Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kjello

  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 s
  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 capaci
  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 Wo
  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 b
  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
  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 ad
  16. Go to some statistics class, and you'll soon learn that you're completely wrong.
  17. No it's not. You get a 95 % accuracy rate with a sample of 1,000 people regardless of the size of the population. No matter whether the population is 5 million, or 500 million, a sample of 1,000 people will give you a 95 % accuracy rate.
  18. You're not an engineer I understand. You can't reuse the current roof on an expanded Friends Arena. You have to completely remove the current roof. And build a brand new one on top of the extended stands. The new roof will have to be bigger to cover the extended stands.. Also, the pitch can't be lowered due to UEFA regulations. The distance between the stands and the sideline is already at the minimum distance UEFA allows. Hence you can't build more row towards the pitch. Expanding Friends Arena to 60,000 seats would cost at least 150 million €. You may expand Ullevi to 60,000 seats for half t
  19. Ullevi stadium in Gothenburg may be expanded to 60,000+ much cheaper than Fiends Arena in Stockholm. For Sweden costs is a major topic. In both the Euro 2016 bid, and the Nordic Euro 2008 bid, Gothenburg was planed to be expanded to 60,000 seats. And being the biggest stadium, it would then of course get the final as well.
  20. Eh, first of all, Lillehammer? Are you for real? The top club from Lillehammer plays at the 4th level in Norway. And hasn't been at the top level since 1947. A time where the top level had 74 teams. And you drop the third largest city in Norway, Trondheim? Which by the way is the home of Norways by far biggest and most successful football club, Rosenborg. 11 times participators in the CL from 1995 to 2007 and 22 times league champions. Which of 18 in the last 25 years. Also the club with the largest attendances every season. Doesn't make much sense. I also think 2024 comes a bit soon for both
  21. In the long run Norway needs a replacement for Ullevaal, yes. But at the moment it's not a topic. Mainly because the national team currently have problems filling half of Ullevaal at matches. But also because Ullevaal was recently expanded from 25,500 seats to 28,300 seats. So at the moment it wouldn't have the need. But of course, things change fast when it comes to that. Just three years ago Ullevaal was sold out in record time ahead of the Euro qualifier against Denmark in march 2011. And if Norway started winning again, and qualify for a tournament for the first time since 2000. Ullevaal w
  22. What on earth makes France a more suitable replacement than England? France has only 6 stadiums with a capacity greater than the minimum 40,000. England has 10 football stadiums that fills that criteria. And 12 if we include the Olympic stadium and Twickenham stadium. Though these won't be used as long as London can only host 2 stadiums.
  23. I know. But if that's their need. They should build it like that from the beginning. And not go via a 10,000 seat hockey venue. Håkons Hall at Lillehammer stands ready to be used as the bigger hockey venue.
  24. Again, Oslo has no need of a 10,000 seat venue for hockey. The only top club Vålerenga has an average of less than 1,500. In a venue that can host 4,500 spectators. Even if Vålerenga were to join the KHL, which currently is a topic, even then 5-6,000 is max. And that is covered by Oslo Spektrum. Though the hockey federation wants a new 6,000 seat arena to become the new national arena as well. Of course this is just me speculating. But the reason for not using Oslo Spektrum either as the smaller hockey venue, or as the curling venue, is most likely because the main focus of the organisers is t
  25. Oslo - Lillehammer only takes 2 hours 14 minutes by train, just so it's mentioned. And by 2022 major parts of the Dovre line between Oslo and Lillehammer will be upgraded to 250 km/h HSR. Once the whole stretch to Lillehammer is built, travel time from Oslo will be 1 hour 23 minutes. Which might well be within 2022 should Lillehammer host more events. So the talk about 4 hours travel time is of course nonsense.
  • Create New...