Jump to content

My Australian Fifa World Cup Venues.


Recommended Posts

An old topic and subject but here's my pick of venues for a potential FIFA World Cup in Australia. (In say 2018 or 2022) :)

Victoria:

Melbourne Cricket Ground 100,000 seats.

Docklands Stadium (Melbourne) 56,347 seats.

Kardinia Park (Geelong) Upgraded to at least 36,000 with 4,000 extra temporary seats.

New South Wales:

Stadium Australia (Sydney Olympic Stadium) 83,500 seats.

Marathon Stadium (Newcastle) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.

Queensland:

Lang Park (Brisbane) 52,500 seats.

Stockland Stadium (Townsville) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.

Robina Stadium (Gold Coast) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.

Western Australia:

Stadium WA (Perth) 70,000 seats.

South Australia:

Adelaide Oval Upgraded to 50,000 seats.

ACT:

Canberra Stadium Upgraded to 40,000 seats.

Tasmania:

York Park (Launceston) Upgraded to 30,000 with 10,000 extra temporary seats.

Northern Territory:

Mararra Stadium (Darwin) Upgraded to 30,000 with 10,000 extra temporary seats.

All of these venues would be all-seaters of course.

That's 13 venues right there, where each would host at least 2 group matches (of different groups) and host at least one round of 16 and or the quarter-finals and semis. Telstra Stadium (The one used for the Sydney Olympics) would host the First game, whilst the Melbourne Cricket Ground would host the Final.

Just thought it would be nice to see at least 1 venue from each of the capital cities take part, along with some other venues elsewhere. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a shitload of problems with your list. The first is that 3 of your stadiums don't meet the 40,000 requirements for a FIFA World Cup. Second is that you putting stadiums in cities (Geelong, Launceston, Townsville, and Darwin) that are too small, a city of less then 200,000 can't consume as much as 40,000 arrivals for a match day properly. Kaiserslautern had shitloads of trouble at 100,000.

If Australia is to host, they would need to have two stadiums in both Sydney and Melbourne. Also Sydney would be the more likely host of the final, not Melbourne because Sydney is the most well-known city, the largest and the most "sexy" city of FIFA and television audiences.

Hobart - new stadium - 40,000

Sydney - Telstra Stadium - upgraded to Olympic capacity

Sydney - Aussie Stadium - probably needs an upgrade to 50ish thousand and some work

Newcastle - new stadium - 50 to 60,000

Wollongong - new stadium - 40,000

Brisbane - Suncorp Stadium

Gold Coast - new stadium - 40 to 50,000

Canberra - new stadium - 40 to 50,000

Adelaide - a major renovation to AAMI Stadium - 50,000 to 60,000

Perth - new stadium - 60,000 to 70,000

Melbourne - MCG - 100,000

Melbourne - Telstra Dome - 56,000

So 6 new stadiums and major renovations to 3, it will be costly for Australia to host.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, only 1 city may host 2 stadiums, so I'd say Melbourne, cause we got bigger capacity venues (Unless a neutral city is chosen to host 2 venues)

As for the cities just around the 100,000 population mark, it shouldn't be too much a problem. (so long as they have the stadium and adequate accomodation, which in most cases yes they do) Look at Darwin for example, it's a big touristy place, that has more then enough accomodation to handle the small influx of tourists and spectators.

The only venues I'd might change is York Park in Launceston (in favor for a new stadium in Hobart) and possibly the Adelaide oval. Building new stadiums elsewhere would be too costly and futile (as permanent upgrades are much more feasible, and will provide a lasting impact on the AFL or NRL (Or maybe even A-League) teams that use the grounds at a regular basis.) This is why I have included a good share of oval and rectangular venues, so that the other football codes can benefit too.

As for Melbourne Vs Sydney hosting the finals, I'd say Melbourne, primarily cause it's the highest capacity sporting venue in Australia. (There's not to say that Sydney's Olympic stadium couldn't go back to it's original configuration, but that seems unlikely) Not to mention the rich sporting history of the ground as opposed to Sydney's Olympic stadium. sure, Sydney is well known, but so is Melbourne, and what better choice than a ground with sporting history to hot the Final? Sydney can host the all important opening match and ceremonies, whilst Melbourne hosts the Final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Australia hosts a World Cup, you've got to have the final in Sydney, at the Olympic Stadium back to 2000 capacity. The MCG can host the opening game and a semi-final with Sydney having the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Australia hosts a World Cup, you've got to have the final in Sydney, at the Olympic Stadium back to 2000 capacity. The MCG can host the opening game and a semi-final with Sydney having the other.

Heck no! I still say it aught to be other way around! Besides, is it even possible to revert the Olympic Stadium back to 2000 capacity? It would be very difficult to do so, considering that there is roofing covering most of the stadium that was once open. It would be some ask, though not entirely impossible. At any rate, Melbourne's MCG (and Melbourne in general) is the more logical choice. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how Melbourne is "logical" at all. A World Cup final at the Sydney Olympic Stadium sits better somehow.

What... not accounting the 150+ years of sporting history? That is of course in various sports not just Australian Football or Cricket. There's the Olympics of 1956, Baseball games amongst other sports that have been played in the history of the MCG. Come'on guys! Back me up! :)B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a question of the venue, although if you want to start on that, is football really suited to an oval venue? I personally think not. Don't preach at me about the history and quality of the MCG, because I think we all know it, don't you?

But the argument for Sydney has been made here before. Sydney is a more globally renowned city than Melbourne and therefore is the more logical host for a final. Where was the 2003 RWC final, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Football is easily suited to an oval venue, just look at any national or main stadium in a city that has a permanent athletics track, the national team uses such stadiums as their home base.

And, if you needed more proof, just look at Estádio do Maracanã, in Rio de Janeiro, it's the undisputed "mecca" and "cradle" of football, and that stadium uses an oval field! Sure, the MCG is a bigger oval field in size, but nevertheless, this is proof that oval venues are of no problem at all! :P:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%A1dio_do_Maracan%C3%A3

Maracana.jpg

maracana.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you haven't got an answer for the fact that Sydney is the better known city internationally of the two and is the logical venue. Where did Australia play their playoff for Germany 2006, by the way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And who just hosted the Australian Open? Melbourne! Sure, Sydney did host that glorious game that brought us to the World Cup but the MCG has hosted some World Cup qualifiers in the past too. All in all, most people I'd say, would prefer to see the "Sporting capital of the world" host a World Cup final even if there were to be one. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also point out the fact that Sydney would be the perfect choice for the opening match, as it would be the first matach between Australia and whoever they are first against in group A. What assurances would there be of Australia making the final? Sure it would be nice, but Sydney is more logical for that all important first match where the commentators would be reflecting on how history was "made here, in 2005" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Melbourne's got the tennis, the swimming and the Grand Prix over the next couple of months? Fine, but they're not exactly more than ripples on the sporting consciousness. Sydney gave the world the best Olympics we've ever seen, the one which every other Games will seek to emulate. I'm afraid it is no contest. If I were running an Australia bid, Sydney would host the final every day of the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the old Sydney V Melbourne rivalry at it again. I really do try to keep out of it, and have defended Melbourne in the past (In the world's greatest sporting city thread) even though I'm an evil Sydneysider. And if we did get the WC, I really don't give a flying fig who hosts the opener and who gets the final, I'd just be happy we'd got itn at all.

That said, Soccer Australia does have a conrtract with Telstra Stadium to play the bulk of the local ties for the 2010 qualifying matches in Sydney _ it's probably the one sport that Sydney has moved quickly to head-off any claims by Melbourne to be the centre of and to establish the Harbour City as the home of soccer here. Anyway, Iemma and Bracks hagve already traded (so far friendly) claims to the various honoyrs in preliminary discussions about getting the WC here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone knows, I am a Melbournian.

My opinion is simple; which ever venue is Australia's largest when the WC is staged, should be the logical choice to host the final. If Sydney's Olympic Stadium was to be reconfigured, allowing for the original capacity and ultimately securing it as the nation's biggest stadium, then it should host. But if Melbourne's MCG was to remain the largest in Aus, then it should host.

Lord David, as much as us Melbourians would love for it not to be this way, the historical significance of the MCG does not make a difference. If it were to, then the Colesseum would host Italy's WC final; and the Lord's Cricket Ground would host Britain's.

I also don't believe the playing field's shape would make a difference for a venue with a capacity is 100,000; considering at least half the crowd would addore the stadium anyway (Melbournians are obsessed by the MCG). As previously mentioned, the Maracana is an example of an oval shaped stadium which has successfully hosted a WC final before, and is like to do so again in 2014.

Arwebb, I don't think the host for the WC final will be decided by which city is more famous. Both metropolis's are consideribly well known throughout the world- Sydney because it is Australia's largest city and built on that magnificent harbour; Melbourne because of it's cosmoploitan and sporting credidentials. Previous WC finals have not always been played in the most famous cities; 2002 WC final was staged in Yokohama, even though two of the world's 5 largest cities were valid candidates. (Souel and Tokyo). Within Australia, it would also be extremely controversial if the final was played in a venue with a capacity 20,000 seats smaller then that of Australia's largest venue (current capacity of TS is 82,000 in comparison to the MCG's 100,000 which does not include the additional seating that would be extended from the stands onto the field).

I also strongly doubt the NSW Government would be prepared to fund a costly redevelopment (which would bring the original capacity back) of Telstra Stadium after the financial strains and difficulties the stadium has and will continue to experience; resulting in the venue being rightfully labelled a white elephant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone knows, I am a Melbournian.

My opinion is simple; which ever venue is Australia's largest when the WC is staged, should be the logical choice to host the final. If Sydney's Olympic Stadium was to be reconfigured, allowing for the original capacity and ultimately securing it as the nation's biggest stadium, then it should host. But if Melbourne's MCG were to remain the largest in Aus, then it should host.

Lord David, as much as us Melbourians would love for it not to be this way, the historical significance of the MCG does not make a difference. If it were so, then the Colesseum would host Italy's WC final; and the Lord's Cricket Ground would host Britain's.

I also don't believe the playing field's shape would make a difference for a venue with a capacity of 100,000; considering at least half the crowd would addore the stadium anyway (Melbournians are obsessed with the MCG). As previously mentioned, the Maracana is an example of an oval shaped stadium which has successfully hosted a WC final before, and is like to do so again in 2014.

Arwebb, I don't think the host for the WC final will be decided by which city is more famous. Both metropolis's are consideribly well known throughout the world- Sydney because it is Australia's largest city and built on that magnificent harbour; Melbourne because of it's cosmoploitan and sporting credidentials. Previous WC finals have not always been played in the most famous cities; 2002 WC final was staged in Yokohama, even though two of the world's 5 largest cities were valid candidates (Souel and Tokyo). Within Australia, it would also be extremely controversial if the final were to be played in a venue with a capacity 20,000 seats smaller then that of Australia's largest venue (current capacity of TS is 82,000 in comparison to the MCG's 100,000 which does not include the additional seating that would be extended from the stands onto the MCG's field).

I also strongly doubt the NSW Government would be prepared to fund a costly redevelopment (which would bring the original capacity back) of Telstra Stadium after the financial strains and difficulties the stadium has and will continue to experience; resulting in the venue being rightfully labelled a white elephant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just so everyone knows, I am a Melbournian.

My opinion is simple; which ever venue is Australia's largest when the WC is staged, should be the logical choice to host the final. If Sydney's Olympic Stadium was to be reconfigured, allowing for the original capacity and ultimately securing it as the nation's biggest stadium, then it should host. But if Melbourne's MCG were to remain the largest in Aus, then it should host.

Lord David, as much as us Melbourians would love for it not to be this way, the historical significance of the MCG does not make a difference. If it were so, then the Colesseum would host Italy's WC final; and the Lord's Cricket Ground would host Britain's.

I also don't believe the playing field's shape would make a difference for a venue with a capacity of 100,000; considering at least half the crowd would addore the stadium anyway (Melbournians are obsessed with the MCG). As previously mentioned, the Maracana is an example of an oval shaped stadium which has successfully hosted a WC final before, and is like to do so again in 2014.

Arwebb, I don't think the host for the WC final will be decided by which city is more famous. Both metropolis's are consideribly well known throughout the world- Sydney because it is Australia's largest city and built on that magnificent harbour; Melbourne because of it's cosmoploitan and sporting credidentials. Previous WC finals have not always been played in the most famous cities; 2002 WC final was staged in Yokohama, even though two of the world's 5 largest cities were valid candidates (Souel and Tokyo). Within Australia, it would also be extremely controversial if the final were to be played in a venue with a capacity 20,000 seats smaller then that of Australia's largest venue (current capacity of TS is 82,000 in comparison to the MCG's 100,000 which does not include the additional seating that would be extended from the stands onto the MCG's field).

I also strongly doubt the NSW Government would be prepared to fund a costly redevelopment (which would bring the original capacity back) of Telstra Stadium after the financial strains and difficulties the stadium has and will continue to experience; resulting in the venue being rightfully labelled a white elephant.

Its not a white elephant, that is anti-games BS.

Yokohama is within like 30 minutes of Tokyo, and is technically a suburb of Tokyo, so your arguement is flawed. Also there is no major stadium in Tokyo that meets FIFA requirements at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the organisers of the 2002 World Cup, probably wanted to use a neutral venue. Not to mention the fact that, thought both capitals (Seoul and Tokyo) do have the stadiums. (The Olympic stadiums, albeit considerably old and in general poor condition) They would have probably would have undertaken extensive renovations and upgrades to bring them to a decent standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a white elephant, that is anti-games BS.

Yokohama is within like 30 minutes of Tokyo, and is technically a suburb of Tokyo, so your arguement is flawed. Also there is no major stadium in Tokyo that meets FIFA requirements at the time.

Debt sinks Stadium Australia: ANZ to take control for $10m

Kate Askew

November 16, 2006

WAS billed by then Olympics boss Juan Antonio Samaranch as the best stadium he had seen.

Rugby great Mark Ella, Olympic hero turned banker Ralph Doubell, one-time union boss Michael Easson and former Seven chairman and McDonald's boss Peter Ritchie became directors of the venture that owned Stadium Australia, now called Telstra Stadium.

But a decade after the disastrous float of Stadium Australia Group its banker, ANZ, will take control of the debt-laden stadium for next to nothing. In effect the bank has become a mortgagee in possession.

Stadium Australia unit holders were unlikely to see their investment prosper, said John Clarke, head of ANZ Infrastructure Services.

"They will never receive any distributions, they'll never receive any return on capital," Mr Clarke said.

ANZ has offered $9.7 million, or 10c a unit, to take over the group, which has been recommended by the group's board. The offer was made at a discount to the trading price of the units, which closed yesterday at 11.5c.

Stadium Australia Group owed the bank $140 million, according to its February full year accounts, an amount which it has been struggling to repay.

The stadium float struggled from the outset when it sold only 10,782 gold memberships from a possible 34,400. The underwriters were left to take up the membership shortfall.

For those membership holders, ANZ's Mr Clarke said their full membership rights will stand. He said there would be no changes to corporate, platinum or gold membership packages. "It will be business as usual," he said.

Harvey Lister, chief executive of Ogden International Facilities Corp, which is the second largest shareholder in the Stadium Australia Group, said it would accept ANZ's offer.

"We think it's deserving of support," he said. "It brings enormous certainty to the future financial structure of the group. The stadium has been an enormous success for Sydney and NSW."

He said the stadium had been making an operating profit but was hamstrung by its bank debt. Other major unit holders include Deutsche Bank, ANZ, Coca-Cola Amatil and Macquarie Bank.

"It needs a single owner without the costs of a listed public company," Mr Clarke said.

ANZ will use the stadium as a seed asset for its social infrastructure trust, Diversified Infrastructure Trust, he said.

It plans to add other infrastructure assets before selling stakes in the trust to wholesale fund managers.

Perhaps it is not a white elephant (though Australia's media were labelling Telstra Stadium just that when this was announced) but it certainly is not ecomonically viable at present; that is why there will be no redevelopment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to point out that in an average year, Telstra Stadium gets only 7-11 crowds of over just 30,000 (2 AFL matches (possibly 1-2 finals also) state of origin game(s), RU tests (2-3), NRL preliminary final and Grand final). Although this is a pointless comparison, I may as say it anyway. the MCG will achieve this capacity in; 3-5 days of Boxing Day Test (depending on outcome of match), 3 ODI's, minimum of 37 AFL home & away games (from hosting 45)(30 will surpass 40,000; 16 50,000; 8 60,000; 3 70,000, 1 90,000), AFL Grand Final, probably 2-4 further finals, RU test. That is 47-51 attendances of over 30,000; with the majority likely to surpass 40,000. Score: MCG d TS by 26-30 attendances.

Before i forget, Arwebb previously mentioned Sydney hosting the 2003 WC final instead of Melbourne because it is more famous. It was really because Melbourne does not give a **** about Rugby, but Sydney does. So lets turn our attention to a sport which is equally as popular in both cities; cricket. MCG hosted 1992 WC final instead of SCG- BECAUSE IT WAS BIGGER.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a brief point - which city gets consistent crowds of 35,000+ for the domestic A League soccer competition? Telstra Dome - Melbourne bitches! Which city gets the lions share of international friendlies - Melbourne again!

I loves my home town - even though I am a temporary Sydneysider.

Simply put - to be a realistic FIFA contender, we need 2 grounds in Melbourne and Sydney, 1 in Brisbane, 1 on the Gold Coast (new Titans Stadium will be extendible), 1 in Canberra - and lord knows the Canberra Stadium can be easily fixed up, 1 in Adelaide and 1 or 2 further grounds. I'd want Perth involved, but it is a long ways away from the East Coast - then again that wasn't an issue with USA94 and Korea/Japan02. Possibly another NSW city - Newcastle - but temporary seating only as there is no way they can sustain reliable usage of a ground of 40,000+.

I think people are getting confused with the FIFA requirements - the last few hosts have gone a bit overboard with sharing the Games around. I believe the base minimum is 8 or 10 stadia with 40,000+? Straight up then we have Football Park in Adelaide, MCG, Telstra Dome, Telstra Stadium, and Subiaco Oval. Now we have Subiaco possibly being replaced by Stadium WA. Just this weekend there are reports of major works to Adelaide Oval (cricket ground) boosting it to over 36,000 seats. This may prove a better option as that ground would fit a soccer field easier - and is hosting a Rugby 7's tournament this Easter. Aussie Stadium in Sydney is being continually developed. With some work, 40,000 is achievable. As above Canberra Stadium was built with the proviso it is adaptable to expansion as the cities population grows. So we really have 7 or 8 stadiums we can put on the table today and say they have the right capacity.

The bigger question is how much work needs to be done to make them FIFA 5 star standard stadiums. That may be more costly then slapping up new stands and installing a few more toilets.

I have no doubt Australia could stage the World Cup, could do it for a modest budget and could generate the crowds and the revenue for it to be a major success. Question is do we really want them? A simple question - but I like travelling to see sports - though I have the means to do so. Is there really a big enough market in Australia to sell 3 million or so tickets? Is there enough international tourists willing to come all the way down here? Remember - numbers of international visitors for the Sydney Olympics were pretty low - far below what organisers expected. Luckily us Aussie's went Olympics mad and came out in huge numbers to support the athletes.

Do we have the hotels? Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast - yes yes yes. Brisbane - arguably there are enough. Adelaide and Perth? No. Canberra? No. Any other regional centres - hell no.

Transport links - can current airlinks and trains/buses support a country wide event of this magnitude? With potentially hundreds of thousands of visitors? Not at this point.

Is there even the support for the World Cup to come to a comparatively small market - where it is arguably the third ranked football code? Is there enough votes to go forward with a bid? Will we be horribly embarrassed? Up against say the UK, the USA and possibly China what do we have to offer that they don't?

The more I think of it the further the possibility of us hosting the World Cup seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic;

Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong, Canberra, Townsville, Hobart, Gosford, Geelong, Darwin and Launceston have all been suggested to host WC matches in this and past forums; basically because they are roughly Australia's 15 largest cities (Cairns might be in there too, not sure) and feature stadiums with the 40,000 requirement or venues that could easily be redeveloped to meet this capacity figure. All of these cities are valid candidates, though many share the common problem; not big enough to sustain 20,000 people simultaneously staying within their respected metropolis'. If Australia were to host a WC, then at least 9 of these cities must be selected; with one city having 2 venues. IMO, 11 cities should be used; allowing for 12 stadiums and equal division of the group matches (4 per stadium). The following is a review of the 15 mentioned cities;

Sydney and Melbourne- Australia's largest cities, definite host cities. One of them will have 2 stadiums (i believe Melb should, partly because I am Melbournian; but also because of a reason i shall mention latter), the WC final, opening match, semis.

Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide- all with populations over 1 million, definite host. Only problem- Perth is along way from the rest of the country.

Gold Coast- Australia's tourism capital, certainly capable of accommodating 20,000 people (population around 500,000- very close to Brisbane also). Definite host.

Newcastle- Main city in Hunter Valley, which has population of 750,000 (also close to Sydney and Central Coast). No problems, definite host.

Canberra- 350,000 pop. The Nation's capital must host matches. No problems, definite host.

That's Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth that will be certain host cities. One more required, three more prefered.

Townsville- Decent population (150,000; 4hr drive from Cairns (140,000)), very touristy area (close to Great Barrier Reef); capable of sustaining large tourist numbers, adequate venue which would be redeveloped and utilized post WC. Should host- as Australia's only Northern host city.

Wollongong- Decent pop (300,000). Capable of sustaining large tourist numbers, strong Football following in Wollongong. Should host- to compensate for Melbourne having 2 venues and not Sydney (resulting in 3 WC venues in NSW within 4hr drive).

Hobart and Launceston- both cities have venues which would require major redevelopment; therefore, if the state of Tasmania must have one host city, it would be the largest- Hobart (200,000 in comparison to 100,000). Probably unable (currently) to sustain 20,000 tourists. Hobart is an inadequate city, but the Tasmanian Premier last year announced that Tassie plans to join in with future Australian WC.

Darwin- Too small (100,000) and very isolated. Unsuitable venue (small oval). Although the event cannot be truly national without each state and territory participating, it is impossible for the NT to host. Perhaps practice matches could be played here.

Geelong- Lack of interest with Football, not a touristy area; therefore could not accommodate 20,000 people, unsuitable venue (oval grounds should only be used if offering large capacity (MCG, AAMI Stadium)). Close to Melbourne any way.

Gosford- Similar reasons to Geelong; not touristy area, unsuitable venue (too small; redevelopment would be pointless as Central Coast does not need large venue). Close to Sydney and Newcastle.

The selected; Hobart, Melbourne (1), Melbourne (2), Sydney, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Townsville, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth.

Venues (and possible redevelopment);

Melbourne- MCG (100,000-Oval) and Docklands Stadium (55,000-Retractable seating, but ultimately an oval).

Sydney- Stadium Australia (83,500- what would you call it? rectangular oval?!)

Wollongong- WIN Stadium (40,000 (brought done to 30,000 post WC)- rectangular/redevelopment

Newcastle- EnergyAustralia Stadium (40,000-rectangular/redevelopment; when the stand is continued around the whole stadium, 40,000 capacity is achieved).

Gold Coast- Robina Stadium (40,000 (maybe brough back to 35,000 post WC as this capacity is probably to big for requirements)- rectangular/redevelopment; this venue will be finished in 2009 (i think) but will only have 25,000 capacity, will have to be redeveloped).

Brisbane- Either Suncorp Stadium (52,000- rectangular) or new stadium. Brisbane is likely to bid for the 2024 or 2028 Olympics (though i expect unsuccessfully) so to get prepared and secure attractive WC matches and other events post WC, then a large venue could be on the table. 80,000; host all of Brisbane's major events (RL tests, RU tests, State of Origin, NRL Finals, Football internationals, major athletic events (olympics, worlds, commonwealth games), AFL finals, ODI matches, Test matches, concerts) and become the new home of the Brisbane Lions; with the Gabba, Queensland Sports and Athletic Centre and Ballymore Stadium all sold (Queensland Reds to Suncorp, Bulls to some cricket ground).

Townsville- DairyFarmers Stadium (40,000-rectangular/redevelopment; like Newcastle, stand continued round venue. Would definitely be used post WC)

Canberra- New Stadium (42,000- retractable roof and seating/ I have always liked the unlikey idea of having an indoor stadium in Canberra with a decent capacity. could host RL and RU tests, Football internationals, ODI matches, AFL games, concerts and major athletic events, as well as becoming the new home of the ACT Brumbies, Canberra Raiders and possibly a future A-League team).

Hobart- New Stadium (40,000 (post WC 30,000)- rectangular/construction; the Tasmanian Government will have to build a proper football stadium if Hobart is selected. There has been rumour that Tasmania will apply for an A-League licence in the near future- and with that a rectangular stadium for 20,000)

Adelaide- Football Park (65,000-oval/ redevelopments will continue on this venue over next 15 years).

Perth-Stadium WA (supposed to be 65,000 with retractable seating (completion will probable be between 2014 and 2018)

3 Stadiums not redeveloped, 1 stadium redeveloped not in regard to WC, 1 stadium built not in regard to WC, 3 built for WC, 4 redeveloped for WC.

Opening Match- Sydney

Each stadium gets 4 preliminary matches

Rd 2

Canberra

Hobart

Perth

Adelaide

Newcastle

Townsville

Brisbane

Gold Coast

QF

Perth

Adelaide

MCG

Sydney

SF

Sydney

Brisbane

F

MCG

3rd

Sydney

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well UK does have the venues, infrastructure and sporting history, but I'm pretty sure that the London game would lower their chances of hosting for the time being maybe in the 2020's, USA, not really, since they're focusing on an Olympics and they already hosted in 1994. China? Well they've already got glory for 2008, and there are possibilities of them hosting a Winter Olympics, not to mention the fact that although they may have the venues and such, they've only qualified once for the World Cup in comparison to UK and USA.

I'd basically rate amongst these contenders: UK, then the US, then China, with the possibility of China being just a little over against Australia and definitely by 2018 we'd have the venues and infrastructure needed to host the event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...