olympian Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/18-citi...mpaign=20100112 This "list", is pretty ridiculous. The U.S. bid committee has chosen not-so "soccer" cities, like Nashville, Kansas City & Indianapolis, over much bigger, soccer crazed cities like Chicago, San Francisco or even Detroit. Silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Is Detroit really tha soccer crazed? LOL. The list is very nicely spread out. Although omitting Chicago is pretty odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well at least 6 of those cities would be cut given FIFA wants between 10 to 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 "Is Detroit really that soccer crazed?" Compared to Nashville, Kansas City & Indianapolis, yeah. At least Detroit is a bigger market than any of those 3, & has a much newer stadium than Kansas City or Nashville. If more cities are going to be cut, I can easily see Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, Houston, San Diego & at least 1 Northeast location getting cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 "Is Detroit really that soccer crazed?"Compared to Nashville, Kansas City & Indianapolis, yeah. At least Detroit is a bigger market than any of those 3, & has a much newer stadium than Kansas City or Nashville. Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't call it ridiculous. I like the spreading out of venues for the most part (one will get cut from Balt/DC i'm sure). A lot of people will get a chance to see World Cup soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 How will a lot of people get a chance to see World Cup soocer when much, much bigger markets like Chicago, Detroit & San Francisco got eliminated in favor of extremely much smaller markets like Kansas City, Indianapolis & Nashville? In that sense, it seems ridiculous. The venues still could've been nicely spread out by not doing what they did. And besides, Nashville, Kansas City & Indianapolis are relatively pretty much right on top of each other anyway. So that's not really all that spread out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Seriously? It's not that big of a deal. Saying Kansas City and Indianapolis are right on top of each other is pretty funny. Seats will be filled. There could be some underlying conditions that eliminated the bigger cities anyway. Not EVERY big city has to host matches for various reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Examples from various articles. “With Chicago, I think there was some Olympic fatigue,” Gulati said, referring to that city’s unsuccessful bid to host the Summer Games in 2016. “And in this group, Soldier Field was one of the smallest stadiums.” Link Time will reveal all, of course, and Chicago was by no means the only metropolis wearing a frown on Tuesday. Yet the others fell along more predictable lines. The lack of a suitable facility appears to have doomed the San Francisco Bay Area. The Oakland-Alameda Coliseum isn't the most intimate of venues for watching soccer, and Stanford Stadium's capacity of just over 50,000 (the average of the chosen venues is 78,000) likely undermined the San Francisco effort. As a result, the Bay Area joins Chicago, Detroit and Orlando as 1994 World Cup venues that failed to make the cut. Charlotte, Cleveland, Jacksonville, and St. Louis were also not among the 18 chosen. Link Sunil Gulati, the President of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), claimed that Chicago had not been able to give their bid as much attention of the other 26 cities that were short-listed to host matches because at the time of the selection process they were in the final stages of the campaign to host the 2016 Games. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 That is the DUMBEST list I have yet seen. Leaving out SF and Chicago? What r they thinking?? Well to answer my own surprise, I guess they didn't want an exact, carbon copy of 1994. Obviously, am not too thrilled with this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 That is the DUMBEST list I have yet seen. Leaving out SF and Chicago? What r they thinking?? Well to answer my own surprise, I guess they didn't want an exact, carbon copy of 1994. Obviously, am not too thrilled with this list. Look at my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 It doesn't change the fact that leaving out a major center like Chicago is stupid. I can understand San Francisco since they have no idea how to get a stadium project going. Arrowhead Stadium and LP field are disgraces as venues. Old and ugly. Soldier Field would have been a better option than both of them. The Georgia Dome is also a piece-of-sh!t. And including Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston is just ridiculous. FIFA is going to laugh themselves silly at Kansas City, other then the couple million that live there and the couple thousand that need to go there for business I doubt any person would wanna be caught dead there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Kansas City probably won't even make the final cut anyways. Chicago was busy with 2016, and as mentioned was struggling with FIFA requirements. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I love how everyone thinks its US Soccer's fault. You think the city didn't want Chicago as a host city? Blame Mayor Daley. Pitch Invasion has learned from multiple sources that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who led the failed Olympic Games bid and provided only limited support to attempts by the Chicago Fire to build a soccer stadium within city limits (their current home, Toyota Park, lies a couple of blocks outside city limits in the Village of Bridgeview), has done soccer in this city another disservice by putting very little behind the city’s proposal to host World Cup games. The city’s proposal, I’m told, was extremely weak. Link And I love your shitting on Kansas City only for some reason. It already has an MLS franchise, and is a growing soccer city. Have you even been there to judge it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I am not saying I don't understand the reasons behind the choices on a technical grounds but to dismiss Chicago is utter nonsense. Its like England leaving out Manchester or Australia leaving out Melbourne. FIFA will not be impressed. And of course I have never been to Kansas City, might as well be in a war zone the violence in that city. Same with St. Louis. And I don't know why you are getting your back up against a wall about this, even with a weak bid Chicago would have and is a better option then Baltimore, Nashville, Tampa, Houston, Indianapolis and Kansas City. Honestly would you rather spend a few days in Chicago or Kansas City? At least Tampa has the beaches and Nashville the music, even Baltimore has history but honestly Kansas City. Its not even the first city in its own podunk state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 And of course I have never been to Kansas City That's all I needed to know. Such arrogance. Chicago missed the boat. It's not a right to host. If the city officials wanted to be a host city, they would have been chosen. If their absence detracts from the bid overall, then so be it, but don't blame US Soccer for picking what it felt were better, more enthusiastic bids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 And of course I have never been to Kansas City, might as well be in a war zone the violence in that city. Same with St. Louis. Its not even the first city in its own podunk state. Kansas City is a fantastic town! p.s. the VAST majority in the US don't give a rats ass about professional SOCCER. We'll go along with the frenzy because we are into all sports, but there isn't much passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 p.s. the VAST majority in the US don't give a rats ass about professional SOCCER. We'll go along with the frenzy because we are into all sports, but there isn't much passion. Then why bid for this thing? If the vast majority of people here in the U.S. share that kind of "enthusiasm" about soccer, that won't bode too well for the U.S. bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Then why bid for this thing? If the vast majority of people here in the U.S. share that kind of "enthusiasm" about soccer, that won't bode too well for the U.S. bid. Eh, I don't particularly buy that. It won't ever be as popular as the big 4, but soccer is steadily growing. I think that's the biggest thing going against the bid. FIFA wouldn't have to worry about selling tickets, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 There's money to be made.......and hopes of expanding the market. But, ask 20 people here about the World Cup, they won't even know what it is. Ask them about FOOTBALL, and everyone will talk about a sport you weren't referring to. It just has very very little prestige here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 There's money to be made.......and hopes of expanding the market.But, ask 20 people here about the World Cup, they won't even know what it is. Ask them about FOOTBALL, and everyone will talk about a sport you weren't referring to. It just has very very little prestige here. Disagree. The box office records for 1994 speak for themselves. The big question for the 2018/22 bid is...will this mix of cities give the same results that 1994 produced? Probably so. I think it can be marketed as another 'once-in-a lifetime' event and w/ 32 teams, you will still get great results. BTW...are the new cities with roofs/partial roofs? That's the only markedly major, different criterion the new lists boasts vs. the '94 venues that I can think of in dropping such major markets as the SF Bay Area and Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_leobas Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Leaving Chicago out is absolutely crazy. What was the problem with Soldier Field? I think, right now, the U.S. are artificially considered a favourite in the 2022 race, just like Chicago 2016. You're in for a shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Leaving Chicago out is absolutely crazy. What was the problem with Soldier Field? Supposedly it was NOT up to FIFA standards. I think it might be a little small. That was the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I guess that just shows the strength of the US' technical capabilities that they CAN leave Chicago out. Meanwhile, in Oz, we scrape and stretch and work hard to make up the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympian Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 It doesn't change the fact that leaving out a major center like Chicago is stupid. I can understand San Francisco since they have no idea how to get a stadium project going. Arrowhead Stadium and LP field are disgraces as venues. Old and ugly. Soldier Field would have been a better option than both of them. The Georgia Dome is also a piece-of-sh!t. And including Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston is just ridiculous. FIFA is going to laugh themselves silly at Kansas City, other then the couple million that live there and the couple thousand that need to go there for business I doubt any person would wanna be caught dead there. what's ridiculous about Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston? that they're all in the Northeast? If they have the best proposal they deserved to be there. also this was done in close door. we don't know what each city offered. Also just an fyi, Arrowhead Stadium was just recently renovated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.