Jump to content

gromit

Members
  • Posts

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by gromit

  1. 20 hours ago, gromit said:

    The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

    Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

    To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

    By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

    Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

    If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

    Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

    the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

    Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

    Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

    There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

     

     

     

     

     

    20 hours ago, gromit said:

    The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

    Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

    To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

    By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

    Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

    If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

    Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

    the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

    Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

    Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

    There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

     

     

     

     

    Well based on your comments we can never expect the Olympics in the USA again as they will always be offering an inferior product.

    The State de France was built on host the 1998 world cup final but they still had the brains to future proof it for athletics. The sightlines are as good as  the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami which hosts your Suoerbowl.  Using the ancient LA coliseum and giving it a lick of paint no longer cuts the mustard..

    All stadium have compromises.

     

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Yes, nonsense.  Complete and utter frickin nonsense.  Good for Singapore that made use of technology.  This is what they produced..

    75_big.jpg

    No NFL team is playing in building where that many fans are so far away from playing surface.  Stade de France is a little better, but not by much.  Thank you for making the argument AGAINST this for any NFL team.  If this is what they wound up with, they wouldn't build it in the first place.

    Should I create a list of reasons the Jets wouldn't move?  Because it's going to be a lot longer and a lot less ridiculous than this one.

    The Dome in St. Louis did not NEED renovations.  Let alone with a $700 million price tag.  That was simply the proposal they offered to try and fight for public funding under the threat of moving somewhere else.  Well, they weren't bluffing.  The fact they're moving from a smallish market in St. Louis to a much larger market in LA is less about the viability of the stadium and more about an opportunity on the part of ownership that they see to make more money.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

    The Georgia Dome.. perfectly capable of holding football going forward.  But the Falcons and the city decided they wanted to invest the money (including public funds) to build a brand new stadium in order to attract a Super Bowl (which they're now already scheduled for).  The soon-to-be old stadium is not being demolished out of need, but out of want.  Just like the Braves moving out to the suburbs.  Little of this is applicable to the Jets.

    By 2028, MetLife will not REQUIRE substantial renovations.  You can't look at the other stadiums as a precedent for what might happen here.  The Dome in St. Louis cost $280 million to build.  The Georgia Dome cost $214 million.  Even in today's dollars, that's still a fraction of what MetLife cost.  So don't give us this bullshit line that because the Rams and Falcons abandoned their stadiums after only about 2 decades that the Jets would make a similar decision after the same amount of time when they are playing in a $1.6 billion facility.  You can't create that equivalence just because you're trying to figure out how New York could host an Olympics.

    And again, with the Jets.. for the first 50 years of their existence, they played in someone else's stadium.  For more than a quarter of a century, they played in the building named after the other team.  Now they're in a building where they are a full partner.  They're no longer someone else's tenant.  So do you really think they're about to leave that situation to go to a stadium where they don't have discretion over the design and where they are not the primary ownership?

    The opportunity has come and gone for the Jets to do something other than what they did.  The West Side Stadium would have sufficed for them (in large part because the stadium would have seen other uses as a part of the convention center).  New York does not need another large scale stadium that would compete with the other stadiums in the area.  It's a bad investment that's not likely to happen, let alone under the cockamamie pretense that this whole sliding stands concept which would be for a 1-time event is the solution.

    The high price for the MetLife was because of where it wasn't being built ... it was because it was being built in the New York City Area.

    Considering other stadium proposals and developments since .. US Bank Stadium, Mercedes Bank Stadium, nothing has come close.

    To demonstrate you are losing the argument you use figures based on how much the Georgia Dome and Edward Jones Dome cost to build in 1992 and 1995 respectively - now how much they would cost to build now if adjusted for inflation - in fact the Edward Jones Dome HAD to be significantly upgraded as the terms of the contract stipulated a the Dome in the Top Tier in terms of facilities and amenities - even the 2010 renovations could not accomplish this

    By 2028 we have no way of knowing if the MetLife will still fulfil the requirements of either the Jets or the Giants? or may need substantial updates to keep the stadium at a never either the Johnson or Mara families demand ...

    Instead of using figures massively out of date suggest that the proposed St Louis NFL stadium to keep the Rams and not even to get a SuperBowl was budgeted at $1.01bn and you might be taken more seriously.

    If NYC ever have a serious plan for the Olympics or even the SuperBowl again then joke of having a temporary main stadium is what needs to be forgotten so an alternative stadium which incorporates existing technology would need to be considered

    Paris does not have a problem with the cockamamie pretense of sliding stands ... maybe once/twice a year it is used, but the stadium is still fantastic for both football and rugby ... NYC could easily do this, hold the Olympics, the World Athletics Championship, the annual Diamond League which laughably has been held at the 5,000 seat capacity Icahn stadium in the past and is currently held at Hayward Field whilst other countries offer significantly better venues.

    the Stade de France holds an annual Diamond League meeting, 8-10 rugby games (similar to NFL games) and 10-15 football games and yet there is never any problems re: the fan experience ... the only reason the French Rugby Team is moving is for a commercial reason ... the deal they get means they miss out massively on commercial aspects of using the stadium. And if you put the Stade de France in any US city and you'd have NFL teams begging to be the tenant.

    Why would the Jets and Giants have a lease of only 25 years and respectively a break clause of ONLY 15 years if this incredibly wonderful and perfect MetLife stadium could fulfill their requirements ad infinitum ...

    Metlife sponsor the stadium .... for about $350m over 25years .... this is shared. Now a single team in control of the stadium would get that exclusively plus all money from amenities, concessions etc. A stadium build with a retractable roof would be able to gain additional revenue from indoor sports such as the Final Four basketball etc. 

    There is always massive financial benefits to a sports team having exclusive use of a sports stadium

     

     

     

     

  3. On 9/20/2016 at 10:42 PM, zekekelso said:

     

    And this transformation cost Hampden Park about 8,000 seats from its listed Football Capacity

    I believe a more extensive modification proposed for the Estadio La Peineta would have resulted in a loss of 12,000 seats from the football stadium though potentially because the stadium would be more rectangular than Hampden's oval design.

    Essentially if the requirement is minimum 60,000 seats and you don't want a white elephant with no tenant you are looking for a minimum 70,000 seat football stadium

    • Like 1
  4. 19 minutes ago, Rob. said:

    Good point. I guess they could include it in the bid as a possible venue. According to the thread on SSC it's due to open 2021, though with this venue I'll only believe it when we start seeing spades in the ground. If this gets the go ahead soon, we could have an LA bid and a Paris bid with two truly astonishing soon-to-be-built venues in Inglewood and Ris-Organgis that they're not quite sure what to do with. Amazing situation to be in!

    I guess it'd make sense for both to be proposed venues for the football finals, as Wembley was in 2012, though weirdly neither will have that as their primary sport outside of the Olympics.

    Another possible venue which I note has not been used is the Stade Sebastian Charlety in the 13th arrondissement.

    At the moment Paris 2024 have no listed venue for Baseball/Softball that I can find. If this sport is there in 2024 (it is back for 2020), then this stadium might be used due to it's oval shape result from incorporating a Running Track. For football, it has 20,000 seats

    There is also a small arena with a capacity of 1850 which is probably too small for anything

     

  5. The only potential large facility not currently included is the new French National Rugby Stadium at Ris-Orangis proposed to have a 82,000 seat capacity and sliding pitch/roof option

    However it is nowhere near any other facility close by currently proposed ... it is 20miles south of the Expo Centre and the AccorHotels Arena ... however it could hold several sports under the same roof and maybe be a Football venue, with the Parc des Princes used for Rugby7s if they wanted a larger capacity

    • Like 1
  6. On 9/15/2016 at 6:23 AM, Quaker2001 said:

    Ugh, not this nonsense again.  Just because the technology exists to build something doesn't mean it's a smart and sensible idea to build it.  We've been over this before.  The Olympics are going to be a one-time event for this stadium.  There's no need to design and build it to be convertible after the Olympics.  If you'll recall, the original 2012 stadium design was to allow for the stadium to be an extension of the Javits Convention Center.  But obviously that fell apart.

    So again, the question is still.. why would the Jets leave a stadium (after just 20 years) that they were a 50/50 partner in terms of the design, construction, payment, and ownership to go somewhere else where the stadium was built by and for another entity and that they might need to spend 3 years retro-fitting to work for them.  Let alone what the ownership situation with that new stadium might be.  Go over all that and then tell me this makes any sense beyond the idea of figuring out some way to make an Olympics work for NYC.

    Nonsense?

    The technology has existed since 1998 with the Stade de France. It has since been further developed with the Singapore National Stadium. These have been built from the start to have this flexibility.

    The London Stadium and ANZ Stadium have suffered from trying to retrofit the stadiums not originally designed for this purpose.

    Far more likely than building a massive temporary stadium

    Why would the Jets move?

    Lets consider the LA (formerly St Louis) Rams ... the Dome in St Louis was only opened in 1995, had to be renovated in 2010 yet to get to the Rams standards if they stayed required $700m in improvements.

    Or the Falcons ... the Georgia Dome was only opened in 1992 yet they are moving to the Mercedes Benz Stadium for 2017 ... so the Dome will be demolished after 25 years

    By 2028, the Metlife will be 18 years old so beyond the point where substantial renovations would be required to be made. By 2031 ... it would be the same duration the Rams waited before moving.

    Sharing a stadium always makes the Jets the young brother, the 2nd team .... a new stadium mostly funded by others with a city desperate for a legacy tenant would make the Jets a very attractive partner, likely to move the team back to their historic territory between JFK and LaGuardia and the advantage for NY2028 bid team is they can immediately say the biggest facility constructive suffers no chance of being a white elephant

     

     

     

     

  7. As someone who has watched Football and Rugby at the Stade de France, track and field is definitely compatible with the former sports if consider as part of the original design plan. And Stade de France - which works is 18 years old

    The KSS Group (UK) have this design which incorporates a variety of technology to create a concert/T&F/football & rugby venue adaptable for the differing requirements and with a 80,000 seat capacity

    http://www.kssgroup.com/projects/japan-national-stadium/

  8. New York City

    The MetLife has a 25 year lease agreement but one team can leave after 15years and then after every subsequent 5 years if they given 12months notice .. the other team would have to stay for the duration but of course have the benefit of exclusivity. Apparently this arrangement was at the request of the Jets.

    Therefore the earliest date would be 2026 and then 2031. If you consider the London Stadium it took about 3 years to convert for football (2013-2016) we are looking at 2028 Olympic Stadium likely to be available for an NFL Team in 2031,

    Unlike London, if the stadium was designed to be converted from the start with movable stands and in 15 years this technology would likely be further advanced, then NYC will have a central stadium, post games usage (Jets or Giants) and the warm-up track could easily be converted into a permanent 15-20,000 stadium as a legacy

     

     

     

  9. I know Scotland will never join with an English national team, but they also have their own semi-thriving league. Since Wales has teams in the Premier League anyway is there a chance their FA could merge with England for the next World Cup bid?

    No.

    Bit like Canada joining with the USA

  10. Even without expanding some of the existing large stadium, the stadium capacity of any English bid would be sufficient

    Wembley 90,000 seats

    One of Emirates 60,400 seats, new Spurs Stadium 61,000 seats or Olympic stadium 54,000 seats

    and then

    Newcastle 52,500 seats

    Sunderland 49,000 seats

    Old Trafford 75,000 seats

    Etihad Stadium 62,700 seats

    Liverpool 58,500 seats

    Villa Park 42,500 seats

    Southampton and Leicester currently 32,000 seats but designed for easy expansion for 50,000 seats

    Milton Keynes 30,000 seats but easy temporary expansion to 44,000 seats

    Elland Road 37,914 seats but easy adaptable to over 40,000 seats as is Hillsborough currently at 39,732 seats

    That's 12 stadiums before we even consider FIFA's ability to fudge with Kallingrad at 35,000 seats and Doha having 6 stadia !!!

  11. If you had any idea about football in England outside of the Premier League you'd realise the building of football stadiums in England does not create white elephants as you put it. Last week a team in the third tier of the game had a higher attendance than the MLS.

    When the MLS has an attendance level to routinely fill your NFL stadiums then the USA deserve to host over a country where it is the No1 sport not the fifth rated sideshow.

    To use Alaska and Hawaii is a nonsense as even at its extremes England has one time zone minimising impact on teams and fans alike.

  12. Oh what a shame. Areas of England that most people have never heard of, or even care much about, won't be represented in a world cup.

    Comparing Alaska and Hawaii with the West Country and East Anglia ... jaw drops in astonishment ... no-one in Europe really cares if the USA hosts the World Cup with its excessive commercialisation and attempts to Americanise the language of football (not soccer)

    Most bidding nations attempt to extend such events to all corners if possible.

    At present (which means now) there are 17 odd stadiums which could meet the FIFA criteria with no that difficult alteration. There is the possibility that Bristol might extend Ashton Gate beyond the 27,000 seat current plans, or Norwich might replace Carrow Road

    This is a topic about England and most of the rest of the world have absolutely interest in the USA.

    If you want to talk USA 2026 start a new topic

  13. England's problems are:

    1. FIFA. A thorough culture change is needed before I believe we have a chance or before I'd be happy to see public money put towards a bid.

    2. The concentration of large stadiums in a few cities. London will - remarkably - have five 60,000+ stadiums (six if we're to include Twickenham) by the end of the decade. Manchester/Liverpool will have three. The inclusion in the 2018 bid of speculative stadiums such as Portsmouth's new ground (not going to happen now!) and a new Nottingham Forest stadium (any word on that?) shows how difficult it became to come up with a good geographical spread of stadiums outside London and the Northwest.

    Apart from that, we've got what it takes.

    Even with a one stadium per city rule we're talking 12 stadiums with Southampton replacing Portsmouth and Leicester/Derby replacing Nottingham. Geographical areas potentially missing out are the West Country and East Anglia.

  14. On 30th May, the FIFA Executive Committee decided that any country could bid for the FIFA World Cup providing their association had not hosted the previous event. European countries are now officially allowed to bid for the World Cup in 2026.

    2 months earlier, on 24th March, Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association had announced a possible bid for 2026 provided Sepp Blatter was no longer FIFA president. This will now be the case.

    Could England now be the favourite? The only two confirmed bidders are Canada (sufficient infrastructure?) and Mexico (hosts in 1970 and 1986).

    Advantages that England would have include:

    • No competing sporting or cultural events
    • Games held in one time zone
    • Multiple facilities of proven quality for training, accommodation etc
    • Proven ability to host a multi event and multi team event (Olympics, Cricket, Rugby etc.)
    • Multi cultural society with proven ability to support multiple teams throughout such an event
    • Excellent infrastructure
    • Purpose built football stadia already in place with guaranteed full usage after the event and minimum modifications required if any at all
    • FIFA delegates will hate one nation even more than England for exposing their levels of corruption

    Potential stadiums

    Newcastle

    Sunderland

    Liverpool

    Manchester - Old Trafford,

    Manchester - Etihad Stadium,

    Leeds

    Sheffield

    Derby

    Leicester

    Birmingham - Villa Park

    Southampton

    Milton Keynes

    London - Wembley

    London - Emirates Stadium

    London - Stamford Bridge

    London - New White Hart Lane

    London - Olympic Stadium

    All are built/building and have been designed to temporarily/permanently exceed the minimum 40,000 seat capacity

  15. So that means that anyone from any confederation can bid? Not that Australia is willing to put our hands up just yet, with the farce of the 2022 bid race, especially now that Qatar can host in December and all.

    Football Australia persuaded the other football codes to relinquish their stadiums for at least 8 weeks and suspend their tournaments for a month, the others agreed to this proposal, now you can simply change the dates, is that it?

    Not the Asia confederation. It only goes back one tournament now instead of two, allowing Europe to bid

    • Like 1
  16. Well you get the idea, perhaps an Olympic Park centered around North Harbour Stadium? Expanded to 70,000 for the event to be the main stadium?

    What about a revamped waterfront/docks area which includes an Exhibition Centre? Something Auckland lacks? Maybe the Athlete's Village could be here to provide a centralized area for travel times? A Main Media Centre much like Melbourne's 1996 Skyscraper proposal?

    Can this work? It seems that a Winter Olympics for New Zealand is a long shot and probably won't happen, so go for Summer glory. Forget the Youth Olympics, you want the real deal.

    I would suggest expanding the Mount Smart stadium in South Auckland. It has some infrastructure in place, as an 'athletics' footprint, have warm up track, is in an area that could be redeveloped like East London, and post games could be a home for an oft mentioned South Auckland Super Rugby franchise

  17. Miami

    It may not be the largest USA city but it is one which has that international name recognition. Major tourist destination and cruise ship terminal so hotel rooms shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of sporting arenas. Possible tenant for an Olympic Stadium if designed properly in the U of Miami Hurricanes.

    Undoubtedly there are multiple reasons why Miami might not be a suitable location, but with stadia stretching from Fort Lauderdale down the coast, water transport might be a decent way of temporarily overcoming infrastructure issues?

  18. Interesting there is an athletics stadium which did successfully convert to a football type stadium

    Manchester's Commonwealth Games Stadium, aka the Etihad Stadium

    Here they took a 38,000 seat horseshoe configuration and after the games, removed the track, dug down a level, filled in the horse shoe and brought the other end in, to leave a 48,000 seat football stadium, now being expanded to 62,000 seat.

    What you might to do is scale this up so built a 65,000 seat athletics stadium with the notion of converting it into an 80,000 seat football stadium?

  19. What was the Olympic stadium for Chicago going to be downsized for? Just into a smaller athletics stadium?

    And Chicago would still be a choice for an Olympics with the idea of downsizing the Olympic stadium into a new stadium for the Chicago Bears. Currently Soldier Field, which is where the Bears play, is the oldest in the NFL, being built in 1924. And it's also currently the 3rd smallest stadium in capacity. But I'm not sure how successful a downsize from an Olympic athletics stadium into a football stadium would be where it involves removing the track altogether and bringing the seats closer together into the dimensions of an NFL stadium.

    In 2002-2003, Chicago spent $632million updating Soldier Field so the Bears using any Olympic Stadium is a non-starter.

    The 2016 stadium was to be downsized to a 10,000 seat community athletics stadium. Realistically to convert post games you either compromise the ideal athletics view or the ideal football/gridiron view

  20. Realistically the only North American city that can host is LA.

    Despite all the lovely comments from the IOC, without a main stadium you are doomed. Look at London 2012. A main stadium of 80,000 ready to be downsized to 25,000 turns into a 54,000 seat stadium with a regular football Tennant and available for athletics into an Alpha+ city where the previous largest capacity for athletics was 17,000 for a Diamond League regular.

    Unless you can do a Hampden Park and put a deck in reducing the capacity but still leaving you the minimum 60,000 you are going to seriously struggle. The Chicago model of building a 80,000 capacity stadium downsized to 10,000 post games leaves you with the worlds most expensive seat per capacity stadium which would beat the now abandoned Tokyo stadium hands down. There's the cost of building it, of the reducing it and then having a capacity so small the income to recoup money is minimal, all done without public subsidy.

    Therefore you are left with a city with a large enough central stadium to accommodate decking like Dallas or Miami as decking takes at lkeast 14,000 seats if following the approach was pursued. Unless a NFL franchise or college football team can be persuaded to be a resident in a large but compromised stadium, despite all of the honey talk from the IOC, North America's realistic hopes begin and end in LA

    • Like 2
  21. The Stadium, The Velodrome, The Copper Box, The Aquatics Centre (if they can add temporary seats), the Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre could all host events

    The Tennis Centre? You mean Wimbledon?

    You can also add Twickenham for the Rugby7s, the o2 Arena, the Excel Centre, Wembley Arena ... the only facility not in place is one for Squash

  22. Love how you chose to omit the next part of this article that completely disproves your assertion..

    But China would also love to host the World Cup, as would Australia.

    However both countries are members of the Asian Football Confederation and as a fellow member, Qatar, is hosting 2022 that would make them ineligible to be awarded 2026.

    Name any global event when the subsequent event is held in the same confederation unless there is an absent of bidders like in 2022 Winter Olympics .... save the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, a bi-annual event. That is why China and Australia would be ruled out.

    And nobody has yet answered why would the English Football Association, the oldest in the world and always likely to be a contender if they chose to bid for the hosting rights for a World Cup, have even voiced the possibility of bidding for 2026 UNLESS there was a clear indication that such a bid would be admitted?

    We are not talking about some press officer making an error, we are talking about the chairman of the Football Association

    And so far has the USA even declared that they will bid for 2026? Confirmed bids have come from Mexico, Canada, and Colombia

  23. Proof gromit? Because I have seen nothing that says the exclusion rule has been repelled. The ExCo still sets the rules of bidding.

    "Football Association chairman Greg Dyke has revealed England may consider a bid to host the 2026 World Cup finals."

    "Fifa's executive committee are no longer responsible for the final say on which country is awarded a World Cup.

    Instead, they will establish a shortlist before the 209 member nations of Fifa cast a vote for their preferred choice.

    2026 will be the first tournament to be decided under the new system - a final decision will be made in May 2017 at Fifa's annual congress in Kuala Lumpur."

    "Aren't the USA favourites for 2026? Yes. Having narrowly lost out to Qatar for 2022 there are plenty of people connected to US soccer who feel they deserve to be awarded 2026. And given Fifa's previous policy of rotating the World Cup around its confederations there is a school of thought which says only countries from Africa or North America, Central America or the Caribbean can bid.

    If such a policy was adhered to - Concacaf president and Fifa vice-president Jeffrey Webb certainly thinks it should be - then the field of eligible candidates narrows dramatically.....But China would also love to host the World Cup, as would Australia"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32045238

    For FIFA rules don't exist. The rule say one city can't host no more than 2 stadiums ... except Doha has 6. Or that it is a summer tournament ... except it will be held Nov-Dec 2022 causing huge revenue loss to leagues and clubs that pay the players

  24. and considering the absolute screw up that FIFA made regarding Qatar and the huge disruption it is going to cause to the European leagues, a sop to a UEFA member to bring the footballing community is something that can't be ruled out.

    Remove UEFA from the World Cup .... and there is no World Cup

×
×
  • Create New...