Jump to content

Suit U Sir !!!

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Suit U Sir !!!'s Achievements

Flag Bearer

Flag Bearer (6/16)



  1. Roughly 1 year ago there was talk that New Delhi was planning to build a new athletics stadium for the 2010 commonwealth games. However, there's been no further mention of that since, so they probably won't be building it. India says it wants to bid for the 2020 olympics with New Delhi. If this is the case, then they should not build a new stadium for the 2010 CG's, but instead offer a brand-new athletics stadium to the IOC, as part of their 2020 summer bid.
  2. I don't blame them. After hosting the 2010 World Cup it would be a step down for the country to host a commonwealth games. Cape Town should bid for the 2020 summer olympics.
  3. It already is the most famous stadium in the world, Also, structures/ monuments don't have to exist/ be complete for them to be famous icons. New York's most famous landmark is the twin towers of the world trade center- even though they no longer exist. Well, I could think of others: the Astrodome, Yankee Stadium, the LA Memorial Coliseum, Montreal's (Unfinished) Doughnut (of 1976), Estadio Azteca of Mexico City, the Maracana Stadium in Rio, a few others. I think these are equally famous. I think Wembley is only famous among you Brits. I certainly don't hold it up there among my top 6 'legendary' stadia. Re New York icons: yes, the WTC is now 'legendary' because it is part of history; but other EQUALLY great NYC icons are certainly (1) Lady Liberty herself; (2) the EMpire State Bldg; (3) the Chrysler Bldg; (4) the UN Headquarters Wembley is not just famous amongst British people, it is the most famous football stadium in the world. Even people who do not know much about football/ soccer will probably heard of Wembley. Similary people who do not know much about baseball will have heard of New York's Yankee stadium. From your list of stadia, I agree that Yankee Stadium and the Macarena have near/ equal fame to Wembley, but the others most definetly are not a match and the Astrodome and Estadio Azteca most certainly are not world famous. The reason why Wembley dosen't make your top 6 is because you come from a country where football is not a mainstream sport. Infact Americans call it "soccer" which is not even it's proper name. The proper name is football, or Fussball (in German). Similarly, the British call baseball "rounders," because the UK is a country where baseball is not a mainstream sport.
  4. I think its also a sign of where stadiums are going in general. The old idea of the big publically owned multi purpose stadium seems to be dieing and instead were getting mutiple stadiums designed and owned by individual clubs or sports federations. I think it's great and refreshing how in the UK, each sport has it's own special stadium, in the majority of cities (not just London). Manchester for example has 2 football stadiums for individual peremier league teams, not to mention separate cricket and rugby grounds. I'm not in favour of the situation in cities like Paris and Melbourne, where the one stadium host everything. I find this quite dull...... In Paris, St.Denis hosts everything, whether it be athletics, rugby or football. A lot of people like this type of situation, but I much rather prefer having football games at Wembley, Rubgy at twickenham and athletics at a brand new specially built athletics stadium in 2012. The Telstra dome (Melbourne) is only a very recent addition (2003), but even still 2006 commonwealth games are in essence going to be held in a cricket ground, rather than a specially build athletics stadium.
  5. It already is the most famous stadium in the world, even though it's still under construction. Wembley is lot about brand name as well- that's why when Birmingham put forward a counter bid for the national stadium, they too said they'd call it Wembley. Also, structures/ monuments don't have to exist/ be complete for them to be famous icons. New York's most famous landmark is the twin towers of the world trade center- even though they no longer exist.
  6. I'm actually really glad that Wembley wasn't designed to hold a permanent athletics track, and that a brand new purpose built stadium had to be designed for 2012. The city will therefore have 3 stadiums with a capacity 80,000 or above: Wembley- 90,000 Twickenham- 82,000 Olympic Stadium- 80,000 That is something to feel proud of.
  7. I mean, at the moment, in terms of dimensions, would it be able to fit a running track inside it, or would a great deal of renovating be needed for it to be able to host an event like the IAAF World Athletics championships??
  8. Just wondering, will the 2000 Olympic stadium/ Telstra stadium ever be able to house an athletics track again?
  9. Well I know that Atlanta's 1996 stadium is now a baseball ground- Turner field, home to the Atlanta braves. Sydney's 2000 stadium is now the telstra stadium.
  10. More Montreal 1976 Olympic stadium photos:
  11. Montreal 1976 was tarnished by construction problems, but regardless of this, the city's 76 olympic stadium is one of my personal favourites
  12. Just wondering, has Twickenham ever staged a football match? It has a good capacity for international fixtures (72,500- 75,000). Wembley and Old Trafford have staged rugby matches.......
  13. I think NZ at the moment would not be a feasible place for the summer or winter games (someone earlier saying how the NZ government stated that a SOG would bankrupt the country?). But in 2036, 40, 44, when an Australian city is bidding (with a good chance of success), by that time NZ will probably be much more developed, and be able to put in a strong bid from Auckland, to host a SOG. So far as the WOG are concerned, again in the future (20 years) it is a possibility.
  14. not by the IOC President I reckon... That's quite interesting. What makes you thinks that?
  15. People have mentioned Christchurch being suitable to host a winter olympics. I'm sure a bid for the WOG's to be hosted in the southern hemisphere would be well supported.
  • Create New...