Jump to content

Kjello

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Kjello

  • Rank
    Bronze

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Trondheim, Norway
  1. Why have 6 venues each when they could do with 5 in Sweden and 4 in Denmark? No need for 12 venues when the demand from UEFA is 9 venues. Answer to that second question is simply no. No Scandinavian teams really need a stadium bigger than 25 000 really often. Hammarby IF had an average of 25 507 last season. Which is an all time record in Scandinavia. The only matches that is able to sell 30 000+ on a regular basis is the Copenhagen-derby and a handful of matches in Sweden that includes AIK, Hammarby, IFK Göteborg and Malmö.
  2. Should this bid become reality, it would most likely include 3 venues in Sweden, and 2 venues in Denmark, Norway and Finland. The major question is what UEFA demands when it comes to capacity. As an example, do all four countries need to have a 50,000 seat stadium? The 2016 criteria said that all host nation matches should be played at stadiums with at least 50,000 seats. However, not all four countries will be pre-qualified as hosts. Only 2 of 4 will be that according to the Norwegian secretary general. It would in my opinion be a bit wrong to demand a country like Norway to build a 50,000 seat stadium, without a guarantee that Norway will play in the tournament. Personally I would have dropped Finland from the bid. A three-way bid with Norway, Sweden and Denmark makes so much more sense. Most likely a three-way bid would mean that all are pre-qualified as hosts as well.
  3. 30,000 spectators has been set as a minimum. However, this is what's called net capacity. It rules out seats with either bad views, seats that may obstruct view, press seats and so on. In reality one need 5-10 % above 30,000 to fulfil the minimum criteria. For the Euro as a tournament, this was the stadium criteria for the upcoming Euro 2016. 2 stadiums with a net capacity of 50,000 spectators. (Minimum capacity for Final, opening match and host nation matches) 3 stadiums with a net capacity of 40,000 spectators. (Minimum capacity for Quarter- and Semi-finals ) 4 stadiums with a net capacity of 30,000 spectators. (Minimum capacity for Group stage and round of 16 matches) However, it was stated that it would be preferable that one stadium had a net capacity of at least 60,000 spectators.
  4. That's been known for a long time. Won't change the fact that it won't happen after the Progress party voted no to the Olympics.
  5. All of this is Blatter's work. Blatter has never been fond of Qatar hosting it, and voted for the USA himself. His strongest opponent in the upcoming FIFA president election, Platini, bid however vote for Qatar. Ask yourself why Qatar bought PSG in May 2011. Then Al Jazeera bought the Ligue 1 domestic TV-deal in June 2011. As well as Qatar Airways placing a massive order on planes from Airbus in 2011. Suiting a French economy in crises perfectly.
  6. FIFA does of course have clauses giving them the right to terminate the agreement with the LOC. Though it's not included in the document. It is covered by Part O section 37 in the 2010 South Africa Organising association agreement. I would be very surprised if the 2022 document didn't include the same section. The SLC-scandal came out in the open in November 1998. Only 3 years and 3 months before the Winter Olympics. Unless they were to give it to one of the three previous host in 98, 94 or 92. It wasn't enough time to find a new host. It's still 8 years until Qatar is supposed to host the World Cup. More than enough time to find another host. Hell, both the 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010 were awarded only 6 years ahead of the tournament. While Brazil was awarded it 7 years ahead. Unlike the 2022 selection, no evidence has yet to come to say that Russia bought the 2018 World Cup. Even though it would be no big surprise if they did.
  7. If Qatar is found guilty of buying votes, FIFA would in no way have to payoff Qatar should they strip them of the World Cup.
  8. FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce say he would support a re-vote according to the BBC. Would love that. But a such process would have to start quite soon to give candidates time for preparations.
  9. It still was the criteria for 2006. http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/germany2006/news/newsid=11128/index.html
  10. 2006 criteria Guess that's the same for 2014.
  11. FIFA only require 8 stadiums? Where does that comes from? In the invitations to bid for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups FIFA states "Approximately 12 stadiums with the minimum capacities of between 40,000 for group matches and 80,000 for the opening match and final, are required to host the FIFA World Cup". UEFA demands 9 stadiums to host the 51 match Euros. There's no way a 64 match World Cup could be hosted on only 8 stadiums in a month. France in 98, and South Africa in 2010 is also the only ones to use less than 12 stadium. Using 10 each. Which I'm pretty sure is the bear minimum to at all be able to host 64 matches in 30-32 days.
  12. Though formally not a done deal, it pretty much is in reality. The Conservative Party will NEVER risk the stability of the government by leaning on the opposition to support a bid that already is highly unpopular. Only 35 % in favour in the last survey. If the Conservative Party goes to the opposition for support, the government is history. And lets not forget that the Conservative Party also are divided on the topic. They have their national congress next weekend. We'll have to wait and see if the topic comes up then. Labour, the main opposition party, is currently pressing the Conservative Party to get a quick decision.
  13. Here. http://www.ohtuleht.ee/502410/pohlak-emi-eestisse-toomisest-2020-on-ebareaalne-edasise-suhtes-raagime-labi-ka-venemaaga- Õhtuleht is the second largest newspaper in Estonia. Of course, I don't read Estonian. But a simple Google translate tells that they're in negotiations with Russia about bidding for 2024. But I find it very hard to believe that this will happen. Both because Estonia will have problems even hosting two stadiums. And because Russia won't get the Euros just 6 years after hosting the World Cup.
  14. Not that I believe it will happened. But the claim is in fact sourced to the second largest newspaper in Estonia. Claiming it's just somebody's dream posted on Wikipedia is stupid.
  15. 19 candidates. 6 will have to go. Denmark, Belarus, Bulgaria and Macedonia is bidding with stadiums smaller than 50,000 seats. And hence only competing over 2 potential spots. Which means that at least two of them have to go. I think Denmark and Bulgaria will win that competition. They have bigger football traditions. Both England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales is bidding. I have a hard time seeing all four of them getting a spot. England will get the final package. Scotland will get one spot due to football traditions. Leaving Ireland and Wales to compete over the last spot. Wales have the advantage of having a big enough stadium to host one of the quarter finals. Which demand a 60,000 seat stadium. While Ireland has a better record to show for. Having qualified three times for the World Cup. And twice for the European Championship. Most recently in 2012. While Wales only have that one World Cup participation in 1958 to show. Then there's 3 left to go. I think Russia will have to go due to them hosting the 2018 WC. While I think Azerbaijan and Israel simply won't be picked due to distance and travel times. UEFA stated a goal of maximum 2 hours flight travel between cities. Leaving Jerusalem and Baku to far away. Which leaves Sweden Denmark England Scotland Ireland/Wales Netherlands Belgium Spain Germany Italy Hungary Romania Bulgaria Wales if UEFA need a 60,000 seat stadium to host the last quarter final. Ireland if they don't need it.
×
×
  • Create New...