Jump to content

stade de france can't showcase athletics


Recommended Posts

To Stryker:SdF is roughly 1.5 km distant from Paris périphérique(north side).

Thank you Faster for your help keeping the anglo-saxon crusade against SdF.Again and again and again and...annoying and boring and childish.

100 m world record was beaten in Paris ,not in SdF track but in the Charlety stadium(very modern with a very fast track).

This stadium is located inner Paris (south part).

Gentle regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Maybe this question has been asked before, but how far is Stade de France in St. Denis from Paris?

SdF is located 7 km NE of the proposed village site at Batignolles.

I don't see what the big deal is.  It's an existing world-class stadium.  Should we be talking about the incapabilities of Luzhniki Stadium?  It is much older than SdF.  or La Peineta?  It's being reconstructed à la Athens.  Frankly, sight lines don't matter much in the excitement of the Olympics, not to mention video screens and such that will be most definitely set up in the stadia.

I think after the lessons of Athens, the issue of legacy is being addressed quite well by all of the bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Faster for your help keeping the anglo-saxon crusade against SdF.Again and again and again and...annoying and boring and childish.

Anglo-Saxon crusade. LOL!! There is nothing wrong with discussing these issues Jeux, although I agree, this particular one has been discussed to death - and I've already stated my views.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, sight lines don't matter much in the excitement of the Olympics, not to mention video screens and such that will be most definitely set up in the stadia.

I don't want to get dragged into a discussion on the merits or overwhelming drabness of the Stade de France-Paris 2008, sorry Paris 2012 - this has already been beaten to death as a topic.

But that statement is just ridiculous ... Sight-lines don't matter? So what if you paid a huge amount for a ticket and can't see the long-jump track and only half the big screen!!! It's the Olympics, so be grateful and squeeze yourself back into that tiny seat and start enjoying it. After all it could be worse, you could be in the queue to get into the VIP area!!!!

PS: 7 km from the athletes village vs a couple of hundred metres. Which one presents a more attractive option for the athletes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that statement is just ridiculous ... Sight-lines don't matter? So what if you paid a huge amount for a ticket and can't see the long-jump track and only half the big screen!!! It's the Olympics, so be grateful and squeeze yourself back into that tiny seat and start enjoying it. After all it could be worse, you could be in the queue to get into the VIP area!!!!

PS: 7 km from the athletes village vs a couple of hundred metres. Which one presents a more attractive option for the athletes?

Sure it's ridiculous, but so is this entire thread, which is what I was trying to convey.  I would love to even have nosebleed seats for marquee athletics events, which I will probably not even be able to afford in 2012, considering my future career.

And sure, the London and Madrid concepts work for the proximity of the Olympic Stadium.  I never said I was a Paris supporter, and I'm surely not here to argue for them.  I'm just tired of seeing this topic resurrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: 7 km from the athletes village vs a couple of hundred metres. Which one presents a more attractive option for the athletes?

I think the way to shut up this silly repeat BS is to announce that the Paris Olympic Village will be tents in the middle of the Stade de France. 0 meters vs a couple of hundred of meters. Which one NOW presents a more attractive option for the athletes, buddy?

BTW: Athletes don't vote...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: 7 km from the athletes village vs a couple of hundred metres. Which one presents a more attractive option for the athletes?

I think the way to shut up this silly repeat BS is to announce that the Paris Olympic Village will be tents in the middle of the Stade de France. 0 meters vs a couple of hundred of meters. Which one NOW presents a more attractive option for the athletes, buddy?

BTW: Athletes don't vote...

London's plans to have the athletes' village almost next door to the stadium are bullsh*t are they parisphoto? Are you going to forward your camping suggestion to Paris' bid team?

Which one NOW presents a more attractive option for the athletes, buddy?

I think I can probably guess that London's spacious, hi-tech, and environmentally friendly proposed Olympic village is slightly more attrictive than tents pitched in the Stade de Toilet-seat. I don't know what you were trying to illustrate with that point but whatever it was, it's lost on me.

The truth is, for the majority of athletes, the London model is superior to Paris'. There are very few areas where London are clearly and undoubtedly superior to Paris as the bids are both very good, but I think this is one area which London does have the upper hand.

BTW Many athletes do vote

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of athletes and the vote, you should look at the IOC members' list from the IOC website. You can tell which ones were athletes that competed in past Olympic Games because it has column that tells you which years they have competed in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of athletes and the vote, you should look at the IOC members' list from the IOC website. You can tell which ones were athletes that competed in past Olympic Games because it has column that tells you which years they have competed in.

IOC members will be staying in luxury hotels, not in the village, wherever it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give up this crusade against Paris, deal with the fact that they are the favourite and are probably going to win.

Yes, silly me, of course...

London, NYC, Madrid and Moscow should just withdraw their bids right now, because the bookies have Paris as the favourite.

If people thought along those lines, ie...."City X is the favourite, so lets just not bother," then Athens would never have won the 2004 race, as Rome was the front runner.

As for the "crusade," well the Paris people have been dishing dirt on London since day 1, so if they're dealing out criticism, they should be able to take some as well.

Pro-Paris forum members have mentioned Picket's Lock, the 2005 world athletics championships, and the delayed construction of Wembley many, many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a stadium, would you rather have no stadium have to to build one with the potencial to not be done on time, since that seems to be a trend when it comes to Olympic games within European boarders?

Stade_de_France.jpg

sdf02.jpg

it doesn't look that bad, and when does the look of the venues matter, i would rather have fully funtional venues then ones that look good, remember Montreal and the tower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, isn't the Stade de France hosting a track-and-field event just before the IOC decision in Singapore in July?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you at least want to see the crowd on the aerial pics, rather than just the roof and part of the playing pitch.

:shocked:  No, I really want to see the roof!!

Why would I want to see 'crowds on the aerial pic'?  Does that really accomplish anything?  Going by that logic, they should just decide the host city by logo design.   :shocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It seems, according to the BBC, that the gloves are starting to "come off." There has been reports that some of the London bid team have been said that the main stadium for Paris is only "fit for rugby and nothing else." It is gray and old, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, according to the BBC, that the gloves are starting to "come off." There has been reports that some of the London bid team have been said that the main stadium for Paris is only "fit for rugby and nothing else." It is gray and old, too.

Ah, those English gentlemen. Watch the British hard sell backfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems, according to the BBC, that the gloves are starting to "come off." There has been reports that some of the London bid team have been said that the main stadium for Paris is only "fit for rugby and nothing else." It is gray and old, too.

Ah, those English gentlemen. Watch the British hard sell backfire.

Well you can imagine what the French delegation are like. Imagine 20 Gorby Gorba's.... Ewww, shudder.  :shocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's a scary thought!!   :o

I really think this is being overblown.  This was a comment made by 2 australians, and as far as I'm concerned they were just telling it like it is, The Stade de France will look a bit old and not very awe inspiring to have as an Olympic Stadium in 7 years time.  The sightlines were a justified comment too.

Of course the Press, because they have nowt better to do, have exploded these harmless and factual comments to be more than what they were intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there was 70 000 people in the stadium last friday for the athlectic meeting

this stdium was designed to receive football and athletic as well

there is even car races (race of champions) horse races , concerts...

i don t see the problem with the stadium and as far as the IOC wants to decrease the price of the olympics, this is a very good option

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...