Jump to content

Kjello

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kjello

  1. Could Sweden & Denmark not do it with 6 venues each? 2 each in Stockholm & Copenhagen then 5 other cities? Do you have enough decent sized cities that could take 30-40000 seat stadiums?

    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. And a question from me. What are the minimum stadium capacity for a Euro match?

    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. 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.

  5. If there is no mechanism for the removal of a World Cup due to corruption, than yes FIFA would be in a very delicate legal position. SLC wasn't removed as a host when bribery was found, its hard to imagine, unless written into either the bidding or hosting agreements. Unless it specifically states that allegations of bribery/corruption will lead to removal of competition/hosting, FIFA has very little to stand on. And if it does, than Qatar's corruption will directly implicate Spain/Portugal because of the much rumored 7 vote bloc swap that was in the air before the vote. Meaning that 2018 wasn't above board either and would have to be revoted. But its only 4 years out. There is so many, legal, political and financial implications that any decision will be costly and involve the courts.

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. Rob is right in that it is not a done deal. Neither article says it is.

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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 that price. Your idealism collides with and loses out to realism.

  11. 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.

  12. Maybe a Joint Bid from Sweden and Norway for UEFA Euro 2024? These are the Stadiums I would use:

    Sweden:

    Friends Arena, Stockholm (58,000 Seats) - Semi-Final, Quarter-Final, Round of 16 and Group Matches (Including Opening Match) - Expanded for Tournament.

    Swedbank Stadium, Malmo (45,000 Seats) - Quarter-Final, Round of 16 and Group Matches - Renovated and Expanded for Tournament.

    Ullevi Stadium, Gothenburg (43,000 Seats) Round of 16 and Group Matches - Renovated for Tournament.

    Tele2 Arena, Stockholm (40,000 Seats) - Round of 16 and Group Matches - Expanded for Tournament.

    New Stadium, Noorkoping (36,000 Seats) Group Matches - Brand New.

    Norway:

    New National Stadium, Oslo (70,000 Seats) Final, Quarter-Final, Round of 16 and Group Matches - Brand New and Downscaled to 30,000 Seats after Tournament.

    Viking Stadium, Stavanger (52,000 Seats) Semi-Final, Quarter-Final, Round of 16 and Group Matches - Renovated and Expanded, Downscaled to 30,000 Seats after Tournament.

    Brann Stadium, Bergen (45,000 Seats) Round of 16 and Group Matches - Renovated and Expanded, Downscaled to 25,000 Seats after Tournament.

    New Stadium, Lillehammer (40,000 Seats) Round of 16 and Group Matches - Brand New, Downscaled to 20,000 Seats after Tournament.

    New Stadium, Lillestrom (34,000 Seats) Group Matches - Brand New, Downscaled to 18,000 Seats after Tournament.

    I proposed expanding Friends Arena and Tele2 Arena, because Tele2 Arena would need an expansion to Host a Semi-Final and Opening Match.

    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 Norway and Sweden. And hence 2028 will be a better time. In 2028 it will also be 70 years since the 1958 WC in Sweden. Possibly giving them an extra reason to want to host it. 2024 would partly crash with Oslo 2022. And I doubt that the NFF is ready to talk about building a new stadium already. Just three years after scrapping the previous plans of a new stadium. And just having expanded Ullevaal from 25,500 seats, to 28,300 seats. And neither of the potential host clubs in Norway want's bigger stadiums at the moment. The attendances have to rise a lot and then stabilize for Norwegian clubs to want an expansion. Which means at least 5 years ahead. A bid for 2024 will have to start initial planing within a year. Also it looks like we need a government change in Sweden. The current right wing government haven't been to keen on supporting these kind of bids. While the previous left wing government has been more supportive.

    And last, the fifth stadium in Sweden would be placed in Helsingborg, and not Norrköping.

    Stadiums in a possible 2028 bid should be these. Given that the 2016 stadium requirements still counts.

    Sweden

    Friends Arena, Solna (50,000 seats) - Semi-final, quarter-final and 3 group stage matches.

    Ullevi stadion, Gothenburg (60,000 seats) - Final, quarter-final, round of 16 and 3 group stage matches

    Tele 2 Arena, Stockholm (30,000 seats) - 3 group stage matches

    Swedbank stadion, Malmö (30,000 seats) - 2 round of 16 matches and 4 group stage matches

    New stadium, Helsingborg (30,000 seats) - Round of 16 and 5 group stage matches

    Norway

    New national stadium, Oslo (50,000 seats) - Semi-final, round of 16 and 5 group stage matches including the opening match

    Lerkendal stadion, Trondheim (40,000 seats) - Quarter-final, round of 16 and 4 group stage matches

    New stadium, Bergen (40,000 seats) - Quarter-final, round of 16 and 4 group stage matches

    Viking stadion, Stavanger (30,000 seats) - Round of 16 and 5 group stage matches

    That gives

    Oslo 7 matches

    Bergen 6 matches

    Trondheim 6 matches

    Stavanger 6 matches

    Stockholm/Solna 8 matches

    Gothenburg 6 matches

    Malmö 6 matches

    Helsingborg 6 matches

    Total

    25 matches in Norway

    26 matches in Sweden

    On all days with 2 or 4 matches on the same day, the matches are split equally between Norwegian and Swedish stadiums.

  13. I know we want to keep the cost down, but there is a difference between white elephants and useful long-term venues. Couldn't Oslo could use a larger replacement for Ullevaal Stadion as the Norwegian national stadium and provide a ceremonies stadium of 40,000 capacity? I know Oslo isn't a huge city, but even the smaller European capitals have decent stadiums. If Cork, Cardiff, Liverpool, Gdansk, etc can maintain a large stadium and colleges do in the US, why can't Norway afford one mid-sized national stadium?

    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 will soon become to small. Norway planned a 55,000 seat venue in Groruddalen in the failed Euro 2016 bid. And stated a wish for a new stadium regardless of the Euros. But key people supporting a new stadium left the Norwegian Football Association at that time. General secretary Karen Espelund left the NFF in the summer of 2009. And in March 2010, NFF president Sondre Kåfjord was dropped for a third spell as president. Those two were the main supporters of building a new stadium. And less than a year after new people had entered those positions, a new stadium was dropped in favour of expanding Ullevaal. Though the main reason for this was of course that it wouldn't get any money from the government to build a new stadium. In the plans for Euro 2016, the government was supposed to finance 3,5 of 4 billion NOK.

    Norway will have to wait until a possible Euro 2028 in Norway and Sweden for a new stadium.

  14. The 4 most suited to be replacement hosts are France, Germany, Korea and USA. The most logical being Korea, has a neutral relationship with the Muslim world, has 10 stadiums that are ready to go with minimal work that are all football specific and is in the same confederation.

    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.

    • Like 1
  15. No 10 000 seats stadium is planned for use after the games. The Ice hockey venue (10 000) will be transformed to this:

    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.

  16. Back to Oslo, the city could definitely use a 10-15,000 seat arena for ice hockey. The second ice hockey venue seems to be an issue. I still don't understand why the Spektrum Arena is not being considered here either for curling and then the new Jordal for ice hockey or curling. If you want to utilize existing facilities, I don't see why you wouldn't use a 7,000 seat arena. There does seem to be an unwritten rule that all the ice events need to be concentrated in the same city, probably more so for media and spectator purposes.

    With the talk of using more existing venues in Lillehammer, but Lillehammer being too small to host the Olympics by itself, I'd propose this. Follow the Pyeongchang model. All the ski and sliding events are being held in Pyeongchang, a resort town far too small to host all events of the Olympics while the city of Gangneung on the coast is hosting all the ice events. It could've easily been Gangneung 2018 but the Koreans chose to make their bid city the small alpine resort. Could the Norwegians do the same? Have all the skiing and sliding events, along with the ceremonies in Lillehammer while Oslo could host the ice events. The only thing I think that would have to change is it seems the IOC isn't too keen anymore on using the ski jump stadium for the ceremonies since it could conflict with practice times for the athletes so I suppose in this case that Lillehammer would have to construct a temporary ceremonies stadium like Pyeongchang is doing and Albertville did before. Any thoughts? Could it work?

    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 to get new venues to the Oslo area. Using Spektrum wouldn't give a new venue for hockey in the Oslo region. Afterwards Spektrum would go back to host concerts, events and so on. And host a sport event perhaps once every 5 years.

    Moving ski events away from Holmenkollen is of course out of the question. Holmenkollen is the sole image of Norway as an winter sports nation. It's a part of our winter sports soul. And besides, Holmenkollen was upgraded ahead of the 2011 Nordic Ski Championship. The Lillehammer venues are pretty much the same as they were in 1994.

  17. 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...