# Benelux FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bid



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

_*Associations of Belgium and the Netherlands officially announce interest in submitting joint bid(FIFA.com)* 

Wednesday 14 November 2007

In a meeting today (Wednesday, 14 November 2007) with FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter and FIFA General Secretary Jérôme Valcke, the Presidents of the football associations of Belgium, François de Keersmaecker, and the Netherlands, Mathieu Sprengers, officially announced their interest in submitting a joint bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup™.

"There are no borders between our countries, but there is a lot of friendship," stressed FIFA's guests. "Remember, we successfully hosted EURO 2000."

"These two neighbours are founder members of FIFA," said Blatter. FIFA explained that it was important for the governing body to have only one point of contact at local organising committee level.

Blatter also noted that other countries were already planning to submit bids. "It says everything about the popularity of football in general and the FIFA World Cup in particular that we already have concrete proposals for the 2018 World Cup."

The FIFA Executive Committee will allocate the hosting rights for the 2018 FIFA World Cup™ in 2011._

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/releases/newsid=637931.html

I've indicated the locations of the possible host cities on the map below:


----------



## sapmi1 (Jun 10, 2007)

"Remember, we successfully hosted EURO 2000"

And that's why they won't get the WC. It's too close in time.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

According to German news Japans also wants to host 2018 hno:


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Possible host cities:

*The Netherlands*

*Amsterdam* - 743.027










*Rotterdam* - 584.046










*Utrecht* - 288.731










*Eindhoven* - 210.860










*Groningen* - 180.824










*Enschede* - 154.311










*Alkmaar* - 93.986 










*Heerenveen* - 42.810 










*Belgium*

*Brussels* - 1.031.215 










*Antwerp* - 466.203










*Ghent* - 233.120










*Charleroi* - 201.550










*Liege* - 188.907










*Bruges* - 116.982 










*Genk* - 63.787


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

sapmi said:


> "Remember, we successfully hosted EURO 2000"
> 
> And that's why they won't get the WC. It's too close in time.


We're talking about two different tournaments, aren't we? And if you think 18 years is too little time even then, you might say the same for England1996-2018, South Africa 1996 (Africa Cup)-2010, China 2004 (Asian Cup)-2018. In other words, this is not an argument for me, and definitely not if we are talking about almost 20 years (and, I repeat, two different tournaments).

Now, what I read now, that Japan wants to host... that's another story.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

that's a joke. Japan?!


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

I made a Google Map of possible host-cities. 

I don't know much about the Belgian host stadiums (red), so I only marked the cities. The Dutch markers (blue) are placed at the (future) sites of the stadium, except Utrecht, which is a guess. It should be near the highway (A2).


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

ottooo said:


> I made a Google Map of possible host-cities.
> 
> I don't know much about the Belgian host stadiums (red), so I only marked the cities. The Dutch markers (blue) are placed at the (future) sites of the stadium, except Utrecht, which is a guess. It should be near the highway (A2).


For the possible location of the new stadium in Bruges, try this location in Google Maps:
Arentsdreef, Loppem 8210 Zedelgem, West-Vlaanderen, Vlaams Gewest, België
The stadium will be located on the right of where the arrow will appear.

Brussels:
try: vilvoordselaan 750 brussel
This will not give you the exact location of the stadium, but it will probably be built on the massive railway terrains to the right.


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

^^ Thanx, I've moved them to those locations.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

ottooo said:


> ^^ Thanx, I've moved them to those locations.


Alain Courtois also mentioned an expansion of the Fenix Stadium (Cristal Arena) in Genk from 25000 to 40000. It would only cost 17 million euros. Location in Google Maps: stadionplein genk

Finally, Gent also would like to join, with an expansion of their Arteveldestadion. The stadium with 20000 seats will be finished in 2009. Just try "arteveldestadion gent" in Google Maps.

For Antwerp they haven't decided on the location yet.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

I wonder if The Hague would be interested in being a host city (being the Dutch _de facto_ capital city, very internationally orientated and the countries third city with a population of about 475,000 within the city limits). However, since it's far from a sporting city I highly doubt it.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

I think The Hague should get a 40,000 seater without further ado.


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

ADO hardly draws a crowd at their new stadium, so I don't see that happening soon.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

those 17 000 000 euro's are not mentionned for the expension of the crisral arena but for preparing an executing the bid. The press cited mr courtois wrongly.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

ottooo said:


> ADO hardly draws a crowd at their new stadium, so I don't see that happening soon.


Maybe they can build a big Hockey stadium at the border with Wassenaar to be used for football at the World Cup :nuts: HCKZ, HDM and HGC are bigger than ADO these days :lol:


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Ottooo, you forgot Charleroi on your map.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

I want Belgium/Nettherland 2018 WC!! Cheers!!


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

eusebius said:


> I think The Hague should get a 40,000 seater without further ado.


No way that's gonna happen mate. The Hague just got a new 15,000 seater stadium, which they can't even fill. The local team from The Hague doesn't even play in the top division of Dutch football. I think you can pretty much rule out The Hague as a host city for 2018!


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

I think this whole idea isn't too good. Sorry- I am sure Benelux could easily afford this kind of event. But what sense is there if all the stadiums have to be 40k+ ? How many teams in Benelux can get crowds like that afterwards? Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Bruges, Anderlecht and who else? I think after these clubs there is too much of a gap. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And about Japan hosting the WC- I don't understand your feelings about that country, they've got to a point when they can easily host a tournament like that and their football is gaining fans and world mark really fast. Cheers to Urawa Reds for winning ACL by the way


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

michał_;16531562 said:


> I think this whole idea isn't too good. Sorry- I am sure Benelux could easily afford this kind of event. But what sense is there if all the stadiums have to be 40k+ ? How many teams in Benelux can get crowds like that afterwards? Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Bruges, Anderlecht and who else? I think after these clubs there is too much of a gap. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're quite wrong, FC Groningen already wants to expend to 40 000, and also FC Twente is investigation a 35 000 arena. Those are just two clubs who already want and can affort a 40 000 arena.
And they could make a arena just for the tournement, just like in every country!


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

michał_;16531562 said:


> I think this whole idea isn't too good. Sorry- I am sure Benelux could easily afford this kind of event. But what sense is there if all the stadiums have to be 40k+ ? How many teams in Benelux can get crowds like that afterwards? *Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Bruges, Anderlecht and who else*? I think after these clubs there is too much of a gap. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> And about Japan hosting the WC- I don't understand your feelings about that country, they've got to a point when they can easily host a tournament like that and their football is gaining fans and world mark really fast. Cheers to Urawa Reds for winning ACL by the way


Standard and Genk too  

BTW there will be a national stadium for Belgium.


----------



## Basel_CH (Jan 7, 2006)

Could that be a serious application? I think Holland and Belgium need at minimum 10 stadiums with minimum 40`000 seats, thats impossible, isn`t it??


----------



## witn88 (Mar 6, 2007)

Basel_CH said:


> Could that be a serious application? I think Holland and Belgium need at minimum 10 stadiums with minimum 40`000 seats, thats impossible, isn`t it??


Offcourse it is serieus. I only know the situtation in Belgium. Belgium should have 5 stadiums with a min capacity of 40 000.

Certitudes:
1 Brussels/Anderlecht: 60 000
2 Bruges: 45 000
3 Liège: 40 000
4 Antwerp: 40 000

For the 5th stadium their are many options: (all 40 000 offcourse)
> Genk: New ring
> Charleroi: New stadium
> Ghent: New ring. (They are going to build a new stadium of 20 000 next year.)


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Whilst I think this bid doesn't offer much in terms of facilities (just ten stadiums, most of which will only scrape that disgusting bare minimum of 40,000) I don't entirely write off the Dutch simply because I believe that they are very good organisers and that should be respected.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

The Dutch should go for it alone or don't even try.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

michał_;16531562 said:


> I think this whole idea isn't too good. Sorry- I am sure Benelux could easily afford this kind of event. But what sense is there if all the stadiums have to be 40k+ ? How many teams in Benelux can get crowds like that afterwards? Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Bruges, Anderlecht and who else? I think after these clubs there is too much of a gap. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> And about Japan hosting the WC- I don't understand your feelings about that country, they've got to a point when they can easily host a tournament like that and their football is gaining fans and world mark really fast. Cheers to Urawa Reds for winning ACL by the way


I think you're underestimating the popularity of football in the Netherlands and Belgium there. The average attendence in the Dutch eredivisie is 18,000 (almost the same as the average attendence in the Italian Serie A), compared to an average of just 13,000 10 years ago.

I'm pretty sure teams like AZ, Twente, FC Utrecht, Heerenveen and FC Groningen can draw a larger crowd as they currently do. PSV, Ajax and Feyenoord could also draw more people in a larger stadium I think.

Oh yeah, I see that you're from Poland. Do you think Polish teams can fill those new stadiums that'll be built for Euro 2012??


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> The Dutch should go for it alone or don't even try.


That's rubbish. What would be the advantage of a bid without the Belgians? I dont think we have 10 cities that can sustain a 40k + stadium. Besides, Belgium and the Netherlands already have the experience of euro 2000, and most of us speak the same language.


----------



## Koesj (Dec 27, 2006)

Okay, let's look at the _sellout_ crowds that are attracted to Dutch football every week: Ajax 50.000, Feyenoord 42.000, PSV 36.000, Heerenveen 26.000, Groningen 20.000, AZ Alkmaar 17.000. Now take the positive trend of the last 10 years and extend it into the future towards 2018. Why couldn't it be possible to have these clubs play in 40~70.000 stadiums afterwards while filling at least 75% of the seats?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Joop20 said:


> That's rubbish. What would be the advantage of a bid without the Belgians? I dont think we have 10 cities that can sustain a 40k + stadium. Besides, Belgium and the Netherlands already have the experience of euro 2000, and most of us speak the same language.


The difference in stadium quality in 2000 between the two countries was shocking. I have no reason to believe this will be any different in 10 years time. Despite Blatter's kind words (he has them for everyone) FIFA will be very reluctant to give the tournament to two hosts. And we could easily sustain ten 40,000 plus stadiums. If a dirt poor country like Portugal could host a Euro on their own, we should be able to host a World Cup. The only problem I foresee is the amount of hotel beds.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> The difference in stadium quality in 2000 between the two countries was shocking. I have no reason to believe this will be any different in 10 years time. Despite Blatter's kind words (he has them for everyone) FIFA will be very reluctant to give the tournament to two hosts.


You really need to do some reading up then mate. 

Construction on new stadiums in Bruges (45k?) and Brussels (60k?) will start in the next few years. The new stadium of Gent (20k) is already under construction, and can be expanded. Moreover, both Antwerp and Liege have shown interest in building new stadiums. So I don't think there will be any gap between the stadiums in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2018.

And Blatter this week stated that he isn't opposed to a joint bid by Belgium and the Netherlands, as long as there's one organizing commitee.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

netherlands alone? i don't think so. 

belgium has a lot advantages: we don't murder each other. Hooliganism in the past has caused more victims than community problems in belgium (0 so far). This political crisis is the absolute fact that even if the country hasn't a government. It continues rolling.

We are on transport services, culinair,... on top of the world. Life isn't expensive. You can eat dillicious and transport at cost-effective ways.
After heysel, police is sometimes heavy but always in control.
We speak generally 4 languages (Dutch, english, german, french). The dutch are not well in french and german. We have a lot experience in organising: euro 2000, Uefa U 17 championships,...
The stadiums during euro 2000 were in belgium not the best I know. But they were still beter than the stadiums in brazil, italy,... The fans were interacting with the game during euro 2000 in a way i have never seen in recent worl, eurocups.
Come to the cristal arena in genk. You will see that belgium isn't so bad as some dutch people think.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

ottooo said:


> I made a Google Map of possible host-cities.
> 
> I don't know much about the Belgian host stadiums (red), so I only marked the cities. The Dutch markers (blue) are placed at the (future) sites of the stadium, except Utrecht, which is a guess. It should be near the highway (A2).


Good work ottooo! I've made a map that indicates where the possible host cities are located:


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Joop20 said:


> You really need to do some reading up then mate.
> 
> Construction on new stadiums in Bruges (45k?) and Brussels (60k?) will start in the next few years. The new stadium of Gent (20k) is already under construction, and can be expanded. Moreover, both Antwerp and Liege have shown interest in building new stadiums. So I don't think there will be any gap between the stadiums in the Netherlands and Belgium in 2018.
> 
> And Blatter this week stated that he isn't opposed to a joint bid by Belgium and the Netherlands, as long as there's one organizing commitee.


New stadiums is one, quality stadiums is something else. All the new stands that recently have been build in Belgium are utter crap and the designs for Gent and Brugge look rather cheap to me.

Of course Blatter isn't opposed. The man is always extremely friendly and generous for visiting delegations. If an Icelandic delegation pays him a visit to announce a bid he will welcome it and praise the country for its footballing history as well.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> New stadiums is one, quality stadiums is something else. All the new stands that recently have been build in Belgium are utter crap and the designs for Gent and Brugge look rather cheap to me.


Good for you that you can judge the quality of a future stadium based on a render (that is far from official in the case of Bruges). Why would Belgians not be able to build quality stadiums, when the rest of the world is able to? 

And you should really give me a list of those 10 teams in the Netherlands that can fill a 40k stadium


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Well, you can use some temporarily seating if needed. That is exactly what Austria is doing for Euro 2008. Use some 45,000 seaters for the World Cup that you bring down to 35,000 after the world cup.

Rotterdam: De Kuip (monument, can't be demolished), new Feyenoord Stadium
Amsterdam: Amsterdam Arena: 65,000+
Eindhoven: hopefully a new 55,000+ stadium
Alkmaar: could sustain 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 10 years
Enschede: could sustain 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 10 years
Groningen: could sustain 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 10 years
Heerenveen: could sustain 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 10 years
Utrecht: could sustain 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 15 years
Den Haag: host to what is potentially the third club of the country, once they manage to really establish themselves in the Eredivisie again and kick out the hooligan element once and for all they could fill 35-40,000 on a regular basis within 20 years. The support in the city is there, people are currently simply to ashamed to be associated with the club.

Other potential host cities include Arnhem, Nijmegen en Kerkrade although these three probably can't fill 35-40,000 on a regular basis.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

michał_;16531562 said:


> And about Japan hosting the WC- I don't understand your feelings about that country, they've got to a point when they can easily host a tournament like that and their football is gaining fans and world mark really fast. Cheers to Urawa Reds for winning ACL by the way


I think you misunderstand. I doubt that anyone disputes the fact that Japan has the capability to host 2018.

The flaw in the idea is that Japan already HAS hosted 2002. Therefore, there's not a chance that Japan will get to host the World Cup again in the next thirty years - either on its own or in conjunction with another country.

In terms of the Asian Football Confederation alone, China and Australia, at the very least, will both be chosen as hosts before Japan gets another chance.

At a rough guess, I would estimate that 2042 is the very earliest that Japan could hope to host the WC again. And, in all probability, it could take quite a bit longer than that.


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

Then Belgium can do it on their own too ...


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Belgium won't be there come 2018.


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

^^

Belgium will be there for sure, The Netherlands will be flooded by then


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> Belgium won't be there come 2018.


Do you have some personal grudge against Belgium or Belgians, or are you so negative about them :nuts:? 

And are you one of those Dutch who thinks that Belgians are not so clever, or why do you think they lack the intelligence to build world class stadiums?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Quintana said:


> The Dutch should go for it alone or don't even try.





Joop20 said:


> That's rubbish. What would be the advantage of a bid without the Belgians? I dont think we have 10 cities that can sustain a 40k + stadium. Besides, Belgium and the Netherlands already have the experience of euro 2000, and most of us speak the same language.


By 2018 there won´t be any Belgium no more, just Walonie, Vlaanderen and Brussels.
The Netherlands could do a joint bid with Vlaanderen, if that would not become a part of the Netherlands (which would make sence) and Brussels.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

for me confort is more important than world architecture. If you have an other opinion, that's your problem.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

skaP187 said:


> By 2018 there won´t be any Belgium no more, just Walonie, Vlaanderen and Brussels.
> The Netherlands could do a joint bid with Vlaanderen, if that would not become a part of the Netherlands (which would make sence) and Brussels.


You might want to use the English names for Vlaanderen and Walonie (Flanders and Wallonia) if you want non-Dutch readers to understand your post . 

I think you should offer your crystal ball to the King of Belgium, I'm sure he'd like to see what has become of Belgium by 2018 with such certainty as you do! When does you crystal ball say that Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels will become independent nations?

Fact is that Belgium is still a country, despite the political turmoil. The deadline for submitting bids for the 2018 WC is in 2009, so I guess a joint bid with Flanders would make no sense, unless Flanders becomes independent in the next year or so.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Joop20 said:


> You might want to use the English names for Vlaanderen and Walonie (Flanders and Wallonia) if you want non-Dutch readers to understand your post .
> 
> I think you should offer your crystal ball to the King of Belgium, I'm sure he'd like to see what has become of Belgium by 2018 with such certainty as you do! When does you crystal ball say that Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels will become independent nations?
> 
> Fact is that Belgium is still a country, despite the political turmoil. The deadline for submitting bids for the 2018 WC is in 2009, so I guess a joint bid with Flanders would make no sense, unless Flanders becomes independent in the next year or so.


Thanks for the Enlish versions of these names. I´ll remember your post so I can copy and paste it.
And offcourse you are right, but then again you know my post is not based on nothing.

What does the Lux do in the bid by the way?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Joop20 said:


> Do you have some personal grudge against Belgium or Belgians, or are you so negative about them :nuts:?
> 
> And are you one of those Dutch who thinks that Belgians are not so clever, or why do you think they lack the intelligence to build world class stadiums?


I don't have anything against Belgians. I just don't see the necessity for a joint bid. I don't think they are not so clever either (although IQ test show they are clearly below us Cloggies ), just that they construct lousy stadiums. Why? I don't know. Maybe they have crappy architects or they just don't have or are willing to invest enough money :dunno:


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

skaP187 said:


> Thanks for the Enlish versions of these names. I´ll remember your post so I can copy and paste it.
> And offcourse you are right, but then again you know my post is not based on nothing.
> 
> What does the Lux do in the bid by the way?


Luxembourg will be used for the bank accounts.


----------



## stealt (Nov 4, 2007)

belgians and Dutch are equal to each other. And we need each other if we want to organise the world championship football in 2018.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

stealt said:


> belgians and Dutch are equal to each other. And we need each other if we want to organise the world championship football in 2018.


:cheers:


----------



## skytrax (Nov 12, 2006)

Benelux bid??? And were is the host city of Luxemburg?
I think the title mus be changed to Belgium/Netherlands 2018 WC bid!
But would be also great to have only Netherlands as host country.


----------



## witn88 (Mar 6, 2007)

skytrax said:


> Benelux bid??? And were is the host city of Luxemburg?
> I think the title mus be changed to Belgium/Netherlands 2018 WC bid!
> But would be also great to have only Netherlands as host country.


I think Luxemburg wil organise the drawing.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

I also think that Holland should make a solo bid. Not because I don't like Belgians (in contrary, I do) but because 1: We can. 2: Looking at the Belgian euro 2000 stadiums I'm a bit fearful for the quality of stadiums that they'll deliver this time. Because they can't fill them, thus don't really need them, I fear that the building budgets will be low...

And to those who think we shouldn't get the WC because we can't fill the stadiums: Let's just say we won't get the world cup shall we? What would be left of all those new stadium plans?

Belgium: 

*Antwerp*, won't be built (or at least a significantly smaller one) Who needs it?? Their biggest team (not 40000 big) plays in the second league, and their second team can't even fill their 13000 (to Belgian standards relatively modern) stadium
*Bruges*, will be built. Will be pretty much full .
*Brussels*, will be built. Anderlecht is big but 60000 big? Perhaps.
*Liege*, probably a renovation on their current stadium? Or a cheap-ass new one? They can fill 40000, but not on a weekly basis i think.
*Charleroi*, dream on... They can't even fill that sad excuse for a stadium halfway as it is...
*Gent*, just the proposed 20000 seater. No need for anything else. they currently attract only 9000 people on average...
*Genk*, nobody talked about expansion until the bid. They don't really need it but they could perhaps fill it.

A suggestion for any other city would be hilarious. So Belgium could never pull this of by themselves.

Netherlands:

*Amsterdam*, there already. expansion without WC will depend on cost.
*Rotterdam*, New 60000 ~ 80000 stadium will be there regardless of WC
*Eindhoven*, Still no plans or even rumours. But they fill their 36000 stadium for every match so either an expansion or new 50+k stadium within 10 years is very probable and needed if they want to build on their recent European success.
*Alkmaar*, The expansion to 40000 will be done. The architect sketches are finished (they look very nice and original). No definitive date has been set tough. Will it be full? Doubt it. We'll have to wait and see. The club's owner is a small, dutch Roman Abrhamovitsj though and he wants it...
*Enschede*, The expansion on the stadium from 13000 to 25000 has already started and will be finished at the start of next season (a second tier on half of the stadium). All those new seats have already been sold based on the waiting list for season tickets. A further expansion would take them to 43000 (according to club officials) Studies have shown that the club and it's region could sustain a stadium of that size. So it's their intension to go to 43000. Not because of a WC, but because they want to turn the Dutch top 4 into a top 5. 
*Heerenveen*, They never stop expanding. They went from a 8000 "stadium" to a proper new 13000 one during the mid nineties then they increased to 18000, 21000, 26600 and currently expanding to just under 30000. They have pretty much reached the end of possibilities. A new 40~45K stadium will eventually come. A World Cup would definitely speed up that process.
*Groningen*, currently 19500 (sold out for every match) will be expanded to 22500 (lowering the pitch) during the next summer.They want to expand with another tier to somewhere between 35 and 40K. They have put in a request with the architect. It will happen. The WC could be speeding up that process.


So for Holland that makes 7 sustainable WC capacity stadiums for Belgium more or less 3. To my calculations that makes 10.... 10 stadiums that will be build regardless of a WC. Unfortunatly, it will be 5 + 5. So there will be at least 2 white elephants in Belgium, and 2 fine dutch stadiums unused. For a solo Dutch bid, you've got several outsiders to fill the gap of 2 to 3:

*Utrecht*, They attract an average of 21000 in their recently completely renovated and expanded 25000 stadium. I don't think they would need a 40000 stadium. But the company that's sponsoring them has said they want to buy the club and build a new 40000 seater along the A2. Time will tell...
*Rotterdam*, "De Kuip" won't be demolished because it's an official monument. I see 2 problems though... 1. It will literally be right next door to the new stadium (about 50 meters) 2. Feyenoord is leaving it for a reason... Will it be structurally safe to use. Will it get through the safety tests?
*The Hague*, A bit like Antwerp, huge potential on paper but thats it... A 40000 seater in the Hague sound like a white elephant to me... But the local government might not want to miss out on being a host city...
*Kerkrade*, This could be the saving angel. Roda can't fill their 20000 stadium as it is, but I've read on several places that the local government have answered positively on the Dutch FA's request to be a host city. The plan would be to build a temporary second tier to make the capacity 40000. Apparently this was taken into consideration for these kind of circumstances when the stadium was build. It would be a relatively easy process and wouldn't be to costly. Besides that, a solo Dutch bid would desperately need a stadium in the province of Limburg to keep the event spread over the whole country
*Amsterdam/Almere*, Last week, the Dutch government has officially announced an investigation into a bid for the Olympic games in 2028. A new national 80K athletics stadium could be build by 2018. It would be the only stadium with a running track. But with a "stade de france" kind of movable 1st tier that wouldn't be much of a problem. 
*Arnhem*, They have a 30000 seater stadium and don't need anything bigger. And, with the roof and all, I think an expansion would be way too costly for only 3 or 4 WC matches.
*Nijmegen*, Wont happen. They just presented their (nice!)plans for the expansion of their stadium from 12500 to 20000. They'll have a hard time to fill just that...
*Breda*, NAC doesn't need it, but I heard suggestions that the local government wants it. They seem to be desperate to place themselves on the world map. They already paid a ridiculous amount of money to be attached to the high speed rail network. 

So yes, It can be done. Add to that: 

1. We are a world renowned footballing nation. Were still regarded as "the best nation never to have won the world cup". Our players and coaches are known all over the world. Belgium's most famous footballer wouldhave a hard time maken the top 20 if you would combine Holland and Belgium... Let's not start about the Belgian national team. If they will keep going downhill like they are now, by 2018 it would be a toss-up who gets the second host spot. Belgium or Luxembourg. In a solo bid, this could be played in our advantage: Don't we as a footballing nation deserve it then to host it? 
2. Orange! Everybody loves our (national team) supporters. They behave well and bring liveliness everywhere they go. Wouldn't it be nice to host it in their country for once? Fun guaranteed. 

These are two very important factors for informal lobbying that could be an important way to persuade people to vote for us. With the Belgians the power of those arguments declines...

Unfortunately, a solo bid wont happen. Maybe it would be best for us to lose out to England and try our own luck in 202x or 203x.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

^^ Good post, I saw an interview with an executive on PSV.tv. PSV are looking into the possibilities to expand the capacity of the Philips Stadion to 42,000 regardless of the World Cup. He didn't rule out the possibility of a new stadium entirely either although he has a preference to stay at the Philips Stadion.


----------



## taboe (Jan 30, 2007)

mavn said:


> 2. Orange! Everybody loves our (national team) supporters.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

taboe said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Ok, Shall we ask all the non (frustrated) belgian people? Cause unfortunately it seems that you can't put your hatred towards dutch people aside. At Olympic games, WC, and EC's we are applauded for our behavior in the stadiums and the cities (never any incidents) + the thick orange mass that we form in a stadium. This argument could count for a several other countries, but Belgium sure as hell aint one of them...


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

They have a lot of Flemish nationalists waving flags at cycling races though :cheers:


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Come on, let's continue the way we have always been behaving towards and looking each other: not with hatred (don't be silly) but with the jokes and prejudices, which we don't take too serious, and which are no constraint for good neighbourship.

And seriously, I can't figure out where you get the idea that we envy of hate Dutch people, mavn.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Quintana said:


> They have a lot of Flemish nationalists waving flags at cycling races though :cheers:


Pretty ridicilous in my opinion, but hey, if they just stick to that, no problem. And as long as they don't accidentily stick it in a fellowman's wheels in all their enthousiasm (remember Paris-Roubaix).

But they definitely show a lot more enthousiasm when it comes to expressing their nationalist feelings than the supporters of the Belgian squad, that's for sure.


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

Why this discussion? There will be a Belgian/Dutch bid, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: I don't see Belgium falling apart. They will stay one country.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Chimaera said:


> Come on, let's continue the way we have always been behaving towards and looking each other: not with hatred (don't be silly) but with the jokes and prejudices, which we don't take too serious, and which are no constraint for good neighbourship.
> 
> And seriously, I can't figure out where you get the idea that we envy of hate Dutch people, mavn.


By no means did I try to say that all belgians hate the dutch. But he's obviously frustrated with us or something. On contrary to what you're impliyng, I think Belgians are generally a lot friendlier than the dutch. 

There is always a bit of healthy rivalry between our two nations. We are a bit bigger and (no offense) considerably better in sports which fuels that feeling especially in Belgium. A bit like we have with the Germans. Bigger and better. Thats why we like beating Germany so much and you like beating us.

Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.


----------



## taboe (Jan 30, 2007)

mavn said:


> Ok, Shall we ask all the non (frustrated) belgian people? Cause unfortunately it seems that you can't put your hatred towards dutch people aside.


jezus christ, it's a joke, man! Furthermore I don't know anyone in Belgium who is jealous of the Netherlands in any way. If anyone is acting hatefull, it's you. This thread is about the Belgium/Netherlands bid, but you keep bringing down the Belgian stadiums, teams and future projects...
It's a joint bid, so don't come whining about Holland organizing it on their own. Euro2000 was a big success, I don't see any reason a WC couldn't be one as well...


----------



## taboe (Jan 30, 2007)

mavn said:


> Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.


alrightie then :cheers:


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

mavn said:


> By no means did I try to say that all belgians hate the dutch. But he's obviously frustrated with us or something. On contrary to what you're impliyng, I think Belgians are generally a lot friendlier than the dutch.
> 
> There is always a bit of healthy rivalry between our two nations. We are a bit bigger and (no offense) considerably better in sports which fuels that feeling especially in Belgium. A bit like we have with the Germans. Bigger and better. Thats why we like beating Germany so much and you like beating us.
> 
> Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.


I can't deny that Holland is generally better in sports, but I think that is mainly a matter of mentality, and not of means or pure talent. The Dutch always had a bigger mouth than us, to put it simple, and a bigger urge to show off (although a bit moderated by protestantism). Belgians tend to be more modest and humble, and maybe more realistic (a bit to an unnecessary degree). Plus we always have to find compromises between this and that party when we want to realise something, and to many parties are involved, where as in Holland it seems more easy "to get all noses pointing in the same direction".
The same goes for architecture. It would be great if we could perform as well or better than you guys, but simply to do better, much better than we are doing now, to set an example of what a small country can be capable of. And not (at least not from my personal point of view) "to beat the Dutch". Infact I respect a lot of Dutch sportsmen, as long as they don't get (too) arrogant. And even the humpa-humpa orange madness is quite funny if you look at it from a distance and don't let yourself be irritated by it.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Joop20 said:


> I think you're underestimating the popularity of football in the Netherlands and Belgium there. The average attendence in the Dutch eredivisie is 18,000 (almost the same as the average attendence in the Italian Serie A), compared to an average of just 13,000 10 years ago.
> 
> I'm pretty sure teams like AZ, Twente, FC Utrecht, Heerenveen and FC Groningen can draw a larger crowd as they currently do. PSV, Ajax and Feyenoord could also draw more people in a larger stadium I think.
> 
> Oh yeah, I see that you're from Poland. Do you think Polish teams can fill those new stadiums that'll be built for Euro 2012??


I'm sorry if you felt like I was underestimating the potential on purpose. I just don't see the overall tendency here so I might have been wrong, no intention though. You know it better.

Still- 5 000 increase over a decade is not too much really. To compare and try to answer your question about Poland- we've had 3 000 increase within 1,5 year and surely with new investments it will get better. Noticeable especially when you add that it was 5,5k and is 8,5k per game  . That of course may mean everything and nothing... I think with a bit of luck and a lot of hard work we would be able to make use of the stadiums after E2012. But I have to say we also might not be able to cope with the new reality...

By the way- if Groningen already wants to expand their stadium wouldn't that mean they haven't really examined the possibilities in the first place? After all Euroborg was just opened... Same for AZ and Utrecht...


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Chimaera said:


> I can't deny that Holland is generally better in sports, but I think that is mainly a matter of mentality, and not of means or pure talent. The Dutch always had a bigger mouth than us, to put it simple, and a bigger urge to show off (although a bit moderated by protestantism). Belgians tend to be more modest and humble, and maybe more realistic (a bit to an unnecessary degree). Plus we always have to find compromises between this and that party when we want to realise something, and to many parties are involved, where as in Holland it seems more easy "to get all noses pointing in the same direction".
> The same goes for architecture. It would be great if we could perform as well or better than you guys, but simply to do better, much better than we are doing now, to set an example of what a small country can be capable of. And not (at least not from my personal point of view) "to beat the Dutch". Infact I respect a lot of Dutch sportsmen, as long as they don't get (too) arrogant. And even the humpa-humpa orange madness is quite funny if you look at it from a distance and don't let yourself be irritated by it.


I wouldn't want to be seen alive in that orange mass of either. But I like what it does to the look of a filled stadium and our image worldwide.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

michał_;16541623 said:


> By the way- if Groningen already wants to expand their stadium wouldn't that mean they haven't really examined the possibilities in the first place? After all Euroborg was just opened... Same for AZ and Utrecht...


Yep. And for Heerenveen, Twente, etc.

When it comes to building stadiums we have a tendency to go for the absolute lowest expected average. A positive note however, is that pretty much all our stadiums are completely full. 20000 in a 20000 stadium looks a lot nicer than 26000 in a 40000 stadium.


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

It's almost a 100% certain that Belgium will get in the next few years lots of new stadiums (finally!). With or without the 2018 WC.


- Brussels (new national stadium)
- Antwerp
- Ghent
- Brugge (pic: http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stadionux9.jpg)
- Genk
- Charleroi
- Liège


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Thermo said:


> It's almost a 100% certain that Belgium will get in the next few years lots of new stadiums (finally!). With or without the 2018 WC.
> 
> 
> - Brussels (new national stadium)
> ...


A new stadium in Charleroi even without WC2018? Did I miss out on something Thermo?

May I add that the stadium in Genk will not be new, but expanded. And you forgot the smaller new, expanded or renovated stadiums in Waregem, Sint-Truiden, Mons and maybe Mechelen and Lier. But they won't be in World Cup category.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Thermo said:


> - Brussels (new national stadium)
> - Antwerp
> - Ghent
> - Brugge (pic: http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stadionux9.jpg)
> ...


About Brussels- what will happen to Koenig Boudewijn Stadium? And what about the expansion of Constan Vanden Stock? Presented here: http://www.stadiumguide.com/anderlecht.htm

Plus- the design for Brugge was presented quite some time ago and it still seems initial- has anything gone forward?


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

mavn said:


> So for Holland that makes 7 sustainable WC capacity stadiums for Belgium more or less 3. To my calculations that makes 10.... 10 stadiums that will be build regardless of a WC. Unfortunatly, it will be 5 + 5.


Do you have info that we don't? I havent heard anything yet about the distribution of stadiums between Belgium and the Netherlands, imo its more likely that the distribution will be 4/6 that 5/5.

And we can go on for ages whether the Netherlands should bid alone or not, but it's not gonna happen... So lets have a positive discussion here about the Benelux bid :cheers:.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Brussels is going to buil a stadium (60000) of 250 000 000 euro's in a complex of 1 000 000 000 euro's. Estadio da luz (lissabon; 64000) costs 118 mio euro. That's more than half the cost + 4000 seats more. I think this will be a 'quality stadium'.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

stadium genk that can be expanded:

http://www.tvl.be/nl/nieuws/2007-11-15/stadion-genk-op-wk-2018/

Is this so bad?


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

michał_;16542168 said:


> Plus- the design for Brugge was presented quite some time ago and it still seems initial- has anything gone forward?


Club Bruges wouldn't want anything more than to move on, and they have the plans and the money, but there is a lot of opposition, from politicians in Bruges and Loppem (new stadium location), from nimby's...

The mayor of Bruges wants to keep FC Bruges in the city in Bruges, in the existing stadium, and wants to refurbish and expand it. Problem is: where do they get the money; and secondly: +15000 seats means even more traffic in this densily populated neighbourhood, where there are no big roads and parking lots, no tram lines or metro or light rail, no train station... Plus: Bruges finally wants its own stadium, instead of sharing a city owned stadium with Cercle, but paying more than 90% of the rent...
And it would take a lot of work and money to transform Jan Breydelstadium in something modern and comfortable...


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

mavn said:


> By no means did I try to say that all belgians hate the dutch. But he's obviously frustrated with us or something. On contrary to what you're impliyng, I think Belgians are generally a lot friendlier than the dutch.
> 
> There is always a bit of healthy rivalry between our two nations. We are a bit bigger and (no offense) considerably *better in sports* which fuels that feeling especially in Belgium. A bit like we have with the Germans. Bigger and better. Thats why we like beating Germany so much and you like beating us.
> 
> Like I said, I would've liked us to have bid for the WC on our own. But now that we've teamed-up I am supporting it all the way.


In 'small' sports but in the end the sports that internationally count are these:

Football
Cycling
Tennis
Athletics

In football you are better, but Tennis: Henin, Cycling: Boonen, Athletics : Gevaert,Hellebaut.

And they are a lot of other sports we are better in or even world leaders but that counts for The Netherlands too.


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

I don't see why people think the Belgian stadiums will be white elephants.

National stadium: full, in tournament and if they play good i think too.
Bruges: full
Standard: full
Genk: full
Anderlecht: maybe, 60000 is a bit too much i think but they haven't said yes already to cooperate with the national stadium, so maybe they build a 50000 on their own.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

The stadiums you´re naming are allright I gues. Don´t see why they would be white elephants either.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_In 'small' sports but in the end the sports that internationally count are these:_

Cycling matters more than Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby Union and Handball?


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

Lostboy said:


> Cycling matters more than Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Ice Hockey, Rugby Union and Handball?


yes ... of course it does, maybe not in America but the sports you name doesn't matter B or N aren't good at that.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Sorry but internationally all of those sports could rival cycling. I understand the cycling is big in the Lowlands, but elsewhere it isn't - of course a lot of people cycle, but few of them do so competitively - whereas Basketball for instance is huge, as is cricket, these are major world sports.


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

Baseball and Rugby is mostly in the angelsaxon countries,cricket is a very unknown sport in Europe i think and basketball or handball are popular sports but not in the way like cycling does ...

Cycling is likely everywhere besides SE Asia.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Cricket is big around the world, of course I realise you are a Wallonian and you believe that non-white people are inferior witness the disgusting treatment of the Congo under Leopold and Tintin - but there are cities in India bigger than the entire population of Belguim, son. People cycle everywhere, just the same as people walk everywhere, doesn't mean they do so competitively fool. Baseball big in Anglo-Saxon countries, like Venezuela and Japan and the Philippines? And even if that was true, look at the population of the English Speaking World its around 400 million, not small within itself. Rugby is certainly one of the fastest growing sports and France and Italy (where it is experiencing substantial growth) can hardly be termed Anglo-Saxon, nor Argentina. Basketball is huge, played in every continent and the national sport of several European Countries. Ice Hockey is the same. Sorry but competitive cycling is biggest in Belguim, it does not rival those other sports, Wallonian.


----------



## Arjuch (Aug 16, 2007)

Kampflamm said:


> Belgium has some good youth teams. I think in 2018 they're gonna have a decent team...if the country is still around. Seriously, what would happen if the country were to break up before then?


That's a difficult question, probably each part will win a World Cup, the problem is who gets the first one. There are rumours Flanders would give the first one to wallonia in return Fl. would get the European Cup.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

europe! said:


> That's a difficult question, probably each part will win a World Cup, the problem is who gets the first one. There are rumours Flanders would give the first one to wallonia in return Fl. would get the European Cup.


huh?


----------



## dennol (Sep 11, 2002)

One of my favourite former football players, Luc Nilis, is Belgian. That's enough for me. 

Seriously isn't it stupid that a thread about the 2018 Benelux bid turns into a fight between Dutch and Belgians as if the Flemings and Walloon are not busy enough fighting each other. Luckily we are not so keen on violence or else this bid would be just as succesful as 1992 Yugoslavia trying to get the Olympics.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

I am not a big fan of these double country bids. Russia should host the WC2018.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

The only cue game that counts, Wallonian, is Snooker, a noble Northern Warrior Game and I don't know a single Belguim player at that. More importantly this Germanic Game is spreading fast in China as another one of our sports takes over the world with so little effort. Never mind, I am sure Wallonian Nose Scratching or whatever games you have, will soon be an Olympic Sport...


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

Why Is this thread title Benelux 2018 World Cup bid when Luxembourg isn't even going to be a part of it? :crazy: Anywas, this bid is 2nd to me. I'd rather Australia get it.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

lmcm1990 said:


> Why Is this thread title Benelux 2018 World Cup bid when Luxembourg isn't even going to be a part of it? :crazy: Anywas, this bid is 2nd to me. I'd rather Australia get it.


Luxembourg will host some official WC meetings and probably the draw. Obviously, Luxembourg won't get an automatic entry. The Benelux was the first economical "union" within europe and the three countries work together very closely on a lot of issues. If done properly, nobody would ever notice that they are crossing country borders during the event. We have the same currency, no visible borders, Language won't really be a problem (all stadiums but 1 or 2 will be in Dutch speaking cities. 

The reason that the bid is brought forward as a Benelux bid is because then it can be presented as a sort "one nation" bid. Japan and Korea had two different organizing committees which FIFA doesn't except anymore. The Benelux bid will have only one combined organizing committee. FIFA has already said that they don't see a problem with a joint bid if that is the case.

And about Australia, I see many problems: 
-It would mean at least 16 years of no WC football in Europe. 
-The time zone. It's horrible for the major TV-markets. 
-The 1 stadium per city rule could be a problem. They currently heavily depend on a lot of non-football specific stadiums (ovals). So a lot of new stadiums/extension would have to be build.
-AFL will have to "give away" some stadiums for 1 or 2 months and I've gotten the impression that's easier said then done... 
-It will be winter in Australia (in all honesty I don't now what that means for the average tempratures. Last time I checked, you weren't a great winter sports country so I guess there won't be a Skiing WC next door to any venue...)
-It still hasn't got a football culture. They only reached the WC last time for the first time in many, many years. I would like them to show that they are not a one hit wonder, and can actually sustain that level. For all we know, they miss the WC in 2010 and 2014, and football in Australia will die as quickly as it has risen in the last few years. 

But If these problems are solved (apart from the timezone and climate obviously), Australia could make a bid that would challenge the best. Among others, the Sydney Olympics showed they are one of the best countries in the world when it comes to hosting sports events. And the general population is probably more sports crazy then any other country in the world...


----------



## Kappa21 (Sep 24, 2005)

Why after 18 years, does BeNeLux get to host another world cup again?


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Kappa21 said:


> Why after 18 years, does BeNeLux get to host another world cup again?


Belgium and Netherlands hosted Euro 2000. Not the WC.

France hosted Euro 84 an WC 98 (14 years)
Germany hosted Euro 88 and WC 2006 (18 years)
Benelux hosted Euro 2000 and WC 2018 would mean 18 years
England hosted Euro 96 and WC 2018 would mean 22 years

I don't really see a problem... England has a small advantage here, But England has hosted a world cup before. Benelux has never. So, If anything, the scale would tip slightly in our advantage I think...


----------



## Kappa21 (Sep 24, 2005)

^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do? 
You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums. 

So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000? 
But with a small population and so forth, what is the point of making a 50,000 stadium in a city or a county with no more than 50-75,000 people? :? 

but anyways, i wish you guys luck. 
How about giving the Israel-Palestinians a shot at the World Cup? 
www.goal2018.org/
Click here


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Kappa21 said:


> ^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do?
> You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums.
> 
> So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000?
> ...


I think an Israel-Palestine WC would be a fantastic thing. But (without wanting to go into politics) it seems like a unrealistic dream for atleast several decades. It would already be great if they ever made a bid. Let alone get it and embrace it together in peace...

I made a big post about stadiums on page 3. Even if we don't get the world cup, by 2018 we'll have at least 10 stadiums (holland and belgium combined) with world cup capacities and facilities. It might surprise you, but the Dutch league has the same average attendance as Italy's Serie A and only slightly less than France's Ligue 1. And all stadiums are pretty much sold out for every match. So expansions are needed. 

As it looks right now, from the 8 Euro 2000 stadiums, only the Amsterdam Arena and perhaps the Philips Stadium (eindhoven) will be used (maybe they'll buil a new one). Both will be expanded. All other stadiums will be either new or complete renovations (+expansions) in the euro 2000 cities and others.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Kappa21 said:


> ^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do?
> You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums.
> 
> So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000?
> ...


The only stadiums that might be upgraded of the possible host cities are Genk en Ghent. But in the case of Ghent that would be an expansion of a 20,000-seater that is yet to be built (2009), and Genk's Cristal Arena is the most modern and comfortable of the +20,000 stadiums in Belgium today. All the other stadiums will be new.
For now there are 7 possible host cities:
Brussels: 1,031,000 inhabitants
Antwerp: 466,000
Ghent: 202,000
Charleroi: 201,000
Liège: 189,000
Bruges: 117,000
Genk: 64,000
So your argument concerning the size of the cities doesn't really make sense. Plus: the bigger clubs attract people far beyond the city limits. And finally, Belgium has one of the highest average attendances in relation to its population and size.


----------



## Josh (May 30, 2004)

Chimaera said:


> The only stadiums that might be upgraded of the possible host cities are Genk en Ghent. But in the case of Ghent that would be an expansion of a 20,000-seater that is yet to be built (2009), and Genk's Cristal Arena is the most modern and comfortable of the +20,000 stadiums in Belgium today. All the other stadiums will be new.
> For now there are 7 possible host cities:
> Brussels: 1,031,000 inhabitants
> Antwerp: 466,000
> ...


^^Ghent has a population of 250,000. :cheers:


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Josh said:


> ^^Ghent has a population of 250,000. :cheers:


I made a typing mistake, according to Wikipedia (if it can be trusted) the right number is 235,000.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

So are we still on or what?!


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Arnhem has also started an investigation to expand it's stadium.

http://www.gelderlander.nl/arnhem/2183980/Onderzoek-naar-WKwaardig-Gelredome.ece

















Because of the retractable roof, it would be focused on getting the extra 13000 seats in the now obviously unused corners. It's an investigation on whether it can be done or not. Vitesse doesn't need the expansion. But for all the concerts and other non-football events that the stadium hosts it could be very welcome. And I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a construction in which you can blind the corners back to it's current state and only remove them when needed. It would be ideal. Vitesse won't play in a half filled stadium. But they would have 13000 seats of growth waiting to be used if needed and more revenues can be made off of concerts and other events. 

But hey, that's Holland for you. We only see problems, obstacles and expenses. Never opportunities and revenues... hno: 

We needed Belgium to be reminded that we might be able to host a combined World cup, and within two weeks of announcing our bid, we have cities jumping over one and other to become a host city. I wouldn't be surprised that come 2018 we'll have enough stadiums to have hosted it ourselves... No offence to Belgium, but we might have missed a golden opportunity as a nation... We just would have needed Eindhoven to build that extra 55 to 60k seater that Brussels will deliver. A capacity that i'm pretty sure they could fill. 

As one of the biggest nations in International football, we could have successfully claimed a world cup. Now we have to overcome the problems of a joint bid. In all areas, a solo bid would be either similar or better... Again, no offence to our Belgian friends and future co-hosts.

Ok, I'll try to quit whining over a solo bid once and for al, but when I look at all these recent events... The KNVB and our government need to be :bash: over this...


----------



## TC03 (Sep 1, 2005)

Kappa21 said:


> ^^ Im all for it, but what are you guys going to do?
> You guys are heavily densed and dont have much space for new stadiums.
> 
> So whats the next solution? upgrading stadiums? From Euro 2000?
> ...


- Heavily densed, compared to other countries maybe, but it doesn't mean that there isn't enough space to build a new stadium. It's not like we have Tokyo/HK-densities all over the country. Building new stadiums is easily possible, but most of the stadiums will get the required capacity by expanding, so you are right on that one.

Second, I don't know where you got that "50-75,000", but The Netherlands and Belgium have got more than enough areas/cities with a LOT more people than 75,000. For instance, Amsterdam (740,000, metro 1,2 million), Rotterdam (580,000, metro 1,3 million), Brussels (1 million, metro unsure), to name a few. 

Third, it's not that we are just building stadiums for the WC, most stadiums will be used by their clubs too, without being half-empty.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

TC03 said:


> Third, it's not that we are just building stadiums for the WC, most stadiums will be used by their clubs too, without being half-empty.


I think the stadiums which would be extended would atleast be 75/80 % full after a WC. Also when their won´t be doing that well for a season or what.
The big question is will after or before this tournemant be a combined competition. You know what I am talking about. The Beneliga!


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

When I read all this, I really want Holland to go for it alone. Jeez.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

genkie456 said:


> The dutch are not well


I feel very well, thank you! My GP told me I'm healthy!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Quintana said:


> If one of those teams can only average 2500 people per game it shouldn't even exist though.


Why not? they are there, fair and square.
I am not going to discuss the fact that PSV is the best team of the last 10-15 years of the Netherlands, simply because their can´t be a discussion about it.
But as a city Rotterdam has been capital for football from the past untill now.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

skaP187 said:


> Why not? they are there, fair and square.
> I am not going to discuss the fact that PSV is the best team of the last 10-15 years of the Netherlands, simply because their can´t be a discussion about it.
> But as a city Rotterdam has been capital for football from the past untill now.


Excuse me..., 10 to 15 years ago Ajax was ruling the world. let alone the Netherlands...

Before that period and since the millennium change PSV clearly has been the most successful team tough.

We don't have a football capitol. Rotterdam has 3 teams but one of those is only staying alive due to TV money brought in by others and their biggest team has lost (on average) a lot of ground on both Ajax and PSV in the last decades. Amsterdam has only one team, but that team has historically by far been the most successful both nationally and internationally. Eindhoven is big since PSV is, togheter with Ajax, the most successful in the last 20 to 30 years.

If we would have a football capitol I think it would be Zeist... Home of the KNVB. (our national FA)


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

mavn said:


> Excuse me..., 10 to 15 years ago Ajax was ruling the world. let alone the Netherlands...
> 
> Before that period and since the millennium change PSV clearly has been the most successful team tough.
> 
> ...



Okay, Zeist it is... Perfect place for a 100 K national stadium in the centre of the country.:banana:


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

That will never happen, the Football Association chose for Zeist because of the calm and quiet of Zeist. Zeist is of strategic importance as well; the Lockerbie Trial took place at Zeist.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

eusebius said:


> That will never happen, the Football Association chose for Zeist because of the calm and quiet of Zeist. Zeist is of strategic importance as well; the Lockerbie Trial took place at Zeist.


It would kill all the Amsterdam vs Rotterdam discussions which would almost make it worth it...


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

An interesting article appeared on the Belgian football news website voetbalkrant.com. I'll try to make a quick translation.

Courtois: "France and Spain support World Cup in Benelux"

France and Spain will support the Belgian-Dutch plans to organize the World Cup in 2018, project leader Alain Courtois said to the newspaper "Het Laatste Nieuws". Courtois was in South Africa last weekend to attend the World Cup draw and to make connections with 2018 in mind.

source: voetbalkrant.com

"And we succeeded in that, we made good contacts", says Courtois. "Countries like Spain and France have agreed to support our candidature. It looks like it will be a competition between England and us. In any case it is clear that we are considered a worthy candidate by everyone over here. On December 20th we'll launch the Dutch-Belgian candidature at the Egmont Palace (reception building of the ministry of foreign affairs) in the presence of Guy Verhofstadt (the resigning prime minister).


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

Chimaera said:


> France and Spain will support the Belgian-Dutch plans to organize the World Cup in 2018, project leader Alain Courtois said to the newspaper "Het Laatste Nieuws". Courtois was in South Africa last weekend to attend the World Cup draw and to make connections with 2018 in mind.


I don't agree with this point of view: 
- Spain won't support any bid because Spain want to host WC2018
- France will probabilly support England, like the other European countries will do. Europe can't let the WC2018 going to Oceania, North America or Asia: Europe should be united behind the best European bid....and it's England even Bekenbauer, Zoff and Platini, who are not English fans, admited that).
Courtois is using the Couë method but it will not works.

A Benelux bid would be unfair because: 
- Europe got only 13 qualified teams for 53 countries (when South America got 4 or even 5 for only 10 countries...), 
- Belgium, Netherland and Luxemburg (lol) will be qualified without playing,
--> Europe's ratio would be 10 / 50: it's almost the same than Asia or Africa. 

So, let's support *WORLD CUP: ENGLAND 2018*


----------



## Mr D (Aug 31, 2005)

Luxemburg is not automatically qualified in case Benelux get to host the WC, only Belgium and the Netherlands.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

eomer said:


> I don't agree with this point of view:
> - Spain won't support any bid because Spain want to host WC2018
> - France will probabilly support England, like the other European countries will do. Europe can't let the WC2018 going to Oceania, North America or Asia: Europe should be united behind the best European bid....and it's England even Bekenbauer, Zoff and Platini, who are not English fans, admited that).
> Courtois is using the Couë method but it will not works.
> ...


Make sure your facts are right next time. Luxemburg won't qualify automatically in case of a Benelux 2018 world cup, they obviously dont have any business playing there! Netherlands are likely to be one of the 13 qualifying countries anyways, and who knows Belgium might be back at a decent level by 2018. So stating that a Benelux bid would be unfair is rubbish. As far as I remember, England didn't even qualify for euro 2008, and the Netherlands did.

Moreover, how can you be so sure that the England bid will be the best??? As far as I know, nothing more than rumours and speculations are known regarding the European bids. I say let's wait and see what the different bids have to offer, and then we'll see who has the best bid.


----------



## djwizard84 (Nov 21, 2007)

i don't support a WC in europe because it's not healthy for the system... 

by the way, since always europe has a WC each 8 years, now thanks to South Africa & Brasil we will not flight there maybe till 2018, but personally i don't want to...

i prefere China, Australia or Canada. 
new countries, fresh places to visit, to support & to encourage!!!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Every third world cup in Europe is the best compromise at the moment.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

djwizard84 said:


> i don't support a WC in europe because it's not healthy for the system...
> 
> by the way, since always europe has a WC each 8 years, now thanks to South Africa & Brasil we will not flight there maybe till 2018, but personally i don't want to...
> 
> ...


Canada won't be able to host the world cup for ages, they haven't got enough stadiums by far. I agree that giving every third WC to Europe is a good compromise.


----------



## djwizard84 (Nov 21, 2007)

RobH said:


> Every third world cup in Europe is the best compromise at the moment.


you're right... but it should be a new country, why?

because that's the main goal of FIFA, isn't it???
to promote & to encourage new economies around the world.

my bid goes for BENELUX :cheers:
... if it stay in europe, ok.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

BeNe and not Lux put up this bid. No use in mentioning Lux.

As for the stadiums; bear in mind that the ArenA and Gelredôme are similar. The solution to expand either one will apply to both rather easily I'd reckon.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

eusebius said:


> BeNe and not Lux put up this bid. No use in mentioning Lux.
> 
> As for the stadiums; bear in mind that the ArenA and Gelredôme are similar. The solution to expand either one will apply to both rather easily I'd reckon.


To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed. I haven't heard of any plans of expanding the Gelredome, and I think it's quite unnecessary, Vitesse won't fill more seats than it does at the moment.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Joop20 said:


> To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed. I haven't heard of any plans of expanding the Gelredome, and I think it's quite unnecessary, Vitesse won't fill more seats than it does at the moment.


Vitesse doesn't want to expand. They're glad if the can get the rent paid in time.

Arnhem and Gelredome do want to expand. The majority of revenue for the stadium isn't coming from Vitesse. It's coming from Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Marco Borsato and Tiesto. More seats will mean more revenue.

Arnhem wants to be hostcity for 2018 (dutch)


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Joop20 said:


> To my eyes those two stadiums look rather different, the only thing they have in common is a roof that can be closed.


And that was my point.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

_to promote & to encourage new economies around the world._

There was I thinking FIFA's main goal was football based.

I'd hardly call the Dutch, the oldest capitalist country in the world, a new economy. I wouldn't call Belguim, the second oldest industrialised nation, particularly new either.


----------



## Rotterdam A (Feb 14, 2003)

Rotterdam is going to build a stadium with a capacity of 100.000 seats. The cost will be at €800 million.

It's going to be build next to the present Feyenoord stadium(capacity 51.177).


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

Rotterdam A said:


> Rotterdam is going to build a stadium with a capacity of 100.000 seats. The cost will be at €800 million.
> 
> It's going to be build next to the present Feyenoord stadium(capacity 51.177).


Still curious where on earth the money is going to come from. Do the Rotterdam city council really have 800 millions euros to spend on a new ground for feyenoord? I guess some will come from private funding but still .... what about the rest? I'd honestly like to see it but I remain cautious about this project.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Quintana said:


> I think I heard or read somewhere that the KNVB asked 12 Dutch cities whether they were interested in becoming a host city. Only Utrecht said they were not, all the others were. The 12 cities were - out of the top of my head - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Groningen, Tilburg, Breda, Enschede, Arnhem, Kerkrade, Alkmaar and Heerenveen.


From what I've read, Utrecht did want to be a host city. They turned down the plans from Phanos (building a new 40 to 50000 stadium in return for exploiting the old stadium site with new building projects) before this process was started, but a becoming a possible host city for the Worldcup could chance their minds, and at least reconsider it, or come up with new ones.

OK, were do we stand at the beginning of 2008. Here's a roundup of all Dutch cities that have declared interest in becoming a host city. From what I've read in papers and all other media:

AMSTERDAM: 
ArenA extension to 70000+ looks very likely. A new 80000+ stadium for the World cup, 2028 Olympic Games bid, and perhaps the new home for Ajax is a big question mark. 
ROTTERDAM: 
New 75000+ Feyenoord stadium is certain. "De kuip" will still be there as a possible second venue for Rotterdam (51000)
UTRECHT:
Current stadium can't be extended for transportation reasons. The area is to small as it is. A new stadium looks unlikely for the moment.
EINDHOVEN:
The "Philips stadion" currently holds 36000. PSV is examining an extension to 43000 which is very likely to happen. That looks like the absolute maximum on their current location. A new stadium has informally been dismissed by PSV officials and seems extremely unlikely.
GRONINGEN:
The "Euroborg" currently holds about 20000. Will be extended by 2000 in the coming summer by lowering the pitch and adding three rows of seats. Investigations are underway on a possible extension to 35 to 40000. According to rumors it doesn't look promising. The general manager has already said that leaving (!) the 3 year old stadium for a new one is an option if they can't expand. Sounds very unlikely though.
TILBURG:
The city has apparently reacted positively on the request to become host city. Seems weird. Although it's the 6th largest city in Holland, its team rarely sells out it's 14000 stadium. 40000+ is ridiculous. I can't see this happen.
BREDA:
NAC has a 17000 stadium wich they plan to extend in small steps to about 30000 in the coming decade. They are investigating whether 40000 could be done. The emphasis in the investigation is on the need for those extra seats. Can they fill those seats on a regular basis? Breda will probably try to get the World cup in its city. They paid a ridiculous amount of money to be connected to the European high speed train network. Becoming a world cup venue could be their next target.
ENSCHEDE:
The "Arke stadion" is currently being expanded from 13000 to 25500 by adding a second tier on 1 half of the stadium (2 sides, 1 corner). It will be finished in the second half of 2008. Virtually all the new seats have already sold out from what I've understood. They plan to build a second tier on the other half as well (2 sides, 3 corners). After that, the capacity would be 43000. No time has been set for that extension though.
ARNHEM:
The "Gelredome" has a capacity of little under 30000. Vitesse doesn't need the extension, but the Gelredome has become a major venue for events that could benefit from the extra capacity. The stadium has started an investigation on whether an extension to 40000 can be done. The results should be known in the coming months.
KERKRADE:
Roda can't fill their 20000 stadium on a regular basis. None the less, the city of Kerkrade has expressed interest in the World cup. They wan't to build a temporary second tier which would raise the capacity to 40000 for the tournament. The tier would be taken off after the event. Apparently this was already the idea when the stadium was build. A relatively easy and low cost operation.
ALKMAAR:
AZ has already presented their extension plans for the "DSB stadion". It would increase it's capacity from 17000 to 40000. It's a 150 million euro project which features a 100 million business park and a 50 million extension to the stadium. Due to a long list of formal procedures, the projected finishing date is 2011 to 2012.
HEERENVEEN:
The "Abe Lenstra Stadion" can currently hold 26600. They will extend the stadium in small steps to 40000+ in the coming decade.

Not on the list...:
THE HAGUE:
3rd city in the country. They just have a poor team with the worst and most violent supporters in Holland. They play in the second league and attract an average of 4500 in a brand new 15000 stadium. Unfortunately, a 40000 seater in the the Hague sounds bizarre... 

From all those plans, only Kerkrade is (obviously) a world cup only extension. Breda, Arnhem, Tilburg and Utrecht would be questionable to very questionable if we would not get the world cup. For Groningen it all depends on the possibilities. IF it can be done they will probably go to 40000.

Amsterdam (1 or 2), Rotterdam (1 or 2), Eindhoven, Alkmaar, Heerenveen, Enschede and Groningen seem very likely candidates. Add Kerkrade as a certain possibility, and it looks to become a fierce battle. Add 1 or 2 from the "questionable" list and Holland could have made a bid on their own...

Obviously, feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake...


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

A Dutch article:



> Nederlandse steden gretig voor WK 2018
> 
> vrijdag 29 februari 2008 17:00
> 
> ...


English:

After meeting with the Dutch FA the cities of Alkmaar, Enschede and Heerenveen declared that they are interested in hosting games for the WC in the Benelux. Earlier, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven declared their interest.

There are plans in Amsterdam and Rotterdam for stadiums with capacities of at least 70.000.
The city of Arnhem told the Dutch FA that an expansion of the Gelredome stadium to 40.000 seats is not possible, which is the minimum capacity for the WC.

The Dutch FA will have meetings with delegations from Breda, Groningen, Kerkrade and Utrecht about the possibility of hosting games.

The Netherlands and Belgium will have a meeting with UEFA-chairman Platini in march about the organisation of the WC.

The Netherlands and Belgium anounced at the end of 2007 that they are looking into the possiblity of hosting the WC in 2018. Australia, China, England, Mexico and Russia have also said to be interested in hosting the tournament.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Although I applaud Belgium and the Netherlands to be putting together a 2018 bid. I don't think they really stand a chance to be representing Europe when they will go up against England, Spain and Russia. Ok yes they are well positioned in Europe, and yes it would be their first time as hosts for W.C. but it will be a tough competition!

Ok going from whats been said in this thread, this is the list of stadiums and their possible capacities that the Benelux might have:
BENELUX 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
NETHERLANDS:
1.Amsterdam, Amsterdam ArenA, 51,324 possible expansion to 70,000+

2.Rotterdam, New Stadium, 51,000 possible expansion to 75,000+

3.Eindhoven, Philips Stadion, 36,500 expansion to 43,000

4.Groningen, Euroborg, 20,000 expansion to 40,000

5.Arnhem, The Gelredome, 29,600 maybe an expansion to 40,000 (although I don't see how it could be done)

BELGIUM
6.Brussels, New National Stadium, 60,000+

7.Brugge, New Stadium, 45,000+

8.Liege, Stade Maurice Dufrasne, 29,173 expanded to 40,000

9.Antwerp, New Stadium, 40,000

10.Charleroi, Stade du Pays de Charleroi, 25,149 expanded to 40,000

Benelux Reserve Stadiums:
NETHERLANDS:
Amsterdam, New National Stadium ???, 80,000+ 
Alkmarr, DSB Stadion, 16,000 expanded to 40,000.
Heerenveen, Abe Lenstra Stadion, 27,500 expanded to 40,000
Enschede, Arke Stadion 13,500 expanded to 43,000.
BELGIUM:
Brussels, New Anderlecht Stadium, 40,000-45,000
Gent, Artevelde Stadion,	22,500 expanded to 40,000
Genk, Cristal Arena,	24,604 expanded to 40,000

Now lets compare it with Englands possible bid. This bid is my own ideal list of stadiums and cities which I would like to be used in 2018. Some new stadiums I have made up but would be needed for those cities. But others have a minimum to maximum capacity figure thats been mentioned in the past. Note only 1 city can have 2 stadiums, and also Sepp Blatter has said the minimum capacity for 2018 would be 45,000. 

ENGLAND 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 71,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Southampton, St Mary's Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

England reserve stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Portsmouth, New Portsmouth Stadium, 36,000 - 45,000.

Now lets look at Spains possible 2018 bid:

SPAIN 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1.Madrid, Bernabeu, 80,354.

2.Madrid, Estadio La Peineta, 73,700. 

3.Barcelona, Camp Nou, 106,000

4.Valencia, New Valencia Stadium, 75,000

5.Seville, Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja, 72,000

6.Bilbao, Estadio San Mames, 56,000 

7.Zaragoza, Nueva Romareda, 42,500 

8.San Sebastian, Gipuzkoarena, 42,400 

9.La Coruna, Estadio de Riazor, 40,000

10.Malaga, Estadio La Rosaleda, 40,000 

11.Murcia: Nueva Condomina 40,000 

12.Elche: Estadio Manuel Martinez Valero 40,000

Spain reserve stadiums:
Madrid: Estadio Vicente Calderon 57,500
Barcelona: Estadi Nou Sarria 41,000 
Seville: Estadio de Lopera 55,500
Seville: Estadio R. SÃ¡nchez PizjuÃ¡n 45,000
Palma/Mallorca,	Estadio Lluís Sitjar, 18 000 expanded to 40,000.

And here are the only decent Russian stadiums I know about that might be in their bid (let me know if you know of any others).

RUSSIA 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
1.Moscow, Luzhniki Stadion, 84,745.

2.St. Peterburg, Zenit Stadium, 62,167

3.Moscow, Stadion Spartak, 35,000 expanded to 40,000

4.Vladikavkaz, Republikan Spartak, 32,574 expanded to 40,000

5.Voronezh, Tsentralnyi Profsoyuz, 31,743 expanded to 40,000

6.Volgograd, Tsentralnyi Stadion, 32,120 expanded to 40,000


What does everyone think about the comparisons between all these possible bids? Are their cities I have missed out that you want in? What about the stadiums and their capacities did I get those right?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Allright comments...

*Netherlands/Belgium*

Gelredome/Arnhem has allready said that expansion is not interesting., trade them in for FC Twente/ Enschede, Heerenveen or AZ Alkmaar. WC or not these clubs have allready intentions to go to 40 000.
Euroborg/ FC Groningen will probably not be possible to expend to 40 000 plus. They are investigating possebilleties, but rumours are not good. 
FC Utrecht is still negociating with Phanos and townhall incluiding a new 40 000 + stadium. Maybe you can trade them in for Groningen.
Charleroi? please not that again. From Belgium I have heard little. To be hounest I think the mayority of Belgium stadiums will be white elephants if there is no BeNeliga (Belgium Netherland) in the near future.
I have seen planns from Brugge and rumours for ages from Anderlecht/ Brussels. Also Club Liege have shown ambition. Further nothing.
Rotterdam will not be an expansion, but a new stadium. The current ´Kuip´will take part of the bid to as they cannot demolish it because it is a monument. The new stadium will have a cap between 75 000 and 90 000.

*England*

from 7 untill 12 I haven´t seen planns, maybe it´s me, maybe it´s just rumours.
same goes for the reserve list with numbers 1,2,3 and 8. Only rumours.

There are a lot of Londons in your list, two Manchesters, two Birminhams and two Liverpools (allthough technicly speaking Everton will be Kirby). Only one city is alouwed to have two stadiums.

*Spain*

5. Sevilla/ La cartuja... Sercan will bust your ass for saying it has a cap of 72 000... Sevilla CF do have serious planns to extend to about 65 000 though.
8 San Sebastian/ Real Sociedad will not build this stadium. It does not have this cap at current moment, or serious planns.
from 9 to 12 the caps are incorrect neither are there any planns to extend. 
Also the Spanish FA does not have said they have any interest in organising the WC.
Also for Spain counts that only one city can have two stadiums, so there goes your reserve list except for Real Mallorca. This stadium might get there in the future, but I doubt it, because they will never fill it.
Zaragoza will have/need a new stadium, I thought there were going for 50 000 now.

Russia.

Don´t now to be hounest.

My conclussion

England is favourite without a doubt, specialy because Spain does not have shown interest yet. Benelux will need some very good lobying and Russia at the current moment don´t stand a chance.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

skaP187 said:


> Allright comments...
> 
> [*England*
> 
> from 7 untill 12 I haven´t seen planns, maybe it´s me, maybe it´s just rumours.


As I said some I made up. However Nottingham will build a Stadium this size by 2014, and St Mary's can be expanded to this size.


skaP187 said:


> same goes for the reserve list with numbers 1,2,3 and 8. Only rumours.


Portsmouths stadium is going to happen, and I expect Chelsea & Totenham to have expaneded/ built new stadiums by then,


skaP187 said:


> There are a lot of Londons in your list, two Manchesters, two Birminhams and two Liverpools (allthough technicly speaking Everton will be Kirby). Only one city is alouwed to have two stadiums.


Yep I know this, these "reserve stadiums" would replace the other stadiums on the 1st list but stick to this rule. example: City of Birmingham Stadium would replace Villa Park.


skaP187 said:


> *Spain*
> 5. Sevilla/ La cartuja... Sercan will bust your ass for saying it has a cap of 72 000... Sevilla CF do have serious planns to extend to about 65 000 though.


I didn't say that Seville Stadium, I said the Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja which does have a capacity of 72,000


skaP187 said:


> from 9 to 12 the caps are incorrect neither are there any planns to extend.


I am saying they would have to expand these/ build new ones.


skaP187 said:


> Also for Spain counts that only one city can have two stadiums, so there goes your reserve list except for Real Mallorca.


Yep I know this rule, but these stadiums could replace those stadiums on 1st list if were more modern or larger capacity etc.


skaP187 said:


> Zaragoza will have/need a new stadium, I thought there were going for 50 000 now.


Didn't know that thanks.


skaP187 said:


> Russia.
> Don´t now to be hounest.


Yes it was a long shot!!


skaP187 said:


> My conclussion
> England is favourite without a doubt, specialy because Spain does not have shown interest yet. Benelux will need some very good lobying and Russia at the current moment don´t stand a chance.


Well England could continue to shoot themselves in the foot, if they come up with more plans similar to having Premier league clubs play league games abroad during season. Benelux also might have more frineds in Uefa than England so might help them get the vote!


----------



## rbbn39 (Jan 20, 2008)

Antwerp really wants to build a new stadium and probably it will be more then a 40k seater, they talked about 50k-60/70k. Not just for the football teams (antwerp and GBA could use it together, and GBA has a big crowd down in the region Antwerp because it's the only club in the highest belgian competition), but they would like to use it to host mayor events. They want to compare themselves with the Stade de France stadium, and on teletext 2 months ago I saw they already had sended a delegation to Paris, to gain more information from the stadium and get some ideas. I hope Breda will get a stadium, then I will watching the WC right between Breda and Antwerp, because that's were I live...


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Kobo, you're not properly informed. The only expansion of an existing stadium that might happen in Belgium is that of Genk's Cristal Arena. No expansions but new stadia in Charleroi and Liège. And not for Club de Liège but for their rivals Standard de Liège.


----------



## Vermeer (Apr 23, 2007)

Kobo said:


> Although I applaud Belgium and the Netherlands to be putting together a 2018 bid. I don't think they really stand a chance to be representing Europe when they will go up against England, Spain and Russia. Ok yes they are well positioned in Europe, and yes it would be their first time as hosts for W.C. but it will be a tough competition!
> 
> Ok going from whats been said in this thread, this is the list of stadiums and their possible capacities that the Benelux might have:
> BENELUX 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
> ...



Kobo
You are a dreamer. You compare the different countries by putting together stadium lists based on rumours. The reality is that most of the stadiums needed for all the countries, still doesn’t exist.

The European bids will come from Spain, Russia and Belgium/The Netherlands. Five rich countries that all can afford building 12 top international stadiums. Whether it is wise is another discussion.

We have to believe that all those countries really want to host the WC, and will build stadiums that are big enough and good enough. 

Let’s agree that stadiums will not be an important issue for the selection of the host and discuss other topics, like who has hosted it before, who has the infrastructure, who can handle the security issues and so on.

Benelux, most likely have the best infrastructure in Europe. Spain and England also have a good infrastructure. Russia will have problems with both infrastructure and the distance between the venues.

The Netherlands and England have problems with hooligans. Russia has lack of football interest with an average attendance 13500 in Europe’s biggest country.

Spain and England have already hosted WC.

The Netherlands have had the best national team of these countries during the last 30 years. 

Let us widen the discussion and accept that all bidders will offer top stadiums and I am sure that in 2018 there will be many stadiums better than Wembley in Europe.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Chimaera said:


> Kobo, you're not properly informed. The only expansion of an existing stadium that might happen in Belgium is that of Genk's Cristal Arena. No expansions but new stadia in Charleroi and Liège. And not for Club de Liège but for their rivals Standard de Liège.


Thanks for that, but I was getting my information from what other people had said in this thread.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Vermeer said:


> Let’s agree that stadiums will not be an important issue for the selection of the host and discuss other topics, like who has hosted it before, who has the infrastructure, who can handle the security issues and so on.
> 
> The Netherlands and England have problems with hooligans. Russia has lack of football interest with an average attendance 13500 in Europe’s biggest country.


Let's not agree that stadiums will not be an important issue for the selection of the host, and let's discuss this topic! First of all, this forum is all about stadia. Secondly, there will be great differences between the stadia of the bidding countries. The largest stadium from the Benelux bid will probably be Feyenoord's new 70,000 stadium, while the next biggest will be the Amsterdam Arena or the new stadium in Brussels. 

Compare this to the stadiums in England and Spain; they have multiple stadia with a capacity of around 90,000! If the Benelux will have a bid with only the minimum required capacities, they're gonna have a hard job bidding up against the likes of Spain and England IMO! Ofcourse a bid needs alot more than just some fancy stadia, but it is a very important factor. The advantage of the Benelux may be that the cities are very well connected and located close to eachother, but like you said, England and Spain have excellent infrastructure as well. 

And regarding the hooligan problem; that's a thing of the past in England's premiership really, I reckon it's a bigger problem in the Netherlands these days. And I understood there are quite alot of hooligans in Russia as well.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Vermeer said:


> Kobo
> You are a dreamer. You compare the different countries by putting together stadium lists based on rumours. The reality is that most of the stadiums needed for all the countries, still doesn’t exist.
> 
> The European bids will come from Spain, Russia and Belgium/The Netherlands. Five rich countries that all can afford building 12 top international stadiums. Whether it is wise is another discussion.
> ...


I am aware that some of these stadiums have not been built, and admitted that I had made some up. As I don't live in Belgium or The Netherlands, Russia or Spain, I gathered my information about the stadiums from this thread and others on this site, where people had written what proposals would and might be happening in those countries. So I felt the data I used was from what others and heard or read about in those countries to come from reliable sources, and assumed it to be accurate.

In terms of infrastructure, England's works just about. But its road network is far superior to its rail. I doubt England would have a High Speed rail network between its main city's by 2018. The UK is the biggest hub for international flights in Europe though. Spain on the other hand will have such a rail system and already does in some places. With Belgium and Netherlands i'm not sure if it does or if it will do. But from my experience traveling through this area its always been good, especially in Holland. With Russia I expect it needs to be improved. 

In terms of security, both Spain and the UK have suffered from major terrorist attacks in the last 4 years. This could continue to be the case come 2018, especially with the UK still being so involved with the Middle East. However the UK is well known for being good with security issues and does advise other countires on such matters. I would have thought Spain would have strong security plans too, as they have a history of dealing with the Basque Party. Belgium & The Netherlands I have no idea what their security is like. With Russia lets just say the police are really corrupt and you can make up your own mind.

With regards to hosting major international sporting events lets have a look at what they have done and will be doing before 2018. Spain has 1 Fifa world cup in 1982, 1 Uefa European Championship in 1964, 1 Olympics in 1992, The 1999 World Championship in Athletics in Seville, Barcelona will be host for the European Championships in Athletcis in 2010. Spain also have 2 Formula 1 Grand Prix yearly The Spanish Grand Prix and the European Grand Prix. 

Belgium and the Netherlands have hosted 2 Olympics between them in 1920 and 1928, 1 Uefa European championship together in 2000, and 1 in Belgium on its own in 1972, and 1 European Athletcis Championship in Brussels in 1950. Belgium hosts 1 F1 Grand Prix every year.

England has hosted 2 Olympics in 1908 & 1948 and will host its 3rd in 2012, 1 Fifa World Cup in 1966, 1 Uefa European Championship in 1996, 1 Rugby world cup in 1991, and another as co host in 1999. It has a F1 Grand Prix every year and also 1 of the 4 Grand Slam tennis tounrament's yearly that being Wimbeldon.

Russia has hosted 1 Olympics in 1980, and will host its 1st Winter Olympics in 2014, and it shall host its first world athletics championship in 2013.

I hope this helps with widening the discussion on the 2018 World Cup topic.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Kobo said:


> I hope this helps with widening the discussion on the 2018 World Cup topic.


But considering this is the 'stadiums and sport arenas' forum, let's just stick to that please. The other issues can be discussed in other places I'm sure. If anyone has any stadium news, please post it


----------



## ottooo (Jun 24, 2006)

Since when do we have a hooligan-problem in The Netherlands? :nuts:

Italy has a hooligan-problem. The only trouble we have had here in the past few years were some ADO Den Haag hooligans running on their own pitch.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Joop20 said:


> But considering this is the 'stadiums and sport arenas' forum, let's just stick to that please. The other issues can be discussed in other places I'm sure. If anyone has any stadium news, please post it


Thats fine with me Joop. What do you think about my comparison's between the English, Spanish, Russian and Benelux bids that I posted 1st March 2008? Have I got many of the Benelux stadium capacity's & host cities terribly wrong?


----------



## KaSpEr5 (Oct 28, 2007)

Kobo said:


> Although I applaud Belgium and the Netherlands to be putting together a 2018 bid. I don't think they really stand a chance to be representing Europe when they will go up against England, Spain and Russia. Ok yes they are well positioned in Europe, and yes it would be their first time as hosts for W.C. but it will be a tough competition!
> 
> Ok going from whats been said in this thread, this is the list of stadiums and their possible capacities that the Benelux might have:
> BENELUX 2018 WORLD CUP BID:
> ...


You were wrong on a few points.
Netherlands.
First of all, they will built a new stadium in R'dam with a minimum of 75.000, there were even rumours about a 100.000. (wc or not, going to built anyway)
In Amsterdam they wanted to put a third tier on the arena. Upgrading it to at least 75.000 or more. They are also thinking about a new stadium.
PSV is going to expand to 42000-44000 i believe., so you were right on that.
Fc Twente, Sc Heerenveen and Az have all agreed to have a 40.000+ (Az's stadium structure will then also be able to hold an expansion of 65000/75000 for when their popularity grows)stadium by that time.
Fc Utrecht, will probably built a new stadium (no time schedule, not especialy for wc, but because the sponsor wants to take over the club and invest.. And they want to have the opportunity to grow, because they think that the fanbase will grow when they perform good.)
Nac Breda is also expanding. The were already planning to be around 32.000 by that time, but there thinking of going to 40.000+ when there will be a chance to get the wc.
Fc Groningen also want to expand to around 35000 or maybe 40000+ when the wc comes along. They havent officially announced it yet. Its not yet known if their stadium can be expanded like that, so there is also a possibillity of a new stadium.
Roda Jc said that they will make there stadium available for a temporary second tier if thats really needed.
Arnehm will not be a host city because its not interesting to expand for them. 

Belgium:
Brussels wants to have a new national stadium of 65000, no concrete plan as of yet. It doesnt nesseceraly have to house the country's best club: anderlecht.
Brugge will built a 40000+ stadium, not 45000 +.
The city of antwerp agreed to have a stadium, no real plans yet, not known. for which club it will be.
Liege will not expand, but they will built a new stadium of 40000+.
Racing Genk wants to expand there stadium to 40000+
Charleroi doesnt know yet.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Genk *will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.










http://www.bluewhitezone.be/CristalArena.wmv

*Brugge* will build a new stadium of 40000-45000 (price 125 mio; UEFA 4star)











*Brussels* will build a new 60000 seater (price 250 mio in a complex of 1 000 mio euro's; with a press center, conference rooms, ...)

*Antwerp* will build a new 40000 seater

*Luik* will build a new 45000 seater (UEFA 4star)


trainingscomplexes:

*Tubeke* :



























*Academy Louis-dreyfus * (Luik):






























*Gent* (20000 seats):




























*charleroi* : new 40 000 seater


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

The Dutch police force will make a bid unsucesful. They like to abuse football for their own good.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

I can't really blame them seeing their ridiculous low wages


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

The police is there for the people and they are paid by the same people who they now let down. It's an awful attitude. What's wrong with positive actions, like no fines for a month. Considering the fact that they spent way too time in the ploce stations being inefficient it's a disgrace.


----------



## g$X.n1 (Mar 2, 2008)

I don't think that you will get the WC.. 

but good luck


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Quintana said:


> I can't really blame them seeing their ridiculous low wages


Come on, they were offered like a 8% wage raise, and they're still not happy. And now they're using football for their actions, *again*. Bunch of losers they are.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Genk *will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.

































































*Brugge* will build a new stadium of 40000-45000 (price 125 mio; UEFA 4star)











*Brussels* will build a new 60000 seater (price 250 mio in a complex of 1 000 mio euro's; with a press center, conference rooms, ...)

*Antwerp* will build a new 40000 seater

*Luik* will build a new 45000 seater (UEFA 4star)


trainingscomplexes:

*Tubeke* :























































*Academy Louis-dreyfus * (Luik):

































































*Gent* (20000 seats):




























*charleroi* : new 40 000 seater

*Sint-truiden*: 15000 seats + hotel










*Bergen/Mons*: 12000 seats


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Vermeer said:


> The Netherlands and England have problems with hooligans.


I'm a little out of the loop, when was the last problem with ENGLISH hooligans? There was some bother with some SCOTTISH fans who got upset when they couldn't watch a big screen the other week, but not ENGLISH.

40000 odd fans went to Russia for the champs league final - no reports of fighting at the stadium, or in the city, or on the planes, ferries, trains, etc., transporting them.

Three big big games at Wembley over the last weekend - huge pressure, high stakes games, pretty close to all sold out... How much trouble? One or two Leeds fans taking a swing at Doncaster players on their way to collect medals... And that's all.

A Premier League season of near sell-out crowds at most of the clubs, lots of pressure, lots of atmosphere - trouble? Didn't see any, didn't hear of any... Big derby matches between Man Utd-City, Spurs-Arsenal, Liverpool-Everton, Man Utd-Liverpool, Sunderland-Newcastle, etc., bother? None.

England vs Croatia... A match with Euro finals football on the line... England knocked out... Riots? None.

This one has been overplayed for years by those outside of England. They are simply no longer a nation plagued by hooliganism.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Does Belgium really need that many 40,000+ seaters?


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

At least 30 000+ seaters because in 2011 you can only play eurpean games in 30 000+seaters. Uefa rules


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Anderlecht, Brugge, Luik and Genk could fill them pretty good I guess. Charleroi I do not think so. Antwerpen well... Antwerpen, first see, then believe.
I´d love to see a Belgium Dutch league after or just before the WC 2018. That would be a pretty strong league which could be just as strong as for example the French league.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ If all is well organised a joint Dutch-Belgium league would be a stronger one, but I doubt that they could be as strong as the French league. Let alone England, Spain, Germany or Italy. 

The idea has been a point of discussion many times in the Netherlands and Belgium. I am not sure if it will ever happen. Even Glasgow Rangers and Celtic can not enter the Premiership in England, so a combined league is still very far away.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

genkie456 said:


> At least 30 000+ seaters because in 2011 you can only play eurpean games in 30 000+seaters. Uefa rules


Really? What about a team like Wolfsburg. They have a brand new arena but their capacity is below 30,000. Seems like a stupid rule because some teams don't need 30,000 seaters.

Do you have a link for that new rule?


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

The UEFA list is on wikipedia.

Only 4* stadiums can host European games, they have a long criteria.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

They can host UEFA-Cup finals. It says nothing about regular European games. Or are we talking about something different here?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

EPA001 said:


> ^^ If all is well organised a joint Dutch-Belgium league would be a stronger one, but I doubt that they could be as strong as the French league. Let alone England, Spain, Germany or Italy.
> 
> The idea has been a point of discussion many times in the Netherlands and Belgium. I am not sure if it will ever happen. Even Glasgow Rangers and Celtic can not enter the Premiership in England, so a combined league is still very far away.


England, Spain and Italy are defuently out of reach. The French league is mop stronger then the German league at the moment. 
Historicly the Netherlands alone have won more European titels with clubs then Germany or France. German clubs have big potential when you look at the caps of the stadiums and more important how many people realy go. Seen from that perspective the level of France would be possible for Belgium and the Netherlands together. (I did the maths one time, I´ll see if I can find it.)


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Regarding the notion of joint leagues...

The idea remains an option under UEFA policy but would also cut the volume of clubs spots allocated for European competitions. For instance, if the Netherlands and Belgium hosted a joint top flight, then they'd also be sharing berths for ECL and UEFA cup spots, compared to each league getting their own spots as they do today. Given that teams from these leagues can make decent appearances in those competitions that's some money and exposure they may not be able to offset via a joint league. 

Further, the Eredivisie is already large enough and receives enough global media that the merger might not provide the full benefits supposed. Sure adding Brugge and Anderlecht would help, but if you're also losing 8 Dutch clubs in exchange for ten Belgium clubs, would that significantly increase TV and gate revenue to aid the lower clubs now pressed to the second division? I don't know. It seems the template would be more appealing for leagues in smaller countries or those with much weaker (financially) leagues, like the proposed Scandinavian or Balkan Super Leagues. 

If such a merger did happen I agree the league would likely be stronger on the field and could over time grow very appealing and competitive internationally. If it did succeed might that also hasten other mergers (British Premiership?) or renew the discussion of marrying the nations? 

Sorry to threadjack! Back to the stadia talk!! :cheers:


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Btw shouldn't we use the term "Bene" instead of "Benelux"? Luxemburg isn't there! :lol:


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Btw shouldn't we use the term "Bene" instead of "Benelux"? Luxemburg isn't there! :lol:


Va bene!! :lol:


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> *Gent* (20000 seats):


Have they been so smart in Gent that a would be expension of this stadium would be ´easely´ possible.
I am asking this because the Euroborg in Groningen is not possible to serious expand to like 40 000. They will need to build a new stadium for that is serious roumers are saying.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Any ideas how the expanded stadium of Genk would look like? and while I am on it. How far are the plannes for Club Brugge and Standard de Liege?


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

The stadium in Ghent will be built in such a way that expansion is possible.

The plans for a new stadium in Liège are still very vague, but there is a consensus among the club, city and region that it is needed. I don't see any obstacles.

Bruges is another story. Money is not a problem and construction could start as we speak. But there are several groups opposing the new stadium: Witte Pion (White Pon) from Loppem, the village neighbouring Bruges where the stadium will be located, and some shop and restaurant owners from Bruges who claim to represent all their colleagues when saying that the shopping mall adjacent to the new stadium will ruin business in Bruges.
And then there's politics. A few months ago the Flemish Governments asked Bruges, Zedelgem and Oostkamp for advice. None of them opposed to the new stadium. They also excluded the option of expanding the existing stadium. The Flemish Minister-President promised a decision in March. He broke it. Many studies have been made, sometimes with conflicting conclusions, on the need of a new stadium and shopping mall, the impact on environment and economy, etcetera. Now the Flemish Government starts all over again and goes back to the cities for advice. They even reconsider an expansion of the current stadium. I guess it's all a matter of conflicting interests and the fact that politics can not tolerate that concrete plans have been made over their heads. But above all: INCOMPETENCE. The plans are there, the money as well. All studies have been made. The future of Flanders' number 1 football club are being compromised by fear, protectionism, conservatism... it's bloody frustrating :gaah:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Btw shouldn't we use the term "Bene" instead of "Benelux"? Luxemburg isn't there! :lol:


Well that's just great!  Now I have to update all my maps, my globe...




:tongue2:


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Stadium of Genk: certainly a large third ring (20 000 seats) , maybe combined with a lowering of the pitch (3000 seats extra)


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> Well that's just great!  Now I have to update all my maps, my globe...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don´t worry, we can always put some trainingscomplexes in Luxemburg!:banana:


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

PSV should expand our built a new one
50-60k would be good


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ For now they are thinking about expanding from 35.700 tot about 43.000. This of course for a possible WC-2018 in Belgium and The Netherlands. That is the best they can do on that location. There are no plans yet to build a new one. PSV is actually very happy being where they are since 1913 or so.

Of course they will monitor what will happen in Amsterdam when the ArenA is expanded for Ajax to about 70.000+. And they will monitor which progress Feyenoord will make whe they build their 80.000+ - 106.000 seats stadium. That one should be finished at the latest in 2016! If both these clubs grow commercially way beyond PSV, that might change their minds. But a new stadium would not be built before 2020 or so.

And it has something special to be almost in the middle of the city. It is comparable to many English grounds. Being situated on the outskirts of the city has advantages, but also some disadvantages. And I would not know where there could be a possible site free to develop as a new stadium around Eindhoven.

The railway connection is very important, so that limits the options severely. Now they have a perfect railway connection. Since 10 years or so they even have their own dedicated trainstation which is only used when concerts or games are held in the stadium.

The first stadium in the Netherlands to have its own dedicated train station was and is the present De Kuip of Feyenoord. I think the station is as old as the stadium, so it exists since 1937! Talk about being an advanced design!!!


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

It is almost impossible for PSV to expand beyond the 42,000-45,000 mark. I think the best option is indeed building a new one. However, this is not likely to happen for a number of reasons:

- The club has been playing at the place where the Philips Stadion stands since they were founded in 1913 (and their unofficial predecessor Philips Elftal since its foundation in 1911). The club therefore prefers to pay millions for a few thousand extra seats than to build a new stadium for a few millions more.

- The stadium is located in down town Eindhoven and if they were to build a new stadium they would most likely have to move to the outskirts of town.

- The last expansion of the stadium (which added about 6,500 seats) costed € 95 million. This almost bankrupted the club and they have to pay about 5 million a year in mortgage costs until 2017. Obviously, the club is not likely to do anything huge until they paid of this mortgage. If they fail to qualify for the Champions League once they would be in deep shit.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

EPA001 said:


> So they are planning ahead and that is wise. They also want to prevent scenario's like Old Trafford, Emirates, the Veltins Arena Auf Schalke or the Allianz Arena which are sold out every week. Because these clubs all build too small. I think Schalke and Bayern could easily have an 80.000+ crowd every week. As could Borussia Dortmund if they were at the top of the Bundesliga again. As could Manchester United if they could expand Old Trafford to 90.000+. I think they would still sell out every week. And Arsenal could also fill a 70.000+ Emirates in my opinion. So better safe than sorry is the credo of the current management. A wise decision in my opinion!


Sometimes more _profit_ doesn't equate to the best _profit margin._ Both Arsenal and Bayern chose their capacities very carefully to avoid the very scenario you painted elsewhere in your post, wherein a team averages X for regular matches but then sells out for the big games. The modern business practice for any upper echelon club is to secure sell-outs (or very, very near) for EVERY game, thus driving up the price of tickets and ensuring the most efficient mix of revenue versus costs. Their current models may not provide the most return, but they likely provide the best value of returns on their money spent.

Feyenoord may be able to sell-out for the big games, but if those tickets are not part of a season-ticket package their cost is far lower than what they could be. Plus the value of the other tickets would be much, much lower as well because everyone would know thy could be had on a moment's notice, even gameday. Further, from the business standpoint, it's far easier for the club to work with a near-certain budget rather than hoping for Y number of sell-outs to balance the books. Bottom line: Sell-outs have a multiplier effect on the value of match-day revenue and I'm guessing most clubs would choose a right-sized stadium over one built for just big games. That's why Juventus is planning for a new stadium in the 40k's, why Bayern didn't build 90k and so on...

Bayern and Arsenal (and many others) could sell 100k for easy for big matches, but it's not worth it to manage that size facility for such purposes. Hiring part time employees to handle concessions can be a legal hassle and often be impractical. And in the event of a downturn that sees fewer and fewer sell-outs the maintenance of the facility isn't worth the costs. Then there's the atmosphere thing, wherein most people I know would prefer to play in front of a packed house of 50k than to play in front of 65k in a 80k seat stadium. 

I agree that there's a practicality to planning for future expansion (and multiple press articles suggest Arsenal are planning for such now), but sometimes building bigger isn't the right approach. Especially if it's just an issue of pride that in reality is just hubris.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> That's why Juventus is planning for a new stadium in the 40k's, why Bayern didn't build 90k and so on...
> 
> Bayern and Arsenal (and many others) could sell 100k for easy for big matches, but it's not worth it to manage that size facility for such purposes. Hiring part time employees to handle concessions can be a legal hassle and often be impractical. And in the event of a downturn that sees fewer and fewer sell-outs the maintenance of the facility isn't worth the costs. Then there's the atmosphere thing, wherein most people I know would prefer to play in front of a packed house of 50k than to play in front of 65k in a 80k seat stadium.


Well I do not know about Arsenal and their beautiful Emirates stadium (which is one of the examples for the new Feyenoord Stadium btw), but in Munich the situation was different.

Bayern München wanted an 80.000 seater, but co-owner of the Allianz Arena, 1860 München (now playing in the second Bundesliga) feared what you described; playing in a stadium with a bad atmosphere. So they compromised on 66.000 seats.

But 1860 got into trouble and sold their part of the ownership of the stadium to Bayern München. And Bayern are now sorry that they did not pushed harder for the 80.000 seater. Maybe the fact that the old Olympiastadion was also not always sold out, kept them back from pushing for this harder.

Another club that build too small is of course Schalke '04. Every match is always sold out at 62.000 or so. They could easily fill it up to 80.000+ every week also.

But regarding empty seats; if you arrange the seating and coordinate the ticket sales smart, you can make sure that the lower tiers are filled up first. In that way the atmosphere does not really need to suffer from having tickets unsold. And you can cover up the upper tiers with curtains or something like that which could even enhance the look and feel of the stadium from the pitch. That way you have the capacity available that you sometimes(?) need, but can take away parts of the downside when playing in the stadium when it is not sold out.

But for Feyenoord the hugely expanded business facilities in the new stadium will generate significantly more money than the normal tickets which are not very expensive imho. Right now, for € 200,- you have a season ticket for a covered seat. It might be more expensive in the UK, I am not aware of the ticket prices there. But the new Business facilities will enable Feyenoord to grow her income substantially! The added seats for the other fans are a big bonus!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

EPA001 said:


> Well I do not know about Arsenal and their beautiful Emirates stadium (which is one of the examples for the new Feyenoord Stadium btw),


Having not actually been there (I'm in the States) it appears from most accounts Emirates has it's drawbacks. Much of this is due to the, IMO, stupid commitment to the highest of FIFA's requirements for safety and advertising areas around the pitch. That vast wasteland between the goal and the endline seating is abysmal and appears unnecessary. I also wish the lowest tier featured a steeper angle (though it'd mean fewer seats) and less of a cantilever, and at least one end devoid of suites and such (a true kop, as it were). On the whole though it's a superb application for the given site, I simply wish it had even more of a traditionally tight space for the audience.



> but in Munich the situation was different.
> 
> Bayern München wanted an 80.000 seater, but co-owner of the Allianz Arena, 1860 München (now playing in the second Bundesliga) feared what you described; playing in a stadium with a bad atmosphere. So they compromised on 66.000 seats.
> 
> But 1860 got into trouble and sold their part of the ownership of the stadium to Bayern München. And Bayern are now sorry that they did not pushed harder for the 80.000 seater. Maybe the fact that the old Olympiastadion was also not always sold out, kept them back from pushing for this harder.


IIRC, part of Bayern's push was a move to dissolve the stadium partnership with 1860 and didn't reflect as many suites. Part of the early concepts even were based on simple renovations of their existing ground. Once the costs of new construction were fully realized, as well as the prevailing impact of new suites and new ticket prices, Bayern were content with something less than the original figures of 78k that I remember. Especially considering that in the years leading up to the construction of Allianz, Bayern were averaging some 51k in attendance for a facility slightly larger than they have now. The club have since come to appreciate their new position that, while it doesn't put them at the top of the Bundesliga attendance charts, it does show them having attendance at 99.9% capacity for all matches, with higher ticket prices to boot. Ticket prices BECAUSE demand outweighs capacity. That level of profit margin allowed them to spend big last off-season despite missing out on the CL.

Last points:
- Bayern's Bundesliga avg. is 6_*9*_k, the capacity allowed when they can use the standing room configuration. 
- That same policy in Germany is what enables Dortmund's high figures and is what Bayern was considering in their original options. So while they sacrificed on the total it was only by about 9k of the cheapest seating available.
- I agree the design does not lend itself to easy expansion and that the club may be regretting that. But the design is also now a trademark image associated with the Bayern brand that has arguably increased their publicity and appeal. Sometimes better doesn't require being bigger. 



> But regarding empty seats; if you arrange the seating and coordinate the ticket sales smart, you can make sure that the lower tiers are filled up first. In that way the atmosphere does not really need to suffer from having tickets unsold.


 True, but it impacts the price you can charge for those seats. If you're not putting a cap on capacity and simply filling lower bowls first, that still doesn't compel the consumer to pay a premium or buy season's tickets because they'll know there will always be seats available except on rare occasions. And if you do put an artificial cap on capacity (Like 1860 and some MLS clubs) your both advocating the value of sell-outs (the principal I'm espousing) and/or still not likely to get the same value per ticket for a right-sized facility, because the fan will recognize the scheme. 1860 may not be as bad off seeing as they're the second tenant, but even your own observations support the notion that if they had to build their own facility they certainly wouldn't have built one with a near 70k capacity, even if they could fill it 2-4 times a year.

Bottom line is, of the big clubs financially capable of making their own choice, I've yet to see any team choose to play in a bigger facility than they need to for their average game. And most every case I know of in the States, they owners emphasize the desire for sell-outs and premium seat pricing.

I'll refrain from taking us further off topic. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

The Netherlands and Belgium are pushing ahead their proposed bid for the WC-2018. And this might help a bit:

In several Dutch newspapers and football magazines it has been reported that UEFA and FIFA were very much impressed with the number of Dutch fans that went to Switzerland. They were also very much impressed with the overall very, very good behavior.

The City of Bern even posted full-page adds in the leading Dutch newspapers thanking the Dutch fans for an unforgettable experience! And they opened up a special website to host many official and fan pictures and blogs about their experiences. Also the city of Basel, which hosted more than 100,000 Dutch fans for the match against Russia, was very pleased with that experience!

All these facts were seen by UEFA, but especially by FIFA representatives, as strong points for a possible Netherlands-Belgium WC-2018 bid. Their chances have certainly been strengthened by it. If it will be enough to win the bid remains doubtfull to me (I think "we" are still outsiders to win) but it has made the competition for England (and probably Spain) a bit tougher!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> PSV should expand our built a new one
> 50-60k would be good


PSV should go for 50 000. WC or no WC. The competition is closing in on PSV. Twente, Groningen and AZ have ´ambitions´ to build bigger stadiums then PSV has now. 
60 000 Would be to big I guess.

I am wondering by the way if there is any news from our Belgium friends about stadiums. Specialy Brugge and Anderlecht and maybe Standard.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Didn't FIFA deny Libya's/Tunisia's joint bid for the 2010 World Cup, saying no-more joint bids?

Why would they change their minds now?


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

fifa will adjust their standards if they want to.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

FIFA don't want to have two organizing committees any more like they had in Japan and Korea because it creates two mini-World Cups instead of one big one. A Dutch-Belgian bid would have one organizing committee, open borders, small distances and one currency. 

Having said that, this bid has no chance in hell seeing that Belgium is in no way suited to host (all talk, no action). It might not even exist by the time 2018 arrives.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

hngcm said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
> 
> Didn't FIFA deny Libya's/Tunisia's joint bid for the 2010 World Cup, saying no-more joint bids?
> 
> Why would they change their minds now?


Fifa says a lot of things. Comparing The Netherlands and Belgium with Tunisia and Libya well. I doubt, specialy from Libyas side that it was a serious bid.



Quintana said:


> Having said that, this bid has no chance in hell seeing that Belgium is in no way suited to host (all talk, no action). It might not even exist by the time 2018 arrives.


I am worried about the Belgium part also. There is not alot of action there.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

skaP187 said:


> PSV should go for 50 000. WC or no WC. The competition is closing in on PSV. Twente, Groningen and AZ have ´ambitions´ to build bigger stadiums then PSV has now.
> 60 000 Would be to big I guess.
> 
> I am wondering by the way if there is any news from our Belgium friends about stadiums. Specialy Brugge and Anderlecht and maybe Standard.


Belgian politics promised a decision on the Bruges stadium by July 18th. It will be a choice between the privately funded stadium project Club Brugge presented 18 months ago, or an alternative project on another location. Major issue for possible alternative plans is that the politicians supporting it don't have the slightest idea on how it will be financed...


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

I am not concerned about the Belgium part, they will build new stadiums if it is needed for a WC, even if they can't make their own stadiums a commercial success. For the quantity I am not worried, for the quality a little bit.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

belgian football is in the lift:

*TV rights *are rising: 35 mio to 44 mio now

*attendances:*

*Anderlecht* : 23500 subscribers for the next season (maximum capacity subscriptions)
*Standard* : 20800 subscribers for the next season (maximum capactity for subscriptions)
*Club Brugge*: 10% more subsciptions for next season (~= 24000)
*Germinal beerschot*: already 1000 subscribers more in next season
*KV mechelen*: already 60 subscribers more in next season
*gent, cercle brugge*: more subscibers
*genk*; status-quo after a bad season. Already 15500 subscribers for next season


*new stadiums* are really needed. You don't have to be concerned. 

*Sint-truiden* is already demolishing old stands, to build 2 multifunctional tribunes (cost 32.5 million)
*Gent* is starting to build the 31 of august

we are not 2018 yet. Stadiums like wembley will be old and overused in 2018. They have no chance.

*organisation*: is much more professional than euro 2000. 

www.beltomundial.org

Can you give any information about the dutch part. An organisation is not only stadiums.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Genk *will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.






































B-pitch:










business sections:





























*Brugge* will build a new stadium of 40000-45000 (price 125 mio; UEFA 4star)











*Brussels* will build a new 60000 seater (price 250 mio in a complex of 1 000 mio euro's; with a press center, conference rooms, ...)

*Antwerp* will build a new 40000 seater

*Luik* will build a new 45000 seater (UEFA 4star)


trainingscomplexes:

*Tubeke* :























































*Academy Louis-dreyfus * (Luik):

































































*Gent* (20000 seats):




























*charleroi* : new 40 000 seater

*Sint-truiden*: 15000 seats + hotel










*Bergen/Mons*: 12000 seats


----------



## Fir (Sep 19, 2002)

The stadium of Genk looks a little bit old fashiond. Using of cheap materials.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

genkie456 said:


> www.beltomundial.org
> 
> Can you give any information about the dutch part. An organisation is not only stadiums.


Are you involved with the organisation, or is it just that you would like to know the dutch part more (which might be a little bit more difficult, because there are probably more stadiums available than needed for a WC)?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

genkie456 said:


> we are not 2018 yet. Stadiums like wembley will be old and overused in 2018. They have no chance.


Indeed, it is no match for the mighty Genk...


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

indeed


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

I would not be so sure about Wembley being old and overused in 2018.    I think it is a terrific venue. Now stadium developments will always advance, that is normal, so Wembley might not be the best of the best in 10 years time. But I have not heard of that many stadium plans which will make Wembley outdated or so. Let us not get arrogant over new stadiums we might have if the WC-2018 comes to Belgium and the Netherlands. They have to be build first. After that has been done we can compare how good these stadiums are against the competition from elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Hersenschors (May 25, 2008)

berkshire royal said:


> once this expansion is done this stadium will look like a mini st james' park looks good steep stands and close to the pitch. any renders of how it will look when the stadium will be fully finished to 40,000 ?


photoshop...40,000?


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

Yes that is a nice photoshop image which gives a good idea how the stadium will look like after the second phase has been done. In the mean time new updates from The Grolsch Veste from FC Twente Enschede and from the Philips Stadium of PSV Eindhoven. They are updating the business facilities on the main stand.

FC Twente:


Hersenschors said:


>


PSV:









We are getting better and better prepared for a Dutch-Belgium WC-2018 bid!


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

looks they use cheap materials to build that new stadium of Twente


----------



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

genkie456 said:


> There is a minority in brussel who is flemish. The flemish government is responsable for person related policy concerning that minority. The region of Brussels Capital is responsable for ground+ buildings related policy concerning that minority. The flemish government wants 'flemish' friendly stadiums in brussels I think. But you are right, investing in stadiums in brussels is not the responsability of the flemish government.
> 
> But the flemish government has too much money:
> 
> ...


Why don't the Flemish just secede from Belgium ? :bash:


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> looks they use cheap materials to build that new stadium of Twente


It won´t be a glamour stadium, but I think it is going to be a good footballstadium. The atmosphere is always good in Twente and that to me is the most important.


----------



## bthj (Jan 2, 2008)

genkie456 said:


> looks they use cheap materials to build that new stadium of Twente


cheap materials as in steel and concrete??


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> looks they use cheap materials to build that new stadium of Twente


:nuts: 

What do you expect? Marble and silver?

well, here is something that looks cheap :


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ Oops, that is an ugly stadium from the outside. Which stadium is this?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

The stadium of Genkie's beloved KRC Genk....


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Old picture, but you don't see the stairs of of the upper ring like in most stadiums.










business area: 

*mirror glass of 3000 euro's per unit*











*themacafé (level 1 main stand):*




















*lounge for other business seats (level 2 main stand) and 1000 corner seats (level 2,3 and 4 corners)*











*same business facilities with 2 floating vaults (= 'zwevende toog') (corner north and south level 1)*



*warmed seats and the lansom lounge (with flatscreens) (level 3 main stand):*





















* lodges (with flatscreens) and warmed outside seats (level 4 main stand):*











*press tribune (level 5 main stand): full inside seats*


*the museum (www.goalmine.be): (corner south level1)*















































*the fanshop (south stand level 1)*











here some facts in dutch about the business area facilities:

17 loges
Verschillende zalen in auditoriumopstelling
Zaal in theaterstijl
Zaal in klasstijl
Expositieruimtes
Zalen voor fuiven en evenmenten
Banketruimtes
Uitstekende en uitgebreide cateringsfaciliteiten
Audiovisueel materiaal en LED-wall (48 m²) voor productpresentaties


*cafe youth (across the street)*












look at the outside of :

De Kuip: ugly
Estadio Da Luz: ugly
Amsterdam Arena: ugly

what counts for me is comfort, not good architecture or something.


----------



## bthj (Jan 2, 2008)

you started it..


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

bthj said:


> you started it..


He just questioned it...

Any drawings or renders how an extendet stadium of Genk would look like Genkie?


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Look at post 337 and you know why I said something about the twente stadium.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Genk's Ultras?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> Look at post 337 and you know why I said something about the twente stadium.


Thanks, by the way if your check the site www.thuisbijtwente.nl you can see it ain´t that cheap. I think it´s allright. Good enough for a footballstadium also the outside. The inside is going to be very nice mop.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Fir said:


> The stadium of Genk looks a little bit old fashiond. Using of cheap materials.





genkie456 said:


> looks they use cheap materials to build that new stadium of Twente


hno:


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

outside of stadium of genk is indeed cheap.

Our region is a region of closed coalmines. The people had to work hard for their money. A stadium of 200 mio would not be accepted in the region. It would be seen as a waste of money.
We also don't like technical players with no mentality to work.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> outside of stadium of genk is indeed cheap.
> 
> Our region is a region of closed coalmines. The people had to work hard for their money. A stadium of 200 mio would not be accepted in the region. It would be seen as a waste of money


Genk simply can't afford an expensive stadium, all the rest is bullsh*t.
They had to economize as much as possible in order to reduce financial risk.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

No matter how it looks on the outside, Genk's Cristal Arena is still on of the best stadiums in Belgium. It's ranked 1st in terms of VIP seats, and has the 5th biggest club stadium capacity, 6th biggest overall. They also made a good choice by keeping a standing area. What's more: Genk owns its stadium, like Anderlecht but unlike Bruges, I'm not sure about Charleroi and Standard. And, if I'm correct, the stadium was not financed with government money, unlike the stadiums in Charleroi, Liège and Bruges.

I agree that the stadium could look better from the outside, and that doesn't even have to be that expensive. I personally prefer exposed concrete over the actual blue metal cladding. Standard has similar, bright red cladding on the Sclessin Stadium (but there the bottom part luckily was left uncovered).

In terms of outside looks of recently built stadiums (because I like some older stadiums as well, like the one of Union Saint-Gilloise), I prefer the Stade du Pays de Charleroi and the Koning Boudewijn Stadium.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Gherkin007 said:


> Well done for Belgium and the Netherlands for bidding... But there will be SO much controversy if the English don't get the tournament!


The same could be said for what was to be the Paris 2012 OG... 

I'm not saying that the English don't deserve it or anything I just think too many people think it's some sort of divine right for England to host it, and any critic is being ridiculed...

Don't get me wrong England could make wonderfull WC. But so could a lot of other nations. Including Holland & Belgium


----------



## beto_chaves (Aug 10, 2007)

Portugal & Spain are also planning a bid for 2018 WC!!!


----------



## skytrax (Nov 12, 2006)

I am for Netherlands :banana:


----------



## N1V1 (Apr 20, 2008)

Spain is to big to work together with an other country. If they aren't going to host it themself the UEFA never will give them the EK.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

Well Spain does not "need" Portugal, The Netherlands need Belgium and Belgium needs The Netherlands to organise. With their perfect location between Scandinavia (North), Germany (East), France-Spain-Portugal-Italy (South) and Great-Brittain and Ireland (West) they for sure do have a chance to win the bid!

Although England and Spain are fantastic competitors as well with also a very good chance to win the bid!


----------



## Hof van Seanden (Sep 28, 2008)

*that is true !*

*The Netherlands need Belgium and Belgium needs The Netherlands to organise. With their perfect location between Scandinavia (North), Germany (East), France-Spain-Portugal-Italy (South) and Great-Brittain and Ireland (West) they for sure do have a chance to win the bid!

Although England and Spain are fantastic competitors as well with also a very good chance to win the bid!*

THAT IS TRUE !
KEEP UPTHE GOOD WORK !!:banana:


----------



## krzysiu_ (Jun 6, 2006)

wc 2018 in nl if you ask me  go nl!


----------



## Vermeer (Apr 23, 2007)

Gherkin007 said:


> Well done for Belgium and the Netherlands for bidding... But there will be SO much controversy if the English don't get the tournament!


Why will there be controversy if England don't get the tournament? I think it's only in England people think they are so important for football, while most other thinks they are destroying football with their Russian/Asian/American money.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Hosting a World Cup, Olympics and what not is not a divine right as Athens (1996), Paris (2012) and South Africa (2006) among others have already witnessed.


----------



## wolkenbestormer (Mar 11, 2008)

Gherkin007 said:


> Well done for Belgium and the Netherlands for bidding... But there will be SO much controversy if the English don't get the tournament!


Why should there be controversy? Do the English have a moral right to have the worldcup? If that is the case why having an election? I'm sure that the 'Sun' will find a scandal anyway.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Genk *will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.










business area: 

*mirror glass of 3000 euro's per unit*











*themacafé (level 1 main stand):*




















*lounge for other business seats (level 2 main stand) and 1000 corner seats (level 2,3 and 4 corners)*











*same business facilities with 2 floating vaults (= 'zwevende toog') (corner north and south level 1)*



*warmed seats and the lansom lounge (with flatscreens) (level 3 main stand):*





















* lodges (with flatscreens) and warmed outside seats (level 4 main stand):*



















*press tribune (level 5 main stand): full inside seats*


*the museum (www.goalmine.be): (corner south level1)*















































*the fanshop (south stand level 1)*











*Brugge* will build a new stadium of 40000-45000 (price 125 mio; UEFA 4star)











*Brussels* will build a new 60000 seater 

Accord entre les Régions et le fédéral. Il ne reste plus que deux sites en piste : le Heysel et Schaerbeek-Formation. Un consensus sur le futur grand stade de football bruxellois a été dégagé jeudi, comme l’annonçait vendredi La Dernière Heure : il bénéficiera du soutien financier des autorités fédérales et flamandes.

La réunion rassemblait le Premier ministre Yves Leterme pour le fédéral, le ministre Bert Anciaux pour la Flandre, un membre du cabinet du ministre Michel Daerden pour la Wallonie, le ministre-président Charles Picqué pour la Région bruxelloise ainsi que le sénateur Alain Courtois. Yves Leterme a accepté de participer financièrement à la construction du futur stade. Le fédéral prendrait en charge la différence entre un stade de taille fédérale de 60.000 places et un stade régional de 40.000 places. Le ministre flamand des Sports Bert Anciaux a confirmé son soutien aux stades flamands (et donc à celui de Bruxelles puisque la capitale se trouvant en Flandre). Mais il ne veut pas d’un stade sur le parking C du Heysel. Estimation de la dépense ? Selon Alain Courtois, une place dans un stade coûte 4.000 euros. Ce qui donne un montant de… 240 millions d’euros.

Par ailleurs, la Région bruxelloise vient de désigner l’association momentanée IdéA / Secchi-Vigano pour mener à bien l’élaboration d’un schéma directeur de la zone de Schaerbeek-Formation, zone levier d’intérêt régional et dernière grande réserve foncière de Bruxelles. Charles Picqué leur a en outre demandé de travailler en priorité sur la faisabilité d’un stade à Bruxelles avec ou sans piste d’athlétisme sur les deux sites encore en lice : le plateau du Heysel et Schaerbeek-Formation.

Le résultat de l’étude est attendu pour début décembre, afin de permettre au gouvernement de se déterminer rapidement. Charles Picqué rappelle enfin que Schaerbeek-Formation reste le premier choix du gouvernement

*Antwerp* will build a new 40000 seater

*Luik* will build a new 45000 seater (UEFA 4star)

*charleroi* : new 40 000 seater

Nouveau stade à Charleroi pour 2013 

Cela fait un moment que l'on en parle, mais un calendrier vient d'être décidé dans l'optique de construire un nouveau stade à Charleroi. 
D'ici la fin de l'année, un site sera choisi. Gosselies serait actuellement l'option numéro 1. 

Une fois le site choisi, les architectes auront jusque 2010 pour dessiner les plans de ce nouveau Stade du Pays de Charleroi, qui devra être terminé pour le début du championnat 2013/2014. Tant le Sporting que l'Olympic devraient disputer leurs matchs à domicile dans la nouvelle enceinte



trainingscomplexes:

*Tubeke* :























































*Academy Louis-dreyfus * (Luik):

































































*Gent* (20000 seats):




















*Sint-truiden*: 15000 seats + hotel




























*Bergen/Mons*: 12000 seats


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

Nice pictures but many facilities shown here will not be suitable for the possible WC-2018. Any news on the timeline of Brussels plans? And could you please translate the part written in French into English, this is the international forum after all :cheers:.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

If Belgium and the Netherlands were to host the World Cup, I would have to put a new 60,000-seat stadium in Brissels by extending the capacity of the 50,000-seat Heysel Stadium to 60,000. But a capacity extension would mean destroying the roof to crerate new stands at the top. I am not building a completely new stadium for Brussels, especially a rectangular one. I'm concerned about this issue.

And in the Netherlands, I would use both the Amsterdam ArenA and the old Feijenoord Stadium for matches. But I would also build a new 80,000-seat National Stadium in Rotterdam (it will be oval (with a track) instead of rectangular because a rectangular national stadium would be too lame) to serve as the final venue.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

For Brussels I think that they want to build a new stadium that can be used more multifunctional like the Amsterdam ArenA. 

In Amsterdam they want a bigger stadium, because since the opening most matches are sold out. Or a very expensive expansion to 70.000 (first choice) or a new stadium. 

In Rotterdam they certainly don't want to have a track. They would like to have a new stadium with a 100% football field.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ As far as I know you are correct on all the three points you summed up!

Although an athletics track is possible in the New Feyenoord Stadium for Rotterdam, but it will be a track like which was thought out for Wembley. That also is a real football stadium, but still a concept for creating an athletics track was designed for Wembley Stadium.

It will never be built in Wembley Stadium since the 2012 Olympics in London will have their own dedicated Olympic Stadium. The athletics track would be a temporary construction which is not very easy to built, but also not very complicated and to much time consuming to built.

To make up for the loss of capacity a fourth tier is planned to be added to the new Feyenoord Stadium. This is something which was not planed for when Wembley Stadium was designed. The architects who will make proposals for the new Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam will be asked to take this fact into account when creating their designs.

The initial capacity of the stadium should and will be 80.000+ seats. All plans call for at least this number of seats. After a fourth tier is created, the capacity could rise to 100.000+ seats in a football setting. All depending on whether or not Belgium and the Netherlands will be awarded the WC-2018 or whether or not Rotterdam plays a big role in a possible Dutch Olympic Games bid for 2028! With a temporary athletics track the capacity of 100.000+ seats for the stadium will probably be lowered to about 80.000 seats.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

Rotterdam 2028 will never happen. Amsterdam 2028 isn't likely either, but it has a small chance at least.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

Amsterdam 2028 is more likely, however the city center of Rotterdam is just 60 km from Amsterdam. In a short period it will be possible to travel from city to city by train within 30 minutes. Especially for football games the new Feyenoord stadium will be excellent.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

mavn said:


> Rotterdam 2028 will never happen. Amsterdam 2028 isn't likely either, but it has a small chance at least.


You are probably correct. But it is not me who is advocating Rotterdam for the 2028 Olympic Games, the official planmakers and several politicians in the national and local government are advocating it. Also Amsterdam is advocated for the OG of 2028!

But to have the WC-2018 would be more feasable for Belgium and The Netherlands. There Rotterdam could play the same central role as it did with the EURO 2000 Championships. As the city located between the capitals Amsterdam and Brussels they managed to win the right to organise the final. Many in Amsterdam were completely taken by surprise over that fact since many thought that their Amsterdam Arena could not loose. Now with a brand new and most likely fantastic football stadium coming up for Rotterdam, they might pull that trick off again. But again, everything under the condition that Belgium and The Netherlands will win the WC-2018 bid. That is far from certain!


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Vermeer said:


> Why will there be controversy if England don't get the tournament? I think it's only in England people think they are so important for football, while most other thinks they are destroying football with their Russian/Asian/American money.


I don't believe that there will be any controversy if England don't get the World Cup in 2018 (though I do believe that England currently have the strongest European bid). Hopefully, whichever nation wins the vote will have earnt it.

But I fail to see how your post is relevant in any way. It is, in fact, a ridiculous thing to say.

Okay, so one English football club is owned by a Russian. A couple more are owned by Americans. And one is now owned by a middle eastern royal family. So what? It only goes to prove that the Premiership is more attractive to foreigners than any other domestic league. So, as far as you're concerned, English football should be punished for being successful?

As to your preposterous claim that English clubs are "destroying football", I suggest that you stop swallowing everything that Michel Platini says and, instead, think for yourself.

No one claimed that Italian clubs were destroying football when they were the dominant nation and when the Agnellis (at Juve), the Morattis (at Inter), Berlusconi (at AC) and Cragnotti (at Lazio) were buying all the best players in the world. No one claimed that Real Madrid were destroying football when they were dominant and breaking the transfer record every season, having been financed out of debt and into riches by Madrid city council.

Nope, only now that English clubs are dominant does the rest of Europe moan and whinge about money destroying the game. Pathetic. At least make some attempt to be consistent. It's particularly amusing to hear Platini whingeing. He was part of a Juve team that was dominant in Italy and won the European Cup purely on the back of the Agnelli family's money. I didn't hear him complaining about that!

And for your information, other than Chelsea, no English club has yet benefited from foreign ownership. Man Utd are a hugely successful club in spite of the huge sums of money that their American owners are taking out of the club.....yes, you heard me - the Glazers are bleeding Man Utd dry of money, not putting money in. Likewise, Liverpool's American owners are taking from rather than giving to Liverpool. And Arsenal are still English owned. Whatever success they have had, they have earned. And, believe me, as a Spurs fan, that is not something that I would say lightly!


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

JimB said:


> I don't believe that there will be any controversy if England don't get the World Cup in 2018 (though I do believe that England currently have the strongest European bid). Hopefully, whichever nation wins the vote will have earnt it.
> 
> But I fail to see how your post is relevant in any way. It is, in fact, a ridiculous thing to say.
> 
> ...


I see were you're coming from, but you're overlooking some things in my opinion.

Yes, the Italian clubs ruled in the '80 en '90. The difference was smaller though. Let's say Ajax had an annual budget of 20 million and AC Milan 60 million. Nowadays the difference is still 1:3 but 70 million to 210 million...

There was the foreigner rule were teams could only have 3 foreigners on the field at the same time. Since the EU opened up Arsenal plays with 11 foreigners. The Italian teams always had 8 Italians on the field.

English teams scout minors (8 to 15 year olds) on the continent. Parents are lured with 2 to 300000 euros to move with their kids to England. For most English teams this is pocket change. The teams were they come from can't afford to give all youngsters in their academy big salaries. They do invest in their football education though. They do the hard work and an Premier League team pretty much steals them for pocket change. 

In Italy, you had big teams, but not every team in the league had a huge budget and could buy whatever they wanted. Teams like Blackburn and Middlesborough have a bigger budget than any team in Holland. Based on what? Not the amount of fans I would say... Only because they're in the same league as ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool an Chelsea? If those 4 would leave for some sort of European league, the TV money that the premier league generates will probably diminish to 1/20 of what it is now. The team that gets the least amount of TV money still gets more than Feyenoords total annual budget. A relegation candidate in England can easily out muscle a top team from Holland, Belgium, Portugal and in some cases even Germany, Spain and Italy on the transfer market. And you say there is nothing wrong with that? 

You're team, Spurs, has spend more money during the summer than all Dutch clubs combined have spend. And during the winter you'll just spend the same amount again as if it was growing on tries. And lets not even start on ManC...You can't seriously think that is healthy...

Is there envy in what I say? probably. Although most of my resentment is based on the child trafficking that the English teams commit. It really disgusts me that teams play around with 9-year olds for their own benefit.

I don't think ManU is stealing the CL. They are a big team from a big league. They deserve their success. But the way things are going right now in the premier league is destroying football in my opinion. Not because they are the richest, but because a lot of that money isn't being gained or spent on the teams own merit. 16 teams are made richer than they are because of 4 others. Cause don't fool yourself. All the Asians will stop watching, and investors will turn their back on the premier league the minute ManU and Liverpool would leave...


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

mavn said:


> Yes, the Italian clubs ruled in the '80 en '90. The difference was smaller though.


The main difference is actually that the successful Italian teams back then were almost entirely bankrolled by rich benefactors. The successful English clubs now, by contrast (and with the exception of Chelsea), are entirely bankrolled by their own revenue streams. In other words, at least the successful English clubs (other than Chelsea) have got to where they are on their own merits.

Furthermore, English clubs have always owned their own stadiums and have had to pay to upgrade existing stadiums or to build new ones. Unlike a great many teams on the continent, English clubs have never had the advantage of local governments who will build new stadiums for them.



> There was the foreigner rule were teams could only have 3 foreigners on the field at the same time. Since the EU opened up Arsenal plays with 11 foreigners. The Italian teams always had 8 Italians on the field.


You can't blame English clubs for the change in European employment law. That is purely the responsibility of the EU. What next? Blame English clubs for harvest failure in Africa? Or global warming? Or war in Afghanistan? 



> English teams scout minors (8 to 15 year olds) on the continent. Parents are lured with 2 to 300000 euros to move with their kids to England. For most English teams this is pocket change. The teams were they come from can't afford to give all youngsters in their academy big salaries. They do invest in their football education though. They do the hard work and an Premier League team pretty much steals them for pocket change.......Although most of my resentment is based on the child trafficking that the English teams commit. It really disgusts me that teams play around with 9-year olds for their own benefit.


I don't know of any Premiership club that takes players from abroad at the age of 9. It might happen occasionally but no more so than it does elsewhere in Europe, I'd guess. Sure, many English clubs sign foreign players from the age of 15 or 16 but you are very mistaken if you think that English clubs are alone in that. Italians, Spanish and Germans have been doing it for years.

And even Dutch and Belgian clubs have long been signing very young players from Africa and elsewhere. It is preposterous to claim that English clubs are alone in this or even that they pioneered such policies. The truth is that they were far behind most continental clubs in terms of tapping into the market for young, foreign players.



> In Italy, you had big teams, but not every team in the league had a huge budget and could buy whatever they wanted. Teams like Blackburn and Middlesborough have a bigger budget than any team in Holland.


But that is merely attacking the Premier League because it has been so successful.



> ..they're in the same league as ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool an Chelsea? If those 4 would leave for some sort of European league, the TV money that the premier league generates will probably diminish to 1/20 of what it is now.


Maybe. But the same is true of any league. Take Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord out of the Eredivisie and the remaining clubs would generate 1/20th of the current television revenues. Likewise Barca and Real Madrid in Spain; AC Milan, Inter and Juve in Italy; Celtic and Rangers in Scotland.



> The team that gets the least amount of TV money still gets more than Feyenoords total annual budget.


Really? I would say that the bottom Premiership club would receive £25-30 million annually in TV revenue. Surely Feyenoord's annual revenues are greater than that?



> A relegation candidate in England can easily out muscle a top team from Holland, Belgium, Portugal and in some cases even Germany, Spain and Italy on the transfer market. And you say there is nothing wrong with that?


I haven't said anything of the sort. But while what you say is true, the most telling thing is that, however rich (by comparison to their European counterparts)) relegation candidates in England may be, the fact remains - they are still relegation candidates. The price that Premiership clubs pay for playing in the world's richest domestic league is that it is also the world's hardest, most dog-eat-dog domestic league.



> You're team, Spurs, has spend more money during the summer than all Dutch clubs combined have spend. And during the winter you'll just spend the same amount again as if it was growing on tries.


For starters, you should be aware that while Tottenham may have spent nearly £70 million on new players last summer, they also raised nearly £80 million from selling players. So you didn't really choose the best example to make your point!

Nevertheless, Tottenham is a very big club. A bigger club, in many respects, and with a bigger fan base and more history than Chelsea. If they can spend a lot of money on players, it is only partly because of the TV deal. Spurs sell out every Premier league game. And ticket prices are sky high because so many fans want tickets. Supply and demand. Because of Spurs' fan base, they are also able to sign huge sponsorship deals and earn big revenues from merchandising and corporate sales.

In other words, Spurs' financial muscle has been earned over many, many years of building a large and loyal fan base. Nothing has been handed to Spurs on a plate.



> And lets not even start on ManC...You can't seriously think that is healthy...


I entirely agree with you on that. It is impossible to justify the manner in which Chelsea have bought their success and the manner in which Man City will inevitably also buy success. In both cases, it has not been earned by the club. But that is precisely what many of the big clubs in Italy and Spain have been doing for decades. And things will only change if football's lawmakers introduce measures to stop fantastically wealthy individuals from buying glory for their clubs.



> 16 teams are made richer than they are because of 4 others. Cause don't fool yourself. All the Asians will stop watching, and investors will turn their back on the premier league the minute ManU and Liverpool would leave...


I question your figures. There are probably 12 clubs who are richer because of the top 4. There's no doubt that the likes of Middlesbrough, Fulham and Bolton have benefited enormously from Premiership TV revenues. But the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and Aston Villa are big, historic clubs in their own right, with big fan bases. Spurs, for instance, are reckoned to have some 5 million fans, 3-4 million of whom are from outside the UK - and a great many of whom are in Asia. There is no doubt that, were Spurs able to sign their own TV rights deal, they could earn as much as they currently do from the Premiership's collective deal.

But in truth, I approve of the collective deal. It is the only thing that remotely helps to level the playing field. If all Premiership clubs were to sell their TV rights individually, the gap between the likes of Man Utd and Wigan would become even more of a gaping chasm.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

JimB said:


> The main difference is actually that the successful Italian teams back then were almost entirely bankrolled by rich benefactors. The successful English clubs now, by contrast (and with the exception of Chelsea), are entirely bankrolled by their own revenue streams. In other words, at least the successful English clubs (other than Chelsea) have got to where they are on their own merits.
> 
> Furthermore, English clubs have always owned their own stadiums and have had to pay to upgrade existing stadiums or to build new ones. Unlike a great many teams on the continent, English clubs have never had the advantage of local governments who will build new stadiums for them.


I' m just saying that the difference is getting out of hand. Soon, NOT having 4 PL teams in the CL semifinals will become the exception. There are only a handful of clubs on the continent that will be able to sneak in every how and then.



JimB said:


> You can't blame English clubs for the change in European employment law. That is purely the responsibility of the EU. What next? Blame English clubs for harvest failure in Africa? Or global warming? Or war in Afghanistan?


I don't blame the PL for this. I'm just stating the difference between Italy then and England now. Because you compared the situations. A 6+5 rule (or something else) would in the long run be a good thing for European football as a whole. 



JimB said:


> I don't know of any Premiership club that takes players from abroad at the age of 9. It might happen occasionally but no more so than it does elsewhere in Europe, I'd guess. Sure, many English clubs sign foreign players from the age of 15 or 16 but you are very mistaken if you think that English clubs are alone in that. Italians, Spanish and Germans have been doing it for years.
> 
> And even Dutch and Belgian clubs have long been signing very young players from Africa and elsewhere. It is preposterous to claim that English clubs are alone in this or even that they pioneered such policies. The truth is that they were far behind most continental clubs in terms of tapping into the market for young, foreign players.


Ok, fair point. You are at the top of the food chain however and benefit the most from it. Apparently the EU is talking about giving the UEFA the possibility of restricting transfers for players under 18. I guess everybody will then start harvesting Africa, but within Europa it would be a good thing in my opinion.



JimB said:


> But that is merely attacking the Premier League because it has been so successful.


Yes, it has been successful. But is Bolton a bigger club then Ajax? Anderlecht? Benfica? Panathinaikos? Is it logical that they have waaaaay more money to spent? Only because they're in the PL and play against Chelsea and Arsenal?



JimB said:


> Maybe. But the same is true of any league. Take Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord out of the Eredivisie and the remaining clubs would generate 1/20th of the current television revenues. Likewise Barca and Real Madrid in Spain; AC Milan, Inter and Juve in Italy; Celtic and Rangers in Scotland.


Off course, but the difference is getting out of hand. We're reaching a point of no return at which the PL will pretty much become the CL minus Barca, Madrid and AC Milan... I don't blame the PL for that. I'm merely questioning whether that is the way European football should go...



JimB said:


> Really? I would say that the bottom Premiership club would receive £25-30 million annually in TV revenue. Surely Feyenoord's annual revenues are greater than that?


Feyenoords annual budget is ~40 million euros. About £34 million pounds... So yes it's more. Only just... It is more however then all the Dutch clubs minus the top 3.



JimB said:


> I haven't said anything of the sort. But while what you say is true, the most telling thing is that, however rich (by comparison to their European counterparts)) relegation candidates in England may be, the fact remains - they are still relegation candidates. The price that Premiership clubs pay for playing in the world's richest domestic league is that it is also the world's hardest, most dog-eat-dog domestic league.


Off course, but that's hardly relevant. I don't feel sorry for teams that live above their means to try and be part something they're not in the first place. I can name 10 teams in Holland that are (way) "bigger" than Wigan. but haven't got 1/5 of their budget. I don't feel sorry for a millionaire because he wants 3 Ferraris but can only afford 2...




JimB said:


> For starters, you should be aware that while Tottenham may have spent nearly £70 million on new players last summer, they also raised nearly £80 million from selling players. So you didn't really choose the best example to make your point!
> 
> Nevertheless, Tottenham is a very big club. A bigger club, in many respects, and with a bigger fan base and more history than Chelsea. If they can spend a lot of money on players, it is only partly because of the TV deal. Spurs sell out every Premier league game. And ticket prices are sky high because so many fans want tickets. Supply and demand. Because of Spurs' fan base, they are also able to sign huge sponsorship deals and earn big revenues from merchandising and corporate sales.
> 
> In other words, Spurs' financial muscle has been earned over many, many years of building a large and loyal fan base. Nothing has been handed to Spurs on a plate.


I'm not saying they got it for free. I'm just saying that English teams with 40000 people in the stands have 4 times the money in comparison to clubs in France or Germany with the same attendance... That's not logical. Ok, they may have more fans in SE-Asia, but who did they get them? Because their a big club? Or because they're in the PL?

Yes, I recognise Spurs are a big club. I wasn't attacking them specifically.



JimB said:


> I entirely agree with you on that. It is impossible to justify the manner in which Chelsea have bought their success and the manner in which Man City will inevitably also buy success. In both cases, it has not been earned by the club. But that is precisely what many of the big clubs in Italy and Spain have been doing for decades. And things will only change if football's lawmakers introduce measures to stop fantastically wealthy individuals from buying glory for their clubs.


Yes, Juventus benefited from the Turin based FIAT owners, but that's something different from an Saudi prince... 

You're remarks about Spain are incorrect. Barca and Madrid have an elected president. Yes they promise to buy players during the election, but they are big clubs. I don't blame Barcelona to be on top of the food chain. Neither ManU or Liverpool. I do think it's unhealthy though that Fulham can offer a player 3 times the salary that PSV and Porto can... 

But, in general, I fully agree with you on this...





JimB said:


> I question your figures. There are probably 12 clubs who are richer because of the top 4. There's no doubt that the likes of Middlesbrough, Fulham and Bolton have benefited enormously from Premiership TV revenues. But the likes of Spurs, Newcastle and Aston Villa are big, historic clubs in their own right, with big fan bases. Spurs, for instance, are reckoned to have some 5 million fans, 3-4 million of whom are from outside the UK - and a great many of whom are in Asia. There is no doubt that, were Spurs able to sign their own TV rights deal, they could earn as much as they currently do from the Premiership's collective deal.
> 
> But in truth, I approve of the collective deal. It is the only thing that remotely helps to level the playing field. If all Premiership clubs were to sell their TV rights individually, the gap between the likes of Man Utd and Wigan would become even more of a gaping chasm.


If the collective deal would be left, the PL will blow up. Numerous teams will go bankrupt within a year. (or some billionaire has to step in). I wouldn't mind that happening :cheers: But I fully understand you don't nor do I wish for it or anything.

The number 12 sound right by the way. 16 was exaggerated. And on the Asian fans you should ask yourself: Why are they fan of an English team? If the level of Football in their own country was anything half decent they couldn't care less about the PL. If the Bundesliga was there in the same way the PL is, they'd all be routing for Wolfsburg and Leverkusen instead of Portsmouth and Sunderland... If people can only buy Pepsi off course they like it more than Coca Cola... They are fans in the sense that they generate revenue through TV and merchandise. Let's not exaggerate. And they became fans because the PL is what they get. If the PL wasn't shown there nobody cared for WBA...


----------



## Vicman (May 28, 2007)

*hi*

Well, according to FIFA´s rotation, the host must be in CONCACAF or not???, I´m from Mexico and obviously i rather a World Cup here. Canada USA and Mex are interested in order to organize the tournament, even Costa Rica Honduras Guatemala and Niacaragua I don´t remember exactly which countries, are interested too, as cohost. Actually Mexico has the best infrastructure in SOCCER stadiums in America. It´s just my opinion, don´t get angry or something like that, I´ve heard about this that´s why i´m talking.

And ´bout World cup in Europe, I´d like to see a tournament in Netherlands...you got a good league and stadiums, and it´s true that needs Belgium, as in Euro 2000. 

Greetings friends. Visit the Mexican forums, bye!:cheers:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

mavn said:


> Soon, NOT having 4 PL teams in the CL semifinals will become the exception. There are only a handful of clubs on the continent that will be able to sneak in every how and then.


But rather than criticizing English clubs and the English Premiership for being so well managed, it would surely be better to criticize Italian, Spanish, German and French clubs and their respective leagues for not being very well managed by comparison? After all, they are all from countries of similar size and similar economic stature.

That said, I believe that Real Madrid is still the richest club in the world. No reason why they, according to the "money buys success" theory, shouldn't reach at least the semi finals of the CL every year.



> I don't blame the PL for this. I'm just stating the difference between Italy then and England now. Because you compared the situations. A 6+5 rule (or something else) would in the long run be a good thing for European football as a whole.


I only compared situations because it seems to me rather unfair that English clubs should now be accused of "destroying football" when they are only doing what some clubs on the continent have done for decades - especially since, other than Chelsea, English clubs have earned their financial muscle because of good management (and not, unlike their continental counterparts, because of a rich owner's money).

I agree with you, though, about a 6+5 rule, if only UEFA could get it past European employment law.



> Apparently the EU is talking about giving the UEFA the possibility of restricting transfers for players under 18. I guess everybody will then start harvesting Africa, but within Europa it would be a good thing in my opinion.


Agreed.



> But is Bolton a bigger club then Ajax? Anderlecht? Benfica? Panathinaikos? Is it logical that they have waaaaay more money to spent?


Of course not. But Bolton's greater financial muscle is only relative. They (and other Premiership clubs of similar stature) are not the kind of club that will often compete in European competition. Therefore their financial muscle relative to Ajax, Anderlecht etc is almost irrelevant. Their financial muscle should be compared only to other clubs in the Premier League. And in those terms, Bolton is a minnow.



> I'm not saying they got it for free. I'm just saying that English teams with 40000 people in the stands have 4 times the money in comparison to clubs in France or Germany with the same attendance... That's not logical. Ok, they may have more fans in SE-Asia, but who did they get them? Because their a big club? Or because they're in the PL?


It's not just about TV money, though. It's also about demand for tickets. Most Premiership stadiums are full for most games. In Italy, very few Serie A stadiums are ever full. Consequently, because of the law of supply and demand, Premiership clubs can afford to charge far more tickets than Serie A clubs. Premiership clubs have also run far more professional commercial operations than their European counterparts over the past 15 years or so. No reason why European clubs can't do the same. They just have to become more professional in order to catch up. I think that they probably will do eventually. And then a new cycle will start with a different domestic league becoming pre-eminent.

And I don't understand your argument about fans in Asia. It doesn't really matter if a club attracts fans purely because it is in the Premiership rather than Serie A. The fact is that there is no reason why Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1 or the Bundesliga shouldn't also have become very popular in Asia and other parts of the world. That they haven't is purely because they haven't been as well managed and marketed as the Premiership. Time for them to buck up their ideas.



> Yes, Juventus benefited from the Turin based FIAT owners, but that's something different from an Saudi prince...


Not really. The principle is exactly the same. We're in agreement about Man City's Abu Dhabi owners anyway.



> You're remarks about Spain are incorrect. Barca and Madrid have an elected president. Yes they promise to buy players during the election, but they are big clubs. I don't blame Barcelona to be on top of the food chain. Neither ManU or Liverpool.


The reference to Madrid was in relation to the enormous sum of money paid to them by Madrid City council, which got Madrid out of massive debt and launched them into a spending spree (Zidane, Figo etc) that saw them dominate in Spain and Europe for a number of years. Nothing like that could ever have happened in England.



> I do think it's unhealthy though that Fulham can offer a player 3 times the salary that PSV and Porto can...


But I go back to my earlier point. What, exactly, does Fulham's financial muscle relative to PSV and Porto get them? Nothing whatsoever. They are unlikely to qualify for European competition often, if ever. Their financial strength should therefore only be compared to other Premiership clubs. Meanwhile, PSV and Porto will continue to win trophies in their respective countries and to compete in top European competition.

So, yes, there are advantages to being, like Fulham, a small fish in a big pond. But it can easily be argued that it is better to be, like Porto and PSV, a big fish in a small pond.



> If the collective deal would be left, the PL will blow up. Numerous teams will go bankrupt within a year. (or some billionaire has to step in). I wouldn't mind that happening :cheers: But I fully understand you don't nor do I wish for it or anything.


If the collective deal was abandoned and, instead, the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool were allowed to sell their own TV rights, then I'm afraid that the CL would become even more dominated by those four clubs. If left to their own devices, they could double or triple their TV income - giving them as much as £100 million per annum extra to spend on players and wages.



> And on the Asian fans you should ask yourself: Why are they fan of an English team? *If* the level of Football in their own country was anything half decent they couldn't care less about the PL. *If* the Bundesliga was there in the same way the PL is, they'd all be routing for Wolfsburg and Leverkusen instead of Portsmouth and Sunderland... *If* people can only buy Pepsi off course they like it more than Coca Cola... They are fans in the sense that they generate revenue through TV and merchandise. Let's not exaggerate. And they became fans because the PL is what they get. *If* the PL wasn't shown there nobody cared for WBA...


That's a lot of "ifs"!

Better to deal with the reality - which is that the Premiership is by far the most popular domestic league for TV audiences around the world. And the reason for that is that it has been the best managed league; the most professional league; the best marketed league etc.

This is a competitive world. It is up to those other leagues (Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga etc) to catch up and maybe even overtake the Premiership. There is no good reason why they can't.

Lastly, and on a more general level, I believe that the Champions' League has been far, far more detrimental to the future of football than the Premiership. The Champions' League has created a virtuous circle for those few clubs who just happened to be among the elite in their countries at the time that the CL started. And it created a barrier to those clubs who happened to be outside the elite at that time.

If Platini wants to do anything to save football, he'd be far better off trying to restore the European Cup to its original, pure form. Of course, though, that won't happen because of the greed and power of those clubs who have benefited from the CL.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

^^
Interesting discussion going on here. As a fan of Reading a team that was a minnow in the prem for 2 seasons as well as a fan of the sport at all levels I have to say I agree with both of you in certain aspects as well as having a different perspective.

I do believe that the current status quo of Europe is slowly killing many competitions including the European Cup. The problem is simple the rich get richer and the gap between the rich and poor keeps on getting bigger and bigger. What I saw with Reading is that the premier league is a huge success but at the same time, it is starting to damage itself through it's own success in that is really is head + shoulders above other leagues and that the minnows in it really struggle to compete with the big boys.
Sadly the CL is also beginning to lose its greatness, for me winning the CL is no longer a bigger achievement than winning the prem, now for the English clubs. Also the teams from the smaller countries now have as good as no chance of winning it, which just makes the whole thing more boring and predictable I for one loved the Monaco & Porto run back in 2004.

I think the really sad thing about it is that Platini and UEFA don't have the intelligence or the balls to come up with decent proposals to level the playing field. I have a few ideas that may or may not be feasible but please give me your opinion

1) Revenue Sharing (only minor 1-2% that would be shared around all leagues and FA's in Europe)
2) Matchday Revenue Sharing (like in the FA Cup, the away team gets 10% of the matchday gate)
3) Wage Limit (Wage bands dependent upon revenue of that club)
4) Only 3 teams from Spain, Italy + England get into the CL (wouldn't damage the CL really and would put some much needed A list teams into the UEFA Cup)
5) Make the UEFA Cup a straight-through knockout competition, a simple business term what makes a product sell is its Unique Selling Point, from next season it will just be simple poor rip-off of the Champs League and it will not help to save the competition if anything it is more likely to kill it.
6) Squad size limit of 24 players & minimum of 6 home grown players (Let's face it Chelsea has a squad of 30 is it really needed and is it fair?)

Please tell me what you think because for me if any of these we're introduced it would go a long way towards saving football.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

I'll offer my thoughts, then make a motion that the mods consider moving this discussion to a new thread.

Re: Financial difference between Premiership (Serie A, etc) and smaller national leagues - It's disingenuous to suggest there's something unfair when smaller clubs within the bigger leagues have greater financial prowess than big clubs from smaller countries. The league itself is a product made appealing by virtue of the clubs and, often forgotten, those communities within that national league. Sure, Bolton and the like a small fish compared to the ManU's of the world, but to the fans of the league they're known commodities, contribute to the league atmosphere and rivalries, and ultimately contribute to the value of the league. I'd hate watching Arsenal matches if their entire slate consisted of 7-9 teams. In fact the varieties of character among teams adds flavor to each league. Thus, it's not as if Wigan has $ just by virtue of being on the same table as ManU and Pool. Their part of an entire product that has value, and will get paid a relative share. That the Eredivisie (which I love) has less revenue is mostly a byproduct of their smaller domestic population and smaller global appeal, the latter they're free to increase as possible just as every other league is doing.



berkshire royal said:


> 1) Revenue Sharing (only minor 1-2% that would be shared around all leagues and FA's in Europe)
> 2) Matchday Revenue Sharing (like in the FA Cup, the away team gets 10% of the matchday gate)


While I believe the league revenues should be shared equally (the League is the product, thus...) I don't agree about the matchday sharing as that's akin to welfare. If anything not sharing those revenues is the impetus for each club to maximize it's local following. I'd be wary of smaller clubs (who felt they couldn't achieve trophies) failing to invest in their sides and simply pocketing such shared revenue, as some major league teams do in US baseball and basketball.

European revenues should also be paid to the leagues. Give the participants a sizable pay to compensate for travel and wage stipends, and allot but then give the bulk of the monies to the respective national leagues to share among all clubs, based on a ratio of market representation and performance of members. FA would still have garnered a lions share last year, but perhaps not as much and not confined to a few teams. 


> 3) Wage Limit (Wage bands dependent upon revenue of that club)


Cannot see the EU abiding by this across multiple leagues. Too much disparity, anyway, and players, agents, etc for the bulk of people in the bigger leagues would decry anything that essentially prohibits their share of revenues that would then simply be pocketed by the owner. If Premiership is earning so much money why should their players be paid Le Championat wages?


> 4) Only 3 teams from Spain, Italy + England get into the CL (wouldn't damage the CL really and would put some much needed A list teams into the UEFA Cup)
> 5) Make the UEFA Cup a straight-through knockout competition, a simple business term what makes a product sell is its Unique Selling Point, from next season it will just be simple poor rip-off of the Champs League and it will not help to save the competition if anything it is more likely to kill it.


I'm not opposed but would counter that one thing that could also help would be a system whereby EVERY team in a nation's top league had more guaranteed games outside their normal league play. What's made the CL and UEFA the dividing line among the have's and have nots is the amount of fixed additional games available to those sides, meaning additional matchday revenue, higher rates for advertising sponsors, etc. Since this will always be a dividing line, I wonder if it would be better still to find a way to give those clubs left out of Europe some other vehicle for competition. Regional cups, maybe? Just thinking out loud, and doing this based on the likelihood the CL and EUFA cups won't see too much reduction as they generate too much money for EUFA.


> 6) Squad size limit


I've no problem with this, with perhaps a 2 player waiver for those competing in Europe.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Vermeer said:


> Why will there be controversy if England don't get the tournament? I think it's only in England people think they are so important for football, while most other thinks they are destroying football with their Russian/Asian/American money.


This isn't the fault of the English or the FA, per se, but rather a matter of UEFA not limiting clubs to operating on their own financial footings. As Jim has pointed out, established precedence allowed other leagues to capitalize on outside funding to prop up football, and that's all that's happening here. Granted, Pool and ManU are operating independently, albeit tenuously and unnecessarily based on heavy leveraging. Restricting outside support would cut RA's sponsorship of Chelsea... but it might also hit out at other smaller clubs in poorer nations and any prosperous team that benefits from public or private support for stadiums, land leases, etc. 

England is doing anything unique or unlawful, they're just exploiting the allowances in a new 21st century manner, and to a great scale. :cheers:


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

Vicman said:


> Well, according to FIFA´s rotation, the host must be in CONCACAF or not???


rotation has been abandoned by fifa
seems like a relevant conversation going on


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Will Luxembourg still get a special congress and training venues?


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Genk *will expand its stadium to 45000. It has confirmed its candidature yesterday.





































led-wall:










digital boarding:











business area: 

*mirror glass of 3000 euro's per unit*











*themacafé (level 1 main stand):*




















*lounge for other business seats (level 2 main stand) and 1000 corner seats (level 2,3 and 4 corners)*















































*same business facilities with 2 floating vaults (= 'zwevende toog') (corner north and south level 1)*



*warmed seats and the lansom lounge (with flatscreens) (level 3 main stand):*





















* lodges (with flatscreens) and warmed outside seats (level 4 main stand):*



















*press tribune (level 5 main stand): full inside seats*


*the museum (www.goalmine.be:) (corner south level1)*




















*Brugge* will build a new stadium of 40000-45000 

*Brussels* will build a new 60000 seater 

*Antwerp* will build a new 40000 seater

*Luik* will build a new 45000 seater 



trainingscomplexes:

*charleroi* : new 40 000 seater

*Tubeke* :























































*Academy Louis-dreyfus * (Luik):



































































*Sint-truiden*: 15000 seats + hotel


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

You like to repeat yourself don´t you?:naughty: Don´t matter some pics in this topic don´t do any harm.
Are there allready planns of Genk how to expand or do you have an idea how it is going to be done?
I heard in Brugge still nothing is sure. Nobody wants the ´bloody´ stadium in it´s town it seemes. Strange surtanly at this time, because a stadium like that may boosed the local economy rather big in a local town outside of Brugge.
No news about Anderlecht? I cannot find anything on the internet about it. Also nothing about Standard Liege? Allthough I think they have a good stadium at this moment.
Sint Truiden is looking nice, only a shame of the wall near the field. Some stadiums in the Netherlands have this to, Zwolle, RBC, and it realy does not look nice. It can be an option for cheap expansion in the future. They just have to go down and you can win about 2 000 seats with it.
If you have some more info about something don´t hold back...


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

No news from Anderlecht and Bruges. 

Genk has no stadium expansion plans what so ever if the Benelux don't get the WC 2018, they only agreed to participate.

Looks like Standard de Liege have chosen the location for the new stadium (at "les halles de foire" aka Coronmeuse) 

As for Sint-Truiden, the new stand is rising very fast. The concrete wall is very unlucky though and the latest news is that there is a reasonable chance that they will build terraces in front of the wall in order to obtain a better 'atmosphere'. But they will only be build behind the penalty area because -as you can see on the pictures- a few doors in the corner area must remain accessible.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Sorry guys, the bid's off. 



*Blatter: FIFA won't accept joint bids to host 2018 and 2022 World Cups*

Soccer's governing body has ruled out joint bids to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup, despite the global economic downturn.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said FIFA's executive committee decided that as long as there is a viable individual bid, "double candidacies will not be accepted."

That would affect planned joint bids for the 2018 World Cup from Spain-Portugal and Belgium-Netherlands. Japan and South Korea co-hosted the 2002 tournament.

Monday is the deadline to submit papers expressing an intent to bid.

Potential bidders include England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Australia, the United States, China and Mexico.

Blatter made the announcement at the South American Football Confederation's annual congress on Thursday.

Blatter said FIFA and other confederations were likely to weather the economic crisis, but acknowledged he was worried for the hundreds of soccer clubs around the world.

"We have solidarity in soccer, which means that those who have more give to those who have less," he said. "Soccer is strong - it doesn't have problems, it has solutions."


----------



## Skycrap (May 31, 2006)

Gherkin007 said:


> Sorry guys, the bid's off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a misunderstanding. He means that like country's as South-Korea and Japan, who actually organized it togehter, but didn't work together will not be accepted. But The Netherlands and Belgium are more working from like one organisation. I have a link for you, but it is in dutch, but maybe you can translate it with google:

http://www.vi.nl/NieuwsItem/BelgiEnNederlandOntstemdBlatterVerkeerdBegrepen.htm


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

No surprise really, Blatter has never made it a secret that he does not want to have a shared host any more.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

What a fool blatter. Eliminating all little countries in the future!!!


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

dacrio said:


> By Mark Ledsom
> 
> BERNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Up to 12 bids from across four continents are expected to compete to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups as the deadline approaches for countries to put their names forward.
> 
> ...


Good news for the Netherlands and Belgium. It seems to have certain similarities with the Euro 2000 bid.


----------



## willem s (Nov 7, 2007)

BELGIUM NETHERLAND it will be.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Perhaps not 100% ontopic, but last week the old discusion concerning a BeNeliga (making one top liga from the Dutch and the Belgium competition) was strured up again. The guilty person this time was ex Ajax chairman and now head (or somewhere high in the organisation )of the Dutch football organisation (KNVB) Micheal van Praag.
He said it was an interesting option which deserved it to be researched.
Now I was surprised because the KNVB always told that they did do research in the passed, but that the conclusion was, to me surprisingly, that it was not commercialy interresting. I think like all big organisation they are afraid of losing power
Michael van Praag said in so many words that it had never been investigated (sorry for my poor English)
Also some Dutch reporters from VI, the biggest football site and magazine from the Netherlands, went to the head of Uefa Platine for an interview. The Beneliga was mentioned big time there. The news was that Platini was actualy waiting for the Dutch and Belgium assosiation to come to him with a plann. This because Platini, I think rightly, afraid that a Dutch or Belgium club will never be able to winn or do something spectacular again in Europa. The financial gap, that has always been there, has simply become to big.
This opening that Platini gave is important because the way Uefa laws are now a fully combined competion would legaly not be possible. There would be need of adjustments in regulation.
Following to this news vi.nl did a poll on there website to find out how (Dutch) people look against a BeNeliga. Surprisingly the outcome of this poll was 50/50

Now I would like to know how people here think about this initiative.
Here or if you would like to continue in Dutch at this forum.


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

Let's keep it the way it is I'd say. Are you interested in Groningen - Charleroi or Gent - Heerenveen? And who wants to make a 2 x 4 hour drive (or more) on a wednesday evening?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Zeno2 said:


> Let's keep it the way it is I'd say. Are you interested in Groningen - Charleroi or Gent - Heerenveen? And who wants to make a 2 x 4 hour drive (or more) on a wednesday evening?


Distance cannot be the problem.

Delfzijl (NL) - De Panne (BE) 504 kilometer in 5 uur* en 5 minuten*
Den Helder (NL) - Narion (BE) 418 kilometer in 4 uur en 24 minuten
These are the outbounds of both countries. There not even playing clubs there.

In comparision
Ter vergelijking:

Southampton - Newcastle 523km in 5 uur en 45 minuten
Hamburg- Munchen 780 km in kleine 7 uur
Lille- Marseile 1004 km in iets meer dan 9 uur
Cadiz - Barcelona 1150 km in meer dan 13 uur
Torino- Palermo 1525 km in 14 uur en 25 minuten 

* uur = hour
* minuten = minutes

For me Groningen - Gent would be more interesting then Groningen - Volendam.
In relation to the organisation of the wc it would be very good pr to the Uefa and Fifa.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> Let's keep it the way it is I'd say. Are you interested in Groningen - Charleroi or Gent - Heerenveen? And who wants to make a 2 x 4 hour drive (or more) on a wednesday evening?


Doe je oogkleppen eens af en kap eens over die afstanden!!!! 
(Open your eyes and dont bother about the distances!!!). 

Sometimes you farmers are just as stupid as the cattle you work with. You ever bin somewhere else than your own village? Look over the borders and reed the post above. Think about other countries and it's size. Both countries are together even smaller than France, England, Spain, Italy and Germany. Are you affraid to leave your village and go for a trip? Take a day of, let the boys do the job, free your mind and explore places you never bin before. Look how everyone is doing it in the big countries around us...


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Red85 said:


> Doe je oogkleppen eens af en kap eens over die afstanden!!!!
> (Open your eyes and dont bother about the distances!!!).
> 
> *Sometimes you farmers are just as stupid as the cattle you work with*. You ever bin somewhere else than your own village? Look over the borders and reed the post above. Think about other countries and it's size. Both countries are together even smaller than France, England, Spain, Italy and Germany. Are you affraid to leave your village and go for a trip? Take a day of, let the boys do the job, free your mind and explore places you never bin before. Look how everyone is doing it in the big countries around us...



Please don´t go down that farmer road again Red85 from Purmerend (near Amsterdamhno, because your making yourselve look very very, but very stupid...

´After the funfair Purmerend is most famous for its cattle market, the so called Koemarkt (Cattle market), where cattle are sold and/or traded, most commonly cows and sheep. 
Source Wiki...: 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Allthough I understand your point, I don´t like your tone. It lacks respect
Maybe Zeno2 does follow his team everywhere. In that case I can understand why he would object. I do not agree with him because I think the distances thing is exaggerated. Specialy compared with other countries.
Not everyone is progressive, some like to keep things the way as they are, which isn´t that bad either.
I am somewhere in the middle. A BeNeliga I think is interesting. But other ideas like an Atlanticliga or sorts a like go to far for my taste.


----------



## amidcars (Mar 26, 2009)

We Dutchies lost the semi-final of the Baseball World Cup against the Yanks today. That sport does matter here, although it hasn't got a huge following. We couldn't give a shit about athletics though. Cycling is mostly just the Tour de France. It is not like anyone here remembers who won this years Paris-Roubaix or de Ronde van Vlaanderen.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

amidcars said:


> We Dutchies lost the semi-final of the Baseball World Cup against the Yanks today. That sport does matter here, although it hasn't got a huge following. We couldn't give a shit about athletics though. Cycling is mostly just the Tour de France. It is not like anyone here remembers who won this years Paris-Roubaix or de Ronde van Vlaanderen.


Does this have any relation with WC football? And you´re partly wrong. Cycling has a big following in the Netherlands.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

For example, stadiumwise this would not make a bad competion.
Regardsless the many planns in the Netherlands and Belgium for extensions.

NLD	AFC Ajax	Football	Amsterdam	Amsterdam ArenA	51 324	1996	all-seater 
NLD	Feyenoord	Football	Rotterdam	Stadion Feijenoord	51 180	1937	all-seater 

NLD	PSV	Football	Eindhoven	Philips Stadion	36 500	1913	all-seater 

NLD	Vitesse	Football	Arnhem	Gelredome	29 600	1998	all-seater 
NLD	SC Heerenveen	Football	Heerenveen	Abe Lenstra Stadion	27 500	1993	26 000	
NLD	FC Utrecht	Football	Utrecht	Stadion Galgenwaard	24 428	1982	all-seater 
NLD	FC Twente	Football	Enschede	Grolsch Veste	24 244	1998	all-seater 
NLD	FC Groningen	Football	Groningen	Euroborg	22 500	2005	all-seater
NLD	Roda JC	Football	Kerkrade	Parkstad Limburg	19 200	2000	all-seater 
NLD	NAC Breda	Football	Breda	Rat Verlegh Stadion	17 064	1996	all-seater 
NLD	AZ Alkmaar	Football	Alkmaar	DSB Stadion	16 000	2006	all-seater

BEL	Royal Standard	Football	Liège	Stade Maurice Dufrasne	30 023	1999	all-seater 
BEL	Club Brugge	Football	Brugge	Jan Breydel Stadion	29 975	1999	all-seater 
BEL	RSC Anderlecht	Football	Brussels	Constant Vanden Stock	26 361	1983	21 101 
BEL	Royal Charleroi SC	Football	Charleroi	Stade du Pays de Charleroi	25 149	2000	all-seater 
BEL	Racing Genk	Football	Genk	Cristal Arena	24 604	1999	20 401
BEL	Royal Antwerp FC	Football	Antwerpen	Bosuil Stadion	16 649	1923	14 053
BEL	AA Gent	Football	Gent	Artevelde Stadion	20 000	2010	all-seater


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

skaP187 said:


> Please don´t go down that farmer road again Red85 from Purmerend (near Amsterdamhno, because your making yourselve look very very, but very stupid...
> 
> ´After the funfair Purmerend is most famous for its cattle market, the so called Koemarkt (Cattle market), where cattle are sold and/or traded, most commonly cows and sheep.
> Source Wiki...:
> ...


offtopic:
Mooi he  Nooit van zelfspot gehoord? neem het niet te serieus. Als je me alsnog een boer wil noemen, ga je gang, maar dan wel een zonder oogkleppen en een stuk slimmer dan sommigen uit het noorden... 

Allthough, the cattle market is banned from the townsquare after the bse crisis. Pity I think
And for that little ad I put next to the towns name is not for the dutch who know that this little town is nothing but.. euh, yeah, what is it actually.. it has nothing special anymore since the cattle market on tuesday morning is banned.

Ontopic:

An atlanticliga is way out of the league. The feeling of the championchip of a country vanishes completely. I don't think anyone will agree to do this.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Probably I got the tone wrong then. That can happen when reading ´hard´.

Atlantic liga or something like that is not of my interrest. With Belgium atleast the Netherlands have some things in commune and there is a healthy rivelary, which should speed up the process of creating ´special´ matches.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

skaP187 said:


> Probably I got the tone wrong then. That can happen when reading ´hard´.
> 
> Atlantic liga or something like that is not of my interrest. With Belgium atleast the Netherlands have some things in commune and there is a healthy rivelary, which should speed up the process of creating ´special´ matches.


And it helps that the common speaks the same language. Kind off...


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

I want Benelux need FIFA WC 2018!!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Pretty concerning inside news from anoter forum.



---- said:


> Ha, ja hoor, daar ben ik...
> 
> DNK (= De Nieuwe Kuip) komt er wel. Athans, als we de plannenmakers van dit moment mogen geloven. Maar er zijn nog behoorlijk wat leeuwen en beren op de weg voordat het er zal staan.
> 
> ...


It says that Feyenoord will build a new stadium, but that they allready have put the planning of 2018 out of their mind.
I think if Feyenoord doesn´t get a new stadium fast that they won´t need it anymore, but that´s something else.
In short


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ That article is just political bla-bla. The new Stadium will be built and be ready in 2016 or 2017. For the subway connection to be ready in 2018 a miracle is required. The plans for that line can only be finalized in 2012 or 2013 or so. And that is just for the stadium area. For the other parts in the city where the line should run preperations have not even sterted yet, and I am talking about the paperwork only to make the planning of the line possible. Building permits and so forth is couple of chapter further down the road.

The New Feyenoord Stadium can not be delayed that long. The club AND the city need a better multifunctional stadium because they are loosing income and loose the staging of cultural events to other cities in the Netherlands, mostly to Amsterdam, Arnhem and a little bit to Eindhoven. Also the total redevelopment of that part of the city can not wait that long. The new subway line is necessary for sure, but it should not be the deciding factor in planning the whole redevelopment plans for the South-East Entrance of Rotterdam!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Can be so, but when the infrastructure is not there you cannot build a stadium.
See the problems for expansion at AZ Alkmaar or the troubles FC Twente had.
I have a hard head in it. (hehe don´t know if that´s an English expresion too)


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ Well, the new Feyenoord Stadium (De Nieuwe Kuip) will be built practically beside the old stadium. Which has a spectator record of 69.300! Nowadays it is declared full at 47.000 spectators but the stadium still has a very good infrastructure for public transport. Cars are the biggest problem, meaning there is way too little parking space for the cars of the visitors.

Since the current stadiums' renovation in 1994 there is a direct tramplus-line (an upgraded tram transportation system) on the new frontside of the stadium (Maas stand). On the other side (the old front, now Olympia stand) there is a train station within 100 meters. And that is on the main connection railway line Amsterdam-The Hague-Rotterdam-Antwerp-Brussels-Lille and Paris/London. Even the High Speed Train passes the stadium. So, combined with the city and regional bus services which stop at the east side of the stadium (Marathon Stand), there is basically more than enough public transport to and from the stadium.

In fact, the reachability by public transport of this stadium is still very, very good. The original planners planned ahead well in the 1930's. Even compared to (much) newer stadiums in Europe. So the problems AZ and Twente have/had do not apply to the current and/or the New Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam. Even the old stadium had since it was opened in March 1937 excellent connections with public transport!

Hence why I used the term "political bla-bla". At Camp Nou, Westfalenstadion or Old Trafford there are many more spectators then De Kuip-Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam can hold. But there are imho less public transport connections to those stadiums then De Kuip is having. That is no reason not to build the stadium, especially when the subway connection will be completely built "shortly" (a couple of years?) after the new stadium could be opened.

This political bla-bla which combines building of the subway line with the building of the stadium comes from the Socialist Party. The party which tries to block every renewal of city districts because the poor and jobless are the ones who usually vote for that rotten party! Sure, when dealing with a very big project like this (the whole transformation of the S-E entrance of the city will cost around 2 Billion Euro's) there are political questions to answer. But the SP always will do everything to stop all progress in the city area (they oppose the Airport, the High Speed Rail, the Freight train line to Germany, the redevelopment of old and poor city districts (Afrikaanderwijk, Nieuw Crooswijk), they always try to block progress! :bash.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

That was a thought that passed my mind too. That was an option to build the stadium besides the old one. There still has to be made a chooice where to construct no?
Well thanks for the hope you have given me in that case. We´ll see.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ You are welcome and we will see. The choice where to construct the new stadium was already made on December 16th of 2008. That principle decision was part of the formal "area vision" (gebiedsvisie) which was approved on that day. The stadium will be built along the river shore and should give a huge boost to Rotterdam.

Comparisons are already made with Sydney since the magnificant Opera House is such a symbol for that city, so close to the water and to the Harbour Bridge. De Nieuwe Kuip will be placed closer to the 12 lane Van Brienenoordbruggen (Highway A16) and on the other side the skyline of Rotterdam will be easily visible.

For some good renders about the plans for the area and the stadium see the thread about the stadium in the Dutch section: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=836184. Of course not a single design has been made yet, all the buildings yue see there are all shape studies for now.

Now the city is working out all these plans into a "structure vision" for the area. (structuur visie). This should be ready at the end of this year or early 2010. After the necessary discussion rounds it could be made final at the end of 2010 or early 2011. Then we will know every bit and detail to know about this plan. Then new "destination plan" (bestemmingsplan) can be made for this area can be officially approved. These plans are the ones on which building permits can be requested and awarded. This approval of the "bestemmingsplan" is expected for 2011-2012. Building permits can then be approved in 2012 or 2013 at the latest. With 3 years of construction time the New Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam could still be ready in 2016.

The new subway line usually will take longer time to construct, especially since they are crossing the river. But will be an integral part of the "bestemmingsplan", so there will not be any obstruction when they decide to start building the new subway line. This is more or less the latest situation on the New Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam.

And Amsterdam will try to keep up with these plans, or at least will try not to fall too much behind these plans. Hence the new plan to seriously expand the Amsterdam ArenA to 85.000 seats as well (if the WC-2018 comes to Belgium and the Netherlands ).


----------



## witn88 (Mar 6, 2007)

Same post as in de Belgium topic.

*State of affairs of the stadiums on 1 May 2009*

- In the past three months the situation surrounding the stadiums has evolved favourably.

- *Bruges*: the Loppem site has been confirmed by the Flemish government. The project of a stadium linked to a commercial centre has therefore been launched.

- *Brussels*: three options remain: Schaarbeek Vorming, parking C and an extension of the King Baudouin Stadium.

- New meetings are expected during May, and they will certainly take place after the regional elections of 7 June.

- The principle of a federal stadium with 65,000 seats has been approved by all departments. Only the location remains to be determined.

- *Antwerp*: the Flemish government has decided to build a new stadium with 25,000 seats (to be extended to 40,000 if the World Cup comes to Belgium and the Netherlands) at Petroleum South. The possible name of the new stadium: ‘The Port of Antwerp Stadium'.

- *Genk*: the dossier is finished, making it thus possible to extend the existing stadium to 40,000 seats if the World Cup candidature is successful.

- Mobility and the stadium's accessibility are being studied by local, regional and federal authorities.

- *Liège*: the people responsible for the city have paid a visit to the Coronmeuse site along the River Meuse. As a consequence the site has been selected.

- A new stadium creates the opportunity to redevelop a complete neighbourhood and to give a new orientation to the buildings of the Liège Trade Fair.

- A meeting has been organized focusing on mobility. All local, regional and federal authorities were present.

- Football club Standard de Liège have played an important role in this dossier, together with a number of private investors.

- *Charleroi*: on 26 December 2008 the city has received, just like all the other cities concerned, a copy of all plans and specifications.

- The city has made it clear that they want to be part of the 2018 project. Charleroi needs to build a new stadium in any case, as the existing one has to be pulled down by order of the Council of State.

- The necessary contacts have been established in order to relaunch the dossier in a positive manner.

- Other news: it is important to remind everybody that we also need sixteen World Cup training complexes. Several municipalities have already put forward their candidature.

- All in all substantial progress has been made. It is just as well, because the dossier will have to be submitted on 14 May 2010.

http://www.bn2018.com/page.asp?DocID=78030&From=List&langue=EN


----------



## HendrX (Oct 26, 2008)

Any news?


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

*Well there is construction movement, but not in possible WC stadiums*

Stadium of Sint-truiden:










Stadium of Beveren (second devision):











Because there is not so much news, i have adapted the stadium impression of Genk (once again I know) :



















*themacafé (niveau 1 hoofdtribune):*

*http://www.krcgenk.be/en/nieuws/pictures?album=39*




























* business seats (niveau 2 hoofdtribune) en 1000 corner seats (niveau 2,3 and 4 corners)*














































*dezelfde business faciliteiten met 2 zwevende togen (corner noord en zuid niveau 1)*

*lansom lounge (met flatscreens) en verwarmde outside seats(niveau 3 hoofdtribune):*



















* loges (met flatscreens) en verwarmde outside seats (niveau 4 hoofdtribune):*



















*pers tribune (niveau 5 hoofdtribune): inside-seats*

*museum (corner zuid niveau 1): *http://www.goalmine.be 





































*de fanshop (zuidelijke tribune niveau 1)*




























*café jeugd (aan de overkant van de straat)*


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

news in dutch:

Interview Jos Vaessen: stadion met 44.000 plaatsen
Het stadion van Racing Genk, de Cristal Arena, krijgt een gedaanteverwisseling. Een hoop commerciële faciliteiten wordt bijgebouwd, én er komt een derde bijkomende ring in het stadion. Voetbalbelgië.be sprak met Jos Vaessen.

"De commerciële uitbouw van het stadion zit nu in de 'Project Mer'-fase", zegt Vaessen. "Deze zou tot begin volgend jaar duren. Als alles positief verloopt, en er zijn vandaag geen signalen dat dit niet zo zou zijn, kan daarna met de bouw begonnen worden. Deze uitbouw bestaat uit twee peilers, namelijk een detailhandel van sport en recreatieve producten, én diensten van sport en recreatieve aard. Zoals een fitnesscentrum, een bowlingzaal, snooker en een discotheek".

Cristal Arena met 44.000 plaatsen
Naast de uitbouw van commerciële activiteiten staat ook een stadionuitbreiding op de agenda. Jos Vaessen legt uit: "De mogelijke uitbouw van het stadion koppelen wij aan de kandidatuur van het WK 2018. Als wij de toewijzing krijgen, zullen wij inderdaad een derde ring krijgen met een totale capaciteit van 44.000 plaatsen."

"Daarmee hebben we echter niet het grootste stadion in België, want voor de organisatie van het WK 2018 zullen er nog drie of vier andere stadions komen met telkens evenveel plaatsen. Mogelijk komt er ook een stadion met een capaciteit van liefst 65.000 plaatsen voor de organisatie van een halve finale."


Bijkomende parkeerplaatsen
Racing Genk maakt ook werk van een nieuw parkeerplan voor de thuiswedstrijden. "Op termijn gaan we, naast de circa 5.500 parkeerplaatsen die we nu hebben, een uitbreiding voorzien van ongeveer 1.000 parkeerplaatsen die gekoppeld zijn aan de nieuwe 'Sport en Recreatie Site'. Bovendien zullen op het nieuwe industrieterrein dat uitgebouwd wordt op de terreinen van de mijn van Waterschei nog eens 1.000 extra parkeerplaatsen komen. Deze 1.000 extra parkeerplaatsen zouden mogelijk al binnen enkele maanden beschikbaar zijn."

www.voetbalbelgie.be


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Nice!!! - Even though I think it would have been better if they made the roof retractable or transparent to get more light in. And I'm not sure if that pitch really meets all the Fifa requirements. 
What's the capacity???


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Laugh all you want but it is actually in a better state than 90% of Belgium's stadiums.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

genkie456 said:


> news in dutch:
> 
> *Interview Jos Vaessen: stadion met 44.000 plaatsen*
> 
> ...



Now the English version since this is the international section:



genkie456 said:


> *Interview with Jos Vaessen: Stadium with 44,000 seats*
> 
> The stadium of Racing Genk, the Cristal Arena will get a metamorphosis. A lot of commercial facilities will be built, and there is a plan for an additional third ring in the stadium. Voetbalbelgië.be spoke with Jos Vaessen.
> 
> ...


I hope Sercan is satisfied with my effort.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

You can laugh with it, but our museum is at least better than that of barcelona. There you pay 10 euro's for some pictures on a wall and some waste behind glass.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Sepp Blatter: FIFA will consider joint World Cup bid from Belgium and the Netherlands*
20 July 2009

BRUSSELS (AP) - A joint World Cup bid by Belgium and the Netherlands to host either the 2018 or 2022 tournament will be considered by FIFA after all.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said Monday that Belgian and Dutch officials assured him that their co-hosting candidacy would be run via a single organizing committee, not like the 2002 Japan-South Korea tournament, which posed a headache for football's governing body.

Blatter's comments appeared to reverse skeptical statements he made earlier this year, when he said joint bids will lose out in favor of a strong proposal from a solo host.

"After the World Cup 2002, the executive committee took a decision: never again a double candidature because it was absolutely wrong," Blatter said.

He said the way that tournament was run, with two organizing committees, different languages and budgets, made it too complex and cumbersome. But he said the Dutch-Belgian bid "is totally different," adding the bid was also a "sympathetic" one.

"The candidature like the Netherlands and Belgium shall be accepted because we have the evidence that there is only one organizing committee," Blatter said.

The two countries previously co-hosted the 2000 European Championship, which was considered a success.

Blatter and other senior FIFA officials were invited for talks with Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and King Albert II at the royal palace on Monday to discuss the bid. Bid committee co-chair Alain Courtois said the candidacy "will answer all FIFA criteria."

Along with 10 other bids, Belgium and the Netherlands want to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. On top of about $1.42 billion for up to a dozen stadiums, the nations would also have to improve public access through airport and highway upgrades.

Belgium, with 10 million people, and the Netherlands, with 16.5 million, are counting on a sympathy vote of other small nations worldwide to clinch the right to organize the World Cup.

Blatter said the bid from the two was welcome "because we want to show that the World Cup can still be held in smaller countries."

He also welcomed a similar co-hosting bid submitted by Spain and Portugal, but Blatter said he had not yet visited Madrid or Lisbon to get a briefing on how they plan to organize their bid. A meeting in Spain is planned for October, Blatter said.

FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke said he was examining all 11 preliminary bids, which also include applications by the United States, England and Russia. All candidates will have to submit a full bid book by next May.

The hosts will be chosen by the 24-member FIFA executive committee in December 2010.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ It will be a tough battle to win this. But it would be very good for Belgium and my country since football is doing very well here. The stadiums are getting bigger already at many clubs, with or without the World Cup. And all clubs are healthy or forced by the Dutch FA (KNVB) to become healthy. Large debts as we see in so many other countries are not allowed, just as in for instance Germany. That keeps the sport and the clubs healthy in the long run.

Still England and Spain are the favorite for this bid I guess, but I for sure would welcome the World Cup 2018 or 2022 to the low countries.


----------



## witn88 (Mar 6, 2007)

The HollandBelgium Bid presents candidate host cities

Eindhoven 9 November 2009 – Today, the HollandBelgium Bid, the joint Belgian and Dutch bid for the 2018/2022 World Cup, presented the candidate host cities for the World Cup in the Evoluon in Eindhoven.

The HollandBelgium Bid had already presented its partners and a number of ambassadors on 21 September. Today in Eindhoven, the spotlight was on the twelve cities bidding to host World Cup matches. Belgium presented seven candidates: Antwerp, Bruges, Brussels, Charleroi, Genk, Ghent and Liège. The Netherlands presented five cities: Amsterdam, Enschede, Eindhoven, Heerenveen and Rotterdam. Amsterdam and Rotterdam each intend to have two stadiums ready. Altogether, twelve cities which would make fourteen stadiums available for the biggest football event in the world.

Eindhoven welcomed the administrative representatives (the mayors or their deputies) of the twelve candidate host cities, who are going ‘’Together for Great Goals’’. The candidate host cities symbolically signed under their participation in the bid and showed off their cities. They gave a culinary sample of what the millions of guests can expect in 2018 or 2022 in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The new ambassador of The HollandBelgium Bid, former international goalkeeper Jean-Marie Pfaff, was also presented today.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Heerenveen but no Groningen?!! No Utrecht or Alkmaar even just for consideration? I'm quite surprised. I knew some of them might be far fetched but still figured that at this stage the nation would like to foster more options. Might also keep enthusiasm high at those cities for possible improvements of any kind. Curious.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

These five cities in the Netherlands have applied to be a host city. All the other cities had no real interest since they are lacking stadiums which can live up to FIFA demands. Maybe in the future Utrecht and Den Haag (The Hague) could have stadiums with a minimum of 44.000 seats, but short term there are no plans for such stadiums.

With Amsterdam and Rotterdam both bidding with two stadiums, there are now 7 candidate stadiums in 5 Dutch cities and 7 candidate stadiums in 7 Belgian cities (of which the majority is fairly close to the Dutch border). For sure this is the most campact bid in the heart of Europe, with stadiums which can be easily reached by many Europeans.


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

Expanding the Grolsch Veste to +/- 40.000 seats will make it suitable for a WC 


peezet said:


> PSV heeft gewonnen, maar de toekomstige Grolsch Veste ziet er nog groter uit dan ik verwacht had.


----------



## jean1991 (Apr 26, 2007)

Why is Japan being considered? Didn't they host the WC in 2002? 16 years is too close..


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

jean1991 said:


> Why is Japan being considered?


Because they're bidding. They won't get it though, it's way too close as you said.

Anyway, this thead's not about Japan.


----------



## dark noire (Oct 6, 2009)

Belgium has to do a lot better concerning renewing their stadiums. There isn't one visionary or daring concept. Not like Turkey for instance, their ideas for Uefa 2016 are simply breathtaking. I hope Brugge, A'pen, Brussel and Luik/Liège will come up with fresh ideas.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Beginning of march, we will get to see renders of the 7 future belgian stadiums.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

outside the WC, Anderlecht is going to rebuild its stadium into something like a mini allianz arena.


----------



## dark noire (Oct 6, 2009)

i've also heard that, how ridiculous. i'm sure it will be beautiful by Belgian standards, but to compare it with the allianz arena by Herzog & de Meuron, that's a bridge to far. Actually I'm quite excited for the new stadiums of Bruges and Antwerp. And off course in Brussels, as you know, OMA and Dominique Perrault are amongst others to redesign the Heizel, with possebly a new stadium.


----------



## oopepeoo (Jan 14, 2009)

RobH said:


> Because they're bidding. They won't get it though, it's way too close as you said.
> 
> Anyway, this thead's not about Japan.


Mexico hosted 1970 and 1986 World Cups


----------



## OperateOnMe (Jan 27, 2007)

Alemanniafan said:


> Nice!!! - Even though I think it would have been better if they made the roof retractable or transparent to get more light in. And I'm not sure if that pitch really meets all the Fifa requirements.
> What's the capacity???


The quality of the pitch is good, just a shame that there are'nt enough seats :bash: I take it, that the sculpture in the middle is bringing in the cultural aspect of the bid? :nuts:


----------



## bthj (Jan 2, 2008)

oopepeoo said:


> Mexico hosted 1970 and 1986 World Cups


Mexico 1986 was a step in. The 1986 World Cup was initially awarded to Columbia, but this was withdrawn only 18 months for kick-off due to the then current civil war.


----------



## patroeski (Jul 8, 2005)

genkie456 said:


> Beginning of march, we will get to see renders of the 7 future belgian stadiums.


Were did you get this information.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Alain courtois in an interview somewhere in a paper.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

new charleroi stadium:


----------



## Woembah (Jul 10, 2009)

Wow that looks really really cool! I hope that more of the stadiums that will be built will look this special.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

in large:


----------



## dark noire (Oct 6, 2009)

Thanks for posting genkie. It's centainly not bad, because I think it's unique, the architects for once were not trying to copy the allianz arena for example. I'm left with mixed feelings.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Looks good, very original not another copy. From the outside it doesn 't look like a stadium.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

bwoah nice surprice!
Why is it always that there is more atantion for the outside then for the inside of the stadium in renders by the way?
I need more info!


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

I would love there to be a Benelux WC; two proper football countries that have given the game plenty, placed near the heart of Europe with great infrastructure for fans and visitors - not to mention Euro 2000 was the best international tournament of the past 20 years. To think that the US, a country where football is no where near being a part of the general culture, might get their 2nd WC in last than 30 years yet Belgium or Holland may not have had one by then is both shocking and sad.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

the renders of the other belgian stadiums will be shown by prime ministre Yves Leterme end of march.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

outside the WC:

new (renovated) stadium of Anderlecht, finished in 2013:


----------



## carlosfng (Mar 1, 2010)

kerouac1848 said:


> I would love there to be a Benelux WC; two proper football countries that have given the game plenty, placed near the heart of Europe with great infrastructure for fans and visitors - not to mention Euro 2000 was the best international tournament of the past 20 years. To think that the US, a country where football is no where near being a part of the general culture, might get their 2nd WC in last than 30 years yet Belgium or Holland may not have had one by then is both shocking and sad.


Well, your argument is valid, but there's also two valid reasons for the US bid: to get good American money and to try and convert Americans to soccer and finally establish a market there. Also, I guess FIFA wants to dissuade and/or hide the fact that Europeans have a hold on football, which I as a South American find a nice gesture at least. And since I know that after Brazil I won't see anyther WC in SouthAm in my lifetime, maybe a WC in in the US is as close as I can get (perhaps there might be one in Argentina or Chile in a very distant future, but nowhere else - heck, my country can't even afford to host a Copa America!).

However, if the Stade de Charleroi is a reality, I wouldn't mind a Benelux WC, what a great outward design. The inside is probably the two-tiered cookie-cutter stuff, though, so thats why they dont' show it.

Oh, and I haven't been following the thread, so I have to ask: was the FIFA ban on multiple WC hosts repealed? What exactly is FIFA's current position on that?


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

For one, America is an established market. It's not a big market, but established nonetheless. They have a good business model, and there are new football specific stadiums springing up always (and being filled up more importantly). There is more access to European football than ever before as well. Football never has to become anything big in the US to succeed. It's found its niche, and it can progress at its own pace. 

Secondly, an American bid does nothing for football infrastructure and stadia. 

The money is great, and FIFA will have that in the back of their mind, but its not the be all and end all. I would much rather see co-host bidding stay in the Euro-Championship frame, and not go beyond that.


----------



## Bogus Law (Mar 6, 2009)

Great, unique design. I would love to see the new Stade de Charleroi constructed soon no matter if they'll get the WC or not.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Demissionair minister Ab Klink (sport) announced Tuesday in The Hague on behalf of the Dutch cabinet official support to the organisation of the WC 2018. This was an important requirement of the world football association FIFA, who demands "government guarantees". The cabinet sees it ' WC-bid' as an important step to show that to the Netherlands can organise also the Olympic Games. The Netherlands predominates himself to put candidate for the organisation of the Summer Olympics of 2028. 


Dutch WC 2018 stadiums:

Amsterdam: 
Stadium: Amsterdam Arena
Capacity: 85.000









Rotterdam:
Stadium: Nieuwe Kuip
Capacity: 85000









Eindhoven:
Stadium: Philips Stadium:
Capacity 45.000/50.000









Enschede
Stadium: Grolsch Veste
Capacity: 44.000









Heerenveen
Stadium: Abe Lenstra Stadion
Capacity: 44.000


----------



## AmsterdamArenA (Apr 6, 2006)

There are two stadiums left:

Amsterdam
Olympic Stadium
Capacity: 45.000/55.000-60.000








Rotterdam
Feijenoord Stadium
Capacity: 51.577 (currently)


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

genkie456 said:


> outside the WC:
> 
> new (renovated) stadium of Anderlecht, finished in 2013:


This one will not be big enough for the worldcup.


----------



## AmsterdamArenA (Apr 6, 2006)

skaP187 said:


> This one will not be big enough for the worldcup.


It's not supposed te be used for the WC.
Anderlecht has decided not to wait for the new stadium to be built in replacement of the Koning Boudewijn Stadium.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

AmsterdamArenA said:


> There are two stadiums left:
> 
> Amsterdam
> Olympic Stadium
> ...


These stadiums are "back-up stadiums"


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

AmsterdamArenA said:


> It's not supposed te be used for the WC.
> Anderlecht has decided not to wait for the new stadium to be built in replacement of the Koning Boudewijn Stadium.


What is it doing in this thread then?:banana:


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

hugenholz said:


> These stadiums are "back-up stadiums"


Only serious option to mop is Rotterdam as back up with the current Kuip.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Estimated costs (contribution Dutch government):

Costs Nieuwe Kuip: 200 million Euro's ( 1/3 local government, 1/3 private investors, 1/3 banks/Feyenoord)

Costs expansion Amsterdam Arena: 75 million euro's

Costs expansion Abe Lenstra stadion: 40 million euro's

Costs expansion Grolsch Veste: 40 million euro's 

Costs expansion Philips Stadion: 50 million euro's

These costs only includes the stadiums, infrastructural costs are not included

Total costs around 400 million euro's


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

hugenholz said:


> Estimated costs:
> 
> Costs Nieuwe Kuip: 200 million Euro's ( 1/3 local government, 1/3 private investors, 1/3 banks/Feyenoord)
> 
> ...


You realy think a new kuip will only cost 200 millon, when Valencia is allready going up to 300 million with a smaller stadium then the new Kuip will be. Mark my wurds 500 million comes first.
They will never get it done, also because of bureaucratie and lack of infrastructure, and then I am not even talking about the financial part.
Our Belgium partners aren´t doing much better either.
Forget about it, we can´t even organize a proper cupfinal


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

^^ For the Nieuwe Kuip they estimate about 600 million. 

When something has to be done, it will be done. For the Olympic bid of Amsterdam 1992 they needed to fix the road infrastructure. The ringroad A10 was finished in 1990 because of a possible Olympic Games in 1992. The bid failed, but the construction of the infrastructure not.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Wuppeltje said:


> ^^ For the Nieuwe Kuip they estimate about 600 million.
> 
> When something has to be done, it will be done. For the Olympic bid of Amsterdam 1992 they needed to fix the road infrastructure. The ringroad A10 was finished in 1990 because of a possible Olympic Games in 1992. The bid failed, but the construction of the infrastructure not.


Then I was ´only´ of about 100 million. 
Mark my words, it can´t be done before 2018, maybe 2022.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Wuppeltje said:


> ^^ For the Nieuwe Kuip they estimate about 600 million.


These are the figures Ab Klink told BNR radio and RTL, 400 million total costs all Dutch stadiums (including Nieuwe Kuip). These costs are the government's contribution

If the Nieuwe Kuip will cost 600 million, the government contribution for the Nieuwe Kuip will be 200 million Euro's ( as mentioned before 3 parties share each a third of the costs; 3x 200 million Euro's= 600 million Euro's)

But as always: estimated costs for big projects (remember NZ-lijn) are never correct


----------



## dark noire (Oct 6, 2009)

Concept of the new stadium in Bruges. This is not the definitive design.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

^^ cool!! welcome..


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

renders renovated stadium genk:


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Both stadiums are from A&E Architecten (Dutch), the Charleroi stadium also.

These guys are really masters in innovating new stadiums


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

> *THE HOLLANDBELGIUM BID PRESENTS SEVEN GREAT GOALS*
> Friday 14 May, 2010
> 
> Great Goals magazineThe HollandBelgium Bid, the joint candidacy of Belgium and Holland for the FIFA World Cup, today presented seven Great Goals as part of its Bid Book. The Great Goals herald the contribution the HollandBelgium Bid will make to football, as well as to the people, society and the environment.
> ...


Source: Official Website


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

Proposed expansion of PSV stadium in Eindhoven, the capital city of the WC if it will be in the Benelux.



[NL] Mr.Mit. [NL] said:


> Eindelijk serieuze impressies van het Philips Stadion na uitbreiding:
> 
> 01.
> 
> ...


----------



## AmsterdamArenA (Apr 6, 2006)




----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

^^

Where and how did you find this picture ?


----------



## AILD (May 1, 2010)

They uploaded a Bid Book (but you must register to enter the site). Look at the Bid site.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

AmsterdamArenA said:


>


Great stadiums !!! welcome... :banana::banana::banana:


----------



## BJK67 (Mar 25, 2010)

I feel embaressed that they put the olympic stadium in it... a stadium with a track and just 43k capacity, thats not worth a world cup match. Why not leave the amsterdam arena as it is (52k) and build a complete new stadium with 65k (olympic?) 

To bad Groningen is not in the bid


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

For possible Olympic Games they would build a complete new stadium. They want to use the old Olympic Stadium for another sports event prior to the WC (European Athletics Championships). This will be a temporary expansion. They haven't made a final design, so we don't know how it will look like. They and we know only that it is technical possible. For the long term this is better.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Haha nice to see that the new kuip will have 82 800 cap. Also they are finaly building a new stadium in Antwerp, Brugge and Liege...
I see the Arteveld stadium will extend before it´s even build and the Olympic stadium is the top of the cream.
This bidbook is a joke and a complete waste of time.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

The Olympic Stadium will not be hosting an actual WC-game it is a kind of back-up stadium (just like the old Kuip in Rotterdam). The picture showed above is one of the two pre-designs.


----------



## Mojito (Aug 14, 2003)

They should have taken the other option for the Olympic Stadium on the picture. 
The upper one looks (in my humble opinion) definitely better than the one below:


----------



## Maartendev (Apr 19, 2010)

Mojito said:


> They should have taken the other option for the Olympic Stadium on the picture.
> The upper one looks (in my humble opinion) definitely better than the one below:


Seriously, that they even dare to provide that lower image for a bid...
Upper design looks 10x more solid then that crap.

As a Dutch guy i hope off course that we will be the ones to host 2018/2022 but if you come with such crappy designs it is just a waste of time!


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

Well its actually not a design, because there isnt a finished design yet. Its just as an impression and to show what is possible.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Het grote probleem met het Olympisch Stadion is dat het een monumentale status heeft. Je mag er dus niks aan slopen en het ontwerp mag niet aanzienlijk worden veranderd. Het Olympisch Stadion zou bij de oorspronkelijke bid helemaal niet gebruikt worden. Groningen en Alkmaar zouden in eerste instantie ook kandidaat-steden worden met ieder een 40k + stadion. De gemeenteraad van Groningen en de DSB-affaire/gemeente Alkmaar besliste echter anders. Hierdoor is er te weinig tijd geweest om met een fatsoenlijke ontwerp te komen.

Ik vind ook dat je niet met zo'n lachwekkend ontwerp kunt aankomen maar vergeet niet dat het Olympisch stadion niet gebruikt gaat worden. (de Fifa eist minimaal 12 officiële WK-steden en 2 reserve-stadions)

Oops I did it in Dutch

Translation here: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

AmsterdamArenA said:


>


Benelux = BElgium - NEtherlands - LUXembourg right

but where is stadium in Luxembourg?


----------



## Clone (May 19, 2010)

crazyalex said:


> Benelux = BElgium - NEtherlands - LUXembourg right
> 
> but where is stadium in Luxembourg?


Only belgium and netherlands. So no benelux.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Clone said:


> Only belgium and netherlands. So no benelux.


The money will be stored in a bankaccount at Luxemburg.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Luxembourg could be the neutral city/nation, in that it holds the WC draws (both), houses 1 or 2 teams and the crowning glory, perhaps using funds left over a new 20,000 seater or so stadium, not only to serve the visiting teams making Luxembourg their homes during the WC, but also host a few pre WC friendlies?


----------



## stevensp (May 7, 2010)

When you look at the Bid book it's nice to see that it's a realistic plan...
but if it's impressive enough to convince the Fifa...?


----------



## Fizmo1337 (Mar 26, 2009)

Lord David said:


> Luxembourg could be the neutral city/nation, in that it holds the WC draws (both), houses 1 or 2 teams and the crowning glory, perhaps using funds left over a new 20,000 seater or so stadium, not only to serve the visiting teams making Luxembourg their homes during the WC, but also host a few pre WC friendlies?


Luxemburg has nothing to do with this bid -_- If only because a 3-way bid would probably never pass & they wouldn't lux automatically qualify ^^

Why would Luxemburg be included in this bid when it doesn't has/need a stadium. We can easily do it with BE & NL.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

stevensp said:


> When you look at the Bid book it's nice to see that it's a realistic plan...
> but if it's impressive enough to convince the Fifa...?


I don't think so. 

The costs are a very low estimate. To low. 200m for a 80.000 stadium? Look at wembley, look at the stadiums in Germany. No way that the 400m will be enough for the government.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

This bid has two hopes, no hope and bob hope:lol:


----------



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

crazyalex said:


> Benelux = BElgium - NEtherlands - LUXembourg right
> 
> but where is stadium in Luxembourg?


The name Benelux?

Belgium and the Netherlands are part of the Benelux Union. The members of the Benelux parliament in Brussels has an advisory role for Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Because of these Union since 1955, the countries can work very efficiently as one nation. 

Blatter was very unsatisfied with co-hosting of Japan and S. Korea in 2002. Because Japan and S. Korea had their own separate organization. Belgium and the Netherlands have the advantage to organize an event as one nation.

In 2009 the Benelux parliament already said to want to invest in the wc2018 tournament. So this include Luxembourg as well. Luxembourg doesn't have a impresive football stadium infrastructure but I think they aiming on tourist visiting the Benelux countries. After all the Benelux is a small union were distance are very short to travel.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Red85 said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> The costs are a very low estimate. To low. 200m for a 80.000 stadium? Look at wembley, look at the stadiums in Germany. No way that the 400m will be enough for the government.


You have to read better... but still you are probably right at the end.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

skaP187 said:


> You have to read better... but still you are probably right at the end.


You are pointing at the private investements I guess. I also counted them in in my thinking.


----------



## bthj (Jan 2, 2008)

skaP187 said:


> Haha nice to see that the new kuip will have 82 800 cap. Also they are finaly building a new stadium in Antwerp, Brugge and Liege...
> I see the Arteveld stadium will extend before it´s even build and the Olympic stadium is the top of the cream.
> This bidbook is a joke and a complete waste of time.


drawingbook infrastructure is quit common for bids.


----------



## Fizmo1337 (Mar 26, 2009)

AmsterdamArenA said:


>


It's probably already mentionned a lot but which ones of those will be built even if we don't get the World Cup? (I know it's hard to say at this moment but just the ones that are 95-100% sure)


----------



## Zeno2 (Jan 22, 2006)

Fizmo1337 said:


> It's probably already mentionned a lot but which ones of those will be built even if we don't get the World Cup? (I know it's hard to say at this moment but just the ones that are 95-100% sure)


In that case, the stadium renewal will continue in Belgium, but on a smaller scale. 
The project in Bruges is imo the only project that will continue, even without hosting the WC.


----------



## witn88 (Mar 6, 2007)

Zeno2 said:


> In that case, the stadium renewal will continue in Belgium, but on a smaller scale.
> The project in Bruges is imo the only project that will continue, even without hosting the WC.


Also the expansion of Sclessin (Liège) doesn't depend on the possible WC in the Benelux.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Fizmo1337 said:


> It's probably already mentionned a lot but which ones of those will be built even if we don't get the World Cup? (I know it's hard to say at this moment but just the ones that are 95-100% sure)


With no WC 2018 in the Netherlands these plans are official:

Amsterdam Arena: expansion to 55.000
Nieuwe Kuip: New stadium 70.000/80.000 or less
Grolsch Veste: expansion to 32.000 (this year)
Abe Lenstra Stadion: expansion to 32.000 (2011)


----------



## Fizmo1337 (Mar 26, 2009)

ok thx!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

hugenholz said:


> With no WC 2018 in the Netherlands these plans are official:
> 
> *1 Amsterdam Arena: expansion to 55.000
> *2 Nieuwe Kuip: New stadium 70.000/80.000 or less
> ...


*1 Is that beeing done by closing the corners or something? Love to see more info.
*2 I thought it was minimum 80 000 and expandable (to 106 000.:cheers
*3 starting in September I believe, strange date by the way.
*4 You have noticed any movement yet?


----------



## Belxos (Nov 8, 2009)

Fizmo1337 said:


> It's probably already mentionned a lot but which ones of those will be built even if we don't get the World Cup? (I know it's hard to say at this moment but just the ones that are 95-100% sure)


The one in Ghent will be built anyway, they'll probably start after the summer.

It will only be a 22k stadium, the other 22k will only be build temporarily for the WC2018.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

skaP187 said:


> *1 Is that beeing done by closing the corners or something? Love to see more info.
> *2 I thought it was minimum 80 000 and expandable (to 106 000.:cheers
> *3 starting in September I believe, strange date by the way.
> *4 You have noticed any movement yet?


*1 The Amsterdam Arena will expand the first tier by lowering the stands to the pitch (overlapping the transportation shafts/"gracht" which will still be open for transport), about the corners: 2 corners will be closed permanently and 2 corners will be closed with moving stands (similar to Euro 2000) this is still "on hold" because less wind could have a negative effect on the pitch. I don't expect any movement this summer (maybe some extra stands close to the pitch. It all depends on Fifa's verdict (do you accept Russian roubles ?) in december...

*2 The New Kuip will only expand to 80.000 or more if the Netherlands/Belgium WC 2018 will be successful in their bid. Losing the bid will have an affect on the actual capacity because the budget to build the new stadium will certainly decrease. The city council of Rotterdam will decide after december 2010 how/what/when and how much

*3 The Grolsch Veste expansion to 32.000:









*4 Abe Lenstra Stadion: Heerenveen could start with the expansion of the West Side of the stadium in september 2010 but they did n't because of practical reasons (season planning) new start date is spring 2011


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

*1 That´s nice with Ajax that they are going to close the gap, which is big at this moment, to the pitch. Groningen did that also in a nice way. 
*2 Feyenoord minimum 80 000 with pos.expansion to enormus...
*3 Fc Twente is going to look good. I wunder, WC or not, when they will do the final expansion. It looks not finished, though allright. They will get there I think.
*4 SC Heerenveen, you have some more info about how it is going to look when expanded to 32 000?

Thanks for the info.


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

New clip of the PSV Eindhoven Philips stadium expansion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Q5PeTtALk&feature=player_embedded


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Belxos said:


> The one in Ghent will be built anyway, they'll probably start after the summer.
> 
> 
> > ... you´re sure?


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Any pics of Amsterdam ArenA expansion?


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

I have not seen any recent good renders of the possible expansion of the Amsterdam ArenA. Hopefully we will see some of them soon.


----------



## AmsterdamArenA (Apr 6, 2006)

The same render of the expanded Amsterdam ArenA but a bit bigger.

Click here for more renders of the other stadiums.


----------



## N1V1 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Orange convoy overruns South African roads*

An orange convoy made up of 175 camper vans, cars, buses and trucks departed from the Orange Camp Site in Fountains Valley, Pretoria, heading for Durban on Wednesday morning amid great interest from the international press. The roofs of all the vehicles were festooned with stickers with The HollandBelgium Bid logo.

The colourful procession carried 750 people 640 kilometres to the next Orange Camp Site set up in the Bluff Eco Park. The N14 motorway was closed off especially for the convoy and the Dutch, South African and international press assembled along the route to report on the 175 vehicles. Take a look at the helicopter footage of the convoy on The HollandBelgium Bid’s YouTube channel.

The Netherlands will be playing its second FIFA World Cup™ match against Japan in Durban on 19 June. On 20 June, the convoy will then head down to Cape Town, the Dutch team’s next venue.


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

A little list for you guys 









The Holland Belgium Bid
_________________________________________________________________________________________

*STADIUMS*










*Netherlands*

*HEERENVEEN - Abe Lenstra Stadion - 26.100*










World Cup capacity: 44.000









*ENSCHEDE - De Grolsch Veste - 24.000*










World Cup capacity: 44.000









*EINDHOVEN - Philips Stadion - 35.000*










World Cup capacity: 44.000/45.000









*AMSTERDAM - Amsterdam ArenA - 51.628*










World Cup capacity: 65.000 - 85.000









*AMSTERDAM - Olympisch Stadion - 22.288*










World Cup capacity: 44.000









*ROTTERDAM - De Kuip - 51.577*










_No expansion since a new stadium will be built next to it._

*ROTTERDAM - Nieuwe Kuip - 85.000*










_This stadium hasn't been constructed yet. There also isn't an official render for the stadion._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

*Belgium*

_BRUGGE - Stadion Brugge - 40.000_










_This stadium hasn't been constructed yet._

_GENT - Arteveldestadion - 21.000_










World Cup capacity: 44.000
_This stadium hasn't been constructed yet._

_ANTWERPEN - Eurostadion/Metropoolstadion - 25.000_










World Cup capacity: 40.000
_This stadion hasn't been constructed yet._

_GENK - Cristal Arena - 24.604_










World Cup capacity: 45.000









_BRUSSEL - Nationaal Stadion - 65.000_










_This stadium hasn't been constructed yet._

_LUIK - ???? - ????_










World Cup capacity: _unkown_

_CHARLEROI - ???? - ????_










World Cup capacity: _unkown_
_________________________________________________________________________________________​
:cheers:


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

^^ I don't like so much this bid. hno:

Starting from Enschede to Heerenveen are more stadia for a Euro competition than a WC.

Could be interesting new stadia in Rotterdam and in Bruxelles, and fantastic, like always Amsterdam Arena, but these stadia can't be compared to Germany 2006 or Korea/Japan 2002 ones.


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

Bidbook: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CQY4S9LA


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

Rotterdam 82,000
Brussels 80,000
Amsterdam 62,000


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

So the Netherlands knocks off Brazil 2-1. Wonder if a Netherlands victory boosts their campaign for 2018? In theory that not only bolsters local enthusiasm but adds a wee bit more credence in the world's eyes: _"If the nation is capable of winning a trophy then surely they're up for being more than able hosts, right?"_ At the least, this good run solidifies the perception that they're as enthusiastic a nation as England, Spain or Brazil, methinks.

I'm also being won over by the fact that this bid would rate highly in terms of bona fide legacy and re-use of venues. True, same applies for England and Spain, but this would be seen as a nice gesture by FIFA to recognize the efforts of Netherlands/Belgium. Though the venues might be smaller on average compared to their European peers, it also guarantees we won't be seeing empty seats on the TV broadcasts and that the stadiums would remain near-ideal fits for the local teams. I can see Enshede and Heerenveen regularly drawing in the 30's. At the least, this would feel, to me, like FIFA would be getting more return-on-investment in terms of making an impact on the local game when compared with England or the Iberian bid.

One man's musings after today's match. Cheers.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A world cup win will give it a boost, but how big a boost is questionable. Italy won the World Cup months before UEFA decided to overlook them in favour of Ukraine/Poland for Euro 2012. A team's success on the pitch may not have quite the impact some would hope.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

^^ Well in the angle I'm going for the situations aren't compatible. Italy's brand is well established and they're viewed as a stable soccer entity: Outside investment in their infrastructure and exposure is unlikely to significantly impact their local league and/or the national team. Not so with regards to Belgium and Netherlands, for while footie fanatics know of Ajax, Brugge, Clockwork Orange, etc, they're hardly viewed globally as in the same tier as Italian teams. Give each league and national team an extra push with a FIFA event and you might actually build something, particularly as non-traditional powers like Enschede become even more able to stand with the traditional powers. Hardly a difference maker in this bidding process, but in terms of the mythical "legacy" factor from FIFA's perspective this feels like the most viable European option. Russia still seems too far a reach, IMO.

A little boost, but a boost nonetheless.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

RobH said:


> A world cup win will give it a boost, but how big a boost is questionable. Italy won the World Cup months before UEFA decided to overlook them in favour of Ukraine/Poland for Euro 2012. A team's success on the pitch may not have quite the impact some would hope.


If we would win the WC that certainly would help.  But it will not be a decisive factor imho. Nevertheless the Dutch WC-2010 performance will not do the bid any harm.


----------



## Deamond14 (Apr 13, 2010)

Visit of FIFA in Belgium



> *FIFA Inspectors Meet Belgian PM on Holland-Belgium Visit; Henin Shows Support*
> August 10, 2010
> 
> 
> ...


Even if there some critics about this bid from politics:



> *Criticism ahead of visit of FIFA inspectors for Belgium-Netherlands bid*
> By Raf Casert (CP) – Aug 3, 2010
> 
> BRUSSELS — Some Belgian politicians are questioning the conditions under which FIFA wants the World Cup to be organized, only days before the arrival of inspectors to assess the Belgium-Netherlands bid for the 2018 or 2022 tournament.
> ...


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

it is the worst bid i have ever seen hno:

Stadiums are just awful  amazing!!

I prefer england bid it's more serious! Benelux has to work better. Good for a euro championship not for a world cup


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> it is the worst bid i have ever seen hno:
> 
> Stadiums are just awful  amazing!!
> 
> I prefer england bid it's more serious! Benelux has to work better. Good for a euro championship not for a world cup


The new stadiums of Antwerp, Brugge, Brussels and Liège haven't been presented yet. The pictures you see are not the definitive designs.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

at this moment i still say it's the worst 

no original design, even France, Turkey bid for euro 2016 are far better!

This bid is just a shame for european infrastructures in general and the image it gives to the world. Have you seen Brazil 2014?

Benelux should retire this candidature hno:

England bid is more serious i think. But it's just my personal view.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Axel, would you mind offering some specific qualifications for how you reached that opinion? I'd hate to think a large part of it stems from the overall low average of capacity compared to other bids, because at least that reflects expansions in line with the true use of the venue (and not some artificially inflated capacity as projected for venues in the English and Russian bids). 

I agree that as of today it lacks the over-the-top venues to compete with the likes of Wembley or Soccer City, but we do have yet to see final considerations of a new De Kuip to consider, as well. But I think it deserves more credit than you're alluding. For instance, the Bernabau and Camp Nou, the marquis venue for the Iberian bid, are hardly architectural marvels. Great footballing venues but as an overall stadium they're both very staid. And if part of what makes the Bernabau so attractive is the organic feel from the expansions, should we not give the same credit to the proposals for Phillips Stadion and Abe Lenstra?

I do feel the remodeling of the athletics venue in Rotterdam is a waste of time and will be dropped from the bid, even if it does have a large capacity. Better a 40k true soccer stadium than a 60k venue with a track, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm curious as to the reasoning because in my mind it's a very practical and clean bid, and would still be far more attractive than Italia '90 and doesn't include some of the lame duck venues we've seen in South Africa and Korea/Japan.


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> at this moment i still say it's the worst
> 
> *no original design*, even France, Turkey bid for euro 2016 are far better!
> 
> ...


Can you READ?

The designs of the new stadiums are not yet known. :nuts:


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> Axel, would you mind offering some specific qualifications for how you reached that opinion? I'd hate to think a large part of it stems from the overall low average of capacity compared to other bids, because at least that reflects expansions in line with the true use of the venue (and not some artificially inflated capacity as projected for venues in the English and Russian bids).
> 
> I agree that as of today it lacks the over-the-top venues to compete with the likes of Wembley or Soccer City, but we do have yet to see final considerations of a new De Kuip to consider, as well. But I think it deserves more credit than you're alluding. For instance, the Bernabau and Camp Nou, the marquis venue for the Iberian bid, are hardly architectural marvels. Great footballing venues but as an overall stadium they're both very staid. And if part of what makes the Bernabau so attractive is the organic feel from the expansions, should we not give the same credit to the proposals for Phillips Stadion and Abe Lenstra?
> 
> ...


Ok some projects are good but the general feeling is a very very limited inspiration for what is the BEST competition of the world aka FIFA WORLD CUP!

I don't understand why they bid if they are not able to reach SA 2010, GERmany 2006 or JApan Korea 2002!

That's why i said it's a shame for europe! I haven't seet yet what spain exactly want to do but for england with Wembley , we know that the level is high!

Then Benelux please retire this bid!

God Bless South africa or japan 2002 to have proposed a HIGH quality level of infrastructures.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

^^
For most projects there are no designs made. Up to 5 will be completly new. All the others stadiums except for 1 will be expanded. In capacity we are not going to exceggerate. We are not going to build white elephants to get our WC football, or is that the only solution in your opinion to get a WC football in Holland and Belgium? 

Most likely only 1 will have an athletic track (another one with an athletic track will be in reserve), that is less than 1998, 2002, 2006 or 2010. This give a better football atmosphere. 

In stadium infrastructure England and the Iberian bid have far more to offer now than Holland and Belgium combined. Do we compare the bids, it is still a difference, however less than the case now. The cities in Holland and Belgium are connected well to each other, and will be connected better in the future. Not only by roads and trains, but also with dedicated bike lanes. The average distances between the stadiums and the cities are very low, which will be very interesting for the fans (who are all getting a free bike) that are following their teams. 

Is the WC football nowadays only for big nations? Or is it only possible for smaller nations to get the WC by building white elephants?


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Wuppeltje said:


> ^^
> For most projects there are no designs made. Up to 5 will be completly new. All the others stadiums except for 1 will be expanded. In capacity we are not going to exceggerate. We are not going to build white elephants to get our WC football, or is that the only solution in your opinion to get a WC football in Holland and Belgium?
> 
> Most likely only 1 will have an athletic track (another one with an athletic track will be in reserve), that is less than 1998, 2002, 2006 or 2010. This give a better football atmosphere.
> ...


Some very good points you make.Australia is also running a bid that is based on financial responsibility.We do of course have the money to build magnificent futuristic structures.

This mentality may explain our extremely good economic position-which hardly anyone else can boast


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Are the proposed Belgian and Dutch grounds, as featured in this Siamese European bid, and subsequently the respective fan zones, equipped with advanced climate control to counter humidity in order to accommodate the invading Qatari hordes should they qualify for WC 2018 or 2022?


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Wuppeltje said:


> Is the WC football nowadays only for big nations? Or is it only possible for smaller nations to get the WC by building white elephants?



If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??

It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!

If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??
> 
> It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!
> 
> If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?


How old are you if I may ask?


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

Axelferis said:


> If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?


All stadiums will meet the requirements the FIFA demands. With the new stadium in Rotterdam having at least 85.000 seats (a FIFA requirement which also for example Bernabeu or (at present) even Old trafford can not meet, it will be a fantastic stadium for sure. The rumors have it that the stadium will have between 87.500 - 95.000 seats if the WC is awarded to The Netherlands and Belgium.  Only camp Nou will for sure be bigger in europe, and maybe New wembley, but all other stadiums will come up short in comparison.

Also the new stadium in Brussels, Belgium will have at least 65.000 seats as will the Amsterdam ArenA have after its expansion. The 2nd stadium in South-Africa had 69.000 seats, so that is hardly a big difference.

And all the other stadiums will have the minimum requirement of 45.000 seats. Compared to SA or Germany overall the capacities are pretty much comparable. So I do not see what you are havings problems with.

And the small area where the WC will be held allows many fans to easily visit multiple games and will make sure, i.c.m. with the dense population in the Netherlands and Belgium that the WC atmosphere will be felt everywhere. Combines with many green initiatives this can be the greenest WC ever, not unimportant in these days. All in all this bid is a very good one, but maybe not the best (England?). But there is no reason at all to so easily disqualify this bid. It is also a lot better then what France had to offer in 1998, and also that was a fine WC tournament.


----------



## HasseVonHammarby (Feb 16, 2009)

Axelferis said:


> If those countries are not able to make the BEST stadiums for the BEST competition why do they bid??
> 
> It's not the problem to be a great or "small" nation but to realize that the WC is the "MUST to live" competition!!
> 
> If i can't receive a lot of people in an apart why will i make a big party?


The worst venues in modern times was in France in 1998, but it was still a good World Cup


----------



## pathfinder_2010 (Nov 20, 2009)

RobH said:


> A world cup win will give it a boost, but how big a boost is questionable. Italy won the World Cup months before UEFA decided to overlook them in favour of Ukraine/Poland for Euro 2012. A team's success on the pitch may not have quite the impact some would hope.


I think Italy needs a tournament badly and a tournament to rejuvenate their country and its economy.. when was the last time they hosted one ? their stadiums are depleted. Only Juventus new stadium is the latest stadium developmental project I have heard of recently. San Siro is still the same old one.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

pathfinder_2010 said:


> I think Italy needs a tournament badly and a tournament to rejuvenate their country and its economy.. when was the last time they hosted one ? their stadiums are depleted. Only Juventus new stadium is the latest stadium developmental project I have heard of recently. San Siro is still the same old one.


Last WC was 1990 for Italy. 
New stadiums are by far not always better stadiums, though it wouldn´t be bad in Italy to have some remake. I live in Spain, not Spanish, but here you have a lot of old stadiums which I would never traid against the far mayority of new stadiums, which just but all lake originality.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Thermo said:


> How old are you if I may ask?


don't be arrognat and offended! it's a debat if tou are not ok it's not my fault hno:


----------



## maartenpieter (Aug 28, 2010)

I think that the Holland and Belgium have the best chance.

England: Tried to bribe some FIFA-members.
Russia: Long distances.
USA: They had the World Championships already in 1994, bad atmosphere.
Spain/Portugal: Bad state finances, hot, the FIFA declared that they don't want a double candidature if one of those countries could do it by itself.

The only problem in the HollandBelgiumBid is the dissension in Belgium between Flanders and Wallonia.


----------



## maartenpieter (Aug 28, 2010)

Their stadiums:

Netherlands:
Rotterdam (new Feyenoord stadium) 80000-85000, finished 2017
Rotterdam (Feijenoord stadium) 52000
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Arena) expansed to 65000, probably to 70-80000
Amsterdam (Olympic Stadium) expansed to 40000-60000
Eindhoven (Philips Stadium) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 44000
Enschede (Grolsch Veste) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 45000
Heerenveen (Abe Lenstra Stadium) expansed to 45000

Belgium:
Brussel (Brussels Stadium) 60000-80000, finished 2016
Antwerpen (Port of Antwerp Stadium) expansed to 40000-45000, finished 2014
Brugge (Chartreusestadion) 40000, finished 2018
Gent (Arteveldestadion) expansed to 40000, finished 2012
Genk (Crystal Arena) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 40000
Charleroi (Stade du Pays de Charleroi) 40000-45000, finished 2016
Luik (Stade Maurice Dufrasne) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 40000-45000


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ I am not sure where you are getting your data from, but most of the data is incorrect. I am not totally up to date with the stadiums and their planned expansions in Belgium, so I will refrain from commenting those. But I do know about the proposed Dutch stadiums for a possible WC in 2018 or 2022.

Now I do think we have put up a pretty good bid, which strongest point is very short distances between the cities and the stadiums, and many real football fans interested in visiting the WC matches are living closeby in the UK, Germany, France, Poland and the Scandinavian countries or Spain, Italy and Portugal are also not too far away.  And the stadiums are all very new and will be more or less as good as anyone else has to offer. And finally the infrastructure (roads, railways (incl. high speed rail) and airports) are all up to world class standards. 

But to get back to your list:

*Netherlands:*



> Rotterdam (New Feyenoord stadium) 80000-85000, finished 2017


. Here the minimum capacity has to be 85.000, which is a clear FIFA requirement. Current figures (in the rumor section since nothing is confirmed yet) range from 87.500 - 95.000 if the WC indeed comes to Belgium and The Netherlands. If the WC does not come to Belgium and The Netherlands (for which the chances are < 50% imho), the new Feyenoord stadium will most probably be limited to 75.000 seats.



> Rotterdam (current Feyenoord stadium) 52000.


 At present the stadium has 51.117 seats out of which a maximum 47.000 may be sold. For the FIFA WC new seats will be required, bringing the nominal capacity equal to the real number of seats. This capacity will therefore be 47.000 seats.



> Amsterdam (Amsterdam Arena) expansed to 65000, probably to 70-80000.


 The Amsterdam ArenA will see an expansion to 65.000 seats. That will most likely also happen in a couple of years if the WC would not come to Belgium and The Negherlands. A further expansion is not realistic at the moment, and would only be done if Amsterdam would stage the final of the WC. In the Bidbook Rotterdam is mentioned as the only candidate for the WC Final. Beside that Ajax and the Amsterdam ArenA both have publicly stated that an 85.000 capacity is not what they are striving for at the moment or in the future. 



> Amsterdam (Olympic Stadium) expansed to 40000-60000.


 This is a possibility, where the 44.000 seat variant (also a FIFA requirement) is much more likely (and uglier ) then the 60.000 seats variant.



> Eindhoven (Philips Stadium) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 44.000.


 See here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1170703. These plans look very good imho and could maybe become reality without the WC. The stadium will then have 44.000-45.000 seats. But for now there is no money to finance the expansion, so it will not be done previously as you have stated. Unless something dramatic changes in the finances there.



> Enschede (Grolsch Veste) (not because of the World Cup, but previously) expansed to 45.000


. In Enschede they for sure will expand the Grolsch Veste to 32.000 seats (up from 24.500 now). The works will start in 2011. The last, and most expensive expansion (the one long and extra tall stand) is far from certain. Only the WC would give 100% assurance that also that stand will be build. See here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=50425553&postcount=817



> Heerenveen (Abe Lenstra Stadium) expansed to 45000


That sounds about right although 44.000 might be the capacity. And the all stadiums are going to be *expanded* instead of being _expansed_.


----------



## AILD (May 1, 2010)

maartenpieter said:


> England: Tried to bribe some FIFA-members.
> *Russia: Long distances.*
> USA: They had the World Championships already in 1994, bad atmosphere.
> Spain/Portugal: Bad state finances, hot, the FIFA declared that they don't want a double candidature if one of those countries could do it by itself.


Not truth  . Typical mistake for those who even can't look at the map.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

AILD said:


> Not truth  . Typical mistake for those who even can't look at the map.


It is true if you compare the Russian bid to the Benelux bid


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

:lol:


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

This bid has no chance at all. The Dutch government (and the Belgian as well I think) will not allow FIFA to rule their country with their absurd demands (FIFA demands to not having to pay any taxes among other things). This basically means that FIFA cannot make a huge profit here like they did in RSA (while the local population is starving) and will in Brazil and Russia or England.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Rumour has it that BeNe will do a Qatar by projecting sixteen semi-modular stadiums in Luxembourg and use Belgium and The Netherlands to improve infrastructure etc. 

After 2018 the stadiums will be dismantled, only to be re-erected in third world football countries such as Qatar as part of a global developing scheme.


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

@Quintana

Well it was eventually not about taxes, but about not giving immunity to the FIFA members and basic rules for larbor. The demands of the FIFA are also in conflict with some EU regulations and treaties. A big chance that the England and Spain/Portugal bid have the same things/problems, but not in the big news. Normally these things are not made public in advance.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

And these didn't affect Germany 2006?


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Rumour has it that BeNe will do a Qatar by projecting sixteen semi-modular stadiums in Luxembourg and use Belgium and The Netherlands to improve infrastructure etc.
> 
> After 2018 the stadiums will be dismantled, only to be re-erected in third world football countries such as Qatar as part of a global developing scheme.


lolol


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Excerpt, originating from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9196434.stm




> The only bidder for 2018 rated with a higher risk evaluation is the joint bid from Netherlands and Belgium, which is given a medium risk assessment.
> 
> The Low Countries bid is criticised over hotel rooms, the joint hosting concept, training sites and team hotels, *with government guarantees a major concern*.
> 
> "The necessary government support has not been secured as neither the government guarantees nor the government declaration have been provided in compliance with Fifa's requirements."


Not surprising really the Chocolate Clog bid being marked 'higher risk' when common sense and sanity surpass temporary Swiss colonialism. 

Almost embarrassing to see other bidding nations bowing to FIFA's 'requirements'. Selling soul to devil.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Meanwhile, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called FIFA Chairman Sepp Blatter concerning the 2018 Chocolate Clog bid, Twitter announces.

Allegedly, Mr Rutte told Mr Blatter that: 



> “The Netherlands and Belgium are extremely motivated, and capable of organising a fantastic World Cup”.


Licking balls. Blatter. Jesus in disguise.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

> The Holland & Belgium bid’s co-hosting concept highlights the opportunity to bring countries and people together through sport and addresses environmental matters. The bid is supported by the national and local football authorities, the local city governments (by virtue of duly executed Host City Agreements) and the stadium authorities (by virtue of duly executed Stadium Agreements).
> 
> It should be noted that a co-hosting concept could pose challenges regarding the joint operational delivery of the FIFA World Cup™ in terms of ensuring consistent standards and implementation in various areas such as legal, IT, frequencies, safety and security. Therefore, in order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the co-hosting concept, further key operational details would be required, especially in view of the administrative, logistical and financial challenges of co-hosting a FIFA World Cup™.
> 
> ...


Appearing on www.mrsportsbook.com


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

The evaluation report:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/33/74/51/b4ned-bele.pdf


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

> Eindhoven, 26 November 2010 – Johan Cruyff, Jean-Marie Pfaff, Guus Hiddink, Paul van Himst and both prime ministers Yves Leterme and Mark Rutte are just a few of the members of the delegation who under the direction of Ruud Gullit, President of The HollandBelgium Bid, will bolster Belgium and the Netherlands’ Bid for the 2018 FIFA World Cup™ at the Final Presentation to FIFA in Zürich on Thursday 2 December.
> 
> The HollandBelgium Bid announced this today. “We have put together a very strong team in which footballers and world renowned coaches take the lead and have the support of the highest government officials and football association directors. This is the only right formation for a FIFA World Cup™ candidate,” according to Harry Been, CEO of The Holland Belgium Bid.
> 
> ...


Source: thebid.org


Almost embarrassing; such is the level of sycophantic subjugation.


----------



## Levant (Nov 24, 2010)

This is just unbelievable. While our government is cutting back on funding for education and culture and what money is left is going to stop the economies of the PIIGS countries (the fact that it seems like the WC is going to Portugal and Spain is preposterous in this light) from collapsing, Mark Rutte is all too eager to go to the Zurich to suck up to Blatter so we can get the "right" to renovate stadiums throughout the country, suspend labor and advertising rules and exempt the FIFA from taxes so Blatter and his corrupt pals can become even richer.

A World Cup in the Benelux would be great, our countries have never hosted the World Cup in the past, we have a great footballing (both in the game itself and in supporting) tradition, and we are economically and politically stable. But we aren't going to ***** ourselves out to the FIFA, and we don't have a national inferiority complex which makes us compensate for everything and become overtly nationalistic.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

^^

Sports in general, football more specifically, their magnitude superseding politics. FIFA are the new colonializing world order.

I wouln't be surprised to see the creation of a break-away federation from the ruling maffia party once the World Cup has been handed to developing countries such as Russia and Qatar in a fraudulous masquerade on Doomsday 2 December 2010.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

No chances for benelux sorry! Quatar and russia are very strong with Galactics projects! no way for belgium to compete with them!

I think for a next euro perhaps


----------



## Flying Hollander (Nov 26, 2010)

Actually our chances are rising bringing the fans in play. And this is what the WC is about, not the money not the power promoting Football nothing else counts.

Holland/Belgium brings a brass band to the party in Zurich.
http://plixi.com/p/60125017

Budgets cuts during the crissis is just temperally this WC is just 8 years away a lot happens in 8 years. And if we can lend money to Ireland and soon to Portugal i think we have enough money to build and organish this event.

If all noses are pointed the same direction the Dutch and their friendly counterparts Belgium can do a lot.

I hope the scores are decent otherwise the phrase corruption is going to be very loud indeed. So a second vote round is a must with a close ends between the candidates.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Belgium is not unified. We don't want a world cup in a country where inhabitants don't even know what belgium is.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Well what Belgium is, doesn't matter. You can taste 300 different beers in Belgium. So you can try 10 different beers/day. You will easily forget what Belgium is. 

Spain is also unified with catalonia and 'el pais vasco'.

Of What about Russia and the 'chechens'.

Of what about Britain with scotland, wales, northern, ireland,...

Belgium doesn' exist as much as other countries doesn't. It isn't about states, but about a football culture.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

genkie456 said:


> Well what Belgium is, doesn't matter. You can taste 300 different beers in Belgium. *So you can try 10 different beers/day. You will easily forget what Belgium is*.
> 
> Spain is also unified with catalonia and 'el pais vasco'.
> 
> ...


:lol:

By the way, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are irrelevant to your post - because they are not part of England's bid!


----------



## Flying Hollander (Nov 26, 2010)

Axelferis said:


> Belgium is not unified. We don't want a world cup in a country where inhabitants don't even know what belgium is.


You mean you don't want the world cup in Belgium. Too bad the Netherlands AND Belgium are bidding together and we can organize something like a WC. We live and breath football as in both countries football is the numero one sport. 

And no Russia is a good country too but the distance is really huge which breaks the atmosphere. If we don't get the WC i rather grant the WC to England which have the same idea as we. 

But i don't liked it when the FIFA are playing countires against each other as they ask England to join the bidding. You know that England has a big advantage because if this.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

Hmm...

Don't worry!!

Hope Belgium and the Netherlands will win on tomorrow!! i guess...

If lost, nothing and stop cry!! Would...Fifa world cup forever..!!

2026
2030
2034
2038
2042
2046
2050
more....more...!!


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Axelferis said:


> Belgium is not unified. We don't want a world cup in a country where inhabitants don't even know what belgium is.


Ah, the boy doesn't like Belgium to host and adresses the matter plural sense with a olid, sound, valid, reasonable, legitimate and convincing argument.

Apparently little things please little minds.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

> By the way, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are irrelevant to your post - because they are not part of England's bid!



England is indeed not a state. Thus why worry about a possible 'non unified' Belgium.

If they call the bid: Flanders/Brussels/wallonia/Holland-Bid it's also ok.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

genkie456 said:


> If they call the bid: Flanders/Brussels/wallonia/Holland-Bid it's also ok.


Please leave it and stop feeding this insignificant immature Lille troll. 

Sit back, relax and enjoy the presentation tomorrow.


----------



## Flying Hollander (Nov 26, 2010)

Did you like the brass band reception at the start of the day? That was a good call to attract some attention about the important things. (that i think)


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Please leave it and stop feeding this insignificant immature Lille troll.
> 
> Sit back, relax and enjoy the presentation tomorrow.


I'm not trolling and just ask important question! :rant:

I live in lille and i know the political situation of our neighbour state called belgium.

Every two or three month we see here in france reports concerning the wishes of flamish separatists! Do i invent that? hno:

that's why i don't understand belgium want to bid despite the fact the politcal situation turns often into a tragedy!

Is it a crime to worry about the good organisation by belgium wheras we know instabilty is prevalent?!!

is it trolling to ask that? :nuts:

We know that some flamish region have banned french language! Can you believe just one second it is serious to give a organisation like the world cup to people who don't want french to be used?

please answer to this problem rather than treat me a troll.


----------



## Aere (Aug 10, 2007)

Axelferis said:


> I'm not trolling and just ask important question! :rant:
> 
> I live in lille and i know the political situation of our neighbour state called belgium.
> 
> ...


French isn't banned anywhere in Belgium. I know that some schools want Dutch to be spoken in the schoolyard, but I can see why. Saying French is banned is a ridiculous statement. Besides, Flemish kids start learning French at the age of 9. Pretty odd for "people who don't want french to be used".

And seeing you are using the argument "I'm from Lille", I will use the argument "I'm from Belgium".


----------



## Baai (Apr 2, 2010)

Axelferis said:


> I'm not trolling and just ask important question! :rant:
> 
> I live in lille and i know the political situation of our neighbour state called belgium.
> 
> ...


Flemish separatists are a minority. You're French and therefore read only one side of the story. It's about money, plain and simple. The Flemish want to stop handing out blank cheques. Walloons aren't happy about that. We have no problem paying for people in need, but I think we have a right to have some say in how that money is being spent. I think we have a right to demand that the money we're paying is being spent wisely and not just handed out freely in other to win easy votes for politicians. 
Right now there's zero financial incentive for the regions to improve their stats on unemployment. Quite the contrary. So why would a region spend money trying to improve the situation? The money is federal tax money (predominantly paid for by Flemings), but it's the regions who decide who deserves to get it. If there are more people unemployed, they get more money. Until this changes, unemployment in Wallonia will remain sky high. 
Wallonia's been getting incredible amounts of money from Flanders, from Europe, for decades. Seriously, the situation should have improved long ago had the money been spent wisely, had they used it to invest rather than simply hand it all out (or put it in their own pockets). 

And French isn't banned. But is it really too much to ask that people who live in Flemish towns learn the language? Apparently it is for a lot of Walloons. How would you feel if I moved to France and demanded that the French authorities provided all the paperwork for me in Dutch?
Flemish school kids all learn French in school (and English too + German in a lot of cases). The opposite isn't the case. Walloon children have to choose between Dutch or English, can't learn both. You'd think that if Wallonia thinks so highly of the country Belgium, they'd at least bother to teach the language 60% of Belgians speak in schools. Not so. 

This country is not going to fall apart. A lot of the Flemish demands would actually result in an improvement for Wallonia too in the long run. It would force them to work more efficiently. It would force them to do something about their high unemployment rate. 
The majority of Flemings doesn't want separation, we do want a more efficient government and for that major reforms are necessary. 

And you know what..I think a World Cup football would do a world of good to bring the two regions together. That's what we lack right now. There doesn't seem to be anything we have in common. We watch different TV shows, listen to different kinds of music. We need a common project.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Baai said:


> And you know what..I think a World Cup football would do a world of good to bring the two regions together. That's what we lack right now. There doesn't seem to be anything we have in common. We watch different TV shows, listen to different kinds of music. We need a common project.


Well said from a perspective point of view. 

The myopic trolling boy from Lille has an agenda. Ignore him.


----------



## Tchek (Oct 8, 2010)

Baai said:


> Flemish separatists are a minority. You're French and therefore read only one side of the story. It's about money, plain and simple. The Flemish want to stop handing out blank cheques. Walloons aren't happy about that. We have no problem paying for people in need, but I think we have a right to have some say in how that money is being spent. I think we have a right to demand that the money we're paying is being spent wisely and not just handed out freely in other to win easy votes for politicians.
> Right now there's zero financial incentive for the regions to improve their stats on unemployment. Quite the contrary. So why would a region spend money trying to improve the situation? The money is federal tax money (predominantly paid for by Flemings), but it's the regions who decide who deserves to get it. If there are more people unemployed, they get more money. Until this changes, unemployment in Wallonia will remain sky high.
> Wallonia's been getting incredible amounts of money from Flanders, from Europe, for decades. Seriously, the situation should have improved long ago had the money been spent wisely, had they used it to invest rather than simply hand it all out (or put it in their own pockets).
> 
> And French isn't banned. But is it really too much to ask that people who live in Flemish towns learn the language? Apparently it is for a lot of Walloons. How you feel if I moved to France and demanded that the French authorities provided all the paperwork for me in Dutch?


Everyone pays taxes in Belgium, but hearing Flemish propaganda, it seems like only Flemish are paying and only Wallonia is receiving. This is petit-bourgeois populism. True, Wallonia has to cope with a post-industrial past much like northern France/England AND is not really well managed and too much un-nationalistic (or regionalistic) which means that the region is proletarizing.

Tell me which Flemish town is overrun with "walloons', and don't mention people from Brussels and the periphery, they are not "Walloons". Second, those "invading" Brusselers are actually the richest and most contribuable Belgians, so mixing it up with the rethoric that "they invade us and want our money" is mixing two unrelated things up for the sake of manipulation. The "problem" is that french-speaking Brussels; like Paris or London, is growing. 

Second, so-called "Walloons" going to Flanders (there are very few) are actually Belgians going around in their supposed own country which is not the case if you as a Belgian goes to France.

It's funny how all the flemish scaremongers about paranoid "Walloon invasion" lives all in Ghent or Antwerp, cities where French-speaking people are actually very few and where Flemish people actually don't interact with "Walloons"... "Walloons" being some kind of abstract concept that represents everything that goes wrong in Flanders.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

i just give you an example:

Lille 3000XXL in 2009 a cultural event hosted every 3 years here! The city decided to co organised the final ceremony in a french -belgian partnership!

The final ceremony was in Kortrikj or Courtrai in french. We have been there with my girlfriend .

Guess what? * No inscription in french, no indications in french in the whole town* despite the fact it was a fench city original event hno:

never seen this anywhere.


----------



## Baai (Apr 2, 2010)

Tchek said:


> It's funny how all the flemish scaremongers about paranoid "Walloon invasion" lives all in Ghent or Antwerp, .


Heh? What makes you think we're paranoid about Walloon invasion? Where does that come from? Is this what's written in Walloon press? 
It would be great if more Walloons came here for work.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

I wish this bid well,it would truly be a great world cup


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

We all appreciate busty girls but it doesn't work so well when in an orange tank top while sporting orange tan. Look like overgrown oompa loompas'.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

I'm so so judgemental:lol:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

:lol:


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

That helicopter thing was a bit bizarre :lol:

That said, this would be my favorite for the World Cup. The booze, the girls, the parties, biking to the games...FANTASTIC!! :cheers:


----------



## Advancer (Mar 10, 2007)

I read on the site of a dutch newpaper that according to a annomynos(or somtheing like that) source in the holland-Belgium bid, that they expect that they will get the vote of Blatter and Platini.
Don't think that will happen , but we will see.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Platini will vote for us.

I think blatter will vote for Russia.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

I really like the Belgium-Holland bid.
Very refreshing IMHO !

I also liked the presentation.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

parcdesprinces said:


> I really like the Belgium-Holland bid.
> Very refreshing IMHO !


Good bid.

Poor presentation, though, sadly.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ The presentation wasn't bad IMHO, I believe they tried to make something different, but I also have to admit indeed that the result was a bit messy unfortunately.


----------



## genkie456 (Oct 29, 2007)

Well the presentation wasn't that bad. You don't have to repeat all the good points in your bid. The fifa members already know that. It was a presentation with a bit of humor. Not an ordinary Powerpoint presentation.

Nevertheless i don't think that a presentation could change the opinions. The Fifa members already made up their minds I think.
If they don't get the WC, it's not due to the presentation.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

genkie456 said:


> Well the presentation wasn't that bad. You don't have to repeat all the good points in your bid. The fifa members already know that. It was a presentation with a bit of humor. Not an ordinary Powerpoint presentation.
> 
> Nevertheless i don't think that a presentation could change the opinions. The Fifa members already made up their minds I think.
> *If they don't get the WC, it's not due to the presentation*.


I don't think that a below par presentation would hurt any bid's chances.

But a seriously impressive and emotive presentation could definitely help their chances - eg London 2012 bid final presentation in Singapore.


----------



## Advancer (Mar 10, 2007)

I think that al the votes for the first round are already decided by the members.
The presentations might have some influence in next rounds, when there are less bids to chose from.


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> i just give you an example:
> 
> Lille 3000XXL in 2009 a cultural event hosted every 3 years here! The city decided to co organised the final ceremony in a french -belgian partnership!
> 
> ...


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Tchek said:


> Everyone pays taxes in Belgium, but hearing Flemish propaganda, it seems like only Flemish are paying and only Wallonia is receiving. This is petit-bourgeois populism. True, Wallonia has to cope with a post-industrial past much like northern France/England AND is not really well managed and too much un-nationalistic (or regionalistic) which means that the region is proletarizing.
> 
> Tell me which Flemish town is overrun with "walloons', and don't mention people from Brussels and the periphery, they are not "Walloons". Second, those "invading" Brusselers are actually the richest and most contribuable Belgians, so mixing it up with the rethoric that "they invade us and want our money" is mixing two unrelated things up for the sake of manipulation. The "problem" is that french-speaking Brussels; like Paris or London, is growing.
> 
> ...


You shoud really, really watch the video of the speech of Bart De Wever for the Walloon businesspeople of 'Cercle de Wallonie'. At the end, he even gets a standing ovation! Every single Belgian should listen to this speech: http://blogs.rtlinfo.be/sanslangued...de-bart-de-wever-cercle-de-wallonie-30112010/

The questions after his speech are also incredibly interesting. 

// now back on-topic


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Axelferis said:


> No chances for benelux sorry! Quatar and russia are very strong with Galactics projects!


:cheers: i told it!


----------



## SASH (Apr 15, 2005)

^^
Fijn voor jou.


----------

