffield Grill, a concession area that is booked for private parties.

Those options allow the Cubs to soften the blow to those who want to lease a skybox but can't, said Jay Blunk, the Cubs director of marketing.

"We rarely, if ever, turn someone away," said Blunk. "If a particular piece of inventory is unavailable, we have the chance to offer other things. We want to get you into the tent. Because the Wrigley Field experience is so powerful, we know you'll be a client long term."

Pro sports fans have long been used to the idea of paying more for seats on, say, the 50-yard line or behind home plate. But the seats were molded out of the same material, and the hot dogs and beer were the same as served in the cheap seats.* Luxury suites have created separate worlds for two classes of seat holders who have little in common except for an affinity for the same team.*

Plastic seats have been replaced by leather couches. Beer is supplemented by Chardonnay and champagne. Hot dogs may be in the steam tray for nostalgia's sake, but some suites feature their own chefs. Suite holders typically have their own entrances and bathrooms, and often there is a club area where they can hang out until the rest of the fans depart. That inequality has rubbed some people the wrong way, especially in amateur sports.

At the University of Michigan, protesters have complained about the state school's plans to add 83 luxury suites to Michigan Stadium, arguing they undermine the football stadium's egalitarian spirit. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America has threatened a lawsuit because the new seating plan consigns those with wheelchairs to the top row of the giant arena, along with a few seats in the end zone.

But generally, the American public's democratic proclivities haven't been ruffled by the growth of luxury suites, said Allen Sanderson, sports economist at the University of Chicago.

Indeed, those attending pro sports events are mostly affluent to begin with, and they are used to the idea that you get more if you pay more, whether it is a box at the opera or a first-class seat that reclines on an overseas flight. An increase in discretionary income is driving the luxury-suite phenomenon, economists say.

"There is only so much money we can spend on food and clothing, and those items have gotten cheaper," said Sanderson. "Health care is one dimension. We want to live forever now that we are well-fed and clothed. Another thing is discretionary items like sitting in the best seats in a football stadium or flying to Paris for spring break."

*Sports economist Mark Rosentraub puts it this way: "The `thing' economy is waning. The experiential economy is booming."*

Wearing designer clothes or driving a German luxury car is no longer the province of the superrich. The people at the top of the economic food chain are looking for other things to set them apart, such as travel to exotic locales or the best tickets to events such as Rolling Stones concerts. A year ago, Rose Bowl tickets were selling for as much as $1,500, a price clearly out of the reach of all but those in the upper-income bracket or football fans with credit cards.

Another factor is the profitability of corporations, said Carl Steidtmann, chief economist at Deloitte Research. Many renters of luxury suites are companies, and corporate profitability is at record levels.

"Sixteen of the last 18 quarters, we've had double-digit profit growth. Profits as a share of GDP are at an all-time high," he pointed out.

That helps explain why Chicago-based Boeing Co. maintains luxury suites around the country where its major business units are headquartered. The aviation and defense firm rents a suite at Soldier Field and makes a big splash for the game closest to Veterans Day, inviting select Illinois veterans to share the posh surroundings.

It also rents luxury suites for Mariners baseball, SuperSonics basketball and Seahawks football in Seattle, the company's previous home, and suites for Cardinal baseball, Rams football and Blues hockey in St. Louis, where its defense division is based.

"We use the suites to host customers, suppliers, employees and members of the business and civic communities," said Boeing spokesman John Dern. "It's a good tool for that."

- - -

The price of luxury

In addition to plush accommodations and great sightlines, luxury suites include special perks for fans willing to pay the price.



Team: Chicago Bears

Venue: Soldier Field

No. of suites: 133

Suite price per season: $75,000-$200,000

Examples of perks that come with suite: Access to private club lounge, special access to players, arranged travel to away games, first option to use suite at other events



Teams: Chicago Bulls and Chicago Blackhawks

Venue: United Center

No. of suites: 203

Suite price per season: $30,000-$350,000

Examples of perks that come with suite: Gifts including iPods and TVs, parties with players, chance to shoot baskets on the Bulls' court and skate on Blackhawks' ice



Team: Chicago Cubs

Venue: Wrigley Field

No. of suites: 60

Suite price per season: $120,000-$160,000*

Examples of perks that come with suite: Pregame access to Stadium Club, on-field VIP appreciation party, suite visits by former players



Team: Chicago White Sox

Venue: U.S. Cellular Field

No. of suites: 91

Suite price per season: $110,000-$300,000

Examples of perks that come with suite: Suite visits by former players, on-field party with former players, autograph sessions with current players, parking



Team: Chicago Fire

Venue: Toyota Park

No. of suites: 48

Suite price per season: $25,000-$60,000

Examples of perks that come with suite: Use of suite during all events, admission to parties with players, exclusive access to other facilities owned by AEG (includes L.A.'s Staples Center and the Colosseum at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas)



*Estimate

Sources: The teams, Tribune reporting


----------



## 67868

it would be pretty sweet to one a suite in one of these stadiums


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Sat in 'em at stadiums down here a couple of times. Seems great before you have to go, but unfortunately you go along and then these guys who take you think they have the inside word on you and hassle you to sell their crap like some kind of spammer.

Better to pay out of your own pocket and go to the event with your chums!


----------



## Durbsboi

Just google it, thats what I do, you bound to get plenty info, even stand gradients, etc..


----------



## momo096

skaP187 said:


> The good old Feyenoord stadium 'de kuip' (bathtub in bad english)
> from the outside it's ugly, from the inside it's a jewel my opinion, true footballstadium allready about 75 years old and not realy changed in lay out.
> cap. 51.180
> 
> Man it's a classic.


It is one of the oldest stadiums in the Netherlands, and was one of the first european stadium of that size, and one of the first european stadium who got five stars from the uefa, one of the first round stadiums and was used as an example for barcelona's Camp Nou, has one of the best gras in the world with special heating under the gras, it's a great stadium with a great atmosphere!!
















the old stadium before the renovation:








look at the gras!


----------



## Mo Rush

de kuip is awesome


----------



## matherto

Mo Rush said:


> de kuip is awesome


meh, it's ugly, the roof isn't very good, and that bottom tier is terrible


----------



## 2005

I really hope that UEFA do not play Tottenhm's match at Feyenoord behind closed doors. It would so dry if they there was no one in the stadium especially when its for a match like Feyernoord-Spurs.


----------



## Mo Rush

matherto said:


> meh, it's ugly, the roof isn't very good, and that bottom tier is terrible


de kuip is awesome.meh and meh


----------



## Walbanger

For Australia, Suncorp stadium and Telstra Dome do ok.


----------



## Zaki

Wait wow i never knew australia moved to europe. I am surprised this isnt bigger news.

Read the thread title next time


----------



## Mo Rush

Zaki said:


> Wait wow i never knew australia moved to europe. I am surprised this isnt bigger news.
> 
> Read the thread title next time


australia is now part of asia and asia is connected to europe..duh..


----------



## XCRunner

Seth Gecko said:


> It seems you've attended the bubomb school of overkill!


haven't heard that name in a looooonng time.


----------



## skaP187

2005 said:


> I really hope that UEFA do not play Tottenhm's match at Feyenoord behind closed doors. It would so dry if they there was no one in the stadium especially when its for a match like Feyernoord-Spurs.


Feyernoord-Spurs got a 'nice' history too... Maybe better without public?


----------



## Ari Gold

SimLim said:


> No motivation, no common sense. If you cant get good performances with players like Rooney, Geerard, Lampard, Terry in your team, you quite simply are'nt a good manager.
> 
> Same applies for Steve McClaren. His an absolute waste of space. The easy option for the F.A.


But couldnt you say the same for Brazil? Ronaldihno, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho and the likes.

Having a whole bunch of world class players doesnt always translate to a world class team.


----------



## calenzano

ITALY


----------



## schmidt

^^ In the last WC we had the WORST coach and, IMO, that's why we went so bad. But now Brazil's been playing pretty well, especially last September when we beat Argentina 3-1 or 3-0 (dun remember). Sometimes coaches make the worst decisions. In the WC, for example, our best match was against Japan with a completely renewed team. In the next one, Parreira put all the old school guys and won with an ugly 3-0 match.


----------



## Guest

Juddy said:


> But couldnt you say the same for Brazil? Ronaldihno, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho and the likes.
> 
> Having a whole bunch of world class players doesnt always translate to a world class team.


But thats where British teams are different. The game over here is based on the word "Team" everyone fights for each other. Unfortunately, they were wrapped in cotton wool and treated like kings.

A manager like Mick McCarthy or Steve Coppell could take an English side to a world cup with players half as good as what we have now and come away with something.

The only time we played well was for that final 60 minutes against Portugal with 10 men where we quite simply had to dig deep and battle for our lives. And in that 60 minutes England trounced all over them. We only seem to perform when the odds are against us.

You need a manager with a bit of passion to lead a national team (any team for that matter) A quiet Swede certainly wasnt it and a flimsy transparent northerner is'nt going to be much better.

Glenn Hoddle, Sven Goran Erikkson, Steve McClaren, Kevin Keegan, Graham Taylor etc etc 

Managers with no guts or people skills. Now if only we kept hold of Terry Venables hno:


----------



## pompeyfan

davidkunz/VIE said:


> VERY small and VERY few pictures. They'll never beat SW.de


It's true. WS has no info, less pics, and what pics they do have are smothered in the web address. Like this. 










^^


----------



## eomer

Kampflamm said:


> England simply played like crap.


No, no, no: every soccer fans know that England always got the best team and should have won without injuries, referees mistakes, weather, wrong tactical choices, the trainer, the goalkeeper (calamity james), a penalty kick, an expeled player, calendar or the queen's hat...
It's the same story after all WC and all EC since 1966.  

Note: that's a joke. England desserve to win the next EC in 2008.
English people (especialy English women) have generally a great sense of humor.


----------



## The Concerned Potato

i hate how none of it is in English


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Why don't we just re-name the thread: 'Discuss England's performance at the WC'...? 

As we're on the subject though. The reasosn imo for England not doing well: 

1) Rooney and Owen, as the two main strikers, were injured, leaving only Peter Crouch up front as a lone striker...disaster!! And Sven only took 4 strikers, including Walcott, who he didn't even put on once.
2)Sven, as a manager, is just not right for England. Spent too much time with Italian football, and it is not in the English style of play to try and clinch one goal then hang onto that lead. Sven had a few good moments with England, (5-1 in Germany stands out), but overall, he was not the man to win you a WC, just didn't have the right tactics or balls.
3)Nobody played to their full potential. Simple fact of the matter really. Not one person (possibly barring Hargreves) played like they do for their respective league clubs. England was filled with world class players, but none played like it...team of stars, not star team!

Steve McClaren is another big mistake imo. Why in the name of holy hell did the FA hire a guy who was mediocre at best when he managed a Premiership club?? He's the kind of guy with no fire or passion, who will stodge along and say "we'll perform better next time, we know what mistakes we made".... hno: 

The thing that seperates people like him from people like Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger, Phil Scolari, is they all have a fire about them. They have all had moments of controversy. Everyone who does not support their teams tends to hate them, but they don't care, because they always win, they don't take any crap! McClaren is just an old duffer with no anger or flare!

Hopefully if 2018 goes to England, it should provide some motivation.

Still, England did better then Canada in terms of the WC!  Dam country is too focussed on Hockey and Lacrosse! With Toronto FC joining the MLS the future looks a little brighter though! 

Anyway.....Wembley.....Germany first, then Argentina, then Brazil...imo. Forget who can/will/won't beat who, who gives a crap, just line up the best games!

:cheers:


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Are you serious?


----------



## pompeyfan

The Concerned Potato said:


> i hate how none of it is in English



That is not a problem if you don't pay for your account


----------



## Kampflamm

You guys should have hired the Klinsmeister!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

some of u idiots need to read the thread title


----------



## Noostairz

Juddy said:


> Good to see England get knocked out early.... again.
> 
> Better luck next time huh. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


i don't know what you're laughing at, chuckles. one average world cup (2 losses, 1 draw and 1 win) and you reckon you're world beaters!

AUSTRALIA'S WORLD CUP HISTORY:

WC 1950: DNQ
WC 1954: DNQ
WC 1958: DNQ
WC 1962: DNQ
WC 1966: DNQ
WC 1970: DNQ
WC 1974: 1st Round
WC 1978: DNQ
WC 1982: DNQ
WC 1986: DNQ
WC 1990: DNQ
WC 1994: DNQ
WC 1998: DNQ
WC 2002: DNQ
WC 2006: 2nd Round


----------



## Weebie

Try qualfying against nations like Argentina and Uruguay fool

Englands squad was rubbish and due to a easy route and were lucky ot get to the QFs

Typical Git response we had the best players(rubbish) but it was our sh*t manager.

Lampard> Rubbish
Gerrard> Possibly the most overrated player in the world
Neville> has been
Rooney> should never of played
Beckham> past his prime but had a good tournament
Jamie Carrigher> sh*t defender
Canadian> played very well
Owen> second rate striker.
Crouch> good world cup

That doesn't come across as the team to win the world cup IMHO. Just a team of muppets.

England will struggle to make it to the Euros under McSven


----------



## Weebie

If StadionWelt was English i would pay for it.


----------



## cmc

have you'll tried fussballtempel.net ?????


----------



## GreenwichSE10

stick to gay afl skippy.


----------



## Noostairz

Weebie said:


> Try qualfying against nations like Argentina and Uruguay fool...


try qualifying against the likes of holland, poland, turkey and norway (1994), italy and poland (1998), germany and greece (2002)...

i don't really know what you're complaining about. while the rest of the football world was fighting their way to the finals in competitive international leagues you waltzed through a qualifying group of south pacific fishermen and got handed two-legged golden ticket ties against the mighty iran (1998) and uruguay (2002 _and_ 2006) - piece of piss, but you still managed to mess two out of three of them up!


----------



## Weebie

no second chances in our qualfying.

unfornuate too see such football powerhouse macedonia and Israel giving you a run for your money,


----------



## GreenwichSE10

Qualifying against the might of the likes of the Solomon Islands and Iran is a mighty task cobber:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## GreenwichSE10

dont forget hes australian..so its not all his fault.:nuts:


----------



## Weebie

GreenwichSE10 said:


> dont forget hes australian..so its not all his fault.:nuts:


Aussies are a lot smarter than Brits. Especielly here in Perth where everyone is a Engineer making farkloads


----------



## GreenwichSE10

what a muppet:nuts:


----------



## GNU

Yep sadly stadionwelt is now charging money.
Its sad because its the best stadium website out there.


----------



## Ari Gold

GreenwichSE10 said:


> you come from a pathetic insignificant nation whose only contribution to world culture is that hat with corks on it:lol: :lol: :lol:


Oh but we also do win actually sporting events that has some credibility. More so than a Football WC which was played at home, a Rugby WC which was turned into a mini kicking comp and the Ashes which lasted how long?

Oh and were a insignificant country as well. Thats why Britain are first in line of the George Bush 'kiss my ass and suck my balls' club.

As i said before, back on topic.


----------



## clarky

Anyway this thread is about which rival team should play England first at Wembley.England are not interested in playing one of the lesser nations ranked 40-50 like Australia,canada,new zealand,and Kuwait.

Lets get back on topic now.
I would like to see England play Argentina first at Wembley.


----------



## Guest

Some people are so ridiculous. But to put one thing straight. Going to war with Iraq has nothing to do with this thread. Not to mention agreeing on one thing does'nt exactly deserve the name "ass kisser" otherwise, everybody would be ass kissers. Including Australia. Now put your swords and shields down and get back on subject.


----------



## Loranga

Canadian Chocho said:


> Canada beat USA!! :banana: Good luck to you guys with Russia.


Thanks, but it didn't help  Embarrased to see the weak swedish power play once again, and also the weak performance by Bäckström and Bergfors, but in general a very good team performance by the swedes.

Good luck in the final!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Some people (namely the aussies) move over to the skybar/sport forums. This thread isnt about you, stop taking it off topic!!

heres my view:

im finding it hard to decide, i think if we just want a 'fun' showcase game then it should be against Brazil, if we want it to be alittle more 'spicy' then it should be against Argentina. If we want it for more emotional purposes then it should be Germany, but apperently they already are in line to play England in August.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Just something to throw into the mix. If the proposed friendly is out of the regular football season, why not have a mini tournament with all 4 countries and spread it out over a week or so. Even games not involving England like Brazil vs Argentina will generate plenty of interest. It gives the players a good run out, the fans a chance to see great players and would be a fitting way to welcome international football back to Wembley.


----------



## Breakwood

Loranga said:


> I noticed that TSN had their "main" camera on the opposite side of the "normal" camera position, which is used for the regular Leksands IF games and for the official TV production of WJHC, probably because the opposite side of the rink was covered with canadian advertising. The camera angle must have been very steep, are there any TSN videos available of the SWE-CAN game?


Yes its true. I found the camera to be very steep, and all the ice adverts were facing the other way. Is one side of the rink all european adverts? Cause all I saw were Canadian tire adverts (pizza pizza, canadian tire, etc.)


----------



## Ari Gold

SimLim said:


> Some people are so ridiculous. But to put one thing straight. Going to war with Iraq has nothing to do with this thread. Not to mention agreeing on one thing does'nt exactly deserve the name "ass kisser" otherwise, everybody would be ass kissers. Including Australia. Now put your swords and shields down and get back on subject.


I wont respond to that in fear of going off thread again.


----------



## Weebie

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Some people (namely the aussies) move over to the skybar/sport forums. This thread isnt about you, stop taking it off topic!!
> 
> heres my view:
> 
> im finding it hard to decide, i think if we just want a 'fun' showcase game then it should be against Brazil, if we want it to be alittle more 'spicy' then it should be against Argentina. If we want it for more emotional purposes then it should be Germany, but apperently they already are in line to play England in August.


WAMBULANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Loranga

Yes it is, it is actually swedish adverts like "Gille kakor" and "Leksandsbröd"  Felt strange to see canadian adverts on the rink . The camera angle used in "normal" position is not as steep.


----------



## Bori427

Yeah,you should come Soufain,you wouldn't leave hehe..

By the way,there have been NHL games in the Coliseum...


----------



## Breakwood

Loranga said:


> Yes it is, it is actually swedish adverts like "Gille kakor" and "Leksandsbröd"  Felt strange to see canadian adverts on the rink . The camera angle used in "normal" position is not as steep.


Yeah I think Canada really is the force behiend this tournament. It's a huge tradition here durring the christmas break. It's the biggest sports talking point for all Canadians for the week and half of the tournament. It wouldn't surprise be if 95% of all television spectators are from Canada.


----------



## Frisco

*Shawfield Stadium*

Hello. I want pics. of Shawfield Stadium in Glasgow.


----------



## gorgu

why? it is a shithole


----------



## Frisco

gorgu said:


> why? it is a shithole


Old classic stadium.


----------



## skaP187

Frisco said:


> Old classic stadium.


go there and take the pics yourself!


----------



## Loranga

Why not arrange the Ice Hockey World Championships here?


----------



## Benjuk

I won't bother using up any skyscraper bandwidth with the pictures, because they really are UGLY... But try google - here...

http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q="Shawfield+Stadium"&btnG=Search+Images


----------



## www.sercan.de

http://www.fussballtempel.net is a one man site


----------



## skaP187

hey sercan! long time no see!


----------



## pompeyfan

whoops, delete this post


----------



## Benjuk

I tend to use World Stadiums to find the names, etc., then google to find the best images I can.


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

*Small teams with big stadiums*

Fortuna Dusseldorf

plays in Regional Liga Nord ( Like 3rd division ) and plays in the LTU Arena with a capacity of 51.000



















AS Bari

Stadium of 58.000



















fc Sachsen Leipzig ( 3rd League)
45.000










Which other do you know???


----------



## canarywondergod

Darlington play in a 27,500 stadium yet they are in the 3rd league of english football and get average attendances of around 5000


----------



## www.sercan.de

skaP187 said:


> hey sercan! long time no see!


yeah
still problmes with my internet


----------



## 3SPIRES

Aston Villa oke: 

the most famous must be Queens Park at 52,500 Hampden Park










they play in the 4th tier of scottish football and last season attracted a massive average att. of 506!


----------



## ØlandDK

^^
That's just crazy...!


----------



## cphdude

Fortuna Dusseldorf looks pretty good...


----------



## mrk

manchester city has to be one


----------



## NeilF

3SPIRES said:


> Aston Villa oke:
> 
> the most famous must be Queens Park at 52,500 Hampden Park


Surely the same point could be made about Lansdowne and Wanders playing at Lansdowne Road? 

Glentoran F.C. playing at The Oval in Belfast. Average gate is about 1500 in stadium that can legally hold 14,000, but is the physical size of a stadium that can hold at least 25,000 - 30,000 on account of having some 33 rows of terracing around most of the ground.


























The fact that the place is falling apart doesn't really help anything.


----------



## EADGBE

My vote went with Queen's Park in Glasgow. 3SPIRES, you beat me to it.

If you think it's mad now for such a small team (are they still fiercely amateur?) to inhabit a 52,000 National stadium, bear in mind that the same club used to inhabit a Hampden park that had a capacity cloer to 135,000










...although I would concede that they may have been slightly more successful in those days. I don't think they've ever been considered a 'big club' - even in Scotland.

I read in Alex Ferguson's autobiography that when he was an apprentice at QP, their fitness regime was running up and down the vast terraces repeatedly.


----------



## Benjuk

Are Darlington the only one of the teams listed above who own the stadium in question (rather than being tenants of a bigger club or a national association).

You can add MK Dons to Darlo as well - once their new stadium is finished they'll be rivalling Darlo for empty seats.


----------



## The Concerned Potato

i love this thread already. i'd go for Leeds Utd (Elland Road), Sheffield Wednesday (Hillsbrough) and Nottingham Forest (City Ground). not because they're small teams but because they were once established Premier League teams who have fallen down the leagues and attendances that arent what they used to be

*cough* and Villa Park *cough*


----------



## kinggeorge

im going to say all the teams that recieved new stadiums in euro 2004, excluding benfica, sporting and porto,


----------



## legslikeaspider

EADGBE said:


> My vote went with Queen's Park in Glasgow. 3SPIRES, you beat me to it.
> 
> If you think it's mad now for such a small team (are they still fiercely amateur?) to inhabit a 52,000 National stadium, bear in mind that the same club used to inhabit a Hampden park that had a capacity cloer to 135,000
> 
> ...although I would concede that they may have been slightly more successful in those days. I don't think they've ever been considered a 'big club' - even in Scotland.
> 
> I read in Alex Ferguson's autobiography that when he was an apprentice at QP, their fitness regime was running up and down the vast terraces repeatedly.


Yes, they are still amateurs, currently sitting 5th in Scotland's 4th tier, although a couple of seasons ago they were nearly promoted to the next tier. Prior to the rebuilding of Hampden Park, QP used to play their home games at Lesser Hampden, which was a much smaller stadium situated immediately adjacent to the the main ground. They only used the big stadium if they drew a larger team in one of the cups. These days lesser Hampden has made way for safe pedestrian access and QP do indeed play their games inside the echoey confines of Hampden Park filled to about 1% of its capacity.


----------



## EADGBE

legslikeaspider said:


> Prior to the rebuilding of Hampden Park, QP used to play their home games at Lesser Hampden, which was a much smaller stadium situated immediately adjacent to the the main ground.


Is Lesser Hampden in this image, then?











Concerned Potato, I agree with you about Aston Villa. At United, I'm used to visiting fans ironically 'SSSSHHHHHHH'-ing us and chanting '70,000 muppets' (and I often find myself in some agreement with the sentiment).

It was a bit rich, however having less than 6,000 Villa fans (bearing in mind the club was entitled to 10,000 away fans under the rules of the FA Cup) on Sunday telling us that 'Your support is f***ing shit'. Okay we may not seriously call them a 'small' club (even with your local animosity considered), but as a following they often undersell their ground - even now in the O'Neil/Lerner era - and that's what keeps this point vaguely on-topic.

Over the last ten years, AVFC have always behaved like a small club while living in the home (or 'Villa', if you will) where the club's aspirations vastly exceeded that of ther following.


----------



## Mamusa

in your dreams.....


----------



## Wezza

So does Darlington FC afford to own & maintain such a stadium?

I agree with Benjuk about it not being such a big deal over a small team playing out of a big stadium when they are only tennants & not owners.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Mohun Bagan and East Bengal are small in world terms I suppose. They have a bigger stadium than any European team though.


----------



## EADGBE

I guess you could include San Marino at Bologna's Stadio Renato dall'Ara (39,561)


----------



## legslikeaspider

EADGBE said:


> Is Lesser Hampden in this image, then?


Yep, its on the extreme left, you can just see the top corner of the pitch. As I recall, Lesser Hampden was oriented at 90 degrees to the main stadium.


----------



## Zedferret

Stats for premiership 06-07 up to game 11

Team - Played - Total - Highest - Average - Capacity - %

1 Manchester United (1) 11 833116 76018 75738 76212 99.3% 
2 Arsenal (4) 11 660297 60115 60027 60432 99.3% 
3 Chelsea (2) 11 460343 41953 41849 42294 98.9% 
4 Reading (9) 11 263033 24110 23912 24225 98.7% 
5 Sheffield United (16) 11 333574 32591 30325 30864 98.2% 
6 Tottenham Hotspur (7) 11 391640 36170 35604 36237 98.2% 
7 West Ham United (18) 11 380900 35000 34627 35303 98.0% 
8 Portsmouth (6) 11 217653 20194 19787 20328 97.3% 
9 Liverpool (3) 11 478027 44330 43457 45362 95.8% 
10 Newcastle United (14) 11 549553 52302 49959 52387 95.3% 
11 Watford (20) 9 170870 19750 18986 19920 95.3% 
12 Charlton Athletic (19) 11 283853 27111 25805 27113 95.1% 
13 Fulham (12) 11 232932 24510 21176 22602 93.6% 
14 Everton (8) 11 407501 40004 37046 40394 91.7% 
15 Bolton Wanderers (5) 11 257883 27229 23444 28101 83.4% 
16 Aston Villa (13) 11 385835 42551 35076 42551 82.4% 
17 Manchester City (10) 11 429978 42192 39089 47500 82.2% 
18 Middlesbrough (15) 11 308381 32013 28035 35041 80.0% 
19 Wigan Athletic (17) 11 193551 22089 17596 25138 69.9% 
20 Blackburn Rovers (11) 11 237601 29342 21600 31154 69.3% 

Man City (which someone mentioned) play to 82% crowds on average with 39089 in a 47500 capacity arena.
Aston Villa also play to 82% crowds. Premiership teams Do not belong in this forum.

Queens Park on the other hand are on 0.96%
Dusseldorf about 7.9%


----------



## 3SPIRES

Benjuk said:


> Are Darlington the only one of the teams listed above who own the stadium in question (rather than being tenants of a bigger club or a national assocition).


I think Queen's Park own Hampden or at least they used to.


----------



## MikeTheGreek

*Landmark Stadiums*

*Landmark Stadiums*

Which stadiums do you think tha are not only sport facilities , but they are real landmarks and attractions.This list includes old and newer stadiums.Which do you think belong here?


----------



## Canadian Chocho

In Canada definately the SkyDome, BC Place and Stade Olympique.


----------



## cjav

landmark for rotterdam is de kuip feyenoord football stadium.. to think ze germans nearly toar it down for resources... hno:


----------



## premier

For me it would me San Siro and Camp Nou in Europe and Maracana in Brasil.


----------



## jordancda

USA

Obviously in baseball you have Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee; of the newer baseball stadia probably Camden, Safeco, and PacBell would qualify.

College Football: The Rose Bowl for sure. Maybe Michigan's and Ohio State's. I'm from the Northwest and Husky Stadium has that rep in Seattle but I don't know about nationally.

NFL: Lambeau for sure, the Meadowlands and Texas Stadium maybe. Of the new, probably Reliant, Qwest, and both the Ohio stadia, Paul Brown and Cleveland Browns Stadium.


----------



## jordancda

Madison Square Garden for basketball.


----------



## ÜberMaromas

Estadio Azteca in Mexico
LA Colesseum in USA
Stade Olympique and SkyDome in Canada
Maraca in Brazil
Bernabeu and Camp Nou in Spain
La Bombonera in Argentina
The Olympic Stadiums Of Gemany (Both Berlin and Munich)


----------



## LeedsLad

Leeds Tykes Rugby Union play at Headingley (shared with sister club Leeds Rhinos Rugby League) which has capcity 22k for Rugby - they average 3-5k per game with highest ever attendance 12k. Rhinos regularly sell out Headingley though.


----------



## BenL

Wembley, London
Centre Court, London
Camp Nou, Barcelona
Bernabeu, Madrid
Yankee Stadium, New York
Allianz Arena, Munich
Olympiastadion, Berlin
San Siro, Milan
Old Trafford, Manchester
Anfield, Liverpool
Lord's, London

Slight UK bias of course here.


----------



## nyrmetros

jordancda said:


> Madison Square Garden for basketball.


and New York Rangers Hockey.

And boxing, historically.


----------



## nyrmetros

If we had to pick 1 American stadium and 1 America area, what would it be ?

LA Colliseum?
Rose Bowl?
Yankee Staium?
etc.. ?

Madison Square Garden has no competition for arenas.


----------



## dmscopio

bird's nest in Beijing is the first landmark stadium comes to my mind.


----------



## Obelixx

Olympia Stadium Munich and Olympia Stadium Berlin


----------



## canarywondergod

I would have to say Hillsborough in Sheffield as it is home to the first full length cantilever roofed stand in Britain (the North Stand) , introducing a new era of unrestricted views and the technology allowing huge stands such as the the North Stand at Old Trafford to be built


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> So does Darlington FC afford to own & maintain such a stadium?
> 
> I agree with Benjuk about it not being such a big deal over a small team playing out of a big stadium when they are only tennants & not owners.


Until recently (not sure about now) they had a wealthy, ambitious, and misguided chairman. They had to move from Feethams cause it was about to fall down, new stadium was pretty cheap from memory (relative to it's size) - once they decided to build it they discovered that, relatively speaking, it didn't cost that much more to do 25k rather than 12k - so they went big.


----------



## Benjuk

Dissapointed that the Aussie contingent haven't kicked in with the MCG yet... So I will.

MCG, Melbourne. Landmark, excellent stadium.

And St James' Park (Exeter).


----------



## gambit06

canarywondergod said:


> I would have to say Hillsborough in Sheffield as it is home to the first full length cantilever roofed stand in Britain (the North Stand) , introducing a new era of unrestricted views and the technology allowing huge stands such as the the North Stand at Old Trafford to be built


Sadly it will forever be remembered for another reason


----------



## jordancda

nyrmetros said:


> If we had to pick 1 American stadium and 1 America area, what would it be ?
> 
> LA Colliseum?
> Rose Bowl?
> Yankee Staium?
> etc.. ?
> 
> Madison Square Garden has no competition for arenas.


I'd say based soley on the qualities of being a landmark AND a stadium you have to select the Rose Bowl. Most baseball fields don't feel stadium like...hence being called "Fields" or "Parks." But if you include baseball parks, then its really a toss up between Fenway, Yankee, and Wrigley. You really have to take all three because the all hold extremely significant history and relevance to their towns and are all revered as landmarks. But for a real "stadium," I think the Rose has to take the cake. And you are right, MSG is the obvious arena of choice.

Oh yeah, the Coliseum is pretty significant as well, but the Rose Bowl edges it out as a landmark I think.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

How about ol' MLG.


----------



## Iggui

kamilo rxn said:


> * i think this is going to be the best copa america ever *and is the one that's going to have the best stadiums congratulations chamoskay: for th great country you get and great for all those stadiums you're building


only if the participating countries take the cup at least halfway seriously, instead of always sending their shitty C-teams (not even enough respect for a descent B squad from most countries) as almost always happens.


----------



## Riise

These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

*International Stadiums:*

Wembley (London)
Wimbledon (London)
Highbury (London)*
Lords (London)
Old Trafford (Manchester)
The Original Oylmpic Stadium (Athens)
Oylmpic Stadium (Berlin)
Camp Nou (Barcelona)
Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
Melbourne Cricket Ground
Yankee Stadium (New York City)
Madison Square Gardens (New York City)
Estadio da Luz (Lisbon)*
San Siro (Milano)
Roland Garros (Paris)
Stade Louis II (Monaco)
Azteca (Mexico City)

*Personal Favourite

*Canadian Stadiums*

International:
Le Stade Olympique (Montreal)
Skydome (Toronto)

National:
The Forum
Maple Leaf Gardens
Pengrowth Saddledome
BC Place


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Los Angeles has 3 obvious Choices...

1) Colosieum - 2 Olympics, World Cup, USC, Dodgers, Concerts, Etc etc etc

2) Rose Bowl - See Above, add UCLA football and the Rose bowl game

3) Dodger Stadium - Championships, History, most attended stadium in sports history, concerts, etc

in the future

4) Staples Center - Arena of the year numerous times, 5 pro teams (Lakers, Kings, Clippers, Sparks, Avengers) Championship Boxing, DNC, Concerts, World Events, etc etc


----------



## nomarandlee

^^ can anyone say homer?


BASKETBALL - MSG (NYC) I think for basketball it is without dbout the MSG. Definatly the old Boston Garden and maybe even the old Chicago Stadium could have staked a claim as well but they are no more.

HOCKEY - MSG maybe. But I would tend to go with the Bell Centre or Air Canada center since those places are more where hockey's soul is at. Really, I am not sure if there any "special" hockey or basketball arenas anymore.

BASEBALL - Wrigley or Fenway. I would go with Wrigley but wouldn't begrudge those who pick Fenway. I DON'T think its Yankee stadiums. Real relics don't get torn down and discarded like it will in three years. Plus it is a very differant creature then when it was at its most iconic before the 1970's and the renovation.

FOOTBALL - I would go with the Rose Bowl or LA Col. For NFL I may go with Lambeau or Soldier but there is not one that clearly stands out.

So if I pick one indoor arena and one outdoor stadium in NA I would go with MSG and the Rose Bowl.


----------



## somataki

Nothing more than this:


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

nomarandlee said:


> ^^ can anyone say homer?


i did say these were the LA Choices. i didn't say these were the only arenas that should be included.


----------



## Tuesday

Queens Park were once deemed the greatest team in World football. Probably why they own such a stadium.
Nearly won the English FA Cup a couple of times too! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Park_F.C.


----------



## EADGBE

zedferrett said:


> Stats for premiership 06-07 up to game 11
> 
> Team - Played - Total - Highest - Average - Capacity - %
> 
> 1 Manchester United (1) 11 833116 76018 75738 76212 99.3%
> 16 Aston Villa (13) 11 385835 42551 35076 42551 82.4%
> 
> Aston Villa also play to 82% crowds. Premiership teams Do not belong in this forum.
> 
> Queens Park on the other hand are on 0.96%
> Dusseldorf about 7.9%


Good to see a bit of factual evidence being used to make a point. I quite agree with you about Premiership teams - but then I did say vaguely on-topic...


----------



## jordancda

I think that's right...Yankee has definitely lost some of its luster as of late. I'd probably go Fenway. Wrigley second.

I think the Rose Bowl games for the last hundred years alone gives the Rose the edge over the Coliseum. 

Lambeau is hands down the only NFL stadium that qualifies as a landmark. All others are too new or too renovated.

As for arena, Staples will someday get there, but MSG just has too much important history. So my choices for each of the major American sports are as follows:

Baseball - Fenway
College - Rose Bowl
NFL - Lambeau
Arena - Madison Square Garden


----------



## EADGBE

Maracana - Rio de Janiero
Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
Olympiastadion - Munich
Wembley - London
MCG - Melbourne
Sapporo Dome - Sapporo
LA Coliseum - Los Angeles
Shea Stadium - New York


----------



## Mo Rush

EADGBE said:


> Maracana - Rio de Janiero
> Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
> Olympiastadion - Munich
> Wembley - London
> MCG - Melbourne
> Sapporo Dome - Sapporo
> LA Coliseum - Los Angeles
> Shea Stadium - New York


good list except for shea stadium


----------



## EADGBE

I thought long and hard about it, which is why it's last on the list. I'd classify it as a landmark stadium for two reasons:

It is significant enough to be (literally) a landmark that was pointed out to me in the taxi from JFK to Manhattan ans we drove through Queens. That's because it's one of the few baseball grounds (or should I say parks) that are fairly widely know outside the US.

To Americans, its true metaphorical landmark status is I'm sure down to the many baseball dramas played out over the years. However, it was also the venue for the first true 'stadium gig' (The Beatles in 1967(?))*. That more than anything has heightened its status to those who know nothing about baseball and couldn't even tell you which team play there.

*By all accounts, it was a pretty crap gig for sound quality as there just wasn't the technology available at that time to suit the purpose. It is even cited by some as being a supplementary reason why the Beatles stopped touring shortly after. However, it changed the face of live music and provided an early instance of an iconic rock performance. 

Woodstock, Reading, Lollapolooza, Isle of Wight, Ozzfest and a thousand stadium tours can all trace their heritage back to that night at Shea Stadium.


----------



## Tom Ace

Here is my list for the United States and US Sports. I'll start with colleges.

College Basketball
Undisputed
*Pauley Pavilion - UCLA Bruins* : Home to the dynasty of college basketball. 11 National Championship Banners hang in the rafters with the jerseys of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Walton, Reggie Miller and other greats. Home of the legendary and maybe best coach in college basketball history John Wooden and the home court of a team that set a record with 88 straight wins and 7 straight championships.










*Allen Fieldhouse - Kansas Jayhawks* : When the first coach of your program is the guy who invented the game you know you have something special. James Naismith, Phog Allen, Larry Brown, and Roy Williams coached for this legendary team, with the latter two pacing the sidelines in the Phog Fieldhouse. Wilt Chamberlin and JoJo White played here. 4 National Titles and the 3rd most wins all time for this storied program.










*Rose Hill Gymnasium - Fordham Rams *: Known for its age rather than the great teams it housed, the oldest gym for a major college basketball team still around (built in 1925) and located in New York City it has been a host to not only great college but also legendary high school games with some of the finest players to ever grace the hardwood.










*The Palestra - Pennsylvania Quakers* : Home to the University of Pennsylvania's basketball team it is not known as a building of a powerhouse program but is instead a gem from the 1920s and the crown jewel of Philadelphia basketball. Another arena that has hosted its fair share of great high school games or games featuring other schools. Still a legendary venue for competition between the big 5 Philly basketball schools. In fact while looking for a picture for this I came across an intresting stat, it has hosted more college basketball games and more NCAA tournaments than any other arena.










Nonorable mentions
Rupp Arena : Kentucky Wildcats
Dean Smith Center : North Carolina Tarheels
Cameron Indoor Stadium : Dook Blue Devils


College Football
undisputed
*Notre Dame Stadium - Notre Dame Fighting Irish *: The stadium is known for its classic slash lined endzone, and being overshadowed by "Touchdown Jesus", this stadium is the home field of the team tied for the most National Championships (11) and most Heisman Trophy Winners (7). Legends that have graced this field include, Knute Rocky, Frank Leahy, Ara Parseghian, Lou Holtz, The Gipper, The Four Horseman, Johnny Lujack, Angelo Bertelli, Johnny Lattner, Paul Hornung, John Huarte, Joe Montana, Joe Theisman, Tim Brown, Rocket Ishmail, Jerome Bettis and Brady Quinn.










*The Big House / Michigan Stadium - Michigan Wolverines* : College Footballs largest stadium and one of its most historic. Numerous national champions, Heisman trophy winners, and college football legends have called this stadium home.










*The Rose Bowl - UCLA Bruins* : Home to the UCLA Bruins, who have had some very good football teams in their own right, but also home to the "granddaddy of them all", college footballs biggest bowl game with the most tradition.










*Neyland Stadium - Tennessee Volenteers* : The 2nd biggest Stadium in college football, held the title for a brief time before being overtaken by Michigan again, home to the Tennessee Volenteers of the Southeastern Conference. Another program that is littered with NFL stars both now and in the past.










*Ohio Stadium / The Horseshoe - Ohio State Buckeyes* : Made famous both for the great football teams which have called it home and its distinctive shape, Ohio Stadium is another gigantic monument to college football. Also home to Ohio States track and field team, where Jesse Owens set numerous collegiate and world records.










*Yale Bowl - Yale Bulldogs* : Historic, inspirations design, even hosted the New York Giants while their stadium was under construction.









*Harvard Stadium - Harvard Crimson* : Another great historical stadium, host to great rivalry games between Harvard and Yale.









*
Michie Field - Army Black Nights* - one of college footballs all time great programs and maybe part of the best rivalry in all of sports, the Stadium for the United States Military Academy Football Team definitly deserved a mention.










Notable Mentions (some of these could be argued to be undisputeds but there are just so many great college football stadiums i couldnt go on forever).
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium / The Swamp - Florida Gators
Beaver Stadium - Penn State Nittany Lions
The Cotton Bowl
Memorial Stadium - Nebraska Cornhuskers
Tiger Stadium - LSU Tigers
Kyle Field - Texas A&M
Bobby Dowd Stadium - Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
Bryant Denny Stadium - Alabama Crimson Tide
Memorial Stadium - Texas Longhorns
and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more here.

and for some of you wondering where The Colesseum is or maybe the Carrier Dome, Madison Square Gardens, ect. I will put them in a seperate category for combinations of events.


----------



## legslikeaspider

^^ I'm sure all of those are fantastic stadia, but I would define a landmark as something that is instantly, internationally recognisable as being synonymous with the place where it is sited to such an extent that they define the identity of that city or country. With the greatest respect I've only heard of two or three of those that you list above - there's no way I would call Yale or Harvard's stadia _landmarks_, even if they do have prestigious histories. 

To give you an idea of what I mean, I think the best example of a landmark would be the Eiffel Tower - anybody in the world would be able to tell you that its in Paris, France. I think there are very few, if any, stadia that would be similarly famous. I accept that I'm Scottish and therefore don't have a keen interest in US College football but nonetheless I know more than most about North American sport (my wife is from Virginia and I have family in Vancouver).

All the same, I'm going to stick my neck out here and have a go;

Wimbledon - London, England. Grass courts, strawberries and cream, The Queen - where else in the world could you be?

Augusta National, Georgia. Ok, so not technically a stadium, but if other people have been posting arenas, then surely I can have the most famous and beautiful golf course in the world? Instantly recognisable and hugely evocative of Southern American culture.

Indianapolis Speedway. The most famous motor race in the world. Such a famous place that most non-US citizens would be troubled to think of anything else to have come out of Indianapolis.

Olympiastadion - Munich. It still looks groundbreaking more than 30 years on. In a city that lacks other landmarks it makes a great statement against the stereotype of teutonic efficiency and functionalism. Not in any way overshadowed by the new Allianz Arena, which is also a wonderful building.

The Coliseum - Rome. So its a ruin but its the most famous ruin in the world. Imagine the atmosphere inside, standing on those steep terraces, bellowing for blood. Brilliant.

I'm sure there are others, but I am excluding the following - 

Maracana; yes, its a famous stadium with a lot of history but its a little too bland looking to be considered a landmark in a city that also boasts the Statue of Christ, Ipanema Beach and Sugar Loaf mountain.

Wembley - may become one in time but could equally date really badly like the stadium in Montreal.


----------



## Benn

I don't know that I would call alll of those football stadiums (not Neyland or Mitchie anyway) Iconic, Also Tennessee is th 3rd largest at about 104,000. Michigan Stadium is about 107,500 and Beaver Stadium at Penn state is about 107,000. That photo of Ohio Stadium is few years old, they have since removed the track, lowered the field, added new endzone and upper level seating. It now seats 101,000 and is definately Iconic.

Also I would add Minnesota's Williams Arena and Butler's Hinkle Fieldhouse to the arena List. 

But my two cents as far as iconic American stadiums go:
1.Rose Bowl
2.Fenway Park 
3.Wrigley Field
4.Lambeau Field
5.Ohio Stadium


----------



## nomarandlee

EADGBE said:


> Woodstock, Reading, Lollapolooza, Isle of Wight, Ozzfest and a thousand stadium tours can all trace their heritage back to that night at Shea Stadium.


sorry, as important and cool as the Beatles playing Shea was that is about the only thing really cool about it. It is generally thought of as one of the worst baseball stadiums in the U.S. with relative low charecther or uniqueness. If it had any kind of importance Mets fans themselves (like at least some Yankee fans) wouldn't be clamoring to get the new one built and the old one torn down ASAP.

More then one night in the 60's needs to make a stadium somewhat iconic.


----------



## EADGBE

Bizzarely, there was a programme on the BBC tonight about the history of the Beatles as a touring band. I was not completely comfortable watching it, hoping it wouldn't announce some fact that I wasn't aware of and that was contrary to what I had written.

In fact, it seems I was laregly correct, although the year was 1965. It was the Beatles' second US tour and it was indeed 'credited' (if that's the right word) for being the begining of the end of their love of performing live. They performed to 56,000 that night. 

Incidentally, the last-ever Beatles gig was at Candlestick Park, San Francisco a year and two whole tours later. The fact that the paucity of equipment and organisation was largely unimproved even by that stage seems to me to be a bigger factor than just the shortcomings on that first night at Shea. You have thought someone would have tried to make some changes by then...

nomarandlee, I'm sure Shea is not considered as iconic in the US for the reasons you outlined. However, this is an issue of perspective and opinion. Even then, I spent a while reasoning it, which is why I'm unwillling to change my view. 

Maybe as a baseball venue, in its 44 years, it has not proved as significant as one night in 1965. I'm not in a position to say either way. I just feel that that one night in 1965 was incredibly important to the future usage of stadiums everywhere. Perhaps the fact that it involved music and not sport may be seen here by some as a lesser factor but by definition it is not, because it proved that stadiums do not always have to be about the sports for which they were built.

Also the fact that lots of fans want to see it razed and replaced by a newer stadium hardly consigns it to the dustbin of historical significance by default. I see Texas Stadium has appeared on this thread but thet won't stop thousands of Cowboys fans ticking off the days until JerryWorld opens!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Maple Leafs Gardens:


----------



## Chuq

Australian rugby league team, the South Sydney Rabbitoh's.
2006 average attendance - 10,627
They play at Telstra Stadium - capacity 83,500!


----------



## BobDaBuilder

What about Victorian cricket team, home ground Melbourne Cricket Ground. 25 odd days of cricket a year.

Average attendance circa: 500. (Including seagulls, pidgeons and resident possums)
Stadium size: 98,500


----------



## EADGBE

Chuq said:


> Australian rugby league team, the South Sydney Rabbitoh's.
> 2006 average attendance - 10,627
> They play at Telstra Stadium - capacity 83,500!


...which by any stretch of the imagination must be described as being in North Sydney or West Sydney but most definitely not South Sydney.

Of course sports teams everywhere play fast and loose with their location, given that you'd think their name ties them to one. Texas Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys is in Irving, halfway between Dallas and Forth Worth. The New York Jets and Giants play in a ground that is neither in the city or even state of New York. Liverpool's Anfield ground is marginally closer to the district of Everton than Goodison Park, the home of the team bearing that name. Increasingly, the name represents the brand and the geographical affiliation of its following rather than the location of the 'home' games.

It's only more farcical here because the many Sydney teams all differentiate themselves by carving up the city into the bits they claim to represent. That all seems rather inconvenient whe the time comes to appoint a venue to play at.

Here's another one for the topic. Juventus in Serie B. Currently averaging 19,509 which equates to 29% of the Delle Alpi's 67,229 capacity. Even before the scandal, they could only muster an average of 30,469 souls for Serie A games last season, still only 45.3% of available seats. Hardly impressive for _La Fidanzata d'Italia_.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can watch any match in Italy for under 5 euro a game at home, not freezing at the stadium or putting up with the idiotic antics of some spectators. 

Its the way of the future.


----------



## EADGBE

It doesn't help matters but this would affect all teams so it deosn't fully explain Juve's plight entirely.

AC Milan's average crowds (fill rate) over the same two seasons are 59,993 (70%) in 2005/6 and 50,106 (58.5%) this season. With more seats to fill, surely Milan have more to lose with the advent of PPV TV, yet they have performed far better than Juve in the same timeframe.

The effects of the match-fixing scandal are clearly not endearing either side to their fans.


----------



## middas22

Does the worlds greatest hockey catherdal qualify as a landmark? You bet it does! When im in Toronto i always make it a priority to drive by and gaze at it. Without question one of North America's most historic and recognizable sporting venues.


----------



## Calvin W

My opinion

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum
Baseball: Fenway in Boston or Wrigley in Chicago
Basketball: Boston Gardens!
Soccer: Wembley (old one)
Track and Field/ Olympics: Athens (original Olympic Stadium), Munich
Auto Racing: Bristol Speedway, or Monaco F1
Cricket: Lords, MCG
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach
US college sports: Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon (sp?)


----------



## nomarandlee

Thats a damn good list Calvin, I would have to agree with most every one of them. It is just too bad the basketball/hockey meccas are no more because I think they were the clear icons in their sports.

Granted I don't know a lot about football but from an outsiders perspective I find Madrids Bernabéu most iconic for club football.


----------



## Tom Ace

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum
Baseball: Fenway in Boston or Wrigley in Chicago
Basketball: Boston Gardens!
Soccer: Wembley (old one)
Track and Field/ Olympics: Athens (original Olympic Stadium), Munich
Auto Racing: Bristol Speedway, or Monaco F1
Cricket: Lords, MCG
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach
US college sports: Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon (sp?)

if we are going by a stricter list than Calvins list is a pretty good start, but I have to add some more to that list, its not nearly enough stadiums for the major US sports because some that are on that list aren't nearly as iconic as ones that aren't.

Baseball : Fenway and Wrigley definitly deserve to be on there, but Yankee Stadium is just as much of a landmark if not more. Also, I would argue Camden Yards deserves to be on the list for starting the whole "retro" stadium thing.

Basketball : the Bostons Gardens was certainly a landmark, but it has been replaced by the Fleet Center, and shouldn't be on the list now (if you want to include it then you have to include the Spectrum in Philly and Chicago Stadium both need to be on there).

For College Sports : You can NOT leave Notre Dame Stadium off the list, its the home to by FAR the most popular college football team with by FAR the most history. I would put Notre Dame Stadium as the #1 or #2 behind the Rose Bowl, no other college stadiums are as big of "landmarks". Also, Pauley Pavillon has to be on the list, it has far more tradition than Cameron Indoor.

For Auto Racing : The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has to be on the list, definitly before Bristol.

For Golf : Definity have to add St. Andrews in Scotland, arguably as famous and important as Augusta.

For Tennis : I would add the USTA National Tennis Center in Queens NYC to the list but I guess that one is a little arguable.

For Professional Football : I would add Soldier Field in Chicago for sure, 80+ years old, home to one of the most storied teams, major city, recognizable name and architecture, definitly a landmark.

Lastly, while both of these could fit into other categories, I would DEFINITLY put the LA Coliseum and Madison Square Gardens (NYC) to the list, and I don't think either could be argued. the LA Coliseum has hosted 2 Olympics, is home to 2nd most storied team in College Football, it has hosted MLB and NFL teams, ect. Again, huge city, unique architecture, recognizable name, history, its all there. Madison Square Gardens is called "the most famous arena in the World" for a reason. On top of the NBA and NHL history you have high school basketball, college basketball, boxing, ect in the middle of Manhattan. I would also put Shea Stadium on there as far as being a "landmark" not necessarily for its baseball. It also hosted NFL games, one of the most famous Wrestlemanias, one of the most famous rock concerts in history (The Beatles), the Pope, ect.


Here is the updated list that I would go with as being fairly obvious.

Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens (Toronto), Montreal Forum (Montreal)
(I follow hockey but not close, I don't know the arenas, I'll take ur word for it).
Baseball: Fenway Park (Boston), Wrigley Field (Chicago), Yankee Stadium (New York)
Basketball: none to speak of outside of MSG. (maybe I'm missing one)
Soccer: don't know the stadiums and their history / importance.
Auto Racing: Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Bristol Speedway, Monaco F1
Cricket: don't follow
Golf: Augusta, Pebble Beach, St. Andrews
US college sports: Notre Dame Stadium, Michigan stadium, Rose Bowl, Pauley Pavillion, Cameron Indoor Stadium
Tennis: Wimbledon, USTA National Tennis Center
Pro Football : Soldier Field (Chicago)
Multiple Sports : LA Coliseum (Los Angeles), Madison Square Gardens (New York), Shea Stadium (New York).


----------



## alwill

I dont know how Twickenham stadium has been left out. Its the home of world rugby as Lords is to cricket, Wimbledon is to tennis and Wembley is to football need i go on....


----------



## cementationfurnace

Calvin W said:


> My opinion
> Hockey: Maple Leaf Gardens or the Montreal Forum


Historically, yes. However, neither has seen an NHL game in years. The last one at the Gardens was in 1999, and the last at the Forum was in 1996.

The only 'landmark' arena that is currently in use is Madison Square Gardens (imo).


----------



## misterdz

look match mc-algiers vs fiorentina ! 

http://www.dailymotion.com/mouloudia_org/video/xynx8_mouloudia-11-fiorentina


----------



## Quintana




----------



## eomer

*Football (Soccer):*
- Wembley, Old Trafford (England)
- Berlin Olympiastadion, Munchen WC stadion (Germany)
- Camp Nou, Bernabeu (Spain)
- Stade de France, Marseille's Velodrome (France)
- San Siro (Italy)
- Azteca Stadium (Mexico)
- River Plates, La Bombonra (Argentina)
- Maracana (Brazil)

*Rugby*
- Twickenham (England)
- Millenium Stadium (Walles)
- Murrayfield (Scotland)
- Lansdowne Road (Ireland)
- Stade de France, Toulouse (France)
- Eden Park (New Zealand)
- Stadium Australia (Australia)
- Ellis Park (South Africa)


----------



## eomer

PSG plays at Parc des Princes (45 000 all seated)


----------



## nomarandlee

cementationfurnace said:


> Historically, yes. However, neither has seen an NHL game in years. The last one at the Gardens was in 1999, and the last at the Forum was in 1996.
> 
> The only 'landmark' arena that is currently in use is Madison Square Gardens (imo).


Both the Forum and Maple Leaf Garden have been destroyed right?

I would agree the only landmark arena now is MSG (and some would say the new version isn't really worthy). Rtaher unfortuante becase NA used to have a handfull of them.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Ok, I'm gonna go with what I think are the 3 most famous landmark stadiums/arenas/tracks of each category:

Football (soccer): Wembley, Estádio do Maracanã, Camp Nou/Benabeu/Old Trafford (can't decide between the last three so I had to include them all).

Rugby: Twickenham, SdF, Murrayfield

Golf: St Andrews, TPC at Sawgrass, Augusta 

Baseball: Wrigley field, Fenway park, Yankee stadium

American football: ...who cares? ...Rose bowl maybe??

Formula 1: Monte Carlo (Monaco), Spa, Nürburgring (these were really hard to choose becasue there are so many other famous circuits like Silverstone, Interlagos, Magny-Cours, Hockenheim...etc etc)

Cricket: Lords, MCG, Trent Bridge/BRIT Oval/SCG (can't decide between last three)

Tennis: Wimbledon...... ...... ......Roland-Garros, US Open

Basketball: MSG...don't know any others

And any other sports that are not on that list were not important enough so...don't complain! 

:cheers:


----------



## 3SPIRES

*Top Ten*

England - Wembley, Centre Court (Wimbledon), Lord's.
Scotland - Hampden Park
Spain - Nou Camp
Italy - San Siro
Brazil - Maracana
Mexico - Azteca
USA - Madison Square Garden
Australia - MCG


----------



## cementationfurnace

nomarandlee said:


> Both the Forum and Maple Leaf Garden have been destroyed right?
> 
> I would agree the only landmark arena now is MSG (and some would say the new version isn't really worthy). Rtaher unfortuante becase NA used to have a handfull of them.


The Forum was turned into an entertainment complex and I believe the Gardens are being converted into some sort of giant supermarket/general retailer (if you can believe it!).


----------



## middas22

I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.


----------



## cementationfurnace

middas22 said:


> I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.


Bear in mind that I (and nomarandlee) were talking about NHL arenas. I think of it as a 'landmark' because it has been the home of one of the 'original six' teams of the NHL for almost 40 years now. This means a lot to many hockey fans. Sure it isn't the 'original' arena, but it still remains a link to the past. All of the other 'original' rinks have long since closed in every way (even in name): 

1. Chicago Stadium (replaced by United Center in 1994)
2. Olympia Stadium (replaced by Joe Louis Arena in 1979)
3. Boston Garden (replaced by TD Banknorth Garden in 1995 (originally called FleetCenter))
4. Maple Leaf Gardens (replaced by Air Canada Centre in 1999)
5. Montreal Forum (replaced by the Bell Centre in 1996 (originally called Moslon Centre))


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

middas22 said:


> I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.


Very much agree. not many championships, and when was the last major fight there? its not what it used to be. On a side note, i will be there to watch the Lakers take on the Knicks on jan 31st. go Lakers.


----------



## 3SPIRES

middas22 said:


> I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.


Madison Square Garden must be the most famous arena in the world it has numerous film and tv appearances and more importantly than that it is considered the 'mecca of boxing' by millions of boxing fans around the world.


----------



## Calvin W

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Ok, I'm gonna go with what I think are the 3 most famous landmark stadiums/arenas/tracks of each category:
> 
> Football (soccer): Wembley, Estádio do Maracanã, Camp Nou/Benabeu/Old Trafford (can't decide between the last three so I had to include them all).
> 
> Rugby: Twickenham, SdF, Murrayfield
> 
> Golf: St Andrews, TPC at Sawgrass, Augusta
> 
> Baseball: Wrigley field, Fenway park, Yankee stadium
> 
> American football: ...who cares? ...Rose bowl maybe??
> 
> Formula 1: Monte Carlo (Monaco), Spa, Nürburgring (these were really hard to choose becasue there are so many other famous circuits like Silverstone, Interlagos, Magny-Cours, Hockenheim...etc etc)
> 
> Cricket: Lords, MCG, Trent Bridge/BRIT Oval/SCG (can't decide between last three)
> 
> Tennis: Wimbledon...... ...... ......Roland-Garros, US Open
> 
> Basketball: MSG...don't know any others
> 
> And any other sports that are not on that list were not important enough so...don't complain!
> 
> :cheers:


Most other people have attempted to be civil and have not cut down other sports from other countries. Funny how you picked a baseball list but can't be bothered to do football


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

3SPIRES said:


> Madison Square Garden must be the most famous arena in the world it has numerous film and tv appearances and more importantly than that it is considered the 'mecca of boxing' by millions of boxing fans around the world.



Maybe 30 years ago. the Knicks nor the Rangers, save for the one championship in 94, have not been very successful since the 70's and major boxing is now held in Las Vegas, with some bouts at Staples Center and some at Madison Square.


----------



## nyrmetros

middas22 said:


> I dont want anyone jumping down my throat about this but Madison Square Garden has only been around since 1968 as we know it today. Its been burned torn down and rebuilt several times. Aside from it being in NYC what makes it so historic? Im not trying to disrespect it but seriously. Many arenas in N. America has seen much more success from its teams than MSG. In fact its less or equally as historic as the LA Forum, Palace of Auburn Hills, Texas Stadium or Monster Park (Candlestick) if you go by championships. MSG has seen limited success compared to the other stadiums/arenas mentioned, take also into account it being less than 40 years old i just dont see it being mentioned in the same context as the rest.


Madison Square Garden includes versions I, II, III, and IV
It's a package deal. Take it or leave it.


----------



## nomarandlee

well its true that MSG is more popular because of what it represents then any kind of architectural consideration. Being smack dab in the middle in the middle of Manhatten above a train station that is home to the most beloved basketball/hockey team in NYC (with apolgies to the Nets, Devils, Isladers) is a big deal, even though there haven't been a plethora of championships won in the building. Also the boxing matches and the legacy the name carry on is a big deal. Put the arena in Houston, Miami, or even Chicago and it is largely considered irrevelant.


----------



## leenu

*aisle after how any rows*

can any one tell me dat how many rows we can have in a seating tier can they be 35 and after how many rows do we have to give an aisle .................................plus are the vomitory entrance gates be the fire exit gates as well ........ior there are differnet fire exits ????????????????


----------



## th0m

EADGBE said:


> Here's another one for the topic. Juventus in Serie B. Currently averaging 19,509 which equates to 29% of the Delle Alpi's 67,229 capacity. Even before the scandal, they could only muster an average of 30,469 souls for Serie A games last season, still only 45.3% of available seats. Hardly impressive for _La Fidanzata d'Italia_.


While they (until recently) were highly reputed in Europe and beyond, they are still the 2nd team in their hometown of Torino.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Calvin W said:


> Most other people have attempted to be civil and have not cut down other sports from other countries. Funny how you picked a baseball list but can't be bothered to do football


Lol, apologies my friend, I didn't mean to take the mickey out of American football...if that's what does it for you, all power to ya!!

And, at least I mentioned it in my list...I was trying to be thorough...but because I had spent so long really thinking about the most popular venues of each sport, I just got fed up when I came to American football (which I actually did as an afterthought and stuck it in the middle), and therefore I couldn't really be bothered at that point to research which venues were had some history...apart from the Rose Bowl.

As I said, no offense intended.

:cheers:


----------



## icosium

good project so algeria may organize africa cup or world cup or olympic game one day 
need more project


----------



## Benjuk

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> You can watch any match in Italy for under 5 euro a game at home, not freezing at the stadium or putting up with the idiotic antics of some spectators.
> 
> Its the way of the future.


But would watching the best 22 players in the world play at an empty stadium be as good as watching 22 average players playing in a full stadium? The point is, without a crowd to create an atmosphere, football is just blokes running around kicking a ball.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Circus Maximus in Rome.


----------



## cinosanap

Would Hampden be considered a landmark stadium. It holds so many records, is one of the oldest national stadium in the world and still reguliarly hosts big games.


----------



## legslikeaspider

^^ wouldn't have thought so. Personally, I like it, but the reconstruction seems to have attracted a lot of criticism and while it might have been eligible for landmark status 30 or 40 years ago I think most people would agree that the stadium as it stands now is a sad imitation of how it used to be.


----------



## Durbsboi

That 5 juillet stadium still blows me away, similar concept to that of soccer city in jhb, only this one is more bold


----------



## Giorgio

Perhaps Algeria should be given 2010? It makes more sense.


----------



## cinosanap

True
The ends are triible but with its history I thought it could still count.


----------



## Mo Rush

[Gioяgos];11328105 said:


> Perhaps Algeria should be given 2010? It makes more sense.


seriously ...give it up. you're only making urself look pathetic.


----------



## legslikeaspider

aye, fair enough. On history, yes it should be included. I prefer to think of a landmark as something with architectural/aesthetic interest - sadly, Hampden is now a rather bland looking, medium sized stadium. the best thing about it is the tartan army


----------



## jimjones

EADGBE said:


> Bizzarely, there was a programme on the BBC tonight about the history of the Beatles as a touring band. I was not completely comfortable watching it, hoping it wouldn't announce some fact that I wasn't aware of and that was contrary to what I had written.
> 
> In fact, it seems I was laregly correct, although the year was 1965. It was the Beatles' second US tour and it was indeed 'credited' (if that's the right word) for being the begining of the end of their love of performing live. They performed to 56,000 that night.
> 
> Incidentally, the last-ever Beatles gig was at Candlestick Park, San Francisco a year and two whole tours later. The fact that the paucity of equipment and organisation was largely unimproved even by that stage seems to me to be a bigger factor than just the shortcomings on that first night at Shea. You have thought someone would have tried to make some changes by then...
> 
> nomarandlee, I'm sure Shea is not considered as iconic in the US for the reasons you outlined. However, this is an issue of perspective and opinion. Even then, I spent a while reasoning it, which is why I'm unwillling to change my view.
> 
> Maybe as a baseball venue, in its 44 years, it has not proved as significant as one night in 1965. I'm not in a position to say either way. I just feel that that one night in 1965 was incredibly important to the future usage of stadiums everywhere. Perhaps the fact that it involved music and not sport may be seen here by some as a lesser factor but by definition it is not, because it proved that stadiums do not always have to be about the sports for which they were built.
> 
> Also the fact that lots of fans want to see it razed and replaced by a newer stadium hardly consigns it to the dustbin of historical significance by default. I see Texas Stadium has appeared on this thread but thet won't stop thousands of Cowboys fans ticking off the days until JerryWorld opens!


Interesting view of Shea with regards to the Beatles really being the genesis of big stadium concerts. Shea is over shadowed in NYC of course by Yankee Stadium in baseball because of the history but Shea architecturally was the a basis for many baseball parks to come later. 

jim jones


----------



## jimjones

cinosanap said:


> Would Hampden be considered a landmark stadium. It holds so many records, is one of the oldest national stadium in the world and still reguliarly hosts big games.


Actually Hampden in its original life had to inovations that people probably could not imagine a stadium being without today. 
Turnstyles and a public address system were first introduced at hampdem park. 

jim jones


----------



## cinosanap

Yeh, along with the first press box and car park and it also hosted the first all-ticket match.

And a landmark doesn't need to be limited to aesthetics. What are the pyramids without the history?


----------



## matherto

*Tórshavn - A world capital of sports stadiums and arenas*

You really need to see these wonderful stadiums

http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/faroe_islands.shtml

Gandalur Stadium holds a whole 8,020 spectators :banana: 

and 3,000 of these get the luxury of premium seating

you really can't beat this town for sporting facilities

I mean, the national Faroe Islands football team also play in Tórshavn, at the wonderful Tórsvøllur stadium, this was apparently built in 2000 and I bet it cost a lot less and was a lot quicker to build that Wembley, I bet the atmostphere is fantastic there as well

Faroe Islands FTW


----------



## 3SPIRES

:spam1: :lock:


----------



## 67868

nice


----------



## Saigoneseguy

Haha


----------



## FREKI

matherto said:


> I mean, the national Faroe Islands football team also play in Tórshavn, at the wonderful Tórsvøllur stadium,


How can a Danish island have a National team? :lol:

Lay of the homebrew mate! :nuts:


----------



## MegasAlexandros

Mr_Denmark said:


> How can a Danish island have a National team? :lol:
> 
> Lay of the homebrew mate! :nuts:


Um... I think your the one who needs to have a few less pints of whatever you are drinking if, as a Dane, you don't know that the Faroes do compete as a separate entity in football... just like Scotland and Wales.

:cheers:


----------



## Wezza

These threads are beyond ridiculous now!!


----------



## CharlieP

Blimey, Mr. D, are you being serious? *Everybody* knows the Faroe Islands are self-governing and have their own Prime Minister...


----------



## Martuh

Lol, I wanted to open a similar thread about some village in The netherlands but I didn't do it.


----------



## FREKI

CharlieP said:


> Blimey, Mr. D, are you being serious? *Everybody* knows the Faroe Islands are self-governing and have their own Prime Minister...


Then everybody needs to read up on the Faroe Islands then :lol: 

The Faroe Islands have a Danish system called Homerule - this system is also used in Greenland, and was used in Iceland until they got their independence in 1944...

This is not the same as being a country.. far from it - they are semi-autonomous with a small local goverment called the Løgting that takes care of local issues - Homerule also gives them, despite their small population the right to have 2MPs in the Danish Goverment ( like Greenland ) 

About the "Prime minister" :lol: 

No they do NOT have a prime minister - they have a "Chairman of the Lagting" løgmaður... which is basicly the same as a County-Mayor in Denmark...

The laws, police, defense and everything else is 100% Danish - just as the Faroese themself are Danish Nationals, with Pasport and everything...




MegasAlexandros said:


> Um... I think your the one who needs to have a few less pints of whatever you are drinking if, as a Dane, you don't know that the Faroes do compete as a separate entity in football... just like Scotland and Wales.


So? Does a football team make a nation? 

Just because Fifa or whatever wants to give the small places a chance doesn't mean they deside what's a country and what's not... :cheers:


It's kinda like Hawaii... it's small.. its isolated and the population are indigones to some degree... but that doesn't make it any less of a US state...


The Faroe Islands can btw become independant... all they have to do is ask for it... ofcouse that would mean that the Danish cash flow would stop and they would have to rely on fishing ( and pay for their education in Denmark ) so.. so far they have declined...


----------



## MegasAlexandros

Mr_Denmark said:


> So? Does a football team make a nation?
> 
> Just because Fifa or whatever wants to give the small places a chance doesn't mean they deside what's a country and what's not... :cheers:


Did I ever say that the Faroes were a country??? All I said is that they form a separate entity where football is concerned... which is 100% true. They have their own national team and their club teams compete separately from Danish clubs in UEFA competition. 

Take a chill pill man.:cheers:


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Maybe they are considered a "nation within Denmark". Bastard-ass Harper!


----------



## FREKI

MegasAlexandros said:


> Did I ever say that the Faroes were a country??? All I said is that they form a separate entity where football is concerned... which is 100% true. They have their own national team and their club teams compete separately from Danish clubs in UEFA competition.
> 
> Take a chill pill man.:cheers:


How can something that's not a nation have a national team?

Do they have some football clubs, you bet ya - do they have a Faroese team.. yep.. does it mean anything.. Nope!


Anyway, this is off topic.. and very simple... so I'll leave you gentlemen to discuss all you want to about our small islands and their small stadiums - have fun!


----------



## CharlieP

Depends on your definition of a nation. The following "nations" are all members of FIFA:

American Samoa - US unincorporated territory
Anguilla - British overseas territory
Aruba - constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Bermuda - British overseas territory
British Virgin Islands - British overseas territory
Cayman Islands - British overseas territory
England - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Faroe Islands - Danish autonomous region
Guam - US unincorporated territory
Hong Kong - Chinese special administrative region
Macau - Chinese special administrative region
Montserrat - British overseas territory
Netherlands Antilles - constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Northern Ireland - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Puerto Rico - US unincorporated territory
Scotland - constituent country of the United Kingdom
Turks and Caicos Islands - British overseas territory
US Virgin Islands - US unincorporated territory
Wales - constituent country of the United Kingdom


----------



## CharlieP

PS I think the reason for all the above having their own soccer team is purely pragmatic - if FIFA decreed that only sovereign states could play on the international stage, soccer would stagnate in territories geographically separated from their "parent", like most of the ones above...


----------



## Martuh

CharlieP said:


> Depends on your definition of a nation.


There is only one definition of a nation: a people. A country is a piece of land, a nation is the people who live in the country.


----------



## FREKI

Martuh said:


> There is only one definition of a nation: a people. A country is a piece of land, a nation is the people who live in the country.


 :applause: Precisely! :yes:


----------



## WhiteMagick

What's up with the posts of cities being world sports capitals?? lol Get over it. It fuels flame wars.


----------



## Mo Rush

def right up there with london and melbourne.


----------



## cinosanap

canarywondergod: Scunthorpe United's old ground was the first.

The first cantilever stand was built at Scunthorpe Uniteds Old Show Ground in 1958, 4 years prior to the one at Hillsborough. The stand replaced the old East Stand which was burnt down, it took just over 3 months to erect in readiness for their first game in the Second Division.


----------



## Hannover

*Big Arena in Skopje?!*

There's a big sports arena planned in Skopje (Macedonia) for 2008.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/future_stadiums.shtml

Has somebody pictures or any infos about the "Boris Trajkovski Arena"?


----------



## MikeTheGreek

Hey.When you pick a stadium in the landmark stadiums list consider:

-Would you put this stadiums in this list after ex. 100 years?
-Is the stadiums at least 100 years old?
-Did you chose it only because its a technological breakthrough?Technology is evolving very fast and newer and moremodern stadiums are built on an anual basis.


----------



## MikeTheGreek

Well 12,000 is not anything big.I don't think its gonna be anything architectually interesting as well


----------



## canarywondergod

cinosanap said:


> canarywondergod: Scunthorpe United's old ground was the first.
> 
> The first cantilever stand was built at Scunthorpe Uniteds Old Show Ground in 1958, 4 years prior to the one at Hillsborough. The stand replaced the old East Stand which was burnt down, it took just over 3 months to erect in readiness for their first game in the Second Division.


yes you are very right but it didnt cover the full length of the pitch, meerly an area around the centre circle, hillsborough (which i stated) :tongue3: was the first stadium to have a full length cantilevered stand


----------



## Hannover

For Europe and especially a small country like Macedonia it's a HUGE arena


----------



## dande

*Slovenia future projects?*

Does anyone have any information about stadium/arena projects for Slovenia? The date on their national stadium and indoor arena "Tivoli" has expired.


----------



## edolen1

:?

The reconstruction of Ljudski vrt Stadium in Maribor is underway. 

There are also plans to build a new university sports arena, stadium and a new sports hall (or enlarge Tivoli Arena) in Ljubljana.

See the Ljubljana and Maribor project threads in the Alpe Adria subforum of Euroscrapers.


----------



## Martuh

Any sportsarena over 10,000 could be considered big imo.


----------



## dewrob

here are the renderings for the arena



















and here are some construction photos taken in different stages. Currently they are more or less wrapping up the exterior. The roof is about finished and they've started installing the aluminium framework and the glass.





































you can always check for updates on it in the Skopje Construction Thread

:cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

very cool


----------



## Hannover

Thank you very much!! :bow:


----------



## Canadian Chocho

I guess it's big, but a HUGE arena I would say, would be the Bell Centre in Montreal.


----------



## MikeTheGreek

It's fine.Good work!


----------



## MikeTheGreek

Photos?


----------



## MikeTheGreek

ha!


----------



## EADGBE

Perhaps the Faroes are an anarcho-syndicalist commune who take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major matters...*

BTW, This thread started silly but it just got serious. So stop that.

* Thanks to http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/main.html (download the zipped word file) for the whole script for 'The Holy Grail' (for those who didn't recognise the source of the above quote)...


----------



## Conrad

Faroese people are their very own ethnic group, they have very extensive autonomy, and so on and so on.... Of course they are a nation. For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives!


----------



## Lostboy

I believe the Faroese are a cultural group within themselves. However that said are kinsfolk the Danes are heavily related to them, and they sustain a very good deal with their autonomy arrangements.

Closely related to the Faroese, the Orcadians and Shetlanders, have not been so lucky under the cruel hand of the Scottish Overlord through the centuries, and all of us (whether Germanians or just believers in the dignity of every cultural group) have a duty to protect them and ensure increasing autonomy and eventual independence results for these much maligned and forgotten people who have suffered so much oppression from a cruel and dominating foreign people.


----------



## gambit06

How about the Azteca - two world cup finals, the hand of God goal, Maradona's goal where he walked thru the entire England team. The Carlos Alberto goal in the final against Italy in 1970.

Along with the fact that its absolutely f**king huge. Although perhaps slightly worn down now. I still think it deserves its place as a landmark stadium.


----------



## matherto

well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate


----------



## al74

Centenario Stadium in Montevideo - Uruguay - South America, the first football world cup was played there, many Copa America, Copa Libertadores and Intercontinental finals too; built in 1930 for the Fifa world cup.

cap - 67.000


----------



## dande

Slovenians should build all-purpose arena with retractable roof capacity ca 35.000 for football, ice hockey, basketball etc.


----------



## Breakwood

Conrad said:


> Faroese people are their very own ethnic group, they have very extensive autonomy, and so on and so on.... Of course they are a nation. For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives!


Quebec has extensive autonomy compared to the rest of Canada, they have a National assembly, but nobody in the world except for Harper recognizes them as a nation.


----------



## Overground

matherto said:


> well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate


There was really only one person responsible for the first thread being locked and the second one is well on the way because that person insists on doing it again with C v C antagonism.


----------



## Loranga

Tina Maze Arena?


----------



## leo_archi

*Need some help to design Basketball Arena*

any body help me. I'm a student. I try to find the information to design basket ball arena. ( i have no money to buy english book...) 
thanks my email: [email protected]


----------



## SouthBank

Fair enough - I hold my hands up 2 being involved in starting this 'sporting capital' nonsense, and am happy to take the mockery on the chin!!

Can't believe that some people don't seem to get jokes like this either!


----------



## Overground

Well I don't think you started this recent nonsense. You started a thread that was very valid and you clearly stated "A" as opposed to "The". Big difference. 

It was a certain person that went over the top and made your thread into a city v city thread. Problems on message boards usually arise when a person does not do proper research and posts incorrect facts and flippant comments. This was obvious from that person but instead of admitting mistakes this person insisted on ignoring them or spinning them and creating more hostility.

Unfortunately the original thread is locked due to this. So a similar thread was opened and low and behold that person is still continuing his little jabs and hostility against the capital of a particular country off the coast of northwestern Europe, and nothing's being done about it.

With this said, I enjoy the sense of humour involved in the creation of this thread.


----------



## SouthBank

^^ ^^ ^^ 

Good points - glad someone gets what I'm trying to do/say!

Have been off the board since the day I posted the original London thread and have only just realised it's been locked! Have read through some of the posts though, tutting to myself, and yes there are clearly 1 or 2 individuals on the London and L.A threads that seem to be too stupid/ignorant/zenophobic to converse on the same level as most normal people here, and sadly some people are taking the bait, as I've been guilty of before but am trying hard not to do now...


----------



## Alle

Mr_Denmark said:


> :applause: Precisely! :yes:


He still never said they where a country :cheers:


----------



## MegasAlexandros

Breakwood said:


> Quebec has extensive autonomy compared to the rest of Canada, they have a National assembly, but nobody in the world except for Harper recognizes them as a nation.


Do you guys in Toronto live in a bubble or something?? What "extensive autonomy" does Quebec have over say Ontario? Secondly, yes Quebec has a "Assemblee Nationale" (National Assembly) but it is just a name, it is no more than a provincial legislature like all the other provinces have. Finally, who cares what Harper thinks? So he says Quebec is a "nation" and you don't think for one second that it's a politician talking and that his only aim is to get a few more votes in Quebec for the next election??? 

Eeeesh...

Sorry for the off topic discussion... but some things cannot go unsaid... back to the Faroe Islands!


----------



## svs

nyrmetros said:


> Madison Square Garden includes versions I, II, III, and IV
> It's a package deal. Take it or leave it.


Then I guess we'll leave it.


----------



## Overground

Might as well add some Faroe Islands content to this thread anyway.....

Faroe Islands Football Team - lads









birds









Tórsvøllur Faroe Islands National Football Stadium - built 2000. 7000 seats.


----------



## skaP187

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330977&page=15

maybe some more info there or people who can help you


----------



## EADGBE

Overground said:


> Faroe Islands Football Team - lads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Oh dear. It's not always apparent which team is which, is it? That must be why they play in different colours.
> 
> Thankfully, it's dark there most of the winter, anyway...


----------



## FREKI

^Is that really women???? Yikes!

Nice arial picture btw - feel very free to post more... looks nice  




Conrad said:


> Faroese people are their very own ethnic group,


 Well sure if you call a mixture of Danes and Nowegians an ethic group....



Conrad said:


> they have very extensive autonomy,


 Yes they have the Danish system called Homerule - like Greenland have and Iceland had before it was given full independence...

It is btw not Denmark who's holding back the Faroese from becomming a country - its the fact that Danish funding will stop and they will have to rely on fishing...



Conrad said:


> and so on and so on....


 Oh yes ofcause...  




Conrad said:


> Of course they are a nation.


 No, they are a semi-autonomous area under the Danish State and Kingdom...

They are Danish citizens - use the Danish Krone - speak Danish - and to get a visum, should you need guess which embassy to contact - oh that's right... the DANISH one!



Conrad said:


> For god's sake, there exists even The Faroese National Archives!


 Yeah there do... it's real name is "Færøske Landsarkiv" ( "Føroya Landsskjalasavnið" in Faroese ) and it translates to roughly "Faroese Land Archive" where the word "Land" means area like Jutland ( "the area of the Jutes" ) or Finland ( "the area of the Fins" ) and so on... it has nothing to do with being a nation.. infact in Danish Land means both country and rural area "Jeg tager på Landet" ( "I'm going to the countryside" ) "Landmand" ( "farmer" )...

But nice try anyway 

Think of it like Hawaii... it's small and isolated with it's own culture and language - but it's still not a country...


Here's btw what the Official Site of the Danish Kingdom has to say...



> *Greenland & The Faroe Islands *
> 
> 
> 
> When we talk about Denmark, we normally refer to Jutland, Zealand, Funen and the islands scattered in the Danish waters. But the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic and Greenland, which is part of the North American continent, also belong to Denmark.
> 
> 
> Culturally and linguistically speaking, the northern and the southern parts of the kingdom are very different.
> 
> 
> Home rule
> 
> Greenland and the Faroe Islands both have home rule, a scheme which leaves most of the important decision-making to the local parliaments, the Lagting in Tórshavn on the Faroe Islands and the Greenland Landsting in Nuuk.
> 
> 
> Foreign policy is excluded from home rule resolutions, however. This is handled by the Danish government.
> 
> 
> Increased home rule?
> 
> Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands elect two representatives for the Danish parliament, the Folketing, in Copenhagen.
> 
> The question of increased home rule or even total independence, especially for the Faroe Islands, has been a hot political topic for several years both in Copenhagen, Tórshavn and Nuuk.
> http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520328&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL


----------



## Tuesday

*Some more?*

På halv stang









Unsure...


----------



## Cristovão471

Torshaven, a world capital of sport? wtf? people are going over the top. I don't even know where it is.


----------



## Quintana

Tuesday said:


> På halv stang


Nice scenery :eek2:


----------



## Bahnsteig4

Look at how they fly the flag... 
A mourning nation...


----------



## svs

matherto said:


> well, this thread was started to mock the stupid city ego battles going on, sorry I mean, to show off Torshavn's wonderful facilities, and it's turned into an almost heated political debate


As the initiator of the second thread that you are referring to, I think the Torshavn thread is funny. I get the joke. Its a shame that a lot of posters have very weak egos.


----------



## MikeTheGreek

Panathinaikos Athens last year had an average attendance of 7,500 whilt playing at the 76,000 seat Athens Olympic Stadium.


----------



## kinggeorge

idunno where you get your stats i think PAO averaged closer to 15-20 000 pps a game and also you need to take into consideration that includes fan bans and such so ...also oaka is not 76000 its closer to 65 000


----------



## MikeTheGreek

the stats are acurate.Thsi doesn't mean that pao is a small club but that the fans were disappointed.In the derbies pao had 30,000-40,000 people but in other games rarelymore than 6,000 .OAKA's full capacity is 76,000 .Under this configuration is 72,000.This is not changing anything.Attendance is still around 10%


----------



## Zaqattaq

How is PSG small?


----------



## Zorba

@MiketheGreek: The stats that you have might be misleading because most attendance figures in Greece dont take into season ticket holders. 

Whenever I watch a PAO game (which is almost never, since im a gavro:colgate: ) the stadium seems to atleast have 15,000-20,000 fans a match......


----------



## Zorba

*Big teams with small stadiums*

I thought I would reverse the topic of the other thread in this section regarding small teams in big stadiums. 

So, are there any teams who seem to be "too big" for their current stadiums?


----------



## invincible

Melbourne Victory's home ground only fits 18000 (and only fits that many because of the terraces) but their average home attendance is over 30000 with most matches moved to Telstra Dome.

A new stadium is proposed but the government's proposal only fits 27000 at most. The club is refusing to accept the proposal.


----------



## The Concerned Potato

off the top of my head....Tottenham


Birmingham has a large fanbase (we even got our own Club Football video game lol) but because we havent been able to turn this powerhouse of a city's football team to reflect our city's status at any stage of our 132 year history, most of the fans stay apathetic and unenthusiastic and the attendances stay low for a club with such a huge fanbase. 55,000 Birmingham fans were there to watch Birmingham win the highly prestigious Leyland DAF cup at Wembley lol

but we need to build a great team together first and then concern ourselves with the City of Birmingham stadium because right now a larger stadium isnt necessary (especially when you play the likes of Southend, Barnsley and Colchester in the Championship and are made to pay Premiership prices)


----------



## EADGBE

Depends on the definition of 'big club'. One interpretation is overall ticket demand in relation to actual stadium capacity.

Another is achievement level of the team in relation to actual stadium capacity.

Using the second measure, I'd nominate Bayer Leverkusen and more recently Villareal for advancing to the later stages of the Champions league with stadia below 25,000 in capacity.

I believe that Lens had an even smaller ground but played their bigger games at nearby Lille in recent years.


----------



## Benjuk

English clubs currently too big for their stadiums...

Man Utd - continually expanding but league attendances, etc., would seem to indicate that they could fill a 100,000 or 120,000 if they could build one.

Liverpool - already building a bigger ground because Anfield's too small.

Sheffield United - capacity of just under 31k, averaging over 26k... With an expanded/improved stadium, cheaper seats, they could pull in a lot more, especially if they stay in the Prem and Wednesday don't manage to get back.

West Ham, Chelsea, Spurs - all could sell more tickets than they have seats.

Possibly also Charlton and Portsmouth.

Newcastle's ground is big enough at the moment, but if they got back up toward the top 3 or 4 they'd soon need more space - the same goes for Sunderland, able to attract 45-48k regularly when we finished 7th, were we ever to threaten to actually win something we'd need more seats.


----------



## Dasher39

invincible said:


> Melbourne Victory's home ground only fits 18000 (and only fits that many because of the terraces) but their average home attendance is over 30000 with most matches moved to Telstra Dome.
> 
> A new stadium is proposed but the government's proposal only fits 27000 at most. The club is refusing to accept the proposal.


Melbourne use the Telstra Dome now as their home ground.

The TD seats 54,000 and their average is around 30,000.

The State Government though has plans to build a rectangular stadium for them and the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. Only problem is they want it to be 20,000 capacity. Considering our (Victory) crowds average 30,000 to make us move into a 20,000 seater is just stupid.


----------



## Benjuk

Dasher39 said:


> Melbourne use the Telstra Dome now as their home ground.
> 
> The TD seats 54,000 and their average is around 30,000.
> 
> The State Government though has plans to build a rectangular stadium for them and the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. Only problem is they want it to be 20,000 capacity. Considering our (Victory) crowds average 30,000 to make us move into a 20,000 seater is just stupid.


This is going to develop into a very interesting story. The State Government seem obsessed with the idea of building a 'mid-sized' stadium, insisting that Telstra is suitable for ALL events likely to attract between 30-54k. They appear to be completely blind to the difference between watching football/rugby in a rectangular stadium rather than a oval one (probably due to none of the Victorian politicians being interested in soccer or rugby).

They also seem to be obsessed with building a state-of-the-art beautiful artistic statement, rather than a functioning stadium. The Sunderland Stadium of Light, The Riverside, Pride Park, St Mary's, etc., are all pretty dull stadia, but they were all relatively cheap and do the job that is required of them. I can't understand why they won't throw out the 'bubble' design and go for a simple, straight-forward, BIG rectangular bowl... A 40000 wrap around single tier of seating would probably come in a lot cheaper than the 20-25k seater they are currently planning.

The only problem with this plan would be that a deal was signed with the Telstra Dome developers that the Government wouldn't support any other venue with more than 25k seats for ten years after Telstra was opened... This is easilly avoided by simply delaying construction of the new ground by one year (so it wouldn't open until late 2010, the tenth anniversary of Telstra Dome opening).


----------



## skaP187

when is a team big enough to be in this topic?

example FC Twente, netherlands has a stadium that is way too small, but to call FC Twente a big team...


----------



## www.sercan.de

*seats 3d*

http://www.seats3d.com/index2.html

great sight with some crazy arenas
i didm't know that SA Spurs have such a big arena


----------



## nyrmetros

it is a great site.


----------



## Benjuk

I would say any club that could comfortably sell more tickets than it has seats on more than a few occasions each season.

As an aside, when talking of capacities and attendances, it may be worth noting that it costs $20(AU) to watch Melbourne Victory play A-League (equivilent to English League One) games at Telstra Dome, that's about 8 GB pounds, 12 euros or $16 US. I know how much tickets cost for the EPL, but how does that price compare with other leagues around the world?


----------



## eMKay

Boston Red Sox.


----------



## skaP187

Sc Heerenveen, FC Twente and AZ Alkmaar (all Dutch)
Valencia CF, Atletico Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Cadiz (all Spain)


----------



## [email protected]

EADGBE said:


> I believe that Lens had an even smaller ground but played their bigger games at nearby Lille in recent years.


It was the opposite !

Lille used to play at the stadium "Grimonprez-Jooris" (21 128 seats) but since 2004, it is closed. Today they play at the stadium "Stadium Lille-Metropole" (18 800 seats) in Villeneuve d'Ascq (near Lille) but because this stadium is not ratified by the UEFA, the team has to play its european matches in a bigger stadium ie Stade de France (80 000 seats) or Stade Félix Bollaert in LEns (41 233 seats). A new stadium will be built (50 000 seats).


Stade Grimonprez-Jooris in Lille (21 128 seats):









Stadium_Lille-Metropole in Villeneuve d'Ascq (18 800 seats) :









Stade Félix Bollaert in Lens (41 233 seats):


----------



## invincible

Benjuk said:


> This is going to develop into a very interesting story. The State Government seem obsessed with the idea of building a 'mid-sized' stadium, insisting that Telstra is suitable for ALL events likely to attract between 30-54k. They appear to be completely blind to the difference between watching football/rugby in a rectangular stadium rather than a oval one (probably due to none of the Victorian politicians being interested in soccer or rugby).


Telstra Dome's retractable seating work fine, it's just that its tenants have only ever asked for the seats to be moved on two occasions. The whole issue of a new stadium wouldn't be so bad if MVFC would reach an agreement with the Telstra Dome management about moving the seats in.

A separate stadium of a decent capacity would be a much better solution though, simply because Telstra Dome can be a pretty busy venue and you can end up with problems in scheduling. Although ideally it shouldn't be a problem since games shouldn't be clashing anyway. But with two clashes already this year, I'm not betting on that.


----------



## skaP187

[email protected] said:


> It was the opposite !
> 
> Lille used to play at the stadium "Grimonprez-Jooris" (21 128 seats) but since 2004, it is closed. Today they play at the stadium "Stadium Lille-Metropole" (18 800 seats) in Villeneuve d'Ascq (near Lille) but because this stadium is not ratified by the UEFA, the team has to play its european matches in a bigger stadium ie Stade de France (80 000 seats) or Stade Félix Bollaert in LEns (41 233 seats). A new stadium will be built (50 000 seats).
> 
> 
> Stade Grimonprez-Jooris in Lille (21 128 seats):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stadium_Lille-Metropole in Villeneuve d'Ascq (18 800 seats) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stade Félix Bollaert in Lens (41 233 seats):


You could put a nice picture of the new stadium in it as well!


----------



## Zgembo

hello to everyone

juventus comes to mind now that they're back at the old stadium. still, bearing in my mind how spoiled their fans are by the club's glory i'd say theyr'e better off. small turnouts dont look that miserable in the new tiny stadium as they did in the monstrously huge delle alpi.


----------



## premier

AC Monaco has a stadium of about 18K.


----------



## 2005

White Hart Lane is too small for Spurs. At the moment Tottenham could sell out 55,000 week in, week out. Spurs sold 23,500 season tickets and have a waiting list of over 20,000. Then add the members to that. 

Lately there has been a rumour that the land behind the Paxton Road end is being bought up so Spurs can build a 60,000 seater stadium. Admittedly, there has been other rumours but it's clear that Levy knows that Spurs can fill 60,000.


----------



## Martuh

PSV only has about 36,000 seats, way too small.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Galatasaray SK - 24 714:bash:


----------



## Walbanger

The West Coast Eagles of the Australian Football League (Aussie Rules Football) are arguably the most powerful club in the league on and off the field yet still have to play out of Subiaco Oval which is 42 500. Club membership exceeds this by 2000 and the club waiting list is another 10 000. They are in the process with the state government, their rival the Freo Dockers and other codes (Soccer, Cricket, Rugby) of developing an new Stadium for 60 000+. It can't come soon enough.


----------



## Benjuk

invincible said:


> Telstra Dome's retractable seating work fine, it's just that its tenants have only ever asked for the seats to be moved on two occasions. The whole issue of a new stadium wouldn't be so bad if MVFC would reach an agreement with the Telstra Dome management about moving the seats in.
> 
> A separate stadium of a decent capacity would be a much better solution though, simply because Telstra Dome can be a pretty busy venue and you can end up with problems in scheduling. Although ideally it shouldn't be a problem since games shouldn't be clashing anyway. But with two clashes already this year, I'm not betting on that.



Fair enough. But I watched Melbourne vs Queensland from the press box (2nd tier) and the pitch seemed to be a mile away - whilst the lower tier can be moved in, there's nothing they can do about the upper levels.

That said, it would appear to be the logical solution to come to a long term agreement with TD for that venue to be the home ground... But if you do that, why even bother building a 'mid-size' venue at Olympic Park? I can see the rugby club outgrowing 25k sooner rather than later as well - in which case no one would be using the venue.


----------



## patroeski

The new Juventus arena will only be a 40000-seater


----------



## cinosanap

The Old Firm. Both get full houses every game.
Both could have 70,000+ stadiums and still almost fill it on a game to game basis. The Celtic season ticket list is a three year wait alone!!


----------



## Manu84

Deportivo La Coruña has an stadium with 34 600 seats


----------



## Zaro

www.footballgroundz.co.uk

Excellent for English football grounds


----------



## Lostboy

Thanks for the (few) replies, this was a good topic, and deserves better I think, so up it goes once more.


----------



## Red85

Scba said:


> This dutch Field Hockey stadium looks pretty cool


I think I have to correct that. The dutch hocky Asociation has an own stadium. its called 'wagener stadion' its based in Amstelveen, just to the south of Amsterdam and it can hold up to 10.000 people. thats the national stadium. the champions trophy was hold there this year or last year I guess. I can not find picks of this one.


----------



## Banjo

Over 107,000 I believe.


----------



## Quintana

Red85 said:


> I think I have to correct that. The dutch hocky Asociation has an own stadium. its called 'wagener stadion' its based in Amstelveen, just to the south of Amsterdam and it can hold up to 10.000 people. thats the national stadium. the champions trophy was hold there this year or last year I guess. I can not find picks of this one.


He did not claim this stadium, which admittedly is a lot better than the one in Amstelveen, was a national one. Rotterdam has hosted the Champions Trophy as well by the way.

These are best pic I could find:



























The biggest Hockey stadium in the world is in Lahore (cap. 45,000)










I guess we could put the Thialf Speedskating Rink in Heerenveen in here as well


----------



## [email protected]

They are not large but to play the "Pelote Basque", in Paris there is:

The fronton:









The trinquet Chiquito de Cambo:


----------



## adamsputnik

The MCG may have been built as a cricket ground, but by far and away its main use (and most of its mythology) is centred around Australian Rules football:










There is also the Docklands stadium, which is also in Melbourne and arguably replaced Waverly (as posted already). Capacity is about 56,000 and I am frankly surprised they didn't build it any larger, considering how big the game is here in Melbourne.


----------



## Red85

Quintana said:


> He did not claim this stadium, which admittedly is a lot better than the one in Amstelveen, was a national one. Rotterdam has hosted the Champions Trophy as well by the way.
> 
> These are best pic I could find:


at least that is more than I found 
those picks are taken from the main stand. the main stand is the only one with a roof on it. the rest is without one. 
and why better? because its a lot older than that one in rotterdam? the one over there does'nt have 4 permantent stands and it has no atmosphere, it is totaly soulless. the hockey federation always played in Amstelveen and a big history of dutch hockey lays there. the wagener is for a dutch hockey player the place were you dream of. 
why is newer allways better in the first place?


----------



## Ari Gold

adamsputnik said:


> There is also the Docklands stadium, which is also in Melbourne and arguably replaced Waverly (as posted already). Capacity is about 56,000 and I am frankly surprised they didn't build it any larger, considering how big the game is here in Melbourne.


Nah Docklands was built to its size because crap (sorry i mean low drawing teams) would look stupid in a stadium any bigger. They do have to play somewhere remember. Also bigger games are just generally shifted to the MCG. Like it is available remember.


----------



## NeilF

I think most of the county / provincial GAA stadia are quite impressive in capacity, especially given the population of Ireland. Here's a selection of some of the larger GAA stadia. There's a few other large ones that I can't find pictures of, however, if you're interested, go to http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/ireland.shtml for a full list:

*Breffni Park - Cavan - 20,000*










*Casement Park - Antrim - 32,500*










*Cusack Park - Westmeath - 11,000*










*FitzGerald Stadium - Kerry - 43,000*










*Gaelic Grounds - Limerick - 50,000*










*Healy Park - Tyrone - 20,000*










*Hyde Park - Roscommon - 30,000*










*McHale Park - Mayo - 36,000*










*Nowlan Park - Kilkenny - 30,000*










*Pearse Stadium - Galway - 34,000*


















*Páirc Uí Chaoimh - Cork - 43,500*










*Semple Stadium - Tipperary - 55,000*










*St. Tiernach's Park - Monaghan - 33,000*










While the facilities aren't the best, for a non-professional sport with a distinct lack of any international players or even international events to have stadia of this size, even if the facilities are lacking, is hugely impressive and even more so, given such a small population in the island of Ireland.


----------



## QatPhils

any updates?


----------



## traveler

*New stadium designs put fans inside of the volcano*

New stadium designs put fans inside of the volcano 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men's Vogue > Architecture + Design Welcome to Men's Vogue, please Log in | Register E-Mail Print architecture 
hot lava
New stadium designs put fans inside of the volcano.

smoke ring
The architects of Studio Massaud envision El Templo Mayor erupting regularly with cheers from 45,000 soccer fans.
Carving new arenas out of rock and earth, European architects are bringing much needed allure to that architectural dinosaur, the sports stadium. The largest of these breakout designs—as much environmental sculptures as they are sports meccas—is El Templo Mayor, a 45,000-seat venue now being built in Guadalajara for the Las Chivas soccer team, the most prominent sports franchise in Mexico. Jean-Marie Massaud and Daniel Pouzet, partners in the Parisian firm Studio Massaud, want it to resemble a volcano, and they've even added a layer of what they call "smoke": a shimmering fabric roof stretched across a steel frame that keeps the elements at bay and serves as a massive projection screen. When this potentially ominous volcano opens later this year, images beamed onto its hovering roof—which will be seen by Guadalajarans using the surrounding hillside as their new park—won't be of molten lava but of the beloved Chivas in action. 

For the Estadio Insular de Atletismo, opening in March on the island of Tenerife, the two principals in AMP Arquitectos—Felipe Artengo and José María Pastrana—took their inspiration from the volcanic craters that dot the dramatic Canary Islands landscape. They used topographical models, forged in bronze, to design their sloping, elliptical bowl. Later, skilled masons took the volcanic rock excavated from the site and sculpted a beautiful, craterlike wall around the compact, 4,000-seat stadium, low enough to allow views of the Atlantic Ocean. Similarly, three years ago, in Braga, Portugal, Eduardo Souto de Moura carved a soccer stadium into a granite mountainside. It is open to the mountain face at one end and allows for an unobstructed view to the valley below at the other. 

The impetus for these new designs is not simply stylistic. Traditional stadiums, those eerie concrete mausoleums that fans have become used to, gobble up a lot of space. Even the new ones. For instance, Peter Eisenman's University of Phoenix Stadium, the striking new home of the Arizona Cardinals that resembles a giant barrel cactus, is surrounded by a parking-lot desert big enough for 14,000 cars and empty much of the year. But at Las Chivas' new home, parking will be inside the volcano and its grassy exterior will be landscaped so that, according to Massaud, "it can be shared by everyone." In Tenerife, an indoor training track is tucked under the air-cooled roof and behind the seats. "We don't want you to see that we have created a huge space," Artengo notes. These new stadium designers want fans to understand that the earth, like sport, is precious.—DAVID HAY 

[To discuss this article—or to comment on anything that you've read or seen in the magazine or on mensvogue.com—visit the Men's Vogue Forum.]
__________________
florida . Biarritz .Esposende


----------



## EADGBE

Slight variation, but to keep the thread alive (and with an eye on next Wednesday), I give you Andorra:

*Andorran Population**: 
- 2006 estimate 71,201 (202nd) 
- 2006 census 69,150 









*'Home' stadium*:

Nou Camp, Barcelona
Capacity*: 98,787










*data from Wikipedia

So, a 'national' stadium that actually holds almost 50% more people than the official population of the country it represents. Bizarre, no?


----------



## EADGBE

Okay, as we probably all now know, Wednesday's game _is_ going to be played in Barcelona but _not_ at the Nou Camp. Thanks everyone for not pointing out my error (or just ignoring the post, whichever)!

Instead, the game will be at Espanyol's ground, the 1992 Olympic Stadium, the Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys de Montjuic. Wikipedia lists its capacity as 55,926, which is actually smaller than Andorra's population, although it would accommodate 78.5% of the estimated population of the whole country.



















*Switching effortlessley into John Motson mode*:

Interestingly enough, the ratio of capacity to population at an away game was even higher for England's notorious away fixture to San Marino in November 1993. Played in nearby Bologna's Stadio Renato Dall'Ara, the 39,444 capacity of the ground was actually 140% of San Marino's 28,117 population.*

Of course, this game was notorious for being the game at which it became impossible for England to qualify for the 1994 World Cup. The 7-1 victory also compounded the disappointment by having the ignominy of the fastest-ever international goal scored by David Gualtieri after just 8.3 seconds (for San Marino against England )*.

*Source: Wikipedia (all, again), assumptions made that both capacity and population have remained static over the last 13 years.
Unfortunately, Gualtieri's goal is always going to exist, even if someone someday scores a quicker one.


----------



## Red85

EADGBE said:


> Slight variation, but to keep the thread alive (and with an eye on next Wednesday), I give you Andorra:
> 
> *Andorran Population**:
> - 2006 estimate 71,201 (202nd)
> - 2006 census 69,150
> 
> *'Home' stadium*:
> 
> Nou Camp, Barcelona
> Capacity*: 98,787
> 
> 
> *data from Wikipedia
> 
> So, a 'national' stadium that actually holds almost 50% more people than the official population of the country it represents. Bizarre, no?


huh? isnt the Mini Estadi Nou Camp ment here????
Andorra played againt 'Oranje' in the mini estadi in the qualifiers for WC2006


----------



## lpioe

^^
I think so too

From Wikipedia:


> The stadium is home to FC Barcelona B, FC Barcelona C, and Juvenil A and has played host occasionally to the national selection of Andorra


----------



## EADGBE

What can I say? Just watch the TV tonight...

There was a report on SKY (UK) at the weekend, showing the 'facilities' in the changing area at Montjuic. They were shockingly poor - especially as the place hosted the biggest sporting show in earth less than 15 years ago and is even today a La Liga ground. I've played pub football at grounds with bigger and better changing rooms - which is a bit ridiculous really! 

I still can't imagine that Gerrard, Rooney and co. will be using them tonight, but I guess they will. I hope they're ready for the culture shock! It might be expected in somewhere like Albania, but Spain??

Anyone else in the UK see that report?


----------



## CharlieP

I was in Barcelona in November, and my Lonely Planet said that it was free to enter the Olympic Stadium on non-match days, so I was a bit pissed off when I found that it's currently being renovated and visitors aren't allowed in 

I had to content myself with a walk around the outside and a few photos:


----------



## www.sercan.de

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q85/CharlieP1973/cp20061129101435_1600x1200.jpg
which side is the renovated side


----------



## CharlieP

*How many 80,000+ seat stadia have you been to?*

To expand on the question in the Subject line, how many stadia, with at least 80,000 seats, have you attended a sporting event at?

My tally's currently at three - Twickenham Stadium (82,000), Camp Nou (98,000) and Melbourne Cricket Ground (100,000). Can anybody claim five or more?


----------



## EADGBE

How crap is that?

"The Estadi Olímpic Lluís Companys (formerly known as the Estadi Olímpic de Montjuïc) is a stadium in Barcelona. Originally built in 1927 for the 1929 Expo in the city (and Barcelona bid for the 1936 Olympic games, awarded to Berlin), it was rebuilt in 1989 to be the main stadium for the 1992 Summer Olympics."

Rebuilt only 18 years ago and today in need of renovation? Not very impressive, is it?


----------



## EADGBE

Nowhere near five for me, I'm afraid.

I'm going to claim Wembley, because I think it had a capacity of 80k in 1991.

Very tenuously, I watched some sprint training at DKR in Austin once, not technically a 'sports event', I suspect...

I can think of another 3 that I've been past, while empty.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Only 1
Atatürk Olimpiyat
But the attendance was "only" 79.414


----------



## Scoots71

I've got 7.

Bryant-Denny Stadium (Tuscaloosa,AL- 92100)
Legion Field (Birmingham,AL- 83000 at the time)
Jordan-Hare Stadium (Auburn,AL- 87000)
Atlanta Motor Speedway (Hampton,GA- 125000)
Sanford Stadium (Athens,GA- 92700)
Williams-Brice Stadium (Columbia,SC- 80250)
Talladega Superspeedway (Talladega,AL- 165000)


----------



## XCRunner

zero- none of the Chicago stadiums are that big, and I haven't done much travelling in my short life (except to the milwaukee stadiums which also aren't that big).


----------



## CharlieP

Scoots71 said:


> I've got 7.
> 
> Bryant-Denny Stadium (Tuscaloosa,AL- 92100)
> Legion Field (Birmingham,AL- 83000 at the time)
> Jordan-Hare Stadium (Auburn,AL- 87000)
> Atlanta Motor Speedway (Hampton,GA- 125000)
> Sanford Stadium (Athens,GA- 92700)
> Williams-Brice Stadium (Columbia,SC- 80250)
> Talladega Superspeedway (Talladega,AL- 165000)


I make that five, but take my hat off to you anyway.


----------



## hngcm

1. Estadio Azteca
2. Los Angeles Coliseum
3. Rose Bowl


----------



## Ekumenopolis

Camp Nou (98.787)
Bernabeu (80.354)


----------



## RobH

The Old Wembley. So 1 for me.


----------



## TohrAlkimista

I went to:

1) Monza Speedway - Monza - 137'000
2) San Siro - Milano - 85'700
3) Stadio Olimpico - Roma - 82'307


----------



## CharlieP

RobH said:


> The Old Wembley. So 1 for me.


The old Wembley only had 78,000 - otherwise it would be on my list too.


----------



## www.sercan.de

why do we count racetracks?


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

Camp Nou Barcelona
San Siro Milan
Westfalen Dortmund
St Denis Paris
Olympic Stadium Athens


----------



## www.sercan.de

Westfalen has got 66.475 seats
Charlie asked for +80.000 seats stadiums

Olympiakó Spýros Loúis in Athens has got a capacity of 71 030


----------



## Calvin W

I've been to one. MCG for a footy match.


----------



## Benjuk

CharlieP said:


> The old Wembley only had 78,000 - otherwise it would be on my list too.


Stadiums...
Wembley (24/3/85, attendance 100,000. Sunderland vs Norwich.)
Stadium Australia
MCG

Other sporting venues (I never feel right calling them stadiums)...
Flemington (Horse track)
Silverstone

That's the 100k stadiums, don't want to get started on the under 100k's.


----------



## CharlieP

OK guys, my thread, my rules!

We're only counting stadia (not racetracks or speedways), which have or had 80,000 *seats* or more, even if they didn't all have bums on them when you were there.

So, the old Wembley, Westfalen, Olympiakó Spýros Loúis and Stade de France are all out because they don't have enough seats (it's not my fault they built Stade de France with only 79,959!), Atlanta, Talladega, Monza and Silverstone are out because they're motor racing venues, and Flemington (another I've been to) is out because it's a racetrack.

Alles clar?


----------



## Martuh

None, I guess. We don't have any in the country and when I'm on holiday I don't go visit stadiums.


----------



## Chimaera

Just one: Estadio Santiago Bernabeú, the stadium of Real Madrid CF.


----------



## EADGBE

CharlieP said:


> OK guys, my thread, my rules!
> 
> We're only counting stadia (not racetracks or speedways), which have or had 80,000 *seats* or more, even if they didn't all have bums on them when you were there.
> 
> So, the old Wembley, Westfalen, Olympiakó Spýros Loúis and Stade de France are all out because they don't have enough seats (it's not my fault they built Stade de France with only 79,959!), Atlanta, Talladega, Monza and Silverstone are out because they're motor racing venues, and Flemington (another I've been to) is out because it's a racetrack.
> 
> Alles clar?


Pah! 

therfl.co.uk would appear to agree with you. This is the game I was at that I thought would qualify:

1991 Wigan 13 v St. Helens 8 Wembley 75,532 

However, Wikipedia, says that the 1991 Cup Final played two weeks later had an attendance of 80,000, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_Final_1991) so this would mean I qualify!

Interestingly, amongst all the other technicalities you stated, you didn't legislate against my observation of the sprint training at DKR. I think there was only me sat in the seating area (hey, I had some time on my hands!). It was kind of a sports event, although I suspect not in the way you meant 

God loves a trier, eh?

And I have so many 70k+ as well....!


----------



## builder1010

*Singapore Sports Hub (National Stadium)*

SINGAPORE : A horse shoe-shaped gold-coloured stadium that fronts the water, with the Singapore city as a backdrop - that is Singapore Gold Consortium's proposal for the Sports Hub. 

It is the first among the three bidders to reveal its design to the media. 

The designers have described it as the world's first waterfront stadium with a retractable roof. 

The horse shoe design provides a view of the Kallang Basin and the city, while allowing the natural breeze to cool the stadium. 

The complex also has another distinguishing feature that embraces the water theme. 

"We have created what we call a Sports Quay, with the Kallang Basin at the heart and all the facilities built and designed around water. This is a public space so what we have done is create a new public destination place for Singapore," says Paul Henry, senior principal of HOK Sport Architecture, Singapore Gold Consortium. 

The quay also means the project is environmentally friendly, as it helps with the cooling of the entire complex. 

During special occasions like the National Day parade, the seating capacity can be increased from 55,000 to 80,000. 

"During the National Day Parade for instance, we can open up the stadium to the whole of the basin area so the horse shoe-shape area embraces the city. That makes for a fabulous National Day Parade," says Henry. 

And another world first - the field can be removed and water be filled into the stadium for water sports. 

The complex includes an Aquatic Centre, a multi-purpose hall and an interactive sports museum. 

There will be retail outlets and even a 200-room hotel which can house officials and members of sports associations. 

The design has also created lots of spaces for the public, including a 1-km long waterfront promenade. 

The consortium believes that the appeal of the project will extend beyond sports fans. 

"The site is busy 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There won't only be the high profile events but there will also be other events going on that will attract the community. So besides your Robbie William and Kylie Minogue concerts, there will also be things for everyday people like you and I," says Neil Arora, executive director of Macquarie, Singapore Gold Consortium. 

No details were given, but according to some estimates, the stadium will cost $600 million. 

IMG will help bring in the marque sports events. 

And even before the complex is up, there will be something for Singaporeans. 

"The Singapore Indoor stadium will remain operational during the construction process so just to show what Singapore Gold can bring to Singapore, we do have a commitment in place from Maria Sharapova to come to Singapore and play a special exhibition match here," says Mark Adams, MD of IMG, Singapore Gold Consortium. 

Alpine, the other bidder, says it will release its design next week, while the third bidder Singapore Sports Hub says it has no plans yet. 

The announcement for the winning bid is due by July this year. The Sports Hub is expected to be completed by 2011. - CNA /ls


----------



## lindenthaler

Red-Star Stadium in Belgrade (56k)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ All those London stadia are looking greatkay:


----------



## eccles cake

About the first 17/18 rows of seats at Old Trafford are below ground level.


----------



## pompeyfan

Here's a lot - note - not all are wide-angle

http://www.webshots.com/search?medi...rtBy=most-recent&source=search_noresults_menu

Here's an image


----------



## th0m

Even though I like stadiums a lot, I have only these 2 pictures to share with you:

Amsterdam ArenA:










Wrigley Field (Chicago, IL):


----------



## rantanamo




----------



## Chimaera

rantanamo said:


>


Corrected the link a bit:










Great stadium. But those stands look so incredibly steep!!! Just looking at that picture makes me dizzy!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

SkyDome (Canadian Football)










SkyDome (Soccer)


----------



## rantanamo

American Airlines Center


----------



## rantanamo

Rangers Ballpark in Arlington


----------



## skaP187

Steva said:


> Red-Star Stadium in Belgrade (56k)


I don´t know why, but I always find this an impressive stadium on television, hard stadium to win in as an aponent. Again, I don´t know why, I guess because it is pretty round.


----------



## cinosanap

Hampden Park


----------



## rantanamo

Fenway


Gillette


----------



## Grollo

Melbourne Cricket Ground:


----------



## juanmarquez14

*COPA AMERICA VENEZUELA 2007 (America cup of football)*

The Copa América 2007 is the 42nd edition of the Copa América, the main international football tournament for the Americas region. It is organised by CONMEBOL, South America's football governing body, and is set to be held in Venezuela between June 26 and July 15, 2007, being the first time that Venezuela will hold the tournament.





















*BARINAS Pop. 600.000* cap. 30.000 all-seated remodeled stadium u/c




















*BARQUISIMETO Pop. 1.500.000* cap. 40.000 all-seated new stadium u/c




































*CARACAS Pop. 4.700.000* cap. 30.000 all-seated remodeled stadium u/c




































*MARACAIBO Pop 2.225.000* cap. 40.000 all-seated remodeled stadium u/c





















*MATURIN Pop 450.000* cap. 52.000 all-seated new stadium u/c




















*MERIDA Pop 300.000* cap. 42.000 all-seated new stadium u/c












*PTO. LA CRUZ Pop. 500.000* cap. 40.000 all-seated new stadium u/c












*PTO. ORDAZ/CIUDAD GUAYANA Pop. 1.400.000* cap. 42.000 all-seated new stadium u/c




























*SAN CRISTOBAL Pop. 600.000* cap.42.000 all-seated remodeled stadium u/c



















PS. later on I will post more info and the updates of the stadiums.
most of them are almost finished.


----------



## Joop20

Seems like goold old Chavez has a fetish for running tracks :nuts:


----------



## lpioe

^^ indeed 
why so many athletics tracks?
There are some nice stadiums though, like the one in Ciudad Guyana and Merida.


----------



## juanmarquez14

most of the stadiums are athletic centers, and as football is not the fisrt sport in venezuela as it is baseball, they try to bring more life to the stadium by adding up some sports, thats why they have tracks......

although football is growing up fast so two of the new stadiums are only for football...


----------



## UKR87

There are couple of nice stadiums, but since Venezuela is about to host big tournament like that they should really steap up and build some European class stadiums since it has the money and the land. 

P.S. Best of luck in youre tournament.


----------



## NEWWORLD

stadiums look great, good luck!


----------



## juanmarquez14

here are some updates:


*Maturin*












*Merida*












































*San cristobal*




















































*Barquisimeto*




























*Maracaibo*












*Pto Ordaz*


----------



## Gecko1989

holy shit they are fast last time I saw the updates it was like 2 months ago and now they built a shit load in that time I was worried mabye they could not get the stadiums finished in time but now it looks like they just might do it.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Shouldnt the stadiums be finished by now? the tournament starts in just over a month.


----------



## juanmarquez14

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 

the cup will start on june 26.

they have to be ready by may 30 as the conmebol said that was the due date.


----------



## hngcm

im hoping mexico plays in either barquisimeto or maturin.


----------



## pompeyfan

*The Gabba - Brisbane, Queensland Australia*












Aurora Stadium - Launceston, Tasmania, Australia













Telstra Dome - Melbourne, Victoria Australia












Telstra Stadium - Sydney, NSW Australia













More MCG pics






















Bellerive Stadium - Hobart, Tasmania Australia













Aussie Stadium - Sydney, NSW Australia










Enjoy!


----------



## pompeyfan

8 more here

http://www.pbase.com/elastic02/panorama

Arena Auf Schalke (Veltins Arena)












Yankee Stadium













Heaps more here

http://images.google.com.au/images?...GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi




Enjoy!!!


----------



## Giorgio

Thanks to rexfan for sourcing it out
















Athens Olympic Stad.


----------



## pompeyfan

that's ok


----------



## pompeyfan

http://flickr.com/groups/stadiumpanoramas/pool/

There are 176 there


----------



## spud

remind me again why venezuela did'nt go up against brazil for the 2014 world cup???


----------



## The Game Is Up

Perhaps they're positioning themselves for 2030? Perhaps Chavez decided not to bid out of solidarity with Lula? :dunno:


----------



## hngcm

spud said:


> remind me again why venezuela did'nt go up against brazil for the 2014 world cup???


cuz they wouldn't win

all those athletic tracks would be pretty damaging to its bid


----------



## spud

running track do'nt go against bidshno:


----------



## Rbs

*Barquisimeto Metropolitan Stadium*
*(40200 Allseater stadium)



Updated: April 25th, 2007...

Roof Pieces____________________South Section (inside)*











*General View____________________East Section*











*Seats____________________Exterior Constructions*











*New Asphalt____________________Seats*











*West Tribune____________________Display Supports*











*Asphalting streets____________________ Seats*











*Seats____________________ Roof Pieces*











*Seats








*​


----------



## Mo Rush

great venues..whats with all the athletics tracks?


----------



## spud

post no 4


----------



## Martini-stad

Euroborg Stadium - FC Groningen - Groningen, The Netherlands


----------



## Goothrey

Texas Memorial Stadium


----------



## Chimaera

Some nice stadiums and beautiful settings: mountains, rapids...


----------



## Mo Rush

here we go...uh england.


----------



## lucknowii sky

AUSTRALIA MAYBE!


----------



## Gecko1989

its obvious its Germany look at there top teir league almost everysingle one of the teams in it has a world class stadium with an exception of a few team. And alot of teams like Bremen and Dynamo Dresden and the team thats first place right now in 2. Bundesliga (I cant remeber their name) are all getting new stadiums. Germany has the best infrastructure. England does not at all it has arsenals stadium, man cities stadium, man united stadium, chelseas stadium, and Aston villas stadium thats it. The rest of their stadiums are either cookey cutter stadiums or really ugley renovated crap like fulham and charlilton and Tottenham.


----------



## nomarandlee

When you combine football stadium and arenas (not to mention baseball stadiums or college stadiums) it is the U.S. pretty easily.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Gecko1989 said:


> its obvious its Germany look at there top teir league almost everysingle one of the teams in it has a world class stadium with an exception of a few team. And alot of teams like Bremen and Dynamo Dresden and the team thats first place right now in 2. Bundesliga (I cant remeber their name) are all getting new stadiums. Germany has the best infrastructure. England does not at all it has *arsenals stadium, man cities stadium, man united stadium, chelseas stadium, and Aston villas stadium thats it*. The rest of their stadiums are either cookey cutter stadiums or really ugley renovated crap like fulham and charlilton and Tottenham.


err Wembley Stadium, Twickenham Stadium?????

Anyway the answer can only be the USA

:lock:


----------



## kamilo

Germany obviusly.


----------



## Juanla

Maybe consideranding all UK with Milenium stadium of Cardiff, Twickenham, Wembley, Old Trafford, the Glasgow stadiums, new Anfield...., Germay has very funtional stadiums.


----------



## Disraeli

England, Germany and Spain are certainly up there. Italy would come into the next tier with a lot of their stadia needing upgrading.


----------



## CharlieP

USA, no contest.


----------



## www.sercan.de

USA in everything
stadiums
arenas
racetracks


----------



## Arkdriver

i'll go with USA. fits for all event. motor sports, football, soccer, ice hockey, baseball. can even organize Olympic in a week's notice. no doubt.


----------



## G.C.

Infrastructure is generally a set of interconnected structural elements that provide the framework supporting an entire structure. The term has diverse meanings in different fields, but is perhaps most widely understood to refer to roads, airports, and utilities.

hno: 

USA obvousley. Near enough stadium has a motorway in its vicinity.


----------



## Calvin W

Canada? LOL.

This is a no brainer! USA has hundreds and thousands of stadiums, in all shapes and sizes.


----------



## Zorba

USA runs away with this one....


----------



## Flogging Molly

If we're talking infrasturcture. USA and England. Stewarding, refreshments, seating, safety, accessibility, ticketing, car parking etc etc.


----------



## eMKay

USA, hands down.


----------



## hngcm

Costa Rica duh!


----------



## reyrey

This is a ridiculous thread. Anyone who says anything other than the USA is either incredibly biased or a moron.


----------



## LDN_EUROPE

1 = USA

Followed by (order is up for debate) = UK, Australia, Spain and Germany.


----------



## Occit

*1) Germany
2) USA
3) France
4) Spain
5) UK
6) Italy
7) Australia
8) China
9) Brazil
10) Japan*


----------



## eMKay

Johnnydemattos said:


> If we are talking about football ( soccer ) germany gets the first prize, by far. But if you combine baseball, basketball and other stupid american "-balls" usa is the leader!


That's B.S. There are 30 teams in the NFL, 27 of them play in state of the art stadiums that can shame most stadiums in the Bundesliga. There are only 3 stadiums in Germany that can match up with the average NFL stadium. Allianz Arena, Olympic Stadium (Berlin), and Veltins Arena. The rest couldn't host division II football. 

Stadiums in the UK are similar, the new Wembley, Emirates, and maybe Old Trafford would be comparable to NFL stadiums. 

Half the NFL stadiums could host a world cup match right now, the other half would just need grass installed. 

Don't get me started on the other 3 sports. There are about 100 big league state of the art stadiums in the US, and I'm not counting college.


----------



## nomarandlee

CharlieP said:


> I agree with everything you just said, apart from the very last bit. Want to try and prove me wrong?


You are right. If you split up the nation regionally though you could likely find four or five regions able or nearly able to host a World Cup. Indivual states though? No.


----------



## eMKay

CharlieP said:


> I agree with everything you just said, apart from the very last bit. Want to try and prove me wrong?


Ok, there are 3 for sure Texas, Florida, California. Maybe 5 is a stretch. The other two I was thinking about were NY, and PA but they don't have quite enough stadiums.


----------



## Flogging Molly

Tancred said:


> Germany has far better infrasturcture than England. German has many modern stadiums. Even 3rd div teams can play in new 52k stadiums. Most German stadiums have a train/light rail station next to them. The German stewards are nothing like the dictators that stewards are in the UK. Oh and in Germany you can still stand behind the goals
> 
> In German stadiums you can buy a quality beer for €2 and drink it in your seat. Well it's actually €3 but €1 is a cup deposit. Food is also good and costs 50% less than food in UK stadiums.
> 
> I have been to most of Englands and Scotlands top flight stadiums and most of Germanys. Germany wins hands down.



Yes because rail is such an efficient way to get to a stadium when you share it with rival fans! hno:


----------



## CharlieP

eMKay said:


> Ok, there are 3 for sure Texas, Florida, California. Maybe 5 is a stretch. The other two I was thinking about were NY, and PA but they don't have quite enough stadiums.


To host a FIFA World Cup you need 12 stadia, in 11 or 12 cities, each of which need enough hotel rooms to handle visiting fans.

In California, Los Angeles (Coliseum and Rose Bowl), San Francisco and San Diego are gimmes, and I'll let you have Oakland despite its proximity to Frisco, but not Long Beach or Anaheim - so we're up to five. If Hornet Stadium and Spartan Stadium both had a major upgrade you could add Sacramento and San Jose - that's seven, and if you built a new stadium in Fresno, eight. Close, but no cigar...


----------



## Mo Rush

CharlieP said:


> To host a FIFA World Cup you need 12 stadia, in 11 or 12 cities, each of which need enough hotel rooms to handle visiting fans.
> 
> In California, Los Angeles (Coliseum and Rose Bowl), San Francisco and San Diego are gimmes, and I'll let you have Oakland despite its proximity to Frisco, but not Long Beach or Anaheim - so we're up to five. If Hornet Stadium and Spartan Stadium both had a major upgrade you could add Sacramento and San Jose - that's seven, and if you built a new stadium in Fresno, eight. Close, but no cigar...


12?


----------



## jmancuso

having the *most* stadiums doesn't mean having the best. any country can pony up the money needed to build a state of the art stadium.


----------



## CharlieP

Mo Rush said:


> 12?


Oops, just checked. Make that a minimum of ten.


----------



## high_flyer

I think its a bit silly comparing a vast nation of around 300 million with individual countries like the UK, Germany, Spain etc. If we had EU vs US, then that would be a fairer comparison IMO, and one which I think the EU wins


----------



## rox2000

The UK, Spain, France, Germany & Italy combined have an equal population to that of the US (Theres no need to look at the entire union to give a fair comparison). There are four major sports leagues in the US (MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL) each with about 30 teams/stadiums each = 120 stadiums which can be classified as world class (not including the good college stadiums which are a few). The major european venues come from football which are about 40 of them plus the ones from other sports. US wins this category easily..


----------



## nomarandlee

I am not so sure about that. If you talk about the best diversity of soccer specific stadiums (which some on here seem to think is all that matters) then I would say yes. But you also have to account for the absolutely huge facilities and sports programs that go along with the NCAA and American Universities. Not to mention all the arenas that Europe can't really compete with in terms of size and amenities. Even most major American metros have two or three large arenas with suites and such. Plus you have all the baseball parks (yes, it is a sport and counts) which many are absolutley top notch in terms of a sporting facilities anywhere, even some of the minor league parks are rather nice. The U.S. has bigger, more variety, and more types of faciltiies that can accomidate more types of sports well then anyone place in the world I would say.

Unless one wants to be completely soccer-centric, which some undoubtabley will because they think sports is football, in the evaluation I still think the U.S. comes up ahead.


----------



## null

China had 615,000 stadiums in 1995

source:http://tiyuren.com/news_detail.php?id=483&nowmenuid=111&cpath=0044:&catid=44


----------



## johnz88

eMKay said:


> That's B.S. There are 30 teams in the NFL, 27 of them play in state of the art stadiums that can shame most stadiums in the Bundesliga. There are only 3 stadiums in Germany that can match up with the average NFL stadium. Allianz Arena, Olympic Stadium (Berlin), and Veltins Arena. The rest couldn't host division II football.
> 
> Stadiums in the UK are similar, the new Wembley, Emirates, and maybe Old Trafford would be comparable to NFL stadiums.
> 
> Half the NFL stadiums could host a world cup match right now, the other half would just need grass installed.
> 
> Don't get me started on the other 3 sports. There are about 100 big league state of the art stadiums in the US, and I'm not counting college.


You are just saying the big capacity stadiums in europe and just because most NFL stadiums are 60-100 000 capacity doesnt mean they are state of the art. The only reason you say they cannot host div II football is the capacity. European stadiums are much different than NFL stadiums. They are more appealing to the eye (especially in Germany) on the outside and inside. They are also usually built for soccer not american football. The best looking stadiums in the US imo are Quest Field, Reliant, and Soldier field.


----------



## KoolKeatz

nomarandlee said:


> Unless one wants to be completely soccer-centric, which some undoubtabley will because they think sports is football, in the evaluation I still think the U.S. comes up ahead.


In Europe we build stadiums for football. And for nothing else. So a discussion about stadiums is always *football*-centric. (soccer is a crappy word).



eMKay said:


> There are only 3 stadiums in Germany that can match up with the average NFL stadium. Allianz Arena, Olympic Stadium (Berlin), and Veltins Arena. The rest couldn't host division II football.


Couldnt host divison II football? Nobody wants to host such a stupid "sport". 
How many people go to a NFL game? Minimum 50.000? Then we have in the bigger citys:
Allianz Arena (Munich) 69.901
Olympic Stadium (Berlin) 76.005 
Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen) 61.482 
*Signal Iduna Park (Dortmund) 80.708 
Olympic Stadium (Munich) 69.250
AOL Arena (Hamburg) 57.274
Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt) 52.300
Rhein Energie Stadium (Cologne) 51.000 
*(Bundesliga capacity)


----------



## Benjuk

As an English man living in Australia, there's only one answer to this question... USA. The NFL alone has a better collection of stadiums than Germany or England (or Australia, or Spain, etc.). Add to that the number of baseball stadia, the MLS stadiums, Ice Hockey/Basketball arenas, College football stadiums (they could probably host a world cup with them alone), the Flushing Meadows (?) tennis, etc.

Personal tastes may differ (I only like football/soccer stadiums myself), but the number and size of them, makes it virtually impossible to argue with the USA on this point.



redbaron_012 said:


> Australia...for sure !!!! Ok..other countries that have many more cities obviously would have more but each city in Australia has fantastic stadiums....Particularly Melbourne ! The question isn't who has the most....Australia's stadiums have individual comfort seating.....usually with cup holders. Most stadiums in the world today have large video screens/ scoreboard..restaurant/ food outlets..and all necessary facilities.


I'll give you Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, but where is the 'fantastic' stadium in Hobart? Darwin? Canberra? I could ask where is the 'fantastic', rather than large, stadium in Perth and/or Adelaide as well.

Per capita, maybe Australia would compete.


----------



## Benjuk

Gecko1989 said:


> England does not at all it has arsenals stadium, man cities stadium, man united stadium, chelseas stadium, and Aston villas stadium thats it. The rest of their stadiums are either cookey cutter stadiums or really ugley renovated crap like fulham and charlilton and Tottenham.


Newcastle, Sunderland?


----------



## redbaron_012

Benjuk, OK I have to agree....was trying to keep country theme over individual city......Melbourne is blessed above just about anywhere but I'll leave it there as that's not what the question is....there are many world class stadiums across Australia generally.....I only saw a few stadiums in the USA and Europe and the ones I saw in USA had wooden bench seating for eg???


----------



## rantanamo

redbaron_012 said:


> I only saw a few stadiums in the USA and Europe and the ones I saw in USA had wooden bench seating for eg???


I'm curious as to which ones you saw. College football stadiums usually have a mix of aluminum benches and seatbacks. You'll rarely find benched sections in professional stadiums unless they are purpose built sections of a stadium. Baseball stadiums general has a section of "cheap seats". In the NFL you'll have some traditional sections like the Dogg Pound in Cleveland or Lambeau Field. Don't see how that makes the stadium infrastructure of over 100 top tier pro stadiums, and countless college and semi pro stadiums any less of an incredible infrastructure.


----------



## Benn

"Couldnt host divison II football? Nobody wants to host such a stupid "sport". 
How many people go to a NFL game? Minimum 50.000?"

The realistic bottom end on an NFL stadium is 60,000, however 70,000 is the going standard. The RCA Dome seats 55,000 or so, but come 2008 when it is replaced it will be 61,000 or so at soldier field. Fedex field is the high end at 92,00o or so, but it is under going a slight expansion to about 97,000. Many teams have 5 to 10 year waits for season tickets, according to ESPN the Green Bay Packers have 734 year wait as of right now! NFL Stadium standards also include about a 40' concourse per level, lots of restrooms and concessions on all levels, upwards of 80 suites (as high as 381), 5,000-10,000 club seats as well as extensive Facade work. Not to nock the Bundasliga, but interms of overall facilities the Allianz Arena and Veltins Arena are the only to that would make the NFL cut long term. The Olympiastadion has a track and lots of obstructed views in the second tier, which would never fly over here. Signal Iduna has some questionable sightlines in the corners, and seats 68,000, 80,000 is with the Sud-Tribune standing room only (as it should be) I like the idea of standing Terraces, but it wouldn't fly on this side of the pond. Fan Ameneties are not up to NFL standards, No doubt its a great stadium, one of the best atmospheres anywhere, but the NFL is all about $$$. I wish it weren't, but its as much of a business as it is a sport. Those stadiums are designed are built to the finest degree of fuctionality, and many cases aesthetics. However they are also designed to pull money out of your wallet, which they do like nothing else.


----------



## NavyBlue

No contest :lock:


----------



## aron_uc

ajjaa imposible!!!


----------



## Occit

tadeu said:


> thank u!!
> im worried... it will be ready for the games? there is a plan B?


*This Wednesday the committee will announce the situation of the stadiums, i guess Barquisimeto is the only place to be in risk. *


----------



## aron_uc

some pictures of stgo's mountains.







































cool city, nice landscapes but we need infrastructure....

bye


----------



## nomarandlee

I think it would be awesome.:cheers: Santiago would be a cool as hell city to see host. I just wonder if they feel that TV audiances are ready to watch a winter games when its a northern summer.


----------



## pompeyfan

Umm no. Simply, having it there isn't a great idea. There is a high level of robbery and other crime, and the country is nowhere near wealthy enough to host it. Many people do not understand that the economy there is much like argentina. For those who don't know, for one AU dollar, you get 50 pesos.


----------



## Joop20

Rexfan2 said:


> Umm no. Simply, having it there isn't a great idea. There is a high level of robbery and other crime, and the country is nowhere near wealthy enough to host it. Many people do not understand that the economy there is much like argentina. For those who don't know, for one AU dollar, you get 50 pesos.


What a lame comment. There's robbery and crime in every city. Chile is the most open and developed economy in South America, it's had a steady economic growth for most of the past 2 decades and it's politically one of the most stable countries in latin america! And who cares how many pesos you get for your AU dollar, that doesn't say anything! ~

Go Santiago, show the world what the real Chile is like!


----------



## Riise

Rexfan2 said:


> Umm no. Simply, having it there isn't a great idea. There is a high level of robbery and other crime, and the country is nowhere near wealthy enough to host it. Many people do not understand that the economy there is much like argentina. For those who don't know, for one AU dollar, you get 50 pesos.


Yeah, umm no. The Winter Olympics isn't as big of a deal as the World Cup yet South Africa, a country that is undoubtedly in worse shape than Chile, has been awarded the World Cup.


----------



## lpioe

How many stadiums of what size do you need to host the Copa America?


----------



## Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

Well it certainly is possible but I would not put forth the national stadium as part of a bid simply because of 1973. 
Chile certainly has the mountains for downhill sking and a good economy to build infrastructure. The only problem I see is if the mountains in a southern summer would have enough snow for the downhill events. The games would have to be held during the southern hemisphere summer because the interest for watching the olympics with summer sports coming on stream in april, may, and june would kill Tv commerical value for the biggest player to the IOC American TV. Also your TV audience goes down in the summer in the northern hemisphere when a winter olympics would be held. 

One arena that looks to be without ice making is not enough to host the winter games. You are looking at three arenas atleast that size and I cant see where santiago arena could fit an international sized ice hockey surface into the fllor space. The there is the bobsled and long track speed skating venues. 
cross country skiing and ski jumping is another consideration. 

Chile has the time zone advantage for great tv rights but all those infrastructure hills would be hard to climb. 

i have been to Santiago myself and the airport is excellent. Cab driver tried to rip me off but hey that happens everywheres LOL. I was not in the metro but if it is like the airport then i am sure it is world class. Venice Italy I was dissappointed with the marco polo airport where as santiago's was far superior to venices.


----------



## luisdaniel

Rexfan2 said:


> Umm no. Simply, having it there isn't a great idea. There is a high level of robbery and other crime, and the country is nowhere near wealthy enough to host it. Many people do not understand that the economy there is much like argentina. For those who don't know, for one AU dollar, you get 50 pesos.


but !! high level of robbery and other crime!!¿?¿ economy like Argentina¿?¿? jajaj, visit Chile please, but if you don't, learn about the country a little bit and you'll realize you're completely wrong!


----------



## IcyUrmel

KoolKeatz said:


> Thats why i wrote Bundeliga capacity (with standing places). :goodnight


I didn't say you're wrong in that certain point. I just said it wouldn't tell us so much using the Bundesliga Capacities in a comparision like this.

Wrong you were in quite many other points, which I had to correct, because the impression you gave of the German stadium infrastructure just wasn't objective at all. You made it far better than it is by using wrong figures. This is a fact.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

IcyUrmel said:


> But now to this thread's core:
> 
> There can be no discussion about the first place. Even if I think stadia without a roof are uncomplete, especially in cities like Chicago where rain is a usual weather phenomen, still there can be no doubt that the United States have the best infrastructure by far. That's nothing to be extremely proud of, its just a logical consequence of this country's size, but still: a fact is a fact.
> 
> 
> Second is England, definitely ahead of Germany.
> 
> Yes, I am proud of "my" German stadium infrastructure, it is worlds ahead of the situation we had around 2000. And I'm happy that we came pretty close to England in this point. But I have to respect the fact that England still is ahead and will propably be for many many years, if not forever.
> 
> Only those who define "stadium infrastructure" as the sum of the 40.000+ venues can see Germany in front. Here, thanks to WC 2006, we overtook England. Wembley is undefeatable, but every Premier League Club excluding Manchester United would be happy to have the Allianz Arena. 17 of 20 Clubs (excluding ManU, Man City and Arsenal) would swap their actual ground against the stadia of Dortmund, Hamburg, Schalke, Düsseldorf or Frankfurt. And also the stadia of Kaiserslautern, Mönchengladbach, Cologne, Leipzig and Hannover with their 45.000 seats would be an obvious improvement for the majority of the Premier League clubs.
> 
> And although I personally don't like them, you have to list the huge stadia with athlitic tracks, wich you find in Berlin, Munich (Olympic), Stuttgart, Nürnberg and Bremen (wich already lost its track and is going to be transfered in a "real" football ground soon).
> 
> 
> *But behind these impressing first sixteen, we have a huge gap in germany.* The next relevant stadium size is the roundabout-25.000-seat-category (with decent grounds in Wolfsburg, Rostock, Magdeburg, Bochum, Duisburg, Mannheim, Bielefeld and Leverkusen. Adding Freiburg (19.000 as an all-seater) means Germany today has a total of 25 good to excellent stadia.
> 
> That's more than Spain or France can offer, far more than Italy or any other european country, but that's not enough to match up with England, and that's nothing compared to the US.


I agree with this.

First Place can Only go to *USA*(anyone saying otherwise.. well..errm..go see a doctor)

Second Place would go to *England*
I know Germany have got lots of new stadia for the world cup but as said above Most of their stadia are in the Bundesliga and after that it falls behind England. England has many many decent stadiums going from the Premiership all the way down to the lower leagues. Even Englands top four stadia; Wembley, Twickenham, Old Trafford, Emirates do give the German stadia a run for their money. Generally however England as a whole has the better stadia even considering Germany hosted the world cup just last year.

Third *Germany*
Hosting the world cup has helped them to get some amazing stadia(although i dont like the athletic tracks). But deffinately up there with the best in the world.


----------



## Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

luisdaniel said:


> but !! high level of robbery and other crime!!¿?¿ economy like Argentina¿?¿? jajaj, visit Chile please, but if you don't, learn about the country a little bit and you'll realize you're completely wrong!


Agreed and as a Canadian I have visited Chile and dont see a big crime problem or lack of financial resources in the country. 

It would be the desire and the organizing that could be the hinderance. 

It is not to say Chile could not pull it off but the southern hemisphere winter being in the northern hemisphere summer is the biggest problem I can see. 

If the games can be held in Chile during the December to end of January time period then it is possible and with maximum revenues for the main funder of the IOC NBC Tv. If it is held during the chilean winter then it is such a loss for TV revenues that the IOC would not even entertain it. 

NBC TV currently pays about 500 million us for each olympics and they lose money on the deal . They make it up with being branded the olympic network and advertising for their other entertainment shows during the games. Chile could not be in a better time zone in the southern hemisphere for an olympics but it is all dependant on the which monthes the snow in the mountains allows downhill events.


----------



## TEBC

Joop20 said:


> What a lame comment. There's robbery and crime in every city. Chile is the most open and developed economy in South America, it's had a steady economic growth for most of the past 2 decades and it's politically one of the most stable countries in latin america! And who cares how many pesos you get for your AU dollar, that doesn't say anything! ~
> 
> Go Santiago, show the world what the real Chile is like!


Yes, that coment was really stupid.. for sure came from a country that is so selfish that dont understand anything about any other country besides then. Chile is one of the best countries to invest in Latin America, and the most stable one...


----------



## aron_uc

minimo 3 estadios de 40 mil o 50 mil
otros 3 de 30 mil a 40 mil
con eso se puede ahcer un buena copa.


----------



## FastFerrari

im going to say US...YES cause i live here but they rise with a roll of thunder and flashy...however European staduims have unique flare to them...design and color...Latin stadium have soME of the best (imho) fans...never see and empty seat...so the WORLD has the best stadium...at HOME:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jamude18

djaburi offcourse...NOT....
United States Of America


----------



## nomarandlee

^^ The guy was wrong, but he wouldn't be the first one to have a misconception about a country. Don't generalize about another country by the words of one or else that is little better.


----------



## Lord_Nelson

why tha f*** do we keep inviting teams outside of the conmebol? mexico plays in the Libertadores and in the Sudamericana cup but qualifies to the world cup with the concacaf, that pisses me off, change federation damnit we struggle with the hardest qualifying round in the world to the world cup in the conmebol and they just dance their way to the world cup since concacaf is a joke, and then we teach them to play footbal in our cups, thats the only reason they play there to learn from the best.. i think it sucks


----------



## TEBC

nomarandlee said:


> ^^ The guy was wrong, but he wouldn't be the first one to have a misconception about a country. Don't generalize about another country by the words of one or else that is little better.


Sorry, but Im sick of people calling Latin American countries by the useless mean "third world country".. Most of the people think that Africa and Latin America is just about poor, crime, instability, violence... or Middle West is just islamism with no democracy... people need to open their eyes!!! Chile is one of the richest countries in all America and hurts when i read something so far from reality.


----------



## TEBC

Joop20 said:


> Uhh watch your wallet next time mate, you can get pickpocketed in every city on this planet. And Chile cant host an Olympics because your shirt was 1200 pesos, that makes sense :banana:


I was robbed in Montreal!! I live in Sao Paulo, a city know by it violence and i was never robbed!! but it happened in Montreal!! he is sure... in any city this can happened...


----------



## Elsongs

That means the winter games in Chile would have to be held like in July...but now that the summer and winter games are no longer held in the same year, this is more possible.


----------



## giovanniho

Rexfan2 said:


> In response to all those who bashed me, i was there three weeks ago. I new shirt cost me 1200 pesos and I was pickpocketed two times. Please, i do understand what i am talking about
> 
> Please, get your facts right before insulting others


1.200 pesos for a shirt? it doesn't sound like Chile.

Chile may not be rich as other latin american countries but it's a very organized socialist society with an open economy and kind people. It is also after Costa Rica one of the safest country in LA. I'm sure that if they were given the chance, they could organize the winter games to remember.


----------



## pompeyfan

giovanniho said:


> 1.200 pesos for a shirt? it doesn't sound like Chile.
> 
> Chile may not be rich as other latin american countries but it's a very organized socialist society with an open economy and kind people. It is also after Costa Rica one of the safest country in LA. I'm sure that if they were given the chance, they could organize the winter games to remember.


In response to your statement.

1. most Chilean people are very kind. The people i stayed with were very nice and treated me very well.

2. I am sure they could host an unforgettable Olympics, but one thing is of concern. Usually, the host nation gets entries into the events, as like other sports. What is Chiles record at the Winter Olympics? I know southern hemisphere nations rank very poorly usually. In the history of the Winter olympics, Australia has won 3 gold medals. One because everyone else fell over in the race, and two by Alisa Camplin. Someone help me on this. I have no idea


----------



## Wezza

It seems like all of the smaller cities are getting the better stadiums! lol


----------



## Mo Rush

I am a big supporter of winter games in Santiago. Give it some time, gain some strong experience. Bid in 2018 and then win in 2022.


----------



## Joop20

Maybe good old Chavez has some extra funds available to complete all stadiums in time after closing down commercial TV stations in Venezuela :banana:


----------



## hngcm

I saw a map of the venues, and it seems the south/east of the country is being neglected, why is that?


----------



## Leandrix

Argentina 2011.


----------



## AndreÇB

hngcm said:


> I saw a map of the venues, and it seems the south/east of the country is being neglected, why is that?


Why should they build a stadium inside the Amazon Rain Forest?


----------



## Stockholm_Rovers

hmmm, quite similar stadiums! (nothing wrong with that though)


----------



## JGuerreiro

Similar to Estádio do Algarve in Faro, Portugal


----------



## trin

^^ minus the running track


----------



## Wezza

I think it will be a miracle if Barquisimeto is ready on time.


----------



## hngcm

AndreÇB said:


> Why should they build a stadium inside the Amazon Rain Forest?


Well that answers my question.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

Venezuela 2007
??????? 2009
Chile 2011
Brazil 2013 (COPA AMERICA) and Brazil 2014 for WC


----------



## DïegôLG

HUSKER said:


> It's Mexico's turn., Conmebol is afraid of the success that might happen here because they still view us as part time guests and not as full time members.


Well, actually Mexico will never be a full member in CONMEBOL,that's clear. But, as someone said, it will be a great bussiness to CONMEBOL if Mexico organizes the tournament. 

Months ago, the president of the Mexican Federation of Football expressed the intention to make this event in Mexico.

So... still nobody knows which country will get the next Copa América.

Cheers!!


----------



## juanmarquez14

i dont like the idea of mexico hosting the copa america, it is a conmebol tournament and it should be played in countries that are members of the conmebol. mexico is just a guess with lots of money


----------



## DïegôLG

juanmarquez14 said:


> i dont like the idea of mexico hosting the copa america, it is a conmebol tournament and it should be played in countries that are members of the conmebol. mexico is just a guess with lots of money


Thanks to money, Mexico is expected to organize the tournament


----------



## juanmarquez14

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ 

and that is also because 80% of the people in venezuela live in the coast line


----------



## hngcm

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> Venezuela 2007
> ??????? 2009
> Chile 2011
> Brazil 2013 (COPA AMERICA) and Brazil 2014 for WC


next one is 2011 since it's every 4 years now


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

Why is the Venozolano football much worst than all other S-American countries.
I don't know any football star from VZ that plays in a good European league.
Even Paraguay en Equador have players in Europe though the countries are much smaller than VZ. Can anyone tell me


----------



## Rbs

^^ That´s because in Venezuela the national "sport" is Baseball... we have a lot of Big Leaguers in the US...

Here is a little pic from Barquisimeto´s Metropolitan Stadium... it was taken a week ago... 

You can see that the grass was transplanted a 2 or 3 days ago


----------



## Inyector

Primero tendria que mejorar sus estadios, ya que segun autoridades enviadas a evaluar los escenarios, estan en muy malas condiciones


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

hngcm said:


> next one is 2011 since it's every 4 years now


Oh...!! ask u, Not every 2 years ?? why changed...it??


----------



## hngcm

is going to be ready in time?

im guessing they're working double-shifts over there


----------



## hngcm

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> Oh...!! ask u, Not every 2 years ?? why changed...it??


i don't know why they changed it 

it was fine the way it was


----------



## giovanniho

I hope this year a country that is not BRA or ARG wins the Copa América in Venezuela.


----------



## Rbs

*More from Barquisimeto´s Metropolitan





























































*


----------



## hngcm

giovanniho said:


> I hope this year a country that is not BRA or ARG wins the Copa América in Venezuela.


Mexico.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

hngcm said:


> Mexico.


Brazil or Argentina must win!! i think!!


----------



## matherto

how long to go?


----------



## TEBC

matherto said:


> how long to go?


less than 1 month


----------



## The Game Is Up

My pick is Colombia.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Well, we can't fault them for ambition. At the very least, they should be an example for others for how to aspire to a very high goal, even if from the looks of it they may fall a bit short.


----------



## TEBC

hngcm said:


> i don't know why they changed it
> 
> it was fine the way it was


because there is not a prestigius tornament and there is lack of spaces in calendar to host it. Conmebol is trying to fit with the European calendar and like Euro is 4 to 4 years now.


----------



## Rbs

*Maturin´s Monumental Stadium (52000)











Barquisimeto´s Metropolitan Stadium (40000)



































*​


----------



## Danilon-11

Joop20 said:


> Maybe good old Chavez has some extra funds available to complete all stadiums in time after closing down commercial TV stations in Venezuela :banana:


Actually, he's the one that venezuelans have to thank for approving the funding for all this stadiums.
All that money could have been used for anything else.

BTW, it's better not to mix politics and sports




hngcm said:


> I saw a map of the venues, and it seems the south/east of the country is being neglected, why is that?


Here's a better answer for you,
this is how the population distribution in Venezuela


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> The Olympiastadion has a track and lots of obstructed views in the second tier, which would never fly over here.



The obstructed views in the upper tier are the result of restrictions.
The Olympic Stadium Berlin is part of the national Heritage of Germany, it was not allowed to built the roof above the marathon gate.
Are there stadiums in the USA, which have such an impressive history like the Olympic Stadium in Berlin?


----------



## vhricardo

England .. soccer stadium..
The world dont play "american football" ... we hate!
 
but USA is rich and have good arenas


----------



## GNU

1st: USA
2nd: Germany 
3rd: England

USA is ahead of Europe with big stadiums because strangely sport marketing has developed very slowly here.
In Germany there is still some sense that supporters feel their club is being sold out when they want to built a new arena.
america was a step earlier when it came to the development of stadiums.
What has also helped them is that they seem to calculate riskier than here.
Anyways, the lead will be closed by the EU soon.


----------



## Schmeek

Brilliant logo checker!

Shall we just forget about first place from now on? The thread should never have included the yanks......it's unfair!!

But I think to summarise, the general concensus seems to be Germany and England fighting it out to be best of the rest.
My(biased maybe)opinion is that in regards of quality in depth, England is probably way ahead, but in terms of top end quality it is level pegging. 

If you take into account the fact that Germany has just recieved a huge boost from the world cup, I think England should be second.
The building boom in Britain which began in the late eighties and accelerated through the nineties shows no sign of letting up as we near the end of this decade. With Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Chelsea all having big plans for the near future, I think our position as second will be consolidated.

Then there is a battle between the Aussies and Japanese.

Then the Spanish/portuguese


----------



## DennisRodman

England has the 2 best stadium in the world..... Wembley and Old Trafford.

USA has the most stadiums in the world cuz of variety of sports....American Football,, Basketball, Baseball and ice hockey.

In overrall best stadium infastructure goes to the USA.

Here is a picture of some of the best sporting arenas/stadiums in Amerika!

























^^ Stadium or Arena for Basketball .....Staples Center home of the LAKERS!!!!!!

























^^ Safeco Field for Basbeall .....Typical baseball stadiums 

























^^ My home town stadium Reliant Stadium.....Typical american football stadium

























^^ Qwest Field....Seattle..for American football / soccer

























^^ The World's most famous arena Madison Square Garden home of the knicks (basketball).


Rest of the world underrate American stadiums cuz of the unpopularity of the game of soccer here in the states.....those are some of the few great stadium infrastructure that exist in the states...


----------



## Benn

GEwinnen said:


> The obstructed views in the upper tier are the result of restrictions.
> The Olympic Stadium Berlin is part of the national Heritage of Germany, it was not allowed to built the roof above the marathon gate.
> Are there stadiums in the USA, which have such an impressive history like the Olympic Stadium in Berlin?


I understand the restrictions and historical importance of the Olympiastadion, I was merely pointing out why its not up to NFL standards
As for history and tradition the Rose Bowl is regarded as holy ground. To many Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Lambeau field are regarded in such ways. people have have had weddings there, and some (mostly illeagally) had their ashes scattered on the fields. In college sports numerous venues that have been around since the 1920s are revered. Just in The Big ten Conference you have Ohio stadium (1926), Michigan Stadium (1927), Camp Randall Stadium at Wisconsin (has undergone numerous renovations, the field has been there since 1916), also Williams Arena at Minnesota has been around Since 1928 and is largely unchanged since 1950. The L.A. Coliseum (1923) has hosted two Olympics, four NFL teams (yeah L.A. can't hold on to franchise to save their lives) in addition to the many storied USC teams. Harvard stadium remains unchanged since it opened in 1903! The Yale Bowl was packed to the brim with 72,000 on occasions as early as 1912. The Current bowl of the Olympiastadion wasn't finished until 1935 or 1936. I would hate to see the stadium done much differently, it looks great, the roof really looks good. But just like the L.A. coliseum or the Rose Bowl, or Ohio stadium, otherwise great sadiums that just woudn't meet NFL standards.


----------



## Benn

vhricardo said:


> England .. soccer stadium..
> The world dont play "american football" ... we hate!
> 
> but USA is rich and have good arenas


A few years ago my family hosted a foreign exchange student from Germany who called American Football a disease. He and I went to the monday night game against the Giants, afterwards he said that it was more fun than most of the Bundasliga games he had been to. Once he really got a good grasp of the game he really liked. American Football is very complicated and doesn't exactly flow. But during each play there is more going on, more exitement than any other sport I know of. 22 players doing 22 different things simultaneously, and a single mistake is huge at the pro level. The level of group presicion is unparalled. Many Americans thinks soccer is boring; all they see is a bunch of back passing and the ball going back and forth. Thats because they don't understand the intricases, they don't realize how impressive the footwork, passing and especially the crosses can be. When I was a kid I didn't like watching either at all, but I loved to play both. Now I love to watch both as well. I'd bet that most of you who mock and hate it could atleast appreciate, if not truly like American Football if you had solid understanding of the game.


----------



## GNU

Benn said:


> I understand the restrictions and historical importance of the Olympiastadion, I was merely pointing out why its not up to NFL standards


The Olympiastadion is more modern than a host of NFL stadiums though.
Remember that theyve spent 250 million Euros (thats around 300 million dollars-thats the average price in Europe for a proper stadium) on this thing.
For that kind of money you could have easily built yourself a Da Luz stadium for example.
Just a shame that they didnt do it.


----------



## GNU

Benn said:


> A few years ago my family hosted a foreign exchange student from Germany who called American Football a disease. He and I went to the monday night game against the Giants, afterwards he said that it was more fun than most of the Bundasliga games he had been to.


Could turn that around though.
I met atleast two american foreign students here who thought football (soccer) was boring until theyve been to a Bundesliga game.
I personally know the american football rules as I watch it sometimes.
Its hard to come by as when its screened its being screened in the middle of the night.
For me football (soccer) is definitely more attractive though.
But I can also see why american football is so popular in the states.


----------



## docker

DennisRodman said:


> ^^ The World's most famous arena Madison Square Garden home of the knicks (basketball).


why's it called Madison Square Garden, when it is round?


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> I understand the restrictions and historical importance of the Olympiastadion, I was merely pointing out why its not up to NFL standards


Is it necessary for the Olympiastadion to be up to NFL Standards?
It hosted the World Cup Final last year, the most important and greatest sports event in the world !!! Do you want to compare a NFL-game to the great World Cup Final?



> The L.A. Coliseum (1923) has hosted two Olympics, four NFL teams


L.A. Coliseum is o.k, but I've never heard of the other stadiums (sry)- except Rose Bowl (I remember the crappy World Cup Final 1994


----------



## canarywondergod

docker said:


> why's it called Madison Square Garden, when it is round?


the current madison square garden is the 4th one to have of existed the first two were located at the Northeast corner of Madison Square (Madison Ave. & 26th St.)


----------



## Sparks

Mr. Rodman I seriously question your claim that Old Trafford is among the best stadiums in the world.


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> A few years ago my family hosted a foreign exchange student from Germany who called American Football a disease. He and I went to the monday night game against the Giants, afterwards he said that it was more fun than most of the Bundasliga games he had been to. Once he really got a good grasp of the game he really liked. American Football is very complicated and doesn't exactly flow. But during each play there is more going on, more exitement than any other sport I know of. 22 players doing 22 different things simultaneously, and a single mistake is huge at the pro level. The level of group presicion is unparalled. Many Americans thinks soccer is boring; all they see is a bunch of back passing and the ball going back and forth. Thats because they don't understand the intricases, they don't realize how impressive the footwork, passing and especially the crosses can be. When I was a kid I didn't like watching either at all, but I loved to play both. Now I love to watch both as well. I'd bet that most of you who mock and hate it could atleast appreciate, if not truly like American Football if you had solid understanding of the game.


Yes, you're right, American Football is complicated - the real Football is easy, they game is fast and fluent, the atmosphere in the stadiums is fantastic and explosive. (I love this, watch the faces of the guys from Costa Rica(at 0:22), they didn't see something like this before
btw, do you celebrate touchdowns like this?


----------



## Rohne

Do you regularly make the stadiums nearly collapse...


----------



## Benn

Checker said:


> The Olympiastadion is more modern than a host of NFL stadiums though.
> Remember that theyve spent 250 million Euros (thats around 300 million dollars-thats the average price in Europe for a proper stadium) on this thing.
> For that kind of money you could have easily built yourself a Da Luz stadium for example.
> Just a shame that they didnt do it.


The going rate for an NFL stadium competed in the last couple of years is in the $400 million range. In terms of field proximity, concourses and ability to suck money out of your wallet it is well behind most NFL stadiums, for better or worse. And I never said anything about it not being modern enough, just the the track and obstructed views would make it unsuitable for NFL use. Not to mention lack of premium seating. Most teams aim for 10% of capacity or so in suites and club seats (the only plus side to this for the average fan is that it allows them to keep the general seats a little cheaper). To be honest for general viewing and atmospere as a spectator for football there are much better layouts in the Bundasliga (Dormund, Hamburg, Gelsenkirchen, Munich, Frankfurt ect). Its a great international athletics venue and above average Bundasliga stadium, but I stand by what I said and I won't call it a top teir stadium for Football/American Football stadium.


----------



## Benn

Rohne said:


> Do you regularly make the stadiums nearly collapse...


Nobody regularly makes stadiums nearly collapse. OCCASSIONALLY somewhere in Europe or South America it will happen. In the USA it hasn't really happened. College fans riot with some frequency, but just about every major American stadium is built of reinforced concrete and are usually over engineered. We have also never cantalivered a standing terrace, which I think is asking for trouble from an engineering standpoint. Also why on earth would you try to tear down the stadium?


----------



## Benn

GEwinnen said:


> Is it necessary for the Olympiastadion to be up to NFL Standards?
> It hosted the World Cup Final last year, the most important and greatest sports event in the world !!! Do you want to compare a NFL-game to the great World Cup Final?
> 
> 
> 
> L.A. Coliseum is o.k, but I've never heard of the other stadiums (sry)- except Rose Bowl (I remember the crappy World Cup Final 1994


If you had any understanding of American sports you would. 
Fenway Park was opened in 1912, has a capacity of just under 38,000 and is home to the Boston Red Sox of the MLB. The main grandstand is unchanged since, they have added suites, club seats and a press box above, the original facade is also intact. 









Wrigley Field is home to the Chicago Cubs of the MLB, it opened in 1914 and currently seats about 41,000. The main granstand is original, upper level and famous outfield bleacher and ivy walls were added 20s and 30s. the suite level was added later on. 









Lambeau Field is home to the Green Bay Packers and is probably the most famous stadium in the NFL. It opened in 1957 with 32,500 seats, it currently seats 71,500. Besides being host to the packers and there many championship teams, it hosted the famous Ice Bowl, the 1967 NFL chamionship game between the packers and cowboys. Air temperature was about -13 degres F (-25 C) with a windchill of about -48 degrees F (-44 C). Now thats playing in the elements, and it was a capacity crowd (about 50,000 at the time). 









The Rose Bowl is the Most significant satdium in american collegiate football. It hosts the annual Rose Bowl Game as well as the Rose Bowl Parade. Its been there since 1922, most of the stadium is original, and more national championships have been decided there than anywhere else. As for it being a terrible stadium, the only knocks I can see are the shallow design and bench seating in the ends. The stands come right up to the field and it seats 92,000.









Michigan Stadium has been there since 1927, the Michigan wolverines have won far more national titles than anyone else, and its the highest capacity stadium in the United States at 107,501, athough crowds are typically over 111,000. They haven't seen crowed under 100,000 since 1975, and could probably fill another 20,000 seats for every game.









Ohio Stadium is home to the Ohio State Buckeyes. It opened in 1922 as two tiered horseshoe (hence the nickname) designed by architect Howard Dwight Smith. The design was based on the coliseum with a rounded arched facede, and had a then enormous capacity of 66,000. In the Horseshoe end it has a rotunda featuring stained glass windows. The current capacity is 101,568 although it is frequently over capacity. It gets notoreously loud, especially against Michigan. This is my personal favorite stadium
The Horseshoe


----------



## Benn

GEwinnen said:


> Yes, you're right, American Football is complicated - the real Football is easy, they game is fast and fluent, the atmosphere in the stadiums is fantastic and explosive. (I love this, watch the faces of the guys from Costa Rica(at 0:22), they didn't see something like this before
> btw, do you celebrate touchdowns like this?


Often with game winners, athough the color coordination isn't usually that good. One very important thing to understand about american football, and why you might not think the atmosphere is fantastic is that the crowd will be fairly quiet for the home team's offense. This is so they can concentrate on the upcoming play. The crowd will be as loud as they can when the visiting team is on offense to disrupt them. So when a good crowd is quiet that is almost always intentional.


----------



## mr.x

1) USA
2) Germany
3) Britain
4) Australia


----------



## Benn

Checker said:


> Could turn that around though.
> I met atleast two american foreign students here who thought football (soccer) was boring until theyve been to a Bundesliga game.
> I personally know the american football rules as I watch it sometimes.
> Its hard to come by as when its screened its being screened in the middle of the night.
> For me football (soccer) is definitely more attractive though.
> But I can also see why american football is so popular in the states.


Absolutely, I thought I mentioned that in my post. Many Americans have very little understanding of the game of football. Alot more do than we get credit for though. More kids grow up play football here than any other sport. I did alot of my friends did. After the 94 world cup things really picked up and even more so after 2002. And when DC United blanked Celtic 4-0 that really started to get some respect from fans over here. One thing is Americans are generally used to more scoring and less flopping. Flops or dives happen some basketball, but never in American football, hockey or baseball and that really bugs alot of people over here. It has alot to compete with here, but Football is getting better and more popular here.


----------



## MRichR

Benn said:


> Michigan Stadium has been there since 1927, the Michigan wolverines have won far more national titles than anyone else, and its the highest capacity stadium in the United States at 107,501, athough crowds are typically over 111,000. They haven't seen crowed under 100,000 since 1975, and could probably fill another 20,000 seats for every game.
> [/IMG]


Michigan has not won the most national championships. Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, and Oklahoma all have more. Given expansion plans at other places, I think the days of Michigan's having the largest stadium are numbered.

The largest crowd ever to see a football game in the country was at the original Soldier Field. 120,000+....for a high school game.


----------



## paw25694

Germany maybe?? Soon maybe China..


----------



## redbaron_012

With Australia having a relatively small population, and this post is not about quantity, our stadium infrastructure is as good as anything on the planet......The Mighty MCG for example, seating 100,000 in comfort on Melbourne's CBD doorstep. Here it is setup for Australian Rules Football....It holds Cricket in the Summer...and held an Olympic and Commonwealth Games.


----------



## ICE CUBE

Australia sucks when it comes to stadium...blah


----------



## ICE CUBE

Checker said:


> Dont think it has a lot to do with the economy.
> in that case Japan should rank second as it has the second biggest economy and Germany should rank 3rd since it has the third biggest economy.
> Its more a mentality thing.
> The richest cities come up with crap stadiums. Stuttgart or Vienna are cities that are richer than most of whats there in Europe or the US.
> But guess what? They dont think that they should built themselves a proper stadium.
> No, they are happy in their old AL-arenas.
> Both cities could easily built themselves a Reliant stadium tomorrow if it would be financed here by taxpayers money aswell as it happens in the US.


Typical Germans....they never accept somebody else is better than them.


----------



## tugavalenciano

portugal has good stadiums...

the 3 biggest

LUZ (BENFICA)










DRAGÃO ( FCPORTO)










ALVALADE XXI(SPORTING)


----------



## GNU

ICE CUBE said:


> Typical Germans....they never accept somebody else is better than them.


Sure, thats why I posted this 3 days ago :nuts: 



> 1st: USA
> 2nd: Germany
> 3rd: England
> 
> USA is ahead of Europe with big stadiums because strangely sport marketing has developed very slowly here.
> In Germany there is still some sense that supporters feel their club is being sold out when they want to built a new arena.
> america was a step earlier when it came to the development of stadiums.
> What has also helped them is that they seem to calculate riskier than here.
> Anyways, the lead will be closed by the EU soon.


----------



## GNU

tugavalenciano said:


> portugal has good stadiums...


Absolutely, and it also shows that a country with a smaller economy can have much better stadiums than a country with a bigger economy.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Very difficult to compare between Europe and USA really. How do you compare US Baseball stadia with whats in Europe? No can do. Again how do you compare the hundreds of 20 to 50k capacity footy stadiums in Europe with stadia in the US? Also athletic stadia, can a comparison made there? Not really. Different cultures, different sports requiring different types of stadium.
One thing that constantly is raised as subject matter is a roof. Rooves help keep out the elements and also importantly for football fans they keep the atmosphere in. It can do wonders for a stadium of 30 to 60k, that has noisy fans in it. The noise created in the vid below would be terrific no matter what stadium it was in but still it would not be quite so spine tingling without the roof keeping the noise in.So rooves not only help intensify the experience in the stands but also can influence what goes on, on the pitch.


----------



## MRichR

carlspannard said:


> Very difficult to compare between Europe and USA really. How do you compare US Baseball stadia with whats in Europe? No can do. Again how do you compare the hundreds of 20 to 50k capacity footy stadiums in Europe with stadia in the US? Also athletic stadia, can a comparison made there? Not really. Different cultures, different sports requiring different types of stadium.
> One thing that constantly is raised as subject matter is a roof. Rooves help keep out the elements and also importantly for football fans they keep the atmosphere in. It can do wonders for a stadium of 30 to 60k, that has noisy fans in it. The noise created in the vid below would be terrific no matter what stadium it was in but still it would not be quite so spine tingling without the roof keeping the noise in.So rooves not only help intensify the experience in the stands but also can influence what goes on, on the pitch.


Just depends on the design of the stadium. Michigan stadium does not hold noise at all, but Tiger Stadium (aka "Death Valley") has no roof and is considered by many the loudest stadium in the U.S. The crowd noise is so loud at some games, it's been known to register on a seismograph as a small earthquake.










Solider field also gets quite loud in its new configuration.


----------



## carlspannoosh

MRichR said:


> Just depends on the design of the stadium. Michigan stadium does not hold noise at all, but Tiger Stadium (aka "Death Valley") has no roof and is considered by many the loudest stadium in the U.S. The crowd noise is so loud at some games, it's been known to register on a seismograph as a small earthquake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solider field also gets quite loud in its new configuration.


The stadium you show in that pic is massive, very tightly packed (if it has benches) and very steep stands. All those things also help accentuate the noise the fans make. My point is simply that weather is not the only reason for a roof.


----------



## rantanamo

Back on topic.


Infrastructure, which is network of quality stadiums. I would counter the hundreds of 20-50K stadiums with hundreds of 30-100,000K college football stadiums and maybe even thousands of baseball stadiums and college athletics stadiums. That's why I mention baseball. 

I'd also be interested in how many major sporting venues more normal cities have in Europe. LA, London and New York metro are probably abnormal in this sense as they have a ton each. But lets say somewhere like Dallas. You'd have a major league baseball park in the 49,000 seat range, 3-4 major college football stadiums in the 35,000 - 92,000 seat range(Cotton Bowl renovation to 92,000), 1 pro football venue in the 70,000-80,000 range, two pro arenas in the 20,000 seat range, 4 major college basketball arenas in the 7,000 - 10,000 seat range and 2-3 minor league baseball parks in the 5-10,000 seat range. This doesn't count the network on nice high school stadiums. That's what I'd be more curious about.


----------



## Patrick

"Very difficult to compare between Europe and USA really."

so true, just like apples and oranges


----------



## Benn

rantanamo said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> 
> Infrastructure, which is network of quality stadiums. I would counter the hundreds of 20-50K stadiums with hundreds of 30-100,000K college football stadiums and maybe even thousands of baseball stadiums and college athletics stadiums. That's why I mention baseball.
> 
> I'd also be interested in how many major sporting venues more normal cities have in Europe. LA, London and New York metro are probably abnormal in this sense as they have a ton each. But lets say somewhere like Dallas. You'd have a major league baseball park in the 49,000 seat range, 3-4 major college football stadiums in the 35,000 - 92,000 seat range(Cotton Bowl renovation to 92,000), 1 pro football venue in the 70,000-80,000 range, two pro arenas in the 20,000 seat range, 4 major college basketball arenas in the 7,000 - 10,000 seat range and 2-3 minor league baseball parks in the 5-10,000 seat range. This doesn't count the network on nice high school stadiums. That's what I'd be more curious about.


Is there a firm plan to enlarge the cotton bowl? I had heard speculation but nothing firm and no plans/schematics. And I definately agree with the number of major venues comparison. Most major cities will have a couple of major stadiums and a couple of major arenas. My experience in Europe was one major stadium and a mid size arena was typical.


----------



## rantanamo

Benn said:


> Is there a firm plan to enlarge the cotton bowl? I had heard speculation but nothing firm and no plans/schematics. And I definately agree with the number of major venues comparison. Most major cities will have a couple of major stadiums and a couple of major arenas. My experience in Europe was one major stadium and a mid size arena was typical.


The Cotton Bowl is expansion is well underway and funded.


----------



## gappa

redbaron_012 said:


> With Australia having a relatively small population, and this post is not about quantity, our stadium infrastructure is as good as anything on the planet......The Mighty MCG for example, seating 100,000 in comfort on Melbourne's CBD doorstep. Here it is setup for Australian Rules Football....It holds Cricket in the Summer...and held an Olympic and Commonwealth Games.


That's a really good photo of the 'G, the world's greatest stadium.


----------



## Nat76

Benn said:


> Often with game winners, athough the color coordination isn't usually that good. One very important thing to understand about american football, and why you might not think the atmosphere is fantastic is that the crowd will be fairly quiet for the home team's offense. This is so they can concentrate on the upcoming play. The crowd will be as loud as they can when the visiting team is on offense to disrupt them. So when a good crowd is quiet that is almost always intentional.


There is a good example of this. Two college teams, Clemson and Miami played a game at Clemson a couple of years ago. For the non-gridiron fans, Miami had three attempts to move the ball ten yards to effectively end the game. They were ahead by 3, and Clemson could have tied the game with a Field Goal or won with a touchdown (think rugby try). 

The crowd effectively acts as an extra defender. In a game with so much precision, if you can't hear a snap count or play call, you can't start a play well or run it. 

This video shows the sound in the closed broadcast booth vs. what the players hear on the field in the same sequence. On third down at the 3:00 mark, the crowd hit 126 decibels. A Boeing 747 taking off over the stadium would be 120. Miami couldn't hear anything and the entire sequence was chaos. 

The video has been muted somewhat (it is difficult to hear the announcers), but when they switch to field level, the video is really loud. I wouldn't play this at work. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-482408443085380597


----------



## bumdingo

Not sure how Germany's stadiums are better the the UK's? Lower league level German football stadia are not a patch on the Coca Cola, league 1 & 2. The bigger stadiums in the Bundesliga have inflated capacity due to terraces. Our Arena's are comparable, we have 3 enormous rugby stadiums which need to be taken into account aswell. If we take Wembley, Twickenham, Old Trafford, Millenium, Murrayfield, Celtic Park, Emirates, St James's, Hampden, Ibrox, the 10 biggest UK all seated and compare to Germany 10 biggest all seated layout UK comes out tops. Keep going with the next 10 and the result is the same


----------



## GEwinnen

bumdingo said:


> Not sure how Germany's stadiums are better the the UK's? Lower league level German football stadia are not a patch on the Coca Cola, league 1 & 2. The bigger stadiums in the Bundesliga have inflated capacity due to terraces. Our Arena's are comparable, we have 3 enormous rugby stadiums which need to be taken into account aswell. If we take Wembley, Twickenham, Old Trafford, Millenium, Murrayfield, Celtic Park, Emirates, St James's, Hampden, Ibrox, the 10 biggest UK all seated and compare to Germany 10 biggest all seated layout UK comes out tops. Keep going with the next 10 and the result is the same


Germany's top 10 (intl. capacity)

1. Olympiastadion Berlin 75.000*
2. Allianz Arena 69.000*
3. Olympiastadion Munich 63.000
4. Westfalenstadion 65.000*
5. Veltins Arena 54.000*
6. Daimler-Stadium 54.000*
7. AOL-Arena Hamburg 51.000*
8. LTU-Arena 51.000
9. Waldstadion Frankfurt 48.000*
10. Fritz-Walter-Stadion 48.000*

(*World Cup stadiums)
They are all high-quality stadiums with first-class facilities and infrastructure.
You're right, they are smaller than the U.K. stadiums.
Nevertheless there are higher attendances.


----------



## GEwinnen

MRichR said:


> J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solider field also gets quite loud in its new configuration.



In case the U.S. will be one day host nation of the great Football World cup, they can't use Soldier Field as a WC venue.
It is not up to the latest Fifa-Standards for WC-Stadiums......


----------



## KoolKeatz

And here again the correct list :

Signal Iduna Park (Dortmund) 80.708 
Olympic Stadium (Berlin) 76.005 
Allianz Arena (Munich) 69.901
Olympic Stadium (Munich) 69.250
Veltins Arena (Gelsenkirchen) 61.482 
AOL Arena (Hamburg) 57.274
Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion (Stuttgart) 57.000
Borussia-Park (Möchengladbach) 54.000
Commerzbank Arena (Frankfurt) 52.300
Rhein Energie Stadium (Cologne) 51.000 
LTU Arena (Düsseldorf) 51.000

(Bundesliga capacity)


----------



## TEBC

revolution_789 said:


> Hola, abrí este tema, porque casi nadie le ha dado prioridad a lo que ocurrió hace poco en Barinas - Venezuela, pues nos eliminaron un partido.. y de paso el más importante.. el de 4to de final..
> 
> Me parece una gran burla por parte de los organizadores, pues mucha gente compró entradas para ese partido y duraron dias para poderlas obtener. ahora esa gente no verá nada. es triste que nos hallan eliminado ese juego, Barinas ya estaba ilucionada...
> 
> Barinas esta llena de impotencia y deseccionada. me gustaría saber cuales son sus opiniones al respecto..
> Navegado por youtube encontré un video en ralación a esto. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEnhCE9T3n4


Bu how do you want to play in a stadium that will be not ready? will not have the capacity needed


----------



## Zaki

USA no doubt about it. There is no way any other country can even compete.


----------



## MRichR

Zaki said:


> USA no doubt about it. There is no way any other country can even compete.


I agree. Nobody's even broached the numerous amounts of high school stadiums across the country that seat 10,000 or 20,000+


----------



## Mo Rush

*Football World Cup Venues*

If the World Cup could be staged at any ten stadia in any part of the World.
Which ten stadia would you have host a World Cup Match. 

Stadium must seat 40,000+
Semi-Final Venues 60,000 +
Final Venue 70,000 +

e.g.
1. Old Trafford
2. Dortmund
3. Allianz
4. Wembley
5. Dragao
6. River Plate
7. Soldier Field
8. MCG
9. Cape Town World Cup Stadium
10. San Siro

then

SF
Old Trafford
Allianz

F -Wembley


----------



## CharlieP

1. Are you just looking for a list of ten stadia, or are you proposing a World Cup in a fantasy universe where travel is quick and cheap?

2. FIFA wouldn't let you play World Cup matches at Soldier Field 

3. Why on earth is Old Trafford on your list when you have the whole world to choose from?

4. Why on earth is Old Trafford down to host a semi-final?!


----------



## CharlieP

OK, my ten, in no particular order:

1. Wembley Stadium
2. Stade de France
3. Camp Nou
4. Estadio Azteca
5. Stadio Giuseppe Meazza
6. Telstra Stadium
7. Estadio Santiago Bernabéu
8. Allianz Arena
9. Soccer City
10. Reliant Stadium

Semi-final venues:

Camp Nou
Estadio Azteca

Final venue:

Wembley Stadium


----------



## The Gazmon

Hmmmm... strange question:

1. Wembley Stadium
2. Nou Camp
3. San Siro
4. Allianz Arena
5. Stade de France
6. Relliant Stadium
7. Telstra Stadium
8. Cape Town
9. Beijing Olympic Stadium
10. Azteca

SF
1. Stade de France
2. Beijing Olympic

Final
Wembley


----------



## CharlieP

Copycat! :tongue:


----------



## CharlieP

If I were allowed 16, the extra 6 would be:

11. Stade Vélodrome
12. Seoul World Cup Stadium
13. Invesco Field
14. FedExField
15. Giants Stadium
16. Estádio da Luz


----------



## Mo Rush

1. My list said "e.g."
2. Fantasy Universe, travel not an issue.
3. Old trafford, super atmosphere. However my list is but an example of the layout to follow.
4. There is no "one stadium per country" rule.


----------



## El Vampiro Ucraniano

Guys how come you are forgetting Maracanã?

My 10.
*Estadio Azteca
*Maracanã
*Signal Iduna Park
*Stade de France
*Amsterdam Arena
*NSK Olimpiyskyi
*Sapporo Dome
*Athens Olympic Stadium 
*Veltins Arena
*Wembley

SM
*Amsterdam Arena
*Maracanã

Final
*Estadio Azteca


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

I would NOT include any stadia with an Athletics track.


----------



## Benn

Group Stage, in no particular order with rough capacties
1.Wembley (90,000)
2.Stade France (80,000)
3.Camp Nou (98,000)
4.Signal Iduna (68,000)
5.Soccer City (94,000)
6.Maracana (103,000
7.Azteca (114,000)
8.Jerryworld (100,000)
9.Fedex Field (92,000)
10.Telstra (83,500)

Round of 16
1.Signal Iduna park
2.Fedex Field
3.Stade France
4.Telstra Stadium
5.Maracana
6.Camp Nou
7.Wembley
8.Jerryworld

Quarter Finals:
Soccer City
Stade France
Maracana 
Azteca

Semi Finals:
Jerryworld
Camp Nou

Third Place
Soccer City

Final
Wembley (I am torn with its comparetively low capacity, but it is Wembley)

Avg. capacity of about 92,250, that would finally break (well absolutely shatter) the '94 attendance record. Total Attendance of about 5,904,000. That would be sweet.


----------



## 67868

1. Camp Nou
2. Wembly
3. Allainz
4. Jade Stadium
5. Jerryworld
6. Reliant Stadium
7. Santiago Bernabeu
8. Twickenham
9. Estadio Azteca 
10 Estadio do Dragao

SF Wembly
SF Camp Nou
F Santiago Bernabeu


----------



## NeilF

1. Páirc an Chrócaigh; Dublin, Republic of Ireland. (Approx 75,000 with seating on Hill 16 and Nally Terraces, or 93,000 if stadium was completed on all four sides).
2. Wembley; London, England. (90,000)
3. Stade De France; St. Denis, France. (79,959)
4. Estadio Santiago Bernabéu; Madrid, Spain. (80,400)
5. Estadio Azteca; Mexico City, Mexico. (114, 465)
6. Reliant Stadium; Houston, United States of America. (71,500)
7. Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (97,000)
8. National Stadium Bukit Jalil; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (87,411)
9. First National Bank Stadium; Johannesburg, South Africa (78,000)
10. Telstra Stadium; Sydney, Australia. (83,500)

Average capacity: 85,723

Semi-Finals:

Wembley Stadium
Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho

Final

Estadio Azteca


----------



## snyder9

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I would NOT include any stadia with an Athletics track.


Hehe, glad to know this bugs other people as well.

No football stadium should have a track around it. It's just WRONG.


----------



## 3tmk

The new Wembley stadium has never hosted a world cup, so technically it shouldn't be on the list 

oh forget it, I thought it was only out of those that already held a WC game


----------



## cmc

1) Wembley
2) San Siro
3) Santiago Bernabeu
4) Stade de France
5) Maracana
6) Estadio da Luz
7) Camp Nou
8) Khalifa Inter Stadium
9) Beijing Olympic Stadium
10)Soccer City

Semi-finals
1) Reliant
2) Allianz

Final
Estadio Azteca


----------



## bumdingo

USA, quantity but not quality


----------



## Calvin W

1 MCG 100000 Melbourne
2 Maracana 103045 Rio de Janeiro
3 Wembley 90000 London
4 Azteca 114465 Mexico City
5 INVESCO Field at Mile High 76125 Denver
6 Stade de France 79959 Sainte-Denis
7 Olympiastadion 76065 Berlin
8 Camp Nou 98934 Barcelona
9 Estadio Teodoro Fernandez 80093 Lima
10 Soccer City Stadium 95000 Johannesburg

semi finals:
1 Wembley
2 Azteca

final:

Camp Nou


----------



## Bigmac1212

federicoft said:


> Surely the US are plenty of top notch stadia. Nevertheless I think design of American stadia is quite dull compared to Wembley Stadium or Allianz Arena.


I have the opposite. You can do only so much with European rooved stadiums. Having a limited or no roof actually increases design potential.


----------



## Benn

Soldier Field is much better qualified to host a WC game than Lambeau as geat a stadium as it is, FIFA has issues with bench seating, and Lambeau is like 95% benches (they way it should be). Also I am not sure the field is wide enough. Also I would put money on it that FIFA would allow soldier field to host atleast opening round matches sans roof. The L.A. Coliseum is cool, but becuase how oblong (originally diesigned to take a 600 m track I believe) the field is it wouldn't be ideal for hosting football in general, the Rose Bowl (I wouldn't be suprised to see it go to an all-seater before too long) is much better suited to sports played on a rectangular pitch. 
I also doubt beaver stadium has a wide enough field, and again almost entirely bench seating.
The rest of those would work very well though.


----------



## The Gazmon

CharlieP said:


> Copycat! :tongue:


LOL... great minds think alike 

But I have Cape Town, not J'Burg & different semi venues.


----------



## Benn

i would say that the Allianz Arena is one of the most plain and boring designs I have ever seen. When its not lit up on game night it just looks like a big grey matress, in person and on TV. The bowl IMO is a very plain three teir design, though smart interms of sightlines is nothing special. Run that up against Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati (one of my personal favorites) or Denver's Invesco Field. There are some phenomenal designs in the UK and Europe (especially stuff like the new Valencia, Munich Olympiastadion, Signal Iduna, Stade France, Camp Nou ect.) though.
But this thread is about infastructure, not aesthetics, not about how flashy modern or what kind of atmosphere, but how functionally designed, connected and accessable. Interms of Mass transit connection Germany has to take it. But across the board its got to be the USA.


----------



## Sparks

Estadio Azteca is surely going to need a major upgrade first, it's over 20 years since it last saw some major work. Tough luck if you sit behind the goal as the roof only covers about the back 5 rows.

Its facilities surely wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of The Allianz, Wembley and the Stade de France.


----------



## Wezza

LDN_EUROPE said:


> Country / Stadiums = USA
> Country size / Stadiums = UK
> Population / Stadiums = Australia


I agree. Germany deserves a mention as well.


----------



## NeilF

Sparks said:


> Estadio Azteca is surely going to need a major upgrade first, it's over 20 years since it last saw some major work. Tough luck if you sit behind the goal as the roof only covers about the back 5 rows.


I'm sure the 25,000 extra people who got a world cup final ticket will be concerned with such trivial matters.


----------



## Sparks

NeilF said:


> I'm sure the 25,000 extra people who got a world cup final ticket will be concerned with such trivial matters.


Maybe Fifa might though.


----------



## Zaro

www.footballgroundz.co.uk
http://www.groundhopping.de
http://www.pyramidpassion.co.uk
http://www.allsportsinternational.co.uk/nlground2ground.html


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> i would say that the Allianz Arena is one of the most plain and boring designs I have ever seen. When its not lit up on game night it just looks like a big grey matress, in person and on TV.


Ask Mr. Hoeness an Beckenbauer, they say that the Allianz Arena is the best stdium in the world. I know that they are wrong.
We have a few nicknames for the Allianz Arena in Germany:

1. Arrogance Arena (Bayern Munich supporters hate this nickname:lol: )
2. Rubber dinghy
3. Toilet seat




> There are some phenomenal designs in the UK and Europe (especially stuff like the new Valencia, Munich Olympiastadion, *Signal Iduna*, Stade France, Camp Nou ect.) though.


Signal Iduna phenomanal design? Never ever, it is like Old Trafford, a mix of different extensions. And the facilities of the 33 years old parts have the design of 1970!


----------



## Gherkin

1LONDONER said:


> One of my fave's http://www.footballgroundguide.co.uk/


That's a classic! And always has regular updates.


----------



## Benn

I was trying to point out the atmosphere and abstract design ( steep two tiered, some thought to the exterior, big standing tier) of Signal Iduna, and the fact that its not another three level slightly rounded bowl, that design is just getting beaten to death over and over. I actually kind of like it's aesthetics of it oddly enough, I cant speak to general infrastructure though, just trying to make a point about Allianz being vastly overrated.


----------



## 67868

http://www.stadia.gr/intro.html good greek site
www.seatdata.com a good site for american stadiums and arenas


----------



## Gherkin

^^ Do you actually have no legs? What a bizarre choice of Display name.

Here's my favourite football based website - stadiums made of lego!
http://www.burikmodeldesign.com/Sportsstadiumsmainpage.html


----------



## hngcm

Sparks said:


> Maybe Fifa might though.


Doubt it. 

They didn't mind the olympic track in the 2006 final, they prefer to have bad views and have an extra 10k seats.


----------



## 67868

Gherkin007 said:


> Here's my favourite football based website - stadiums made of lego!
> http://www.burikmodeldesign.com/Sportsstadiumsmainpage.html


i asked how much it would be to get a custom built stadium and they said it would cost $2000


----------



## rantanamo

federicoft said:


> Surely the US are plenty of top notch stadia. Nevertheless I think design of American stadia is quite dull compared to Wembley Stadium or Allianz Arena.


I think every stadium in the world is dull compared to Soldier Field's design. It really is unusual, yet gets every fan as close as possible. Truly unique.


----------



## DennisRodman

This is a stupid arguement fellas......USA got the best infastructure hands down....and i am not just talking football stadiums....im talking about most sports such as baseball, basketball and even smaller soccer stadiums.


----------



## DennisRodman

Some Mickey Mouse Soccer Stadiums

























^^ Home Depot Center home of the LA Galaxy (Future Home of David Beckham) Just 27,000 in Capacity.


























^^ Toyota Park home of the Chicago Fire (20,000 Cap.)

























^^ Pizza Hut Park home of the Dallas Burn (21,000 Cap)

































^^ Dick's Sporting Goods Park home of the colorado rapids (26,000 cap)

























^^ Columbus Crew Stadium......Columbus Ohio (33,000 Cap)


----------



## sprtsluvr8

A couple of observations:

1. There are actually many sports in the world IN ADDITION to football. I have never seen such arrogance and elitism about a sport as I've seen in this thread. I've always heard that Americans were unaware of and oblivious to other cultures, but here is a glaring example of many Eurpeans proudly displaying their ignorance and ego-centrism. I'm into several sports, so I'm aware that they all have merits and each one is exciting to either play or watch. 

2. The U.S. quite obviously has the largest number of world class sports venues, many more than any other country. That isn't arrogance or nationalism, it's just going by the numbers and the quality. Atlanta's venues would be typical of U.S. cities, with 4 major professional sports teams and a couple of large universities...

Georgia Dome (72,000 U.S. football)
Phillips Arena (20,000 basketball/hockey)
Turner Field (50,000 baseball)
Sanford Stadium (92,000 UGA football) built in 1927, Olympic Football host '96
Bobby Dodd Stadium (56,000 Georgia Tech football) built in 1913

The SEC and ACC conferences have several stadiums and arenas around the Southeast and East Coast with large capacities (80-100,000 football; 20,000+ basketball) that are either new/recently built or a classic but updated.


----------



## SkyLerm

Sparks said:


> Estadio Azteca is surely going to need a major upgrade first, it's over 20 years since it last saw some major work. Tough luck if you sit behind the goal as the roof only covers about the back 5 rows.
> 
> Its facilities surely wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of The Allianz, Wembley and the Stade de France.


How you can compare a 30-40 year-old stadium with those new ones that have less than 10. Obviously they have different criterias about comfort, security, facilities, no way hno:


----------



## DennisRodman

^^ True Dat


----------



## GEwinnen

sprtsluvr8 said:


> A couple of observations:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The U.S. quite obviously has the largest number of world class sports venues, many more than any other country. That isn't arrogance or nationalism, it's just going by the numbers and the quality.



you have to compare the U.S. to the top 5 nations of the EU, 
U.S. 301,000,000 inh. (9,600,000 square km)

to:

Germany 83,000,000
France 60,000,000
U.K. 60,000,000
Italy 59,000,000
Spain 45,000,000

= 307,000,000 inh. of the top 5 EU nations (1,900,000 square km)

This EU countries together represents a perfect stadium infrastructure.


----------



## Benn

There is no such thing as perfect infrastructure, that would require perfect design and perfect funding. Thats definately not the the best choice of words. When you put those top 5 EU countries together they certainly make a very strong argument, however the original question was which COUNTRY, not countries has the best infrastructure. If you take the USA one on one with anyone, the edge is to the USA. If you add together Europe's top five, and keep things strictly to rectangular pitched stadiums, then I can't argue with you too much. But if you do an overall sports facilities comparison between the USA and your EU list (arenas, cricket grounds, ballparks ect. included) I think the USA still has a clear edge.


----------



## Wezza

Sorry DennisRodman, none of those pics you posted helped your cause alot. None of those stadiums are that good.


----------



## Somnifor

The fact that there is only one major sport in most of Europe but four in the US works the the US advantage in this argument.

For example when current constuction has been completed Minneapolis/St Paul will have:

Metrodome (football) 64,000
New Twins Stadium (baseball, under constuction) ~42,000
TCF Field (college football, under constuction) ~40,000
Target Center (basketball) 20,500
Xcel Center (hockey) 18,000
National Sports Center (soccer) 15,000
Williams Arena (college basketball) 14,600
Marriuci Arena (college hockey) 10,000
Midway Stadium (minor league baseball) 6,000
James Griffin Stadium (soccer, high school football) 6,000

The main rail transit hub for the Twin Cities will be under the new Twins stadium which is pretty cool.


----------



## hngcm

The USA clearly beats out even the top five European countries. 

The NFL alone has 31 60k+ stadiums, the smallest, RCA Dome with 57k, is getting replaced as we speak. 

Then there are the 30 MLB stadiums, ranging from 35k (PNC park) to 57k (yankee stadium). 

Not to mention the countless University stadiums that are all over the US.


----------



## DennisRodman

Wezza said:


> Sorry DennisRodman, none of those pics you posted helped your cause alot. None of those stadiums are that good.


Those are mickey mouse soccer stadiums in america....those are only a tip of the iceberg.

Imagine if Football no soccer was popular in america....


----------



## DennisRodman

Somnifor said:


> The fact that there is only one major sport in most of Europe but four in the US works the the US advantage in this argument.
> 
> For example when current constuction has been completed Minneapolis/St Paul will have:
> 
> Metrodome (football) 64,000
> New Twins Stadium (baseball, under constuction) ~42,000
> TCF Field (college football, under constuction) ~40,000
> Target Center (basketball) 20,500
> Xcel Center (hockey) 18,000
> National Sports Center (soccer) 15,000
> Williams Arena (college basketball) 14,600
> Marriuci Arena (college hockey) 10,000
> Midway Stadium (minor league baseball) 6,000
> James Griffin Stadium (soccer, high school football) 6,000
> 
> The main rail transit hub for the Twin Cities will be under the new Twins stadium which is pretty cool.


Aint they building a new stadium for the vikings as well?


----------



## DennisRodman

Top Stadia for world cup:

1. Wembley is a no brainer
2. Allianz arena
3. Relliant Stadium my hometown Htown
4. Stade De France
5. San Siro
6. Amsterdam Arena
7. Beijing Olympic stadium
8. Durban Stadium South Africa
9. Old Trafford
10. Athens Olympic Stadium

Semi
Maracana Brazil
Relliant Stadium 

Final
Soccer City South Africa


----------



## Benn

They want the city (and probably the state) to foot most of the bill for a $954 million stadium complex. Which we are in no position to do with the new gophers stadium ($288 million, largely public) and twins ballpark ($522 million, mostly funded by Hennipen County alone) currently in the works. Right now the those brilliant law makers like Gov. Pawlenty won't raise taxes to properly fund anything (schools which are starting to slip a little from near the top of the list, programs for the poor, municipal improvements ect) much less a near billion dollar reach around for Zigi. If the vikings are really that desperate for a new stadium they will have to ante up more than 25% and not expect exclusive land rights around the new stadium cause we aren't in a position to pay that right now. If thy wee going to cover 75% that would be a different story. 
Oh and TCF Bank Stadium is going to seat 50,000, not 40,000.


----------



## cindymacherie

http://www.pink-martini.org/missions/bannieres/fr/Banniere_468.swf?oc=1|2|7|1|7070617|1q5I0e5licY2VpbrMeOJ7Lhf6Vu5L


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> There is no such thing as perfect infrastructure, that would require perfect design and perfect funding. Thats definately not the the best choice of words. When you put those top 5 EU countries together they certainly make a very strong argument, however the original question was which COUNTRY, not countries has the best infrastructure. If you take the USA one on one with anyone, the edge is to the USA. If you add together Europe's top five, and keep things strictly to rectangular pitched stadiums, then I can't argue with you too much. But if you do an overall sports facilities comparison between the USA and your EU list (arenas, cricket grounds, ballparks ect. included) I think the USA still has a clear edge.



I agree with you, but the question wasn't fair. You can ask aswell:
Who is taller: A dwarf or a giant?
I've a question, benn, what's the total attendences of NFL (incl. Superbowl) and baseball league in the last season?


----------



## ADCS

GEwinnen said:


> I agree with you, but the question wasn't fair. You can ask aswell:
> Who is taller: A dwarf or a giant?
> I've a question, benn, what's the total attendences of NFL (incl. Superbowl) and baseball league in the last season?


NFL: ~22,000,000

MLB: ~76,000,000


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

Somnifor said:


> The fact that there is only one major sport in most of Europe but four in the US works the the US advantage in this argument.
> 
> For example when current constuction has been completed Minneapolis/St Paul will have:
> 
> Metrodome (football) 64,000
> New Twins Stadium (baseball, under constuction) ~42,000
> TCF Field (college football, under constuction) ~40,000
> Target Center (basketball) 20,500
> Xcel Center (hockey) 18,000
> National Sports Center (soccer) 15,000
> Williams Arena (college basketball) 14,600
> Marriuci Arena (college hockey) 10,000
> Midway Stadium (minor league baseball) 6,000
> James Griffin Stadium (soccer, high school football) 6,000
> 
> The main rail transit hub for the Twin Cities will be under the new Twins stadium which is pretty cool.



so rugby league,rugby union and cricket don't count as major sports?


----------



## skaP187

Thanks for the info, now I am going to rob these sites of all the pictures...
Please put more info in, maybe it is nice to put some sites of architects in it to who have build a lot.
I ´ll start by putting the following link in:

http://www.zwarts.jansma.nl/listpublish.php?q_mm=&q_keyword=256

A big one in Holland, Zwarts & Jansma architects.


----------



## matt_sbs

The city with the best variety of stadium infrastructure would have to be melbourne


----------



## rantanamo

Major, but you guys would never put them on the level with your football. We have no soccer equivalent in the states is probably the best way to put it. There's always debate no matter what the attendance or tv numbers. There's always a debate as to which of our big 6 is the most popular.


----------



## Wezza

matt_sbs said:


> The city with the best variety of stadium infrastructure would have to be melbourne


Except they still don't have a decent retangular stadium.

What about London? It's got Wembley Stadium, Emirates Stadium, Twickenham, O2 Dome will be fitted out soon, Lords, The Oval. Not to mention White Hart Lane, Stamford Bridge & Upton Park though they are not quite up there with the others. There are a host of others like The Valley, Craven Cottage, The Den & Selhurst Park.


----------



## eMKay

federicoft said:


> Surely the US are plenty of top notch stadia. Nevertheless I think design of American stadia is quite dull compared to Wembley Stadium or Allianz Arena.


Wembley and Allianz are just copies of stadiums that have been built in America over the last 10 years. Allianz has a unique exterior but that has no bearing on the term "infrastructure"


----------



## eMKay

GEwinnen said:


> you have to compare the U.S. to the top 5 nations of the EU,
> U.S. 301,000,000 inh. (9,600,000 square km)
> 
> to:
> 
> Germany 83,000,000
> France 60,000,000
> U.K. 60,000,000
> Italy 59,000,000
> Spain 45,000,000
> 
> = 307,000,000 inh. of the top 5 EU nations (1,900,000 square km)
> 
> This EU countries together represents a perfect stadium infrastructure.


Even then it's no contest. There are 30 teams in the NFL with stadiums better than all but 3 or 4 European cities (Paris, Munich, uhhhh.....hmmm.) Plus there are 40 or so state of the art arenas between 16,000 and 23,000 seats, add baseball and college to that. No contest.


----------



## eMKay

sorry, double post


----------



## GEwinnen

eMKay said:


> Even then it's no contest. There are 30 teams in the NFL with stadiums better than all but 3 or 4 European cities (Paris, Munich, uhhhh.....hmmm.) Plus there are 40 or so state of the art arenas between 16,000 and 23,000 seats, add baseball and college to that. No contest.


Better stadiums? This is a question of the point of view.
O.k, the american stadiums are really huge and impressive. But the european stadiums have (allmost) all seats under cover, there are no huge gaps in the stadiums.

For e.g. I want to compare Soldier Field to Veltins Arena (I know it very well 





































cap.: 54.000/67.0000 advantage SF
roof: 100%/ 0 % advantage VA


----------



## michał_

HOK Sport - http://www.hoksport.com/projects/index.html (try and find someone bigger  )

KSS Group - www.kssgroup.com/

Schlaich Bergemann und Partner - http://www.sbp.de/de/fla/mittig.html


----------



## Martuh

eMKay said:


> Even then it's no contest. There are 30 teams in the NFL with stadiums better than all but 3 or 4 European cities (Paris, Munich, uhhhh.....hmmm.) Plus there are 40 or so state of the art arenas between 16,000 and 23,000 seats, add baseball and college to that. No contest.


I know you are right, but it has an explanation: the US are one country since a long time. Western-Europe isn't one country (yet) but consists of 15 countries, that are working together for about 60 years or less. Before, we were at war with eachother. Not so strange huh?

And it also has another explanation: we don't have truly pan-European competitions as your NFL or MLB. All sports have leagues in their own countries, and there's a small European Cup which isn't important at all. When we would have a NFL-like Champions League, I guess the stadiumsize of the smaller teams (teams from Holland, Scotland, Greece, Denmark, Belgium etc.) would increase dramatically.


----------



## bumdingo

Wembley in no way resembles any stadium built in America over the last 1000 years never mind 10. For a start it's got roof, American stadiums tend not to have........roofs. With so many stadiums being built now it must be virtually impossible to build a completely original stadium in design. To make a stadium stand out now it's positioning needs to be taken into account. The new Pompey Village is a good example, the Zenit St Petersburg new stadium. The Husky stadium in Seattle is rather unremarkable stadium but its positioning on the waterfront makes it visually pleasing


----------



## rantanamo

GEwinnen said:


> Better stadiums? This is a question of the point of view.
> O.k, the american stadiums are really huge and impressive. But the european stadiums have (allmost) all seats under cover, there are no huge gaps in the stadiums.
> 
> For e.g. I want to compare Soldier Field to Veltins Arena (I know it very well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cap.: 54.000/67.0000 advantage SF
> roof: 100%/ 0 % advantage VA


This is a list of large, US, professional stadiums with full roofs or retractable roofs. As you can see, the US isn't hurting for them.

Chase Field(retractable)
University of Phoenix(retractable)
Tropicana Field(domed)
Georgia Dome(domed)
Lucas Oil Stadium(u/c)(retractable)
Louisiana Superdome(domed)
Ford Field(domed)
Pontiac Silverdome(it still exists)(domed)
HHH Metrodome(domed)
Carrier Dome(domed)
Alamodome(domed)
Astrodome(domed)
JerryWorld(u/c)(retractable)
Minute Maid Field(retractable)
Reliant Stadium(retractable)
Qwest Field(partial roof)
Safeco Field(retractable)
Miller Park(fan retractable)
Wrigley Field(partial roof)
Edward Jones Dome(domed)
Texas Stadium(partial roof)

and this is even with a very anti-roof feeling of many fans in the US. Also does not list the new MLS stadiums, many of which have partial roofs.

Should also mention Minneapolis is likely to get a retractable roof NFL stadium as well.


----------



## psveindhoven

Don't forget this one:


http://www.footballstadiums.vze.com


----------



## Benjuk

There's also:

www.austadiums.com

If you're interested in Australia's stadia. Not many 'football' grounds, but interesting to track how things are coming on.


----------



## cinosanap

What is the big deal with Soldier Field? It doesn't look very impressive.


----------



## ADCS

cinosanap said:


> What is the big deal with Soldier Field? It doesn't look very impressive.


It's not really the renovated modern version that people rave about, it's the old one. Think of it as Chicago's Wembley, then you'll understand.

Oh, and roofs on stadiums are not advantages! If I want to watch a sporting event inside, I'll watch it on TV. Being out in the elements even though it is probably teetering on the edge of insanity and cheering on your team until you're blue in the face, that's what going out to a game is all about. I don't feel like I've given it my all as a fan unless I come back completely drained from the sun/rain/snow.


----------



## canarywondergod

personally i think soldier field is fantastic, probably my second favourite after the reliant stadium. i love the sweeping box suites and the way the tiers of the stand cut at big angles but in such a beautiful way, even the choice of seating and colours used in the stadium blend perfectly

im not too sure about the facade however how it mixes old with new, it just doesnt quite fit but otherwise it looks amazing, just look at the view to central chicago!


----------



## MRichR

Soldier Field is one of the most historic stadiums in the United States (although the "brilliant" redesign on the outside resulted in its historic landmark status being revoked). 

The old Soldier Field, not Michigan Stadium, holds the record for most most spectators at a football game (125,000).


----------



## P.D

USA obviously. 

Germany and UK next I think. Although Korea has some decent ones now, really up and coming but just not enough of them.


----------



## rantanamo

cinosanap said:


> What is the big deal with Soldier Field? It doesn't look very impressive.


To me, its one of those underappreciated, once in a lifetime designs. The way the stands and suites are literally stacked on top of the field is incredible. Even on the other side, the huge upper deck is right on top of things. Not to mention that place looks totally different from every angle. And that's saying nothing about the history or monument of the place.


----------



## Benn

Nothing against the design of the bowl in an abstract way (its very unique, and has good proximity as well as solid sightlines) , but in the context of the original Soldier Field its an abomination. Soldier Field was one of THE cathedrals of Football, with its monumental neoclassical elegance and history. I feel crashing a space ship looking abstract bowl that towers over the old colonnades an affront to history and tradition. To be fair this isn't the first renovation that hurt aesthetics, ever since the 50's each subsequent renovation has hurt the overall aesthetic of Soldier. If it were on its own, or atleast not in a neoclassical beauty it would be great, but thats not the case.


----------



## Komandant MarkC

*Belgrade Summer Universiade 2009 - The Venues*

In January 2005, Belgrade was picked to host the 2009 Summer Universiade over Poznan (Poland) and Monterrey (Mexico).

The success of Belgrade's bid was mostly due to our superior & already existing venues - both Poznan & Monterey still had theirs on the drawing boards.

Now i'd like to take the opportunity to present the venues where this competion will take place. Unsuprisingly, this whole Universiade deal still isn't attracting much attention in the city, where most people see it as a mere stepping stone to the eventual hosting of a football European Championships/World Cup or Summer Olympics:yes:

*STADIUMS*




> *STADIUM FC “CRVENA ZVEZDA” (Red Star Belgrade's Marakana)*
> 
> In the middle of the greatest sports complex in Belgrade is the stadium which, since its founding in 1965, has hosted many international competitions. The stadium can hold *61,400* spectators and it is designed for football and athletics. Beside the football field, athletic track and other athletic fields, there are also 4 grass courts and one hard court, auxiliary training courts and supplemental facilities (dressing rooms, club, restaurant, press center). Within the complex there are also a sports hall, medical center with saunas and hydrotherapy, as well as two office buildings with club offices, the Museum of the “Crvena Zvezda” football club and a guest room.
> 
> 
> Sport: Opening and closing ceremony, Athletics















> *STADIUM JNA FC “PARTIZAN”*
> The “Partizan” Stadium is the construction with the longest sports tradition in Serbia and Montenegro. It resides on the spot that has always been place of the most important football events in the country. FIFA criteria has become stricter over the last few years, especially in domain of audience security and comfort. According to those requests, the auditorium has been reconstructed in 1998, seats have been installed, halls for enter and exist have been widened, modern equipment installed, and therefore the present capacity is *32,710* seats, complying with all stipulated conditions. In 1995 the “Partizan” Stadium entered the development system of world stadiums, with project-program solution of covering the stadium and making it a great sports-business centre.
> 
> 
> Sport: Football















> *STADIUM FC “OBILIC”*
> Football stadium holds *10,000* spectators. There are also dressing rooms, club, restaurant and press center.
> 
> 
> Sport: Football














> *STADIUM “OMLADINSKI STADIUM”*
> 
> Football stadium with athletic track, auxiliary training field, 3 tennis courts and a judo hall. Designed for: football, athletics, judo, cycling and tennis. The stadium holds *21,000* spectators. There are also dressing rooms, club, restaurant and press center.
> 
> 
> Sport: Football















> *STADIUM “GRADSKI STADIUM ZEMUN”*
> 
> The stadium holds *10,000* spectators. Designed for competitions in football, hockey, rugby and athletics. Besides the main grass field, it also has auxiliary training fields (grass or hard), as well as supplemental facilities (dressing rooms, club, press center).
> 
> 
> Sport: Football















> *STADIUM FC “RAD”*
> The stadium has a grass field and a training field, as well as a handball field. It is designed for football, hockey and rugby. It has *5,000* seats and all supplemental facilities (dressing rooms, club, restaurant and press center).
> 
> 
> Sport: Football














> *STADIUM FC “RADNICKI”*
> 
> The stadium has *3,000* group seats and is primarily designed for football and hockey. The complex has a grass field and a training field. It has all supplemental facilities (dressing rooms, club, restaurant).
> 
> Sport: Football


----------



## Komandant MarkC

*AQUATIC / SWIMMING CENTERS *




> *SPORTS RECREATIONAL CENTER “TASMAJDAN”*
> 
> This center was founded by the City Assembly of Belgrade in 1958. It has about 130 employees. It has one outdoor and one indoor swimming-pool, stands for *2,000* spectators, a diving platform for 1, 3, 5, and 10m jumps, and 16 underwater windows for TV cameras. Right here, in 1973, the first World Championship in water polo and diving took place. Besides swimming courses, there are also schools of synchronized swimming, water polo and diving. The open stadium “Tasmajdan” has capacity for 5,000 spectators and it is designed for indoor football, basketball, fencing and volleyball. The recreation center offers programs of aerobics, fitness, massage, body building and corrective gymnastics, as well as sauna and solarium.
> 
> Sport: Swimming and Diving















> *SPORTS CENTER “25. MAJ”*
> 
> It has 2 outdoor swimming pools (recreational and water polo), 2 indoor swimming pools (Olympic, with *600* seats and a small one for swimming courses and therapeutic purposes). The supplemental programs are: mini golf, table tennis, beach volleyball and open bowling field. It also has 2 enclosed sport halls for basketball and indoor football, 8 tennis courts and 2 concrete courts. It has all necessary supplements (dressing rooms, restaurant, club, press center). Physical-sauna unit is equipped for physical therapy, sauna, hand massage, hydro massage and solarium.
> 
> Sport: Tennis - Competition venue and Water Polo, Swimming - Practice venue














> *SPORTS RECREATIONAL CENTER “BANJICA”*
> 
> The center has an enclosed Olympic swimming pool (with 2,000 sitting and 1,000 standing places for spectators), two open Olympic swimming pools and 6 tennis courts. As supplemental, the center has a medical center, sauna, hydro massage, recreation room, weight room. The center is designed for sport competitions: water polo, swimming, synchronized swimming, as well as tennis tournaments.
> 
> 
> Sport: Water Polo


*













SPORTS CENTER “ZVEZDARA”

The center has a sport hall and a recreation hall, as well as a number of open sport fields: 4-track field for athletics, mini golf, fields for indoor football and handball, basketball field and volleyball field. The open swimming pool complex consists of four pools - for swimmers, non-swimmers, children and diving. The tennis complex consists of 7 hard courts and 2 concrete courts. The summer amphitheatre has capacity of 1,000 spectators. The large part of the “Zvezdara” Sport center consists of green areas with maintained paths, lawns, and various plants.

Sport: Tennis

Click to expand...














SPORTS CENTER “KOSUTNJAK”

This beautiful open air water sports center was completely reconstructed in 2004. It has several outdoor swimming pools , a diving platform for 1, 3, 5, and 10m jumps and springboards for 1 and 3m jumps. 

Sport: Diving

Click to expand...














SPORTS RECREATIONAL CENTER “11. APRIL”

It has one outdoor and one indoor swimming-pool, stands for 1,000 spectators.

Sport: Recreational Venue for Athletes

Click to expand...















ADA CIGANLIJA Island and Lake

Once and island that has been turned into a peninsula, Ada Ciganlija lies not far from the mouth of the Sava river, only 4km from the city center. Covered by thick deciduous forest, and speckled with clearings and meadows, Ada is now the largest, most beautiful and preferred outing area, beach and leisure spot of the Belgraders. Some authors indicate that the name of the island has its origin in the combination of Celtic words singa (island) and lia (submerged ground), giving one word singalija... Gradually the spelling changed into tzingalia, hence Ciganlija. Ada Ciganlija was appreciated as an unusual natural resource, even back at the time of Karadjordje and prince Milos Obrenovic, and Ada was proclaimed public domain in 1821, preserving this status to present day. In 1967 dams were built on both tips of the island thus giving Belgrade a unique 4,2km long lake with an the average width of 200m and the depth of 4-6 m. During the summer, nearly 300,000 people come here to swim or engage in other recreational activities. The overall Ada Ciganlija area, which includes the smaller island of Ada Medjica and the surrounding waters, is 800 hectares. The beach on the left bank of the lake is fully equipped with all necessary infrastructure objects. Thus it is one of the largest and most beautiful beaches on artificial lakes in Europe. The lake water is warmer and cleaner than the river water and thus the lake is highly suitable for mass recreational activities. The position, the quality of the water, the existing equipment and the length of the lake make it an ideal site for top rank competitions on calm waters. The lake is suitable for swimming, rowing, kayak, water polo, water diving, sailing competitions, and several national and international championships were held here. Ada Ciganlija has 50 different open-air sports fields. Ada Ciganlija also serves as a cultural and entertainment center of Belgrade, especially during the summer. Numerous manifestations are organized, involving famous writers, actors, singers, cultural societies, choirs, bands and amateurs from different fields. The Ada Ciganlija offer is completed by dozens of rustic restaurants, floating restaurants and boathouses that preserve the Belgrade’s bohemian tradition. On the mainland side of the lake, there’s a parking place for about thousand vehicles as well as the marina in the Cukarica channel for boats, yachts and smaller ships. Ada Ciganlija also has shops, picnic spaces, bowling alleys, mini-golf courts, bungee jumping tower, horse-drawn carriages, a tourist train, pedal boats and canoes, as well as the environment-friendly electric-powered boat.


Sport: Rowing

Click to expand...


















*


----------



## Komandant MarkC

*SPORTS ARENAS*




> *PHYSICAL CULTURE CENTER “VRACAR”*
> 
> This center has the following facilities: a big hall, martial arts hall, 3 weight rooms, enclosed swimming pool and sauna, sunbathe terrace, small swimming pool and two dancing rooms. Besides the main building there is a separate complex of tennis courts, protected by inflatable cover during winter. The building at 69, Bulevar Crvene Armije Street has only dressing rooms, while around it, there are tennis courts, handball and basketball fields, as well as a separate building offering all necessary programs, and a balloon for indoor football.
> 
> 
> Sport: Fencing














> *SPORTS CENTER “VOZDOVAC”*
> 
> The center has a universal sport hall for handball, volleyball and table-tennis competitions, as well as for bowling and martial arts. The hall has 2,300 seats. The center has also a training hall, 6 tennis courts, air gun shooting hall, weight room, recreation room, sauna, dressing rooms, club and a restaurant.
> 
> Sport: Judo














> *BELGRADE ARENA*
> 
> The biggest sport hall in Belgrade is designed as a universal hall for all sport events: basketball, handball, volleyball, tennis, athletics, as ice hall and a hall for cultural events and other programs. The constructive solution of the roof structure is for the time being unique in the world. The total covered space is 47,500m2. The Belgrade`s Arena complex consists of:
> - large hall *20,000-23,000* seats
> - small hall 2,500 seats - Volleyball
> - commercial and press centre
> - parking place for 1,200 vehicles.















> *SPORTS HALL “PIONIR”*
> 
> Designed for all indoor sports, with *7,000* seats. The following competitions may take place here: gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, handball, tennis and martial arts. It has all auxiliary facilities (dressing rooms, medical center, club).
> 
> The Ice Hall Designed for all ice sports, having main and auxiliary courts, as well as all subsidiary facilities. The hall has 1,000 seats.
> 
> Sport: Gymnastics















> *SPORTS HALL “PINKI”*
> 
> It is designed for various sports: basketball, volleyball, handball, martial arts, table tennis, rhythmic gymnastics, etc. This complex has two open recreational basketball fields, air gun shooting room, fitness center, ballet studio and swimming pool. The hall has *1,980 seats plus 600* group seats and 6 telescopic platforms used for martial arts tournaments.
> 
> Sport: Basketball















> *SPORTS HALL “NOVI BEOGRAD” *
> 
> Beside a universal hall with *5,000* seats, it also has a football field, 2 basketball fields, and 2 indoor football fields. It also has supplemental facilities: weight room, fitness club, 2 martial arts halls, dressing rooms, restaurant and club.
> 
> Sport: Basketball


----------



## Komandant MarkC

This summer, construction cranes will go up on ALL of these venues...they will be renovated & modernized for the Univesiade which is still more than two years from now.

Also, a batch of entirely new sports complexes will be built , including the new Athletics stadium in Belgrade and a new sports arena of 5.000 capacity in Pancevo, a nearby city.

Also, as this competition calls for 12.000 athletes from all around the World spending a few weeks in Belgrade, the construction of the new Athletes Village has just kicked-off this month. (new mall construction in the background of the photo)










*Photo courtesy of BEOUBILD.net*


----------



## Benjuk

*Temp stands/stadiums*

Anyone have any idea what the biggest temp stand/stadium ever built was? As a definition of temp, I'll put down that the stand must have been taken down within a year of it's completion.

Best I've got is:

Stadiums: 
The Beach Volleyball stadium on Bondi Beach, Sydney for the 2000 Olympics was a 10k seater, and was dismantled after 6 weeks... 

The Adidas Arena in Berlin, built for Germany 2006 - no games played there but lots watched on big screens. Approx 10-14k seats. (not sure). Dismantled at end of tournament.

Stands:
The two ends of the Sydney Olympic Stadium, taking about 7.5k spectators each (guess), pulled down shortly after the end of the comp.

Anyone know any larger?


----------



## TEBC

loved!! mainly Belgrade Arena... i already saw it on TV, Volleyball world league and Eurobasket


----------



## Komandant MarkC

:cheers:

We Serbs & Brazillians may live far away from each other, but we definately share one thing ....OUR love...for SPORTS:yes:


----------



## pompeyfan

If i remember correctly the Beijing Olympic Stadium will have 20000 temp seats


----------



## Goothrey

The temp stands in DKR this season will be roughly 8,000.


----------



## MRichR

35-40,000 of the seats in the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta in 1996 were temporary. It sat 85,000 for the Olympics, and a year later it was a 45-50,000 seat baseball stadium.

1996 Olympics:









1997 Turner Field:









I believe Chicago's proposed Olympic Stadium for 2016 call for all but 5-10,000 seats to be temporary.


----------



## MRichR

Benn said:


> Nothing against the design of the bowl in an abstract way (its very unique, and has good proximity as well as solid sightlines) , but in the context of the original Soldier Field its an abomination. Soldier Field was one of THE cathedrals of Football, with its monumental neoclassical elegance and history. I feel crashing a space ship looking abstract bowl that towers over the old colonnades an affront to history and tradition. To be fair this isn't the first renovation that hurt aesthetics, ever since the 50's each subsequent renovation has hurt the overall aesthetic of Soldier. If it were on its own, or atleast not in a neoclassical beauty it would be great, but thats not the case.



^^ :banana: ^^ I couldn't agree more. I love the inside of the stadium. As a Bears fan the atmosphere is just incredible. And I'd love the stadium as a whole....if it was built on another site and not in the middle of a (now former) historic landmark. The outside is just...disgusting. They might as well have just torn the colonnades down. Growing up they looked so huge and imposing as a backdrop during Bears games. Now driving by the stadium it's just a depressing sight.


----------



## Wezza

Talk about nosebleed section up in the far corner of that big stand @ Soldier Field. :lol:


----------



## Wezza

I know it's not built yet, but isn't London's Olympic stadium going to be reduced to 20,000 after the games?


----------



## Bigmac1212

University of Phoenix Stadium put up a couple rows of seats in the south endzone during Arizona Cards games. They fill the South endzone and North Upperdeck for the Fiesta Bowl and the upcoming Super Bowl XLII (42).


----------



## Somnifor

If Soldier Field were a new stadium you might say it was ok or pretty good. But they did that so Soldier Field, one of the classic old stadiums! I hope somebody was fired for this.


----------



## Tallsmurf

The Dubai Exiles rugby ground has a 28,000 temporary stadium erected every year to host the Dubai 7s rugby competition. and it dismantles it every year. 

Ridiculous arrangement (and a dangerously overcrowded place as well IMHO) although a great time:cheers: .

Next year the tournament is to move to a permanent stadium in Dubia Sports City.hno:


----------



## Calvin W

Taylor Field in Regina Saskatchewan was expanded for the Grey Cup in 1995. The capcity went from 27637 to 54000 for the game. The following year the stadium was reduced to 28000 seats.

Most Canadian host cities add temp seating for the Grey Cup. Often in the 20000 to 30000 range.


----------



## rantanamo

I'd bet some Grand Prix's hold these records. Especially street courses like Long Beach.


----------



## rantanamo

MRichR said:


> ^^ :banana: ^^ I couldn't agree more. I love the inside of the stadium. As a Bears fan the atmosphere is just incredible. And I'd love the stadium as a whole....if it was built on another site and not in the middle of a (now former) historic landmark. The outside is just...disgusting. They might as well have just torn the colonnades down. Growing up they looked so huge and imposing as a backdrop during Bears games. Now driving by the stadium it's just a depressing sight.


Well, I will gladly give you your old stadium back if you fly that space ship and land it inside the Cotton Bowl.


----------



## Chimaera

rantanamo said:


> I'd bet some Grand Prix's hold these records. Especially street courses like Long Beach.


I remember when I visited the Jacques Villeneuve F1-circuit in Montréal, that I didn't see any stands at all. During the F1 it has quite a high capacity.

In Belgium, the Charleroi stadium had 30,000 seats during the Euro 2000 tournament. Afterwards they removed the third tier (holding 5,000 seats) of one of the stands and lowered the roof. That tier got a second life at the local outdoor velodrome.


----------



## sapmi1

I want to see some pictures! :gaah:


----------



## TEBC

Komandant MarkC said:


> :cheers:
> 
> We Serbs & Brazillians may live far away from each other, but we definately share one thing ....OUR love...for SPORTS:yes:


hehehehe mainly for soccer, Basketball and Volleyball!!


----------



## VelesHomais

Ok, let's stop calling Football with this terrible foreign word ^^

What's Universiade ?

I like this venue


----------



## Mali

Dr.Mesofius said:


> *What's Universiade ?*


Oh no, you didn't just ask that. :j/k:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universiade


> The Universiade is an International multi-sport event, organized for university athletes by the International University Sports Federation (FISU). The name is a combination of the words "University" and "Olympiad". The Universiade is often referred to in English as the World University Games or World Student Games.


I was gonna say, they better do something about these venues. It will be nice to see them all after renovation.


----------



## VelesHomais

Ok! Thanks, never heard of it before, sorry


----------



## Komandant MarkC

Don't worry, we haven't either (ok, Zagreb hosted it back in late 80's) but we'll use it as an excuse to upgrade our sports & transport infrastructure for future events.:yes:

20.000 seat stadium U/C in Belgrade satellite city of Smederevo:


----------



## TEBC

Dr.Mesofius said:


> Ok, let's stop calling Football with this terrible foreign word ^^
> 
> What's Universiade ?
> 
> I like this venue



It´s a "Olympic Games" played by university students..

I was going to write Football... I hate Soccer... hehehe


----------



## Benn

Weren't the endzone stands at Telstra about 15,000 each for the Olympics? I thought they had about 30,000 temporary seats total.


----------



## Komandant MarkC

New bridge over Sava river, crucial for relieving traffic at Belgrade's existing bridges and providing transport links to newly built infrastructure:

It will have six road lanes and two rail lines reserved for future light rail (LRT) line, with a pylon of 200 meters in height. Construction starts later this year, to be finnished in time for Summer 2009 - hopefully


----------



## VelesHomais

I'm very curious about Serbian sport venues


----------



## Komandant MarkC

New sports arena of 3.000 capacity & hotel in Belgrade's "Students City":
Project worth 20 million euros.


----------



## Komandant MarkC

New stadium for Partizan Belgrade - the old one will be torn down and a new built at a cost of 300+ million euros. Capacity will be expaned to ~40.000:


----------



## dunwyn

Australian Grand Prix around most of the circuit especially the main strait has mostly temp stands. Don't know the capacity.


----------



## Vermeer

*Waste of money*

To me this seems like madness. The summer Universiade is an event that hardly anybody outside the old communist world has heard about. The event will not be broadcasted in any western country and Serbia will not get anything back for al the expenses with renovating their arenas.

I have actually seen most of the arenas and I am sorry to say that for most of them it would most likely have been cheaper to pull them down and build new ones. The Red Star Stadium as an example, doesn’t have any of the facilities needed for an international stadium, except of seats inside the stadium. No infrastructure outside, no VIP facilities and no media facilities. The stadium looks like there has been no maintenance the last 30 years.

The only top international arena you have is the Belgrad Arena, which is fantastic. Not that I think you need top arenas to host a university competition, but I am afraid you will spend a lot of money on re-construction of arenas that were modern 30 years ago, that will never become good enough for “real” international competitions.

Serbia is depending on aid from abroad, just to survive and a lot of people do not have income enough for a reasonable ok life. I can’t understand how they accept their politicians wasting money this way.

I wish all the best for the people of Belgrade, but I do not think this is the best use of money.


----------



## El Vampiro Ucraniano

Komandant MarkC said:


> New stadium for Partizan Belgrade - the old one will be torn down and a new built at a cost of 300+ million euros. Capacity will be expaned to ~40.000:


Amazing project, really good for Belgrade, when is it expected to be finished?


----------



## Zgembo

El Vampiro Ucraniano said:


> Amazing project, really good for Belgrade, when is it expected to be finished?


According to the Partizan board 2010 (knowing the Partizan board id say never would be soon enough, they've been showing different plans for 10 yrs now ). This of course means it can't be used as a venue for the universiade, but for some reason the organizers just like having a photo of the current stadium in their presentation. hno:


----------



## Vermeer

*Partizan Stadium*



Zgembo said:


> According to the Partizan board 2010 (knowing the Partizan board id say never would be soon enough, they've been showing different plans for 10 yrs now ). This of course means it can't be used as a venue for the universiade, but for some reason the organizers just like having a photo of the current stadium in their presentation. hno:


What is the economy in a stadium like that. As far as I know the attendance for Partizan matches is around 5000 except from the match against Red Star, which is the only match that fill up the present stadium.
Anyway, the plans for the new stadium looks great.


----------



## redbaron_012

OK..a few balls have been lost in the bushes...and most of the games end as nil all draws....but there is good spectator viewing without high cost grandstand infrustructure!


----------



## Zgembo

Vermeer said:


> What is the economy in a stadium like that. As far as I know the attendance for Partizan matches is around 5000 except from the match against Red Star, which is the only match that fill up the present stadium.
> Anyway, the plans for the new stadium looks great.


Economy?? Who ever thinks about that when you want to trick the fans into believing in a miraculous future after a couple of miserable seasons. 
The 5000 average attendance this season was mainly due to free entrance. It was allowed as a way of gathering bigger crowds in what was supposed to be the last season of the current stadium. Naturally, the demolition planned for this summer has been delayed. One was supposed to have been a fool to expect anything different.hno:
As for the prospects of stadium capacity in Serbia thats quite a tricky issue. Both Partizan and Red Star have the potential of gathering large crowds. I still remember the days when we had 50 000 for Partizan and 80-90k for Red Star on quite a regular basis. The problem is that we have a pathetic domestic competition nowadays, compared to the old Yugoslav league which was concidered among the top 5 in Europe. Having said that, u can assume the problem... a 38 000 stadium like Partizan is planning is way beyond the club's potential, and way way above the clubs current needs.


----------



## ADCS

redbaron_012 said:


> OK..a few balls have been lost in the bushes...and most of the games end as nil all draws....but there is good spectator viewing without high cost grandstand infrustructure!


_But there's no roof over the stands_


----------



## eMKay

redbaron_012 said:


> OK..a few balls have been lost in the bushes...and most of the games end as nil all draws....but there is good spectator viewing without high cost grandstand infrustructure!


Heh...I can get a front row seat with my sailboat


----------



## max_cool

In the Phoenix metro alone we have 

University of Phoenix Stadium (pro football) 64,000 - brand new state of the art
ASU Sun Devil Stadium (college fooball) 74,000
Phoenix International Raceway (nascar) 78,000
Chase Field (pro baseball) 50,000
US Airways Center (pro basketball) 19,000
Wells Fargo Arena (college basketball) 14,000
Jobbing.com Area (pro hockey) 17,700 - also brand new
Peoria Stadium	(baseball) 12 800
HoHoKam Park (baseball) 12 600 
Scottsdale Stadium (baseball) 11 200 
Surprise Stadium (baseball) 10 500 
Tempe Diablo Stadium (baseball) 9,800

All this in one metro area, a quite unremarkable metro area.


----------



## dallasburg

The USA. They have many football, baseball, basketball, and even a few soccer stadiums now and most of them are in top condition, and more are being made.


----------



## TalB

At first I wasn't sure what it meant by stadium infrastructure, but I now it is about the designs. Honestly, does design really matter when it comes to stadiums and arenas? Just b/c it looks the best doesn't mean that it is the best. Usually, when new state of the art places like this are built, it means that ticket prices will go from steep to expensive. Pretty soon, we will probably just be watching sporting events at home rather than going to the games themselves due to the prices. All places are the same on the inside with the same concourses. Please do not grill me for saying this, b/c this is just my take on stadium infrastructure.


----------



## LMCA1990

Definately the US. In Latin America, It would be between Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.


----------



## RonaldBucarito

Pueba


----------



## ougu

3 same threads


----------



## hngcm

Copa America is going to start on tuesday, are all the venues completely finished?


----------



## Mamusa

Barquisimeto's Metrpolitan Stadium



















Maturin's Monumental Stadium










Caracas Olympic Stadium










Total Entretaiment Center "Cachamay Stadium"



















Pueblo Nuevo Stadium




























General, Jose Antonio Anzaotegui Stadium










Merida's Metropolitan Stadium



















Agustin Tovar Stadium, La Carolina Barinas



















Jose Encarnacion "Pachencho" Romero Stadium




















Some Pictures are a few weeks old, others are several weeks old, two stadiums will not be compleatly done by the moment of the cup, but they will be avalible to host the games...


----------



## revolution_789

RonaldBucarito said:


> Pueba


ahh?


----------



## tv123

England


----------



## jef

England by far (in Europe). I don't know the US stadia.


----------



## KoolKeatz

jef said:


> by far


 :lol:


----------



## gugasounds

Well in latinamerica the best stadium infrastructue goes to Mexico and probably Venezuela. In Mexico there are many modern soccer, baseball, basketball and football stadiums.
Venezuelan stadiums had been renewed for the Copa América, and they also have some baseball stadiums.


----------



## Mateus_

For me, Germany in Europe, USA in the world. UK and Australia have good infrastructures too. If compared with the size of the country, Netherlands and Portugal are well served.

But in Europe, all cities have big football stadia (Milan, Paris, London, Munich, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Moscow...). It's difficult to say which is the best because there are 4/5 countries (UK, Germany, Spain, France, Italy) with good infrastructures networks and other with some top class infrastructure.


----------



## skaP187

jef said:


> England *by far* (in Europe). I don't know the US stadia.[/QUOTE
> hno:


----------



## Pat Mustard

I think the issue of infrastructure is getting confused with who has the biggest / newest stadiums. I don't dispute that thanks to the World Cup Germany has some excellent, modern football grounds. Infrastrucure is about more than just that however. My own home city of Birmingham currently has;
Football
Villa Park (43,000)
St Andrews (30,000)
The Hawthorns (27,000)
Cricket
Edgbaston (23,000)
Athletics
Alexandra Stadium (12,000)
Indoor Arenas
NEC (10,000)
NIA (10,000)

This is in a city with a population of about 1 million people, and discounts modern stadia within the wider metropolitan area in Coventry, Walsall and Wolerhampton. Whilst in and of themselves none of the above are truly world class, they are all perfectly designed for the events they accommodate. The situation in Birmingham is by no means the best in Britain, with London (obviously), Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, Nottingham all having the equivalent or better. How many German cities realistically have these numbers of stadiums, all of which have or are capable of hosting international competition (Berlin? Munich?)

The fact is that most countries have completely different sporting cultures, and the stadium infrastructures have developed accordingly. In this respect Britain probably more resembles the US model for having a number of stadia in each city, all catering for different sports. They might not be the best in the world for facilities etc., but they are the stadia best suited to our needs.


----------



## bumdingo

For Birminghams size I think it was poorly served with stadiums. Villa Park although a smart stadium is still fairly small and dated. Less said about St Andrews the better, the indoor arenas are no match for the MEN Arena or O2 in London. I all fairness to Germany they have no need for cricket stadiums, they do have decent arenas and their stadiums are comparable to ours. Has a German club ever thougth of making a stadium out of denim, like German club supporters wear? A denim stadium with patches and badges all over it.


----------



## bumdingo

tv123 said:


> England


I see the London 2012 Olymic swimming pool is already functioning


----------



## Pat Mustard

Did you actually read what I said?


----------



## bumdingo

Kind of, picked through the bones, imagined some, added other bits to suit my purpose. I lost track half way through


----------



## The Game Is Up

Two days in, so far so good. Some pretty good matches and one dreadful one. The stadia look good so far. However, we're waiting to see how the new ones in Maturin and Barquisimeto will play, since they're both true football grounds.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bumdingo said:


> I see the London 2012 Olymic swimming pool is already functioning


why would it be in sheffield lol


----------



## DennisRodman

More american stadiums 



























^^ Qwest stadium, Seattle USA


----------



## Beto93

Any new pics on Barquisimeto, Barinas or Puerto La Cruz!!!


----------



## ArchiTennis

Are there any recent pictures of the stadium at Cachamay? (where coincidentally Mexico beat Brazil  )

I found these renderings on the Copa America website



















does it really look like this? was it completed?


----------



## Caroy2

Beto93 said:


> Any new pics on Barquisimeto, Barinas or Puerto La Cruz!!!


----------



## matherto

what exactly delayed Barquisimeto?


----------



## Rbs

Rain... and well this stadium is completely new... so far as now it took a year to build it... 

Nice pics Mamusa kay:


----------



## ZherfT

CTE CACHAMAY.


----------



## lpioe

What are the attendances like at the Copa America?


----------



## Rbs

*Lights of the Cachamay Stadium (41.000)





*​


----------



## Alle

Nice stadiums, but they are track and field stadiums, not footballstadiums.


----------



## Cяusн

Only Barquisimeto's Metropolitan Stadium and Maturin's Monumental Stadium were built for Football. But all are going to be used only to play football, occasionally for a Panamerican Games or nationals Athletics competition

Sry about my poor english

Barquisimeto's Metropolitan Stadium



















Maturin's Monumental Stadium


----------



## Patrick

looks so great!


----------



## matherto

Maturins is the best stadium


----------



## hngcm

but the roof doesn't cover everybody!


----------



## Dreamlıneя

^^ I Disagree.. I Think Barquisimeto Stadium is the best one, followed by Cachamay and Maturin


----------



## Beto93

I think Barquisimeto is the best one (once finished)... a proper Football stadium, atlhough Cachamay is really nice.... Maturin's is big but from outside is so simple and dull!!! they could have done better.... I wish they have built a new one for Caracas.... I think that given Caracas F.C. is the current national champion ( and already holds 9 titles!!!) and the recent performance in Copa Libertadores, Caracas city deserves a HUGE stadium... I would suggest the Tiuna fields for it... but outside the military compound!!!


----------



## Wezza

®Alejandro® said:


> ^^ I Disagree.. I Think Barquisimeto Stadium is the best one, followed by Cachamay and Maturin


I agree, it's a pity that it's not finished yet though.


----------



## Benjuk

the_Crush said:


> Sry about my poor english


I love it when you guys apologise for your English... It's 100% better than anything I could do in anything other than English - you should be proud of it, guys. Bravo.


----------



## Caroy2

Barquisimeto's Stadium is the best of all so modern!! 

Maturin nig but simple!!

Cachamay is awesome, the lights in the roof are beautiful!!

Caracas is little but have so much history, that make the Olimpic Stadium special!!!

Puerto La Cruz Stadium y really relax, the colors are so happy... !!!

That's are my favorite stadiums in Venezuela!! 
We don't have anyu decent stadiums od football after Copa America and we're so proud of all of them!! 

PD: my english is very bad but I needed to post here for my Venezuelan Proud and our stadiums


----------



## spud

having seen a couple of games on the TV and seen the stadiums on here...with a little more work,mainly on the organizing side of holding large events then i can't see no reason why venezuela could'nt challenge brazil for the right to host the 2014 world cup......


----------



## TalB

I don't see the speciality of retractable rooves. I know that it might rain, but meterologists aren't 100% accurate. Also, these are very expensive, which is why ticket prices will be raised to cover the costs for this. On a sidenote, there is also a chance that I might fall of the bed one night while sleeping, but you don't see me having a seatbelt to keep me in.


----------



## Occit

hngcm said:


> ^^ is the stadium still not finished?


*It's 100% finished *


----------



## Dreamlıneя

^^ I'm sorry Occit.. But The stadium is not 100% finished... and you can notice that with the pictures.. The Stadium will be finished after the cup.. Right now is capable of receiving people and games but is not totally complete.. It lacks some parts of the Roof, two corners of the 2nd floor and part of the exteriors.


----------



## Occit

®Alejandro® said:


> ^^ I'm sorry Occit.. But The stadium is not 100% finished... and you can notice that with the pictures.. The Stadium will be finished after the cup.. Right now is capable of receiving people and games but is not totally complete.. It lacks some parts of the Roof, two corners of the 2nd floor and part of the exteriors.


:O *...i thought it was part of design* hno:


----------



## japanese001

*AFC ASIAN CUP 2007*

Host country
Indonesia, Malaysia,Thailand,Vietnam
http://www.afcasiancup.com/

Thailand VS Iraq
I was tied in 1VS1

*Group A *
P Pts 
Iraq 1 1 
Thailand 1 1 
Australia 0 0 
Oman 0 0 

*Group B *
P Pts 
Japan 0 0 
Qatar 0 0 
UAE 0 0 
Vietnam 0 0 

*Group C *
P Pts 
China 0 0 
Iran 0 0 
Malaysia 0 0 
Uzbekistan 0 0 

*Group D *
P Pts 
Bahrain 0 0 
Indonesia 0 0 
Korea Republic 0 0 
Saudi Arabia 0 0


----------



## hngcm

any pics of the stadia?


----------



## marching

Asian in ASEANkay:


----------



## The Game Is Up

The next step will now be that their domestic league raises their level to that of their grounds. Venezuela's on the up right now. :yes:


----------



## bumdingo

ftlauddude said:


> Should i laugh? @ least they r not spending the tax payers money in stupid, useless, and racist wars like some other countries? Does this sound familiar to u?


No


----------



## uno

7 July 2007

Thailand 1-1 Iraq

8 July 2007

Australia 1-1 Oman
Vietnam 2-0 UAE

9 July 2007

Japan 1-1 Qatar


----------



## Benjuk

This has all the makings of a thrilling thread.


----------



## uno

10 July 2007

Indonesia 2-1 Bahrain
Malaysia 1-5 China PR


----------



## Benjuk

No one else will - so here goes...

Gelora Bung Karno Stadium, Jakarta 
Capacity: 100,000









Bukit Jalil National Stadium, Kuala Lumpur
Capacity: 100,000









Rajamangala National Stadium, Bangkok 
Capacity: 60,000









My Dinh National Stadium, Hanoi 
Capacity: 40,000









If that's the best a four country joint bid can do, you have to fancy Australia's chances of hosting the next available comp. Ticket sales have been poor as well judging from the coverage on tv.


----------



## Arkdriver

because mohammad hammam is one stupid man, honestly i dont see much excitement about it in Malaysia, poor coverage even in printed media...

anyway i went to the stadium for malaysia match last nite and they sucks big time especially the defenders...

the problem of malaysian football is some state sultan refuse to go down from top FAM management and he (now his small dick son) continue to rule and trying to act smart although they actually doing the same thing over and over again hoping their stupid and bastardry act will change the state of Malaysian football...well it changed but going downhill since.

there were about 40,000 crowd at the stadium last nite....

disappointment to local football fans.i can see their disappointed face including myself at the stadium last nite. they call for local fans to give support but if they play like shit and concede stupid goals, who wanna watch them play again...

i bet the crowd for next match against iran and uzbekistan will be much lower, maybe 5000 and i'm being generous...


----------



## Arkdriver

*match tickets*


----------



## Wezza

There's been some shock results.

I agree Benjuk, i think Australia would do a great job at hosting the cup. Ticket sales would be alot better as well methinks. Thought AFAIK, the next cup, only Qatar has put it's hand up for it?


----------



## uno

11 July 2007

Iran 2-1 Uzbekistan
Korea 1-1 Saudi Arabia


----------



## ArchiTennis

whoa! it's pretty embarrasing that they had to stop the semi-final match between Brasil and Uruguay becuase one of the light posts completely went off during that match!!! This was all on live T.V....that really sucked. I hope nothing like that happens tonight! Mexico vs. Argentina


----------



## ArchiTennis

oh...they didn't Cancel the match..it was only held up for like 15 minutes or so.


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> There's been some shock results.
> 
> I agree Benjuk, i think Australia would do a great job at hosting the cup. Ticket sales would be alot better as well methinks. Thought AFAIK, the next cup, only Qatar has put it's hand up for it?



Especially if only 4 venues are required...

Telstra Dome, Aussie Stadium, Suncorp & Subiaco (or, the new Perth stadium if they get it built in time - not likely though).

All large venues, without being 'huge' in the Telstra Stadium / MCG type - thus cutting down the risk of thousands of empty seats. To my mind, better to have 40k in a 40k stadium than 50k in an 80k/100k. Atmosphere improves, looks 'more professional', etc.


----------



## uno

12 July 2007

Oman 0-2 Thailand
Qatar 1-1 Vietnam


----------



## VelesHomais

*Belarusian stadiums*

Sure there aren't any world class arenas out there, but since noone else is representing this country, I'll post some of their stadiums.

Dinamo Minsk FC home stadium, the largest in the country, has a capacity of 42 375, it is also the main national stadium.


----------



## VelesHomais

Vitebsk stadium, capacity 9000


----------



## VelesHomais

Brest, capacity 15.000


----------



## VelesHomais

Homel' capacity 10.000, only football arena, apperently the best one in Belarus


----------



## Canadian Chocho

I like the Minsk one, except for the runing track.


----------



## japanese001

The southeast Asian team is strong


----------



## UAE_CONDOR




----------



## ncas

This is the Asian cup 2007 venue "Rajamangala national stadium "


----------



## ncas




----------



## coldstar

japanese001 said:


> The southeast Asian team is strong


*Vietnam* 2-0 UAE
*Vietnam* 1-1 Qatar

*Thailand* 1-1 Iraq
*Thailand* 2-0 Oman

Indeed, teams of Southeast Asia are impressive. Good luck,Thailand and Vietnam!


and..Go Japan!


----------



## r4d1ty4

dont forget...


*Indonesia* 2-1 Bahrain


----------



## uno

13 July 2007

Australia 1-3 Iraq
Japan 3-1 UAE


bye... UAE


----------



## lpioe

uno said:


> Australia 1-3 Iraq


 

Iraq that good?


----------



## Flamming_Python

Dr.Mesofius said:


> Homel' capacity 10.000, only football arena, apperently the best one in Belarus


Not Homel', Gomel'.

Yes I know you do it intentionally. But please use the official spelling, otherwise people will get confused.


----------



## The Gazmon

lpioe said:


> Iraq that good?




No. Australia that bad. Iraq played well, don't get me wrong; but Australia have a coach with no tactical brain & the players were lacking committment. Many of whom didn't want to be there.

Personally I'd rather see the young new guys given a run against Thailand, a win over the Thai's and Iraq beating Oman & Australia will still go through - crazy I know, they don't deserve it.

It embarrases me to be Australian.

Mind you, look at France in 2002: World Champions - To not even scoring a goal.


----------



## VelesHomais

:wtf:

Belarusian language doesn't have a "g"


----------



## uno

14 July 2007

Uzbekistan 5-0 Malaysia
Saudi Arabia 2-1 Indonesia


Bye... Malaysia


----------



## Dark.

Estadio Jose Encarnacion Pachencho Romero-Maracaibo​








Estadio Pueblo Nuevo-San Cristobal​
















Estadio C.T.E Cachamay-Puerto Ordaz​
























Estadio Metropolitano- Merida​
























Estadio Metropolitano-Barqusimeto​
























Estadio Monumental-Maturin​


----------



## Benjuk

The Gazmon said:


> No. Australia that bad. Iraq played well, don't get me wrong; but Australia have a coach with no tactical brain & the players were lacking committment. Many of whom didn't want to be there.
> 
> Personally I'd rather see the young new guys given a run against Thailand, a win over the Thai's and Iraq beating Oman & Australia will still go through - crazy I know, they don't deserve it.
> 
> It embarrases me to be Australian.
> 
> Mind you, look at France in 2002: World Champions - To not even scoring a goal.


First mistake the new guys at the FFA made was not replacing Hiddinck as soon as he left. Arnold's a nice enough bloke, but he's not A-League standard as a coach, let alone international - not only poor technically, but also poor diplomatically, he's now got the players completely against him.

The FFA made the mistake of looking at a few high profile names, and once they figured out they couldn't get them they didn't go for Option B (find a low profile, but good, qualified & experienced, coach) they went for "let's wait and see". Shocking - and the two performances so far have proved it.


----------



## uno

15 July 2007

China PR 2-2 Iran
Bahrain 2-1 Korea Republic


----------



## r4d1ty4

all the host countries shows great play, except Malaysia..I've heard FAM (Malaysia'sFootball Association) just fired their coach..


----------



## uno

21 July 2007

Japan 1:1 Australia

1-1 AET, Japan wins 4-3 on Penalties

Japan qualified to semifinals (Hanoi Venue)

Iraq 2:0 Vietmam

Iraq qualified to semifinals (Kuala Lumpur Venue)


----------



## marching

GO JAPAN!!!!! bye Vietnam and bye Australia...


----------



## Wezza

I think we would have beaten Japan last night if Grella wasn't (controversially) red carded. Oh well, wasn't to be! Maybe next time, good luck to the teams still in the tournament.


----------



## Q-TIP

Grella extended his elbow to make contact, and is a red cardable offense. It is viewed the same as the last defender fouling the attacker (striker)...We deserved to be beaten as Arnold's defensive tactics throughout this campaign has been woeful.:bash: We were lucky to even get out of the group stage. Our arrogance in thinking we would win the Asian Cup is unforgivable, and for the coach to come out and say before the tournament, "if we dont win, it would be a failure" is asking the Gods to cut our campaign to shreds.

I think Japan would need to improve to lift the trophy, as Iran and Saudi Arabia look in form.


----------



## Wezza

Q-TIP said:


> Grella extended his elbow to make contact, and is a red cardable offense. It is viewed the same as the last defender fouling the attacker (striker)...We deserved to be beaten as Arnold's defensive tactics throughout this campaign has been woeful.:bash: We were lucky to even get out of the group stage. *Our arrogance in thinking we would win the Asian Cup is unforgivable*, and for the coach to come out and say before the tournament, "if we dont win, it would be a failure" is asking the Gods to cut our campaign to shreds.
> 
> I think Japan would need to improve to lift the trophy, as Iran and Saudi Arabia look in form.


I think the media were talking up Australia's chances alot which made us look cocky. As soon as they started talking us up, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Still, we had the talent to win it, we were just poorly managed, that's all.


----------



## Noostairz

justice is done: an asian country knocks a non-asian country out of the asian cup. well done japan!


----------



## Daryae_Abi

Iran-Korea are nill-nill at the half.
We have been the better side, we have threatened their goal far more.
This is a better squad than Ghalenoui used in group stages, but it's still too bad he wont go with 4-4-2.

Here is the substitutions I would make:
Hashemian off Kazemian on
Nosrati off Kaebi on
Madanchi off Shojaei on


----------



## Daryae_Abi

Enayati just blew a beautiful pass from Zandi.
If that were Kazemian he would have turned it into a goal.


----------



## Wezza

edennewstairs said:


> justice is done: an asian country knocks a non-asian country out of the asian cup. well done japan!


Would you prefer Australia stayed in OFC???


----------



## dewrob

pics taken today :cheers:


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I Heard Korea Rep 4-2 on Penalty (0-0) over Iran...:banana:


----------



## coldstar

I was expecting too much about Iran vs S.Korea. 
But what a dull game! It is the worst match in this Asia Cup due to the stupid referee !


----------



## paradyto

Korea kay:


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I heard... Saudi Arabia 2-1 Uzbekistan!!

Semi final 
Japan vs Saudi Arabia
Korea Rep vs Iraq


----------



## uno

22 July 2007

Iran 0:0 Korea

0-0 AET, Korea wins 4-2 on Penalties

Korea qualified to semifinals (Korea-Iraq)

Saudi Arabia 2:0 Uzbekistan

Saudi Arabia qualified to semifinals (Saudi Arabia-Japan)

Semifinals on 25 July 2007


----------



## Daryae_Abi

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> I Heard Korea Rep 4-2 on Penalty (0-0) over Iran...:banana:


We outplayed them, they were fortunate we let it come to penalty kicks.


----------



## waterloo

Daryae_Abi said:


> We outplayed them, they were fortunate we let it come to penalty kicks.


Sore loser.


----------



## Daryae_Abi

waterloo said:


> Sore loser.


Of course I am sore. I watched a 3 hour, goalless match in which my side outplayed the other side but still lost!


----------



## waterloo

Daryae_Abi said:


> Of course I am sore. I watched a 3 hour, goalless match in which my side outplayed the other side but still lost!


As both teams played quite defensively, Iran never outplayed Korea and Korea didnt either. If you look at the statistics, Korea had 8 shots and 2 shots on target while Iran had 7 and 3 respectively. It explains that the level of the game from both teams were even and defensive. However, Iran had more critical chances with its shots on target. Especially the one missed by Karimi.


----------



## lpioe

Wow, didn't expect that.
Congrats Iraq :applause:


----------



## asif iqbal

I am very happy for the Iraqi team its such a good day for Iraqis after such a long time. Well done Iraq keep up the good work I really wanted them to win.


----------



## Daryae_Abi

Congratulations for Iraq


----------



## Alle

Kwakzalver said:


> There is no qualification. It´s just the G14-clubs having a party together, with some guests invited.


Sounds like shit to me :bash:


----------



## Johnny Drama

*Whats Unique in Your Stadium?*

Whether it be architectural, landscaping, songs, or local traditions---what makes stadiums in your city unique from the rest?


----------



## NeilF

The two main soccer stadia in Edinburgh, Tynecastle and Easter Road, both have a section of the stands behind the goal that are, inexplicably, smaller than the rest of the stand. I'm not talking about a whole stand that is smaller than the rest, by the way, but about the cut away parts at the top corners of the stands behind the goal. I'm guessing that it's to do with space, I've never seen this anywhere else and I find it odd that both football stadia here suffer from it:

*Tynecastle:*

(Look at the top left of these pictures and you can see how the roof on the left corner of the stand is lower than the roof on the rest of the stand, cutting out a couple of rows of seats).


























*Easter Road*


----------



## Johnny Drama

^thats a pretty nice looking field. Looks like a comfortable place to watch a match.


----------



## LMCA1990

Many of the UK's stadiums are alike... Just an observation


----------



## BobDaBuilder

QATAR only has 800,000 population. How are they going to get attendances to go anywhere near filling stadiums?

Hopefully the next Asian Cup will be run professionally with less biased referees which spoiled the tournament.

AFC should pioneer a video replay system for going back over incidents, such as deliberately diving for penalties with perpetrators suspended like drug cheats are.


----------



## Daryae_Abi

BobDaBuilder said:


> QATAR only has 800,000 population. How are they going to get attendances to go anywhere near filling stadiums?


Why? Because AFC doesn't care. Anywhere with the best/biggest stadiums is the host. AFC doesn't care who loves football. I wish Turkey were in AFC so Iran and Turkey could co host.


----------



## Krazy




----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^

Sepp Blatter got in on the act also.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

hey how did Qatar ended on that list............... oh i got it we were invited by the hostes as red in the first post


----------



## Qatar Son 333

*Here in Doha,Qatar our Khalifa International Stadium has The Largest Screen in the WORLD !!!!!!!!!!* (but i cant remmember was it LED or LCD)


----------



## Qatar Son 333

BobDaBuilder said:


> QATAR only has 800,000 population. How are they going to get attendances to go anywhere near filling stadiums?
> 
> Hopefully the next Asian Cup will be run professionally with less biased referees which spoiled the tournament.
> 
> AFC should pioneer a video replay system for going back over incidents, such as deliberately diving for penalties with perpetrators suspended like drug cheats are.


NO !!!!!! i am qatari and i know this year (2007) Qatar already struck 1,000,000 pop so i am happy second we already hosted a major event the 15th asian games 2006 Doha  oh and since i already up loaded the picture you can have it


----------



## BeestonLad

NeilF said:


>


Wasnt Southamptons old ground like that but only a single tiered version?

Forests ground has a strange stand behind the goal as the upper tier only runs for about 2/3rds the length. It was designed like that so that sunlight can get into the gardens of the houses behind that stand but I think that they actually own those houses anyway!


----------



## NeilF

The Dell, I think, was designed like that so it could cram into a space that wasn't shaped like a stadium:


























I must say, I hadn't thought about The Dell when I made this post. The Dell is / was a direct comparison in this sense. I had considered comparing it to the City Ground but with Easter Road especially, it is the depth, rather than height of the stand / roof that changes. With the City Ground, much, but not all, of the depth is maintained but the height of the stand / roof changes.

That said, with The Dell, it was obviously a space issue. I'm not sure it is with either Tynecastle or Easter Road. Certainly, the remove of a few rows of seating at Tynecastle seems to defy logic. At Easter Road, I think one of the stands may be to do with space, but I'm quite sure that wouldn't affect both stands behind the goals. The only thing I can offer was an attempt to make it look something close to symmetrical. The stand on the right handside seems to follow a road but the one on the left backs onto a carpark, as far as I am aware.


----------



## Bigmac1212

Although retractable roofs and retractable fields have been done before, University of Phoenix Stadium is the 1st stadium to have an eliptical retractable roof.


----------



## BeestonLad

Yeah you could be right about the symmetry thing although does seem odd!

Id forgot just how bad the Dell was untill I seen them pictures! :nuts:


----------



## coexist

*New York City stadiums*

Yankee Stadium has tons of unique features. Of course, there's the famous facade:










And then there's Monument Park, paying tribute to past Yankees and others who have made history in Yankee Stadium (such as the two Popes who visited YS, a few former owners, and the victims of 9/11):










The Stadium has one of the largest overhangs of any park in baseball. Sadly, they don't make ballparks with these types of overhangs anymore - including the new Yankee Stadium:










Outside the Stadium, there is also a huge 123-foot steampipe that is made to look like Babe Ruth's Louisville Slugger bat:











While none of the other Stadiums in or around NYC are as historic or unique, they too have some unique characteristics. For instance, Shea Stadium has the famous Big Apple that pops out of an upside-down Top Hat whenever a Met hits a home run:










And of course, Madison Square Garden, while not truly a stadium, has the most famous and unique ceiling of any arena:


----------



## Brightonboi

Wembley stadium !!!!


----------



## 1878EFC

AndyKane said:


> Back in the days of terracing at English grounds, there were supposedly 'schoolboys enclosures', where the younger boys would stand until such an age as to when they'd 'graduate' to the likes of the North Bank, Stretford End and the Kop.


We had the boys pen at Goodison


----------



## Mince Tatties

Ibrox Bill Struth Stand -


----------



## eMKay

marrio415 said:


> No you don't we do it's called wembley stadium the cathedral of football real football that is.Sorry if i upset some people there you americans are cool people really but we have the proper football game lol.And also Madison Square Garden is a mecca to.Plus pittsburgh stadium what a view awesome


Wembley Stadium is not an arena, it's a boring cookie cutter stadium that borrowed it's design from countless American stadiums.


----------



## Benn

This thread is called "Whats Unique in Your Stadium" not post 1,000 pics of the stadium, or post pics of all of the stadiums around. And for simplicity's sake I think we can refer to arena for indoor arenas (despite some names) and stadium/s for the for outdoor facilities.


----------



## Mince Tatties

Benn said:


> This thread is called "Whats Unique in Your Stadium" not post 1,000 pics of the stadium, or post pics of all of the stadiums around. And for simplicity's sake I think we can refer to arena for indoor arenas (despite some names) and stadium/s for the for outdoor facilities.


Well I think the Bill Struth Stand at Ibrox is a very unique stand due to it's facade, interior quality, history and design.


----------



## marrio415

eMKay said:


> Wembley Stadium is not an arena, it's a boring cookie cutter stadium that borrowed it's design from countless American stadiums.


Dude i've been to wembley and it's far from boring don't judge till you see it face to face.And it is an arena of sought just a bit bigger lol.And it wasn't taken from american designs don't forget who designed it i think you'll find he's english Lord foster is the dude.It's ok man america doesn't have everything but your getting there


----------



## Benn

Mince Tatties said:


> Well I think the Bill Struth Stand at Ibrox is a very unique stand due to it's facade, interior quality, history and design.


Yeah its got some sort of unique features and I do like it, but some description of what you think makes it a unique experience. And 28 pictures of one stand might be a little much, especially for those of us on DSL


----------



## Benn

marrio415 said:


> Dude i've been to wembley and it's far from boring don't judge till you see it face to face.And it is an arena of sought just a bit bigger lol.And it wasn't taken from american designs don't forget who designed it i think you'll find he's english Lord foster is the dude.It's ok man america doesn't have everything but your getting there well by force.oops sorry!


WOW. 
First off when you are talking to an American an Arena is an indoor facility for basketball or hockey. A stadium is for Football, American Football, Rugby ect. So for us the most famous ARENA in the world is clearly MSG, where as the most famous STADIUM is Wembley. And keep in mind as much of Wembley was done by HOK as was by Foster & Partners, so there may be some American influences, especially in the bowl itself. It does have an HOK feel to it IMO. I am personally a little bored with the bowl, in the same respect that I am bored with the AllianzArena (though I do like Wembley a lot better). And that by force comment seems a little uncalled for.


----------



## marrio415

Benn said:


> WOW.
> First off when you are talking to an American an Arena is an indoor facility for basketball or hockey. A stadium is for Football, American Football, Rugby ect. So for us the most famous ARENA in the world is clearly MSG, where as the most famous STADIUM is Wembley. And keep in mind as much of Wembley was done by HOK as was by Foster & Partners, so there may be some American influences, especially in the bowl itself. It does have an HOK feel to it IMO. I am personally a little bored with the bowl, in the same respect that I am bored with the AllianzArena (though I do like Wembley a lot better). And that by force comment seems a little uncalled for.


i know i'm just having a friendly wind up.We love the yanks really they can take it.i'll edit that off the last bit as it was a bit unfair


----------



## GEwinnen

Benn said:


> Metrodome
> A big air supported dome, retractable seating, and a guy dressed up as a viking, riding around on a snowmobile




Veltins Arena seems to be a brother of your stadium


----------



## cinosanap

@ the Chelsea boy: The above stadium has heating.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

eMKay said:


> Wembley Stadium is not an arena, it's a boring cookie cutter stadium that borrowed it's design from countless American stadiums.


 complete bollox..borrowed its design from American staduims my a*se


----------



## Goothrey

Texas Memorial Stadium:

One of the largest jumbotrons (nick named Godzillatron)




Largest sideline capacity of all american football stadiums.



Pregame: http://lhb.music.utexas.edu/shows/pregame_hi.qtl

Bevo, the live longhorn mascot: 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aRED8hQT2Yw

TEXAS........FIGHT: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cuw6X-LOPj0&mode=related&search=

The teams enters: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ORVS5O6EX_E&mode=related&search=

Bohemian Rhapsody: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YyVhZ_azaRM

Almost forgot about Smokey the Cannon. Smokey is fired each time the Longhorns score, at every kick-off, and at the end of each quarter.


Shot with CYBERSHOT at 2007-08-06


----------



## Bigmac1212

Chase Field has the quickest retractable roof (4-5 minutes).


----------



## 1878EFC

Ibrox is superb. The same architect of Goodison if i'm not mistaken, i was hoping Goodison could be redeveloped similarly to Ibrox but sadly that is unlikely.


----------



## Durbsboi

I think the whole design in Mmabatho stadium is unique, this is 1 funky design, the architects must have been smoking some good shit when they designed it.


----------



## Jackie003

Benn said:


> Metrodome
> A big air supported dome, retractable seating, and a guy dressed up as a viking, riding around on a snowmobile





GEwinnen said:


> Veltins Arena seems to be a brother of your stadium


 

I would say these are more like brother/sister stadiums. But yours is close too.

RCA DOME - Indianapolis, Indiana


























and

BC PLACE : Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Home of CFL BC LIONS)


----------



## TalB

marrio415 said:


> No you don't we do it's called wembley stadium the cathedral of football real football that is.Sorry if i upset some people there you americans are cool people really but we have the proper football game lol.And also Madison Square Garden is a mecca to.Plus pittsburgh stadium what a view awesome


I know one thing that MSG has that Wembley Stadium doesn't have.


----------



## Longhorn Al

Goothrey, I believe DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium also has the largest upperdeck too.


----------



## railcity

Swiss grounds and some international stadia by region and leagues:

http://www.swissgrounds.ch/

Detailed, with a lot of photos about Swiss grounds - including a lot of small ones:

http://www.stades.ch/


----------



## kulani

BobDaBuilder; said:


> The shorted is the stadium in Montevideo, Uruguay where they staged the 1930 World Cup.
> 
> They knocked up a 100,000 stadium in 10 months and it is still standing and operating today.


wow...wonder how many people were working on this?


----------



## Aka

The working in the Estádio da Luz began at... hum... October 1, 2001. They first had to demolish some... stuff. Well, the stadium was *opened* on the... 25th of October, 2003. So less then 24 months I guess. The stadium capacity is around 66.000.


----------



## Ataman

Budapest succeeded in bidding for the 1920 Olymics, but because Hungary was on the losing side in WW1, the games were hosted in Antwerp instead.

So if we win the 2020 bid, that would be exactly 100 years from the 1920 bid we won and then lost.

-Ataman


----------



## RawLee

Ataman said:


> Budapest succeeded in bidding for the 1920 Olymics, but because Hungary was on the losing side in WW1, the games were hosted in Antwerp instead.
> 
> So if we win the 2020 bid, that would be exactly 100 years from the 1920 bid we won and then lost.
> 
> -Ataman


The committee must have had a hard time deciding if the olympics could go to an axis country BTW,the monarchy or Hungary submitted the bid?


----------



## Ataman

Hungary, I believe. If it were the monarchy, then Vienna would have been the host city rather than Budapest.

-Ataman


----------



## CorliCorso

The 35,000 capacity Riverside stadium in Middlesbrough took 32 weeks (8 months) to build.


----------



## RawLee

Ataman said:


> Hungary, I believe. If it were the monarchy, then Vienna would have been the host city rather than Budapest.
> 
> -Ataman


Then we were very optimistic regarding the war,if we submitted such bid.


----------



## Ataman

The bid was probabbly submitted in 1911, 3 years before the war.

-Ataman


----------



## RawLee

Ataman said:


> The bid was probabbly submitted in 1911, 3 years before the war.
> 
> -Ataman


Yes,but wars dont happen from day to day...If it was submitted before the war,as you said,it would have been held in Vienna. We became independent after the war,so in that state,the leaders were very optimistic.


----------



## railcity

This weekend, in Aarau, Switzerland, the federal "Schwing- und Älplerfest" is taking place. Schwingen is a traditional Swiss style of Wrestling. For this event the assumably biggest temporary stadium of the world has been built within 4 months. Capacity: 48'700. And it's sold out.

The Swiss company which built it (Nüssli AG), is market leader in this area - has been also responsible for the Beach-Volleyball stadium at Bondi Beach during Sidney Olympics 2000 and many other mass events around the world (sport events, Pope visits, etc.).

Most spectators left their home towns with special trains yesterday around 4 am and arrived at the stadium between 6 and 8 am. Nüssli AG has gathered 2'500 tons of material to build the stadium shipped from various locations in the world (like Cricket World Cup Barbados or Show Jumping European Championship in Germany) to Aarau. 

Other sports featured at the event are Steinstossen (stone throwing) and Hornussen (a traditional form of Baseball). Today at 16:45 CET the Wrestling Final will take place, and soon after that the stadium will be already gone again.

Here some impressions:





































Video (Impressions):
http://www.sf.tv/var/videoplayer.ph...0825.rm?start=0:17:32.295&amp;end=0:19:23.611

edit: Impressions 2nd day with bird view of stadium:
http://www.sf.tv/var/videoplayer.ph...70826.rm?start=1:00:10.87&amp;end=1:02:35.848

Video (Sport):
http://www.sf.tv/var/videoplayer.ph...0825.rm?start=0:12:34.333&amp;end=0:17:32.295

edit: 2nd day with comments:
http://www.sf.tv/var/videoplayer.ph...0826.rm?start=0:01:35.796&amp;end=0:07:05.107


----------



## Mo Rush

well Nussli are the masters of temporary sports structures especially seating


----------



## FastFerrari

hey do racing/automotive venues count....Bristol...150,000k...and yes its city name is Bristol, TN - USA


many other stadiums in the world have well over 75k


----------



## Benjuk

railcity said:


> This weekend, in Aarau, Switzerland, the federal "Schwing- und Älplerfest" is taking place. Schwingen is a traditional Swiss style of Wrestling. For this event the assumably biggest temporary stadium of the world has been built within 4 months. Capacity: 48'700. And it's sold out.
> 
> The Swiss company which built it (Nüssli AG), is market leader in this area - has been also responsible for the Beach-Volleyball stadium at Bondi Beach during Sidney Olympics 2000 and many other mass events around the world (sport events, Pope visits, etc.).
> 
> Most spectators left their home towns with special trains yesterday around 4 am and arrived at the stadium between 6 and 8 am. Nüssli AG has gathered 2'500 tons of material to build the stadium shipped from various locations in the world (like Cricket World Cup Barbados or Show Jumping European Championship in Germany) to Aarau.
> 
> Other sports featured at the event are Steinstossen (stone throwing) and Hornussen (a traditional form of Baseball). Today at 16:45 CET the Wrestling Final will take place, and soon after that the stadium will be already gone again.
> 
> Here some impressions:


Fantastic and bizarre at the same time. I think it's brilliant when something you've never heard of, and never would have thought about, turns out to be so big.

Not sure if it was in Switzerland, but on another thread there was also a fantastic shot of a football stadium being used for ice hockey - I love stuff like that!


----------



## 40Acres

Stanford Stadium (both the original, and the reconstruction) might hold or be very close to the record.

In 1921, when it was originally built, it took 4 months to construct a 66,000 seat stadium. It was completely demolished in Nov 2005, and rebuilt onsite before the start of the next football season in Aug of 2006. That was appx 10 months to demolish an 85k stadium and build a 50k stadium.


----------



## skaP187

*How many cities have * 3 * stadiums over 50 000*

Just to kill another useless thread and put in one which is a bit more of a challange... 
Also this thread remains useless ofcourse.
I´ll kick of!

Sevilla
Glasgow 
London


----------



## VelesHomais

Not that many


----------



## DeMaFrost

New York if you include the suburbs (East Rutherford, NJ)


----------



## VelesHomais

You can't include East Rutherford for New York  some countries are smaller in size than the distance between NY and East Rutherford


----------



## LMCA1990

Cali Colombia has 2 and a 30,000 one.


----------



## unoh

*SEOUL*

Seoul. 
Olympic Game 1988
World Cup 2002


----------



## unoh

Seoul has 5 stadiums over 50,000

Olympic Stadium
Seoul Sangam World Cup Stadium
Incheon Moonhak Stadium
Suwon World Cup Stadium
Goyang Stadium


----------



## LMCA1990

^^ wow.


----------



## th0m

Los Angeles:
Rose Bowl (92.542)
LA Coliseum (92.000)
Dodger Stadium (56.000)


----------



## Benjuk

Tokyo:

Olympic - 57k
Dome - 55k
Ajinamoto - 50k
(also has the 223k Racecourse)


----------



## Bobby3

Houston:
Astrodome (62.439)
Reliant Stadium (71,500)
Rice Stadium (can hold 70,000)

Atlanta:
Georgia Dome (71,149)
Bobby Dodd Stadium (55,000)
Turner Field (50,091)


----------



## SE9

unoh said:


> Seoul has 5 stadiums over 50,000
> 
> Olympic Stadium
> Seoul Sangam World Cup Stadium
> Incheon Moonhak Stadium
> Suwon World Cup Stadium
> Goyang Stadium


That's Seoul and some surrounding towns and cities right?


----------



## SE9

*Atlanta*
Georgia Dome - _71,228_ - Downtown, Atlanta
Bobby Dodd Stadium - _55,000_ - Downtown/Midtown, Atlanta
Turner Field - _50,091_ - Summerhill, Atlanta

*Glasgow*
Celtic Park - _60,832_ - Parkhead, Glasgow
Hampden Park - _52,103_ - Mount Florida, Glasgow
Ibrox Stadium - _51,082_ - Ibrox, Glasgow

*London*
Wembley Stadium - _90,000_ - Wembley, London
Twickenham Stadium - _82,000_ - Twickenham, London
Emirates Stadium - _60,432_ - Holloway, London

*Los Angeles*
Rose Bowl - _92,542_ - Madison Heights, Pasadena
LA Coliseum - _92,000_ - University Park, Los Angeles
Dodger Stadium - _56,000_ - Chávez Ravine, Los Angeles

*Tokyo*
National Olympic Stadium - _57,363_ - Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo
Tokyo Dome - _55,000_ - Bunkyo, Tokyo
Ajinomoto Stadium - _50,000_ - Chofu-shi, Tokyo


----------



## RobH

*London*
Wembley Stadium - _90,000_ - Wembley, London
Twickenham Stadium - _82,000_ - Twickenham, London
Emirates Stadium - _60,432_ - Holloway, London

It's very likely Spurs, West Ham and Chelsea will be looking at 50,000+ stadiums within the next decade. So London may have 6 in a few years.


----------



## railcity

40Acres said:


> Stanford Stadium (both the original, and the reconstruction) might hold or be very close to the record.
> 
> In 1921, when it was originally built, it took 4 months to construct a 66,000 seat stadium. It was completely demolished in Nov 2005, and rebuilt onsite before the start of the next football season in Aug of 2006. That was appx 10 months to demolish an 85k stadium and build a 50k stadium.


Impressive!


----------



## lpioe

Benjuk said:


> Fantastic and bizarre at the same time. I think it's brilliant when something you've never heard of, and never would have thought about, turns out to be so big.
> 
> Not sure if it was in Switzerland, but on another thread there was also a fantastic shot of a football stadium being used for ice hockey - I love stuff like that!



Yes, that was in Bern last January I think. The stadium was sold out with 30'000 people.


----------



## railcity

Benjuk said:


> Not sure if it was in Switzerland, but on another thread there was also a fantastic shot of a football stadium being used for ice hockey - I love stuff like that!


I guess, you mean this thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=14345668#post14345668


----------



## Starscraper

RobH said:


> *London*
> Wembley Stadium - _90,000_ - Wembley, London
> Twickenham Stadium - _82,000_ - Twickenham, London
> Emirates Stadium - _60,432_ - Holloway, London
> 
> It's very likely Spurs, West Ham and Chelsea will be looking at 50,000+ stadiums within the next decade. So London may have 6 in a few years.


Don't forget the Olympic stadium as well.


----------



## Calvin W

skaP187 said:


> Just to kill another useless thread and put in one which is a bit more of a challange...
> Also this thread remains useless ofcourse.
> I´ll kick of!
> 
> Sevilla
> Glasgow
> London


Technically are all located within London city limits? I thought the city of London from a technical stand point included only the very center of the metro within city limits.

If so then either cities like New York should be included or London excluded from the list.

As for Los Angeles, The Rose Bowl is in Pasadena, not Los Angeles.


----------



## Homerius

Buenos Aires
River Plate Stadium - 67000
Boca Juniors "La Bombonera" Stadium - 57000
Velez Sarsfield "Jose Amalfitani" Stadium - 56000
San Lorenzo "Pedro Bidegain" Stadium - 52000
Racing Club "El Cilindro" Stadium - 50000
Independiente "Libertadores de America" Stadium (Finished in 2008) - 54000


----------



## unoh

SE9 said:


> That's Seoul and some surrounding towns and cities right?



yepp

That means seoul metro.
but seoul metro is the similar size of Greater London.
seoul city is 605㎢, seoul metro is 1600㎢

City proper has 2 stadiums (Olympic Stadiium, Sangam worldcup stadium)


----------



## www.sercan.de

Istanbul
Atatürk Olimpiyat 80.000
New Galatasaray stadium 52.500 (2010  )
Sükrü Saracoglu 52.500

Maybe Besiktas will change his plans and will also built a +50.000 stadium


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Calvin W said:


> Technically are all located within London city limits? I thought the city of London from a technical stand point included only the very center of the metro within city limits.
> 
> If so then either cities like New York should be included or London excluded from the list.
> 
> As for Los Angeles, The Rose Bowl is in Pasadena, not Los Angeles.


You're a little bit confused, the city of London is a borough in London also known as central London and is only the size of a square mile or so. This is where the CBD is(a neighbouring borough is called 'City of Westminster' but this is not technically a city either). But all stadiums such as Wembley, Twickenham and Emirates are all in London and its boundaries otherwise known as Greater London(this is the actual 'City' boundaries). 

You have to be careful because when people in London say the city they only mean that very small(smallest) area of central London and its not being referred to a city as a whole. Im not too fond of the name City of London because it confuses foreigners(and even Brits).


The map below shows the whole of London and its Boroughs and right in the middle is the borough of The 'City' of London:


----------



## Rhoy

unoh said:


> Seoul has 5 stadiums over 50,000
> 
> Olympic Stadium
> Seoul Sangam World Cup Stadium
> Incheon Moonhak Stadium
> Suwon World Cup Stadium
> Goyang Stadium


then.. what about a solo bid for the Fifa WC?


----------



## 18Tetouan18

Europeans and Africans,South Americans wont agree ^^

they wont make it because of the time difference not many will vote


----------



## 18Tetouan18

*GRAND STADIUM OF CASABLANCA 100.000 Seats*


----------



## 18Tetouan18

more staduims in morocco 


those are in construction 

at 2008 it will be finished


Marrakech 61.000










Tanger 69.000











agadir 40.00


----------



## Mince Tatties

How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000? When I say football I mean proper football...not American rugby.


----------



## Calvin W

Mince Tatties said:


> How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000? When I say football I mean proper football...not American rugby.


Thread topic says nothing about soccer. It only asks for three stadiums.

Its AlL gUUd, thanks for clarifying that a bit.


----------



## Mince Tatties

Calvin W said:


> Thread topic says nothing about soccer. It only asks for three stadiums.



Yes....I know....that's why I asked a new similar question! Are you not allowed to ask questions any more?

and it's called football.


----------



## KrazyKarl

Dr.Mesofius said:


> You can't include East Rutherford for New York  some countries are smaller in size than the distance between NY and East Rutherford


Even San Marino is bigger across than the distance between Manhattan and E. Rutherford. In fact, Shea Stadium is further from central Manhattan than the Meadowlands. I think the structure of American cities and its commuting culture requires suburbs be included.


----------



## guigotz

south africans stadiuns are better ... now i understood how south africans received the WC


----------



## LMCA1990

nice stadia for a country of it's size.


----------



## Benjuk

18Tetouan18 said:


> Europeans and Africans,South Americans wont agree ^^
> 
> they wont make it because of the time difference not many will vote


That and the fact that no city may have more than 2 stadiums.

Does give rise to another suggestion for a topic though...

Any cities have 8 venues of 40k capacity of greater, suitable for football, which could thus host a world cup (if FIFA 'forgot' the above rule)

I can't think of any, even London only gets: 

Wembley
Twickers
Emirates
Stamford Bridge

planned redevelopments/moves for:
West Ham
Charlton
Spurs

plus (if the timing was right, before the demolished the temp seating):
Olympic Stadium


----------



## Benjuk

railcity said:


> I guess, you mean this thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=14345668#post14345668


You guess correctly. Love it.

There's another on there - 

"Possible future Stadium: Riddes
- *The stadium would not be designed uniformly, but rather feature one big stand holding 10’000 spectators in order to be able to use these seats also for concerts opposite the stage*"

I'm involved with a club at the moment and I'm trying very hard to get them to do something similar. It's a hard sell though! I've suggested 7500 seats set back behind one of the goals (with retractable rows at the front) so that a stage could be constructed between the end of the pitch and the front of the seats, thus protecting the pitch and at the same time creating a 7000 seat concert venue.


----------



## Spanish Gabacho

New Rugby Stadium in Montpellier...12 montns


----------



## skaP187

Mince Tatties said:


> Yes....I know....that's why I asked a new similar question! Are you not allowed to ask questions any more?
> 
> and it's called football.


You didn´t ask a question, you made a note...
Nothing about footballstadiums, because then the list would be very very short...


----------



## skaP187

The only football stadium is the one in Marakech...
Marroko mop is quiete a big footballnation. Does anyone have photos of clubstadiums that allready are finished?


----------



## Mo Rush

Cape Town(might come close but only in 2009)

2007: 
Newlands 50,000
Athlone 30,000

2009: 
Newlands 50,000 (will prob be knocked down)
Athlone 45,000
Green Point 68,000


----------



## Quintana

skaP187 said:


> The only football stadium is the one in Marakech...


I always wondered how a stadium with relatively small stands like that could have a capacity of over 60,000. It turns out the grass surface is big enough to fit two football pitches in there. The fans will be miles from the field, not much of a real football stadium after all.


----------



## CharlieP

Mince Tatties said:


> How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000? When I say football I mean proper football...not American rugby.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

CharlieP said:


>


i second that :lol:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Benjuk said:


> That and the fact that no city may have more than 2 stadiums.
> 
> Does give rise to another suggestion for a topic though...
> 
> Any cities have 8 venues of 40k capacity of greater, suitable for football, which could thus host a world cup (if FIFA 'forgot' the above rule)
> 
> I can't think of any, even London only gets:
> 
> Wembley
> Twickers
> Emirates
> Stamford Bridge
> 
> planned redevelopments/moves for:
> West Ham
> Charlton
> Spurs
> 
> plus (if the timing was right, before the demolished the temp seating):
> Olympic Stadium


Maybe a European Championships?  im sure London is the only city in Europe that can be close to capable.

just a thought


----------



## Kobo

Atlanta U.S.A

Georgia Dome 71,149










Bobby Dodd at Grant Field 55,000










Turner Field 50,091











LA U.S.A

Rose bowl 92,542










Memorial Coliseum 92,000










Dodgers Stadium 56,000











Buenos Aires, Argentina

Antonio Vespucio Liberti	66,449










Alberto J. Armando	57,446










Estadio José Amalfitani	50,000


----------



## cinosanap

Glasgow must be the only city with three 50,000+ seater football stadiums!!


----------



## Red85

unoh said:


> Seoul has 5 stadiums over 50,000
> 
> Olympic Stadium
> Seoul Sangam World Cup Stadium
> Incheon Moonhak Stadium
> Suwon World Cup Stadium
> Goyang Stadium


how far is Incheon away from Seoul then? is it inside Seouls aglomeration?


----------



## fredcalif

Phoenix, Arizona

ASU Stadium 74,000
Cardinal Stadium 64,000
Chase field Stadium 49,644


----------



## LMCA1990

Homerius said:


> Buenos Aires
> River Plate Stadium - 67000
> Boca Juniors "La Bombonera" Stadium - 57000
> Velez Sarsfield "Jose Amalfitani" Stadium - 56000
> San Lorenzo "Pedro Bidegain" Stadium - 52000
> Racing Club "El Cilindro" Stadium - 50000
> Independiente "Libertadores de America" Stadium (Finished in 2008) - 54000


wow. I think that money could go else where. Giving a little too much importance to soccer there.


----------



## poponoso

cinosanap said:


> Glasgow must be the only city with three 50,000+ seater football stadiums!!


*
You are probably right. Buenos Aires has six 50,000+ seater football stadiums...*


----------



## la bestia kuit

yes we give too much importance to soccer here!!!, but, only the river plate, boca and velez sarsfield stadiums are in the buenos aires city, the racing club and independiente stadium are in the grater buenos aires.

The River plate stadium was made for 76.609, but the lastest rebuild take to 66.000, it was builded in 1936..


----------



## Benjuk

lmcm1990 said:


> wow. I think that money could go else where. *Giving a little too much importance to soccer there.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I don't think that's possible.


----------



## b1gh0u5e

Detroit Metro:

Pontiac Silverdome-83,000
Ford Field-66,000
Tiger's Stadium-53,000
Michigan Stadium-107,501
Comerica Park-41,000


----------



## Geaux Tigers

Dallas-Ft. Worth:

Cotton Bowl-68,252
Texas Stadium-65,595
Amon Carter Stadium (TCU)-46,008
Rangers Ballpark-49,178 
future Cowboys Stadium-~80,000
Texas Motor Speedway-212,585 (with infield capacity)


----------



## KevD

New york, LA.... ummm tons of american cities...


----------



## Calvin W

KevD said:


> New york, LA.... ummm tons of american cities...


Not as many as you think. Most baseball stadiums are less than 50'000 and most cities have one pro and one or so college football stadiums.


----------



## skaP187

Let me put in some pictures of the beautifull stadiums in Sevilla


----------



## princeofseoul

Red85 said:


> how far is Incheon away from Seoul then? is it inside Seouls aglomeration?


Yes, the seoul subway goes there. Incheon downtown is about 20 km away from seoul city.


----------



## eMKay

fredcalif said:


> Phoenix, Arizona
> 
> ASU Stadium 74,000
> Cardinal Stadium 64,000
> Chase field Stadium 49,644


First two of those are not in Phoenix, third is not 50,000.


----------



## El Vampiro Ucraniano

Red85 said:


> how far is Incheon away from Seoul then? is it inside Seouls aglomeration?


Incheon is a completely different city. With almost million inhabitants.


----------



## Mince Tatties

skaP187 said:


> You didn´t ask a question, you made a note...
> Nothing about footballstadiums, because then the list would be very very short...


maybe i'm a bit daft...but the last time I checked...the following statement would be classed as a question by any sane person - "How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000?"


----------



## Mince Tatties

poponoso said:


> *
> You are probably right. Buenos Aires has six 50,000+ seater football stadiums...*


I'm not sure that's true....South Americans are very excitable and tend to exaggerate a lot. I remember another South American claiming Buenos Aires had 6 football stadiums over 50000, and after a short investigation, it turned out it had 2 (Avellaneda is not Buenos Aires)-

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...na+football+stadiums&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk


----------



## fredcalif

eMKay said:


> First two of those are not in Phoenix, third is not 50,000.


It is Phoenix metro.

do you think Dallas, Detroit and the majority of the cities listed here has those stadium only in within the city limits?

I doubt that


----------



## LMCA1990

Benjuk said:


> lmcm1990 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow. I think that money could go else where. *Giving a little too much importance to soccer there.*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's possible.
Click to expand...

a 3rd world country with all those soccer stadiums??? I can asure you they could've put that money to good use.


----------



## EADGBE

fredcalif said:


> It is Phoenix metro.
> 
> do you think Dallas, Detroit and the majority of the cities listed here has those stadium only in within the city limits?
> 
> I doubt that


And this is where this thread falls down. The defenition of what is 'within' a city may seem a bit pedantic, but it is especially valid given the extent to which large stadia are built outside of cities or (more commonly in the US) between cities. Texas Stadium may be home to the *Dallas* Cowboys, but it is I believe deliberately located between Dallas and Fort Worth (historically to maximise its catchment). The proximity of the two extends the terminology from merely 'Dallas' to 'Dallas/Fort Worth' or 'DFW'. See the nearby airport. Suddenly, it is open to interpretation whether Texas Stadium is actually 'in' Dallas or not.

Similarly, any analysis of New York City would probably invoke the inclusion of Giants Stadium, understandably enough to most. You may say that NYC is quite easily defined because of the '5 boroughs'. Even then it is debatable because until 1898, Brooklyn was a city in its own right (and I'm sure even today it could claim to be America's 4th largest 'city'. Anyway, I digress...

Giants Stadium in East Rutherford is not only not within NYC's 5 boroughs, but as ER is in New Jersey, it is not even within New York State. To most, this is a rather tiresome technicality, but someone's going to base an argument around the fact.

With College grounds, very few are within accepted cities (like UT at Austin, for example), mostly as campuses are almost cities on their own right, like 'State College, PA'.

Therefore, my off-the-cuff list is as follows:

London, UK

Wembley Stadium 90,000
Twickenham 82,000
Emirates Stadium 60,000

Glasgow, UK

Celtic Park 60,506
Ibrox Park 51,082
Hampden Park 50,670

Seville, Spain

Estadio La Cartuja 72,000
Manuel Ruiz de Lopera 55,000
Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán 55,000

Also, my definition of 'stadium' excludes race tracks, or I'd include Barcelona.


----------



## princeofseoul

El Vampiro Ucraniano said:


> Incheon is a completely different city. With almost million inhabitants.


There's no urbanization division between seoul and incheon. They are part of the same agglomeration. It is not a "completely different" city, just a different area of urban seoul with the name of incheon city.


----------



## globill

Prince is correct, you can walk from Seoul to Incheon and never leave a street that is as busy as any street in London, Paris or Manhattan.

Trust me, I've done just that.

Seoul's main airport is in Incheon.....actually on a reclaimed island past Incheon.


----------



## skaP187

Mince Tatties said:


> maybe i'm a bit daft...but the last time I checked...the following statement would be classed as a question by any sane person - "How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000?"


Yes you are and no, only by a shortsighted/minded it would.


----------



## AndyKane

skaP187 said:


>


Ah! The home of one of the biggest robberies in world football (UEFA Cup Final 2003)!

Still a beautiful stadium, though.


----------



## www.sercan.de

i do not understand why some sites wrote 72,000 for the capacity of the Sevlla olympic stadium
its "only" 57.000


----------



## skaP187

It´s 72 000!:bash:


----------



## Calvin W

skaP187 said:


> It´s 72 000!:bash:


Ok, your thread so what defines a city, metro or city population? Big difference in defining whether or not a city has 3+ 50'000 seaters.


----------



## lpioe

But Sánchez Pizjuán is definitely less than 50'000 at the moment, 45'500 if I remember correctly.


----------



## www.sercan.de

skaP187 said:


> It´s 72 000!:bash:


according to fusballtempel, wiki and UEFA its only 57.000


----------



## EADGBE

57k or 72k, it still puts Seville on the list.


----------



## Mince Tatties

EADGBE said:


> 57k or 72k, it still puts Seville on the list.


I'm sure Seville only has 2 stadiums over 50000. Sevilla FC's stadium is 45500.
The 2 over 50000 are Real Betis's stadium and the Olympic stadium.

Istanbul will have 3 when Galatasaray finish their new ground in 2009.


----------



## Jim856796

I highly doubt Hawaii will host the 2009 WBC since Aloha stadium has been permanently loked into its football configuration.


----------



## skaP187

www.sercan.de said:


> according to fusballtempel, wiki and UEFA its only 57.000


Should be 72 k!!!! (don´t no why, but hey!!!)


----------



## www.sercan.de

But it isn't


----------



## Quintana

A difference of 15,000 is big. Might the 72,000 capacity include temporary stands? Or did Seville's bid for the Olympics included an upgrade of La Cartuja with an extra 15,000 seats?


----------



## AcesHigh

Rhoy said:


> then.. what about a solo bid for the Fifa WC?


Buenos Aires has 6 stadiums for over 50k people.




Mince Tatties said:


> How many cities have 3 football stadiums over 50000? When I say football I mean proper football...not American rugby.


Buenos Aires has 6 of them.


----------



## AcesHigh

lmcm1990 said:


> a 3rd world country with all those soccer stadiums??? I can asure you they could've put that money to good use.


thats just ridiculous. Its private money from clubs.


----------



## lpioe

AcesHigh said:


> Buenos Aires has 6 stadiums for over 50k people.


6 seating only stadiums?
Or are there still terraces in the Primera Division in Argentina?


----------



## AcesHigh

Mince Tatties said:


> I'm not sure that's true....South Americans are very excitable and tend to exaggerate a lot. I remember another South American claiming Buenos Aires had 6 football stadiums over 50000, and after a short investigation, it turned out it had 2 (Avellaneda is not Buenos Aires)-
> 
> http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...na+football+stadiums&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk




stupid prejudice from your part. South Americans here are not more excitable and exagerated than any other people. 


Just to start, people from many other countries are giving estimates of their stadiums sizes. So saying only south americans do that is BULLSHIT

Also, crowd capacity figures may vary along the years. Maybe Buenos Aires HAD 6 stadiums over 50k but crowd capacity was reduced for safety reasons according to more modern standarts.

To finish, many other people here, including US and South Koreans, are counting metro cities.


So Allavaneda stadium must be counted too.


----------



## AcesHigh

lpioe said:


> 6 seating only stadiums?
> Or are there still terraces in the Primera Division in Argentina?


whats the problem with terraces? Seating sux. Well, of course Europe needs seater only stadiums, since 90% of the european population is over 90 years old. :lol:


----------



## www.sercan.de

Our current stadium reached also 55.000 without seats 
24 714 seats - without +50.000 

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/TUR/Ali_Sami_Yen.html
So, stadiums without seats are cheaters


----------



## dewrob

railcity said:


> And who will be the most important regular tennants? A basketball team from Skopje? Will there be also business fairs and the like?


most likely it will be a basketball team as Macedonia is joining the NLB League which is something like an ex-yugoslavian basketball league. The lack of a good venue has prevented us to join this league before. Also Kometal GP which is a female handball team from Skopje will probably play here as they are regular participants in european club campionships and they often rank high so they attract decent amounts of spectators (we generaly suck at sports so female handball being one of the more sucessfull ones probably attracts more atention here than in most other countries). 

From non sport activities I presume it will mostely be used for concerts.


----------



## skaP187

Francisco91 said:


> Lisbon;
> Estadio da Luz: 66.000
> Estadio de Alvalade: 52.000
> Estadio do Restelo: 40.000


eh ... 50 000+


----------



## Quintana

Scozia9 said:


> Chievo is a small district of Verona that has only a few thousand inhabitants, yet they play in the 42,000 capacity Stadio Bentegodi:
> 
> http://www.stadiumguide.com/marcantoniobentegodi.htm


But the stadium is located in Verona proper. Apart from that, the topic opener made it very clear not to include suburban stadia. Therefore, the Buffalo Bills one doesn't count either according to my book. Neither would the new Everton stadium in Kirkby (not mentioned here)..


----------



## Loranga

Leksand, pop 5 861 has an arena taking 7650 spectators.


----------



## Scozia9

Quintana said:


> But the stadium is located in Verona proper. Apart from that, the topic opener made it very clear not to include suburban stadia. Therefore, the Buffalo Bills one doesn't count either according to my book. Neither would the new Everton stadium in Kirkby (not mentioned here)..


I would dispute that as a stadium is for purpose rather than place. The exact geography of its location doesn't effect my point that the stadiums purpose for district of Chievo is actaully larger than that area, let alone its footballing spectators.


----------



## Quintana

Scozia9 said:


> I would dispute that as a stadium is for purpose rather than place. The exact geography of its location doesn't effect my point that the stadiums purpose for district of Chievo is actaully larger than that area, let alone its footballing spectators.


The topic dealt about stadiums being bigger than the city it is located in. Stadio Bentegodi has a capacity of about 42,000 which is not bigger than Verona's population of about 260,000. The fact that Chievo plays there doesn't all of sudden make it a Chievonese stadium (it is Veronese), just as San Siro didn't become a Turinese stadium when Juventus played a few home games there in the past.

Since Chievo is just a Veronese district and as far as I know not an independent municipality (I might be wrong so please correct me if I am) one could argue that they are just as Veronese as Hellas Verona and we should therefore use the population of Verona proper. After all, there are loads of clubs named after their respective district's that play in stadiums that are bigger than the district's population (for instance FC Schalke 04 and Aston Villa FC).


----------



## Quintana

www.sercan.de said:


> Tokyo
> Olympic Stadium 57 363
> Tokyo Dome 55 000
> Ajinamoto Stadium 50 000


If you include the metro you could also add:

Yokohama International Stadium 72 370
Saitama Stadium 63 700

I not a fan of including metro areas though, that way we could also include the Rhein-Ruhr area which seems to far fetched to me:

Signal Iduna Park 81 264
Veltins Arena 61 027
LTU Arena 51 500
Rhein Energy Stadion 50 997

If Mönchengladbach is considered part of the Rhein-Ruhr metro Borussia Park could be added as well (capacity of 53 148).


----------



## Bobby3

Until last year, Davidson, NC. The town has grown since though. The stadium holds 6,000, town is now 7,000.

Davidson is suburban Charlotte, but it's Davidson's stadium, Davidson College uses it.


----------



## th0m

A plethora of US College stadiums come to mind:

Tuscaloosa, AL:
City population (2006): 83,052 - Bryant-Denny Stadium capacity: 92,158

Auburn, AL:
City population (2006): 51,906 - Jordan Hare Stadium capacity: 87,451

Starkville, MS:
City population (2000): 21,869 - Davis Wade Stadium capacity: 52,884

Oxford, MS:
City population: 30,756 - Vaught-Hemingway Stadium capacity: 60,580

Fayetteville, AR:
City population (2006): 67,158 - Razorback Stadium capacity: 76,000

Stillwater, OK
City population (2000): 39,065 - Boone Pickens Stadium capacity: 49,000 (and being expanded)

College Station, TX
City population (2006): 82,429 - Kyle Field capacity: 82,600

Manhattan, KS
City population (2005): 49,462 - B. Snyder Family Stadium capacity: 50,300

Iowa City, IA
City population (2006): 62,649 - Kinnick Stadium capacity: 70,397

East Lansing, MI
City population (2000): 46,525 - Spartan Stadium capacity: 72,027

Blacksburg, VA
City population (2000): 39,573 - Lane Stadium capacity: 65,115

Charlottesville, VA
City population (2005): 40,437- Scott Stadium capacity: 61,500

Clemson, SC
City population (2006): 11,939 - Memorial Stadium capacity: 81,473

These are just some that I was arsed to look up the numbers for. Here are some more that I didn't want to find the numbers for 

Urbana, Illinois
West Lafayette, Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana 
Chapel Hill, NC
College Park, Maryland
Storrs, Connecticut
Morgantown, WV

And then there are a TON of smaller schools in even smaller towns.


----------



## Vegnagun

Red85 said:


> SC Heerenveen is planning to raise the capacity from 26.400 to over 30.000 with a population of 28.000. its an IF. but though, right now they are very close to it anyway.


They want to build a new 40.000 stadium in heerenveen if they get the wc2018 to the benelux.


----------



## Pelha

Francisco91 said:


> Lisbon;
> Estadio da Luz: 66.000
> Estadio de Alvalade: 52.000
> Estadio do Restelo: 40.000


and the Portuguese National Stadium (also known as Estádio do Jamor) - 50 000


----------



## Mo Rush

*Does your city or town need a 20-35,000 seat football stadium?*

1. State your city/town
2. Image(pref google earth/map) of the location
3. State why


----------



## Calvin W

Too small we need something much larger here. 70,000 seats and oval for Aussie Rules.


----------



## CharlieP

No.


----------



## Bigmac1212

1. Phoenix, AZ, USA
2.








3. Yes, if it comes with a retractable roof. Even if the MLS and it minor league affilates change their schedules to coinside with the rest of the world, there will still be times where it's unbearable to play without a retractable roof.


----------



## Mo Rush

well im designing a 35k football stadium and im looking for a great location


----------



## Mo Rush

Bigmac1212 said:


> 1. Phoenix, AZ, USA
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Yes, if it comes with a retractable roof. Even if the MLS and it minor league affilates change their schedules to coinside with the rest of the world, there will still be times where it's unbearable to play without a retractable roof.


u got an exact location of the stadium site? try google maps just search for it on google.com..retractable roof could be fitted, would actually suit the design i have come up with


----------



## Benn

Probably not Minneapolis/St Paul (pop. 3,000,000 in metropolitan area) already has NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA teams, minor league baseball, USL football (soccer) and a full range of D-1 athletics. a new 70,000 seater will be in order for the Vikings (NFL), but the odds of an MLS team getting good attendance is a little sketchy in a smaller market that already has everything else. A new 10,000 seater for the Thunder (USL 1) would be nice though.


----------



## nyrmetros

Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, NYC needs a 35, 000 seat MLS stadium for the expansion MLS side Queens Park Rangers......
Looks for Willets Point Blvd. that's where the new MLS stadium must be.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.75649,-73.84057&spn=0.012743,0.033302&z=15&om=0


----------



## Pavlov's Dog

The Oslo club Vålerenga is looking to build a stadium with an ititial capacity of 20-25,000. I imagine a covered pitch would be preferable for multi-use. The probable site is called Valle Hovin where the club has its training facilities.








The subways stations are noted with the blue t.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

1. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2.









3. Because the local gridiron team, The Toronto Argonauts, are trying to get out of the Rogers Centre (SkyDome) so they could play in a building of their own. (BTW I guess this should be a 40 000+ seat stadium but...yeah)
The old Lamport Stadium would be a good place IMO, but the lot is a bit small.


----------



## eMKay

Why not work out a deal and share BMO? It's got plastic turf, that makes laying down and washing off temporary lines easier.


----------



## Pavlov's Dog

zaqattaq said:


> I live in State College, PA (38,420) home of Beaver Stadium (110,000+)


That is such an impressive stadium for a such an isolated community. I get the impression so many college stadia are cheap, dilapidated bowls but Beaver Stadium is hardly that. Gorgeous facility.


----------



## _BPS_

zaqattaq said:


> I live in State College, PA (38,420) home of Beaver Stadium (110,000+)


:eek2:


----------



## hertha

*Stadium sites*

What are good stadium sites? I know two good sites:

http://www.stadiumzone.net

http://www.worldstadiums.com


----------



## Zaqattaq

On a game day we go from not even being in the top ten to the 3rd largest city in the state after only Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


----------



## Smoker

Pretty good. Thank you!


----------



## Tomas05

the second one rocks !

the first site is poor.. i don't recomend about it personally

another site:
http://www.stadiumguide.com


----------



## sprtsluvr8

Chapel Hill - 48,000
UNC/Kenan Stadium - 60,000


















(flickr)


----------



## sprtsluvr8

Clemson - 12,000
Clemson University/Memorial Stadium aka Death Valley - 86,000

"The most exciting 25 seconds in college football"









Howard's Rock

















(flickr)


----------



## sprtsluvr8

Charlottesville - 40,500
UVA/Scott Stadium - 61,000


















(flickr)


----------



## 67868

www.seatdata.com
www.stadia.gr
www.swissgrounds.ch
staiony.net
www.austadiums.com


----------



## michał_

hertha- or should I say psveindhoven... maybe you should just drop it instead of promoting same sh.t you put everywhere else.

Everyone- this person only posts links to a website he has done using other people's work. This is pathetic- if your website is good, people will notice it. If not- no guerrilla advertising would help. Not mentioning what I've told you before- you steel from other people.

And yest- Stadiumguide is a thousand times better with nice reliable database and good navigating and own effort, something you miss.


----------



## timmy- brissy

*Which country has the best stadiums under 25 mil people*

I'd have to say australia because its high standard for only 19 million people


----------



## Moolio

I believe most stadiums in the world are under 25 million, but then again, I'm from a small country.


----------



## C.M.

^ yes I agree, is it safe to say that nearly all countries have stadiums under 25 million people. Which is the best is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## kinggeorge

stadia.gr


----------



## VelesHomais

Is the question "Which country with a population below 25 million people has the best stadiums?" ?


----------



## invincible

timmy- brissy said:


> I'd have to say australia because its high standard for only 19 million people


LOL, where have you been in the past decade? Australia's population is 21 million.

Anyway, this will end up in a flame war. And inevitable negative comments about Australians as a whole.


----------



## skaP187

The Netherlands ofcourse!!!


----------



## matherto

EADGBE said:


> It's got to be between Portugal (10.6m) and the Netherlands (16.3m).
> 
> To my mind, Portugal has a much better portfolio of stadia. Aside from the fact that there are 9 stadia of 30k+ (versus the Netherlands' 3), there is a greater architectural diversity in Portugal - and all this from a country which has a 38% smaller population.


Yeah, but Portugal only really has those Euro 2004 stadia, plus 2 or 3 other new stadia, the rest are old and extremely outdated.

In Holland, it seems nearly all of the 1st and 2nd divisions have new, modern stadia, or that will certainly be the case within a couple of years.


----------



## eMKay

My vote goes to Australia.


----------



## Tomas05

em 
i guess we don't talk about the same site.


----------



## MoreOrLess

hertha said:


> What are good stadium sites? I know two good sites:
> 
> http://www.stadiumzone.net
> 
> http://www.worldstadiums.com


If your going to post about a site you've made then make it clear your doing so rather than pretending your impartial then judging your own site to be superior to others.


----------



## dougfr69

Gueugnon a little french town of 8500 inhabitants with a stadium of 14 000 places and a renovation start since 2005 for a capacity of 17 000 in 2009.
The double of the population:lol: 
In 2006









in 2009


----------



## Quintana

Another French team: En Avant de Guingamp from the village of Guingamp (population: 8000) plays in the 18,000 capacity Stade Municipal du Roudourou.


----------



## ØlandDK

zaqattaq said:


> I live in State College, PA (38,420) home of Beaver Stadium (110,000+)


crazy...who are the people going there? I mean where do they come from? Is there a large city near by?


----------



## michał_

hertha said:


> Why are you always crying?


I do cry when my team loses against Panathinaikos in 87th minute and loses a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get in the Champions League. But not ever because of guys like you, don't worry.


hertha said:


> Can't you read? I already gave an explanation. Stadiumguide isn't popular, Worldstadiums gets the most visitors of all stadium sites. Worldstadiums doens't make a link to other sites, does that make it a bad site? No, it doesn't. It isn't possible to make links to all those sites. Two reasons:
> 
> - It will take 20 years before the site is ready.
> - The same stadium pictures can often be found on several sites. For example on stadiony.net and the same pics are on stadionwelt and fussballtempel and worldstadiums. What do I have to do then? Make a link to all those sites who 'stole' it? You're pathetic of you demand this.


Your words about Stadiumguide's popularity are based on what? Your vision of the world? Many people go to Worldstadiums- true. But their stadium information is really poor and well out of date- just like yours. I know because I was helping them with the Polish section some time ago. Stadiony.net, Stadionwelt.de and Fussballtempel.net ALL have their photos signed, very often with a link to the source, it is really easy to track photos.
20 years to get the site ready, eh? Then you haven't got too much of a speed or are very lazy. In 2 years we created presentations of several hundred stadiums after having sent several thousand e-mails. But here's a clue: You don't have to write new message for each mail, you just copy and paste, then change the crucial words. Not that difficult- actually goes very well. And there are many people who have photos of hundreds of stadiums- ask once and with a permission you have half of your database. Respect to those people tells us to ask.



hertha said:


> Say me which pics are yours, I will put them offline, because you're such a big whiner. I'll give you a tip:
> - Don't put your pics on the internet, other people can use the pics.
> - Or put a text over the picture with the link to your site.
> - Stop crying.


I already told you which are these, I also told you there was a text over one of them which you have cut off. There's nothing I am asking you to do any more, but don't expect I won't react any time you will create new stupid threads about how great you website is and of course worldstadiums.com, because others don't count at all...


----------



## Zaqattaq

Oelanddk said:


> crazy...who are the people going there? I mean where do they come from? Is there a large city near by?


Well I have season tickets but I live 5 minutes away  

Many of the people travel from Pittsburgh/Philadelphia which is about 4 hours away.

Also with American football there are only say 5 or 6 home matches a season so the airport is packed with private jets from all over the country on game days

Another note this stadium (2nd largest in the continent north of Mexico City) is used for 5 or 6 American football games a year and thats all!


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> Australia has 21 million, so it's a little more than _just_ less. I guess the question could have been even under 30 million.


Equally, it could have been 'under 20 million' which would have ruled Australia out. As the question originated from someone with "Brissy" in his user-name (Brisbane, perhaps?), and his suggested answer was 'Australia' - then it certainly does look like a loaded question.

If the number was upped to 30 million, my suggestion of Venezuala would take some beating.


----------



## 40Acres

zaqattaq said:


> Another note this stadium (2nd largest in the continent north of Mexico City) is used for 5 or 6 American football games a year and thats all!


Penn State has 7 home games this year. Most of the major programs have that many at home yearly.

*Sept. 1 Florida International 
Sept. 8 Notre Dame 
Sept. 15 Buffalo * 
Sept. 22 at Michigan 
Sept. 29 at Illinois 
*Oct. 6 Iowa 
Oct. 13 Wisconsin * 
Oct. 20 at Indiana 
*Oct. 27 Ohio State 
Nov. 3 Purdue* 
Nov. 10 at Temple 
Nov. 17 at Michigan State


----------



## GreenwichSE10

definitely Holland


----------



## Shukie

I like the Amsterdam Arena for it's architectural merit:










Other than that I really don't have a clue considering I don't watch sports.


----------



## Wezza

Benjuk said:


> Equally, it could have been 'under 20 million' which would have ruled Australia out. As the question originated from someone with "Brissy" in his user-name (Brisbane, perhaps?), and his suggested answer was 'Australia' - then it certainly does look like a loaded question.
> 
> If the number was upped to 30 million, my suggestion of Venezuala would take some beating.


I'm not sure, but i think he just moved/moving to Brisbane from England? I thought he said something about it on another thread.

Either way, Venezuela's Stadia aren't _that_ great. They have a few nice ones, but then it drops off after that.


----------



## eMKay

EADGBE said:


> Re: the 'no suburbs' clause. You could apply the same argument to the College examples given by taking the point to its logical conclusion.
> 
> For example, Giants Stadium may have a greater population than East Rutherford, NJ (Wikipedia: 80,242 v 8,931), but the point is that its very existence there is due to their proximity to and therefore their catchment from the NY Metro area - a vastly bigger population.
> 
> Is that vastly different from from a situation where State College, PA (Pop 38,420) bears no relevance to the fact that Beaver Stadium (Cap 107,282) is vastly bigger? Both the conurbation* and the implied catchment** are abitrary and therefore open to manipulation:
> 
> * The town is dominated economically and demographically by the presence of the main campus of the Pennsylvania State University (Wikipedia)
> 
> ** The team does not represent the town, but the State of Pennsylvania (Pop 12.3 million - Wikipedia)


Did you read the original post? PSU was used as an example and the poster was looking for more like it, so why are you trying to 'disprove' what he wants to know?


----------



## ØlandDK

zaqattaq said:


> Well I have season tickets but I live 5 minutes away
> 
> Many of the people travel from Pittsburgh/Philadelphia which is about 4 hours away.
> 
> Also with American football there are only say 5 or 6 home matches a season so the airport is packed with private jets from all over the country on game days
> 
> Another note this stadium (2nd largest in the continent north of Mexico City) is used for 5 or 6 American football games a year and thats all!


You are crazy over there :nuts:


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> I'm not sure, but i think he just moved/moving to Brisbane from England? I thought he said something about it on another thread.
> 
> Either way, Venezuela's Stadia aren't _that_ great. *They have a few nice ones, but then it drops off after that*.


Same goes for Australia, Holland, Portugal, etc. Couple outstanding, few good, rest average.

Give it three or four years - get the new one up in Perth, complete Robina & Melbourne Rectangle, the new stand in Geelong, then Aussie's claims would be strong for the 'sub 30 million population' award. Adelaide still a shocker though.

Poses another question - I may have to start a thread - city with worst stadium facilities, population 1 million or more. Adelaide would have to be high on the list!


----------



## Wezza

Benjuk said:


> Same goes for Australia, Holland, Portugal, etc. Couple outstanding, few good, rest average.
> 
> Give it three or four years - get the new one up in Perth, complete Robina & Melbourne Rectangle, the new stand in Geelong, then Aussie's claims would be strong for the 'sub 30 million population' award. Adelaide still a shocker though.
> 
> Poses another question - I may have to start a thread - city with worst stadium facilities, population 1 million or more. *Adelaide would have to be high on the list!*


It'd certainly be up there, that's for sure.


----------



## MikeTheGreek

Australia by far.
Portugal and Netherlands that you said only have football stadiums with the largest about 65,000 and 50,000.

Australia has a wide variety of soccer stadiums, football stadiums, athletics and multi-purpose stadiums, cricket stadiums, arenas for basketball hockey andmuch more .

It has many big stadiums in all sports.You can't say that a country like Netherlands or Portugal has the best stadiums because they just have some football stadiums.

Australia by the way has almost two times the populationof portugal and is a much wealthier and advanced country and is also larger much much larger than both portugal and netherlands so its unfair to compare therse countries.

Australia has the best stadiums for all sports and you can't blame smaller countries than Portugal and Netherlands for not having huge stadiums for all sports.For their needs and for the sports they like their stadiums are just perfect.


----------



## Ampelio

qatar son 333 said:


> why is no one interested ???


where are the venue-stadium pics? 
please it's thread about stadiums and sport arenas... not the sport-events or competition :nuts:


----------



## railcity

Benjuk said:


> There's another on there -
> 
> "Possible future Stadium: Riddes
> - *The stadium would not be designed uniformly, but rather feature one big stand holding 10’000 spectators in order to be able to use these seats also for concerts opposite the stage*"
> 
> I'm involved with a club at the moment and I'm trying very hard to get them to do something similar. It's a hard sell though! I've suggested 7500 seats set back behind one of the goals (with retractable rows at the front) so that a stage could be constructed between the end of the pitch and the front of the seats, thus protecting the pitch and at the same time creating a 7000 seat concert venue.


Cool! 

Here is the Riddes-project on the page of the architect who is at the same time the president of the Football Club:

http://www.christian-constantin.ch/index.php?page=projets&ProjetID=17


----------



## railcity

I know, the stadium is a little bit smaller - but nevertheless interesting.

Brita Arena in Wiesbaden (Germany) has just been opened. It has been built within 4 months.










A team from the small village Wehen managed to promote to 2.Bundesliga and now built this provisional "steel tubes" stadium holding 13'500 spect. in the nearby city Wiesbaden and changed their name to SV Wehen Wiesbaden. They want to establish themselves there and are planning to build a "real" and bigger stadium (up to 30'000 seats) on another location until 2010.


----------



## Reaper-strain

-james- said:


> Sounds strange for a Greek stadium. I saw this stadium along with a few other when I was in Athens and have to say I did not notice until looking closely at a photo from the Acropolis how built up the surrounding area it is.



Yea Athens is very built up, about the Karaiskaki. It is 33,000 as I know, too low to be mentioned on here, but it only took a record fast time of 14 months to complete!


----------



## Alle

I like the way the structures look merged with the ground. The only problem seems to be that the stands are not very steep.


----------



## paquinho

Maybe Estadio Monumental de Maturin (52000 they say) in Venezuela: 11 months.

Any venezuelan that can tell us better?

Here is a link of the stadium: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=483914&highlight=estadio+monagas


----------



## Gherkin

The landscaping around the ground looks very interesting  Nice work Slovenia!


----------



## Sponsor

What the hell is that?! 21st century staium?! :bash:


----------



## jumping_jack

innovative and unique, just amazing :cheers:


----------



## isaidso

Proposal 1

New stadium for the Winnipeg Bluebombers Football team. That's Canadian Football or what people outside Canada call gridiron. 


























Proposal 2: seems like this is the design that has been picked


































I much prefer the first proposal.


----------



## GEwinnen

*New stadium in Concepcion (Chile) will be a copy of Veltins Arena*



> Schnusenberg travels to Chile to advise on stadium build
> 
> A delegation led by Schalke president Josef Schnusenberg sets off on a four-day visit to South America on Wednesday evening with the aim of sealing a "concrete" contractual relationship with Chilean first division club Deportes Concepcion, who wish to construct a stadium bearing a strong resemblance to the VELTINS Arena.
> 
> Like the original, the stadium will hold around 60,000 spectators and is set to be a key element of Chile's bid to stage the Copa America in 2011. "They're clever people. There's no need to re-invent the wheel, after all. And in the VELTINS Arena they've chosen the most modern stadium in the world", said Schnusenberg, who will travel to Chile along with Arena technical manager Ulrich Dargel, Lucia Leal of the club's legal department, consultant Gotthard Sonn and Steven Wilbrenninck, general manager of Dutch construction company hbm, who ultimately built the Schalke stadium.
> 
> The journey from Gelsenkirchen to Chile will take a total of 24 hours, 17 of which by air via Zurich, Sao Paulo in Brazil and the Chilean capital Santiago. Along with its neighbouring municipalities the city of Concepcion has a population of just over one million and is situated 500 kilometres south of Santiago. The Schalke delegation is also due to meet Chilean president Michelle Bachelet during their visit, before returning to Germany on Monday.
> 
> Explaining Schalke's role, Schnusenberg said: "In association with hbm we will provide them with all the plans and act as consultants." In return for these services we will, of course, be paid a fee.
> 
> Just like its big brother in Schalke the Chilean version will also be built on a greenfield site or, to be more accurate, in the desert. The stadium will be the focal point of a complex that will include flats, shops, a sports centre, a swimming stadium and a hospital and is scheduled for completion by 5 October 2010.


----------



## lpioe

That's a huge screen in the first proposal 
What's the cap?


----------



## Vilak

cool!
It's the first time I hear about copying stadium plan!


----------



## isaidso

I believe the first proposal would have been around 50,000.


----------



## Calvin W

isaidso said:


> I believe the first proposal would have been around 50,000.


Nothing really new here. These have been around for a year or two already. I would put this at no more than 50-50 chance for Winnipeg to get something in the near future.


----------



## isaidso

That may be so, but there doesn't seem to be any posting of it in this forum. 

If it does go ahead, they are talking about being ready for the 2008 season. The 'blue and gold' site is still talking about breaking ground and finishing one grand stand this year, with the other half being done in the spring. Surely, they would have started by now, so the 2009 season looks more likely. 

Winnipeg seems very likely to get something built either this year or next. It's hinging on approval by government. Isn't there even a public forum next week hosted by Asper regarding fan input on how to make the finished project a success? If this project has stalled, they aren't indicating so.


----------



## Bigmac1212

isaidso said:


>


That looks awfully familiar. 

I like the 2nd one better.


----------



## GNU

Deportes Concepción in Chile is planning to built a replica of the Arena auf Schalke.
The facade will be changed though.


















http://www.schalke04.de/643.html?&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=9663&cHash=a0d762ee81


----------



## skaP187

My God, and Anderlecht SC wants a copy of the Amsterdam Arena... but then for 60 000.
Now Belgiums have a certain reputation in the Netherlands and this doesn´t do that reputatian any good.


----------



## skaP187

It´s funky, it´s tasty and I like it!


----------



## isaidso

Bigmac1212 said:


> That looks awfully familiar.
> 
> I like the 2nd one better.


It looks awfully familiar to me too, but I can't put my finger on it.


----------



## michał_

pauleta said:


> Well, I think you're in the wrong topic then. This topic is about stadium sites.


Is it? After having read your posts I guess it's only about promoting your puny website.


----------



## pauleta

michał_;16260994 said:


> Is it? After having read your posts I guess it's only about promoting your puny website.


You are seriously watching this topic 24/7 aren't you? I also talked about other sites, so what you say is incorrect. If you don't like the topic, you'd better leave it alone, right?

If anyone got some good pictures of past stadiums, please post them here. Anyone got a picture of the old Wembley stadium? I love that ground.


----------



## krudmonk

Best stadium site? Downtown!


----------



## Vermeer

*Stadium development in smaller football countries*

Most people here seem to think that the biggest stadiums are the most beautiful and the most interesting. Personally I do not agree that it is more interesting. Football is much more than Manchester U, Chelsea, Arsenal, AC Milan, Juventus, Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Bayern Munchen. Most people are supporters of small local teams with small stadiums.

As a Dutch with some roots (grandmother) in Norway I have been following Norwegian football for years and I can tell you that it is much more than Rosenborg. This season the average attendance in the Norwegian top league was 10500. This is a lot in a country with a population around 4, 7 million. Countries like Germany, England, Italy, Spain and France should have had an average attendance more than 100.000 to match the Norwegian interest for the game.

The last few years, most Norwegian top and second level clubs have developed or made plans to develop their arenas. Instead of many other countries, such as Italy and Portugal they have built stadiums they manage to fill up more or less every match day. The facilities can match the huge arenas in Germany and England, but the size is for the everyday supporter, not for the ones that want to come for the top match every season. This makes the atmosphere fantastic.

I will show you some of the stadiums built, under construction or decided to build and hope that you will agree that it is not only the 50k+ stadiums that are worth discussing.

Viking Stadion
Home ground of Viking, Stavanger. 16500 seats. Completed, but plans to increase the seats to 30.000.



















Soer Arena
Home ground of Start, Kristiansand, 14.400 seats.



















Fredrikstad Stadion
Home ground of Fredrikstad FK. 12.500 seats.










Lerkendal Stadion
Home ground of Rosenborg BK, Trondheim. 22.000 seats. Plans to increase to 30.000 seats.










Aker Stadion
Home ground of Molde FK. 11.500 seats



















Color Line Stadion
Home ground of Aalesund FK. 10.700 seats.










Komplett.no Arena
Home ground of Sandefjord FK. 10.000 seats










Brann Stadion
Home ground of Brann, Bergen. 25.000 seats when completed in 2009.



















Aaraasen Stadion
Home ground of Lillestroem SK. 12.000 seats



















Skagerak Arena
Home ground of Odd Grenland, Skien. 14.000 when completed in 2008.



















Fosshaugane Campus
Home ground of Sogndal IL. 7000 seats when completed in 2008










Briskeby Stadion
Home ground of Hamkam, Hamar. 10.000 when completed in 2009. Construction started this year.




















Fornebu Arena
Home ground of Stabaek, Baerum. 16.000 whwn finished in 2008. Construction started this year. The stadium will be an indoor arena.




























Ullevaal Stadion
Home ground for VIF, Lyn and the national team. 27.000 seats. Decission made to increase the capasity to 30k+.

Other teams like VIF (22.000), Lyn (14 - 16.000), FKH (8.000), Bryne (8.000) Moss (10.000) have decisded to build new stadiums, but the construction has not started yet.


----------



## lpioe

Thanks for the info and pics.
In Switzerland attendances have been growing in the past few years too. The average attendance is about 11'000 so far this season. 
But unlike in Norway some stadiums are way too big, especially the Euro 08 stadiums (Bern, Zürich, Genf and at the moment Basel too, but it will be downgraded after the Euro as far as I know).


----------



## cinosanap

How can so many of the smaller clubs afford to build brand new stadiums? In Scotland most of the lower teams struggle to rub two pennies together never mind build whole new stadiums!!


----------



## CorliCorso

They don't have two overly-large clubs monopolising support all over their country.


----------



## cinosanap

I always thought Rosenborg was Norway's equivelant of either the Old Firm.


----------



## Vermeer

*Money*

The budgets for the Norwegian top league clubs are more equal than in Scotland where two clubs are living in a different world. Rosenborg is maybe the richest club in Norway, but I do not think their revenue are more than 15 % higher than clubs like Brann, Viking and Lillestroem.

All the new stadiums in Norway are owned by the clubs and are mainly financed by free land from the municipality, a lot of commercial areas in the stands and executive boxes.


----------



## Chimaera

cinosanap said:


> I always thought Rosenborg was Norway's equivelant of either the Old Firm.


A few years ago Rosenborg was practically untouchable in Norway, that has changed. I know a bit about Rosenborg because my team has played against them before and our ex-coach was the Rosenborg coach in the 1990's (Trond Sollied, now in Ghent again, ex-Rosenborg, Ghent, Bruges and Olympiakos).


----------



## Canadian Chocho

*Canada:*

BMO Field, Toronto-Toronto FC, 20,000 (completed 2007)




















Stade Saputo, Montreal-Montreal Impact FC, 13,500-17,000 (u/c, to be completed 2008)




















VWW Stadium, Vancouver-Vancouver Whitecaps FC, 15,000-30,000 (proposed for 2010)


----------



## Quintana

The Vancouver one should be awesome


----------



## TEBC

very good stadiums


----------



## mbuildings

stunning stadiums


----------



## ottooo

Are there any chances Vancouver and/or Montreal getting a MLS-team?


----------



## ØlandDK

Not much going on in Denmark these days:

*Vejle Stadium*
10.000 seats.
Should be finished in the beginning of 2008
























Construction pictures:
http://www.romshule.dk/diverse/stadion/stadionfinal.htm
Current status:
http://www.romshule.dk/diverse/stadion/stadion.htm

*Horsens Stadium*
Between 6.500 and 8.000 seats
































Current status:
http://www.horsenskom.dk/KulturOgFr...ns/forumHorsensStadionFoto jpg.ashx?db=master

besides that I can only think of the new stand in Parken (Copenhagen):
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=540921


----------



## Vermeer

*Viking Stadion*

I just discovered that my links to Viking Stadion in Norway doesn't work. I try som new links.

Home ground of Viking, Stavanger. 16500 seats. Completed, but plans to increase the seats to 30.000.


----------



## ØlandDK

Isn't the Viking stadium pretty new?


----------



## CrazySerb

10th November 

Construction is picking up speed on the Athletes Village complex:yes:


----------



## Vermeer

Oelanddk said:


> Isn't the Viking stadium pretty new?


The staduium has been used for two season.


----------



## ØlandDK

sergioaguero said:


> I love the Horsens Stadium.. Really nice.


Agree that it's good looking:yes:
Really something different for such a small stadium


----------



## Alle

I agree football is much more than the large clubs, just going on to a local match and relaxing for example. Well, check out my signature for swedish stadiums.


----------



## urbanrecycle

*Satadium Vibes*

Last sunday in Salvador happened the biggest tragedy of the Brazilian soccer here, the step of the yielded and 8 people died, falling of a height of 15-20 meters. The guilt of this is the lack of reforms in the Brazilian stadiums. I want to know if in the greaters stadiums exists some type of vibration at the steps of the stadium .therefore the fans here does not stop the happiness as always pushing team

the photos

http://www.atarde.com.br/esporte/noticia.jsf?id=809725


----------



## Chimaera

have a look at this (recorded in Brondby Stadium, Denmark I think):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N10r3uuRaZk


----------



## Calvin W

Uncle Phil said:


> Not for awile. Seattle, Philadelphia, and St. Louis are the next three in line.



Seattle has a team starting in2008/09? As for the next round of expansion NO cities have been picked so only time will tell who is next.


----------



## redbaron_012

Benn #288.....I agree what you say about being so far from the game..ie soccer or gridion...Those stadiums suit those games....Here in Australia....Australian Rules Football....we have a much bigger playing area. I was wondering how old your games are? probably stone age men kicked rocks around which evolved into soccer etc..but the official start of the game?..Aussie Rules will have it's 150th. birthday next year...which isn't too bad for a relatively young country. ( just heard someone got killed in the USA over and argument about who's game is better...crazy! ).....David Beckam had a bit of trouble kicking an Australian Rules football in Sydney yesterday?


----------



## Berris

Rohne said:


> Not all soccer fans are as enthusiastic as others. If you look at Italy, Southeast Europe or especially Argentina, then there is of course great atmosphere. .


Italian football has a lot of ultras, so they create atmosphere, but easily you can see desert stadiums... 10,000 in San Siro for example or things like that...


----------



## MRichR

St. Louis has always been a big, big soccer town, more so than most cities in the U.S., so it's make since that they'd be on the short list.


----------



## Pavlov's Dog

This is pretty clearly the USA by a long shot. 

When it comes to top level football stadia they have both quantity and quality.

Indoor Arenas. The US has at least 25 arenas for basketball/hockey that are not only bigger but significantly better than anything in Europe. 

Grass roots. Due to its suburban nature, large high-schools and importance of school rather than club-based sports pretty every little small town has rather impressive sports infrastructure whether is stadia, arenas or practice facilities.

Add to the University sports and this is a land-slide.


----------



## icracked

USA .


----------



## urbanrecycle

Chimaera said:


> have a look at this (recorded in Brondby Stadium, Denmark I think):
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N10r3uuRaZk


part of the stadiums that fall was here in the firs scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMn5Zgoibh4


----------



## Mali

*New Belville Renderings Available-2. 12. 07*

Beobuild has received high-resolution renderings of the future University Village from an anonymous source. This spectacular complex will have fourteen residential buildings as well as two that will feature both residential and commercial space. Training areas for the purposes of athletes that will be competing in the 2009 Universiade are also located within this block. The recently opened Delta City 67 Mall is also part of this block. The completion of this complex is expected in the Spring of 2009.

www.beobuild.net





































*Older Renderings*



















*Construction*


----------



## Jim856796

A new stadium should be built in Vientiane, the capital of Laos (a country that I don't go to very often) for the 2009 Southeast Asian Games.


----------



## Kuvvaci

for univaerside Belgrad shouldn't need sport venue, just new Olympic village is enough that they are already started to build.

For izmir, jts some cleaning were enough (resotoration of athletic wearing rooms, and renewing the chairs ect) but just two new sport hall have been built that's all. But Athlet village have been built from zero in Izmir too.


----------



## patroeski

This is the final version of the new stadium in Ghent, Belgium. It's an environment-friendly stadium with 20 000 seats. They will (finally) start building in February 2008. The costs are about 40 million euro's.


----------



## Mo Rush

patroeski said:


> This is the final version of the new stadium in Ghent, Belgium. It's an environment-friendly stadium with 20 000 seats. They will (finally) start building in February 2008. The costs are about 40 million euro's.


great design..


----------



## Mateus_

The new Gent stadium will be great!


----------



## skaP187

Mateus_ said:


> The new Gent stadium will be great!


I can hardly believe there will fit 20 000 people in it to be hounest. looks more like 15 000... Nice from the outside, the inside could have been better. Big distence from the field also.


----------



## Kese

And let's not forget that we are among the founding fathers of the olympic movement!


----------



## GNU

*Which kind of advertising do you prefer?*

*Quick question this:*

*A:*










*B:* (electric billboards)










*C:*










*D:*


----------



## 67868

i voted the electronic advertising, but thy can be a bit distracting at times... which is the point of them i guess


----------



## 67868

if this ground ever going to get built?


----------



## Benjuk

antishock8 said:


> Wow. Simply one of the most stunning and innovative designs I've ever seen. That's incredible. Did I miss seating and luxury suite numbers?


Looks like 15-20k max to me.


----------



## stratus_magnus

*the best olympic logo ever!!!!*

show your creativity to design the future olympic games logo


----------



## Chimaera

mavn said:


> Netherlands isn't that bad. About the same as England. The only extra thing we have is that some teams have a brand on the front AND the back of their shirt. Advertising around the pitch is similar to England. Germany just has those awfull big advertising around the pitch in some stadiums.
> 
> Belgium is becoming a mess. Just like Austria, Switzerland and some other leagues were already. They manage to fit 10 or more different brands and/or logos on their kit. On the front. On the arms. On the back (above and under the number), left ass, right ass, socks, everywhere.


I have to agree. Standard shirts (second picture) look better this year though, with BASE in white lettering. Club Brugge and Anderlecht have the best looking shirts when it comes to sponsoring. They've always kept one strong shirt sponsor where as other teams had to find additional ones for financial reasons (obviously). Anderlecht is sponsored by the number one bank of the country, Bruges by number 2 (or maybe 3).
Improvements concerning "clean shirts" can be seen in Wallonia this season, both Standard, Mons and Mouscron (all of them playing in red/white) have more sober outfits, with only one or two sponsors.

http://www.colours-of-football.com/colours03/bel/bel17.html (click "next page" at the bottom to see the remaining shirts)

Except for Belgium and the Alpine countries France is pretty bad too.


----------



## stratus_magnus




----------



## Dallasbrink

......are you going to pay me? I dont do freelance for free.


----------



## GNU

mavn said:


> Netherlands isn't that bad. About the same as England. The only extra thing we have is that some teams have a brand on the front AND the back of their shirt. Advertising around the pitch is similar to England. Germany just has those awfull big advertising around the pitch in some stadiums.
> 
> Belgium is becoming a mess. Just like Austria, Switzerland and some other leagues were already. They manage to fit 10 or more different brands and/or logos on their kit. On the front. On the arms. On the back (above and under the number), left ass, right ass, socks, everywhere.
> 
> 
> You'll see nothing like this in either Germany or Holland.


Well here they allowed advertising on the sleeves on the ref jerseys a while ago which already looks bad enough.
It would be great if advertising on shirts would be banned as a whole like in the US, but that of course will never happen.
I just hope that we wont go down the same route like in France for instance where every inch is plastered with ads.
It just looks crappy and the identification factor is being lost.
I dont see why people dont understand that less is more in this case.
England seems to be doing things right by imposing strict limitations on adverts.
The TV end product just looks easier and more valuable as a whole on the eye.


----------



## Delmat

cool pictures and beautifull stadiums :cheers:


----------



## Delmat

*Split, Croatia*

*Poljud Stadium*















When this stadium was built (1979) it was proclaimed as the most beautifull stadium of the world together with the Munich stadium.

It has the amazing roof structure and it was the 1st stadium of its kind in the whole world.
Many scientists believed that it is not possible to construct stadium the way it was constructed.
Today you can find many replicas of this stadium among Asia (especially in Japan and Corea) and rest of the world.


----------



## damti

Dalmat,why it wasnt ,back than in 1979,planned to bulid 4 th..south stand??It looks like sth is missing.Capacity is 33 thous. now,and if the south stand was bulit,it would have aroun 40 ths-45.?
Maybe you would have better chance of getting some oficiall Croatia match for WC2010...


----------



## Delmat

The architects plan was to 'direct' the stadium to the Marjan hill that is one of the symbols of Split. Its location is behind the southern part of a stadium.
If there was the stand, people on the southern side would turn their back to the Marjan hill. It's symbolic problem but anyway Split doesn't have necesity to expand the capacity.

About officiall Croatia matches:
Official Croatian football match wasn't played in Split for 11 years!! And that is huge disgrace for our country because national team plays on a stadium in Zagreb that looks awfull.
Croatia played friendly matches in Split against Brasil, Germany, Italy etc. and will play against Netherlands on 6th February 2008, but there was no important football match played for points for over a decade!

President of Croatian Football Federation Vlatko Markovic is responsable for this issue and that makes people who live in southern Croatia very mad.

We hope Croatia will play against England on this beautifull stadium in September 2009!

Here are two more pics of
*Poljud Stadium, Split*


----------



## damti

I know,I am a Croat:lol:...But thanks for the pictures anyway...hope you get England on September...beautiful stadium,would be a shame England players didnt see it and play a match on it...:cheers:


----------



## stratus_magnus

Dallasbrink said:


> ......are you going to pay me? I dont do freelance for free.


just for fun....


----------



## stratus_magnus




----------



## stratus_magnus

http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/080....jpg?x=292&y=345&sig=YOiihEIwCJHYr4FPVuK7Rg--
what do you think???


----------



## lpioe

I prefer electronic billboards.


I think Austria has one of the worst leagues in terms of advertising. Quite a few of the teams have or had a sponsor in their name: RedBull Salzburg, Puntigamer Sturm Graz, FC Tirol Milch Innsbruck, Cashpoint SC Rheindorf Altach, Austria Kelag Kärnten.
Are there any teams in Europe outside of Austria with a sponsor in the official name?


----------



## Rausa

I like led boards most, but I really don't care much about the advertising.





lpioe said:


> I think Austria has one of the worst leagues in terms of advertising. Quite a few of the teams have or had a sponsor in their name: RedBull Salzburg, Puntigamer Sturm Graz, FC Tirol Milch Innsbruck, Cashpoint SC Rheindorf Altach, Austria Kelag Kärnten.
> Are there any teams in Europe outside of Austria with a sponsor in the official name?


Selling of a teamname is just stupid. What were they thinking about, are they really that desperate for money? What does the fans in Austria think about the names?


----------



## dudu24

Fans founded new club after Red Bull take over, you figure out now what they think about it


----------



## nomarandlee

How old is the practice of adverts on team uniforms in Europe (or wherever it started)?


----------



## Bel Ludovic

Erm, why is Madrid bidding for the 2016 Olympics? It's not going to get them. Those Olympics won't go to a European city.


----------



## Bel Ludovic

Actually even people from Great Britain don't really like it! Many people absolutely hate it.

Although I have to say, it's grown on me since it was unveiled last year.




potiz81 said:


> Post of the year!!!
> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> Sorry guys, for me it is just a frame to put photos inside.Only people from Great Britain like it...


----------



## JPBrazil

I like this one


----------



## NEWWORLD

1984 Sarajevo then SFRJ( Yugoslavia ) winter olipic games logo








and mascot wulfy


----------



## stratus_magnus

jak3m said:


> This is the best Olympic logo ever.
> It's modern, dynamic and energetic.
> I hope it revolutionises olympic logos from 2012.


I AGREE!! LONDON 2012 LOGO IS BEST EVER,IT SHOW OLYMPIC GAMES BECOMES MORE CREATIVE,BECOME MODERN,AND ABSELUTELY STUNNING IN IT REVOLUTION,MORE MATURED....BUT I DON,T LIKE THE NEW STADIUM...IT'S TOO SIMPLE..I PREFFERR THE OLD ONE....MMM


----------



## stratus_magnus

I LIKE THE WHOLE CONCEPT
























THE COLOUR


----------



## stratus_magnus

I LIKE IT!!


----------



## Anberlin




----------



## Gamma-Hamster




----------



## Jim856796

If Budapest hosted an Olympics, a renovated Puskas Ferenc Stadium may serve as the main stadium and Papp Laszlo Sportarena would host some indoor events such as basketball.


----------



## Dallasbrink

stratus_magnus said:


> I LIKE THE WHOLE CONCEPT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE COLOUR


So Early 90's


----------



## potiz81

Gamma-Hamster said:


>


What the hell is that? This can't be the official logo, right?


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

JPBrazil said:


> I like this one


U like it but bye2 Paris 2012! because london 2012 win! hno:


----------



## skaP187

What does this topic have to do with stadiums? Imo call a mod!
This is more a topic for the bar or something.


----------



## tonkster

Dallasbrink said:


> So Early 90's



Haha I know what you mean. To be fair, I think that pretty much all the modern logos look very dated or childish. I dont get why they can't do classy ones like they used to back in the 50s etc.


----------



## erbse

My favourite of all times. I like it simple.


----------



## Dallasbrink

skaP187 said:


> What does this topic have to do with stadiums? Imo call a mod!
> This is more a topic for the bar or something.


Party Pooper


----------



## jarbury

That Sochi one is scary....


----------



## Gamma-Hamster

potiz81 said:


> What the hell is that?


Cthulhu


> This can't be the official logo, right?


Official logo is not choosen yet, so who knows


----------



## savas

No other then ATHENS 2004 - Olympic Games welcome home


----------



## Dallasbrink

*Sport Center External Advertising and Branding.*

Does your local sports arena, stadium or complex hang HUGE banners from its external walls? Is there a Giant Corporate logo on the top of that Arena? Is there stain glass window art of a corporate icon on the outside of your stadium? If so and any other type of media, please put it up! Lets see that propaganda for your favorite team and there supporters.

Stadiums, Arenas, Complexes, Fields, etc etc etc etc........


----------



## stratus_magnus




----------



## -Corey-

The best Logo for 2012 was the one of NY


----------



## Major Deegan




----------



## plasma169

*JINJU - Jinju Stadium (25,000)*

City: Jinju 
Capacity: 25,000
Build date: 2010

South Korea has great infrastructure in terms of stadiums. In addition to this stadium, Incheon is building a 20,000 state-of-the-art football specific stadium in Sung-Eui, Ansan is building a baseball dome. Daegu is also building a baseball dome by 2012 (The dome could be used for football as well similar to Shalke Dome in Germany) 

http://www.worldstadiums.com/asia/countries/south_korea.shtml


----------



## Axelferis

VERY GREAT design!! :applause:


----------



## TU 'cane

Wow, very nice.


----------



## Vilak

Looks good.


----------



## Mo Rush

*Stadia in Arena Mode*

Images of stadia that convert into an arena for other sports or are capable of hosting indoor sports.

Handball at Veltins Arena (Football)


----------



## www.sercan.de

30.925 attend the match in the Veltins Arena for the Handball match

Alamadome
record attendance: 44.468









Louisiana Superdome 
record attendance: 68.112









Georgia Dome
record attendance: 62.046









Ford Field
record attendance: 78.129


----------



## NeilF

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff.

Boxing - Attendance: Approx 50,000


----------



## Jim856796

Can a football stadium without a roof be in arena mode as well? The Citrus Bowl is planning to host WrestleMania 24 on March 30.


----------



## Jim856796

I heard that Seoul is planning to build a domed baseball stadium to replace the Dongdaemun Baseball Stadium.


----------



## Mo Rush

Jim856796 said:


> Can a football stadium without a roof be in arena mode as well? The Citrus Bowl is planning to host WrestleMania 24 on March 30.


yip


----------



## TalB

When Phillips Arena was u/c, the Atlanta Hawks had to play their home games at the Georgia Dome, which is used by the Atlanta Falcons.


----------



## Calvin W

Carrier Dome in Syracuse is used for football and basketball. Also St. Louis, Indiannapolis, St. Petersburg, Toronto, Vancouver, etc have all hosted arena sports in football stadiums.


----------



## Dallasbrink

what is so futuristic about it? Its not the first with curved cladding or half roof. So whats so cool?


----------



## jesusRGR

Spectacular design ..... is it for some games especially?


----------



## Mr. Fusion

Great design and the location is fabulous. Magnifico!


----------



## TalB

I am so glad that the Toronto Raptors aren't playing at the Skydome (now Rogers Ctr) after moving to the Air Canada Ctr.


----------



## Bobby3

I'd hate to be in the back of a football/soccer stadium for a basketball game.


----------



## eMKay

Alamo dome (football stadium) for Basketball...










Tropicana Field, Tampa Bay (baseball stadium) for hockey...

I can't find a better pic









Normal mode...


----------



## Scba

^^

How is that Normal Mode for a Rays game? Look closely.


----------



## Dallasbrink

Calvin W said:


> Carrier Dome in Syracuse is used for football and basketball. Also St. Louis, Indiannapolis, St. Petersburg, Toronto, Vancouver, etc have all hosted arena sports in football stadiums.


Lucas Oil Stadium and the new cowboys stadium have plans for Final 4 games that would use the entire stadium and just not half of it.


----------



## MRichR

Dallasbrink said:


> Lucas Oil Stadium and the new cowboys stadium have plans for Final 4 games that would use the entire stadium and just not half of it.


Lucas Oil stadium in Indianapolis will actuall sink the entire field, converting the entire stadium into a giant basketball arena. So it won't be a football field that can be converted into a basketball arena, or vice-versa, it'll be both.


----------



## Dallasbrink

that is so cool, actually it looks like they would rase up the risers a bit on the field as the got close to the original football wall. 

The same is said to be rumored for the New Cowboys stadium, Mark Cuban (Owner of the Mavericks) has said he would like to host an NBA All Star game there sine he doesn't want to host it at the american Airlines Center because he feels it isn't fair for his season ticket holders h=to have to sit in nose bleed so the NBA's VIP can sit down low. Hes actually hurting the hole city by not wanting it at the AAC but o well, what are you gonna do?


----------



## diz

*PHILIPPINES - PBA Dome, Quezon City*

*PBA Dome in QC in the works*
By Nelson Beltran 
Sunday, June 24, 2007
A new central business district with the PBA Dome among its landmarks in the heart of Quezon City is now on the drawing board.

PBA board chairman Ricky Vargas and commissioner Noli Eala met with San Jose Builders top officials Thursday night, talking about possible deals that would help the league realize its cherished dream of having its own coliseum.

“We’re looking at many options but our talks with Quezon City have reached the advanced stage. It’s getting better as we’re impressed with what Quezon City is looking to develop,” Vargas told The STAR.

In the next meeting, San Jose Builders will present to PBA officials a blueprint of the development plan in the sprawling Quezon City site bounded by EDSA, Quezon avenue, Agham road and North avenue.

Already in operation in the site is the Trinoma Mall of the Ayalas.

“There are still a lot of things to be done. No. 1 is to clear the area, second finish the zoning and third come out with the urban plan. But ultimately, it would become a new business district. So it’s really nice,” said Vargas.

“What we want to see is the final plan, determining where’s the right place for the PBA Dome,” Vargas added.

The PBA chairman said they have yet to discuss possible contracts, whether it’s going to be a lease, sale or joint venture.

“At the moment, they just wanted to get our thoughts in building the coliseum so they can include it in the development plan. But we’ve shown how serious we are as we met them at 8:30 p.m.,” said Vargas.

The PLDT top executive is looking to have the groundbreaking done before his term as PBA chairman ends.

The league commissioner, special assistant Willie Marcial and finance officer Jimmy Sunglao have visited the site and they like it with its proximity to everywhere and easy access to transportation.

But Vargas said they are still awaiting the report of a Site and Design committee chaired by Sta. Lucia Realty’s Buddy Encarnado.

“The board is willing to make its decision right away, but we have to go through the process, and that includes waiting for the committee to make its report,” Vargas said.

Vargas said plans on the PBA Dome’s design have been submitted to the league, including those from the constructors of Staples Center and another from a European firm.


----------



## stephenpdavid

Here are the 3D renderings of PBA Solar Center Arena that I did for an U.S.T. Architectural Thesis Student. Hope you like it. 









Aerial View - Night Scene









Man's-eye View - Day Scene









Front Elevation









Rear Elevation









Right-Side Elevation









Left-Side Elevation









Longitudinal Section









Cross Section









Interior View of the Arena - 01









Interior View of the Arena - 02









Interior View of the Arena - 03









Interior View of the Arena - 04

Cheers!


----------



## diz

wow. that's fantastic! :cheers:


----------



## Quintana

Not too enthusiastic about the exterior but the interior looks great.


----------



## six453

the forecourt landscaping (zigzaggin wavy lines) are not original - they are already used in allianz arena landscape design.


----------



## Axelferis

Outside? Snake skin inspiration??


----------



## www.sercan.de

whats the capacity?
And whats with the Araneta Coliseum (20.775) in Quezon City


----------



## SkyLerm

Yeh it has balls :applause:


----------



## lpioe

I'm usually not a fan of these futuristic facades but this one looks quite cool I have to say.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Hi stephen
Do you maybe have a better pic of the section plan?


----------



## Dallasbrink

stephenpdavid said:


> Here are the 3D renderings of PBA Solar Center Arena that I did for an U.S.T. Architectural Thesis Student. Hope you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aerial View - Night Scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man's-eye View - Day Scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front Elevation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rear Elevation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Side Elevation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left-Side Elevation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longitudinal Section
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cross Section
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interior View of the Arena - 01
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interior View of the Arena - 02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interior View of the Arena - 03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interior View of the Arena - 04
> 
> Cheers!


Awesome! Does it have then new cloth lighting projection system or something around the rafters?


----------



## -TC-

stephenpdavid said:


> Here are the 3D renderings of PBA Solar Center Arena that I did for an U.S.T. Architectural Thesis Student. Hope you like it.





-TC- said:


> @stephen, I know you did the 3D renderings of the PBA dome but can you acknowledge the student designer here with his/her name? Did the UST thesis advisers know that you did the 3D renderings for the student and not the student him/herself? You posted them here in a public forum and we don't want to get him/her into trouble. Just curious.





stephenpdavid said:


> No worries...the thesis advisers know that I did the 3D renderings.


That's cool. I just hope that you can also acknowledge the designer here in this thread so that he/she can be recognized.


----------



## -TC-

Just want to clarify to our SSC friends that the 3D renders that you guys see is a thesis project and not the final design of the PBA Dome. 



stephenpdavid said:


> The student told me that he will submit his thesis to the PBA commissioner.


I hope your friend will do that because I would love the final design of the stadium to look something like that.


----------



## Axelferis

Lille :


----------



## lpioe

Estadio Monumental in Lima:


----------



## G.C.

Cetic Park









And the Oval


----------



## trmather

I really don't like Bragas stadium.

The lack of stands behind the goals mean the noise would just disappear out of the stadium, and the two stands that are there are bland, bordering on ugly, and just full of concrete and no design. Plus its a Portuguese stadium, so you're lucky if you get 10 fans turning up for a game there. (no offense to the Portuguese members, but your attendances aren't brilliant).

I also don't like Twickenham because its bland inside, and a concrete mess on the outside.

Anfield is also a massive shithole, inside and out, plus the team that play there fill me with so much annoyance and hatred.


----------



## kay81




----------



## TheRhino

Vilak said:


> Doc Halladay said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stade Olympique*
> Montreal, QC, Canada
> 
> *Texas Stadium*
> Irving, TX, USA
> 
> *Monster Park*
> San Francisco, CA, USA
> 
> QUOTE]
> What's is so much bad about each of those stadium?
> 
> 
> 
> Monster Park is one of the worst named stadiums in the world. Only Pizza Hut Park, Whataburger Stadium, Dicks Sporting Goods Park, and Taco Bell Arena beat it out.
> 
> I dont know what the problem is with the stadiums themselves. Texas Stadium is a bit old and Olympic Stadium is just remembered as a joke because nobody came to see the Expos play there.
Click to expand...


----------



## Axelferis

lpioe said:


> Estadio Monumental in Lima:


 just awful!!!!!


----------



## canadave87

TheRhino said:


> Vilak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monster Park is one of the worst named stadiums in the world. Only Pizza Hut Park, Whataburger Stadium, Dicks Sporting Goods Park, and Taco Bell Arena beat it out.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean to say it's better than the (former) Gaylord Entertainment Center?
Click to expand...


----------



## TheRhino

canadave87 said:


> TheRhino said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean to say it's better than the (former) Gaylord Entertainment Center?
> 
> 
> 
> ok......add that to the list! :lol:
Click to expand...


----------



## Benjuk

Not just because of local rivalry... But I think this looks like it should capsize at any minute it's so lopsided.


----------



## Goothrey

Sports were meant to be played outside and domes feel soul-less. 

Neyland Stadium's exterior is awful:


----------



## Dallasbrink

Heinz Field









This is Ugly, I dont care what anyone thinks


----------



## spud

lpioe said:


> Estadio Monumental in Lima:


 you're joking????

thats one of my favorites ..lol


----------



## HoldenV8

I have a 2 questions/requests for anyone who can fill it.

1) Does anyone have a decent (by that I mean large & clear) photo of Montreal's Olympic Stadium when it was used for the Olympics in 1976?? I've seen many pictures in baseball & football mode but only 1 small, crappy picture of its original intention (available at the official Olympics website).

2) Regarding Buffalo's War Memorial Stadium, does anyone have any pictures of this from when the Buffalo Bills played there? Seen plenty of it in baseball mode but not as it was before the Bisons moved in.


----------



## Kobo

^^ Agree I quite like that one too.

However I have never really liked Anfield, it doesn't look that intimidating for a big club like Liverpool. (I know i'm going to get a back lash now)


----------



## 2005

Old Trafford.

Huge and impressive in size but in design this thing is truely the theatre of shite, I have nothing against Man Utd but B'jesus this is one ugly stadium.


----------



## rilham2new

lpioe said:


> Estadio Monumental in Lima:


~ ... WTH !!!~~~


----------



## speed_demon

rilham2new said:


> ~ ... WTH !!!~~~


I dont find the Monumental U an ugly stadium, it´s actually one of my favorites in South america. It was built in 2000 for the Copa America in Peru. It´s a beautiful stadium in my opinion, the home of national selection of Peru.

























http://youtube.com/watch?v=JyvkYZSbdZs


----------



## Kobo

^^ I agree I think its nice too.


----------



## paquinho

speed_demon said:


> I dont find the Monumental U an ugly stadium, it´s actually one of my favorites in South america. It was built in 2000 for the Copa America in Peru. It´s a beautiful stadium in my opinion, the home of national selection of Peru.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=JyvkYZSbdZs


Thank you very much!!! I really like the stadium, but it was not built for the Copa America, it was built for the club, and it wasnt used for the Copa America, because the Club's president got into a fight with the national federation's president (personal fight) and we couldn't show it to the world.

At the moment it is the stadium with the largest number of boxes in the world (more than 1200).


----------



## Wezza

^^
I love it!! Very imposing.


----------



## Mr. Fusion

speed_demon said:


>


It's Lambeau Field on 'roids! :cheers:


----------



## Celt67

Hampden Park, Glasgow. An absolute dungheap of a stadium. 

















Too small for the Scottish game, ( it used to hold 150,000 now, it holds one third that)..very poorly built, except for where the 'suits' sit, too shallow, and fans at the backs of one of the ends feels about a million miles away from the pitch, and if you're in the front row at one of the ends, you can't see most of the pitch for advertising boards. hno:


----------



## spud

speed_demon said:


> I dont find the Monumental U an ugly stadium, it´s actually one of my favorites in South america. It was built in 2000 for the Copa America in Peru. It´s a beautiful stadium in my opinion, the home of national selection of Peru.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=JyvkYZSbdZs


the best thing about the 'U' is it cost $20million :nuts:


----------



## Good Will

Kobo said:


> However I have never really liked Anfield, it doesn't look that intimidating for a big club like Liverpool.



It might not look intimidating from the aerial view, but try looking up at the kop. Not many more intimidating sights in football than a full kop stand screaming at you. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haOjrqNhR6w&NR=1 (from the away area towards the kop)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BGkFYHG5Y&feature=related (from about 1/4 the way up the kop)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRzjc2N-rIU&feature=related (asking politely for chelsea to go away and questioning their heritage)


----------



## Anberlin

Princes Park, Melbourne.


----------



## www.sercan.de

paquinho said:


> At the moment it is the stadium with the largest number of boxes in the world (more than 1200).


I think think it will stay no 1 til its demolished


----------



## koolio

Why does it have so many boxes anyways? I can't imagine Peru having that much corporate demand.


----------



## The Game Is Up

I see a lot of similarities between the stadium in Peru and two in Ecuador...























































I guess it's a style that is popular in that region of the world. 

Here is a stadium that I don't particularly like:










An advanced, modern society (even more advanced than ours) and this is what they used for the final. Citrus Bowl/Rose Bowl come a close second. The reason I pick this over the Citrus Bowl is simply because the Citrus Bowl was never built for the World Cup and it's old so I gave it a pass but Yokohama Stadium is newly-built and the stands are too far away. Disappointing!


----------



## Dimension

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> I have to agree, the Texas A&M Aggies stadiujm is just one big hunk of crap, layered like a dam tool box!
> 
> I also think this is one of the ugliest stadiums in the world, the War Memorial stadium in the USA:


Thats was in Buffalo, NY. Built in 1937. That pic is probably when it was no longer in use. It is gone now though.


----------



## Cidade_Branca

Estadio da LUz. Very ugly.


----------



## Dimension

Here you go HoldenV8

Buffalo Civic Stadium (War Memorial Stadium)

Before expansion.


----------



## lpioe

^^ Wow, that has to be the worst expansion ever made.
Lovely stadium before and a monster afterwards.


----------



## dande

Maksimir stadium in Zagreb is a pretty strong contender for the ugliest stadium in the world. Also Råsunda in Stockholm, Parken in Copenhagen, Olympic stadium in Helsinki and also quite a few north american football stadiums.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

well altho Portsmouth FC's stadium Fratton Park has tons of character, its not the prettiest thing in the world. 


















but their proposed stadium is spectacular :happy:


----------



## dudu24

dande said:


> Maksimir stadium in Zagreb is a pretty strong contender for the ugliest stadium in the world. Also Råsunda in Stockholm, Parken in Copenhagen, Olympic stadium in Helsinki and also quite a few north american football stadiums.


Maksimir is biggest shithole around. It will be history soon tho.. i'll enjoy every single moment of it getting crashed.


----------



## HoldenV8

Dimension said:


> Here you go HoldenV8
> 
> Buffalo Civic Stadium (War Memorial Stadium)
> 
> Before expansion.



Thanks Dimension kay:


----------



## Patrick

Rosenaustadion Augsburg

















Volkswagen-Arena Wolfsburg

















Stadion Magdeburg


----------



## Orfeo

victory said:


> If your going to have a small cricket ground, at least give it some character. Likewise if you are going to have one continuous stand all the way around, at least make it big, intimidating and spectacular. And dont even get me started on the seat colours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the seats ^^
> 
> The gabba fails on all accounts and makes for one rather ugly, heartless, and small stadium.


I'm not exactly sure what you've got against that Gabba, given that there are much worse cricket stadiums around Australia. In fact, much worse stadiums period. Perhaps you've never been outside Melbourne? Your need to repeat the 'small' bit seems to lead credence to that.

My pick for the worst in Oz is the old ANZ. Disgusting really.


----------



## spud

what does the the old ANZ look like these days? not seen the place since the broncos moved out..


----------



## Lowdy79

Subiaco Oval in Perth,Western Australia.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Best all around would for me be Wembley, best designed probabley Porto's drago and best atmosphere Westfalenstadion.


----------



## kazetuner

lpioe said:


> The biggest I've been to is Camp Nou.
> Best atmosphere was in Stade Velodrome.



that's wierd.. i heard the athmosphere in the velodrome isn't very good, because of the shape of the stands...


----------



## 2005

I must confess that I haven't visited it for a sporting event, yet, but for me it has to Wembley, out of this World, at the moment you won't find a stadium that betters it. Went there for a job interview as a tour guide, which took place in the box that sits above the royal box, perfect place to view the perfect stadium. 

By far the most iconic stadium in the World, not just because of its name but also its design.


----------



## AATAATAATAAT

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> *Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece:*



Wonderful stadium!kay:


----------



## carlspannoosh

Ashburton Grove


----------



## 1878EFC

Goodison Park


----------



## Benjuk

RheinEnergieStadion - Cologne. A very simple stadium but it stuck in my head. Very steep and good leg room, makes for excellent views and comfort.

... And the locals made some terrific noise at one of the games we went to as well.

And this is what it looks like full, with ugly me blocking some of it out...


----------



## Wezza

^^
I like that stadium as well. Haven't been there, but it looks like an ideal football venue! What a quality place for a second division team to be playing at!


----------



## Goothrey

Used to sit in this area during the 90's, of course the ticket prices are now 15x what they were.



























Granted, these are the only places I have been.


----------



## lpioe

kazetuner said:


> that's wierd.. i heard the athmosphere in the velodrome isn't very good, because of the shape of the stands...


I've never been to a stadium that is renowned for its great atmosphere.
I wouldn't call the atmosphere at Velodrome great, but it was the best I've been to.
But you are right, the stadium is not really built favourably for a great ambience (no roof, not very steep stands) but nonetheless it became really loud at some points. 
If they will finally rebuild the stadium (add a roof) and the different groups in the stand collaborate a bit more with each other I think it can become one of the best in Western Europe in terms of atmosphere.

@Sercan: Was the game in Frankfurt a sellout?


----------



## www.sercan.de

At the 2006 Supercup final there were around 30,000 in the stadium (extremely expensive tickets)

2007 Supercup was in Cologne. 38,000


----------



## TEKKEN

ESTADIO CAMP NOU


----------



## bigwilley

The most historic basketball arena in the country


----------



## Benn

Not even close, it went up in the mid 70s, coach Rupp's geat teams came and went before they started building it. Try The Rose Hill Gym (1925), Hinkle Fieldhouse ('28), The Palestra ('27) McArthur Court ('27, while you still can), Allen Fieldhouse ('55 and its got James Naismith's name on the court), Williams Arena ('28), Cameron Indoor ('40), Pauley Pavilion ('60). Rupp is the Biggest, and you can certainly argue best if you Want to, but its definitely not the most historic. 
BTW aren't they talking about a new arena in Lexington in 25,000-30,000 seat range? now that would really be something else.


----------



## somataki

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> *Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece:*


Τhe Athens stadium looks huge in this foto!!!


----------



## bigwilley

Benn said:


> Not even close, it went up in the mid 70s, coach Rupp's geat teams came and went before they started building it. Try The Rose Hill Gym (1925), Hinkle Fieldhouse ('28), The Palestra ('27) McArthur Court ('27, while you still can), Allen Fieldhouse ('55 and its got James Naismith's name on the court), Williams Arena ('28), Cameron Indoor ('40), Pauley Pavilion ('60). Rupp is the Biggest, and you can certainly argue best if you Want to, but its definitely not the most historic.
> BTW aren't they talking about a new arena in Lexington in 25,000-30,000 seat range? now that would really be something else.


Instead of historic lets go with intimidating, and yea they are talkin bout 25-30k +, they could prolly sell 60k tickets a game. Just so you know the waiting list for season tickets at uk is 20 years...:nuts::nuts:


----------



## redbaron_012

100,000 people in the MCG (Melbourne Australia) gives a great atmosphere with all seated in individual comfort.....Remember this is not designed for Soccer,rugby or gridiron etc....but Australian Rules Football (150 years history here) which uses a much bigger oval playing area......it was the main stadium for the 2006 Commonwealth Games, so here is a pic with it set up for the Athletics and running track.....oh yeah..and they play Cricket here in the Summer.


----------



## eMKay

*The worst stadium you've been to...*

I have two, the rockpile (Buffalo War Memorial Stadium...That would be FIRST world war) I was there in the last year it was used, 1987, and it was in terrible shape. Torn down soon after, nobody misses it as it was replaced by the best stadium in the minor leagues.

I took none of these pics




































And Shea stadium, what a dump, mercifully being put down soon...


----------



## Anberlin

Princes Park, Melbourne..









uke:


----------



## Anberlin

^^ Same. Love the stadium kay:


----------



## koolio

Scoots71 said:


> Bryant-Denny Stadium. Truly historic (built in 1929, home of 12 national college football champions), very loud, and sold out for every game since 1988. Even filled to capacity for a glorified scrimmage. Holds 92138.


Oh yeah...I remember watching a scrimmage after they signed that Dolphins head coach who scurried off to you guys (forgot his name). I was absolutely dumb founded, to say the least, when I saw a 90k capacity stadium sold out for essentially a practice session. That is pure passion in my opinion. Don't think many teams around the world can attract about 100 thousand people for their practice sessions.


----------



## koolio

Scoots71 said:


> Bryant-Denny Stadium. Truly historic (built in 1929, home of 12 national college football champions), very loud, and sold out for every game since 1988. Even filled to capacity for a glorified scrimmage. Holds 92138.


Oh yeah...I remember watching a scrimmage after they signed that Dolphins head coach who scurried off to you guys (forgot his name). I was absolutely dumb founded, to say the least, when I saw a 90k capacity stadium sold out for essentially a practice session. That is pure passion in my opinion. Don't think many teams around the world can attract about 100 thousand people for their practice sessions.


----------



## ormey

Grimbsy town stadium Blundell park what a dump


----------



## GunnerJacket

Scoots71 said:


> Bryant-Denny Stadium. Truly historic (built in 1929, home of 12 national college football champions), very loud, and sold out for every game since 1988. Even filled to capacity for a glorified scrimmage. Holds 92138.


The recent expansion makes this a truly nice stadium but just to play fair, two of those "championships" come with huge asterisks ('34 and '41) wherein at best they were shared and at worst (for Bama) the Tide held the weaker share of recognized votes as National Champion. And that glorified scrimmage that drew 92k was likely a one time event over the hoopla for the new coach. Let's see if they do it again or slip back to the 40k average. Which is good in it's own right, mind you. 

Just keepin' it honest.


----------



## wearethefuture

I can think of many, being a lower league football fan. Farnborough Town's ground is an example of many;










And the Shea stadium looks amazing, lots of history too. I don't know about the facilities but i think it should be renovated and retained and not demolished.


----------



## wearethefuture

1. San Siro (Italy)









2. Maracana (Brazil)









3. Azteca (Mexico)









4. Mayday (?)









5. Santiago Bernabau (Spain)

6. Westfalenstadion (Germany)









Obviously it would have to be a sell out game, i would have included Wembley, Old Trafford and Millenium Stadium if i hadn't been to them before


----------



## GunnerJacket

AndyKane said:


> Screw the aesthetics. A stadium is nothing without die-hard fans to fill it.


Obviously not an aficionado of architecture, as this is flat-out untrue. 

Yes, as sites for sporting events stadiums and arenas are more alive while in use and having the crowd create atmosphere, but the converse is also in affect that the design of the spaces can greatly impact that atmosphere, the fan experience, and, in the case of some facilities, stand alone as a work of art. (Which architecture is in part if not in whole. Just ask Vitruvius.) I've not been there but many a kin and friend have suggested Parkhead provides great atmosphere but as a facility it is decidedly average. It certainly isn't the most modern, has several obstructed views and the old main stand is almost obsolete. Hidden behind 60K+ fans it looks fantastic, but each individual experience may not be the same.

And I'm not just picking on Celtic here, it's a near universal axiom. Notre Dame stadium (US college football) is a decidedly drab experience, but the fans and history of the facility are top rate. Conversely, UVA's Scott Stadium or UNC's Kennan Stadium are very nice facilities in a beautiful setting, but the fan support, while devout, is rather tepid. This suggests fan support is more often dictated by the team's performance and history, and not the stadium. Celtic could play in a drab bowl but draw rabid fans and create atmosphere, while ICT could play in an architectural wonder but still struggle to draw and create the same experience. That's not the fault/cuase of the stadium, and this is why I differentiate the stadiums from the fans, similar to the discussion about Rupp Arena above. 

Best stadium = best architecture
Best experience = architecture + crowd

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## Bobby3

May Day Stadium is in North Korea I think.


----------



## Bobby3

The_Big_O said:


> I got two words for ya...
> 
> Camden Yards


Yea, it's incredible. Shame so many other teams ripped it off.


----------



## carlspannoosh

The_Big_O said:


> I got two words for ya...
> 
> Camden Yards


I really like the way the floodlights appear to be a on a completely unconnected building. Is the building on the right a part of the stadium complex too?


----------



## bigwilley

Lol we dont call those flood lights


----------



## leomarques

In America

La Bombonera, Buenos Aires









Centenario, Montevideu









Nacional, Santiago









Azteca, Ciudad de Mexico









Rose bowl, Pasadena


----------



## wearethefuture

The home of football...




























...nothing comes close.


----------



## carlspannoosh

bigwilley said:


> Lol we dont call those flood lights


Lol. Type "stadium floodlights" into google and see what you get. Thats what we call them over here. What do you call them?


----------



## Scba

Don't argue over something so stupid, I call them floodlights too. 

The warehouse is indeed part of the complex. The lower level has places to eat, a shop, a breezeway, things like that. The team rents out some of the building for its offices, but there's still regular office space up in it. It's an original building from before the stadium was build there.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Cheers for the info. It's very impressive.


----------



## wearethefuture

Some of these American stadiums double up as small towns! I find the older ones more fascinating especially baseball grounds with their idiosyncrasies. I think that American stadiums with internal complexes seem like an intelligent way of gaining off the field revenue. Although i believe a stadium should be just that, and only that, with the focus on the pitch and not off it. I feel Wembley has addressed both of these factors well, although some of the VIP's attention during some of the games has not been on the pitch, however you can not blame the design for this.


----------



## storms991

The Walkers Stadium(Leicester City FC)


----------



## carlspannoosh

wearethefuture said:


> Some of these American stadiums double up as small towns! I find the older ones more fascinating especially baseball grounds with their idiosyncrasies. I think that American stadiums with internal complexes seem like an intelligent way of gaining off the field revenue. Although i believe a stadium should be just that, and only that, with the focus on the pitch and not off it. I feel Wembley has addressed both of these factors well, although some of the VIP's attention during some of the games has not been on the pitch, however you can not blame the design for this.


I do like how they integrate their baseball stadiums into the area though, much more character than the many stadiums you see that appear to be in the middle of nowhere. 
Wembley is an awesome stadium ( I have only seen it from a distance but even then it is truly massive) but I do look forward to seeing what it's like when the area around it is developed.


----------



## wearethefuture

carlspannard said:


> I do like how they integrate their baseball stadiums into the area though, much more character than the many stadiums you see that appear to be in the middle of nowhere.


I completely agree, theres nothing more uplifting and exciting walking through a town or city and seeing the stadium rise above the houses or buildings, almost like a cathedral for the pilgrims. For example; Goodison, Anfield, Old Trafford, St James Park, Upton Park etc. mainly the ones that haven't been built in recent years and are in fairly densely populated areas, Wembley even fits into this category (although this urban feel has changed somewhat in recent years). You just don't get the same buzz going to a stadium that is out of town, and you can park on site. It's great having brilliant facilities and no traffic and a parking space etc. but surely some of the atmosphere is lost.



carlspannard said:


> Wembley is an awesome stadium ( I have only seen it from a distance but even then it is truly massive) but I do look forward to seeing what it's like when the area around it is developed.


Wembley is so big it can clearly be seen in certain parts here in Chertsey, Surrey (nearly 20 miles away)! Now that is some structure.


----------



## Quintana

Carrerra said:


> NRW has 8 stadiums and London has 10 but 2 of 10 stadiums in London are non fooball arenas - Selhurst Park and ILord's Cricket Ground - so regarding football the two have the same 8 stadiums.


Selhurst Park is a football stadium (Crystal Palace). Twickenham however, is not. This does not matter though, this thread is about stadiums, not just football stadiums.


----------



## CharlieP

Twickenham *is* a football stadium, just not an association football stadium.


----------



## Carrerra

CharlieP said:


> Twickenham *is* a football stadium, just not an association football stadium.


Maybe rugby union is classified among football family in England?


----------



## Quintana

CharlieP is right, Rugby Football is one of several football codes.


----------



## Carrerra

Quintana said:


> CharlieP is right, Rugby Football is one of several football codes.


Really? So far I thought that only American football is such a case.


----------



## Quintana

Association Football (aka Soccer)
Australian Rules Football
American Football
Canadian Football
Rugby Union
Rugby League

Did I forget any?


----------



## CharlieP

Gaelic football.


----------



## Quintana

Does Futsal count?


----------



## Carrerra

Football has so many kinds in its family.


----------



## CharlieP

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Present_day_codes_and_.22families.22


----------



## Bobby3

Texas and California should be listed here too as both have a massive amount of stadiums.


----------



## NeilF

I'm going to pick Yorkshire, England.

Land Area: 12,000 square metres
Population: Approx. 4,000,000

Stadia with capacity above 20,000:

York: York Racecourse - Horse Racing - 56,000 (all seats)










Leeds: Elland Road - Football (Leeds United) - 40,200 (all seats)










Sheffield: Hillsborough - Football (Sheffield Wednesday) - 39,900 (all seats)










Sheffield: Bramall Lane - Football (Sheffield United) - 33,500 (all seats)










Bradford: Odsal Stadium - Rugby League (Bradford Bulls) - 27,500 (5,800 seats)










Hull: KC Stadium - Football / Rugby League (Hull City / Hull F.C.) - 25,400 (all seats)










Bradford: Valley Parade - Football (Bradford City) - 25,100 (all seats)










Sheffield: Don Valley Stadium - Athletics - 25,000 (all seats)










Huddersfield: Galpharm Stadium - Football / Rugby League (Huddersfield Town / Huddersfield Giants) - 24,500 (all seats)










Leeds: Headingly Stadium - Rugby Union / Rugby League (Leeds Carnegie / Leeds Rhinos) - 24,000 (5,300 seats) 










Barnsley: Oakwell Ground - Football (Barnsley) - 22,500 (all seats) 










There is a whole raft of grounds with a capacity of below 20,000, probably the most notable of which is Headingly Cricket Ground.

I think centre and southern Scotland in general deserves a special mention - while it cannot compete with areas Northrhine-Westphalia or cities like London in terms of stadia over a certain capacity, it does have an impressive list of sporting venues - given that the whole country of Scotland has a population less of that of London and the area to which I refer covers a smaller area than Northrhine-Westphalia. Below are a list of stadia in this area of Scotland with a capacity over 15,000. 

Edinburgh: Murrayfield - National Stadium; Scotland Rugby - 67,800
Glasgow: Celtic Park - Celtic F.C. - 60,500
Glasgow: Hampden Park - National Stadium; Scotland Football - 52,100
Glasgow: Ibrox Stadium - Rangers F.C. - 51,100
Edinburgh: Tynecastle Stadium - Heart of Midlothian F.C. - 18,200
Kilmarnock: Rugby Park - Kilmarnock F.C. - 18,100
Edinburgh: Easter Road Stadium - Hibernian F.C. - 17,500
Edinburgh: Meadowbank Stadium - Multisport Venue - 16,000




Carrerra said:


> Maybe rugby union is classified among football family in England?


Rugby Union is generally considered to be a form of football. Indeed, both Ireland and England's Rugby Union bodies contain the term 'football' - Irish Rugby Football Union and Rugby Football Union respectively. I've always assumed that football referred to games played 'on foot', rather than 'with the foot'.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Los Angeles definitely will be up there. From Westwood to Anaheim, a distance of about 40 miles or so, we have...

Pauly Pavilion, UCLA - 12,500









The Forum, Former home of the Lakers and Kings, 17,505









Hollywood Park, horse racing, around 90,000









Galen Center, USC - 12,000









Long Beach Pyramid, 10,000 or so









Home Depot Center, LA Galaxy, Chivas USA, 27,500

















Sports Arena, Former home of the Lakers, Kings, Clippers, USC, ancient place, 17,000









Fontana Speed Way, Racing, 100,000+









Santa Anita Race Track, Horse Racing, 90,000+









Dodger Stadium, LA Dodgers, 56,000

















Angel Stadium, LA Angels, 45,000

















Honda Center, Anaheim Ducks, 18,000









Staples Center, LA Lakers, LA Kings, LA Clippers, LA Sparks, LA Avengers, up to 20,000

















Rose Bowl, UCLA Football, 92,000









Los Angeles Colosseum's, USC Football, 92,500

















add in the countless high school and college arenas in the 5,000 - 10,000 seat range.


----------



## Joop20

Nice to see some other lists on this thread, keep them coming! I think it's easiest if we put a map of the state/region/province at the beginning of the post, and then list the stadia in a descending order of capacity. And lets stick to states/regions/provinces, not cities, otherwise the amount of lists becomes endless! (I guess London can be considered as a region, as was shown on the map in that post. Los Angeles is not its 'own' region though I think, but is part of California?)


----------



## ØlandDK

Northrhine-Westphalia should host a EURO CUP on their own...


----------



## Geokioy

In Attika region, lies Greece's capital, Athens: These are its football stadiums (all pics were taken from www.stadia.gr)...

1) Olympic Stadium Spiros Louis, 80,000 seats, Athens (Maroussi suburb). It was used several times in the past for international events such as Athens 2004 Olympics (Opening and closing ceremony, Athletics), Paneuropean Athletics, World Athletics, Champion Leag Finals, concerts etc. Now it is the home of AEK FC.










2) Karaiskaki stadium, 35,000 seats, Piraeus (Port city of Athens metropolitan Area). It is the home of Olympiacos FC and it is used also for concerts (eg Scorpions...)









3) Apostolos Nikolaidis Stadium, 16,600 seats, Athens Center. It is the home of Panathinaikos FC...








Now they are building a new stadium in Elaionas Area, west of Athens center...It's going to have ~40,000 seats









4)Rizoupoli Foutball Stadium, 15,000 seats (Ano Patissia, North of Athens)









And these are the biggest and most important Indoor Stadiums used for basketball, Volleyball, Gymnastics, Athletics during winter....

1) Athens Olympic Sports Complex - Indoor Hall, 18,700 seats, Athens (Maroussi Suburb)

























2) Peace and Friendship Indoor Stadium, 11,390 seats, Piraeus

















3) Hellinikon Indoor Hall, 14,500 seats, Hellinikon Suburb (Southeastern of Athens)

















4) Peristeri Indoor Hall, 3,072 seats (Northwest of Athens)









Some other Indoor stadiums, built for the 2004 Olumpics, now are being turned into shopping malls (Galatsi Indoor Hall:http://www.stadia.gr/galatsi/galatsi-gr.html), conference centers (Faliro Indoor Hall:http://www.stadia.gr/faliro/faliro-gr.html), universities facilities(http://www.stadia.gr/anoliossia/anoliossia-gr.html)...

Soon I'll come back with stadiums form Thessaloniki....


----------



## Geokioy

Thessaloniki's Stadiums (Greece's second city in terms of population, about 1 mil., and economical - political importance)...all the pics were taken from www.stadia.gr...

1) Kaftatzoglio Stadium, 27,770 seats, Home of Hercules FC and main stadium of the city. It was used during the olympic football tournament in 2004.

















2) Toumba Stadium, 28,701 seats, Home of PAOK FC

















3) Harilaou Stadium, 23,220 seats, Home of Aris FC

















Toumba and Harilaou Stadiums were used as training facilities for the olympic football tournament in 2004.

4) Kalamaria Stadium, 6,500 seats, Home of Apollon Kalamarias FC

















...and now the indoor stadiums...

1) PAOK Sports Center, 8,142 seats, Home of PAOK's basketball and volleyball teams. It was also used for the European Final 4 in Basketball, in 2000.

























2) Alexander's Melathron - Indoor Hall, 5,000 seats, Home of Aris' basketball and volleyball teams.

























3) Ivanofio Indoor Hall, 2,443 seats, Home of Hercule's basketball and volleyball teams.

















The end...


----------



## Patrick

ØlandDK said:


> Northrhine-Westphalia should host a EURO CUP on their own...


and these could be the ten stadiums then (UEFA should re-allow standings then ):









here is a list with all current stadiums with a capacity of more than 15000

name............................(official.name)......capacity...teamname(s)...........................cityname...........
Westfalenstadion................(Signal.Iduna.Park).....80708...Borussia.Dortmund.....................Dortmund...........
Arena.AufSchalke................(Veltins-Arena).........61482...Schalke.04............................Gelsenkirchen......
Stadion.im.Borussia-Park................................54067...Borussia.Mönchengladbach..............Mönchengladbach....
Rheinstadion....................(LTU-Arena).............51500...Fortuna.Düsseldorf....................Düsseldorf.........
Müngersdorfer.Stadion...........(Rheinenergiestadion)...50374...1..FC Köln............................Köln...............
Stadion.Gladbeck........................................37612...Germania.Gladbeck,.TV.Gladbeck........Gladbeck...........
Grotenburg-Stadion......................................34500...KFC.Uerdingen.........................Krefeld............
Stadion.am.Schloss.Strünkede............................32000...Westfalia.Herne.......................Herne..............
MSV-Arena...............................................31500...MSV.Duisburg..........................Duisburg...........
Ruhrstadion.....................(Rewirpowerstadion).....31328...VfL.Bochum............................Bochum.............
Stadion.auf.der.Alm.............(Schücoarena)...........26601...Arminia.Bielefeld.....................Bielefeld..........
Jahnstadion.............................................25000...unused................................Marl...............
Stadion.Rote.Erde.......................................25000...Borussia.Dortmund,.Olympia.Dortmund...Dortmund...........
Parkstadion.............................................23000...unused................................Gelsenkirchen......
Fürstenbergstadion......................................22800...STV.Horst-Emscher.....................Gelsenkirchen......
Ulrich-Haberland-Stadion........(Bayarena)..............22500...Bayer.Leverkusen......................Leverkusen.........
Georg-Melches-Stadion...................................22500...Rot-Weiss.Essen.......................Essen..............
Stadion.Niederrhein.....................................21318...Rot-Weiß.Oberhausen...................Oberhausen.........
Tivoli..................................................21300...Alemannia.Aachen......................Aachen.............
Stimbergstadion.........................................20000...SpVgg.Erkenschick.....................Oer-Erkenschwick...
Uhlenkrugstadion........................................20000...Schwarz-Weiß.Essen....................Essen..............
Stadion.Nattenberg......................................20000...Rot-Weiß.Lüdenscheid..................Lüdenscheid........
Kölnarena...............................................19500...Kölner.Haie,.VfL Gummersbach..........Köln...............
Leimbachstadion.........................................19400...Sportfreunde.Siegen...................Siegen.............
Friedrich-Ludwig-Jahn-Stadion...........................18400...SC.Herford,.Borussia.Friedenstal......Herford............
Stadion.am.Zoo..........................................18000...Wuppertaler.SV........................Wuppertal..........
Ischelandstadion........................................18000...SSV.Hagen.............................Hagen..............
Stadion.am.Hünting......................................16500...1..FC.Bocholt.........................Bocholt............
Lorheidestadion.........................................16233...SG.Wattenscheid.......................Bochum.............
Stadion.am.Hermann-Löns-Weg.............................16000...Union.Solingen........................Solingen...........
Preußenstadion..........................................15050...Preußen.Münster.......................Münster............


----------



## Joop20

Patrick said:


> and these could be the ten stadiums then (UEFA should re-allow standings then ):


Did you make that map yourself? Looks good, that would be a great EC :cheers:. I wonder if it's actually possible, a Bundesland hosting a European Championship? It would be a great promotion for Nordrhein-Westfalen!
I wasn't aware of a new stadium in Essen and expansion of Bayer Leverkusen's stadium though? Any info on that?


----------



## Patrick

Yes I made the map to show that it could be possible theorhetically 

for Essen's stadium, you find some pictures in the link below. 3/4 of the under tier will be a standing area (14000), the upper tier and 1/4 of the under tier all seats (18000). the international capacity (due to the standings => seats) will be around 25000 (14000 straning places => 7000 seats, that's why I additionally wrote that UEFA should re-allow standings then ). Construction will begin on 30th of June this year.
http://www.jawattdenn.de/stadionneubau.php3?style=4

In 2009, Leverkusen will play in Düsseldorf due to the extension works (22500 => 30000, all seats (don't know about the area for away fans)).
http://www.sport.bayer.de/de/Ausbau-BayArena.aspx


----------



## CharlieP

Going off on a bit of a tangent, I've just worked out that Wembley Stadium and Twickenham Stadium are less than 12 km apart. Are there two 80,000+ stadia closer together anywhere in the world?


----------



## matthemod

*Large stadiums for small teams.*

As the title says, I think it's always a bit weird that by whatever circumstances happened there's always some teams that are quite small and low in their respective leagues, but have an absolutely massive stadium!

First obvious one is Hampden Park, Scottish National stadium with a capacity of 52,103 yet also home ground of Queens Park F.C. of the Scottish Second Division, with an average attendance of around 500!




























Edit: I feel I should say I did search to see if there was a topic already like this, but I couldn't find one.


----------



## Patrick

Zentralstadion Leipzig, home of FC Sachsen Leipzig (4th league, division Northeast-South).
Capacity 44,345; average attendance 2007/08: 3,100









Südweststadion Ludwigshafen, home of FSV Oggersheim (3rd league, division south)
Capacity 41,383; average attendace 2007/08: 1,600









Vestische Kampfbahn Gladbeck, home of DJK Germania Gladbeck (4th league, division Westphalia)
Capacity 37,612; average attendance 2007/08: 493


----------



## eddyk

The Emirates:lol:

My local towns stadium capacity is 7,500, yet they only have an average attendance of 50 or so.

Thats 150xless than capacity.


For example it would be as if only 506 people showed up to watch Man U at the 76,000 old trafford.


----------



## Carrerra

Maybe this is the best football stadium for 3rd division club in the whole world. 

LTU Arena in Germany
- Club : Fortuna Düsseldorf
- Built : 2004
- Cap : 51,500
- Retractable roof


----------



## eddyk

Ahh yes, and coloured seats to disguise the fact that noboddy is there.


----------



## lukus

That stadium wasn't even used in 2006 Fifa WC!


----------



## Carrerra

eddyk said:


> Ahh yes, and coloured seats to disguise the fact that noboddy is there.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Patrick

oh, before Leipzig built that new stadium, VfB Leipzig (now Lokomotive Leipzig) played in the old Zentralstadion with a capacity of 100,000; but with an average attendance in 1994/95 (2nd league) of 3,600:









EDIT: At least Düsseldorf attracts an average of around 13,000 spectators in a home game. and they are doing well in the 3rd league, they have chances to go up into the 2nd league.








and as you can see, the colored gives really the impression of a filled stadium for the first moment


----------



## veronika

biggest stadium for small team, Moscow Olympic, Luzhniki stadium 80000+ home of Torpedo Moscow, crowds less than 2000:cheers: i win!


----------



## Carrerra

veronika said:


> biggest stadium for small team, Moscow Olympic, Luzhniki stadium 80000+ home of Torpedo Moscow, crowds less than 2000:cheers: i win!


That's, I think, mainly because too many clubs are concentrated in Moskow. Football clubs in Russia need to be decentralized


----------



## Scba

Dolphin Stadium in Miami holds about 75,000 for football, but has been restricted down to 36,000 seats for baseball, with a maximum of 68,000 for it when all seats are opened up. 










They averaged about 16,000 per game, but it was clear in many games that there were less than 3,000 in attendance.


----------



## Carrerra

Scba said:


> Dolphin Stadium in Miami holds about 75,000 for football, but has been restricted down to 36,000 seats for baseball, with a maximum of 68,000 for it when all seats are opened up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They averaged about 16,000 per game, but it was clear in many games that there were less than 3,000 in attendance.


I remember reading in a newspaper last year that Florida Marlins exaggerated the attendance in unbelievable scale. According to a reporter who counted the spectators one by one with his own fingers in top of 1st inning, it was only 375 but later he was stunned with shock that the official attendance for the game was announced "10,121" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt other MLB clubs manipulate their attendances. For instance, I'd love to watch NY Yankees games. There are many cases that the official attendance was close to the full capacity(55,000) of Yankees Stadium when I found many empty seats watching the game. 

To be honest I don't believe the attendance figures MLB announces are 100% correct. I feel like there is about 20-30% overestimation comparing with European football.


----------



## veronika

Carrerra said:


> That's, I think, mainly because too many clubs are concentrated in Moskow. Football clubs in Russia need to be decentralized


I still win and I get a bonus because Luzhniki is actually the real home of Torpedo and my attendance stats are up to date and not from years ago:cheers:


----------



## veronika

Found this article seems we are all wrong but I still say torpedo are the smallest team in the biggest stadium because it is there stadium and they play there every week not like some of the one off matches mentioned in this article from the Guardian 

The world's biggest, emptiest stadiums



Wednesday March 12, 2008
guardian.co.uk 


Being a football supporter can be a lonely experience. Photograph: Graham Chadwick/Getty Images



"Everyone seems to be obsessed with record crowds nowadays," sighed Andy McKenzie, wistfully looking at photos of empty, windswept terraces. "But the other day as I was talking to a friend about Scottish lower division football, we wondered what it would be like to watch Queen's Park at Hampden. This season they have had crowds of fewer than 500 in a 52,000 capacity stadium, meaning over 51,500 empty seats. What is the record number of empty seats there have been at a major league or cup match?"

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Knowledge inbox has been bulging (if an inbox can bulge) with bids for this particular crown. Here's our top 10:
10. Yokohama Marinos - 51,207

"The capacity of the Nissan Stadium (aka Yokohama International Stadium) is 72,372," writes Richard Finch, "and has been used by Yokohama Marinos since 1998 when the average attendance was 19,165. A quick subtraction results in an average of 51,207 unused seats." Not a bad effort, but we can do better than that ...

9. FC Amsterdam - 64,500

Over to Nick den Uijl. "In the 70s, FC Amsterdam played in the Eredivisie. Their home stadium was the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam. They would play in front of only a handful of people. In September 1977, for instance, they lost 1-3 to FC Twente in front of 1,500 spectators. Earlier that year the Cup Winners' Cup final was played between Hamburg and Anderlecht in the same stadium in front of 66,000 people."

8. Juventus - 68,763

"Assuming we are discounting several games played behind closed doors," says Simon Halstead (and yes, we are), "I would have to say Juventus' Coppa Italia home match against Sampdoria in the 2001-02 season. Only 237 spectators showed up. With the Stadio Delle Alpi's capacity of 69,000 this leaves 68,763 empty seats." Thanks also to David Pasley, who suggested this fixture.

7. Hertha Berlin - c.73,000

"Although I cannot provide any details," says Alex Jäkel, who won't let that stop him, "I would reckon that Hertha Berlin in the 1980s would be a prime example." Yes, Hertha's struggles in the 80s led to a few spare seats at the Olympic Stadium. When Hertha were relegated from 2.Bundesliga in 1986, attendances fell to as low as 1,800, leaving around 73,000 empty seats.

6. Borussia Dortmund reserves - 79,028

Let Martin Tobutt tell the story. "This may be cheating a little but a match from last Saturday's German Third Division North featured Borussia Dortmund's reserves at home to Wuppertal. Normally, such teams play at the club's old ground or training ground - in Borussia's case Rote Erde, which has 3,000 seats and then a 22,000-capacity standing area which is open to the elements." Yes, yes, get on with it. "Looking at the TV pictures, it appears that the gale force winds that day meant that the match was moved to the Westfalenstadion meaning that the 1680 paying customers were housed in a ground holding 80,708 fans. In terms of empty seats, I make that 79,028."

5. Torpedo Moscow - 80,000+

"It pains me to no end - but my local club, Torpedo Moscow, I would think would have to claim this dubious honour," writes a bullish Leonid Mironov. "They play at the Luzhniki Stadium which has a capacity of 84,000 and a bit. For the past couple of season the average attendance has been around 3,000-4,000. That leaves almost 80,000 empty seats on average. I am pretty sure that we win this little competition (although obviously I would love to be wrong on this one)." Leonid, you are wrong. Not even close, in fact. Read on.

4. Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyespor (Istanbul BBS) - c.81,000

Chris Wade has a higher offer from Ankara. "They don't announce official figures for matches in the Turkish Super Lig for some reason," he writes, "but on December 9 last year I listened to the radio broadcast of Istanbul BBS v Genclerbirligi which was being played at Istanbul's Ataturk Olympic Stadium. The radio announcer said he could see a total of six fans in the 81,283 stadium. There were a few more than that, as this picture shows but the entire crowd could not have numbered more than 50 souls for the exciting 0-0 draw." We reckon there's at least a couple of hundred in that picture, but it's one empty stadium nevertheless.

3. Leeds United v VfB Stuttgart - 90,000+

Joe Skinner, Doug Kirkpatrick and Andrew Limb have emailed in to nominate Leeds United's Champions League tie against VfB Stuttgart at the Camp Nou in 1992. With Stuttgart having fielded an ineligible player during the second leg of their 4-4 aggregate draw (Stuttgart would have gone through on aggregate), Uefa ordered the two teams to play a one-off decider at a neutral venue, and Barcelona's ground was chosen. No one can agree on the stadium's exact capacity in those days before it became an all-seater, but it was close to 100,000 meaning at least 90,000 spaces were left vacant as Carl Shutt tucked home the winner in front of 7,400 fans.

2. Necaxa - 118,000+

We're into six figures now. "I lived in Mexico City from 1995 to 2002 and went to see all the local teams while there," says Iain Pearson. "The most surreal was visiting Necaxa who were playing their home games in the Azteca Stadium (capacity: 120,000). If they were playing a team from out of town in midweek they would be lucky to host a 'crowd' of 2,000 - leaving 118,000 empty seats."

A worthy effort, but the crown goes to ...

1. Thames Association FC - 119,531

Neal Martin presents: West Ham Stadium. Thames Association FC still hold the record for the lowest attendance in Football League history when 469 went through the turnstiles, to watch Thames take on Luton in December 1930. It's claimed that the ground could hold 120,000 spectators (although estimates do vary), which leaves 119,531 tickets unsold.


----------



## Xusein

Wow. What a bunch of failures, especially that Florida stadium. :lol:


----------



## danny1010

Carrerra said:


> I remember reading in a newspaper last year that Florida Marlins exaggerated the attendance in unbelievable scale. According to a reporter who counted the spectators one by one with his own fingers in top of 1st inning, it was only 375 but later he was stunned with shock that the official attendance for the game was announced "10,121" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I doubt other MLB clubs manipulate their attendances. For instance, I'd love to watch NY Yankees games. There are many cases that the official attendance was close to the full capacity(55,000) of Yankees Stadium when I found many empty seats watching the game.
> 
> To be honest I don't believe the attendance figures MLB announces are 100% correct. I feel like there is about 20-30% overestimation comparing with European football.


There isn't a conspiracy to manipulate attendance. For most US sporting events, attendance is counted by tickets sold not by the turnstile (i.e. butts in seats). Most new stadiums I've been around don't even have turnstiles anymore.

Most of the discrepancy people see is from season ticket holders. When a season ticket holder (who, for MLB, has tickets to 81 games) cannot make it to a game, the ticket is counted as sold, so he or she will still be included in the attendance.


----------



## larsul

veronika said:


> I still win and I get a bonus because Luzhniki is actually the real home of Torpedo and my attendance stats are up to date and not from years ago:cheers:


No, Necaxa from Mexico City played against veracruz before they moved to Aguascalientes in front of 1890 people with paid ticket in a 114,000 
That leaves more than 112,000 seats empty.
A good example now is Club Socio aguila from second division who plays in azteca Stadium and the last game were 561 people in the stadium..
incredible but yes..


----------



## Carrerra

danny1010 said:


> There isn't a conspiracy to manipulate attendance. For most US sporting events, attendance is counted by tickets sold not by the turnstile (i.e. butts in seats). Most new stadiums I've been around don't even have turnstiles anymore.
> 
> Most of the discrepancy people see is from season ticket holders. When a season ticket holder (who, for MLB, has tickets to 81 games) cannot make it to a game, the ticket is counted as sold, so he or she will still be included in the attendance.


I already know that season ticket holders made that difference and the article also said about that. But that can not be the reason.

In fact there is season ticket system in almost every sport of the world too. Nevertheless nobody accept it as reasonable to announce 375 actual spectators to be 10,121. 

A spectator in sports means a person who bought the ticket and came to watch the game in real life. If the person only bought the ticket and didn't come he or she is not a spectator - just a ticket buyer. 

MLB's average attendance for 2007 is annouced 32,717 but I feel like it's under 25,000 on global standards.


----------



## Scba

If the Marlins are only drawing, say 4,000 or so through the turnstile every game, then why do they deserve a new stadium? People aren't going to go that one, either. Ticket prices will be much higher, and the only new faces in the stands will be the executives who buy up the suites and box seats.


----------



## kinggeorge

miami is always terrible for sports and attendance, as for the marlins getting a new stadium...they would generate more money on boxes, logically speaking if they get a guy paying 50$ a ticket or someone buying a box at a cost of at least 3000 a game, think about the profits from the new vip boxes. i personally think the marlins should fold...and become a aaa team


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

Rose Bowl and Colosseum in Los Angeles both seat 92,000 plus and are probably 10 miles apart, so i guess not.


----------



## Patrick

but you can say that nowhere in the world two 90,000+ are closer together


----------



## ØlandDK

IMO the LTU Arena is one of the best stadiums in Europe. What a shame...hno:


----------



## www.sercan.de

Unfortunately its true with the Istanbul Municipality club at Atatütk Olimpiyat.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

lol i guess.


----------



## CharlieP

If we take stadium density a bit further, which area has the most stadium/arena seats in, say, a square kilometre?

My first guess would be Melbourne, which has the MCG (100,000) on one side of the railway and two arenas used in the Australian Open, plus Olympic Park and a few smaller facilities on the other, but then I remembered an aerial shot posted in this forum once which had an NFL and MLB stadium in spitting distance of each other, surrounded by car parking. Kansas City? Will the Beijing Olympic Stadium have more than just the swimming pool built near it? How many total seats are in the Athens Olympic plaza?


----------



## CharlieP

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Rose Bowl and Colosseum in Los Angeles both seat 92,000 plus and are probably 10 miles apart, so i guess not.


I'm getting quite obsessed with this now. The LA Coliseum (92,000) and Rose Bowl (92,500) are just under 20 km apart, but in between the two are Staples Center (20,000) and Dodger Stadium (56,000). That's at least 260,500 seats, although there must be more sports venues in that area.

Is there any way of drawing circles of a set radius in Google Earth? If so, I could draw one centred roughly on Queens Park Rangers' Loftus Road ground - within a 10 km radius you have:

Wembley Stadium (90,000)
Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
Emirates Stadium (60,000)
Stamford Bridge (42,000)
Lord's Cricket Ground (28,000)
Craven Cottage (26,500)
The Oval (23,500)
Loftus Road (19,000)
Griffin Park (13,000)
Wembley Arena (12,500)

The Emirates Stadium and the Twickenham Stoop are just over 20 km apart, so I had to exclude the latter, but in that 10 km radius circle I count 396,500 seats. Any challengers?


----------



## Patrick

guess not. how it is in New York?
maybe Munich can win the title with +69,000 closest together 
Olympiastadion 69,250 - 7,5km - 69,901 A. Arena


----------



## Benjuk

CharlieP said:


> If we take stadium density a bit further, which area has the most stadium/arena seats in, say, a square kilometre?
> 
> My first guess would be Melbourne, which has the MCG (100,000) on one side of the railway and two arenas used in the Australian Open, plus Olympic Park and a few smaller facilities on the other, but then I remembered an aerial shot posted in this forum once which had an NFL and MLB stadium in spitting distance of each other, surrounded by car parking. Kansas City? Will the Beijing Olympic Stadium have more than just the swimming pool built near it? How many total seats are in the Athens Olympic plaza?


Yep, the sports precinct has the MCG (100k seats), Rod Laver Arena (15k), Vodaphone Arena (10k), there's also another 15 courts at the tennis center (all capable of taking spectators - 3 of them 'show-courts'), Olympic Park (18k), the under construction 'bubble dome' (31.5k), there's also Punt Road Oval (15k - cricket/AFL) behind the MCG.

Fancy a walk? Walk about 25-30 minutes to the west across the CBD and you're at Telstra Dome (56k). 

Alternatively, cross the river and walk south through the Botanic Gardens past the Sidney Myer Music Bowl (2k seats, 28k standing) toward St Kilda about 25-30 minutes and you'll find Bob Jane Stadium (14k but awful) which is inside the F1 track at Albert Park (huge).

Not a bad little area for sports/entertainment.


----------



## MoreOrLess

CharlieP said:


> I'm getting quite obsessed with this now. The LA Coliseum (92,000) and Rose Bowl (92,500) are just under 20 km apart, but in between the two are Staples Center (20,000) and Dodger Stadium (56,000). That's at least 260,500 seats, although there must be more sports venues in that area.
> 
> Is there any way of drawing circles of a set radius in Google Earth? If so, I could draw one centred roughly on Queens Park Rangers' Loftus Road ground - within a 10 km radius you have:
> 
> Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
> Emirates Stadium (60,000)
> Stamford Bridge (42,000)
> Lord's Cricket Ground (28,000)
> Craven Cottage (26,500)
> The Oval (23,500)
> Loftus Road (19,000)
> Griffin Park (13,000)
> Wembley Arena (12,500)
> 
> The Emirates Stadium and the Twickenham Stoop are just over 20 km apart, so I had to exclude the latter, but in that 10 km radius circle I count 396,500 seats. Any challengers?


Crazy thing is that London only just looks to be starting its devolpment(albeit outside tge area you mentioned), we could have 60K stadiums for Spurs, Chelsea and Westham and Lords even larger plus of course the temp 80K Olympic Stadium.


----------



## www.sercan.de

+
Europest biggest Arena (O2 Arena, 20,000)
Or is it not in the 10km radius?

Istanbul and London are sometimes very similiar


----------



## CharlieP

No. Here's that 10 km radius circle I was talking about (KML file for Google Earth):

http://dev.bt23.org/keyhole/circlegen/temp/04-18-08-80466.kml

Here's the one for Los Angeles - can anybody point out any more stadia or arenas it contains?

http://dev.bt23.org/keyhole/circlegen/temp/04-18-08-10565.kml


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

CharlieP said:


> I'm getting quite obsessed with this now. The LA Coliseum (92,000) and Rose Bowl (92,500) are just under 20 km apart, but in between the two are Staples Center (20,000) and Dodger Stadium (56,000). That's at least 260,500 seats, although there must be more sports venues in that area.
> 
> Is there any way of drawing circles of a set radius in Google Earth? If so, I could draw one centred roughly on Queens Park Rangers' Loftus Road ground - within a 10 km radius you have:
> 
> Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
> Emirates Stadium (60,000)
> Stamford Bridge (42,000)
> Lord's Cricket Ground (28,000)
> Craven Cottage (26,500)
> The Oval (23,500)
> Loftus Road (19,000)
> Griffin Park (13,000)
> Wembley Arena (12,500)
> 
> The Emirates Stadium and the Twickenham Stoop are just over 20 km apart, so I had to exclude the latter, but in that 10 km radius circle I count 396,500 seats. Any challengers?



For LA add in the Galen Center at 11,000 seats across from USC and the Sports Arena at 17,000 or so next to the Colosseum and USC. 

In fact, on one street, Figueroa within 2 miles there are the Colosseum (92,000), Sports Arena (17,000) Galen Center (11,000) Staples Center (20,000) and two major performing centers with Nokia (brand New, next to Staples) (7,500) and the Shrine (i think 7,000). this is fun.


----------



## rantanamo

How far apart are the Cotton Bowl(92,000) and JerryWorld(80,000-100,000)?


----------



## Patrick

Jerry World will be near the Rangers Ballpark?
The distance between Cotton Bowl and Rangers Ballpark is approx. 30km


----------



## HUSKER

CharlieP said:


> I'm getting quite obsessed with this now. The LA Coliseum (92,000) and Rose Bowl (92,500) are just under 20 km apart, but in between the two are Staples Center (20,000) and Dodger Stadium (56,000). That's at least 260,500 seats, although there must be more sports venues in that area.
> 
> Is there any way of drawing circles of a set radius in Google Earth? If so, I could draw one centred roughly on Queens Park Rangers' Loftus Road ground - within a 10 km radius you have:
> 
> Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
> Emirates Stadium (60,000)
> Stamford Bridge (42,000)
> Lord's Cricket Ground (28,000)
> Craven Cottage (26,500)
> The Oval (23,500)
> Loftus Road (19,000)
> Griffin Park (13,000)
> Wembley Arena (12,500)
> 
> The Emirates Stadium and the Twickenham Stoop are just over 20 km apart, so I had to exclude the latter, but in that 10 km radius circle I count 396,500 seats. Any challengers?



Well, in Mexico DF the list is as fallows:
ESTADIO AZTECA: 114,000
UNIVERSITARIO: 72,000
PLAZA MEXICO (BULLFIGHT USE): 40,000
ESTADIO AZUL: 39,000
ESTADIO NEZA 86: 37,000
FORO SOL (BASEBALL AND CAR RACING): 35,000
PALACIO DE LOS DEPORTES (BASKETBALL): 22,000
ESTADIO TEC CCM (FOOTBALL): 15,000
ESTADIO WILFRIDO MASSIEU (FOOTBALL): 12,000
ALBERCA OLIMPICA: 10,000


TOTAL: 403,000

ALL IN A 30 KM RADIUS.


----------



## Patrick

oh, a 30km radius is quite large, the ruhrgebiet could compete with that  but not with london as there are some more venues out of the 10km radius charlie chose.


----------



## GNU

www.sercan.de said:


> +
> Europest biggest Arena (O2 Arena, 20,000)


I thought we had already established various times that the O2 Arena isnt Europes biggest arena.


----------



## Soxrok3

*Times Union Center- Albany*

For those who have been, what do you think?


----------



## www.sercan.de

i thought o2 seats 20k?
we ahd justthe problem with the MEN Arena


----------



## GNU

www.sercan.de said:


> i thought o2 seats 20k?
> we ahd justthe problem with the MEN Arena



No it seats 17,5k in Icehockey mode which is around a thousand less than the Kölnarena for instance

_"Los Angeles Kings got the better of the Anaheim Ducks with a 4-1 win before 17,551 O2 Arena fans in the first NHL regular season game ever in Europe." _

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/ice_hockey/7019110.stm


----------



## www.sercan.de

Oh, sorry
So its 18k-18,5k at Basketball?


----------



## GNU

I havent looked up the attendancy figure for that NBA game in the O2-arena but the O2-world will seat 14,200 for Icehockey and around 15k for Basketball games.
So 18-18,5k for Basketball games sounds indeed likely for the O2-arena


----------



## www.sercan.de

the off page sucks
its says 20k
but sometimes 23k


----------



## NeilF

*[Rugby Union] Belfast, Northern Ireland - Ravenhill Redevelopment (12,000)*

Ulster Rugby has officially unveiled the detail of the first phase of an ambitious re-development plan for its Ravenhill Grounds.
The redevelopment project at Ravenhill is based on four phases, the first two of which received the green-light from the Planning Authorities prior to Christmas.

“It’s imperative that we improve the facilities at Ravenhill” said Chief Executive Michael Reid, “in the past 6-12 months the business of rugby has changed rapidly, and an investment in our facilities is absolutely vital if we are to cement our position and compete”

The first phase of the redevelopment programme, which is to build a new stand on the terrace side of the ground, has been officially unveilled today to the public, following a soft-launch to partners and sponsors at the end of March.

The new stand, which will be operational for September 2009 will cost £4.5 million to build and the project will be almost entirely financed through commercial income.

Boasting 20 corporate boxes and 530 premium seats as well as an exclusive glass front bar/lounge facility offering an elevated view of the Ravenhill pitch, the new grandstand will provide opportunities for individuals and organisations to enjoy rugby at Ravenhill in more comfort than ever before.

Exact capacity details:

4,200 standing places
536 premium seats
278 corporate box seats

*Images:*

*Entrance:*










*New Stand:*










*Internal Render of Club Bar:*










*Internal Render of Corporate Box:*










*Plan of Corporate Box:*


----------



## bing222

what about Telstra stadium that has a capacity of 50,000


----------



## Morsue

The world's largest spherical building stands in Stockholm and is of course called the Globe Arena. Capacity is about 14.500 for handball and floorball.


----------



## dande

Luzniki (spelling) is a stadium but with permanent roof.


----------



## Vermeer

Stabaek Football Club in Norway is now building a 16k stadium with permanent roof.

FK Haugesund is palnning to start construction of a stadium with permanent roof by the end of this year.



















Most Norwegion top clubs have small inndoor stadiums (International size) for winter training.


----------



## Vermeer

Stabaek Football's arena, Fornebu Arena:



















FK Haugesunds new stadium:

ne.no/storage/image/variation/ne_47381045f0321_416x284.jpg


----------



## veronika

Regarding Russia, there is no reteactable roof yet for a big arena but Moscow Dinamo are planning their stadium to have one and of course the Gazprom arena which is being constructed in ST Petersburg will have one. There are many arenas with fixed roof but it depends what you call big? The only arena with fixed roof that can fit in a full size international football pitch is the Olympisky stadium. It hosts a multitude of different events.


----------



## Geokioy

The biggest indoor arenas in Greece are situated in Athens:

Olympic Indoor Hall, 18,700 seats


















Peace and Friendship Indoor Stadium, 11,390 seats


















Hellinikon Indoor Stadium, 14,500 seats


















(all the pics and info were taken from: www.stadia.gr)


----------



## DiggerD21

There has been a construction boom regarding this type of event venues in the last years in Germany. Most indoor arenas in Germany are used for (team-)handball and icehockey, besides concerts obviously. Often a sponsor buys the name of an arena for several years.

Don't know if this list is complete (I leave the LTU-Arena out of this list):

Nuremberg: 
- Arena Nürnberger Versicherung, capacity up to 10,200 places, built 2001. Home of the Icehockey team "Sinupret Ice Tigers" (Sinupret is a medicine against sinusitis. :lol: ) 









Duesseldorf:

- Eisstadion an der Brehmstrasse, capacity 10,285 places. It is the oldest one in Germany (built 1935, rebuilt 1949), however the roof and the current capacity were added later. Until the 90s it was the biggest icerink in Germany.









- ISS-Dome, 13,400 places, built 2006









Hamburg:
- Color Line Arena, up to 16,000 places, built 2002









Cologne:
- Kölnarena, up to 20,000 places, built 1998, the biggest of its kind in Germany

















Berlin:
- O2-World (U/C), 17,000 places









Mannheim:
- SAP-Arena, 13,600 places, built 2005









Hanover:
- TUI-Arena, up to 14,000 places, built 2000 as part of the EXPO 2000.

Munich:
- Olympiahalle, up to 14,000 places, built for the Olympic games 1972, currently being upgraded


----------



## GNU

In which way is the Olympiahalle being upgraded?


----------



## DiggerD21

According to Wikipedia 50 million Euros will be invested into the Olympiahalle to make it a bit bigger, brighter and more modern in order to be competitive on the international market.


----------



## GNU

Sounds good albeit I would have preferred it if they would have gone for a new arena.
That finnish investor who had realized the Colorline arena in Hamburg actually had plans for an arena in munich but the city council decided against it if I remember correctly.


----------



## UrbanLife

Photos from Stabæks new stadium at Fornebu (the old Oslo Airport area). The capacity will be 15 000 seats and the whole stadium (including the pitch) will be covered. 

*NOTE!* This images are from early january, so post some later photos soon.


















































































(all photos: http://fotballbaner.no)


----------



## UrbanLife

Some newer shots from the middle of march:


----------



## UrbanLife

And some areal shots from the end of march:


----------



## Klukas

I am glad for Skopje and Macedonia but personally not very impressed by Arena itself.


----------



## scukaf

The exterior of Skopje Arena is OK (reminds me of a Zagreb's Sports Hall) but when I saw the interior, I was, so to speak, a little bit disappointed. Why isn't there South tribune in the Arena?


----------



## vardar

^^
Whereas i like the exterior the interior is a disaster hno: 
One of the reasons for that is idiotic politicians pushing for something to get started before elections, thats their excuse but what the architects were thinking i dont know. 

Having said that the hall is a big improvement on what we currently have so i guess you take the good with the bad.


----------



## www.sercan.de

any pics of the interior`?


----------



## vardar

I couldnt find the latest pics although the arena is gonna have its official opening this week


Anyway these are about 2 months old..........BRACE YOURSELVES :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## scukaf

pity, it had a predisposition to be a great arena, but unfortunately (politics, elections etc.) it came off a little bit claustrophobic (1st interior pic.)


----------



## dewrob

the interior is a huge disappointment. It's disgusting. It's now understandable why the details about the interior, the capacity, they layout were kept top secret. Where should one start... The lack of one stand, the immensely shrinked capacity from what was announced, the overall claustrophobic appearance... Background for all this is politics, as certain politicians initiated an "optimized" version of the initial project to try to fit it in their portfolio with the then insufficient budget.

Better luck next time hno: For now we will have to console ourselves with the nice exterior which I still think is pretty good.


----------



## Giorgio

The exterior looks decent but the inside is a disaster (not just because of the sickeningly nationalistic seating). 

Is it also necessary to have *12* FYROM flags outside the arena? :|


----------



## MPC_PT

Beautiful Arena
Why 12 flags of Macedonya outside??


----------



## dewrob

MPC_PT said:


> Beautiful Arena
> *Why 12 flags of Macedonya outside??*


Because it's election time in 2 weeks and the government will include the opening (which is in 4 days) in its campaign


----------



## www.sercan.de

whats the capacity?


----------



## dewrob

www.sercan.de said:


> whats the capacity?


8000 (6000 fixed and 2000 detachable you can see them on the picture as well)


----------



## scukaf

wait a second. i heard that the capacity should have been between 10k and 12k spectators.


----------



## dewrob

scukaf said:


> wait a second. i heard that the capacity should have been between 10k and 12k spectators.


that's the biggest scam in all this. The project was announced with a 12k capacity but obviously there was some 'refitting' meanwhile with political background as I explained above to a point where it was too late to reverse the process. The result is what we have here, I think it's obvious from the pics that the place can't handle more than 10k for basketball and stuff. What pisses me off is that no one will take responsibility for this :wallbash:


----------



## somataki

MPC_PT said:


> Beautiful Arena
> Why 12 flags of Macedonya outside??


After the name now they adopted the ancient greek religion. 12 flags= the 12 ancient greek gods!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## dewrob

somataki said:


> After the name now they adopted the ancient greek religion. 12 flags= the 12 ancient greek gods!!! :lol::lol::lol:


boring, annoying, paranoid, repetitive, egocentric... and no limits to it :sleepy:


----------



## Delmat

dewrob said:


> 8000 (6000 fixed and 2000 detachable you can see them on the picture as well)


from outside it looks like it should have at least 15 000 seats
pitty

Arena in Split, Croatia looks a bit smaller than this one but will have almost double capacity (it's being built), more than 13 500 seats


----------



## dewrob

Delmat said:


> from outside it looks like it should have at least 15 000 seats
> pitty
> 
> Arena in Split, Croatia looks a bit smaller than this one but will have almost double capacity (it's being built), more than 13 500 seats


Yeah I'm following the Split arena. Nice going. kay:

Anyways there is a lot of wasted space in the Skopje arena which they should have used better. They got an axillary small arena with almost 1000 seats to begin with (on the side of the big arena missing a stand). They should have left the auxiliary arena to be build in another object in the future and use the space in this one only for the big arena and make it as it should be. With that space they could have easily risen the capacity to the planned figures.


----------



## Zorba

The only foreseeable use this arena could possibly have would be to host Eurovision. I don't think basketball is too popular up in Skopje. :tongue2:


----------



## scukaf

dewrob said:


> ...What pisses me off is that no one will take responsibility for this :wallbash:


Like in all other ex-yugoslav republics. It's pure Balkan mentality. And we will all just sit tight and do nothing about it. hno:


----------



## dudu24

Zorba said:


> The only foreseeable use this arena could possibly have would be to host Eurovision. I don't think basketball is too popular up in Skopje. :tongue2:


But handball is.


----------



## Dallasbrink

*Here Come the Super Stadiums*

*Fields of Dreams*
*Here Come The Super-Stadiums*
Tom Van Riper, 03.31.08, 12:00 PM ET

Forget the bum economy. Hungering for the kind of revenue needed to field top teams, a wave of stadium construction is sweeping through sports. But not just any stadiums. Super-stadiums.

The formula: Build new facilities with fewer seats and more luxury boxes, charge higher prices, earn more revenue, hire better players and reap more wins. Then turn around and raise ticket prices. It's a sports business model that originated in America and is now spreading across the globe. "It's become a game of one-upsmanship," says Chris Lee, senior principal at HOK Sport, which designed several new European stadiums. "Teams are finding it's a circle you have to be a part of."

The website stadiumguide.com lists 78 new soccer venues across Western Europe that either opened recently or planned for the near future, along with a handful of others in Eastern Europe and South America. Most are scaled down models of the old giant soccer stadiums emphasizing seating rather than standing room, the better to minimize the chances for hordes of standing, leaning fans to fall and cause a crush.

Two standouts: the 365 million euro ($576 million) Landsdowne Road Stadium in Dublin, Ireland, expected to open in 2009. Home to the Irish National Soccer Team as well as rugby, it will hold 50,000 fans and have 110 luxury suites, 10,000 premium club seats, fine dining and lounge bars. In Lyon, France, the 60,000-seat Olympique Lyonnais will open a year later. With a green design featuring solar power and reusable water, construction cost 240 million euros ($379 million) and will have 130 luxury suites and 5,000 premium club seats.

In the U.S., the NFL's Dallas Cowboys are awaiting the opening of their massive $1 billion new field. Football's Minnesota Vikings and baseball's Oakland A's also hope to have new homes soon. The San Francisco 49ers have been pining for one, even talking with officials in nearby Santa Clara, Calif. Minnesota's baseball team, the Twins, already have a new stadium set to open in 2010. "Teams that need the revenue will always continue to build new facilities," says Hamp Howell, president of industry consultant Sports Facilities Marketing Group.

The trend's worldwide capital: the New York City area, where four new stadiums will open in the next few years. First up are two baseball cathedrals: the Mets' Citi Field and the Yankees' "new" Yankee Stadium--both expected to open in 2009. They'll hold a combined 125 luxury suites, with the most expensive going for $2,500 per person per game, with capacities upward of 30 fans each. Top field-level seats will also cost more, allowing the teams to keep the upper tiers of their respective stadiums more reasonably priced.

After that comes a $1.3 billion home in New Jersey for the NFL's New York Giants and Jets. Opening in 2010, it promises a capacity of 82,500, including 200 luxury suites and 9,200 club seats. The new stadium's signature will be a 400-foot-by-40-foot-high rectangular wall featuring murals of players to fans outside the stadium.

Major League Soccer's New York Red Bulls are also building a cozy new home with 20,000 seats in nearby Harrison, N.J. The fledgling league is hoping to strike a chord with casual soccer fans by rescuing some of its teams from monstrous football stadiums--mausoleums to a soccer club playing to less than half capacity much of the time--and into soccer-only venues that bring fans closer to the action.

"The first row of seats will be just 21 feet from the touch lines, "says Red Bulls spokesman Andy McGowan, who also notes that a translucent roof will cover every seat in the house. "It will be the benchmark stadium by which all other soccer stadiums in North America are measured."

Elsewhere in America, sports facility consultants are drawing more business from mid-size cities looking to make sports arenas a centerpiece of downtown redevelopment. Tulsa, Okla., Wichita, Kan., Omaha, Neb., and Des Moines, Iowa, are all going in that direction, according to Howell. The idea is to draw people downtown to concerts and minor sports like arena football.

Kansas City built the new $276 million Sprint Center with the hope of luring the National Hockey League to town. The ownership group AEG (other-otc: AEGXY - news - people ), run by Philip Anschutz, has had flirtations with the Pittsburgh Penguins and Nashville Predators, to no avail so far. The Penguins just got approval for their own new arena to stay put. But Howell thinks the Predators' status in Nashville is tenuous, despite a sale to a local group last year.

"The Predators are probably in play," he says. Meantime, the Sprint Center plays host to concerts and college basketball tournaments, with no anchor tenant. The bulk of the arena's cost was publicly financed.

No matter. If you build it, they will come. And if they don't, the owners have the local taxpayers to split their losses with.

-- Annie Hamm contributed to this article.

Top 10 Super Stadiums underway
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/31/sp...tvr_0331stadiums_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=30000


----------



## Delmat

dewrob said:


> Yeah I'm following the Split arena. Nice going. kay:
> 
> Anyways there is a lot of wasted space in the Skopje arena which they should have used better. They got an axillary small arena with almost 1000 seats to begin with (on the side of the big arena missing a stand). They should have left the auxiliary arena to be build in another object in the future and use the space in this one only for the big arena and make it as it should be. With that space they could have easily risen the capacity to the planned figures.



Are there any bussiness capacities like offices, shopping mall, hotel etc.?


----------



## dewrob

Delmat said:


> Are there any bussiness capacities like offices, shopping mall, hotel etc.?


There is a 5 star hotel right next to it, a casino, tennis court park and an indoor swimming pool. In the very near future indoor hockey arena is being planned next to it. A big parcel next to it is planned for a shopping mall and its construction is expected this year. The whole complex is next to the river and the trim tracks on its banks. Here is an older layout of the area I have posted earlier in this thread



dewrob said:


> 1. Sports Arena Boris Trajkovski
> 2. Hotel Aleksandar Palace
> 3. Tenis Club
> 4. Karpos Indoor Swimming pool
> 5. Bonsai garden
> 6. Shopping mall


If you asked for the arena object particularly there are no offices in it but in addition to the small and big sport courts there is a leisure area (bars, cafes, bowling, fitness/wellness facility etc) of course there are all the technical facilities that an arena needs (equipment room for TV transmitting, journalist lounge, VIP lounge, dressing rooms etc.)

:cheers:


----------



## dewrob

Zorba said:


> The only foreseeable use this arena could possibly have would be to host Eurovision. I don't think basketball is too popular up in Skopje. :tongue2:


why? I don't get it... not that we don't suck at it as in most other sports but basketball is a common/popular sport here.


----------



## Carrerra

Personally I don't like 1st tier having the same height with the ground. It fails to give good viewing angles to spectators in there. I think it to be ideal for perfect sightlines to have 1st row seats around 2 meters above the ground level.


----------



## Realek

The arena is officially open. Pics thanks to LaLinea and lslcrew from build.com.mk

1









2









3









4










5









6









7









8









9









10









11









12









13









14


----------



## dudu24

How old are plans for this hall? Interior is identical to Dom Sportova Ice Hall in Zg. Shame they kinda spoiled it all with this ugly seats. Exterior ain't bad.


----------



## www.sercan.de

i like the seats


----------



## renco

www.sercan.de said:


> i like the seats


What a suprise,you like yellow-red combination


----------



## dewrob

dudu24 said:


> How old are plans for this hall? Interior is identical to Dom Sportova Ice Hall in Zg. Shame they kinda spoiled it all with this ugly seats. Exterior ain't bad.


I think they are around 8 years old but I think the similarity with Dom Sportova is coincidental...

Anyways the arena is much much better and actually very decent with the crowd inside covering the ugly seats. I'm kinda reliefed


----------



## NickRivers

Mmmm... I miss a videocube, but it is a very correct arena...


----------



## www.sercan.de

renco said:


> What a suprise,you like yellow-red combination



Tha best in tha world :cheers:


----------



## Zorba

dewrob said:


> why? I don't get it... not that we don't suck at it as in most other sports but basketball is a common/popular sport here.


Just an idea. You guys aren't a traditional basketball power. Plus the second biggest indoor sport in Eastern Europe after basketball is Eurovision.:righton:


----------



## somataki

Zorba said:


> Just an idea. You guys aren't a traditional basketball power. Plus the second biggest indoor sport in Eastern Europe after basketball is Eurovision.:righton:


With songs like the one they sent this year I doubt!! Last year they had a great song BTW.


----------



## Realek

www.sercan.de said:


> Tha best in tha world :cheers:


Glatasaray?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Galatasaray


----------



## figui

hey!
i'd like to share the project the team i support is about to overtake. the stadium actual capacity is about 18k (it's not an all-seater actually)

this is the "Gran Parque Central", stadium of Club Nacional de Footbal from Montevideo, Uruguay.
nowadays:










projected (construction starts next month):



























the capacity when finished will be something like 26k and there're other expansions being planned.

mauricio.


----------



## kazetuner

i hope that is finished, because a team as big as nacional deserves a bigger and better stadium than the actual one


----------



## scukaf

cool projects and renderings, thx


----------



## scukaf

maybe i'm out of date, but what team will be playing in Boris Trajkovski Arena?


----------



## dudu24

Vardar Handball Club, who else?


----------



## scukaf

yeah but what about of a basketball court that is installed in there?


----------



## dudu24

Dunno, i guess they have some local club.


----------



## Realek

scukaf said:


> maybe i'm out of date, but what team will be playing in Boris Trajkovski Arena?





dudu24 said:


> Vardar Handball Club, who else?


Vardar (handball) might stay at their current grounds at "Rasadnik"
Rabotnicki (basketball and volleyball) will probably stay at their "Park Arena"
MZT (basketball) will 100% stay at their grounds in "Jane Sandanski"

The only larger team that will 100% move is Kometal GP, from their dilapidated "SRC Kale"

And of course the national teams will probably play all their Skopje matches in the new arena.


----------



## dudu24

Well i guess that Vardar will use it for Champions league?


----------



## vardar

dudu24 said:


> Well i guess that Vardar will use it for Champions league?


They probably will use it for the european matches as well as Rabotnicki (basketball) which is hoping of getting into the adriatic league in the future (although their current team sucks).


----------



## patroeski

*Multifunctional stadiums with retractable seats*

Place exampels of stadiums that can be reformed from a athletic stadium to a football stadium:

*Stade de France, Paris*



















*
to*


----------



## archiholic

*OITA BIG EYE*
Oita, Japan
for football



















for athletics



















this stadium also have retractable roof


----------



## Delmat

It looks gr8
too bad the 4th stand wasn't built 
it would again look much better and it would extend its capacity. Is there any chance to extend it in future without rebuilding Arena?


----------



## Benn

Looks like what a couple of MLS teams should have done


----------



## patroeski

La Peineta Madrid, is it still going to be built?


----------



## kazetuner

nou mestalla will be able to do that


----------



## Realek

Delmat said:


> Is there any chance to extend it in future without rebuilding Arena?


Hard to imagine 

But it might turn out for the best in the long term, cause we will probably outgrow this arena at the very beginning and we might be pushed for an new above 10k arena without improvisations. There are two smaller sport halls in Skopje that are begging for demolition anyway, so building an additional arena is not really a luxury.


----------



## patroeski

^^ Are there renderings about this?


----------



## Chimaera

I guess you're looking for inspiration for the new Anderlecht/National Stadium Patroeski? 

La Peineta is a bad example because the transformation from athletics to football mode is permanent.


----------



## patroeski

^^ you read my mind


----------



## japanese001

*Sapporo Dome*

Baseball, soccer, others


















japan stadiums
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=494274


----------



## patroeski

Ecopa Stadium in Shizuoka, Japan can also do it:


----------



## skaP187

patroeski said:


> La Peineta Madrid, is it still going to be built?


The one from Atletico will be a one time operation as I understood. From Athletics to football, one time and that´s it.
I think it is pretty sure thing by the way. Contracts are signed with the townhall of Madrid. I think it´s a shame and this stadium will not match the fantastic Vicente Calderon...
judge yourself.


----------



## CorliCorso

Dallasbrink said:


> Most are scaled down models of the old giant soccer stadiums emphasizing seating rather than standing room, the better to minimize the chances for hordes of standing, leaning fans to fall and cause a crush.


hno:


----------



## michał_

CorliCorso said:


> hno:


You know, in the "here be dragons" part of the world :lol:
thank God at least Americans build new stadiums not based on any solutions seen before in other locations


----------



## Dallasbrink

michał_;21327980 said:


> accurate about what? Sorry but the list concerns almost only USA, is made for US readers and doesn't show at all the best "super-stadiums", but only some of those rising in North America.





> The website stadiumguide.com lists 78 new soccer venues across Western Europe that either opened recently or planned for the near future, along with a handful of others in Eastern Europe and South America. Most are scaled down models of the old giant soccer stadiums emphasizing seating rather than standing room, the better to minimize the chances for hordes of standing, leaning fans to fall and cause a crush.
> 
> Two standouts: the 365 million euro ($576 million) Landsdowne Road Stadium in Dublin, Ireland, expected to open in 2009. Home to the Irish National Soccer Team as well as rugby, it will hold 50,000 fans and have 110 luxury suites, 10,000 premium club seats, fine dining and lounge bars. In Lyon, France, the 60,000-seat Olympique Lyonnais will open a year later. With a green design featuring solar power and reusable water, construction cost 240 million euros ($379 million) and will have 130 luxury suites and 5,000 premium club seats.


What more are there? also, your right, it is an American Magazine, they will loose readers if they talk about Euro stadiums


----------



## michał_

Dallasbrink said:


> What more are there? also, your right, it is an American Magazine, they will loose readers if they talk about Euro stadiums


true... nothing more than scaled down models of old giant soccer stadiums with hordes of leaning fans eager to cause a crush.
And sure- no more readers would be left- spare me. Are there only ******** interested in nothing but their front and backyard left? I thought Forbes had a different target.


----------



## en1044

michał_;21363663 said:


> Are there only ******** interested in nothing but their front and backyard left?


I hope your not talking about what i think your talking about...


----------



## michał_

en1044 said:


> I hope your not talking about what i think your talking about...


I have no intention getting inside your head so bring it on.
People who don't want to know about fantastic stadiums this text was supposed to be about, who would read it only because it's about American stadiums, even if they're incomparably worse than in other parts of the world and even if the best examples of super stadiums are outside the US may in my opinion be called ******** as they present the "we don't take kindly to your type" attitude.
But hey- this question was ironical. Be calm, I know it's not the case.


----------



## en1044

michał_;21364208 said:


> I have no intention getting inside your head so bring it on.
> People who don't want to know about fantastic stadiums this text was supposed to be about, who would read it only because it's about American stadiums, even if they're incomparably worse than in other parts of the world and even if the best examples of super stadiums are outside the US may in my opinion be called ******** as they present the "we don't take kindly to your type" attitude.
> But hey- this question was ironical. Be calm, I know it's not the case.


Well let me present you with some information. If thats how you define a ******* then i guess i am too because i dont take to kindly to you calling us that. I honestly dont care what basis or reasons you have for saying it, just dont do it. You want to bring it on, then fine. Do not insult me with your stereotypes of Americans. I have to deal with it all the time and it just pisses me off. Keep your biased comments elsewhere. Maybe to you youre criticizing the US for being "centrist", but to me all youre doing is being the typical European who thinks that if something isnt the way they like it then its wrong. If you read this board then you will probably realize that almost every American here has to defend themselves from other people for being different, while at the same time really never criticize others. By saying that Americans dont have good stadiums or that they arent up to par with the rest of the world is just ignorance and in my opinion is shameful on your part. The US happens to have many of the worlds best stadiums.


----------



## hoosier

Lucas Oil Stadium is the best of the bunch. And the best team out of all those tenants plays there.:banana:

GO COLTS!!


----------



## Dallasbrink

i didn't know all Americans were ********, just like i didn't know Polish wankers gave up so easily when attacked quickly. but i would have to say, there have been few impressive stadium built in Europe minus Wimble, Lyon and that new field in Liverpool, and these new stadiums are scaled down versions of those piss holes you tried to kill each other in, the fact is America is building some of the most impressive stadiums in the world at the moment and that was pointed out by an american magazine released in AMERICA. its from www.forbes.com, not www.forbes.eu.
wanker!


----------



## Carrerra

For American stadiums I think they deserve to be called Super staidums except for a few MLS stadiums with a capacity of less than 30K.


----------



## marrio415

i can think of Bejing that would whoop anything American dude thats being or been built at the mo


----------



## en1044

marrio415 said:


> i can think of Bejing that would whoop anything American dude thats being or been built at the mo


Id say that the new stadium in Dallas will be the best in the world when its completed.


----------



## marrio415

en1044 said:


> Id say that the new stadium in Dallas will be the best in the world when its completed.


Yeah that stadium looks like it will kick arse.I do like it










Thats a Super Stadium.Wembley. Photo by Sparks in the uk forum


----------



## michał_

en1044 said:


> If thats how you define a ******* then i guess i am too because i dont take to kindly to you calling us that.


If you don't like being insulted, then no, you're not. But I didn't want to insult you (since you felt this way: sorry), please try to understand my point of view:
I responded to an opinion that Forbes would loose readers if it wrote about non-american stadiums. That would have to happen only if all of its readers were complete ******** not interested in anything outside their home town. Which I deeply believe is NOT TRUE (and that is why I felt dissapointed with the article, especially that we do have Forbes in Poland and I'm sure every other European country has it as well).



en1044 said:


> Do not insult me with your stereotypes of Americans. I have to deal with it all the time and it just pisses me off.


Read above... (btw: I could easily use the word ******* to describe many people in other countries, also Poland. Although maybe it's reserved for some specific group in US only and my english skill is too low?)



en1044 said:


> Maybe to you youre criticizing the US for being "centrist", but to me all youre doing is being the *typical European* who thinks that if something isnt the way they like it then its wrong.


Oh, sorry- I'm the one using stereotypes, ain't I? 



en1044 said:


> If you read this board then you will probably realize that almost every American here has to defend themselves from other people for being different, while at the same time really never criticize others.


Well, actually I haven't noticed that (in fact I have pretty good relationships with a few Americans, also on this borad), but I don't follow every thread.



en1044 said:


> By saying that Americans dont have good stadiums or that they arent up to par with the rest of the world is just ignorance and in my opinion is shameful on your part. The US happens to have many of the worlds best stadiums.


Please get back to where I started this and read carefully. I ONLY referred to putting Red Bull Park in the same row with huuuuge and veeeery impressive stadiums from Indianapolis or Arlington (I don't like them just like I don't like another design of HKS- the new Anfield in Liverpool, not for being American, but it's not my aesthetics; still I would never say these stadiums are poor, they're top class), while I am sure nobody would turn their backs on Forbes if they described for example the World's first super stadium- Amsterdam Arena... Not because it's European, but because it changed the way of thinking about stadiums (and that is not my opinion, but one of football specialists). 
So you're trying to accuse me of things I haven't done. I never said all the venues mentioned aren't super stadiums, I only referred to one- proove your point and I will apologize.

I don't know why so many Americans think everyone is against them and if there is any criticism (I don't refer only to this case, happened quite a few times on this forum), you just say someone attacks your country, whole nation or sth like that. Come on, we're not kids. there are many nations here that stereotypically would have to hate each other, yet not every argument ends up with accusations of attacking other people's nations. But Americans really tend to take it that way- ask me why, I don't know?

I said Red Bull Park doesn't deserve to be in the bunch and think that European stadiums were treated purely stereotypically ("scaled down models of old stadiums" while RBP is just a copy of what was started in Europe over a decade back; "hordes of shouting, leaning fans"- sorry, if that isn't stereotypical, than what is? What does it have to do with super-stadium mode?). And I end up being a wanker who dared to attack the greatest country in the world which gives itself the right to have the best and (almost)only superstadiums...
peace.

Then I see this:


Dallasbrink said:


> i didn't know all Americans were ********, just like i didn't know Polish wankers gave up so easily when attacked quickly. but i would have to say, there have been few impressive stadium built in Europe minus Wimble, Lyon and that new field in Liverpool, and these new stadiums are scaled down versions of those piss holes you tried to kill each other in, the fact is America is building some of the most impressive stadiums in the world at the moment and that was pointed out by an american magazine released in AMERICA. its from www.forbes.com, not www.forbes.eu.
> wanker!


... and I think stereotypes aren't that far from truth sometimes (thankfully rarely). Bravo Dallasbrink, once again you've shown class.
Emirates Stadium, Santiago Bernabeu, Camp Nou (2012), Nou Mestalla, la Peineta, Gazprom Arena (!), Seyrantepe, Shachtar Stadium, NSK Olimpiys’kyi (2011), Stade de France, Allianz Arena, Arena auf Schalke, Nordbank Arena, LTU Arena, Waldstadion, Amsterdam Arena, Estadio da Luz, Kayseri Stadium, Estadio Jose Alvalade XXI, Estadio do Dragao, Swedbank Arena, Stadion Narodowy, Stadionul Nacional, Baltic Arena, Wroclaw Stadium, Astana Stadium, Stadion Ukraina, Nueva Romareda, Stadion Spartak, Votanikos Arena, then comes Asia, Africa, Australia and Latin America... nothing impressive, nothing more than Red Bull Park has to offer. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## Carrerra

*After adding several Brazilian stadiums which were proposed to FIFA for WC 2014 and others, this has become the list of 40,000+ football-oriented stadiums with no athletics tracks which will be newly built or completely reconstructed (Editing date : AM 02:00, 07 June 2008)

If you can't see just a single of images don't hesitate to say about it. I'll immediately fix it. I'll always let all 40 images shown to everyone who is into this thread as far as it remains in this forum*

1. Soccer City Stadium (94,700), Johannesburg, South Africa









2. Nou Mestalla (75,000), Valencia, Spain









3. Green Point Stadium (68,500), Cape Town, South Africa









4. Estrela dos Reis Magos (65,100), Natal, Brazil









5. Gazprom Arena (62,200), Saint Petersburg, Russia









6. New Anfield (60,000), Liverpool, England









7. OL Land (60,000), Lyon, France









8. New Tofik Bakhramov Stadium (60,000), Baku, Azerbaijan









9. New Maksimir (60,000), Zagreb, Croatia









10. Estadio Deportivo Cali (58,000), Santiago de Cali, Columbia









11. New San Mames (56,000), Bilbao, Spain









12. Amakhosi Stadium (55,000), Johannesburg, South Africa









13. Stadion Narodowy (55,000), Warsaw, Poland









14. Lia Manoliu Arena (55,000), Bucharest, Romania









15. Estadio Chivas (54,500), Zapopan, Mexico









16. Aslantepe Stadium (52,500), Istanbul, Turkey









17. Estadio do Corinthians (51,848), Sao Paulo, Brazil









18. Arena do Gremio (51,000), Porto Alegre, Brazil









19. Stade Borne de l'Espoir (50,186), Lille, France









20. Shakhtar Stadium (50,000), Donetsk, Ukraine









21. Lansdowne Road (50,000), Dublin, Ireland









22. SwedBank Arena (50,000), Stockholm, Sweden









23. New Goodison (50,000), Liverpool, England









24. AEK Arena (50,000), Athens, Greece









25. Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (48,000), Port Elizabeth, South Africa









26. Mbombela Stadium (46,000), Nelspruit, South Africa









27. Poznan Municipal Stadium (46,000), Poznan, Poland









28. Recife Arena (45,500), Recife, Brazil









29. Arena Zagallo (45,337), Maceio, Brazil









30. Peter Mokaba Stadium (45,000), Polokwane, South Africa









31. Arena da Bahia (44,100), Salvador, Brazil









32. Wroclaw Stadium (44,000), Wroclaw, Poland









33. Baltic Arena (44,000), Gdansk, Poland









34. Euro Stadium (42,700), Strasbourg, France









35. Votanikos Arena (42,000), Athens, Greece









36. New Besiktas Inonu Stadium (42,000), Istanbul, Turkey









37. Spartak Stadium (42,000), Moscow, Russia









38. Estadio Nou Sarria (41,000), Barcelona, Spain









39. Sochi Olympic Park (40,000), Sochi, Russia - It will be turned into football arena post the 2014 Games









40. Juventus Arena (40,000), Turin, Italy


----------



## masterpaul

terrible Pics for every sngle polish stadium


----------



## masterpaul

Baltic Arena:





































Wroclaw:
























Warsaw:















































Poznan:


























Votanikos Arena:















































Spartak:


----------



## Benn

I'd probably say
1. Gazprom Arena
2. Nou Mestalla
3. Estadio Chivas

Definately my top three, athough I have a little bit of a hard time picking one.


----------



## masterpaul

*The top 6 is:*

*1)* Mestella

*2)* Votanikos

*3)* Baltic Arena

*4)* Spartak Arena

*5)* Warsaw Arena

*6)* Wroclaw Arena

*And the least favourate is:*

Liverpool's Stadium.


You also missed out 2 stadiums from greece in the list ,and 2 from poland.


----------



## Dumbof

Which project did you put for maksimir? The blue volcano or the older one?
I fancy green point stadium, shakhtar and Wroclaw


----------



## infernal

Spartak is my favorite


----------



## marrio415

you might not like your president but he was voted in for two terms


----------



## soy chiva y que.....

New render chivas stadium... U/C


----------



## Carrerra

no american stadiums, of course? en1044, Is that all you can say about this? I didn't know you are so narrow-minded hno:


----------



## masterpaul

Stadiums that shoudnt be on that lit

*Stadium:*

Yankee Stadium 

*Why?*

Its hardly better then the last one, and way too expensive and not impressive.


*Stadium:*

Citi Field

*Why?*

Theres nothing impressive about it. It only has a huge capacity.

*Stadium:*

Pittsburgh Hockey Arena

*Why:*

There a lot more impresive indoor halls (or hockey stadiums) out there, being built or planned or already built.

*Stadium:*

Red Bulls Park 

*Why?*

a typical stadum football stadium

*Stadium:*

Salt Lake City Soccer Stadium 

*Why?*

Your serious? The roof hardly covers any spectators, it it awfully expensive for what u get in the pack, it looks like a 2nd league stadium (or a really poor league stadium) from the inside, and maybe even from the outside.


----------



## en1044

I dont think you really realize what happened in those elections though


----------



## en1044

These stadiums do belong on the list because it was written for American readers. And what arenas are better than the one being built in Pittsburgh??

Other problems in your post:
1. Yankee Stadium is MUCH better than the garbage its replacing, and fits the idea of a super stadium with its luxury suites and small capacity
2. Citi Field doesnt really belong on the list but it doesnt have a huge capacity by any means


----------



## en1044

These stadiums do belong on the list because it was written for American readers. And what arenas are better than the one being built in Pittsburgh??

Other problems in your post:
1. Yankee Stadium is MUCH better than the garbage its replacing, and fits the idea of a super stadium with its luxury suites and small capacity. It also is very impressive being that it resembles the ORIGINAL Yankee Stadium
2. Citi Field doesnt really belong on the list but it doesnt have a huge capacity by any means


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> no american stadiums, of course? en1044, Is that all you can say about this? I didn't know you are so narrow-minded hno:


No im not narrow minded, it just seems as if you pulled stadiums from everywhere but the US...just a statement.


----------



## Imota

My favourite is Nou Mestalla - definately


----------



## Durbsboi

Nice list, but Im dissapointed you dont have Moeses Mabhida stadium there


----------



## en1044

Other planned stadiums

San Francisco 49ers 










Ney York Jets/ Giants


----------



## Demetrius

1. New Mestalla-An elegant fresh version of the classic "bowl"
2. New Anfield-It was about time to see something different that's not too eccentric or bizarre
3. Votanikos-Perfect example of how a very stylish original (Dragao) can transcent into a new fresh version with unique character
4. Romanias' new national stadium: The Latins of the Balkans have style!
5. New Saktar: That's the kind of stadium I would like my team (Olympiacos) to have!


----------



## michał_

en1044 said:


> No im not narrow minded, it just seems as if you pulled stadiums from everywhere but the US...just a statement.


Why did I know this would happen? 
Carrerra- you should have made a more complete list, accusations like this were bound to happen.
en1044- please notice this list lack many stadiums from other countries as well: Singapore, Kazakhstan, Japan, Ukraine, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Russia or even Bulgaria. 
Just remember this is a pretty subjective list with what someone concerns as his top 30 list. And I haven't seen others trying to say that they're not being pulled in on purpose... stay cool.


----------



## Demetrius

edit.


----------



## Toadboy

Anfield's the only one that doesn't look like an off the shelf job.

The sad thing will be when football loses two of it's great bear pits - Anfield and San Mames, 2 of the great football cathedrals.


----------



## Gherkin

I was going to vote for Liverpool's new stadium but number 15 looks awesome!


----------



## Carrerra

Gherkin007 said:


> I was going to vote for Liverpool's new stadium but number 15 looks awesome!


But Corinthians was relegated to 2nd division this year. This will be a serious damage to the building plan.


----------



## michał_

en1044 said:


> These stadiums do belong on the list because it was written for American readers.


There we go again. If it's for Americans, does it have to show rubbish if it's American rubbish? Really, there is absolutely nothign super in ANY MLS stadium, maybe Vancouver or some new franchise I don't realize would change it, but not sure about that. Still I think that most new stadiums rising in dozens of ocuntries would make a better example and American readers wouldn't really mind, would they? It's not about replacing all American designs, but showing a good example of the subject journalist writes about.


----------



## Keyser Soze1

New Anfield is stunning. It'll be 76,000 as well.


----------



## EPA001

Keyser Soze said:


> New Anfield is stunning. It'll be 76,000 as well.


I thought that "only" 71.000 was possible as the maximum capacity? That is already an increase of 11.000 compared to the initial capacity of 60.000. Is there room for 5.000 more seats?


----------



## infernal

Chivas kind of looks like a potty trainer :tongue2:


----------



## Zeno2

favorites :

Soccer City Stadium (94,700) 
Nou Mestalla (75,000)
New San Mames (56,000)
Lansdowne Road (50,000)
Peter Mokaba Stadium (45,000)
Votanikos Arena (42,000)


least favorites :

Aslantepe Stadium (52,500)
Gazprom Arena (62,200)
New Anfield (60,000) 
OL Land (60,000)
New Maksimir (60,000) 
Stade Borne de l'Espoir (50,186)
New Anfield (60,000) 
SwedBank Arena (50,000)
Mbombela Stadium (46,000)
New Anfield (60,000)


----------



## Carrerra

infernal said:


> Chivas kind of looks like a potty trainer :tongue2:


But one thing is missing. Backrest! :llama:


----------



## Goothrey

They are all pretty nice.


----------



## Benn

Red Bull park is going to be pretty nice, the proposed Philly one wasn't bad either, certainly not super stadiums. That implies something either huge, or revolutionary. Wembley, maybe the Nou Mestella, Jerryworld, Soccer City. When the Skydome opened up it would have certainly qualified. The Technical inovation at the Siatma Super Arena or Veltins Arena could qualify. But the article is crap, seem like propaganda, and I am American.

As Far as NHL arenas better than the new Pittsburgh one, the Xcel Energy Center in St Paul and Nationwide Arena in Columbus will almost certainly be better as far as Hockey arenas go, both are just fantastic. We don't know exactly what the new Penguins arena will be like, It may well be in the top few, but the last couple of arenas from HOK seem pretty uninspired, and this doesn't look much better at the moment. The Glendale Arena, as well as the Rock and the Sprint Center are Genaric and boring on the inside (Sprint Center has a nice exterior, but the bowl is crap for basketball, and is IMO really boring). It could be great, but I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Benn

marrio415 said:


> you might not like your president but he was voted in for two terms


We didn't the first time, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but we really need to get rid of the elctoral college, it was outdated 100 years ago. Only a few more months of dealing with the first President in US history who can't speak english:banana:


----------



## Benn

michał_;21401378 said:


> There we go again. If it's for Americans, does it have to show rubbish if it's American rubbish? Really, there is absolutely nothign super in ANY MLS stadium, maybe Vancouver or some new franchise I don't realize would change it, but not sure about that. Still I think that most new stadiums rising in dozens of ocuntries would make a better example and American readers wouldn't really mind, would they? It's not about replacing all American designs, but showing a good example of the subject journalist writes about.


It seems like there is an assumption that only Canada would be able to deliver a good MLS stadium, even though Red Bull Park is essentially a smaller fancier version of the Hypo-Arena in Kalgenfurt, which seems to be very well regarded. Also BMO field is kind of mediocre (great fans, but the facility itself) with the Fieldturf pitch, and structural issues in the first year of operation. Saputo in Montreal could be nice with an expansion and the Whitecaps plan looked good, but I don't know how either could be put ahead of Red Bull Park (bedsides the rediculous name). And I certainly agree that the MLS would do well to take a long hard look at newer facilities in Switzerland, Austria, Scandanavia, the smaller English and German stadiums and ect.


----------



## michał_

Benn said:


> It seems like there is an assumption that only Canada would be able to deliver a good MLS stadium, even though Red Bull Park is essentially a smaller fancier version of the Hypo-Arena in Kalgenfurt, which seems to be very well regarded. Also BMO field is kind of mediocre (great fans, but the facility itself) with the Fieldturf pitch, and structural issues in the first year of operation. Saputo in Montreal could be nice with an expansion and the Whitecaps plan looked good, but I don't know how either could be put ahead of Red Bull Park (bedsides the rediculous name). And I certainly agree that the MLS would do well to take a long hard look at newer facilities in Switzerland, Austria, Scandanavia, the smaller English and German stadiums and ect.


No, sorry if you feel that I consider Canada a better source of grounds. It's just the fact that I've seen several versions of the Vancouver Waterfront Stadium and building over a huge railway hub plus on the waterfront (stadium open for the bay), plus up to 30 000 seats- this is the only ground I might have considered better than RBP, within MLS of course. But I'm sure you know more possible candidates for MLS and I may not have seen all their proposals.

However, I will never agree that RBP is a smaller and fancier version of the Hypo-Arena. Mostly because I feel they're incomparable. Woertherseestadion was designed as a stadium to cope with several thousand capacity and as you know it will loose almost 20 000 seats after Euro 2008. That is a major factor that determined the construction. In fact I think that the stadium in Klagenfurt may be seen as better than other grounds of this kind [to have capacity reduced] seen worldwide, because the whole facade and roof structure is to be preserved, but lowered after Euro.
My subjective opinion is- Hypo-ground is still more aesthetic than RBP (but it's a matter of taste only). And definately not because of my sympathy towards Austrians 



Benn said:


> That implies something either huge, or revolutionary. Wembley, maybe the Nou Mestella, Jerryworld, Soccer City. When the Skydome opened up it would have certainly qualified. The Technical inovation at the Siatma Super Arena or Veltins Arena could qualify. But the article is crap, seem like propaganda, and I am American.


huge, revolutionary, green or efficient- I would say. This article seems more about ecnomocis, so why not LTU Arena? Why not Amsterdam ArenA or Euroborg? and so on...


----------



## cichy87

1. Baltic Arena
2. Nou Mestalla
3. Soccer City
4. New Anfield
5. Warsaw Stadium


----------



## Benn

Absolutely great stadiums, although fantastic LTU is not a trend setter, Amsterdam Arena will get the nod for being the first retractable roof Football stadium, I don't really know what is special about Euroborg, other than being a nice little 20,000 seater. The Sapporo doem could qualify for how well it handle the Football/Baseball transition and has a retractable field. The Stade Suisse's roof might make it in too, I don't know of any stadium that had a PV roof earlier.

And I do understand the temporary nature of the upper teir Hypo-Arena (I thought there had been some discussion of keeping the capacity, but I may have been thinking of Salzburg). However they are strikingly similar in terms of form. Also it's not just you (and completely understand if it were unintended) but seems every time the conversation comes up the general sentiment is that Canada will probably deliver better Football(soccer) stadiums. But it just be me.

Also as far as I know the Whitecaps situation is totally up on the air, maybe a 15,000 seater, maybe 30,000 (the most recent one didn't impress me as much, but the renderings were pretty raw). We will have to see.....


----------



## michał_

Benn said:


> Absolutely great stadiums, although fantastic LTU is not a trend setter, Amsterdam Arena will get the nod for being the first retractable roof Football stadium, I don't really know what is special about Euroborg, other than being a nice little 20,000 seater. The Sapporo doem could qualify for how well it handle the Football/Baseball transition and has a retractable field. The Stade Suisse's roof might make it in too, I don't know of any stadium that had a PV roof earlier.
> 
> And I do understand the temporary nature of the upper teir Hypo-Arena (I thought there had been some discussion of keeping the capacity, but I may have been thinking of Salzburg). However they are strikingly similar in terms of form. Also it's not just you (and completely understand if it were unintended) but seems every time the conversation comes up the general sentiment is that Canada will probably deliver better Football(soccer) stadiums. But it just be me.
> 
> Also as far as I know the Whitecaps situation is totally up on the air, maybe a 15,000 seater, maybe 30,000 (the most recent one didn't impress me as much, but the renderings were pretty raw). We will have to see.....


LTU is said to be most effective in handling multi-sport and non-sport activities, but to me it's also one of the most beautiful. Thankfully, not a trendsetter, it's quality would be lost, like Allianz's.
Euroborg has a similar advantage- it has an ascetic form made of "cheap" concrete panels and corrugated iron, but has a school, casino and multiplex integrated, plus an unnaturaly high rate of skyboxes for such a small stadium. Agree about Sapporo Dome, but as for Stade de Suisse- I'm 90% sure that St. Jakob Park had it before...

as for temporary nature- I think you thought of Salzburg, Red bull (f#ck, them again) wanted to keep it, but as far as I know, they didn't convince the authorities and 2nd tier will be torn down. As for my sentiment- no.  I really like Canada, love the way FC Toronto have changed MLS's image, but I realize where the potential is and it's the US. Still, MLS hasn't shown too much so far, so I treated Whitecaps proposal as innovative in it's scale. I also heard about their problems, but I just wish 50% club owners in Poland had Kerfoot's determination...

But it seems we went off track


----------



## Carrerra

It looks like Polishes have great pride in their own stadiums. Good!


----------



## krudmonk

I like the few that aren't saddles or bedpans.


----------



## nyrmetros

Dallasbrink said:


> *Fields of Dreams*
> *Here Come The Super-Stadiums*
> Tom Van Riper, 03.31.08, 12:00 PM ET
> 
> 
> Major League Soccer's New York Red Bulls are also building a cozy new home with 20,000 seats in nearby Harrison, N.J. The fledgling league is hoping to strike a chord with casual soccer fans by rescuing some of its teams from monstrous football stadiums--mausoleums to a soccer club playing to less than half capacity much of the time--and into soccer-only venues that bring fans closer to the action.
> 
> "The first row of seats will be just 21 feet from the touch lines, "says Red Bulls spokesman Andy McGowan, who also notes that a translucent roof will cover every seat in the house. "It will be the benchmark stadium by which all other soccer stadiums in North America are measured."
> 
> Top 10 Super Stadiums underway
> http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/31/sp...tvr_0331stadiums_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=30000


A roof over every seat in the stadium ?? Can we dream ???? I can't wait!!


----------



## Sagaris

Nou Mestalla, Baltic Arena, Wroclaw. I also like the Irish one and the one for Internacional though I dont see it here.


----------



## Carrerra

Sagaris said:


> Nou Mestalla, Baltic Arena, Wroclaw. I also like the Irish one and the one for Internacional though I dont see it here.


I excluded renovations. All of them listed are the ones which will be newly built or totally reconstructed(I mean old stands are completely demolished)


----------



## GNU

Difficult question, Id say:

Nou Mestalla - design
Aslantepe - value
Soccer city - cap


----------



## Carrerra

*Renderings VS Real life*

Probably some people including me wonder how stadiums look like in renderings and in real life. If you have any renders of existing stadiums why don't you post them with their real life pics? It would be kind of interesting to compare both. Unfortunately I don't have any stuffs to start with. Sorry hno:hno:hno:


----------



## www.sercan.de

Allinaz Arena
Rendering










real


----------



## www.sercan.de

Olympia Stadion Berlin

Rendering










Real









AWD Arena

Rendering









Real


----------



## fenderen

Sercan, we can't see your Stadionwelt.de links


----------



## Carrerra

sercan, stadionwelt images are not shown to those who are not paid members like me. Why don't you try other sources or download the images to your computer temporarily and uploading them on web hosting site and then link them to us? If you don't mind...


----------



## carlspannoosh

Ashburton Grove/ Emirates Stadium

















http://www.flickr.com/photos/rimski/475866493/


----------



## nosehairuk




----------



## www.sercan.de

edited my post


----------



## rover3

I'd like to see an exterior evening shot of Birds Nest vs. the rendering. I don't think that 'glow' in the renderings is really there. Or not unless the pollution haze is at a 10 count! :lol:


----------



## Carrerra

People, my list just got a major renovation. Ignore the title "among 30 stadiums". Practically it's about all 40,000+ stadiums across the world. See the list again and show your favorites!


----------



## Scba

Yeah, glows are irritating me. I'd just like to see a render of what the stadium will look like on any old day, not with crazy nightlights and festivals in every image.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Aslantepe Stadium wil cost 170 mil. USD


----------



## AUTO

The best:

1. Nou Mestalla
2. Votanikos Arena
3. Stadion Narodowy
4. Shakhtar Stadium
5. Baltic Arena
6. Gazprom Arena
7. Soccer City Stadium
8. Wroclaw Stadium
9. Aslantepe Stadium
10. Lia Manoliu Arena


The worst:

1. Estrela dos Reis Magos
2. Estadio Chivas
3. Estadio do Corinthians
4. AEK Arena (Old Version)
5. Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
6. Bahia Arena
7. Arena Zagallo
8. Mbombela Stadium
9. New Goodison
10. Lansdowne Road


----------



## Dallascaper

Carrerra said:


> People, my list just got a major renovation. Ignore the title "among 30 stadiums". Practically it's about all 40,000+ stadiums across the world. See the list again and show your favorites!


Some of the stadiums on your list are very impressive - they certainly push the envelope for stadium design. Many of the stadiums seem rather mundane, as if they were designed by the same person, but maybe that is just me. Thanks for sharing – I had never heard of most of these stadiums before.

Though not technically 'planned', because it is already half-finished, the Dallas Cowboys new stadium is certainly in a class with the best.


----------



## Iain1974

Wow. You put a lot of effort into this highly informative thread.

I didn't realize just how much stadium construction was going on in the world, especially Europe, these days. Europe is constructing enough stadiums to host a Euro Nations Cup every year in new stadiums.

My personal favorite is Gazprom. It looks very imposing.

The Dallas Stadium looks very impressive also. Didn't the construction only start quite recently? It's a fast build.


----------



## Stifler

Nou Mestalla and Gazprom Arena are the best for me.

Nice compilation, by the way.


----------



## Carrerra

I added two stadiums. Estadio Deportivo Cali in Columbia and Euro Stadium in France


----------



## AUTO

^^

And what about Kiev stadium?


----------



## bing222

The best:

1. Melbourne Cricket Ground
2. Sydney Cricket Ground
3. Sydney Football Stadium
4. Wembley stadium
5. Shakhtar Stadium
6. Baltic Arena
7. Gazprom Arena
8. Soccer City Stadium
9. Wroclaw Stadium
10. Aslantepe Stadium
11. Lia Manoliu Arena


----------



## soy chiva y que.....

the best:

1. gazprom arena
2. new mestalla
3. soccer city stadium
4. wembley stadium
5. shakthar stadium
6. baltic stadium
7. warsaw stadium
8. chivas stadium
9. aslantepe stadium
10. ol land


----------



## |R|@|D|U

Top 3:
1. Mestalla

2. Gazprom arena

3. Lia Manoliu Arena :banana:

Other images of Lia Manoliu:


----------



## koolio

I don't wanna sound ignorant but have all the stadiums secured their financing? I'm looking at these ambitious projects and I'm surprised as to how many of these stadiums are being built in nations that I did not think were capable of sustaining such expenses. 

And aside from the noticeable absence of any stadiums outside of Europe and South America, I'm surprised that a nation like India does not have any new mega stadiums in the pipe. There is a country that would be capable of handling the expenses due to its booming economy and has sports like cricket and even football that are extremely popular.


----------



## Carrerra

koolio said:


> I don't wanna sound ignorant but have all the stadiums secured their financing? I'm looking at these ambitious projects and I'm surprised as to how many of these stadiums are being built in nations that I did not think were capable of sustaining such expenses.
> 
> And aside from the noticeable absence of any stadiums outside of Europe and South America, I'm surprised that a nation like India does not have any new mega stadiums in the pipe. There is a country that would be capable of handling the expenses due to its booming economy and has sports like cricket and even football that are extremely popular.


This forum is about the design of new stadiums not the financing plan for them and as I said in the prologue of the thread, I limited the coverage of this thread to "football stadiums with no athletics tracks" because the list will get bigger beyond my capabilities in case of including stadiums with athletics tracks or for other sports such as American football, baseball, cricket, rugby etc

As you see this list already has 40 stadiums althought I limited the qulifications to 40,000+ and having no athletics tracks!


----------



## larsul

my top stadiums are:
Mestalla
Chivas Stadium
Soccer city
Gazprom arena


----------



## infernal

Carrerra said:


> But one thing is missing. Backrest! :llama:


Mines didn't have one...


----------



## Harkeb

Nou Mestrala, Valencia, & Sochi look out of this world!


----------



## Carrerra

infernal said:


> Mines didn't have one...


Maybe Brazilian potty trainer has no backrest? That might be more useful for training babies to take a poop :lol:


----------



## www.sercan.de

koolio said:


> I don't wanna sound ignorant but have all the stadiums secured their financing? I'm looking at these ambitious projects and I'm surprised as to how many of these stadiums are being built in nations that I did not think were capable of sustaining such expenses.
> 
> And aside from the noticeable absence of any stadiums outside of Europe and South America, I'm surprised that a nation like India does not have any new mega stadiums in the pipe. There is a country that would be capable of handling the expenses due to its booming economy and has sports like cricket and even football that are extremely popular.


1. Soccer City Stadium (94,700), Johannesburg, South Africa
World Cup 2010 Final stadium. Very very secured 

2. Nou Mestalla (75,000), Valencia, Spain
Looking at the conctruction pics i would say there is no problem with the finance

3. Green Point Stadium (68,500), Cape Town, South Africa
Like 1. a WC 2010 stadium

4. Estrela dos Reis Magos (65,100), Natal, Brazil
Don't know. But a possible WC 2014 stadium

5. Gazprom Arena (62,200), Saint Petersburg, Russia
Gazprom : D

6. New Anfield (60,000), Liverpool, England
I think current problem is not the money. Waiting for the permission? 

7. OL Land (60,000), Lyon, France
? 

8. New Tofik Bakhramov Stadium (60,000), Baku, Azerbaijan
?

9. New Maksimir (60,000), Zagreb, Croatia
?

10. Estadio Deportivo Cali (58,000), Santiago de Cali, Columbia
?. nearly finished. 

11. New San Mames (56,000), Bilbao, Spain
?

12. Amakhosi Stadium (55,000), Johannesburg, South Africa
?

13. Stadion Narodowy (55,000), Warsaw, Poland
EURO 2012 stadium

14. Lia Manoliu Arena (55,000), Bucharest, Romania
?

15. Estadio Chivas (54,500), Zapopan, Mexico
? 

16. Aslantepe Stadium (52,500), Istanbul, Turkey
like Valencia

17. Estadio do Corinthians (51,848), Sao Paulo, Brazil
maybe will be never built

18. Arena do Gremio (51,000), Porto Alegre, Brazil
possible WC 2014 stadium

19. Stade Borne de l'Espoir (50,186), Lille, France
i think its currently to expensive. so project could be changed

20. Shakhtar Stadium (50,000), Donetsk, Ukraine
nearly finished

21. Lansdowne Road (50,000), Dublin, Ireland
i would guess no problems

22. SwedBank Arena (50,000), Stockholm, Sweden
?

23. New Goodison (50,000), Liverpool, England
?

24. AEK Arena (50,000), Athens, Greece
?

25. Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (48,000), Port Elizabeth, South Africa
WC 2010 stadium

26. Mbombela Stadium (46,000), Nelspruit, South Africa
WC 2010 stadium

27. Poznan Municipal Stadium (46,000), Poznan, Poland
EURO 2010 stadium

28. Recife Arena (45,500), Recife, Brazil
?

29. Arena Zagallo (45,337), Maceio, Brazil
?

30. Peter Mokaba Stadium (45,000), Polokwane, South Africa
WC 2010 stadium

31. Arena da Bahia (44,100), Salvador, Brazil
?

32. Wroclaw Stadium (44,000), Wroclaw, Poland
EURO 2012 stadium

33. Baltic Arena (44,000), Gdansk, Poland
EURO 2012 stadium

34. Euro Stadium (42,700), Strasbourg, France
?

35. Votanikos Arena (42,000), Athens, Greece
?

36. New Besiktas Inonu Stadium (42,000), Istanbul, Turkey
waiting for permission

37. Spartak Stadium (42,000), Moscow, Russia
?

38. Estadio Nou Sarria (41,000), Barcelona, Spain
?

39. Sochi Olympic Park (40,000), Sochi, Russia - It will be turned into football arena post the 2014 Games
i would say no problems

40. Juventus Arena (40,000), Turin, Italy
as i remember they are waiting for an sponsor


----------



## Carrerra

I add a few comments to what sercan said. My additional comments are marked bold. Before I start the commentations you need to know that *construction itself won't be started if there is any problem in financing the projecct*. Of course I'm not the person in chare of each project but that's a kind of common-sense, which will be agreed by most of people. 



www.sercan.de said:


> 1. Soccer City Stadium (94,700), Johannesburg, South Africa
> World Cup 2010 Final stadium. Very very secured
> 
> 2. Nou Mestalla (75,000), Valencia, Spain
> Looking at the conctruction pics i would say there is no problem with the finance
> 
> 3. Green Point Stadium (68,500), Cape Town, South Africa
> Like 1. a WC 2010 stadium
> 
> 4. Estrela dos Reis Magos (65,100), Natal, Brazil
> Don't know. But a possible WC 2014 stadium -> *To be more precise, one of 18 venues presented to FIFA by Brazilian government at the time of bidding*
> 
> 5. Gazprom Arena (62,200), Saint Petersburg, Russia
> *U/C now!*
> 
> 6. New Anfield (60,000), Liverpool, England
> I think current problem is not the money. Waiting for the permission?
> 
> 7. OL Land (60,000), Lyon, France
> ?
> 
> 8. New Tofik Bakhramov Stadium (60,000), Baku, Azerbaijan
> ?
> 
> 9. New Maksimir (60,000), Zagreb, Croatia
> *Of New Maksimir and Blue Volcano Zagreb citizens will decide the final winner on the referendum due on autumn this year!*
> 
> 10. Estadio Deportivo Cali (58,000), Santiago de Cali, Columbia
> ?. nearly finished.
> 
> 11. New San Mames (56,000), Bilbao, Spain
> ?
> 
> 12. Amakhosi Stadium (55,000), Johannesburg, South Africa
> *U/C now!*
> 
> 13. Stadion Narodowy (55,000), Warsaw, Poland
> EURO 2012 stadium
> 
> 14. Lia Manoliu Arena (55,000), Bucharest, Romania
> ?
> 
> 15. Estadio Chivas (54,500), Zapopan, Mexico
> *U/C now!*
> 
> 16. Aslantepe Stadium (52,500), Istanbul, Turkey
> like Valencia, *U/C now!*
> 
> 17. Estadio do Corinthians (51,848), Sao Paulo, Brazil
> maybe will be never built
> 
> 18. Arena do Gremio (51,000), Porto Alegre, Brazil
> possible WC 2014 stadium
> 
> 19. Stade Borne de l'Espoir (50,186), Lille, France
> i think its currently to expensive. so project could be changed
> 
> 20. Shakhtar Stadium (50,000), Donetsk, Ukraine
> nearly finished
> 
> 21. Lansdowne Road (50,000), Dublin, Ireland
> i would guess no problems
> 
> 22. SwedBank Arena (50,000), Stockholm, Sweden
> *SwedBank confirmed its sponsorship for the stadium officially so there will be no problem in getting to work on schedule.*
> 
> 23. New Goodison (50,000), Liverpool, England
> ?
> 
> 24. AEK Arena (50,000), Athens, Greece
> ?
> 
> 25. Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (48,000), Port Elizabeth, South Africa
> WC 2010 stadium
> 
> 26. Mbombela Stadium (46,000), Nelspruit, South Africa
> WC 2010 stadium
> 
> 27. Poznan Municipal Stadium (46,000), Poznan, Poland
> EURO 2010 stadium
> 
> 28. Recife Arena (45,500), Recife, Brazil
> *One of 18 venues presented to FIFA by Brazilian government at the time of bidding*
> 
> 29. Arena Zagallo (45,337), Maceio, Brazil
> *One of 18 venues presented to FIFA by Brazilian government at the time of bidding*
> 
> 30. Peter Mokaba Stadium (45,000), Polokwane, South Africa
> WC 2010 stadium
> 
> 31. Arena da Bahia (44,100), Salvador, Brazil
> *One of 18 venues presented to FIFA by Brazilian government at the time of bidding*
> 
> 32. Wroclaw Stadium (44,000), Wroclaw, Poland
> EURO 2012 stadium
> 
> 33. Baltic Arena (44,000), Gdansk, Poland
> EURO 2012 stadium
> 
> 34. Euro Stadium (42,700), Strasbourg, France
> *Main sponsor( or naming sponsor) is already fixed - Electricity company based in Strasbourg.*
> 
> 35. Votanikos Arena (42,000), Athens, Greece
> *Naming sponsorship process is underway. They have 2 companies shortlisted now. Construction is expected to start within the year and finish in 2010*
> 
> 36. New Besiktas Inonu Stadium (42,000), Istanbul, Turkey
> waiting for permission
> 
> 37. Spartak Stadium (42,000), Moscow, Russia
> *U/C Now! More than half finished*
> 
> 38. Estadio Nou Sarria (41,000), Barcelona, Spain
> *U/C Now! More than half finished*
> 
> 39. Sochi Olympic Park (40,000), Sochi, Russia - It will be turned into football arena post the 2014 Games
> i would say no problems
> 
> 40. Juventus Arena (40,000), Turin, Italy
> *Fiat B/D decided to build the arena(press release)*


----------



## Dutch_Mentor

Nou Mestalla ))

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=506222&page=73


----------



## Elensar77

1- Valencia
2- Aslantepe


----------



## pompeyfan

*Jassim bin Hamad Stadium*

Does anyone have any pictures of this stadium? I've looked around on the internet, and can only find 5 or so, most which have massive watermarks on them. Does anyone have any more? 

Just for those who don't know, this is the stadium in Doha, holds 16000 and is home to Al-Sadd FC


----------



## theespecialone

its qatar's international homeground
neat, compact stadium with qatari music blaring throughout the game


----------



## www.sercan.de

http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/QAT/Al_Sadd.html


----------



## Wezza

_Apparently_ it was modelled on Old Trafford!!! :lol:


----------



## pompeyfan

Wezza said:


> _Apparently_ it was modelled on Old Trafford!!! :lol:


I think that was just some made-up story by Manchester United. Wouldn't be the first time they've done that this month!


----------



## theespecialone

lots of stadiums were modelled on old trafford.

especially because of the way the stand wrapped around the corners and the fans' proximity to the pitch.


----------



## GNU

Very interesting article that I found (Sorry its only in german)

*Stadionarchitektur: Kathedralen für das Fernsehen*

*Er baut Fußballstadien, obwohl ihm die Verschandelung durch Werbung und Vip-Tribünen auf die Nerven geht. Deswegen mag er seine Bauwerke am liebsten leer.*









_Marg entwarf viele Arenen für die WM 2006 und auch für die WM 2010 (Kaptstadt) und EM 2012 (Chorzow). _

Der Profifußball ist heute Teil der modernen Unterhaltungsindustrie, des Kommunikationszeitalters. Bei den Griechen dienten große Sportveranstaltungen kultisch-paramilitärischen Zwecken zur Körperertüchtigung. Die römischen Imperatoren nutzten sie, um die Massen abzulenken und zu beschäftigen. Heute haben wir es beim Fußball mit kommerzialisierten Gladiatorenkämpfen zu tun, die nicht vorrangig für die Zuschauer im Stadion veranstaltet werden, obwohl sie Eintritt bezahlen, sondern für das Fernsehen, das den wesentlichen Profit bringt. Die Gleichung ist die: Masse = Quote = Werbeeinnahmen.

Die modernen Fußballstadien werden also weniger für die Fans bei den Spielen gebaut, sondern vielmehr für die Fernsehwerbung. Ohne ein kochendes Stadion bekommt man zu Hause auf der Couch kein authentisches Spielgefühl. Das Stadionpublikum wird zum Claqueur fürs Fernsehen, dessen Hintergrund die Bandenwerbung ist und dessen Gliederung die Einblendungen der Werbespots.

Schon immer hatten die Stadien den Zweck, Menschenmassen in einen Rausch zu versetzen. Das ist auch heute noch so. Trotz unserer Millionen Jahre zurückliegenden Abspaltung vom Tier sind wir im Grunde immer noch die alten Primaten. Und diese sind, wie alle Affen, natürlich Hordentiere. Das führt zu dem Phänomen, dass wir auch als rationale Menschen manchmal die gebremste Spontaneität freilassen wollen, die Besinnung verlieren möchten. Diese Triebabfuhr ist durchaus gesund und ein zutiefst menschliches Bedürfnis – da schließe auch ich mich überhaupt nicht aus. Der Aufschrei einzeln und im Kollektiv wirkt enthemmend und befreiend. Auch Soldaten lässt man beim Sturmangriff schreien, damit sie kollektiv ihren skeptischen kritischen Verstand ausschalten und in der Massenhysterie ihre Hemmungen verlieren. Wenn einen dabei die Strömung beim Bad in der Menge treibt, fühlt man sich mächtiger, als man es alleine wäre. Auch die Voyeure in den Logen und auf den „Business-Seats“, die sich für etwas Besseres halten, spüren das – allerdings ohne von der Plebs, von der sie sich distanzieren, angerempelt zu werden. Fein säuberlich abgetrennt von den anderen.

Beim Bau eines Profistadions für die kommerzialisierte Unterhaltung ist eine von der Vermarktung vorgegebene Segregation programmiert – und alle nehmen das inzwischen hin. Anders als in den früheren Volksstadien für öffentlichen Breitensport wird unterschieden zwischen Super-VIPs, VIPs, Businesskunden, Normalbesuchern und Fans. Die VIPs und Super-VIPs gehen ins Stadion, wie sie in die Oper gehen: um sich gegenseitig zu sehen. In den holzgetäfelten Logen begießen sie ihre Geselligkeit mit Sekt und stopfen sich am Buffet voll. Die Businesskunden müssen anstelle von Separees mit Lounges und Tresen vorliebnehmen, sie trinken aus Pappbechern im Stehen. Die Mehrheit, das ist die inszenierte Masse. Die soziale Entmischung im Stadion merkt man spätestens, wenn La Ola an der Ehrentribüne abstirbt.

Alle modernen Fußballarenen kann man als Hysterieschüsseln verstehen. Sie sind ähnlich konzipiert, um den synchronen Ur-Schrei zum kollektiven Ur-Erlebnis zu potenzieren. Sie sind eng, steil und haben ein Dach als Schalldeckel. In der Schalker Arena wirkt das extrem. Beim Umbau des Berliner Olympiastadions wollte ich beweisen, dass diese verdichtete Atmosphäre auch über die Distanz einer Leichtathletiklaufbahn in einem Universalstadion funktionieren kann. Früher ging der Schall komplett nach oben weg, heute bleibt er im Resonanzkörper des Stadions.

Beim Entwurf eines Stadions geht es in erster Linie um eine Massenchoreografie. Das beginnt bei der Ankunft. Das Berliner Olympiastadion zwang die Menschen 1936 zu einer monumentalen Prozession. Das Olympiagelände in München lud 1972 mit seiner Hügelbaulandschaft und seinen geschwungenen Dächern dazu ein, sich frei und beschwingt zu bewegen. Der Architekt kann also beeinflussen, in welcher Stimmung Menschen sein Stadion betreten. 

Als Zweites ist da die Lenkung der Besucherströme in Bezug auf ihre Sicherheit. Betrete ich als Zuschauer ein Hochsicherheitsgefängnis voller Gatter und Zäune? Oder wird meine Sicherheit ganz unmerklich gewährleistet? Zäune finde ich abstoßend – die sind auch innerhalb eines Stadions so unerfreulich wie ein Zaun zwischen Nachbarn. Als Drittes stellt sich die Frage, wie die Orientierung inszeniert wird. Mein persönlicher Ehrgeiz ist, den Menschen sogleich einen Überblick zu verschaffen, sobald sie das Stadion betreten. Es gibt leider Stadien, in denen sie sich wie Herdenvieh durch Gatter und dunkle Gänge zu ihrem Sitzplatz tasten müssen. Ich finde das zutiefst entwürdigend. Man muss dem Besucher sinnvolle Ausblicke, Überblicke und auch Rückblicke geben. Dazu kommt schließlich auch die Inszenierung durch die Illumination, das hatten schon die Nazis mit Fackelläufen für das olympische Feuer und mit Lichtdomen rund um das Stadion erfunden. Heute haben wir das Flutlicht, das sich sogar dynamisch einsetzen lässt, wie zum Beispiel mit dem „Ring of Fire“ beim umgestalteten Olympiastadion.

Leider sind die Stadien inzwischen als Gebäude zu Werbeträgern reduziert worden. Die Werbeindustrie nutzt jede Mauer und mittlerweile sogar die Namen dafür. Das einstmals gemeinnützige Frankfurter Waldstadion heißt jetzt Commerzbank-Arena, Konrad Adenauers Kölner Stadion für den Breitensport ist nun das Rheinenergie-Stadion. In der Kultur ist es noch nicht ganz so weit. Stellen Sie sich vor, die Münchner Staatsoper hieße Siemens-Oper, oder es gäbe das Hamburger Hapag-Lloyd-Theater. 

Wenn Sie jetzt sagen: Das ist doch schizophren, der Mann hat so viel Skepsis und baut trotzdem weiter Fußballstadien, dann sage ich: ja, trotzdem. Im Mittelalter gab es für Baumeister nichts Größeres, als eine Kathedrale zu bauen. Dieses überwältigende räumliche Ereignis! So geht es mir heute mit Stadien. Ich fühle mich wie ein Atheist, der eine Kathedrale bauen darf, denn ich liebe eigentlich leere Fußballstadien. Halb voll ist furchtbar, ganz leer oder ganz voll, so müssen sie sein!

Zurzeit baue ich mit unserem enthusiastischen Architektenteam drei Stadien für die WM 2010 in Südafrika und weitere zwei für die Europameisterschaft in Polen. Ich wünsche mir, dass die Sportbegeisterung nicht nur gut ist für die Unterhaltungsindustrie, sondern auch für die Völkerverständigung – wie bei der WM 2006 in Deutschland.

_Volkwin Marg ist Mitbegründer des Architekturbüros Gerkan, Marg und Partner und hat unter anderem die WM-Stadien in Frankfurt am Main und Köln entworfen und das Berliner Olympiastadion umgestaltet. _









_Greenpoint Stadium, Cape Town_


http://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/EM-2008-Volkwin-Marg-Stadionarchitektur;art17481,2550380


----------



## Carrerra

Maybe is there anyone who knows what's going on in this stadium? 

The wall stadium, Qatar


----------



## Big Texan

very green.


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> Maybe is there anyone who knows what's going on in this stadium?
> 
> The wall stadium, Qatar


seems like a waste of money


----------



## www.sercan.de

I stillwait for a 100k stadium from the arabs.
Worlds everthing tallest and biggest in there
Why not worlds biggest stadium?

Carrerra, you can pm him


----------



## rover3

erbsenzaehler said:


> SM Arena? Jeez, I had no clue they even build stadiums for that 'sport' :hilarious


I think you mean S *"&"* M. SM doesn't quite cut it.


----------



## dande

I think Alain de Botton has writte a book about architecture and people during the centuries.


----------



## WeimieLvr

One of my favorite venues for live music, Chastain Park Amphitheater in Atlanta:









http://www.flickr.com/photos/iveyb/31456900/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisbustin/326102219/


Chastain is considered a very classy venue. It is set up with tables for patrons to bring a picnic, and there is a grassy area in back where the tickets are less expensive. Many people bring elaborate table decor - there is usually a contest for best table. 

The acoustics are excellent, but the crowd varies from show to show depending on the style music. Performers range from Jill Scott to Santana to Atlanta Symphony to Patti Labelle to John Mayer to Morrissey to Black Eyed Peas - various types of crowds with different energy.


----------



## theespecialone

places with history i.e old trafford, wembley, nou camp, san siro


----------



## en1044

i think its the people. It doesnt matter in the long run IMO, if you are a true fan and care about whatever sport is being played it shouldnt matter. Architecture and history are nice, but the play on the field is what counts.


----------



## dudu24

Small but nice place in Dugopolje (near Split, currently in third division). 

Capacity is 5k. All seats are covered with roof. 


























Tnx to Imota for pics!


----------



## GNU

One of the two stadiums currently uc in Luanda, Angola for the 2010 African Nations Cup. It will have a cap of 50k.


----------



## hkskyline

*KABUL - Soccer Stadium Redevelopment*

*FEATURE-Afghan soccer field haunted by Taliban executions *

KABUL, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The grass has grown in Kabul's soccer stadium where the Taliban used to stage public executions, but few Afghans dare visit in the evenings, believing that the souls of the victims still roam the sprawling grounds.

"Too much blood has flown here," says Mohammad Nasim as he mowed the lush green grass in the stadium under a warm afternoon sun, a little oasis ringed by brown hills away from the bustle of the street.

The goalposts, where the black-turbaned Taliban used to force convicts to kneel before executing them or from which they hung the severed arms or legs of thieves for all to see, have been given a fresh coat of white paint.

New portraits of Afghanistan's leaders, including late King Zahir Shah, President Hamid Karzai, anti-Taliban hero Ahmad Shah Masood and the country's latest star, Olympic taekwondo bronze medallist Rohallah Nikpai, hang from the empty stands.

The Afghanistan Olympic Committee has set up its office in the stadium's red building and there are pictures of Nikpai, the country's first Olympic medal winner, being feted.

But try as they might, few Afghans can put behind them the brutality of the Taliban years when men, and sometimes cowering women in their pale blue, all-enveloping burqas, were brought into the stadium to be either stoned or shot dead at close range.

Others had limbs amputated for crimes ranging from robbery to adultery and murder.

The stands would be full of people, including children, either coming of their own volition or brought in to witness how the Taliban enforced its version of justice.

"Now nobody comes here in the evening, even we don't go inside," says Nabeel Qari, a young guard at the entrance to the stadium. "Everyone believes the place is haunted, that the souls of the dead people are not at rest even now."

BODIES FLUNG INTO VANS

The Taliban also executed convicts in a huge open ground across the street from the stadium, where they would bring them in the back of open-topped vans, shoot them in the head at close range and fling the bodies back in the vans.

Nasim said he saw two of his relatives shot dead and another hanged in the soccer stadium for possessing arms that a Taliban court concluded in a summary trial were intended to be used against them.

He remembers people streaming into the stadium to watch the executions. It was usually over within minutes, with the men lined up near the soccer field's penalty spot and shot, blood oozing out as they slumped to the ground.

Some people shouted Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest) from the stands as they watched.

"My relatives were innocent, like so many others who died here," Nasim said.

So much blood has been spilled on the football field and seeped into the soil below that Nasim says a previous attempt to grow grass there failed.

Then the Afghan government asked the company that he worked for to redevelop the stadium in a project costing about $50,000. The soil was dug up to a depth of half a metre and replaced.

"We put a new layer of soil so that players would not be stepping on to the blood of so many people," Nasim said.

Last month his team worked overtime to make sure the grass was freshly watered and the stadium spruced up for taekwondo star Nikpai's welcome party.

"We are working hard to ensure this again becomes a good place for sports," Nasim says.


----------



## Wezza

Sounds like a huge project.....


----------



## hendrix83

JYDA said:


> Any renderings of those last three stadiums you mentioned?


Yes check them out....

Chivas omnilife stadium - under construction -










Cali stadium - almost done










Peñarol project - no construction date yet - 










New Costa Rican National stadium - construction starts in November 2008, final date may 2010


----------



## JYDA

Well hopefully Costa Rica can start playing their games in the national stadium when it's finished and get off that horrific concrete plastic pitch at Saprissa.


----------



## lpioe

I read in the newspaper today that Palestine had their first game in their new national stadium with 7'000 seats last weekend. 
Anyone has pics of it?


----------



## bing222

Any webcams yet?


----------



## ccfc-4-life

*Small Towns with more than one team?*

What is the smallest town / city you can think of with more than one sports team of the same sport and what stadiums do they play in?

(For example, London has many football (soccer) clubs, but of course this city is very big)


----------



## Patrick

my home village used to have 2 different football clubs some years ago (population around 2500 inh. at that time), of course each club with its own ground. but I think there are smaller villages with the same.

oh, you said "teams", ok, there is the A-team of the one club, and then the B-team and so on 

in Germany, the cities with 2 or more football TEAMS in the first three divisions are:

Frankfurt: 
1. BL: SG Eintracht Frankfurt
2. BL: FSV Frankfurt

Stuttgart:
1. BL: VfB Stuttgart
3. BL: SV Stuttgarter Kickers
3. BL: VfB Stuttgart II

München:
1. BL: FC Bayern München
2. BL: TSV 1860 München
3. BL: FC Bayern München II

Bremen:
1. BL: SV Werder Bremen
3. BL: SV Werder Bremen II

Hamburg:
1. BL: Hamburger SV
2. BL: FC Sankt Pauli

Berlin:
1. BL: Hertha BSC Berlin
3. BL: 1. FC Union Berlin

but these are all cities bigger than 500.000 inhabitants.

London maybe is comparable with the entire Rhein-Ruhr-Area in terms of population:
1. BL: TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen
1. BL: FC Schalke 04
1. BL: BV Borussia Dortmund 09
1. BL: 1. FC Köln
1. BL: VfL Bochum
1. BL: VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
2. BL: MSV Duisburg
2. BL: TSV Alemannia Aachen
2. BL: SC Rot-Weiß Oberhausen
3. BL: TuS Fortuna Düsseldorf 95
3. BL: Wuppertaler SV Borussia


----------



## www.sercan.de

Sorry, this is more about sports club and not stadiums or arenas.


----------



## Benjuk

*Small towns/cities serviced by multiple stadia*

To re-tool a closed thread... What's the smallest town/city to have 2 or more stadia.

Example: 
Dundee, population 141k.
Stadiums - Tannadice Park (14k) home of Dundee Utd, 
Dens Park (12k) home of Dundee FC
(trivia - the two stadiums are on the same street and are only 5 mins walk apart)


----------



## Chimaera

It all depends. Do you want stadiums used by top division clubs? Or do you mean "decent" stadiums? +10k? Because I can think of a bunch of smaller cities/towns (pop. <100k) in Belgium that have more than one stadium, but often they are really small and/or are used by a team playing in the lower divisions.

Mechelen: population 79k. Stadiums: Veolia Stadion (KV Mechelen, first division), 14,1k (4,7k seated); Oscar Van Kesbeek Stadion (RC Mechelen, third division), 13,7k (1,9k seated)

Lier: population 33k. Stadiums: Herman Vanderpoorten Stadion (SK Lierse, second division), 14,5k (10,2k seated); Lyra Stadion (K. Lyra TSV, fourth division), 6k (1,7k seated)

Sint-Niklaas: population 70k. Stadiums: Puyenbeke Stadion (Red Star Waasland, second division), 6k (1,7k seated); Stedelijk Sportcentrum (FCN Sint-Niklaas, third division), 2-3k

Waregem: population 36k. Stadiums: Regenboogstadion (Zulte-Waregem, first division), 8,5k (will get an expansion and facelift in the near future); Mirakelstadion (RC Waregem, third division), 3k.

Roeselare: population 56k. Stadiums: Schiervelde (SV Roeselare, first division), 9,6k; Rodenbachstadion (FC Roeselare, third division), capacity?

Oostende (pop. 69k) also had two stadiums, but the smaller one was recently demolished.

I could go on (after some research though)...


----------



## mavn

Heerenveen, the Netherlands

Population: 28.479

Abe Lenstra Stadion: 26.800 (1000 standing) (capacity will go towards 44000 in the near future)










"Thialf" (speed skating) 10.750


----------



## cinosanap

Benjuk said:


> (trivia - the two stadiums are on the same street and are only 5 mins walk apart)


They're barely 30seconds apart!


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

So.. as it seems we will get another arena 

This project has been given green light by our prime minister: 

http://www.d-a-z.hr/ostalo/natjecaji/zagreb-rukometni-svetice/rukomentni_dom-1nagrada-3.jpg

http://www.d-a-z.hr/ostalo/natjecaji/zagreb-rukometni-svetice/rukomentni_dom-1nagrada-5.jpg

http://www.d-a-z.hr/ostalo/natjecaji/zagreb-rukometni-svetice/rukomentni_dom-1nagrada-4.jpg

Location they are talking about is next to Arena Zagreb

http://i41.tinypic.com/35hi61w.jpg

(where those cars are now)


----------



## "ZukiChirO"

*LAOS - New Laos National Stadium (25,000) - 2009 SEA Games*

























Laos National Sports Complex for the 25th SEA Games 2009

*The US$70 million, Chinese government funded, Laos National Sports Complex will be completed by March 2009*, for the Laos 25th SEA Games, to be held in Vientiane and two other cities in Laos, in December 2009.

The Laos National Sports Complex is located about 20 Km from the centre of Vientiane City and comprises a 20,000 seating capacity main stadium, a 2,000 seating capacity indoor aquatics complex, with a outdoor warm-up pool, a Tennis centre consisting of 2,000 seating capacity centre court plus 6 other tennis court, two indoor stadia each with seating capacity of 3,000 and a indoor shooting range with 50 seats. There is however no facilities for skeet and trap events in the shooting range. Whether the equipment for skeet and trap will be added later is uncertain.

The sports complex is in a sprawling 185 ha site, with an Olympic Park, adequate parking lots, lakes and open spaces. An archery centre could be constructed in the open space next to the shooting range. There is adequate space for a trap and skeet range to be added later, if required.

Construction work started from October 2008 and the sports complex is now about 50% complete. Work was delayed due to the massive flooding in August. The work force comprises around 1,400 workers from China and around 400 local Laotians. The estimated cost is expected to increase due to global increase in material, fuel and food prices and last month’s flooding. Provision of the competition surfaces, such as the running track for athletics, and other sports and sports equipment has not commenced.^^


----------



## "ZukiChirO"




----------



## bing222

Great photos


----------



## the spliff fairy

Kiaohsiung International Stadium, 100% solar powered, Taiwan



Razqal said:


> almost done!! someone's flickr site:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alot more photos here in arthurchengjca's flickr album:
> 
> http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/page9/


----------



## Cubo99

*KOSICE - New Stadion (19,300)*

*MFK Košice*
SLOVAKIA First League



































Capacity: 19,300
Start of construction: November 09


----------



## lpioe

Exterior looks great, certainly one of the best for a stadium of this size.
Are there any interior shots?


----------



## m_m

It's a really good project. It reminds me a little bit a project of stadium in Bialystok in Poland.


----------



## Dequal

Looks great! Indeed missing some interior shots and details of the hotel.


----------



## Cubo99

sry, currently I havent any other pictures...


----------



## Timbu

*Arena Recife - World Cup 2014 - Brasil*

*Arena Recife better images - World cup city*


----------



## hkskyline

*ANTIGUA - Viv Richards Stadium*

*ANALYSIS-Cricket-Unloved Antigua stadium faces uncertain future*

ST JOHN'S, Antigua, Feb 14 (Reuters) - After the farcical scenes that led to Friday's second test between West Indies and England being abandoned, the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium is in danger of becoming a very young white elephant.

Unloved, unused and, at the moment, unfit for international cricket, the venue faces an uncertain future after hosting just one full test match and another that lasted only 10 balls due to unsuitable field conditions.

Antigua risks losing the chance to host test matches until it gets a field and stadium that is up to scratch and wins back the confidence of organisers and officials -- a blow to tourism and another setback in attempts to revive the popularity of the game on the island.

"I would recommend they play soccer there from now on. The amount of funding it would take to make that into a test venue again will be significant," West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) chief executive Donald Peters told the BBC.

"The West Indies Cricket Board will not go back to the Viv Richards Stadium. We are not prepared to take the risk." The ground is just two years old, cost an estimated $60 million -- mainly from Chinese investment -- to build and has hosted six one-day games at the World Cup in 2007, a test match against Australia last year and a few minutes play on Friday.

On Sunday, after hasty re-arrangements, a new test will be played at the traditional home of cricket on this small island, the decaying Antigua Recreation Ground, where most local fans wish the game had stayed.

Whatever the success or otherwise of the rescheduled game at the 'Rec' it is possible the International Cricket Council (ICC) will remove test status from the Viv Richards ground.

"The ultimate measure we can adopt is the sanction of the accreditation of a venue and that is what is at risk for this ground," said ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat, adding that fines and suspension from use for tests could precede such a decision.

Even if the ICC did not take any action, it is hard to imagine the West Indies choosing to risk another game at the ground in the near future.

EXPENSIVE PLANS

England fans, forced to rejig expensive travel plans or miss the final two days of the re-arranged test, were left asking how a match was allowed to start with a sandy outfield described on Friday as 'unfit and dangerous' by match referee Alan Hurst.

One of the central problems afflicting many areas of cricket in the Caribbean is that West Indies are made up of independent nations and each has a strong degree of autonomy despite the existence of the central WICB.

It was therefore no surprise that WICB president Julian Hunte explained the mess-up by citing the advice he had received from the Antiguans.

"We did not move the test match because we were given assurances that the outfield and the facilities were in good order," he told reporters while accepting that the WICB had "ultimate responsibility".

The farcical scenes on Friday, with groundstaff taking out shovels to dig up the sandy run-ups, was another body blow for the image of West Indies cricket.

The World Cup in 2007, which should have been a carnival of Caribbean cricket, disappointed many with poor crowds and little atmosphere due to overpriced tickets and unpopular restrictions on fan behaviour.

The West Indies team, once treasured as the most entertaining in the world, have faded in the past decade.

Last week's innings victory over England in Kingston, Jamaica indicated that a revival could at last be under way to the delight of many fans over the world.

Less than a week later, though, West Indian cricket looked a shambolic mess once again.

"The Antigua Cricket Association have dropped the ball and should be ashamed of themselves," said West Indies great Viv Richards, whose name adorns the stadium.

"This is not a shot in the foot for West Indies cricket, this is an arrow right through the heart."


----------



## mud777

*LJUBLJANA (Slovenija) new arena (12000) and stadium (16000)*










The Sports Park Stožice integrates a football stadium and a multi-purpose sports hall with a big shopping centre, covered by the artificial landscape of the recreational park. As a result 182,000sqm Sports Park Stožice becomes one of the major focal points of Ljubljana's urban life, attracting people of different interests and generation both during the daytime and in the evenings.

The two storeys of the shopping centre and the interior car park fill the 12-metre deep disused gravel pit. The park that covers the roof of the shopping centre continues the natural landscape across the northern section of the outer ring road with the green urban space all the way to the city centre. The entire newly-built premises are integrated into the site, emphasising the horizontal, planar character of the open space.

The recreational park on the roof of the shopping centre is an artificial technical landscape composed of recognisable micro-ambients that withstand the pressure of the crowd before major sporting events and still offer pleasure and comfort to an afternoon stroller, a skateboarder, or children on the playground. The plateau of the park is pierced by vertical connections of accesses from the lower car parks, ventilation shafts, and light wells belonging to the shopping centre. The big central atrium with its pavilions represent the main access point to the shopping centre's two floors.

The football stadium for 16.000 spectators is laid out under the plateau of the park. As a structure, it's therefore 'sunk' into the park. Only the roof over the stands rises above the plane of the park as a monolithic crater.

The rest of the roof of the stadium on the west, north, and south side represents a green, partially accessible continuation of the park's plane. The plane is pierced by four flights of stairs that provide access and lead to the stadium's concourse. Towards the east side of the stadium, the park's plateau gradually descends for 6m down to the eastern platform. Seen from this point, the stadium reveals itself as an open building.

Over the concourse and the stands stretches a 4x4m grid concrete roof. The grid of the roof determinates the 'crater' of the stadium and emphasises the sensation of the interior. The stands descend downwards from the concourse and surround the football pitch, which enables the spectators to be very near to the action, yet still be covered with the roof.

The sports hall for 12,000 spectators is located in the north-western part of the park. The four levels of concourses and the lower, VIP, and upper stands are covered by a shell-shaped dome. The park's plateau, the edge of the shell scallops and opens towards the interior. The ridges continue all the way to the top, where the facade meets the dome. This outlines the shape of the hall, a shell that opens towards the perimeter with large crescent openings overlooking the park. Along the entire perimeter, there is a canopy encircling the hall, acting as a derivative to the scalloped shell. Like the stadium, the entire shell of the hall is also finished in exterior cladding that changes colour depending on the exterior conditions and viewing distance.

The sports hall is a partially recessed building. Its volume is determined by the required seating capacity and the size of the basketball and handball court, which are the two sports that the hall is primarily intended for. The position of the stands ensures maximum compactness of the interior space and allows the spectators to be as close to the action on the court as possible. VIP seating is situated between the lower and the upper stands.


----------



## Auxodium

looks good


----------



## Mo Rush

Aiwa said:


> Darius & Girenas stadium is an oldest stadium in Lithuania built in 1921 and looked like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it was reconstructed in 1979 where wooden tribunes were replaced with reinforced concrete structures and placed in a half circle with a capacity of 12 000.After the independence it was reconstructed again several times, plastic seats were added, capacity reduced to 8,500. On the last reconstruction some seats were added and now stadium has 9,180 seats, ad currently looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some years ago (2007) a project of reconstruction was proposed by “UBIG” company, which owns a local soccer team “FBK Kaunas”. This project would add tribunes on all sides, roof, underground parking and a hotel near the complex. The capacity of the stadium would grew up to 14,000 seats and the stadium it self would look like this:


I like. Classy, elegant, simple.


----------



## justlukeyou

*Your Job and Stadiums?*

Hi,

What is job and how does it incorporate stadiums?


----------



## Livno80101

I am last (fourth) year of high school, classical Gymnasium

I am planning to become architect or civil engineer(stadiums are my occupation) and that's the reason I am on this forum :banana:


----------



## en1044

Absolutely nothing.

Well, my eventual intention is to be a play by play sports broadcaster so maybe someday ill be up in the booth


----------



## westsidebomber

I actually work in a stadium. I am a vendor for the Cincinnati Reds. I'm the one who wears the bright yellow shirt who walks up and down each isle carrying food. I've done this for the past 3 seasons and plan to do it this summer again when I go home from school. I absolutely love it and it's not only a great way to get to know that stadium, but also to see your local team play and get paid for it.

I also am going to school studying engineering to hopefully one day join a firm and be able to help design future stadiums. This has been my dream job for as long as I can remember so hopefully it works out.


----------



## Timon91

westsidebomber said:


> I actually work in a stadium. I am a vendor for the Cincinnati Reds. I'm the one who wears the bright yellow shirt who walks up and down each isle carrying food. I've done this for the past 3 seasons and plan to do it this summer again when I go home from school. I absolutely love it and it's not only a great way to get to know that stadium, but also to see your local team play and get paid for it.
> 
> I also am going to school studying engineering to hopefully one day join a firm and be able to help design future stadiums. This has been my dream job for as long as I can remember so hopefully it works out.


Really? I might have seen you last summer. Did you work on July 26 (I'm not sure about the exact date) during the afternoon game between the Reds and the Padres?


----------



## Chimaera

www.fussballtempel.net (alternative url: www.footballtemples.com)

for Belgian stadiums and arenas: www.belstadions.be  (most recent info on the forum; both site and forum are only in Dutch for now)


----------



## Kpyto

Here is it Ukrainian UEFA Euro-2012 Championship Stadiums site:

http://2012ua.net (news) http://2012ua.net/photo (construction photo) 

Web-cam from buildings (Ukraine and Poland) http://2012ua.net/blog/1-0-1


----------



## Steel City Suburb

www.footballgroundguide.com


----------



## Bogus Law

http://stadiony.net/

although it's in Polish only there are 888 stadia (7000 pics from 66 countries) and 165 projects with 900 renderings


----------



## justlukeyou

Thanks, I wish I knew lots of different languages! Does anyone work in the field of stadium innovation?


----------



## adeaide

*2014 Incheon Asian Games Stadium in Korea*

Below images are 2014 Incheon Asian Games Stadium.
This Stadium accommodates 70,000 seats and may be expandable to 100,000 seats considering big events such as Olympic Games and World Cup.
































if you want to see more pictures of Korean stadiums including World major stadiums , Please visit below URL.

http://cafe.daum.net/stade


----------



## Jim856796

This new stadium, if it is new, will never be constructed. You know we already proposed (an expanded) Munhak Stadium as the main stadium for the Asian Games.


----------



## KWPB

*Quito - nuevo estadio del Deportivo Quito (20,000)*









Dep. Quito

3x Champion: 
1964, 1968, 2008.


----------



## KWPB

*COLOMBIA - Stadium and Arena Development News*









DEP. QUITO

3x Champion: 
1964, 1968, 2008.


----------



## KWPB

*Quito - nuevo estadio del Deportivo Quito (20,000)*









DEP. QUITO

3x Champion: 
1964, 1968, 2008.


----------



## KWPB




----------



## masterpaul

Em whats goin on? Cant figure out how the stadium gonna look like


----------



## João Paulo

What a strange stadium.......


----------



## Tailgunner

*Cardiff City - New Football stadium*

Cardiff has its new stadium directly across the road from its current home Ninian Park
old stadium capacity 21,000
New Stadium 27,000 plus extra 8,000 if promoted to premier division (extra tier)

This stadium is nearly finished and is only 20 minutes walk from the Millenium Stadium in the city centre , see the ariel photo`s in the link.
http://www.cardiffcitystadium.co.uk/

1st game proper game will be against Glasgow Celtic July 22nd then we play Valencia a few weeks later


----------



## radioheader

Seems to be very comfortable


----------



## KWPB

el proyecto se autofinanciará por sí sólo con la venta de las suites y palcos VIP; además se confirmó que el escenario deportivo tendrá una capacidad para 20.000 espectadores.


----------



## alex_zebe

No entiendo nada.
Other pics? It's pretty hard to see something...


----------



## likasz

Only 20,000 the best team in Equador?

PS.Every stadium should has a minimal capacity of 30,000 to has own thread.


----------



## KWPB

El escenario de los "chullas" será construido en una superficie de 25 mil metros cuadrados y cumplirá con los requerimientos de la FIFA. Junto al estadio se edificará un centro comercial y en medio de las dos estructuras se colocará la sede del club.

El exterior del estadio tendrá un cerramiento de aluminio compuesto y de diseño aerodinámico.

Los graderíos tendrán una inclinación de 35,8 grados, la máxima que permite la FIFA, explicó el arquitecto Diego Guayasamín, especializado en Hamburgo, Alemania, e hincha del Deportivo Quito.


----------



## KWPB




----------



## larsul

KWPB said:


> El escenario de los "chullas" será construido en una superficie de 25 mil metros cuadrados y cumplirá con los requerimientos de la FIFA. Junto al estadio se edificará un centro comercial y en medio de las dos estructuras se colocará la sede del club.
> 
> El exterior del estadio tendrá un cerramiento de aluminio compuesto y de diseño aerodinámico.
> 
> Los graderíos tendrán una inclinación de 35,8 grados, la máxima que permite la FIFA, explicó el arquitecto Diego Guayasamín, especializado en Hamburgo, Alemania, e hincha del Deportivo Quito.


Hey this is a english language thread.. Please do so everybody can understand what you say..


----------



## StoneRose

Let's say Leeds United makes it back to the EPL in three four years and decides to have a new stadium.
What capacity would they need? 60.000?


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

New basketball arena in Šibenik: 

http://www.sibenik.hr/doc/sibenik_dvorana.pdf


----------



## eddyk

"Kiaohsiung International Stadium, 100% solar powered, Taiwan"


Such a great idea and so simple...I'm amazed it hasn't already been done 100 times.


----------



## cmc

KWPB said:


>


Star Trek theater or what...


----------



## Mr.Bennish

No se ve mucho.


----------



## galaxtico

*Stadium videos*

Here you can post videos of stadiums.

http://www.stadiumzone.net

has a large collection of videos (and pictures) of almost all stadiums in the world. Here are some of the most impressive videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=culMRoH_CFU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiIboDuLMKY


----------



## en1044

FedEx Field






Lane Stadium


----------



## potiz81

From Athens olympic stadium:


----------



## en1044

Penn State- Beaver Stadium. Cap 106k


----------



## Syca

Steaua Bucharest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdO5szpB2cc&feature=related


----------



## nonorizos

enjoy it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XclGta7hBg&feature=fvsr

:banana::banana:


----------



## hubemx

http://www.vimeo.com/4990346


----------



## brasil2014

New thread of Cuiabá´s stadium http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=38129406#post38129406


----------



## speed_demon

likasz said:


> Only 20,000 the best team in Equador?
> 
> PS.Every stadium should has a minimal capacity of 30,000 to has own thread.


The best team in Ecuador? Dream on. The best and most popular club in Ecuador is Liga Deportiva Universitaria - LDU and their stadium looks fine.


----------



## Timbu

*The City*

Bathed by the magnificent Negro River, Manaus is the entrance gate for the planet’s biggest tropical rainforest. Capital of the State of Amazon, the city keeps an extraordinary supply of natural resources, represented by 20% of fresh water reserve of the world, a genetic bank of inestimable value and great ore, gas and oil deposits.











Manaus was established in the second half of the 17th century, with the construction of the Fort of São José da Barra, whose purpose was to protect the region against the foreign invasions.










In 1832 the Fort was named Vila da Barra. In October 24th, 1848 it was upgraded to the category of city becoming city of Barra do Rio Negro. Only in September 4th, 1856, it was called Manaus, in homage to the Manaós indigenous nation, most important ethnic group inhabitant of the region.

The state capital was one of the first Brazilian cities to have electric light, pluvial galleries, water and sewers treatment and electric trams. In 1909, Manaus hosted Brazil’s first superior education institution, today called UFAM - Federal University of the Amazonas, which contributed decisively for the citizens formation and the development of the Amazon.










Over more than 100 years, in the heights of the economic rubber cycle, the Amazon Theater was built surprising the world with its architectural luxury, sophistication and beauty. It’s the main architectural cultural patrimony of Amazonas. This temple of art resumed its apogee with the Amazonas’s Ópera Festival, with the presentation in its stage of classic and popular spectacles of dance, music and theater with local, national and international artists.


*Characteristics*
Ano de Criação: 1848

Year of Foundation: 1848

Law of foundation: October 24th, 1848, already named Vila de Manaós is upgraded to the city category, by the law number 145, of 1848, baptized now as city of Barra do Rio Negro.

Toponymy: The toponym Manaus, comes from a indigenous tribe that primitively dominated the Rio Negro Valley, which belonged to a legendary Ajuricaba warrior

Gentilic: manauense or manauara

Population counting in 2007: 1.646.602 

Demographic density (inhabitants per km2): 144,42

Area (Km2): 11.401,1

*Infrastructure*

Manaus is growing and modernizing itself. The urban infrastructure works along the years have been changing the landscapes and providing the city development. Tunnels, avenues duplications and bridges building projects are some of the examples of the accelerated rhythm that Manaus has been living. The increase in the number of sport and entertainment facilities throughout the city is another sign of progress. Prepared to receive visitors from any destinations, whether business or leisure activities, with modernity but without losing the natural enchantment or exuberance. Until 2010 the city will possess a modern cable-stayed bridge that will connect Manaus to the of Iranduba.










*Attractions*

Manaus is one privileged cultural stage of manifestations that mix the dance of boi-bumbá and the magnitude of the opera spectacles. Full of natural enchantments, the city offers natural scenes of pure fascination as the archipelago of Anavilhanas, located a 100 km distant from Manaus, to the surrounds of the city of Novo Airão, in the Negro River, a group of 400 islands covered by virgin forest forming a true natural labyrinth, one of the most beautiful examples of Amazonian natural landscape. The meeting of waters is the result of the fantastic junction of dark waters of the Negro River with muddy waters of Solimões river. They run side by side, without fusing, for more than 18 km, providing remarkable sight. The phenomenon occurs due the difference of the temperatures, densities and speed of the waters of both rivers.










Who comes to Manaus is received with great joy. Not only with the usual hospitality that the city receives its visitors, but under a mood of festivities, to the sound of the boi-bumbá songs, typical rhythm of the region.










*Location*










Manaus is placed in the confluence of Negro river and Solimões river. The city belongs the center amazonense mesoregion, located in the extreme North of the country, 1932 km far from Brasilia.

*The Proposal*

The Amazonas Government and Manaus’s City Hall addressed to the organizer committee of the Brazilian Soccer Confederation - CBF, on November 16th, the host city bidding agreement that enrolled Manaus as one of the possible host cities for the 2014 World Cup. However, the bid presented by the CBF, the state commits itself to deliver all the Stadiums in perfect conditions of use, according to the patterns established for the games, until December 31st, 2012.

In the candidacy commitment, Amazonas also guarantee to present all off the licenses, with a closer focus to the environmental and urban aspects, due to July 31st, 2009. The implementation of the investments destined to Manaus’s infrastructure improvement will be initiated until January 31st, 2010, according to the document sent to CBF’s Organizer Committee.

The Amazonas bidding agreement assures that any selection process of private investors to be hired for renovate or to construct and, eventually to manage the stadiums, must be running before July 31st of the next year.

The document signed by governor Eduardo Braga and the former-mayor Serafim Corrêa takes on the commitment with the accomplishment of the time lines established on the financial and technical viability project to be presented.











To governor Eduardo Braga, although the dispute between the capitals interested in hosting the games for the 2014 World Cup may be very incited, Manaus dawns with real chances of being included in the group of cities selected by CBF. “Manaus has a great appeal. It is the only city that commits itself to do the carbon neutralization of the whole competition. In addition, it is located at the State which preserves the most its environmental resources”, illustrated.

The obstacles that exists in Manaus's urban and logistic area can be perfectly solved with foreseen investments, according to the governor. “We presented a very structured project that puts the city in the same level of the other running candidates”, stated.

*The Project*

Green Cup

Manaus's proposal focus on the environmental issue through soccer. The idea is that every ton of carbon to be emitted by the Cup will be compensated with a fix value that would be deposited in an environmental financial fund. The resources would be invested on the implementation of protected areas and on the support of forest management activities in the Amazon. The candidacy foresees an architectonic project of a sportive complex that will be created with Vivaldo Lima and surroundings structure renovation.











The city of Manaus will have not only the opportunity to host the biggest sportive event in the planet, but will also empower its development through infrastructure investments, employment generation, in the increase of revenue generated by tourism and by the positive dissemination of its imagine for the rest of the world, therefore stimulating new private and international investments, what will represent an incentive to the State's economy.










The project elaborated by Amazonas foresees the construction of a Cultural, Sportive and Touristic Center of 250 thousands square meters with functional synergy and of complete sustainable use. The center will have capacity to receive 150 thousand visitors simultaneously in equipments such as the stadium, sambódromo, gymnasium and convention center with 60 thousand square meters.

In the attached areas is planned the construction of the city's press center, the stadium's press center, cognizance center, the village of hospitality and fun club at Sambódromo with a giant screen equipment. In this attached area will also be built an auditorium with 1500 seats, sportive recreation and cognizance area at the Vila Olímpica high yield center and two hotels with 200 housings.

*The Stadium*

The Vivaldo Lima Stadium, the Vivaldão, is the largest soccer stadium in Manaus. Its strategic location in the city's downtown which flaunts one of the biggest GDP's of Brazil, puts it in a favorable condition to host the 2014 World Cup games.

Vivaldão has capacity to accommodate 52.000 spectators and it is part of Manaus's sportive sector, which also includes the modern Vila Olímpica, the Gymnasium Amadeu Teixeira and Manaus's Center of Conventions, called Sambódromo. The stadium owns a sound system imported from Belgium, electronic turnstiles and lawn with automatic irrigation system through vertical and horizontal drainages. It won a new electronic scoreboard in December 2006, which was officially inaugurated on February 14, 2007.










To be one of the World Cup venues in 2014, Manaus bets in the expansion of the stadium. The renovations envisaged in the project presented by the city will expand the stadium's capacity to 60,000 viewers . The site will be transformed and will also have an area for sport and leisure in addition to a mall. The idea is to use it as a place that can combine leisure and sportive activities along the seven days of the week.





























*DOWNLOADS*

*
Presentation - Manaus, the Cup of Amazonia

The Project*


----------



## Mr.Bennish

There is any new about this proposed arena?


----------



## NMAISTER007

^^ This will be an awesome stadium for the 2014 World Cup, especially for Brazil :banana:


----------



## Chimaera

I've always wondered what the use of this thread is. The projects can be posted in the respective country threads, or in their own thread, if the capacity is over 30,000, right? I personally would reserve this thread for small projects (under 30,000 for stadiums, under 10,000 for arenas) in countries that don't have their own thread (yet).

It's just a practical consideration, feel free to disagree.


----------



## trmather

This was here long before the respective country threads were.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Someone really needs to get rid of this guy. The joke has run its ground and is no longer funny.


----------



## AILD

Matthew Lowry said:


> + Russia Bomb Georgia lots in August 2008


EU commission: Georgia started the war. OOPS!

This "circassian" thing is sponsored by Jamestown Foundation, which have connection with CIA and Chechen terrorists. It has nothing common with "finding the truth". It's a creation of bad atmosphere around Sochi-2014 games. This is a typical propaganda attack, in all traditions of western mind control machine.

And, maybe you didn't know, but Russia has the whole republic Karacaevo-Circassia. But seems like this is "uncomfortable" information for liars and propagandists.

Close the dumb threat and bad the troll.


----------



## ezran.d.b

*Manila for 2024 summer olympics..?*

Can Manila be the 2024 summer olympic city?..........................What do you think?


----------



## 863552

I don't see why not...?


----------



## pio0619

It's possible but an Asian Games first before an Olympiad.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

Tokyo will get the games for sure in 2020. I Love you Manila but it still litle bit too sooon. maybe the next games in Asia.


----------



## eMKay

Are they bidding?


----------



## RobH

We don't yet know who's bidding for 2020, let alone '24!!


----------



## Livno80101

oh God no

they must get AG first, so world can see their organization

and next Games in Asia will be awarded to Tokyo / Doha, so not for Manila before 2040.


----------



## geoone

^^Not only that, but there just isn't any geopolitical motivation to go there. 

If Kuala Lumpur & Bangkok got shown an early exit for the 2008 Games, Manila is up sh!t's creek without a paddle. 

The 3 times that the Summer Olympic Games have made it to Asia, it's been with a compelling candidate at the time;

- Tokyo 1964 (the first Games in Asia & trying to bring Japan in to the International community after being one of the main aggressors of WWII). 

- Seoul 1988 (only second times that the Summer Games make it to Asia, & it was perceived that the Olympics would bring democracy to South Korea).

- Beijing 2008 (the first Games in the world's most populous country, & it was perceived that the Olympics would "open up China to the world").

So, in those terms, Manila is not very likely at all. Plus, they also have to bid, which I haven't seen anything on that.

The next Summer Asian host would probably be Japan at this point. The Japanese are a safe bet & have the means necessary to pull it off. 

India would certainly be a compelling candidate for an Asian Olympics, but I think it's still a bit early for them. Maybe within the next 2 decades or so, we could see India hosting.


----------



## jongbasco

No, Manila cannot host the Olympics yet.

To fellow Filipinos who are still wide-eyed about our fair city hosting large-scale events, I'd suggest a reading of the technical reports of past host cities and really see for yourself how we are so far in being at lest realistically capable. 

Discount the talk of how our "meager" resources (I personally dont think its that meager) could be better spent elsewhere, we need to drum up our resume in terms of experience. The SEA Games in 2005 is aeons away as a good reference.

Let's set our sights more on the 2015 SEAG bid Cojuangco is eyeing (preferrably in another location-probabaly Cebu), the successful staging of the Asian Beach Games in Boracay in 2014, and possibly an Asian Games in 2019!


----------



## eMKay

RobH said:


> We don't yet know who's bidding for 2020, let alone '24!!


We know who is considering a bid, which is what I meant


----------



## hohano1

I accept with information: The 3 times that the Summer Olympic Games have made it to Asia, it's been with a compelling candidate at the time;
Tokyo 1964 (the first Games in Asia & trying to bring Japan in to the International community after being one of the main aggressors of WWII).
Seoul 1988 (only second times that the Summer Games make it to Asia, & it was perceived that the Olympics would bring democracy to South Korea).


----------



## Matthew Lowry

It will go like this.
2020 Tokyo
2036 Bangkok
2052 Manila


----------



## CrazySerb

*FIVB Volleyball World League 2010 - Arenas & Sports Halls*

This year's edition of Volleyball World League has begun:cheers:

Teams taking part are:


----------



## CrazySerb

In Serbia, volleyball is very popular - and World League games always attract large crowds.
So far, about half a dozen sports halls and arenas throughout the country have been used to host the games, ranging in size from Millennium hall in Vrsac to massive Belgrade Arena.

*Vrsac - Millennium Hall (4,000 capacity) *





























*Novi Sad - SPENS (11,000 capacity)*






















*Nis - Cair Arena (7,000 capacity)*































*Belgrade - Pionir Hall (8,000 capacity)*







































*Belgrade - Belgrade Arena (23,000 capacity)*


----------



## dande

How old is Nis arena?


----------



## Aarni

In Finland volleyball is not at all popular despite the recent success of the national team. Big cities don't have their own teams and volleyball is considered to be a countryside sport for simple people. For example, the World League matches get almost no media coverage and even though the matches are aired, nobody watches them. hno:

Anyways, this year the matches in Finland will be played at Hakametsä Ice Hall in Tampere. My guess is the hall will be half empty...

*Hakametsä Ice Hall*
Built 1965
Capacity 7600, 6399 seated (for ice hockey)


----------



## likasz

*POLAND*
*
Atlas Arena* in Łódź (capacity: 13,500)









*Spodek* in Katowice (capacity: 11.000)








*
Centennial Hall* in Wrocław (capacity:~ 6.000 but ~ 10.000 in 2011)










*BRAZIL*
*
Sabiazinho* in Uberlandia (capacity: 8.000)










*Maracanaziho* in Rio de Janeiro (capacity: 11.800)










*Ginásio Nilson Nelson* in Brasilia (capacity: 19.080)


----------



## glooglee

Centennial Hall and Maracanaziho looks great.


----------



## Robin Udi

Sabiazinho in Uberlândia - Brazil


----------



## Blue Lou

*FRANCEVILLE - Stade de Franceville (35,000)*

Construction photos here - http://gabonenervant.blogspot.com/2010/06/can-2012-suite-franceville-aussi-ca.html

It's one of the stadiums expected to host the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) in 2012.


----------



## Axelferis

thsi thread is a joke?? how can you make things like this? no pics no explanations of the project?, WT**

Are you serious man? :doh:


----------



## Blue Lou

Information very hard to find...


----------



## Matthew Lowry

*MAPUTO - 2011 All-Africa Games*

The 10th All-Africa Games will take place in 2011 in Maputo, Mozambique. Maputo's hosting will be only the third time the games will have been held in the southern part of the continent. Lusaka, Zambia was initially granted the right to host the Games in April 2005 after the withdrawal of other bidders at the meeting of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa met in Algeria. Ghana had indicated interest in hosting the Games. The Zambian government has withdrawn its offer to host the 2011 All Africa Games due to lack of funds.

The main stadium will be a new 42,000-seat stadium constructed by the Chinese in the suburb of Zimpeto. There are no reports of any other venues being constructed for the Games and Some events may be left out or contested elsewhere due to lack of facilities


----------



## masterpaul

*Questions about stadiums*

I thought it might be a good idea, to start a topic were peoole can ask random questions about stadium, there influences ad there design.

______________________________________________________________
Ill start, because Im desperately in need of help:

Hey I'm doing my portfolio In my portfolio, I've made a point that stadiums can drive investments in the surrounding area.

However my teacher asked my to state some examples, and show photos showing this investment boom triggered by a stadium. However I cant find any.

I know that Dragao achieved this, but I cant find any photos showing this.


----------



## kichigai

To start you off...

Etihad Stadium in Melbourne was built with the intention of spurring development in the Docklands redevelopment.

Search around the net/Aus forums and you should find some pics.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

In England a stadium is often included as something of a sweetener to get planning permission for a much larger development to get through the planning process.

Overall though, a stadium needs to be in use a heck of a lot for it to generate business from the people who use it. The best examples are probably baseball stadiums, with their 80+ games a year, athough the Docklands Stadium, mentioned above, probably gets close to that.


----------



## Mo Rush

*#NEWS: Stadiums and Sports Arenas*

News articles relating to stadium and sports arenas, that are proposed, existing and under construction

Only major highlights will be posted here, not every development or milestone at every venue.


----------



## Mo Rush

*Chelsea ponders Earls Court stadium move*
​ 
English Premier League club Chelsea has been holding discussions with owners of the Earls Court exhibition centre in West London about building a new 60,000-seater stadium at the site.

According to UK newspaper The Guardian, secret talks have intensified as this might be the club’s last opportunity to pursue the site just half a mile from their current Stamford Bridge ground.

Plans to build a 8,000-home development once the exhibition centre is demolished after the London 2012 Olympics have now entered the last phase of public consultation.

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said it was “very difficult for us to make the philosophical decision that we are going to move on”.

“Certainly we wouldn’t leave West London or thereabouts and there are very few sites available,” he added. “We have to do things with our other commercial activities to make up the deficit that is created by the fact we don’t have a 60,000-seat stadium. We can’t say that we will never move or have a new stadium but at the moment, it’s not at the front of our agenda.”

Chelsea considered buying the same site four years ago, but discussions came to nothing.



> *Source: *http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/182555/chelsea-ponders-earls-court-stadium-move
> 
> 
> Submitted by bernardopd on Tue, 09/11/2010 - 08:28


----------



## masterpaul

The etihad stadium practictally did cause investments around it to be developed. 

Any others?


----------



## 1772

*Any other racways like Bristol Raceway?*

I've always liked Bristol Raceway since it's completely surrounded by stands, like a gigantic football stadium. 

But are there any similair raceways like it?


----------



## parcdesprinces

There was one in Italy, which was able to hold up to 385,000 spectators, but sadly it has been demolished:

Circus Maximus, Rome 


















:runaway:


----------



## Bigcat

385,000 people?? Blimey, i'd hate to see the queue for tha loo at half time


----------



## T74

how about Martinsville










also you have Dover










not quite the arena of Bristol, but the closest I could find


----------



## Bobby3

Bristol is pretty unique, I've never seen another one like it. That's one of it's selling points, too.


----------



## seyer1000

I heard there were talks between Virginia Tech and Tenessee to play a game there few years ago but it hasn't happened yet and maybe it never will. hno:

In normal speedways people don't even think about football being played there.


----------



## rantanamo

seyer1000 said:


> I heard there were talks between Virginia Tech and Tenessee to play a game there few years ago but it hasn't happened yet and maybe it never will. hno:
> 
> In normal speedways people don't even think about football being played there.


Not true. When the previous TX-OU contract was near its end, Texas Motor Speedway was one of the sites bidding to host the game. They would play on the grass between the pit lane and tri-oval section, with temp bleachers on the tri-oval, pit lane, etc and the main grand-stand making up the rest. Would have been a pretty major setup and likely would have broken all kinds of attendance records.


----------



## Scba

Wow, a packed crowd at Dover. 

Sections of the grandstand are tarped off now, and I think they'll be taking some of the stands themselves down soon. The capacity is just too high.


----------



## Bobby3

rantanamo said:


> Not true. When the previous TX-OU contract was near its end, Texas Motor Speedway was one of the sites bidding to host the game. They would play on the grass between the pit lane and tri-oval section, with temp bleachers on the tri-oval, pit lane, etc and the main grand-stand making up the rest. Would have been a pretty major setup and likely would have broken all kinds of attendance records.


Yea, they talked briefly about having a game at Charlotte Motor Speedway (North Carolina State and USC, I think), but it came to nothing in the end.

Bristol, Charlotte and Texas are sister facilities, of course. Charlotte and Texas are arguably even more remarkable facilities than Bristol.


----------



## Darloeye

wembley stadium, london. england


----------



## Cracovia

Darloeye said:


> wembley stadium, *london. england*


As if Wembley would be anywhere else in the world


----------



## Darloeye

Cracovia said:


> As if Wembley would be anywhere else in the world


Well the guy did ask :cheers:


----------



## DimitriB

Now Betis is back in primera division, are the going to continue renovating there stadium?


----------



## lines_and_circles

Which VIP box is actually the most expensive?
And what stands in the minibar?


----------



## Chevy114

*2012 Tampa Olympic Bid*

The last bid page was closed, but I was wondering if anyone had any of the shots of the arenas and stadiums Tampa was planning to build for the 2012 olympics if they had won them? I found a video that shows some quick shots, but anyone have any stills?

http://www.thecreativestable.com/portfolio_broadcast2.shtml

Here is a video about the trains we would have used for the games:
http://www.ursci.com/videos/119/tampa-2012-olympic-bid

Here is a fourm where the tampa shot is a red x, but you can see the cincinatti idea:
http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/top...re-never-built/page__hl__+tampa++2012__st__10

Finally a quick story from the st. pete times:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/080201/TampaBay/Tampa_2012_puts_wheel.shtml


----------



## netgear67

*LENDAVA / SLOVENIA - Petrolija Motodrom (75,000)- MOTO GP*

*PETROLIJA MOTODROM*

*Location: Petišovci / Lendava / Slovenia*
*Investment: 200milio€
Licensed for: MOTO GP
Capacity: 75.000 
Opening: 2013
Architect: kubico domino arhitekti*
*Petrolija Motodrom= Moto GP Circuit, Polygon for safe driving, Speedway stadium*

If all goes as planned, will motodrom, along with seating for 75,000 spectators, built next year. They are also planning VIP facilities with lodges, medical center, luxury hotel, apartment complex, camping, bungalows and a golf course, and will also edit the existing lake.

Renders by kubico domino arhitekti


----------



## hsark

well lets start now


----------



## Axelferis

a render but where is the reality?


----------



## hsark

@ axel


----------



## Aka

Axelferis said:


> a render but where is the reality?


What is reality?


----------



## Axelferis

but the truth??! :dunno: 

i see that works are not achieved although the competition is in 6 months


----------



## qwert2011

That's really embarrassing...


----------



## Obelixx

*Devasted ski jumps*

I believe, there are many devasted ski jumps in the world. At least near my home town I know three. These are situated at Sindelfingen, Böblingen and Leinfelden-Musberg, but I know there are more - not only in Germany!


----------



## Alex_Riccio

*Football stadium on DATA Architects. ANDREZIEUX BOUTHEON, France.*

Client: Municipality of Andrezieux-Boutheon
Project management: DATA [architects] - Project Manager: Raphaël Masson [+ Edward David Lelong Guyard + + Julia Leroy]
Location: a place called the Gouyonnière, Andrezieux-Boutheon (42)
SHON: 2450 + 3000 m² covered seats
Cost: 4.5 M €
Delivery: unsuccessful project / contest 2011
































































DATA Architects


----------



## cakeju

*wich stadium/arena?*

Hi every one,
I'm competing in a Dutch forumcontest 'the national travel quiz'. Now i need to know the name of a stadium or arena. I spend already heaps of hours on the internet in search of this stadium/arena.But still can't find it. Now i'm asking it on this forum, does anyone has a clue???

Here's the link; http://www.wereldwijzer.nl/showthread.php?t=124454 
Sorry, don't know how to insert the photo. 


Hope some one knows.

Already many thanks!
An


----------



## gygy11

Axelferis said:


> but the truth??! :dunno:
> 
> i see that works are not achieved although the competition is in 6 months


 Hello from Serbia!
This stadium is projected one company from the Belgrade ,Serbia,here is the link to the renders 
http://www.studioromb.com/srb/projekti/arhitektura/34-fudbalski-stadion-20.000-mesta/ 
,and the roof is made from the other company from the central Serbia ,here is the link from the construction site 
http://www.amiga.rs/gabon.htm
I personaly not like the designe of the stadium,looks just too retro for my taste,but that's only my opinion.
Hope this stadium is gona be finished soon.:cheers:


----------



## lorevi

The fourth picture is not from Franceville but from Libreville Bongo.

Infrastructures are far from being ready.
It august there had a change of stadium in Libreville, the main city, between the Bongo stadium wich is not complete and the Angondjé stadium.

Bongo stadium:



Bongo in July



Angondjé stadium:







For Axel :Can you find your only brain?


----------



## Cubo99

Angondjé stadium:





Pls, can you mark location of this stadium on Google Maps, thx )


----------



## lorevi

Not google maps,but google earth:


----------



## IanCleverly

Original Thread Luxembourg new stadium



Wort.lu said:


> Construction begins on Luxembourg's new national stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday evening, Luxembourg City Mayor Lydie Polfer performed the inaugural groundbreaking for the future stadium, although it will be a two-year wait before the first ball is kicked or thrown around the new pitch. From October 2019, about 50 events a year are planned for the site, including national and international football matches, as well as rugby tournaments and other sports. The stadium will accommodate about 10,000 spectators seated around a 123-by-75-metre pitch.
> 
> 
> https://www.wort.lu/en/sport/kockel...new-national-stadium-59c0cf3656202b51b13c37ef


----------



## IanCleverly

progress on the above:-

https://www.facebook.com/FLF.lu/posts/1504513769678397


----------



## Master011

European football 2018 - 2019 finals stadiums


----------



## IanCleverly

Recent photos regarding Luxembourg's new stadium taken from earlier this month can be found Here


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Nice! What is the seated capacity?


----------



## adeaide

*Stade National de Luxembourg*











Seats : 9,385

Opening : October 2019




parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ Nice! What is the seated capacity?


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Thanks for the info.


----------



## The Game Is Up

NSL side Wazito FC release latest design for new stadium

https://www.goal.com/en-ke/news/nsl...ign-for-new-stadium/z8qtr9z8metz1ewr78gmv7rkt


----------



## IanCleverly

More on the new Luxembourg stadium from the week just gone.



Chronicle said:


> On Wednesday 3 April 2019, Luxembourg's new national football and rugby stadium hosted a number of dignataries and members of the press to review progress to date. The current national stadium, the Stade Josy Barthel on Route d'Arlon, is being replaced; in 2014 the new stadium project started in earnest with the identification of a new greenfield site, the allocation of budget and the start of the design and tendering process. Now the project is well underway, with 95% of the major structural work now completed and the technical work and the fitting out of the stadium recently commenced.
> 
> <snip as previous articles have covered stadium specifications>
> 
> The stadium is built in accordance with current standards, especially FIFA / UEFA (Category 4 - which requires 8,000+ seats) and World Rugby standards, which includes 200 parking spaces on-site. Another part of the development is a multi-modal transport hub right next to the stadium.
> 
> Following an initial indicative budget of €58,163,766.00 in July 2015, December 2016 saw this amount rise to €61,150,076.80, of which €791,826.75 was set aside for the development of the multi-functional parking area. The Luxembourg state has committed to underwrite 70% of the project's budget, up to a maximum of €40 million, with the rest being funded by the Ville de Luxembourg.
> 
> The work on the pitch, in laying a hybrid turf surface, is scheduled to start at the end of this month. The exterior landscaping work is to be done in parallel while respecting a specific phasing and in coordination with all other works.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The first football match at the new stadium is scheduled for late spring 2020. Steve Karier, President of the Luxembourg Rugby Federation, talked with Chronicle.lu and explained that, while it is possible that the federation may issue an invite to another federation for a friendly international, it is probable that the first rugby international at the new stadium will be a competitive match and will take place in autumn 2020.​
> 
> https://chronicle.lu/category/footb...ugby-stadium-scheduled-to-open-in-spring-2020


----------

