Mailman Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Cricket grounds shouldn't be a problem, as we've seen in Melbourne recently, it was not big enough to fit a running track in, so the stand was cut into and seats taken out. Many football stadiums have a athletics track around the perimeter - take the venue for the final of the last world cup. Its no different. And seats would be built down to the sidelines. No to mention the one of the world's greatest football stadiums, the Maracana is you guessed it..... oval! Telstra Dome even though it has retractable seating, its rarely been used as too many seats are blocked from view. And its very expensive aparantly. They kept the stadium an oval for the 2003 RWC. Quintana, you missed my point by taking those suggestions seriously. They are illogical - that was the point, but you insisted that an Australian WC must be spread out. Its a waste of money to not use the big stadiums in the big cities to build them in regional areas that will never be sustainable. If we did host, games would go to Canberra, Gold Coast, Townsville - but even then 40,000 is unsustainable, they would only be temporary seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Cricket grounds shouldn't be a problem, as we've seen in Melbourne recently, it was not big enough to fit a running track in, so the stand was cut into and seats taken out. Many football stadiums have a athletics track around the perimeter - take the venue for the final of the last world cup. Its no different. And seats would be built down to the sidelines. No to mention the one of the world's greatest football stadiums, the Maracana is you guessed it..... oval!Telstra Dome even though it has retractable seating, its rarely been used as too many seats are blocked from view. And its very expensive aparantly. They kept the stadium an oval for the 2003 RWC. Quintana, you missed my point by taking those suggestions seriously. They are illogical - that was the point, but you insisted that an Australian WC must be spread out. Its a waste of money to not use the big stadiums in the big cities to build them in regional areas that will never be sustainable. If we did host, games would go to Canberra, Gold Coast, Townsville - but even then 40,000 is unsustainable, they would only be temporary seats. Not that straight forward though. The Macarena is a world famous football stadium with great meaning in the football world, whereas the Gabba dosen't mean anything to soccer world, although in the cricket world it has status. The idea about having a track around the pitch is different, in the sense that there's something inbetween, whereas with cricket grounds all that green grass just makes it look really far away, even though the distance is probably similar. It's a visual illusion If extra seats are not to be installed, then at least some kind of cover (instead of the running track)should ideally be placed to eradicate the green grass (like Melbourne has the blue covers in the MCG) - this would make the crowd seem less far away then they really are. It's just that during Australia's play off against Iran for the 1998 world cup, which the MCG hosted, it just looked really wierd with the football pitch in the middle, then lots and lots of green grass between the crowd and the game. So solution is: either more seats or covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HFB-Melbourne Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 I do agree it looks a bit odd when te MCG hosts something rectangular, like the International Rules games. That said, it's the MCG. If FIFA doesn't want to respect it, they can kep their World Cup Seriously though, I could understand it being a problem with the GABBA. But with temporary seating, it could increase capacity to what-55-60k? Otherwise, they could just use suncorp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 You can't compare Maracaná with the Gabba... Maracaná is a total icon for football and it has 250,000 seats!!! :laughlong: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintana Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 You can't compare Maracaná with the Gabba... Maracaná is a total icon for football and it has 250,000 seats!!! :laughlong: Nope, it has about 70.000 seats and total capacity of just over 100.000. During 2014 it will be around 80.000 seats. @Mailman I guess temporary seating would be no problem. I know that the cities of Charleroi and Arnhem used them for Euro 2000. I think FIFA wouldn't have a problem with them either (given that it's save of course). I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough (you will probably have noticed I'm not a native English speaker). By spreading out I didn't mean using stadia in the middle of nowhere (although I also wanted to show that FIFA would not mind at all). I wanted to say that FIFA would probably never agree with just three cities hosting the majority of the games. That is, unless they desperately want to go to Australia, which I doubt (China is commercially much more appealing). But with Canberra, Townsville, Goldcoast, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne (2) and Sydney (2) Australia could host a good world cup that FIFA would approve imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triffle Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 World Cup 2022 Stadiums in Australia; NSW Stadium Australia-90,000, Sydney (upgraded) New rectangular stadium-58,000, Sydney (30 years since SFS was built. by then, Sydney will need a larger backup stadium to Telstra) EnergyAustralia Stadium-35,000, Newcastle (5 000 temporary seats could be added) Victoria MCG- 115,000, Melbourne (30 years since GSS was built. larger, more advanced grand stand would be built for WC.) Docklands Stadium- 54,000, Melbourne South Australia Football Park- 65,000, Adelaide (surely this stadium would have increased capacity in 16 years) Western Australia Stadium WA- 65,000, Perth Queensland New Stadium- 75,000, Brisbane (could be built to strength chances of hosting olympic games. could replace the Gabba hosting AFL, international cricket, Rugby Union and League Tests, State of Origin, WC qualifiers, NRL finals) New Townsville Stadium- 35,000, Townsville (additional temporary seating. North Queensland regularly attract sell out crowds at DFS, therefore a venue of 35,000 could be sustainable in Townsville) Robina Stadium- 35,000, Gold Coast (renovated plus temporary seating.) ACT New Canberra Stadium- 40, 000, Canberra (Nation's capital could certainly sustain a venue this size in 16 years, that could host NRL, A-League, Super 14, AFL and ODI's.) Tasmania York Park- 33, 000, Launceston (temporary seats added) Opening Match- Stadium Australia, Sydney Second Round Matches- MCG (Melbourne), Football Parkx2 (Adelaide), Stadium WA (Perth), Stadium Australia (Sydney), New Stadium (Brisbane), New Stadium (Canberra), York Park (Launceston) Quarter Finals- MCG (Melbourne), Stadium WA (Perth), Football Park (Adelaide), New Stadium (Brisbane) Semi Finals- Stadium Australia (Sydney), New Stadium (Brisbane) Third Playoff- Stadium WA (Perth) Final- MCG (Melbourne) this draw allows all 5 major states to host equal amount of major games (3). the final will be hosted by either Melbourne or Sydney. i gave it to the MCG for it's larger capacity, but Sydney is compensated by hosting the opening match and semi final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Is an upgrade of the Telstra Stadium really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Is an upgrade of the Telstra Stadium really necessary? What Australia needs are more stadiums, not upgrade the stadiums it already has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 What they need is ten stadia of 40,000+ capacity. They don't necessarily need to build new grounds, but increase capacity in some of the stadia they've already got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 I think FIFA should have like 10 inflatable 80,000+ stadia, and then rent them out to prospective hosts for like $350,000,000 -- and then say: look we saved you $650 million instead of building new stadia. :wwww: Then after the Games are done, they get deflated and packed off to the new hosts, perhaps with a dead body or 2 from the local organizing committees. So, like a memory bank -- extract the DNA or something like that. However, if they placed the World Cup permanently in the US, then no one need worry about building 10 new stadia. :wwww: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 They'd be out of date after England hosts with all our modern stadia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 They'd be out of date after England hosts with all our modern stadia. Oh, that'd be a long time off. Certainly not in our lifetimes. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 You're not planning on being alive in 2018 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Clearly not. Poor soul. How will he deal with such short life expectancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 You're not planning on being alive in 2018 then? I guess we run on different calendars. R u guys still on the Gregorian or the Orthodox calendars? :laughlong: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 8, 2006 Report Share Posted April 8, 2006 Are you still deluding yourself about an American World Cup in 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Are you still deluding yourself about an American World Cup in 2018? R u still deluding yourself about an English WC in 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Are you still deluding yourself about an American World Cup in 2018? R u still deluding yourself about an English WC in 2018? Yeah, we, the Europeans, are. So, with the votes of the Europeans, England will have its 2nd WC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Sounds like a good idea to me. There is a time for USA, but 2018 is not it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Sounds like a good idea to me. There is a time for USA, but 2018 is not it. Remains to be seen. 2018 would be the Centennial of the Spanish flu that devastated Europe in 2018. I think the bug strikes its old hunting grounds every 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 I just reported your venom-filled post, putita, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Sounds like a good idea to me. There is a time for USA, but 2018 is not it. Remains to be seen. 2018 would be the Centennial of the Spanish flu that devastated Europe in 2018. I think the bug strikes its old hunting grounds every 100 years. Actually the 1918 Spanish Flu is said to have originated in the US. The only reason it was called 'Spanish' was because the pandemic received greater press attention in Spain than in the rest of the world, because it was not involved in the war and there was no wartime censorship there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Sounds like a good idea to me. There is a time for USA, but 2018 is not it. Remains to be seen. 2018 would be the Centennial of the Spanish flu that devastated Europe in 2018. I think the bug strikes its old hunting grounds every 100 years. Actually the 1918 Spanish Flu is said to have originated in the US. The only reason it was called 'Spanish' was because the pandemic received greater press attention in Spain than in the rest of the world, because it was not involved in the war and there was no wartime censorship there. Rumors. My sources tell me otherwise. Our boys came home in 1916. It took 2 years for the Euro bugs to mature and strike us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 My sources tell me otherwise. Our boys came home in 1916. Perhaps you should ask your sources on early 20th century history why 'Your' boys came home from Europe two years early (?) - the war didn't end until 1918. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintana Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Sounds like a good idea to me. There is a time for USA, but 2018 is not it. Remains to be seen. 2018 would be the Centennial of the Spanish flu that devastated Europe in 2018. I think the bug strikes its old hunting grounds every 100 years. Hijo de puta. Ojalá te mueras. :suspect: No sé, pero la Gripe Española no llegó a España, quizá aquí eramos más avanzados y por eso no nos pudo atacar... Lástima que no matara a tus antepasados... You will make a great diplomat one day :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.