View Full Version : 2010 World (Fa)Cup
Masai
10-12-2006, 03:23 AM
As you might know, South africa has the honour of hosting the world Cup in 2010.
Here are some things you might NOT know.
1 We are already 350% over budget and we still have 4 years to go.
"Sep 16 (SW) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter has voiced his concerns over the organisation of the 2010 World Cup, to be held in South Africa. According to reports, the country has not started the building of new, needed stadiums yet."
2 The N1 Highway between Johannesburg and Pretoria is the busiest highway in africa. Now imagine thousands of tourists adding to the chaos. Solution, build a state of the art underground (in some places) rail network. Problem is the first phase wont even be finished.
"The first phase, needed for the World Cup as it connects Joburg International Airport to Sandton, will take 45 months, giving a completion date of June 2010. The World Cup is usually held over June-July. - Sapa"
Rather buy yourself a plasma tv and a comfy chair.
Deftoner
10-12-2006, 04:41 AM
I live in Sea Point, CT. The proposed stadium hasn't even started, They'r still arguing with the guys that put up stalls on Sundays in the Greenpoint stadium parking lot!
Also, If you've ever been there. The roads in that area are for the most part narrow and congested. Town barley manages the morning traffic......
ShotOver
10-12-2006, 05:05 AM
Last I heard they might be giving it to Australia, if SA can't get their act together.
Deftoner
10-12-2006, 05:09 AM
Last I heard they might be giving it to Australia, if SA can't get their act together.
In that case. Have a good one mate. I reckon you Auzzies are more prepared anyways.....
Masai
10-12-2006, 05:24 AM
I hate to say this but i hope they do give it to Aus, because this thing is gonna cost the SA taxpayer a lot of money
Navor
10-12-2006, 05:38 AM
Or just give it back to Germany
Masai
10-12-2006, 06:13 AM
:) germany cant have it twice in a row, Aus or NZ could handle it..
Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-12-2006, 06:16 AM
Nah Australia has everything in place to host big sporting events. We have 2 stadiums close to 100,000 capacity. 3 world class stadiums in the 40-50,000 seat capacity. A few 30-40 capacity stadiums and some decent 20-30,000 seat capacity stadiums.
I think I read we are only 2 stadiums short of meeting the requirenments. One stadium is currently half built and when finished could end up being another 300,40,000 seat stadium.
Since 2000 we have had the Olympics, Rugby World Cup, Commonwealth Games. Annually we have the F1gp, NRL, AFL, State of Origin plus the Super 12 Rugby, Test Cricket, One Day Cricket and Now the A-League which attract huge crowds and the public transportation system holds up dam well. Since we are also a tourist destination we have plenty of hotel accomodation.
Everything is in place. You could setup a controlling body and we could run a show as big as the world cup within 6 months of being asked to host it IMO.
From what I can tell, maybe apart from the UK and Australia no other country has as many regular big organised events that comes close to the world cup. It's fine having a football competition but try having 3 of them in a year, 2 of which run at the same time and regulary attract 20-30,000 people for each game. Let alone the 100,000 who flock to the MCG each Sunday.
Bring down here I say. Never know, just like they said about Sydney 2000. They might want us to play it here all the time. The other good thing about having here is that it will be played in Australia's winter with average temps of about 20 degrees give or take.
<Gypsum Fantastic>
10-12-2006, 06:56 AM
I wouldn't have a problem seeing the world cup in Australia. After the Olympics there's no doubt in how well they can organise a big event.
To be honest, I only think South Africa got it because of FIFA's strange fixation with Africa, as if football will solve all the worlds problems. Bollocks to that. Give it to the people who deserve it, not the people who need it.
Hellfish
10-12-2006, 09:00 AM
The only thing that sucks about having the games in Australia is that the games will be played at, like 3am my time.
Miles.
10-12-2006, 09:05 AM
The only thing that sucks about having the games in Australia is that the games will be played at, like 3am my time.
That's a good thing.
pegasus
10-12-2006, 10:29 AM
give it to england! its about time they had it again, plus it would be alot more entertaining. but eng might not be in it the way they played yesterday!
Stormy
10-12-2006, 11:24 AM
http://www.worldstadiums.com/
^ Photos and capacity information for every stadium from every nation around the world.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/
^ Photos and capacity information for every stadium from every nation around the world.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/nordrhein_westfalen/mgladbach_borussia2.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/nordrhein_westfalen/dusseldorf_ltu2.jpg
woot woot woot p-)
The USA could probably host 10 World Cups at the same time.
That being said, I don't want it here. Keep your hoodlums elsewhere, we have enough of our own.
Ordie
10-12-2006, 01:30 PM
To be honest, I only think South Africa got it because of FIFA's strange fixation with Africa, as if football will solve all the worlds problems.
It was no different when the United States, Japan and Korea hosted the event.
SA had hosted the Rugby World's Cup and International Cricket Tests.
The challenge for SA is infrastructure, transportation and security.
SA already has a good domestic airline network. Upgrading existing intercity rail services would be good for trips within a 100 mile radius of the event cities. For local and regional trips, a series of Bus Rapid Transit routes on fixed dedicated guideways (Google: Curitiba) is much cheaper and just as effective as an underground system.
A major challenge is security. With a high crime rate, international fans with cash are tempting targets.
king_nothing100
10-12-2006, 01:31 PM
Hope we get the 2018 world cup.
The USA could probably host 10 World Cups at the same time.
That being said, I don't want it here. Keep your hoodlums elsewhere, we have enough of our own.
That makes as much sense as "Look at me, i can fit 10 popes in my van"...
Btw having a world cup in your own country is the best thing ever.
Can't compare it.
The USA could probably host 10 World Cups at the same time.
Yeah, ok...
And ?
That being said, I don't want it here. Keep your hoodlums elsewhere, we have enough of our own.
Yeah cos its obviously up to you
Gibby
10-12-2006, 02:16 PM
We should want it here again. If you have the proper infrastructure in place you can make a ton of loot. Not to mention footie is a great sport.
Its when these countries have to reshape half their city and build a huge venue that they screw themselves. You think they would get it by now.
Its become such a competition to hold the cup and the olympics they kind of forget they have to spend money to pull it off.
Stormy
10-12-2006, 02:57 PM
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/nordrhein_westfalen/mgladbach_borussia2.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/nordrhein_westfalen/dusseldorf_ltu2.jpg
woot woot woot p-)
What ? Want to host it again ? :lol:
These are good candidates, if you ask me. Judging by venue capacity and the number of stadiums in the nation.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/united_kingdom.shtml
http://www.worldstadiums.com/oceania/countries/australia.shtml
http://www.worldstadiums.com/asia/countries/china.shtml
http://www.worldstadiums.com/south_america/countries/peru.shtml
What ? Want to host it again ? :lol:
of course!!! Just with different stadiums and host cities, we have a few more. Those two are from my hometown and the city i work in. Kinda root for both. And they are better then some of the world cup stadiums we just had.
Masai
10-13-2006, 02:00 AM
how much money will the world cup bring into SA ??
Gibby
10-13-2006, 07:07 PM
Impossible to say. If you have the facilities already built its mostly pure profit I would think.
Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-13-2006, 08:54 PM
Yeah that is basically what happens. What governments try to do is recoup the money spent in the taxes they will make from ticket sales, the increase in business revenue for such an event ect.
Indianapolis F1gp is a good example. Despite there only being around 100,000 people comming into Indianiapolis for the F1 as opposed to the 500,000. The F1 crowd spend more money in the city. Which is why the city of Indianapolis has offered Tony George something like 20 million a year to keep the race.
Demigod-17
10-13-2006, 10:27 PM
Hope we get the 2018 world cup.
that'd be nice, but its so long away, most of this forum will be pushing 40 :) 2010 world cup is still an age away as far as im concerned. still looking forward, its the only football i watch (:
how much money will the world cup bring into SA ??
Impossible to say. If you have the facilities already built its mostly pure profit I would think.
There's one thing to understand: FIFA is the big gainer. The clear profit of the host country isn't extraordinary. The organising committee had a clear profit of 58 milion, which is peanuts. Of course you gain from all the people spending money in your country, but the rest is FIFA. Now consider what a country needs to spend for hosting the cup. In the end the world cup is good for more abstract values like image and national pride.
Count Lippe
10-14-2006, 04:14 PM
Toki is right, It's like signing your soul away to the devil...:-(
afrikan
10-24-2006, 06:28 AM
I think it creates a few jobs which can only be a good thing.
Every tourist who comes here will spend at leat 1000 bucks each...
If they pull it off, its good for future investment...
They are busy expanding the police force so thats got to be a good thing.
You know we have the spotlight so I hope they do it because there will be rewards if they do....
You know the buzz this will have in SOuth africa, man I cant wait !!
here chek some news reports...
iol (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=2871&art_id=qw1161174063473S163)
iol (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=2871&art_id=vn20061023131722216C393807)
iol (http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=2871&art_id=vn20061023101753440C222176)
At least the African teams will finally get some calls against the European teams in 2010.
(I assume.)
Ordie
10-24-2006, 12:55 PM
One major challenge to consider is location. South Africa is far away from everywhere else. Apart from daily flights to Europe, there is limited direct service to Asia, South America, North America and Australia.
The cost is high. Therefore I assume that those who can afford the trip will be much more affluent than your typical football supporters chartering a coach crossing the Channel. For many football supporters, South Africa would be thier first visit to the continent. They would want to maximize thier visit by sightseeing and shopping.
EsoognomEhT
10-24-2006, 01:09 PM
World FA cup!? Its the world cup.
The US could stage 10 world cups at the same time? rofl No-one wants to sit in one of those ****ty american football stadiums with the atmosphere of a dead slug..." DEEEEFENCE! DEEEEEEFENCE!" ... :cantbeli::cantbeli:
ronin2172
10-24-2006, 05:51 PM
World FA cup!? Its the world cup.
The US could stage 10 world cups at the same time? rofl No-one wants to sit in one of those ****ty american football stadiums with the atmosphere of a dead slug..." DEEEEFENCE! DEEEEEEFENCE!" ... :cantbeli::cantbeli:
pro crowds and college crowds are different...watch a major college game and you'll see (if you take the time to stop being an @$$hole, that is)...and when does the stadium have anything to do with the people who watch the game? Brazillians wont stop being brazillians if they watch their team play in Wembley, Maracana or Fed Ex field.
As for the quality of the stadiums...US Stadiums pretty much lead the way in fan comfort....not too long ago most european stadiums were not even all seater...US stadiums have almost always been all seater.
Pvt.Anderson
10-24-2006, 06:23 PM
pro crowds and college crowds are different...watch a major college game and you'll see (if you take the time to stop being an @$$hole, that is)...and when does the stadium have anything to do with the people who watch the game? Brazillians wont stop being brazillians if they watch their team play in Wembley, Maracana or Fed Ex field.
As for the quality of the stadiums...US Stadiums pretty much lead the way in fan comfort....not too long ago most european stadiums were not even all seater...US stadiums have almost always been all seater.
Well the typical fanblocks are mostly the only places in a football stadium which are not seated ... maybe at max 10 or 15% of its capacity .
Those standing areas are necessary though , that's where the real fans are
ronin2172
10-24-2006, 06:33 PM
Well the typical fanblocks are mostly the only places in a football stadium which are not seated ... maybe at max 10 or 15% of its capacity .
Those standing areas are necessary though , that's where the real fans are
I guess, but too bad FIFA mandates all World Cup Stadia be all seaters.
EsoognomEhT
10-25-2006, 12:05 PM
As for the quality of the stadiums...US Stadiums pretty much lead the way in fan comfort....not too long ago most european stadiums were not even all seater...US stadiums have almost always been all seater.
Er..thats nothing to be proud of. Terraces were the way forward, thats how football should be watched. Obviously the Hillsborough disaster put an end to that sadly
Oh and the Emirates beats any ****ty us stadium :p (why the hell are we talking about comfort anyway?! Who the **** goes to the footy to sit and be comfy?!)
Er..thats nothing to be proud of. Terraces were the way forward, thats how football should be watched. Obviously the Hillsborough disaster put an end to that sadly
Oh and the Emirates beats any ****ty us stadium :p (why the hell are we talking about comfort anyway?! Who the **** goes to the footy to sit and be comfy?!)
Germany still has Terraces. The world cup stadiums were 'customized' to all seaters and now there are a few Terraces again. The first years i went to games i've only watched from terraces. Unfortunately our new stadium is an all seater.
ronin2172
10-25-2006, 05:18 PM
Oh and the Emirates beats any ****ty us stadium :p (why the hell are we talking about comfort anyway?! Who the **** goes to the footy to sit and be comfy?!)
please.....two of the worst teams in the NFL (the cardinals and the texans) have better stadiums than Emirates (which is quite nice actually), then there is Qwest Field in Seattle, Soldier Field in Chicago, and by 2010 The Vikings, Cowboys, Saints, Giants/Jets, Colts and possibly the Chargers will have brand new homes....actually all the NFL teams except the 49ers, Colts, Saints and Vikings have stadiums, which can compare with any stadium in theworld
Besides the UK has some of the worst looking stadiums anywhere....
There are some good ones though Emirates is awesome. New Anfield(if it ever gets built) will be great, City Of Manchester Stadium is also a good one ( I know some of the smaller teams have nice new ones as well, but im too lazy to name them)...but the rest? ugh
St. James Park has that half finished look about it, Old Trafford looks like an erector set on crack...as for the rest....you can put as much makeup on a pig as you want.....but it's still a pig. :P
If footy isn't meant to be watched in comfort why did Arsenal get rid of Highbury?
please.....two of the worst teams in the NFL (the cardinals and the texans) have better stadiums than Emirates (which is quite nice actually), then there is Qwest Field in Seattle, Soldier Field in Chicago, and by 2010 The Vikings, Cowboys, Saints, Giants/Jets, Colts and possibly the Chargers will have brand new homes....actually all the NFL teams except the 49ers, Colts, Saints and Vikings have stadiums, which can compare with any stadium in theworld
Besides the UK has some of the worst looking stadiums anywhere....
There are some good ones though Emirates is awesome. New Anfield(if it ever gets built) will be great, City Of Manchester Stadium is also a good one ( I know some of the smaller teams have nice new ones as well, but im too lazy to name them)...but the rest? ugh
St. James Park has that half finished look about it, Old Trafford looks like an erector set on crack...as for the rest....you can put as much makeup on a pig as you want.....but it's still a pig. :P
If footy isn't meant to be watched in comfort why did Arsenal get rid of Highbury?
The beauty of a footy stadium is measured differently. Close, rather small 'boxes' are the best. Good footy atmosphere doesn't need big round spacious arenas. Of course there are (Nou Camp etc.), but the traditional boxy stands are better. Footy fans don't need (or like) breathing space. p-)
EsoognomEhT
10-26-2006, 01:16 PM
If footy isn't meant to be watched in comfort why did Arsenal get rid of Highbury?
Highbury was a listed building as a example of classic 30's architecture, the type of expansion needed for us to compete with teams like Chelski (more fans = more cash) was not allowed by law :{
Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-26-2006, 04:00 PM
White Heart Lane FTW!!!!!!!
signatory
11-25-2006, 05:04 AM
FIFA suspends Iran from all international soccer
ZURICH, Nov 23 (*******) - Iran has been suspended from all international soccer activity because of government interference in running the game in the country, world ruling body FIFA said on Thursday.
The move comes just five months after Iran took part in the World Cup finals in Germany and a week after they secured a place in the 2008 Asian Cup finals, winning their qualifying group by beating South Korea 2-0 in Tehran.
An Iranian news agency said Iran did not accept the decision and decribed it as "completely illegitimate". Fans in the soccer-mad country were stunned.
"I am totally shocked because I love football and I always follow the Iranian national soccer squad with 100 percent enthusiasm," said Hassan Alizad, a 43-year-old driver, who had revelled in Iran's success at reaching the Asian Cup finals.
"It will break a streak of honours," he said.
Mohsen Jamali, a 45-year-old barber and football fanatic, said: "I feel injured at hearing this news...I still hope that somehow the decision will be reversed."
FIFA's Emergency Committee, composed of FIFA President Sepp Blatter and one representative of each of the six FIFA confederations took the decision at a meeting on Wednesday.
In a statement FIFA said they had decided to "suspend the Islamic Republic of Iran Football Federation (IRIFF) from all international activity due to government interference in football matters and violation of Article 17 of the FIFA Statutes."
http://today.*******.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldFootballNews&storyID=2006-11-23T153111Z_01_L23287394_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-FIFA-IRAN-UPDATE-1.XML&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-1
--
Sorry for the Iranians fans that have such sh*tty leaders.
Count Lippe
11-25-2006, 05:17 AM
The same reason why they tried to suspend Greece. And they were European champions! Nothing to whine about.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.