Most of you are likely way more knowledgeable of the next world cup than I so I explored the locations for the 2018 version. The farthest east site is Yekatarinburg. Kaliningrad is the farthest west location and Sochi is the farthest south.
Expected that, unlike Brazil, Russia may have to only build a couple of stadiums, but that most would just need some upgrades. This is apparently not the situation. Other than Yekatarinburg and Moscow’s Luzhniki stadium, the remaining 10 will be rebuilt or brand new (the Sochi stadium shouldn’t be too tough, but I’m not an architect). Is this because the existing stadia are really shit and/or have a small capacity?
Is there a spec sheet of minimum FIFA’s stadium demands? I went to a couple of games at the Cotton Bowl for the WC in 1994. I had not been there since 1987 and seven years later the stadium did not look a whole lot different. The Rose Bowl and Stanford Stadium were also pretty spartan but I don't recall thousands of fans holding their noses going in.
Glad to see Moscow get two venues. It was pretty idiotic to build that stadium in Manaus when it seemed that Rio or Sao Paolo could have easily added another one.
Did not pay a lot of attention to either the US or England bid. The US stadium possibilities did not surprise me at all, though I remember reading that existing stadiums would still have to spend millions to placate FIFA.
But for England??? Milton Keynes? Plymouth? No chance of TWO grounds in London or TWO grounds in Manchester being used? Why Newcastle Gateshead and not just Newcastle? Was St. James Park out of the picture and a “New” stadium built?
Still see Russia dicking around and having those stadiums ready no sooner than what Brazil did. Hope the graft is not insane, but if the country poured in $50 billion for the Winter Olympics why not $100 billion for 2018?
Expected that, unlike Brazil, Russia may have to only build a couple of stadiums, but that most would just need some upgrades. This is apparently not the situation. Other than Yekatarinburg and Moscow’s Luzhniki stadium, the remaining 10 will be rebuilt or brand new (the Sochi stadium shouldn’t be too tough, but I’m not an architect). Is this because the existing stadia are really shit and/or have a small capacity?
Is there a spec sheet of minimum FIFA’s stadium demands? I went to a couple of games at the Cotton Bowl for the WC in 1994. I had not been there since 1987 and seven years later the stadium did not look a whole lot different. The Rose Bowl and Stanford Stadium were also pretty spartan but I don't recall thousands of fans holding their noses going in.
Glad to see Moscow get two venues. It was pretty idiotic to build that stadium in Manaus when it seemed that Rio or Sao Paolo could have easily added another one.
Did not pay a lot of attention to either the US or England bid. The US stadium possibilities did not surprise me at all, though I remember reading that existing stadiums would still have to spend millions to placate FIFA.
But for England??? Milton Keynes? Plymouth? No chance of TWO grounds in London or TWO grounds in Manchester being used? Why Newcastle Gateshead and not just Newcastle? Was St. James Park out of the picture and a “New” stadium built?
Still see Russia dicking around and having those stadiums ready no sooner than what Brazil did. Hope the graft is not insane, but if the country poured in $50 billion for the Winter Olympics why not $100 billion for 2018?
Comment