Jump to content

Blacksheep

Members
  • Posts

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Blacksheep

  1. The NFL are almost orgasmic about using Wembley and the sightlines at the Stade de France are no worse
  2. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world as is Paris in terms of property prices. What is their solution. Two large stadiums, used in the future for football (and rugby) but once a year they slide back the seats and used the track for athletics. and these large capacity to be reduced after the games to a nominal size stadia will undoubtedly be far more expensive in reality than on paper.
  3. Until the London Olympics the biggest Athletics stadium in the UK was Crystal Palace at 17,000 seats which was always packed for Athletics meets especially the Diamond League. I am willing to bet a month's salary that once The London Olympic stadium is reduced to 60,000 seats for football, (and so 50,000 seats) when London holds its annual Diamond League meet, London will have attendances in the order of 50,000 at the Diamond League if held at the Olympic stadium (likely) I don't see why this can't happen in the US?
  4. As usual in your normal prattish manner you take a comment, refer to it completely out of context and then in some sort of moronic manner try to make some pathetic mileage out it. Here are the comments I was responding to that you pathetically just to ignore made by Quaker Why go to the ADDITIONAL expense (it's going to cost a lot more to propose something like you're suggesting than to make a football-only stadium, let alone the maintenance and upkeep it would probably require) simply for the 'possibility' of having a track meet?...........Only for an event as large as the World Championships are you going to want an NFL-sized venue for an athletics competition. The rest of the time, all those extra seats are going to be a waste. Good for Rome that they drew 55,000 last night. What are the odds of that happening here? I've been to meets at Ichan Stadium (including in 2008 when Usain Bolt set his first world record.. very proud to say I witnessed that in person). Sure, they could probably expand that stadium a bit, but again, there is not a major demand for track facilities in large stadiums in this country and creating 1 just in case track & field gets popular in this country again probably isn't worth the time or expense. I had actually been implying that if you built a large stadium that can be easily used for Diamond League meetings whose to say you won't get 50,000+ ... what I guarantee is if you don't have a large capacity stadium you will never know. Yet you choose to turn it into a mentally deluded rant about my supposed anti-Americanism. Where is the anti-Americanism? Talk about the behaviour of an idiot. I'm going to block you because you are just a clown
  5. Yes I am aware of the record attendance - the USA only went with 9 stadiums of very large capacity. As a comparison the biggest capacity in the MLS is 35,000 seats. Spain held the World Cup in 1982 - they decided to spread the games around 17 stadiums often of smaller capacity to ensure the entire country was involved. As for the cost of the sliding track, how much do you think it costs to convert an athletics stadium into a football only stadium? 1) With the Etihad in Manchester ... 60% of the capacity of a USOC mandated stadium, it cost tens and tens of millions and involved lowering the pitch and adding an extra tier ... but this would mean Chicago having a football stadium of over 100,000 seats - the only way this would work would be to a) remove the track, drop the level of the pitch, c)add an extra lower tier, and then d) remove the top tier of the stadium which would be used when the athletics track was in place, lowering the overall height of the stadium - all to get a football specific stadium with no better sightlines than a sliding stand stadium and costing way beyond $100m - maybe 3x that amount. This is what they did with the Etihad and it was not a perfect outcome. 2) Build a temporary stadium reduced in capacity by 8x after the games and used subsequently by the community. Who would pay for this? Possibly the community. And this stadium is deceptively expensive. Look at London. It has cost $600m to build and then if you were going to drop it to 25,000 seats would cost an extra $75m to convert. Now to drop it to 10,000 seats means a more sophisticated design so you might end up the world's most expensive stadium per seat cost - $900m spent and after all the building and then stadium reduction costs, you'd end up with only 10,000 seats. Sorry but that sounds more than a little mad to be me. 3) And what they've now decided to do in London, as they did with Sydney is retrofit the sliding stand idea into the stadium to maximise its usage .... and guess what? It is costing them 4x more to do this than if they'd incorporated it into the original design. For me, it seems mad to build an 80,000 seats only to tear it down, when you can build a comprehensive multi-function stadium retaining all of the original functionality - personally Chicago could have the greatest stadium in the world with this approach and I'm sure the Bears would not turn their noses up, nor would US athletics, the NCAA, Rugby USA, Soccer USA etc
  6. If Athletics has such a marginal following in the US, but is a major element of the Olympics, why award the games to the USA? I've actually sat on the lower tier at Twickenham and on the sliding section of the Stade de France .... and the difference from a viewing perspective is minimal. In fact it seemed that the viewing angle at the Stade was slightly steeper. Murrayfield has a 100m track down the front of the main stand, and it does make the pitch much further away. Apparently the cost of adding a sliding stand element is about $50m-$100m, so 10% of the cost of the stadium. and a sliding stand stadium can equally host concerts, college football, soccer, rugby etc as the Stade de France does. The only sport it wouldn't host is the basketball, but that's because an Olympic stadium is unlikely to have a retractable roof.
  7. I have not had a chance to go to the MetLife, but I have been to Wembley, Twickenham, The Millenium Stadium and Murrayfield, all of which are purpose built stadiums for Rugby or Football, with similar viewing angles to the MetLife if not superior. As a fan who has watched Rugby at the Stade de France, the difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant, and since the stadium was built 14 years ago, there has been further development in the the technology which are going to be implemented in the currently being constructed Singapore Sports Hub and close the gap even further. I believe with this design by Arup, the gap around the end of the field will be reduced further. Why a running track then? Well as they discovered with the City of Manchester stadium (Etihad Stadium) used by Manchester City, it is extremely difficult to convert a stadium built for athletics into a football only stadium .... a friend of mine who has been to both and was with me at the Stade de France, said in his opinion, the sightlines in Paris were superior especially in the end zones. Why go to the expense of a stadium that will hold a max of 12 games a year (2x pre-season, 8x regular season, 2x post season) when a more functional stadium with sliding stands opens up the possibility of other sports including athletics to be held properly in the USA. For example, last nights annual Diamond League athletics meeting in Rome had an attendance in excess of 55,000
  8. Clearly is what a lack of knowledge .... it was said that it was ludicrous to think North Korea could hit Tokyo because their missiles explode at launch. A 30 seconds Google search would reveal that comment to be totally false. People are happy to think that some how events in Syria are going to have a negative impact on the Istanbul bid however ... despite in being 8 years and a 1,000km away. If people are going to say Istanbul will be affected by Syria, then Tokyo can be equally impacted by the actions of North Korea At Seoul 1988, the experienced Kim-Il-Sung was in power, and the North Koreans were still being economically supported by the Soviet Union and China who kept them on a tight leash, In 2012, the Soviet Union no longer exists, China are trying to wash their hands of the North Koreans, who potentially will become far more volatile in their behaviour as they desperately cling to power. Under the crazier Kim Il Jong, they even attacked and sank the ROKS Cheonan in international waters .... and they've now got an even more unknown and experienced and potentially volatile leader desperately trying to cling to power. If we think Syria and their dying regime is a problem, it is not a patch on what might happen if North Korea does a 'Libya'. And unlike Syria and Istanbul, the North Koreans can actually strike Tokyo tomorrow
  9. England and Germany chose not to bid because they didn't want to. Germany in fact said they felt it was someone else's turn due to the large number of international events they've hosted. Will the UK govt be prepared to pay for the large investment needed for Stadia for a Celtic nations bid? Considering the chaos of Poland-Ukraine in building their infrastructure will UEFA want to go to the even riskier Azerbaijan-Georgia? If Istanbul win 2020, Turkey are no go. The Netherlands have simply sounded the most positive of the potential extra bidders. Its not a case of simply can, its a case of wanting to as well. I mean I'd love Spain to host the games as they've never held a proper Euros and last held a football tournament in 1982, but if they don't want to, they cannot be forced.
  10. What is ludicrous is your lack of knowledge. The North Koreans have and have successfully tested the Rodong1 missile - basically an updated Scud for you Americans. This was successfully launched in 1993 and has been additionally exported to both Eygpt and Libya. It can be a) fitted with a nuclear warhead has a range of 1,000km (proven) with a hit accuracy of 2-4km North Korean fired successfully 7 of these in 2009 giving Japan the willies As Tokyo is 800km from North Korea, please explain what is ludicrous about it? p.s. the missile I believe you were ignorantly referring to was one designed to strike the Hawaiian Islands and West Coast
  11. 1) The Soldier Field design was a nonsense and gave Chicago a pitifully small capacity for a NFL Team. Whilst extremely unlikely, the original architecture of Soldier Field suggests a redesign could hold a track whilst undoing the cultural vandalism that occured. I also wish that people stop going on about this nonsense of track and field and football being incompatible. I have had the pleasure of watching Rugby three times at the Stade de France and its sliding stands design. Having seen Rugby at all of the Six Nations stadiums bar Rome and the new Aviva stadium in Dublin, the Stade de France had excellent viewing lines from the 3 parts of the stadium I saw games in, on a par with Murrayfield, Twickenham and the Millenium Stadium, and nobody complains about them as stadium to watch a Rugby/Football type sport. I do wonder if Chicago could tap 1) naming rights for normal usage 2) the NFL fund for new and updating stadiums, 3) local casino taxes etc, to fund such a renovation. 2) I do wonder how much the IOC liked the Washington Park idea, or how much they were being polite? Taking the centre piece of an Olympic games and totally gutting it seems ......Is there a major University with an aging stadium who might be happy to occupy a new stadium as an anchor tenant? Northwestern have the smallest stadium in the Big10
  12. The process is this: Because UEFA received 'concrete expressions of interest' from 3 bids - Turkey, Celtic Nations, Georgia-Azerbaijan - a formal selection procedure begins amongst the 53 nations. Any of the 53 members can still bid, even if they did not do so by the 15th May deadline For example, the Netherlands who chose not to bid because they felt the Turkish bid was a nailed on certainty can now choose to submit a bid if they like rather than wait until 2024 as they'd originally announced. The actual closing date now for official bids will be sometime in April 2013, where a full and comprehensive bid document is submitted. So the Netherlands could bid and actually could have the ability to host the games with the 2x50, 3x40 and 4x30 capacity requirements. Venues could include: Amsterdam Arena 52,342 there are plans to increase this capacity to 65,000 Feyenood de Kuip 51,577 or new stadium 68,000 Either or as Feyenood are looking to move. De Kuip becomes an option for either SBV Excelsior or maybe even Sparta Rotterdam. I assume though if Feyenoord moved, the De Kuip will be demolished if there is no new tennant. Heerenveen Abe Lenstra 26,800 There are already plans to increase this to 35,000+ Eschelde de Grolsche Veste 32,000 There are plans to raise this to 44,000 Eindhoven Philips Stadion 35,000 again another stadium with plans to add another 10,000 seats Alkmaar AFAS Stadion 17,000 Already being increased to 30,000+ Groningen Euroborg 22,560 Designed to have an extra tier taking capacity to 35,000 - 40,000 seats Utrecht Stadion Galgenwaard 24,426 Four seperate stands, so temporary stands in the corners would take capacity way beyong 30,000 updated Amsterdam Olympic stadium 22,288 There were plans for 2018 to add a second tier, architecturally possible ... and could be welcome as Amsterdam is hosting the 2016 European Athletics Championships. Alternatives for an additional 30,000 seat stadium would be Roda or Breda. The Gelredome in Arnhem now 25,000 seats used in 2000 cannot be expanded. So the stadiums would be: 50,000 seats: Amsterdam, Rotterdam 40,000 seats: Eindhoven, Eschelde, Amsterdam Olympic 30,000 seats: Groningen, Utrecht, Alkmaar, Heerenveen Opening Game: Rotterdam Quarter Finals: Eindhoven, Enschelde, Amsterdam, Rotterdam Semi Finals: Rotterdam, Amsterdam Final: Amsterdam.
  13. Considering who the contenders might be, if Toronto but in a major effort .....
  14. With the new team back in Ottawa, and potential expansion in the Atlantic provinces, the CFL will likely reach its optimum level even though the likes of Quebec, Windsor, London etc also make occasional noises regarding teams. Ironically with the 2026 FIFA World Cup being fairly open it might help a potential Canada bid. The hosting requirements are: 8-10 cities though they can make an exception as in the case of Brazil where there will be 12 Only 1 city can have two stadiums. So that means a standard bid would be 9-11 stadiums (South Africa had 10) Minimum capacity needs to be 40,000 seats but it is difficult to find a minimum requirement for a final. It does seem to be around 70,000-75,000 seats. With new stadiums in Winnipeg, Ottawa and Hamilton, likely in Regina and Toronto and potentially in Halifax and Calgary, it would seem that tomorrow Canada could find 9 venues as a minimum especially as most the current CFL stadiums are frequently increased in capacity to host the Grey Cup. Mosaic Place @ Taylor Field new Winnipeg Stadium McMahon Stadium Commonwealth Stadium BC Place Rogers Center Frank Clair Stadium the Big 'O' Halifax with maybe an expanded Hamilton or a new Argonauts stadium expandable to make 10. I expect the USA, China, Australia, and maybe Canada to bid, if the rotation formula is maintained the USA have already hosted and the MLS is not a huge draw China - after Russia and Qatar? Where next, North Korea? Australia has the stadiums but many are AFL Ovals unsuited to football Canada's MLS teams seem to be extremely popular and football is proving very popular There are 3 Canadian MLS teams, Ottawa wanted one, Edmonton have a growing Football team, and you are not too far off a domestic league.
  15. I wouldn't even let you into the country if I were an agent, and dump your ass back on a plane The fact that Chirac didn't have a positive impression of Finnish food, became a hurdle in the end. With the quality of the bids shortlisted all likely to be exceptionally close, any perceived weakness will be seized upon.
  16. Ouch - so even this didn't help.
  17. the problem is if even if these are misconceptions, they carry significant weight until they are disproved.
  18. Who is throwing stones? Your personal experience is irrelevant. Its about the changes to visa/entry policy of the Bush/Cheney years. Whatever our personal experiences, and I have had good and very poor customer service in almost every country I have visited, the IOC undoubtledy look at what the official government policy is regarding the entry of athletes, support staff, and spectators into the country to support the games. 'Syed Shahid Ali, an I.O.C. member from Pakistan, in the question-and-answer session following Chicago’s official presentation, pointed out that entering the United States can be “a rather harrowing experience.” "It’s clear the United States still has a lot of work to do to restore its place as a premier travel destination,” Roger Dow, U.S. Travel’s president, said in the statement released today. “When IOC members are commenting to our President that foreign visitors find traveling to the United States a ‘pretty harrowing experience,’ we need to take seriously the challenge of reforming our entry process to ensure there is a welcome mat to our friends around the world, even as we ensure a secure system.” Is this person an utter irrelevance or a high paid individual who can speak with professionalism and clarity about the general problem rather than pontificate about personal experiences? Now if the Travel Promotion Act suggested has now been passed any further bidding team really needs to emphasise this. We can all gloat about how wonderful our entry into the US might have been .... the issue is how are those participants and spectators from countries with less convivial relations with the US treated? Venezuela, countries in the Middle East, South East Asia etc The US Travel Association have highlighted it as evidence of an issue ..... I mean it must be an issue if legislation is being passed so for some to merely say in a derisory fashion that its only from a Pakistani IOC member highlights the problem. With the quality of all bids, such molehills can easily become mountains. Chicago went out in R1 by 4 votes - if three IOC members had voted for them instead of Tokyo then Chicago would have been through and as Chirac discovered when discussing Finnish food, you cannot afford to upset any one single IOC member who might go on to express their criticisms to their colleagues.
  19. I would say that Tokyo, in missile range of the unstable and widely erratic North Korean regime, has a position issue with this, not taking into account, the terrible environmental problems which exist on the Ring of Fire. After all Tokyo is closer to Pyongyang than Istanbul is to Damascus.
  20. What Facts? You merely claim what has happened to you ... that is not a fact. Did you not read the comments of our Canadian colleague Faster on here who confirmed the aggravation that business travellers face. My brother needing to work in Seattle on a contract for seven weeks, took 4 days to get a visa processed despite the fact he actually has security clearance to work at the Pentagon. Another colleague, had his company abandon GM crop trials in the USA because it was too awkward to continually get their European biochemists over there and switched it to Canada. You may have your experiences, but I have had mine. As for your non-sensical travel statistics ..... increasingly people in Europe commute by high speed rail. Only 3 years ago, I travelled LHR - CDG on business all the time. .... now we expected to travel on Eurostar except in exceptional circumstances, which is why so many European airlines are focusing on intercontinental routes because they cannot compete with high speed rail especially as governments increase air travel duties.
  21. and again - it was the NEW YORK TIMES who raised the issue of restrictive entry requirements http://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/chicagos-loss-is-passport-control-to-blame
  22. I have no axe to grind. I view the USA with complete indifference. Its somewhere I occasionally have to go with work. That's it. Don't underestimate the damage of the Bush-Cheney area, as it still is regarded as hugely negative. It is very easy to lose respect and every difficult to earn it back. Some new democracies have followed the US, but others have looked to other nations for their. cues. And the idea that the US must have the games by 2032 because ......of what? A summer games is an honour not an entitlement, and the US could put up 3 candidates in 2024, 2028 and 2032 and be deservedly beaten in each by exceptional candidates - it is how the USA responds in these circumstances theat might be interesting.
  23. I have no attitude turning up to get my visas - I am getting paid by my company for my time spent, and the US Government is more than happy to by the equipment made by my manufacturer. But over the last ten years since 2002 the process has become far more long winded. But personally if I didn't have to travel to the US again, it is a 'pleasure' I won't miss for a nano-second. As for Heathrow, I have never once been delayed in over 10years of monthy travel in and out of that airport. Compared to LAX where the quickest I have ever gotten through is over a hour.
  24. Why do people think the political issue is shaky for Istanbul? - they've got an ongoing Kurdish issues about 1,000miles away, but the Kurds don't have a history of attacks that would disrupt 2020. Turkey has a strong economy, and is as politically stable as most countries in Europe.
  25. the ultimate point is one that was raised by Athensfan .... anti-Americanism The USA is probably as least liked by the world than at any point since 1945. People can bang on about money, but there will always be massive TV rights from the USA going to the IOC because American companies will always want to advertise to a global audience and there is none bigger than the Olympics. The IOC can play NBC, ABC, Fox and CBS off against one others or sell the rights to a third party who will then demand huge one off charges. Does anyone really believe that US broadcasters / companies will not bid heavily for the rights to televise the games? And with more and more countries able to host the games, often with guaranteed governmental backing, the USOC has to massively up their game rather than fall back on old platitudes of it being their turn because private companies choose to pay the IOC vast sums of money. With India, South Africa, Indonesia as well as European nations seeing the Olympics as a source of national pride, no governmental support is hugely challenging and difficult to overcome .... and having offered us the abomination of Atlanta 1996 and the scandal of Salt Lake City 2002, does the USA deserve a games in the near future?
×
×
  • Create New...