Peter Schaad Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Announced tomorrow (Tues Jan 12th) @ 3:20 Eastern. Seattle won't get left out this time. Their stadium is too nice, and their support too great. You wonder if Portland will get another of the 18 cities. I would also imagine that a proposed World Cup Final would be in New York this time around at the new Meadowlands stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Dallas for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettinhalifax Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Portland doesn't have a 70,000 seat NFL stadium, so I doubt that they'll be on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 quote:Originally posted by brettinhalifax Portland doesn't have a 70,000 seat NFL stadium, so I doubt that they'll be on the list. Why not? If they build a nice SSS they should be. Plymouth, Milton Keynes, and Hull are on the list for England's bid. They don't have huge stadiums. In fact, the proposal is for them to be expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 quote:Originally posted by Peter Schaad Announced tomorrow (Tues Jan 12th) @ 3:20 Eastern. Seattle won't get left out this time. Their stadium is too nice, and their support too great. They only have one season of great support under their belt. But I guess from a demographic POV Seattle makes sense as they are the biggest city in that whole NorthWest part of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 And Qwest Field is GORGEOUS and holds 70,000. I think Portland might get the benefit of some World Cup Stadium money because they'll need group cities to be close together. PGE Park will still need some upgrades on the Press Side...which is not part of the 2011 redevelopment plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettinhalifax Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup Why not? If they build a nice SSS they should be. Plymouth, Milton Keynes, and Hull are on the list for England's bid. They don't have huge stadiums. In fact, the proposal is for them to be expanded. I'm pretty sure 40,000 is the minimum size for a Word Cup stadium. AFAIK, every stadium in England's WC bid either seats 40,000 or will be expanded to seat 40,000. The smallest stadium the Americans used in 1994 was 57,000. PGE will be around 20,000 after the proposed renovation. It doesn't matter how nice it is, it'll be too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Cities are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa and Washington, D.C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtl-supporter23 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 http://www.gousabid.com/page/invite/espnvideo Great video on the bid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Schaad Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 The Americans just don't mess around with any kind of presentations. Little surprised about Nashville. Glad to see the mid-west represented though in Indy, & KC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporty Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 If the Santa Clara stadium is constructed, the San Francisco Bay Area will probably be back on board. Chicago, though, is a shocker. The message is clear: regardless or your city's luminosity - and Chicago is one ass-kicking town in every way possible - if you decide to mail it in with little effort, if you suggest that you won't modify the playing surface and if you rely on the coat-tails of a certain someone, you're off the list. Fifa has always liked Arrowhead Stadium. Lucas Oil is a great stadium in a Midwest town but visitors do rather enjoy the hick American spots. Some people consider Denver both a Mountain and Midwestern city. Nashville is considered periphery Heartland. The darkhorse? Baltimore. It's a better venue than FedEx. Chicago's absence will hurt. But remember that there was no Tokyo venue in JK 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I guess this announcement is somewhat meaningless since the cities can be changed, I just learned. So Chicago and the Bay Area might still be among the final 12 even though they aren't in this list of 18. The bid would certainly be stronger with San Fran in it. Certainly a lot more appealing place to visit than KC or Indy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporty Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Yes, the cities announced yesterday are merely for the bid book. Giants Stadium wasn't even on the list when Fifa, on July 4, 1988, announced that the US would host WC 94. Nor was Foxboro. San Francisco is an amazing city. California is a gorgeous state. But you'd be surprised at how many Europeans love to come here to rent Harleys, hit the back roads and visit the less glamorous places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SthMelbRed Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 quote:Originally posted by sporty Chicago's absence will hurt. But remember that there was no Tokyo venue in JK 2002. While none of the stadiums were in Tokyo proper, Yokohama, Saitama, and Ibaraki are all within the metro Tokyo area. A little further afield, Shizuoka and Sendai are both short trips on the Shinkansen from the center of Tokyo. I'm guessing that's five world cup venues within the distance of Chicago to Indianapolis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The lack of Chicago is really weird I mean the USSF picked them to host the 2007 Gold Cup final... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporty Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 The stadium, though beautiful, is small: 61,000. Beyond that, though, it's said that no one in Chicago lifted a finger. My guess is that if the US gets the 2022 WC - the real goal - then the Chicago thing will be sorted out. I hear you, MelbourneRed, but you'd never see that density here. You'll get a cluster of three in the Northeast. The venues in the US represent entire subregions. But I don't have to tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.