Jump to content

aluz

Members
  • Posts

    788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by aluz

  1. The issue is a lot more complex. 1. FPF is not as strong as you think in regards to CBF, which is the real powerhouse. 2. FPF apparently wants the stadium. 3. Sao Paulo FC opposes CBF strongly. 4. It's FIFA's call and Ricardo Teixeira can influence FIFA more than anyone else, including all the politicians in the country. There is no way that SP will host those games if money is not spent. What FIFA says is that fixing the surroundings of Morumbi can be more expensive and riskier than building a new stadium.
  2. So, I am standing for SP or BH even stronger. I would love to see Brasilia only with a more modern white elephant. Mane Garrincha stadium is a white elephant as it is, imagine with such a capacity. I think the 2014 WC must be a celebration of Brazilian football. So, the cities receiving the most important matches in the tournament should be SP, Rio, Porto Alegre and BH. I would make sure that those 4 cities receive the opening match, the final and the 2 semi-finals and the 4 quarter-finals. Below those I would place Curitiba, Salvador, Recife and Fortaleza to receive the round of 16 matches, leaving the remaining 4 (Manaus, Cuiaba, Natal and Brasilia) to first round matches. They should be pleased to have the honour of hosting matches without contributing to the development of the sport in the country.
  3. Let's see how the French turn out without a genious in their team. Between the Platini era and the Zidane era they have not even qualified. For 2010, they are struggling again. But, if they are strong, we can give them Cuiabá-Curitiba-Foraleza. What do you think?
  4. I also wonder about the ability to stand out as a new frontier. Istambul is both in the Middle-East and in Europe, it is Muslin but not Arab. It seems to me that the big slogan for new frontiers now is "Never in Africa". After that, it could be used for specific regions such as "Middle-East", "North Africa", "Southeast Asia" and "Central Asia". Istanbul seems to be difficult to place in those groups. Not to mention the kind of stuck in the middle feeling in regards to continent rotation. It would make it difficult for the following SOG to go either to Europe or to Asia. Besides, the new frontier card must be associated with good politics behind it. It must gather some support around its motto. Brazil had most of Latin America behind it and at least second option from Africa. To pull something similar, Istanbul must take a leadership to represent its defended frontier. If it is only Turkey, this will be quite difficult to resonate among IOC members. I think an Istanbul bid would be offset by an African competitor or by any other middle-eastern competitor in regards to geopolitics.
  5. The problem with Morumbi is the lack of spaces in the surrounding area to deploy the temporary broadcasting infrastructure. Until that issue is solved, SP will not be hosting either the opening match or the semi-finals.
  6. In Natal it will not be s hot as Cuiabá. They will get a nice breeze and rains are common in that season. Cuiabá will be dry and hot. But we should also talk about Brazil's schedule. I would say: SP or Brasilia (opening), Recife or Salvador (Recife has been considered a lucky charm for a long time) and Rio de Janeiro.
  7. I propose Argentina group matches to be scheduled to Manaus (12 p.m.), Porto Alegre (10 p.m.) and Cuiaba (12p.m.). They would travel around 7h between matches and face 40C, then 5C, then 40C again. It would be perfect. Either sick or dead tired!
  8. I totally agree with you and would add that even in Europe those train links do not prove profitable. Normally a flight between two cities in Europe is cheaper and faster than a high-speed train link. Not to mention the profitability... All low-cost are carriers are private unlike the rail companies.
  9. The rotation theory is not accurate. 1983 Caracas VEN (SA) 1987 Santiago CHI (SA) -> Quito ECU (SA) -> Indianapolis USA (NA) 1991 Havana CUB (CA) 1995 Mar del Plata ARG (SA) 1999 Winnipeg CAN (NA) 2003 Santo Domingo DOM (CA) 2007 Rio de Janeiro BRA (SA) 2011 Guadalajara MEX (NA) - 83/7 was back to back South American picks (ended up in Indy for double withdrwal). - 87/91 - 99/03 was North America and Central America w/o a South American host. (Indy was bidding for the 91 PanAm when it was called to rescue 87) So, I wouldn't be surprised if Toronto gets 2015, especially if they bid aiming at a preparation for an Olympic bid. This might make the PanAm Games more valuable for prospective hosts and athletes.
  10. Just some points on the preparations: 1. Maracana will host the final match! It's the only project that fits the requirement of 80.000+ capacity. So, there is no competition on this part. 2. Opening match is between Brasilia, Belo Horizonte and Sao Paulo. Porto Alegre's stadium also has the required capacity, but seems to be sitting out for this fight. In my opinion Brasilia should follow and opt for a 40.000 capacity, which would be a smaller white elephant, unless Flamengo (from Rio) decides to play there. The only reason why it stands a chance is politics, since it is the capital, though less populated and important than the other 3 possible choices. SP would be the right one. 3. The choice of Manaus was the most questionable. Belem would require less investment and the stadium is actually used by the 2 big local teams (Paysandu and Remo). Another white elephant!!! 4. Cuiaba did a smart move by reducing the capacity after the event, to avoid a white elephant. They will boost tourism and may host some future qualifiers and friendly matches for the national team. 5. The current strategy for scheduling the matches will have to be revisited. During the WC not only distance, but different climates will be an issue. If you add the time zones in the equation (games at noon to please Euro TV channels) this would be a big challenge
  11. Let's not assume that the people who are handing this don't now what they are doing. Toronto has run before and lost, so they should know which issues they should address for a new bid. This issues will be probably dealt with in the PanAm bid and perfected to the Olympics. Some questions that might be raised would be answered with concrete examples of running the PanAm Games instead of simulations and speculation. And, let's not forget the venues that can be reused.
  12. JJ, I think Toronto's attempt is similar to Rio's. Staging an over ambitious PanAm Games to create a legacy and test the logistics for the SOG. Of course, PanAm Games are not in the same scale, but the concept can be tested and lessons can be learned. 1. Rio underestimated the budget for the PanAm Games, so now they have a pretty solid budget for 2016. 2. The strategy to make traffic flow was a success in 2007, so it will be dificult for the IOC to refute the transport times that people will take in the 2016 campaign. By hosting very good PanAm Games and follow it with an Olympic bid reflecting the lessons learned, Toronto should have a trong bid for the SOG and I think that's what they have in mind. Hence, I don't see them losing the bid.
×
×
  • Create New...