# ENGLAND - FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bid



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Old Trafford would be 90,000 by then.

St James' I think would of expanded.

Me I would prefer to see new stadiums being built that clubs redeveloping their current ones.


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

Possible Venues that can host a match or more now or would be redeveloped with ease ie England 2018 simple as makes sense

Wembley
Emirates
Pride Park
Riverside stadium
Elen Road or new stadium
Coventry City's new stadium 
New Anfield
Upton Park
City Ground
St. James Park 
Stadium of light 
Villa Park
St. Andrews 
St. Marys 
Goodisen Park or new stadium
Stamford Bridge 
White Hart Lane or new big stadium 
The Valley
Old Trafford
City of Manchester stadium
City Ground
and many more

Simple as Englands stadiums are always full, look great and have brilliant atmospheres well apart from Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd. In the last World Cup two countries hosted it South Korea and Japan between them they had 20 stadiums hosting the matches in England you would easylly find 20 stadiums to host the matches all health and safety goodies as well as over 30,000 capacity


----------



## Mr. T (Apr 29, 2004)

England will definatley win. They wont even have to build any stadiums.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Sikario said:


> Perfect! Just think, Rooney will be contemplating retiring from international football, he'll be 32... Like me.


He'll be looking for his third liver by the time England hosts the World Cup.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Well Villa Park want to expand to roughly 53,000+, Wolves will have expanded to minimum 42,300 and Maximum 46,500, The new Birmingham super stadium would be 60,000 (Completion 2010) and the Hawthorns im sure would expand to an excess of 40,000 so all in all, Birmingham alone could hold 1 group of World Cup football. 

England has enough quality stadiums for it to hold only a single game in each stadium across the country. But obviously that wont happen

The 10 main stadiums will more then likely be

2 in London
1 in Birmingham
1 in Manchester
1 in Newcastle
1 in Liverpool
1 in Leeds
1 in Southampton
1 in Nottingham 
1 in Middlesborough or something like that anyway.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

We should have the bleedin' world cup football is the game the British bought to the world.


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

Pure speculation of course, but for me the bid could look something like this:
* = Some work assumed...

Final: Wembley Stadium, London - 90,000
Semi 2: Old Trafford, Manchester - 76,000+
Quarter 1: New Anfield, Liverpool - 61,000*
Quarter 2: Emirates Stadium, London - 60,000
Quarter 3: St. James Park, Newcastle - 60,000*
Quarter 4: New Birmingham Stadium/Villa Park - 50,000+*
Group: Stadium of Light, Sunderland - 48,000
Group: Elland Road/New Stadium, Leeds - 50,000*
Group: Hillsborough/New Stadium, Sheffield - 40,000+*
Group: St Mary's Stadium, Southampton - 40,000*
Group: City Ground, Nottingham - 40,000*

Other potential venues include:

- City of Manchester Stadium if Manchester was allowed to use two venues.
- A second stadium in Brimingham if allowed, be it Villa Park, Molineux etc.
- Stamford Bridge instead of Emirates if Abramovich can be bothered.
- Bristol has previously shown interest in building a new shared stadium.
- Norwich or Ipswich.
- Portsmouth could replace Southampton if they finally build a new stadium.
- etc etc.

For me, the likes of Derby, Blackburn, Middlesborough, Coventry will struggle to be chosen even with their good stadia - a combination of a lack of hotel accomodation and proximity to other major venues, but that's just my opinion of course!

The only real shame is that the owners of Twickenham (85,000) are too arrogant to allow football to played on their hallowed turf - would provide an excellent semi-final location instead of Wembley.


----------



## Paulo2004 (Oct 13, 2004)

Portugal will be in the race too, either in 2014 or 2018.


----------



## ManchesterISwonderful (Jan 25, 2004)

SouthBank said:


> Semi 2: Old Trafford, Manchester - 74,000
> .



Being a pedantic ****. Old Trafford's capacity will go upto 76,400 after the building work. And by 2018(talk about the future!) it'll be extended to 96,000 most likely, that's unless we've moved to a new ground. One never knows what the future holds eh.

But yeah, would love the world cup here.


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

> Being a pedantic ****. Old Trafford's capacity will go upto 76,400 after the building work. And by 2018(talk about the future!) it'll be extended to 96,000 most likely, that's unless we've moved to a new ground. One never knows what the future holds eh.


My mistake - changed it. You pedantic **** .

Have to say though, I'm not convinced by the idea of Old Trafford ever being 96,000 capacity given the potential problems in doing so. But then what do I know!


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Going back to the World Cup rotation thing, I'm fairly sure that FIFA reckon from now on it'd be Europe, Rest of the World, South America, then Europe, Rest of the World, South America and so on. Otherwise it'd just plain be unfair for so many countries with the infrastructure already in plce to host a WC to only get one chance every 20 years. 

For OT - going off current stand capacities, a secon tier for the South Stand, plus corners (but not a third tier) Old Trafford's capacity would be 91,500. With a 3rd tier it'd be 95,500. But given the problems of building over the railway line, and I remember reading it'd cost £46m or so - can't see that happening for a while yet, especially with the £800m debt Glazer's put on Man Utd.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

CorliCorso said:


> Going back to the World Cup rotation thing, I'm fairly sure that FIFA reckon from now on it'd be Europe, Rest of the World, South America, then Europe, Rest of the World, South America and so on. Otherwise it'd just plain be unfair for so many countries with the infrastructure already in plce to host a WC to only get one chance every 20 years.


The problem with that would be that really only Brazil and Argentina could afford to host a 32+ team world cup. By increasing the number and standard of stadiums needed I'd say FIFA has actually greatly reduced the number of countries who can host a WC. You either need 10+ clubs who can fill 40,000 stadia or you need an economy big enough to cover the cost of building them.

As someone said earlier if you replace South America with the Americas as a whole in your rotation so adding the US and Mexico as possible hosts then I'd agree thats probabley the best way to go about it.



> For OT - going off current stand capacities, a secon tier for the South Stand, plus corners (but not a third tier) Old Trafford's capacity would be 91,500. With a 3rd tier it'd be 95,500. But given the problems of building over the railway line, and I remember reading it'd cost £46m or so - can't see that happening for a while yet, especially with the £800m debt Glazer's put on Man Utd.


46 million sounds very cheap for 15-20,000 extra seats(although I'd guess it would be slightly less with more prenium steaing instead) when you consider the massive costs of new stadia these days.



Paulo2004 said:


> Portugal will be in the race too, either in 2014 or 2018.


 I don't think Portugal could handle a modern world cup as you'd need at least 10 40,000 plus stadia and most of the 30,000 euro 2004 stadia have already prooved too larger for their clubs, your best chance IMHO would be to host a joint one with Spain using your 3 big stadia.


----------



## HoldenV8 (Jul 18, 2005)

Australia's biggest problem in staging the world cup is lack of suitable 40,000+ venues. We only have MCG, Telstra Stadium, Telstra Dome, Suncorp Stadium & Aussie Stadium. The only other 40,000+ stadiums are AAMI Stadium which is an oval venue. Same for Subiaco Oval & The Gabba (and for those who say Telstra Dome is an oval venue, true but it has retractable seating with a loss of only about 3,000 seats).

Upgrades to other stadiums such as Hindmarsh, Members Equity, Central Coast, WIN & Energy Australia Stadiums? Millions of dollars spent for a month of soccer and none of those grounds would be full for soccer again with capacities that high. Some would struggle to fill for rugby league & union games.

Is it worth it? Personally I don't think so.

Now a joint hosting with New Zealand would be better. They have the 45,000 seat Eden Park. An easily expandable North Harbour Stadium and/or Ericsson Stadium. Jade Stadium would only need a further 4,000 seats. Waikato Stadium is also easily expanded and needs an increase of only 15,000 and is a rectangle venue.

A joint hosting makes more sense to me and why not, it happened with Japan & Korea.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*FIFA*



HoldenV8 said:


> Now a joint hosting with New Zealand would be better. They have the 45,000 seat Eden Park. An easily expandable North Harbour Stadium and/or Ericsson Stadium. Jade Stadium would only need a further 4,000 seats. Waikato Stadium is also easily expanded and needs an increase of only 15,000 and is a rectangle venue.
> 
> A joint hosting makes more sense to me and why not, it happened with Japan & Korea.


FIFA said there would be no more joint hosts.

Realistically there are only a handful of countries that could stage a World Cup without a massive construction program. Even Germany did a lot of work to get ready for 2006.

I'd say Europe has 5 countries that can host a WC with a reasonable amount of work. England, Germany, France Spain and Italy. If Brazil do get it for 2014 (and I think they're certain to) then they will need to construct 6-8 totally new stadiums.

Of course I also confidently predict that should the 2018 WC not go to Europe then the G-14 will throw their toys out of the pram and there will be no more world cups.


----------



## vertigosufferer (Aug 20, 2005)

Japan built alot of new stadiums for the last world cup didn't they?? I wonder if they are being used regularly now, and hope they haven't become white elephants.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

vertigosufferer said:


> Japan built alot of new stadiums for the last world cup didn't they?? I wonder if they are being used regularly now, and hope they haven't become white elephants.


1. many 2002 venues were completely demolished
2. some are still in use but barely
3. some are really struggling and the construction of 20 venues in the first place should not have been allowed by FIFA
4. germany are to use 12 venues i think and south africa cut it down officially from 13 to ten, allowing for more profits and in effect larger crowds...


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*Rugby vs Football*



Mo Rush said:


> 1. many 2002 venues were completely demolished
> 2. some are still in use but barely
> 3. some are really struggling and the construction of 20 venues in the first place should not have been allowed by FIFA
> 4. germany are to use 12 venues i think and south africa cut it down officially from 13 to ten, allowing for more profits and in effect larger crowds...


Of course the difference with Germany and Japan is that the German stadiums will be well used afterwards.

Since you're from SA, how does the relative popularity of football vs rugby work out there? Is there a regional difference or do the 2 sports co-exist? How do crowds compare (numbers wise)? Didn't football used to be the black mans game and rugby the sport of whites? Is this just bunk or is there still a racial division?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Iain1974 said:


> Of course the difference with Germany and Japan is that the German stadiums will be well used afterwards.
> 
> Since you're from SA, how does the relative popularity of football vs rugby work out there? Is there a regional difference or do the 2 sports co-exist? How do crowds compare (numbers wise)? Didn't football used to be the black mans game and rugby the sport of whites? Is this just bunk or is there still a racial division?


good question

we must remember south africa is about 80% non-caucasian and soccer still as much a black mans games and supported mainly by blacks, however there are great inroads between rugby and soccer, but there is also still a clear distinction between the two, you wont see more than a a handful of "white" spectators at a local premier leagu match with rugby its still majority white but the support is reasonable from non-whites....

in terms of the soccer world cup, south africa has a great soccer fan base, actually the "white " soccer fans are keen for international soccer and there is great support for the english premier league here,,,myself included...so for a world cup everyone irrespective of colour will be rushing out to purchase tickets, as the white minority are by far the richer they are able to afford the ticket prices, but special consideration will be made for the poorer average wealth fan...in effect with the stadiums of which most (about 6-7) are existing and 3 or 4 new stadia will be built....so in terms of legacy and sustainability the term white elephant wont exist...the division cannot just be corrected, and although the division is a racial one mainly we must also remember its as much an socia economic division too...however expect a packed 95,000 soccer city stadium for the final, a full house at the opening ceremony and semi finals as well as good capacities at the quarter finals.. and excellent crowd attendance at the opening round matches as fewer stadia means less travelling for spectators and more support in general at each match...

however with 3 years to go before construction needs to be completed, things seem a bit tight and FIFA are only selecting the official stadia to host the matches later in the year or early 2006 im not sure, from then on the real planning can begin ....e.g cape town has two options for matches to be played at theres newlands rugby stadium (50,000) and athlone stadium which will bcome a legacy for soccer and have its capacity increased to about 50,000 as well...joburg has two stadia as well so until these decisions are made constructions and plans can move full steam ahead.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

*SA*

Thanks for the detailed answer.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Iain1974 said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer.


yeah i do tend to make things a bit long...


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Kobo said:


> This is my ideal list of English cities and stadiums I would like to be used for a 2018 world cup. The stadiums have a minimum and maximum capacity which have been suggested in the past, and some stadiums I have made up as I feel something new would have to be built in that city. However when the bid goes in I don't think that all the stadiums will have the maximum capacity, although I would like them too. But please bear in mind Sepp Blatter has said he wants the minimum stadium size in 2018 to be 45,000.
> 
> 
> Ideal list:
> ...


Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.


Going from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/17/worldcup2018.portsmouth the English bid intends to have 10 host cities 3 of which could be Bristol, Portsmouth and Nottingham. I suppose there could be regional fights to see which cities could host, this is something that happened in Germany for 2006 World Cup, with individual cities bidding against one another. Here is another website people might be interested with: http://www.2018england.co.uk/


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

Forget Leicester's ground, I would consider Coventry's Ricoh Arena instead because it is expandable, is in a large city and has supurb transport links - it lies right next to the M6 - linking it to almost every major location in the country!  AND there is a major airport less than 12 miles away (BHX) - perfect choice for a world cup bid


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> Lose Sheffield OR Leeds, and Nottingham, and I'd say that's the "ideal" 10 for the bid.


I prefer 12 grounds, myself, but agree that Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham won't all receive games. That would place too many host sites in the Midlands.



Kobo said:


> Going from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/17/worldcup2018.portsmouth the English bid intends to have 10 host cities 3 of which could be Bristol, Portsmouth and Nottingham. I suppose there could be regional fights to see which cities could host, this is something that happened in Germany for 2006 World Cup, with individual cities bidding against one another.


Thanks for the link. That's interesting they're committing to 10 cities, suggesting 11 venues. An odd number both figuratively and literally! :banana: I'm glad to see they're looking at cities, but I do hope they also don't sell themselves too short and have an adbundance of minimum capacity grounds.



ccfc-4-life said:


> Forget Leicester's ground, I would consider Coventry's Ricoh Arena instead because it is expandable, is in a large city and has supurb transport links - it lies right next to the M6 - linking it to almost every major location in the country!  AND there is a major airport less than 12 miles away (BHX) - perfect choice for a world cup bid


I assumed Coventry would be too close to Birmingham. And personally, I'm not too fond of that wall on the Telnet(?) stand - Makes the ground feel way too bland, IMO.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> For instance, Hull and Bristol would help spread the wealth but undoubtedly don't _need_ a 45k seat venue long-term.


I wouldn't be so sure - I guess it ultimately depends on how long Hull City are likely to stay in the Premier League but if they become permanent fixtures, a la Bolton, then a 40k+ stadium becomes feasible. Hull is a one team town and has a population and metro area not significantly smaller than Newcastle and we've seen the massive growth in Newcastle United crowds during their stay in the Premier League. 

I realise that Hull is a very unfashionable place within the UK and may suffer from a distinct lack of hotel facilities when compared with Leeds, for example, but at this moment in time, especially given Duffen's backing, the stadium itself is the most realistic contender. Considerable investment has come into the city in recent times with redevelopments on the banks of the Hull and the Humber, as well as in the city centre. Ultimately, Hull is a city that has a lot to gain from hosting a world cup and provides easy access for mainland Europeans through the ferry port. I wouldn't put money on it but I'd say it has a reasonable shout.

I also realise that it seems a little taboo to mention Twickenham as a possible world cup venue yet it is hard to ignore an 82,000 capacity stadium because of the sport predominantly played there. I know that because of its location, the number of events staged there is limited by planning in some way but I'm sure a couple of World Cup games could easily be fitted into the stadium's schedule. More importantly, it has more surrounding land than the Emirates Stadium for the hosting of the media circus and corporates. I can't imagine Arsenal being terribly happy about it but the use of Twickenham, especially as a potential semi-final stadium, would enhance the bid significantly. The lack of space near the Emirates Stadium could have negative effect.

Another interesting thing is that, I believe, Nottingham is closer to Manchester than it is to Hull. If we're dealing with 10 cities, theoretically, both Hull and Nottingham could be used. Should Leeds be a candidate city, this may not be the case and could lead to an over-concentration with Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds all used. We must assume that Liverpool and Manchester will provide stadia, so we may actually be ruling Leeds out on geographic spread.

Surely, any bid that theoretically brings Scotland into consideration would see Murrayfield used? I can see the thinking behind England only wanting an England bid but the use of the Millennium Stadium and / or Murrayfield could deeply enhance the bid. As niether the Millennium Stadium nor Murrayfield are owned by the relevant Welsh and Scottish FA's, it could also lead to a situation where the complexities of a joint bidding process, such as multiple qutomatic qualification, are foregone. 

Ultimately, I doubt the use of either of these stadia would make the bid any less desirable to FIFA. If it is a tight bidding process against Spain, for example, then they could actually greatly enhance the bid and I'm sure the FA would prefer a successful bid involving these stadia to a failed bid involving only English stadia. Consider what would look better on a bid - a 40,000 capacity stadium in Bristol that may not be sustainable or a 75,000+ capacity stadium just across a bridge with fantastic facilities. So long as it doesn't overcompliate the bid, and given ownership of the stadia, I doubt it would, then this will enhance the English bid.

To consider that another way, I doubt the SRU or the WRU are going to be particularly concerned that the Scottish and Welsh football sides don't gain automatic World Cup qualification but are going to be making money out of the whole thing. When you look at some of the stadia going up in Spain at the moment, I'd say it would be imprudent for the FA and any English bid not to persue these potential avenues when both stadia have so much to offer because they are too damn proud to realise the potential limitations of an England only bid.

Ultimately, a lot of stadium changes can be expected, if not predicted in 10 years so it's quite difficult, at this time, to really comment on which stadia will be used. As such, my list aims to be fairly broad and would choose from the best available stadium and other such matters from a few towns. 

Given that, I have two lists below. The first for an English bid involving only English stadia, the second for an exclusive English bid involving Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium:

*England Only Bid:*

1. London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000+(?)
2. London - Twickenham Stadium - 82,000 / Emirates Stadium (60,000)
3. Manchester - Old Trafford - 76,000+
4. Liverpool - New Anfield - 60,000+
5. Newcastle - St. James' Park - 52,000+ / Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 49,000+
6. Nottingham - New Nottingham Forest Stadium - 45,000 - 50,000
7. Birmingham - Villa Park - 51,000+ / New Birmingham City Stadium - 50,000+
8. Bristol - New Bristol Stadium - 40,000+
9. Ipswich - New Ipswich Town Stadium 40,000+ / New Norwich City Stadium 40,000+
10. Portsmouth - New Portsmouth Stadium - 40,000+
11. Kingston-Upon-Hull - K.C. Stadium - 40,000+ / Leeds - New Leeds United Stadium - 40,000+

*Composite Exclusive English Bid:*

1. London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000+(?)
2. London - Twickenham Stadium - 82,000 / Emirates Stadium - 60,000+(?)
3. Manchester - Old Trafford - 76,000+
4. Cardiff - Millennium Stadium - 75,000+
5. Edinbrgh - Murrayfield Stadium - 67,800
6. Liverpool - New Anfield - 60,000+
7. Newcastle - St James' Park - 52,000+ / Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 49,000+
8. Birmingham - Villa Park - 51,000+ / New Birmingham City Stadium - 50,000+
9. Nottinham - New Nottingham Forest Stadium - 45,000 - 50,000
10. Portsmouth - New Portsmouth Stadium - 40,000+
11. Ipswich - New Ipswich Town Stadium 40,000+ / New Norwich City Stadium 40,000+ / Kingston-Upon-Hull - K.C. Stadium - 40,000+ / Leeds - New Leeds United Stadium - 40,000+

The second one of these lists makes for a FAR more impressive bid - especially if the Gallowgate End at St. James' were to be redeveloped or Sunderland went with a redevelopment of the Stadium of light, we're looking at 7 stadia with capacities of 60,000 or more. With that, we could be potentially talking about this bid providing nearly as many seats, overall, as the much vaunted USA bid for some future world cup. While I can understand the FA not wanting to use stadia in the UK that are not in England, any bid will face stiff competition, especially from Spain. It would be fairly arrogant for the FA not to at least consider the use of two non-English stadia that could tip the scales in favour of the English bid. Given the quality of stadia in Spain, it could be that the potential use of Twickeham, Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium could be what tilts the balance in favour of an English bid.

An interesting question could arise about the hosting of the final - should Old Trafford have a capacity of 95,000+ at that stage, it may be desirable for FIFA to see the final held there, although no doubt would meet from vast opposition from the FA. Perhaps we could finally see if there is any truth in those postings and rumours that by moving the seats closer together at Wembley, capacity could be significantly increased - as a temporary move for a World Cup, I'm sure there wouldn't be too much planning opposition?

EDIT: To consider the serious potential for the England bid involving Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium, I compared the 11 stadia in my list above with 11 potential stadia in the USA. For this, I worked under the assumption of maximum English capacities (Old Trafford at 96,000 and New Anfield at 70,000, for example but 40,000 for stadia in Hull, Ipswich et al, so it's hypothetical in itself): 

The overall capacities of the 11 stadia in the USA were 733,000 (Mean: 66,500) and for the UK, 722,000 (Mean: 65,600). To compare this, only three stadia used in Germany had capacities larger than the mean of such an English bid and the total available capacity was 635,000 for 12 stadia (Mean: 52,900). Working with the same figures and ignoring Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium, overall capacity for 11 stadia drops to 659,000 (Mean: 59,900). The inclusion of Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium allows England a bid that in terms of pure capacity, may only be rivaled by the USA and that is some statement in itself.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

It will be an english bid only if scotland or anyone else want it then they can bid for it.after 2002 fifa are against co hosts for future world cups


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

It wouldn't be co-hosts, Marrio, as I quite clearly stated - we're talking about the use of stadia that have no attachements to the Scottish or Welsh Football Associations. There is a significant difference between co-hosting and using stadia that are, technically, within the same political entity as England. If anything, I'd say the people of Scotland and Wales wouldn't want these stadia used in a way that didn't guarantee automatic qualification for those international sides but that's another matter for discussion elsewhere.

As I said, given the stiffness and quality of competition that an English bid will face, especially from the likes of Spain/Portugal, USA and Russia, it would be arrogant to simply assume that England will win. By using these stadia, England can put a significantly better bid on the table than they otherwise could. Unfortunately, it seems some want to bring national rivalries and other such nonsense into something that could mean the difference between a World Cup in England an no World Cup in England in 2018. It's not a slur against England's ability to provide good enough stadia, it is about England providing the best possible bid that stands the best possible chance of winning. As we are dealing with theoretical expansions and temporary seats to take capacities above 40,000 in many key cities, most notably Portsmouth, England are not in an automatic position to provide the strongest bid for 2018 in terms of stadia. The use of stadia in Scotland and Wales provides a bid that would be almost unrivalled. I'm sorry that all of that reduces to your kind of, "England, only," argument.

Given the theoretical potential for the use of Murrayfield and the Millennium stadium without complicating the bidding process with co-hosts, the use of those stadia provides a better bid and any suggestion otherwise, especially those based on national attitudes, is absurd.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

NeilF said:


> It wouldn't be co-hosts, Marrio, as I quite clearly stated - we're talking about the use of stadia that have no attachements to the Scottish or Welsh Football Associations. There is a significant difference between co-hosting and using stadia that are, technically, within the same political entity as England. If anything, I'd say the people of Scotland and Wales wouldn't want these stadia used in a way that didn't guarantee automatic qualification for those international sides but that's another matter for discussion elsewhere.
> 
> As I said, given the stiffness and quality of competition that an English bid will face, especially from the likes of Spain/Portugal, USA and Russia, it would be arrogant to simply assume that England will win. By using these stadia, England can put a significantly better bid on the table than they otherwise could. Unfortunately, it seems some want to bring national rivalries and other such nonsense into something that could mean the difference between a World Cup in England an no World Cup in England in 2018. It's not a slur against England's ability to provide good enough stadia, it is about England providing the best possible bid that stands the best possible chance of winning. As we are dealing with theoretical expansions and temporary seats to take capacities above 40,000 in many key cities, most notably Portsmouth, England are not in an automatic position to provide the strongest bid for 2018 in terms of stadia. The use of stadia in Scotland and Wales provides a bid that would be almost unrivalled. I'm sorry that all of that reduces to your kind of, "England, only," argument.
> 
> Given the theoretical potential for the use of Murrayfield and the Millennium stadium without complicating the bidding process with co-hosts, the use of those stadia provides a better bid and any suggestion otherwise, especially those based on national attitudes, is absurd.


well which ever way you look at it murryfield is scotland and the mellennium is wales.Not england,wouldn't bother me if they had them as venues would be fine but fifa won't see it that way.And you state yourself that using these would help englands bid maybe true but then it wouldn't be an england bid would it.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

There is no way that the east midlands wont get a venue and at this rate it is likely to be Nottingham or Derby, 50,000 or 44,000 respectively.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

I doubt that Sheffield will be missed out, purely because its the birth place of football.


----------



## Flogging Molly (Apr 1, 2007)

Its such a shame that Wolverhampton is a shit hole and that its so close to Brum. New Molineux would be a fine stadium to host and famous.


----------



## Flogging Molly (Apr 1, 2007)

Steel City Suburb said:


> I doubt that Sheffield will be missed out, purely because its the birth place of football.



:lol:


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Whats so funny?

It is. Sheffield FC was the first club ever, it hosts so many clubs within the local area. 

Sheffield rightly deserves one venue.


----------



## Flogging Molly (Apr 1, 2007)

I think it should, but on the football front there were plenty of teams before Sheffield FC, you were just the first non-university one. 

Not to mention you were'nt even founder members of the football league.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Sheffield FC was the first club, and is recognised by FA and FIFA as the first club.

Im sure they or Hallam FC were founders too.


----------



## Flogging Molly (Apr 1, 2007)

Like I said, first club outside Universities. However, to call it the home of football is laughable considering there were many teams before it and that it had no part in the first football league.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

It did though.

The actual club was a founding member of the Sheffield FA, who played by the rules the league used.

You can see all the facts on Wikipedia.


----------



## Flogging Molly (Apr 1, 2007)

Ahh yes. Wikipedia. Whatever you do dont use it for essays.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Wikipedia is reliable on the topic of Sheffield FC and the Sheffield FA.


----------



## veronika (Sep 29, 2006)

It is inconceivable that England will host a world cup and not include yorkshire. If the current fortunes of Leeds and the scum (swfc) continue then it will be Bramall lane for sure as they have modernised on a regular basis now for 10 years and have plans to double teir the kop fill in remaining corner and expand hallam fm stand if neccessary for a world cup which would bring capacity in at 45,000. Leeds and weds would not entertain new stadia at the moment as they are struggling big time. The blades on the otherhand have been yorkshires top club for last 6 years either top 6 championship or lower parts of prem. They also get the 11th highest crowd in all english football last two seasons according to stats around 28,000 av in a 32k stadium which is good considering away support in championship is crap and it leaves often up to 3000 seats empty.
Leeds only have one good stand and whilst hilsboro is big it is truly one of the most dated stadiums left for a club of that size and truth be told all 4 stands need major upgrades if not replacement. If in 5 years leeds and weds have got back to where they were 10 years ago i.e top ten premier sides then anything is possible and yorkshire will be a difficult decision as it may well have 3 very decent 45,000 seater stads so who do you go for?


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

The south does not need replacing at Hillsborough. 

Hillsborough is more, as i'd call it - English.

It's not a bowl stadium, it is modern in lots of parts thanks to the refurbishment from floods. Although it has a long way to be 100% modern, unlike Brammal lane it has character. Does the FA want unique stadiums or do they want all these bowls?


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Both the North and South Stands at Hillsborough are in pretty decent shape. A realistic development of the stadium could well see the East and West Stands rebuilt like the North Stand and having the North corners filled in. Perhaps another 1,000 or so seats could be squeezed out of the South corners but fully enclosing them isn't immediately realisible because of the 'goal post' roof supports of the South Stand. Realistically, capacity wouldn't increase drastically. Perhaps a final capacity of 42,000 - 45,000 would be most realistic?

*Hillsborough South Stand:*










*Hillsborough North Stand:*










I think one of the major issues about Bramall Lane is that the Bramall Lane and John Street Stands are totally limited by roads, in terms of being redeveloped. There is space to develop the Kop and South Stands but I'd say Hillsborough could well represent a more feasible development as there is basically the needed space for my above redevelopment.


----------



## N1V1 (Apr 20, 2008)

And what about those other candidates? The Benelux (only the Netherlands and Belgium) for example.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

I believe the Benelux bid is being discussed here and a general thread on this matter can be found here


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Current Hillsborough, as you can see you can't really extend the South because of the river. However you can extend far back to one side of the Kop, the north can be extended and the Leppings Lane end can be to some extent.


----------



## BS3_RED (Jan 8, 2008)

Steel City Suburb said:


> Based upon that Map I would only see it reasonable to let the whole country reap benefits from the world cup, unlike london with the Olyimpics [pardon my spelling].
> 
> So I'd go for:
> London: The 2 newer stadiums at the time - Max for one city is 2 stadiums under rules but rules can change. I hope they don't.
> ...




Hello all, i have been reading this forum for a while and have now felt the need to post.


Putting a stadium in the Bath area would be a bigger waste of money than the O2 arena was before being converted.

Bristol City have already announced plans for a 30,000 seater stadium that will be expandale to 40,000 should England win the rights to host the World cup.

The first renders of this stadium will be available to see within the next couple of months.

Having a stadium on Bath would be a waste of time and money as after the World cup it would not be used ( unless Bristol Rovers wanted to move in).


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

BS3_RED said:


> Hello all, i have been reading this forum for a while and have now felt the need to post.
> 
> 
> Putting a stadium in the Bath area would be a bigger waste of money than the O2 arena was before being converted.
> ...


I quite agree with you, a World Cup stadium in Bath would be a waste of money. Maybe for a future Rugby Union World Cup as its a Rugby city, but not for football. However there should be a stadium in Bristol as it is a large English city and the South West should be represented. 

To Neil F, I enjoyed reading your earlier posts in this thread. It would be great if we could use the largest stadiums in the UK for a 2018 bid, and it would certainly on paper put us ahead of any other European bids. With regards to Old Traffords potential capacity being larger then Wembley, if this were the case I think Old Trafford should be used as the opening match stadium. I can't see the FA holding the World Cup final anywhere else besides Wembley.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

Flogging Molly said:


> Its such a shame that Wolverhampton is a shit hole and that its so close to Brum. New Molineux would be a fine stadium to host and famous.


i love you ha ha

boing


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

No city/area/stadium has any divine right to host world cup matches should England's bid be successful. Whether it's the 'birthplace of football' or has some other historical significance means absolutley FA.

The venues will be chosen on capacity, quality, safety, transport links, other facilities, etc. And hopefully it will be ensured that 'football cities/towns' are chosen as the last thing we want is a primarily Rugby loving area hosting a football world cup game.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Steel City Suburb said:


> I doubt that Sheffield will be missed out, purely because its the birth place of football.


There is so much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin! :lol:

Football (in the generic sense of the word) has been around for several hundred years as a pastime played on holy days, and for a couple of hundred years in public schools, from where it expanded to universities and then to clubs formed by people who wanted to keep playing as adults. Association football was born in the 1860s from combining similar versions of the game played in various public schools into an agreed set of rules.

Sheffield's claim to fame is that it has the oldest club in the world now playing association football, but it was founded many years after football (in the generic sense) had been around, and several years before association football was invented - Sheffield FC played its own version, known as Sheffield Rules, and didn't start playing soccer until 1878.

Birthplace? Think not.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

The Sheffield Rules are the Rules we use today in football. Sheffield FC started club football.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

So why did Sheffield FC have to switch to the rules the rest of the Football Association was playing under?


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Sheffield FC switched over along with Hallam FC to the Sheffield Rules, whose rules were adopted by the FA.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Er, no.

The Sheffield Rules were invented by Sheffield FC in 1857. At the time every school and club came up with its own rules, but Sheffield were successful in getting other clubs in the North to adopt theirs. Cambridge University had tried unifying the different codes in 1848 without much success, but when the Football Association was founded in 1863, a firm set of rules *was* established. After remaining independent for several years, Sheffield, Hallam and other clubs switched *from* Sheffield Rules *to* the FA's rules.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Very beautifull and classic stadium there in Sheffield. This one is from United no?
These kind of stadiums represent English football for me, I say with almost nostalgic tears in my eyes...


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

skaP187 - the pictures I posted are of Sheffield Wednesday's stadium, Hillsborough.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I was allready afraid and took the risc... thanks for correcting me.
Wasn´t it this stadium that has/had one stand which was strange with one stand going diagonal upwords, behind a goal or something?


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

This is the kop of Hillsborough.










Is that the stand you are on about?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

No I am sorry, it was going something (...) like this.










Ska P 187 Paint productions Copyright reserved.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

No Sheffield stands like that. 

You must be thinking of the wrong city!


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

A pitty. Like it better the way it is, so I won´t wurry about it any more.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

maybe you're on about Southamptons old ground?


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Could be, did it have something like that? Sorry but sometimes I mix those two cities.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

I think it must be The Dell, Southampton F.C.'s old stadium, you're thinking of.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

I was looking on the internet and I am sure it is/was. So that´s there old stadium then a shame. Another classic gone, I hope Sheffield Utd stays where it is and does not do anything to radicale to it´s stadium. 
Sorry for taking the thread a little bit of topic.


----------



## petersc75 (Oct 30, 2007)

I think the British papers and radio's constant stream of negative opinion about our bid could ruin our chances. I get the feeling it will be like some awful self fulfilling prophecy and the more they talk about the negatives the less our chances are. 

I hope I'm wrong but the UK's natural negativity may be our downfall.


----------



## Sparks (Jan 14, 2004)

Had a specific thread made up here

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=504007

I cant believe anybody would pick Sunderland over Newcastle, there are secondary factors to consider as well.


----------



## HOI (Aug 13, 2005)

veronika said:


> It is inconceivable that England will host a world cup and not include yorkshire. If the current fortunes of Leeds and the scum (swfc) continue then it will be Bramall lane for sure as they have modernised on a regular basis now for 10 years and have plans to double teir the kop fill in remaining corner and expand hallam fm stand if neccessary for a world cup which would bring capacity in at 45,000. Leeds and weds would not entertain new stadia at the moment as they are struggling big time. The blades on the otherhand have been yorkshires top club for last 6 years either top 6 championship or lower parts of prem. They also get the 11th highest crowd in all english football last two seasons according to stats around 28,000 av in a 32k stadium which is good considering away support in championship is crap and it leaves often up to 3000 seats empty.
> Leeds only have one good stand and whilst hilsboro is big it is truly one of the most dated stadiums left for a club of that size and truth be told all 4 stands need major upgrades if not replacement. If in 5 years leeds and weds have got back to where they were 10 years ago i.e top ten premier sides then anything is possible and yorkshire will be a difficult decision as it may well have 3 very decent 45,000 seater stads so who do you go for?


Seriously, if any stadium would be picked in Yorkshire it would be Elland Road. Maybe it's dated, but so are both the Sheffield clubs stadiums. We might be in league 1 at the moment, but we aren't in any trouble, now the debts are gone, Leeds is only making profits as of now and will probably be more of a likely candidate for stadium expansion than say Sheffield United. Leeds having the highest average attendance than any other club in England outside the Premiership and being in 'Division 3'. Being a one city football team and sold out 40k every home game in the prem, I think Leeds would be the only team in Yorkshire to fill out a large stadium expansion if they got back to the premiership, which hopefully should be to long.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

HOI said:


> Seriously, if any stadium would be picked in Yorkshire it would be Elland Road. Maybe it's dated, but so are both the Sheffield clubs stadiums. We might be in league 1 at the moment, but we aren't in any trouble, now the debts are gone, Leeds is only making profits as of now and will probably be more of a likely candidate for stadium expansion than say Sheffield United. Leeds having the highest average attendance than any other club in England outside the Premiership and being in 'Division 3'. Being a one city football team and sold out 40k every home game in the prem, I think Leeds would be the only team in Yorkshire to fill out a large stadium expansion if they got back to the premiership, which hopefully should be to long.


Yes Leeds might be the bigger club with bigger support but at the moment Elland Road is in a very poor state whilst Bramall Lane is in good shape. Also Bramall Lane has development plans for the future whilst as far as I know there aren't any plans regarding a new stadium or expansion plans for Elland Road so for the moment Bramall Lane is a more attractive proposition than Elland Road. But I reckon there would be good reason for a 50k stadium for Leeds if they get back in the Premiership and are clearly back on their feet financially but until that happens and they get this stadium Sheffield would be a more appropriate host.


----------



## HOI (Aug 13, 2005)

Theres actually quite alot of plans for Elland Road and it's surroundings. Also talk of rebuilding the West stand soon if I remember correctly. Elland Road isn't even in that bad of a state anyway, the north stand isn't too bad. The west stand really does need a make over though, or rebuilt altogether. The south stand also is pretty crap aswell but not much can be done to it as in expanding it as it backs onto a main road, but atleast it got abit of renovation the other season to make it look ok'ish from the outside.

But I think making Bramall Lane a 50000 seater stadium would be a waste of money in the long run, apart from maybe the Sheffield Derby I don't see Sheffield United ever filling that stadium.

After all the crap what's been mentioned for Elland Road I think Ken is expecting Elland Road to be used if the World Cup bid is given to England.

But seriously Elland Road is no way as bad as people make it out to be, abit of a renovation work and all is good, as the facilities aren't too bad, the turnstile system is good, just stick the ticket in the machine and you're through.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Shared Sheffield Stadium?

I'm surprised no-one's brought it up before. Surely if United and Wednesday could be pragmatic, a new 50 or 60,000 seater would guarantee group games and a second round match. Probably even a QF.

Given a decent team I know the supporters would turn out enough to fill it at last to 40,000 regularly and probably more like 50,000. Lots of supporters in Sheffield just desperate for a great team again.


----------



## Big Texan (Jun 4, 2008)

so besides Wembley and Emirates Stadium, can we get some pics of the other venues that might host the games?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Big Texan said:


> so besides Wembley and Emirates Stadium, can we get some pics of the other venues that might host the games?


St James Park - 52,000 (60,000 planned at an outrageous $600M)




























Expansion of the Gallowgate End is planned to get to 60,000. The buildings behind the small side are grade II listed and as such will not be demolished or built over. 60,000 is the absolute limit of what Newcastle can achieve.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Portsmouths new stadium is being planned to be a host venue, it will have a capacity of 36,000 at first but could be expanded to 45,000 if needed.


















Here is a link on the stadium: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/7460940.stm


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

^^^^^^
They keep talking about Pompey being used as a World Cup venue, yet despite the minimum 40k capacity requirement, the club has now announced two different plans for 36k capacity stadiums... Surely not trying to get government/FA funding for the additional seating are they?



Big Texan said:


> so besides Wembley and Emirates Stadium, can we get some pics of the other venues that might host the games?


Sunderland Stadium of Light - probably won't be used...


















Current capacity 48200, two 'smaller' sides can both be expanded at relatively low cost as foundations are already in place, and planning permission is already in place (that said, club rarely fills 48200, so extra space would be wasted unless they progress on the field).


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

Big Texan said:


> so besides Wembley and Emirates Stadium, can we get some pics of the other venues that might host the games?


Here goes this is my list of stadiums that I believe should be strong candidates. Please note I am only taking into account stadiums that are already built or are planned to be built and is going to be built at the necessary capacity. I’m going to start with stadiums that I believe will be host stadiums.

Villa Park
Aston Villa, Birmingham
Current capacity: 42,640
Potential Expansion: 51,000



























Only picture I could find of possible expansion









Old Trafford
Manchester United, Manchester
Current Capacity: 76,212
Potential Expansion: 96,000 (no plans and in all honest unlikely to happen)


































New Anfield 
Liverpool
Proposed capacity: 61-73,000

















Wembley
London
Capacity: 90,000









Emirates Stadium
Arsenal, London
Capacity: 60,355

















St James' Park
Newcastle United, Newcastle, North East
Capacity: 52,387
Potential Expansion: 60,000


























Candidates

Bramall Lane
Sheffield United, Sheffield, Yorkshire
Capacity: 32,609
Potential Expansion: 40,000

























Expansion:









Elland Road
Leeds United, Leeds, Yorkshire
Capacity: 40,242
Potential expansion: 50,000 (no definite plans) major refurbishment required

















St Mary's Stadium
Southampton, South Coast
Capacity: 32,689
Potential capacity: 50,000 (no definite plans)









Pride Park Stadium
Derby County, Derby, East Midlands
Capacity: 33,597
Potential capacity: 44,000 (provisional plans announced last summer)









Molineux
Wolverhampton Wanderers, Midlands
Capacity: 28,525
Potential capacity: 45,000 (provisional plans announced)









City Ground/New Stadium
Nottingham Forest, Nottingham, East Midlands
Capacity: 30,602/50,000 (provisional plans announced)
Potential capacity: 46,000









Carrow Road
Norwich City, Norfolk, Eastern Coast
Capacity: 26,034
Potential Capacity: 35,000

















Stadium Of Light
Sunderland, North East
Capacity: 49,000
Potential Capacity: 64,000 (unlikely to happen)









City Of Manchester Stadium
Manchester City
Capacity: 47,726









Kirby Stadium
Everton, Liverpool ?
Capacity: 50,401

















New Pompey Stadium
Portsmouth, South Coast
Capacity:36-45,000


















cant think of any more candidates


----------



## Big Texan (Jun 4, 2008)

Wembley would be the finals for sure right?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Yeah, Wembley would be definite for the opening game, one semi and the final. There's likely be a group based in London using Wembley/Emerites so one 2nd round and qtr final in addition. I'd guess Old Trafford for the other semi.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ I doubt Wembley would be used for both the opening match _and_ the Final. Old Trafford would be the most likely venue for the opening game. 

On a seperate note lets not forget if Capacity is what matters we could always use the 82,000 seater Twickenham Stadium in London


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Twickenham is out of the question. The RFU own it.

The FA will try to maximise Wembley as they own it.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

yeah i know it won't be used. i just meant if it was purely down to increasing capacity thats all.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

to be honest although yes twickenham would be good for its capacity it is associated with a sport that firstly has nothing to do with football and secondly when it comes to english rugby i hate it and the people who support it the two social circles are completely different and both wouldn't want to see a football WC played there. If Twickenham is going to be used then they might as well include the millenium stadium.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

It's a shame about Twickers but that's just how it is.

The rule about only one city having 2 stadiums is pretty tough on England.

Twickenham is out, Chelsea/Spurs/West Ham/Olympic could all be worthy WC hosts in 2018 but will likely not get the chance. Same goes for City of Manchester and Everton. One of Villa/New Brum will have to miss out too.

Perhaps we can convince FIFA that Old Trafford is in the City of Salford (which it is) but I think the big red letters 'M A N C H E S T E R' would kill that idea off.

I still think we have the best bid though. Lets not forget that almost all of our stadiums already exist and were purpose built for football. There's a bit of work to do of course but I genuinely feel we're in pole position. I'd love to see Scotland/Wales get 2016 as a side note too.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Iain1974 said:


> Yeah, Wembley would be definite for the opening game, one semi and the final. There's likely be a group based in London using Wembley/Emerites so one 2nd round and qtr final in addition. I'd guess Old Trafford for the other semi.


I doubt they would do 'groups based in' for an England world cup, I'd suspect it would be a lot more akin to the German model of spreading fixtures around. Thus one team would play it's group games in Newcastle, Birmingham and London, another would play in Manchester, Leeds/Sheffied and Portsmouth/Southampton/Bristol, etc.

I'd agree that it will be Wembley for the start and finish, with a semi at Old Trafford. As Wembley isn't THAT huge, I wouldn't be surprised if they were to switch the other semi to Stanley Park, to balance out the big games (semis in the north, final in the south).


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Iain1974 said:


> St James Park - 52,000 (60,000 planned at an outrageous $600M)


So, about £3 at current exchange rates! :cheers:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I outlined my opposition to the idea that Twickenham cannot or even should not be used earlier in this thread:

The first major issue is that the Emirates Stadium has very little surrounding land for the required media circus. A few years ago, I remember reading an article in the Telegraph, perhaps based on something Sepp Blatter said, although I cannot be sure that it was Blatter, that the lack of space around England stadia could adversely affect an England bid. Of all the stadia that we could all guarantee would be used, Emirates is the only one that is problematic - the nearest potential area for the media tents etc. is nearly half a mile away.

I would never suggest that one stadium, especially one of the quality of the Emirates, could jeopardise England's bid but it could prove problematic, especially with an alternative option like Twickenham little over ten miles away and in the same city. 

The second thing is that Twickenham, rather than the Emirates, would enhance the bid. From reading through this thread, I'm disappointed to see some of the views directed about this stadium - the RFU will care only about their cut from a World Cup game that will, no doubt, pack the place to capacity, which is something that even Guinness Premiership finals didn't do until this season - the RFU are a moneymaking organisation and some of the aspersions cast on it simply do not correspond with the reality of a modern business.

Twickenham enhances England's bid and that shouldn't be underestimated by anyone, especially English people. I do not mean this in an insulting way but as someone with a non-English view but whom would love to see the tournament in England (as Scotland, Ireland, Wales or Northern Ireland have no chance of ever hosting it), I can see the serious competition that an English bid faces and the competition is stiff. A lot of English friend of mine seem under the assumption that the 2018 WC is a certainty for England and I'm seeing the same thing in this thread - it is far from certain and the FA and British Government would do well not to take such a similarly assured stance. Anything that enhances an English bid is a good thing, regardless of pretensions or opposition to sports primarily played at a stadium.

Twickenham offers 22,000 extra seats in the capital city, plenty of space for the media and corporate tents, not to mention an attached 156 room hotel, six large corporate function rooms overlooking the pitch. This is a stadium that further enhances England's bid and I have no doubt the RFU would gladly welcome anything bringing in the kind of money a world cup game would. It makes sense from the view of the bid, even if certain football fans would be opposed to it.

Iain1974, I'm not sure I agree with you about the opening game - a fully developed Old Trafford with a capacity of about 96k would get the opening game. Personally speaking, I'd also say it should get the final because 6,000 extra fans at the final is always a good thing but it would be a major embarrassment for the FA not to have the final at Wembley. As such, the compromise would be that OT gets the first game and Wembley the final.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Well of course we don't know the details of the FA's bid but I'd be surprised if Wembley didn't feature at both ends of the tournament. The FA have got bills to pay the same as anybody else.

Twickenham? Iffy. I don't know the RFU's opinion but I would guess they're not in favor. I understand that they're only allowed a set number of events and I'm not sure they'd be willing to give any up for 'kev-ball'. That said, they aren't stupid, financially, so who knows?

Old Trafford - I'd assume 76,000 for the time being until the next expansion is announced. If OT were at 96,000 then clearly it would be an attractive option for the opening game.

Does anyone know when host candidate countries will submit their detailed plans for hosting?


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

As a matter of opinion, I don't think it will be too long before some further expansion at Old Trafford is announced, although exactly what it will be I have no idea - Alex Ferguson has suggested filling in the South quadrants but I don't see that as the most feasible. Personally speaking, I'd say somewhere between about 4,000 and 5,000 more seats, in the mould of the North quadrants would be the maximum without bridging the railway line and that doesn't seem a worthwhile investment in the long term. Ultimately, it makes little financial sense for Manchester United not to explore this avenue as attendances over the past season or two indicate that demand for further expansion is there.

And you're right - there is some kind of restriction on what can take place at Twickenham. Whether this is a set restriction on the number of events or a specific application for each event I don't know. At the same time, Twickenham has a restricted capacity of about 55,000 for concerts, compared to 82,000 for sports. The ticket prices between events wouldn't be drastically different, so it seems likely the RFU would make more from a sold out sporting event than a concert or some other kind of event - as such, one less concert and one more sporting event in a year would be deemed suitable for the stadium.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

I too wouldn't be surprised to hear about another expansion at OT before too long. They've sold out every seat for 17 seasons with say 25 home games a year so 425 games in a row (with a few exceptions like league cup games). The southern quadrants would add 8,000 to 84,000 and I suppose another 10-12,000 from the southern stand if the railway could be built over.

I remember a few years ago, Ruud van Nistlerooy said, in an interview, that he'd seen plans for Old Trafford to go beyond 100,000. I'd love to know more about those plans.

It's possible that Man Utd could be getting a lump sum in the region of 70M shortly and I'd consider it a very wise investment to look into adding a few thousand seats.

Twickenham? I honestly don't know about Twickers. I'm sure the RFU could lose the Varsity game (Oxford v Cambridge) and a few others freeing up some space and charge world cup fans 50 quid a ticket.

I'd like an English World Cup to average 60,000+. The record of USA 94 is likely unreachable, especially given the way they count 'attendance', but there's no reason why we can't beak 60K.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

I'm almost certain that someone involved with Man Utd said quite recently that reaching a 100,000 capacity at Old Trafford was architecturally impossible. I can't find the article but will post it if I find it. I'd say it's possible, but would require a large third tier on the south stand, holding somewhere in the region of 9,000 people, which is larger than the second tier of the North Stand. A remodel of the north side, with the larger second on third tier to this magnitude would give a capacity of around 30,000 on the south side of the stadium. Possible but not altogether feasible.

There are two main issues with expanding the south quadrants - the first is that it would require the current roof of the south stand to be raised to the height of the new quadrants, extended back and, likely, some kind of wall built above the current south stand. The second is that full quadrants would require a small amount of bridging of the railway - as this is what we assume is preventing more immediate expansion of the south stand, it wouldn't make financial sense to carry out such works without going the whole way. 

Given that the club offices are behind the south stand, it may be possible to remodel it with a second tier holding about 6,000 fans - while perhaps more instantly realisible, this again makes little sense financially as it would either prevent full expansion or only be a temporary measure.

I don't think the Varsity Match would, or even could go, although financially it generates little to no money for the RFU, it's just one of those 'things' - an embarassment of tradition to some and a fine institution showing the history of the country to others. As the Varsity Match tends to be held in December, the impact of removing the fixture may be fairly negligible. I'd say summer concerts would be the most likely sacrifice - three world cup games; say, two group games and a quarter final in place of the concerts should easily get the green light. 

On an average capacity of 60,000; this will prove incredibly difficult for England on its own - given a 96k Old Trafford, 71k New Anfield and 60k St James' Park, the maximum average capacity would be 59,900. Close enough and comparatively favourable to both Germany and France but also, perhaps, a little hopeful - when you lop off 20k from Old Trafford, 11k from New Anfield and 8k from St James' Park, the 60,000 figure is a fair distance away.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Yeah, I doubt very much that 100,000 is feasible. I think its perfectly realistic to see 83-85K in the next 5 yrs. SAF himself said he's been pushing for expansion for years.

Given that the larger stadia are likely to receive a disproportionate number of games an we can realistically expect to see close to 60K. If Sunderland have a team worth expanding for we may see the Stadium of Light at 64,000. Villa should be 53K before too long. I certainly think it's possible but yes, there is some construction work to do. MAybe Newcastle will decide that 300M for an extra 8,000 seats (albeit with hotels) would be better spent on a new facility where they're not hemmed in. Sir John had talked of a new 75,000 in Keegan's glory days a while back.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

I would never want to see Old Trafford over take Wembley how about a slightly different stand design from the 3 other sides and the 2 quadrants that will take capacity to 85,000. And why doesn't Wembley stick 1 extra row of seating around the stadium I’m sure there would be space somewhere and I'm guessing it would increase capacity between 1-3,000 which even though it would be marginal and probably relatively expensive I believe it would be well worth it as long as the roof doesn't have to be moved that is. I also think villa park should be a WC host stadium with that expansion taking it to 51,000 I reckon it would look great. And I think it wouldn't be the end of the world if Newcastle doesn't expand the Gallowgate End to be the same as the two big stands as currently it gives SJP a real unique feel. I reckon they should expand the Gallowgate by adding 5/6 rows to the back keep the general feel as it is and would increase capacity by something like 1500 and would surely not be to expensive and would keep the unique feel to the stadium. Also I would love to see Norwich being a host they could bring permanent capacity to 32,000 and stick 7-8000 temporary seats like they did in Austria + Switzerland i reckon Norwich would be great because it's a really underrated city and region and it would give the WC a real spread around England and I think the legacy a WC would have in Norwich would be greater possibly then in any other region.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Old Trafford will be the venue for the Opening game and Wembley for the final, thats a certainty for any English bid that will be put forward. I doubt Old Trafford capacity would even get to 96,000 architecturally it would be a nightmare. 

Twickers would be an excellent venue for the World Cup but i doubt the FA will ask the RFU unless they have no other choice.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

im sure wembley has in place the possibility of going up to 100k however the council didnt allow it due to a lack of surrounding infrastructrue, for example in athletic track mode some 3-5k seats are added on the disabled platform, combined with digging down a little further this could surely bring it up to 100k


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

I seem to remember that the original plans for Wembley said it could be reconfigured for 100,000.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

It would be interesting to see how the FA and RFU would come to talks. Could it be anything like the Irish FA and the GAA over Croke Park?
I remember writing to the FA wondering about there stadium options when Wembley was being rebuilt. They responded in saying that they'd have ideally like to have used Twickenham over Millenium Stadium for the FA Cup but the RFU wouldn't play ball.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

- A 60k average would be possible if England desires, and FIFA permits, more than one city with multiple stadiums. This would likely mean Liverpool, Manchester and possibly Birmingham featuring two WC venues. Early indications are that England and the FA might prefer to use the WC to see investment in communities and clubs that don't need large facilities but would greatly benefit from a quality 40k+ seat venue. For this reason I've set my sights on simply having great venues and hoping for a 50k average. It may not break records, but would leave the lasting benefit English fans are looking for.

- Expansion of Old Trafford is likely, but will be studiously considered and reviewed, as any further additions will be very costly, not yield great profit margins, and could prohibit future expansions if not done correctly. Previously I've suggested a wall of suites, shallow tiers along the railroad side could produce a complete shell and stadium for marginal costs. It would probably max capacity around the 84-86k range, but they may not need more than this financially speaking. If they want to go higher, it'll either be a massive one time investment over the railroad, or they'd best start planning for an eventual relocation.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

To get to a 60K average, which I believe is a reasonable target, in 2018;

The FA need to demand

1) First round venues capacity be a minimum 50,000.
2) Second round venues minimum 60,000. 
3) QTR final venues a minimum of 70,000. 
4) Semis/Final a minimum of 80,000.

Requirements

2 - 80,000+ 
2 - 70,000+
4 - 60,000+
4 - 50,000+

Total of 12 stadiums
Lets be more specific;

Semis/Final - Wembley (90K) and Old Trafford (85K)
QTR's - W+OT+Stanley Park(73K) + Twickers(82)? or AN Other
2nd Round - QTRS+St James/Emerites/St. Light/New Brum?
1st Round - 2nd Rnd + 4 from Derby/Nottingham/Southampton/Madjeski/Pompey/one from Yorkshire

Now, remember that I'm not being paid millions to think this up, but is this so unreasonable?

Apart from the new builds, all the stadiums I've mentioned are within reasonable grasp of the capacities I've suggested.

Not sure what the spread of games would be but surely this outline will take us past 60K.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Walbanger said:


> It would be interesting to see how the FA and RFU would come to talks. Could it be anything like the Irish FA and the GAA over Croke Park?


I'd seriously doubt it - there is nothing in the RFU's constitution about soccer being played at Twickenham. There is an article in the GAA's constitution about 'foreign sports' being played in any GAA stadium, Croke Park included - Rule 42. Ultimately, the discussions between the IRFU, FAI and GAA led to a full vote of all 336 delegates of the GAA and required a 2/3 majority to pass. It's doubtful that any negotiations between the RFU and FA would follow the complexities of the Croke Park situation as, really, it's just business, as opposed to the business and politics involved with the use of Croke Park.

Incidentally, the discussions were between the Football Association of Ireland, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the GAA - the Irish FA is the football association of Northern Ireland, rather than either the whole island or the Republic of Ireland.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Iain1974 said:


> To get to a 60K average, which I believe is a reasonable target, in 2018;
> 
> The FA need to demand
> 
> ...


Can't have Wembley, Twickers and Emirates in the same bid.
Derby, Pompey, Southampton and Reading can't go up to 50k with current designs.

I'm really split, I'd like to see the World Cup played at venues that would exist anyway without the World Cup - but at the same time, I'd love to see a few new stadiums built to service the communities and clubs in areas like East Anglia (new stadium for Norwich) and the South West (new stadium in Bristol), and I'd love to see the City of Birmingham Stadium getting built.


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

would the government be able to fund any proposals without opposition from oppsing clubs?


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

- Considering the time frames and the fact that standing-only sections are not allowed in World Cup stadiums, it stands to reason that no club would make any such changes until after the games. If England misses out on both the '18 and '22 games, then they might pursue standing-only sections right away, otherwise there won't be any such decisions until 2012.

- Further, such sections need not see major renovations. At the least, it's not as if they'd rebuild the terrace itself, but merely install guard rails and, if they don't have them already, folding seats. After all the folks may wish to sit during intermission. The biggest factor is allowing (or better yet encouraging) standing, flag waving, etc, in one end at a density greater than modern luxury seating areas. Otherwise its quite feasible for a club to simply throw up rails and call one section a supporters stand! (All right not that simple, but you get the point!:cheers

- In lieu of the above, it's not as if such sections will be mandated or require government support. Let each club decide and do what they want. Too expensive? Don't do it. Strong demand from supporters? Do it.


Back to England's bid...

I'm surprised the gov't report (thanks for the link, btw) didn't have a more detailed time line for when the England bid would have to complete certain assessments. Specifically, when would they need to decide on host cities and facilities. 2011 will be here sooner than we know it, and at the rate these things happen (I'm looking at you, Liverpool and Pompey!) the organizers will need to know within 18-24 months which stadiums they're best off recommending. Portsmouth or Southampton? Norwich or Ipswich? Hopefully they're identifying their internal criteria for assessment so that the potential candidates can begin their own posturing.

he earlier comment implying the potential for using Wembley, Emirates AND Twickenham is an interesting concept I'd not explored. If allowable that would be ideal, and such a loophole might also permit the likes of Eastlands and the new Everton digs to join the pot. Hmmm.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

MoreOrLess said:


> Tied into that I think the bid should be focusing less on average capacity and more on correct capacity for each game. To expect minor group games to sellout 70,000+ like they did in 94 maybe a mistake(unless prices drop) as were dealing with a smaller host population and more matchs much closer together.


I feel safe in saying that any country that qualifies will bring volumes of fans to a WC in England. More importantly, very few matches will feature two smaller nations playing against one another. I think this year's Euros suggested the European countries will certainly fill their allotment and then some. Throw in sell-outs from supporters from Argentina, Brazil, US, Mexico... I think you'll be fine. To say nothing of local interest.

Come to think of it, whats the last World Cup match that didn't sell out?



flierfy said:


> Forget about setting a new attendance record. Leave that to the yanks. They don't understand what football is actually about.


You wound me sir. The masses may still need educating, but there's plenty of us that get it quite well, thank you.


----------



## westisbest (Apr 25, 2005)

MoreOrLess said:


> Is that taking into account that the larger stadiums will host more games? Wembley, Old Trafford and New Anfield would almost certainly have 6 games, possible even seven while smaller stadiums would have only 4/5.
> 
> Tied into that I think the bid should be focusing less on average capacity and more on correct capacity for each game. To expect minor group games to sellout 70,000+ like they did in 94 maybe a mistake(unless prices drop) as were dealing with a smaller host population and more matchs much closer together.
> 
> Personally I think the German's made a mistake in there even allocation of matchs with teams moving around and every stadium getting 2 seeds in the groups. Yes it was "fair" but it resulted in the capacity often not reflecting the demand for tickets and generally left the event feeling a little souless for me. A better route to take would IMHO to have the seeds play all ther games in big stadiums(that everyone in the country can reach pretty easily) and give the smaller nations a "home" venue where they play 2 out of there 3 matchs. A team like Togo just flitting around really isnt going to draw much interest where as if you say based there training and matchs in Leeds I think you'd see the locals get behind them far more.


I think Anfield at 73,000 would hold a Q/F along with Old Trafford, Wemb and maybe im sure in 10 years there will be another 70,000

Wembley and ? for the S/F as i don't see Old Trafford going upto 80,000. However maybe 78,000 would be enough

and obviously Wembley final

I think England is more than capable of a good World cup bid


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

flierfy said:


> You sell out Wembley even if Burkina Faso plays North Korea. You don't have to worry about selling tickets. Capacity will in no way reflect the demand for tickets.


I disagree, those kinds of games would probabley sellout in 40-50K stadiums but if there in 70-100K stadiums I think you'd see supply outstrip demand on a few occasions.



> Back to the 2006 World Cup. Fixtures have been arranged to allow Germany to play in the three biggest venues only. Brazil had to play in a smaller venue just once. Any more preference for bigger nations (whoever they may be) wouldn't have made sense. The World Cup finals are hosted by the whole nation and not just by two or four cities.
> 
> Forget about setting a new attendance record. Leave that to the yanks. They don't understand what football is actually about. It is much more important to make that summer memorable. And public screens all around the country distributes a lot more to the atmosphere than a few more seats in the ground.


Under the German system you had all the seeds games at the big stadiums(Munich, Berlin, Dortmund) taken up by the hosts and the brazilians, that ment that the other seeds actually ended up with fewer tickets than the smaller nations. Why wouldnt giving countries like England and the Neatherlands more tickets have made sense? To me that just seemed like political correctness gone too far.

I agree getting the public involved would be the key to sucess and thats why I'd like to see nations who'd lack much travling support given a home base. If done well that could give those sides some passionate local support they'd otherwise lack.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

flierfy said:


> Forget about setting a new attendance record


I'm not wanting to set a record. I want to see an English World Cup with the most seats possible for spectators. I want. Does anyone seriously think a single ticket wouldn't see for any game in an English world cup? You'll likely have one of the super-heavyweights in every group whose own supporters would show up to watch Nigeria v South Korea.

It's unthinkable that the majority of games wouldn't sell out almost as soon as tickets were available.

I can see OT with an expansion to 83-85K but am far less certain about 96k.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

westisbest said:


> I think Anfield at 73,000 would hold a Q/F along with Old Trafford, Wemb and maybe im sure in 10 years there will be another 70,000


Color me suspicious of Stanley Park/New Anfield reaching 73 in time for the World Cup. While the club could certainly fill the venue, this expansion would assume that a) the government would come up with the resources and manpower to enable the transportation and other improvements necessary for the facility to expand from the permitted 60k, and b) that the currently cash-poor Hicks and Gillette would have the means to fund the exapnsion while still early in the financing of the original construction. I'm not saying it's impossible, but as of today I'd call it improbable for 2018. 

I also am unsure where another 70k venue will come from unless Arsenal take the plunge. Newcastle has the support but not the money, unless the govt. spots them the land and improvements for something new. Certainly Birmingham and Villa won't need such a venue, particularly as Villa seem set on renovating Villa Park, no matter how hemmed in it is. 

Most likely you're top five venues will cap out as;

Wembley - 90k
Old Trafford - 83k (I'll bite on this one)
St. James - 61k
Emirates - 60k
Stanley Park - 60k

Trick now will be finding more 50k+ venues to bolster the ranks. Villa Park should be one, but hopefully two from the likes of Nottingham, Leeds and Sunderland will fit the bill. If anything that's why the bottom half of the field is, IMO, more critical to the impression of the bid. This is where England and the FA will make-or-break the concept that there's more to English football than London, ManU and Liverpool, and simply tweaking Derby's ground won't do the trick.



MoreOrLess said:


> I agree getting the public involved would be the key to sucess and thats why I'd like to see nations who'd lack much travling support given a home base. If done well that could give those sides some passionate local support they'd otherwise lack.


Don't they already do that? Last I checked, teams had a set training ground for the group and R16 stages, and were guaranteed 2 games in one stadium.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> Most likely you're top five venues will cap out as;
> 
> Wembley - 90k
> Old Trafford - 83k (I'll bite on this one)
> ...


Broadly agree. But I'm more optimistic about Liverpool.




GunnerJacket said:


> Trick now will be finding more 50k+ venues to bolster the ranks. Villa Park should be one, but hopefully two from the likes of Nottingham, Leeds and Sunderland will fit the bill. If anything that's why the bottom half of the field is, IMO, more critical to the impression of the bid. This is where England and the FA will make-or-break the concept that there's more to English football than London, ManU and Liverpool, and simply tweaking Derby's ground won't do the trick.


Agreed. The 4 or 5 showcase stadiums are/will be just fine.

The smaller venues are our weakness at the present time. 

Villa Park - 52K in a few years, no doubt about it.
Sunderland - Planning permission already for 56k and apparently can go to 64k with ease if they fill 56. Currently a bit debatable.
Nottingham - I don't know how realistic their plans of 50k are. 
Leeds - Shouldn't be too much of an ask to add 10,000 seats. Their support is OK in quantity, if not quality.
Sheffield - Iffy.
Derby - Iffy


----------



## Comfortably Numb (Dec 19, 2007)

I think that England would be a GREAT choice to host the 2018 World Cup. I don't just say this because I'm slightly biased (being an Englishman myself), but it just makes sense.

I was living in England during Euro '96 and they put on a great show then. That was 12 years ago, when England's stadiums were inferior to the way they are now.

You have so many stadiums to choose from in England and truly, football really does need to come home!

England for WC 2018....you know it's the right choice!


----------



## Mr. Met (Jan 9, 2008)

America should win, Rose Bowl Stadium in LA (90,000), the New Meadowlands Stadium in NJ (84,000), New Cowboys Stadium in Arlington (80,000-100,00/don't know if you can play a regulation FIFA match on that field), University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale (63,000-73,000) and many more fields all over the country (Seattle, Miami, Tampa Bay, Foxborough, etc.)


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Efflorescence said:


> Well I stood at the world cup. May not have been allowed to but I could'nt see them telling thousands of us to perch our bums.
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> It's still time to support the safe seating campaign and regain our atmospheres.


Whether you stood or not doesn't affect the FACT that all of the stadia were all seater. If standing had been formally allowed for WC2006 the attendances would have been much higher as most of the grounds used in the finals had converted their safe standing areas to seating for the duration of the finals.

In essence, I agree that having safe standing back at football would be a good thing, but in reality it makes no difference at all to this thread.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Iain1974 said:


> Broadly agree. But I'm more optimistic about Liverpool.
> 
> Agreed. The 4 or 5 showcase stadiums are/will be just fine.
> 
> ...


re: Sunderland, averaging 44k in a relegation fight - a little bit of success and the attendances could go through the roof (literally).

re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

GunnerJacket said:


> Don't they already do that? Last I checked, teams had a set training ground for the group and R16 stages, and were guaranteed 2 games in one stadium.


Certainly wasnt the case in 2006, I don't believe any stadium was used twice by any group let alone team in the opening stage.


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.

If it is possible then surely wembley could be expanded to 100,000 - 110,000 capacity for the WC finals...?


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.


It is a serious detriment (and a minor crime, IMO) that Bates was rewarded with a return to ownership, but in theory Leeds as a club have paid the price and any loans going forward will at least have more progressive numbers for consideration. Should the club indeed return to the premiership in 3-4 years and show financial prudence along the way, then at the least I expect they'll get support enough for a renovation and minor expansion, especially if the opportunity to host WC games is secured to help offset such costs. I've no love for Mr. Bates, but their support is admirable.



MoreOrLess said:


> Certainly wasnt the case in 2006, I don't believe any stadium was used twice by any group let alone team in the opening stage.


Checking my notes I found that my model was used in the USA '94, which is probably why it stuck in my mind. Korea/Japan obviously couldn't do that with the vast overabundance of facilities (20! What were FIFA thinking?!!), while at least France and Germany offer more manageable distances between venues. 

In that case I'll suggest that the model offered in USA '94 should be the preferred orientation, unless surveys of fans and teams suggest otherwise.



ccfc-4-life said:


> Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.


There may be space between the roof and the top of the tier, but it does not appear as if the structure is capable of such an easy addition. At the least it would impact the airflow provided by the space between the tier and the roof, and would either require a reworking of the roof supports or intermittent sections between secondary columns. Thus, IMO, it's possible but highly unlikely unless they're going for a big addition, which is doubtful given the stadiums current debts.

As for closer to the pitch: 
a) that would infringe on FIFA's (absurd) standards for distance around a regulation pitch. Gotta leave room for advertising and, more importantly, be at least a good stone's throw away from the fans in case one decides to, well, throw stones. Classic example of overly-cautious thinking ruining the fun for all.

b) More detrimental to the idea, however, is the notion that lowering the pitch to accommodate the additional closer rows would impact the visual angle from the back of the lowest tier, possibly leaving the back rows without a view of the near side of the pitch.


----------



## HOI (Aug 13, 2005)

Benjuk said:


> re: Sunderland, averaging 44k in a relegation fight - a little bit of success and the attendances could go through the roof (literally).
> 
> re: Leeds, 10k extra seats would require at least two of the stands to be completely redeveloped. Can't see them being able to arrange credit to do that after forcing banks to write off 80 million, then declaring bankrupt on the remaining 30 million. I certainly wouldn't lend them anything.


Not many people would lend anything to Bates. But then again, he's knocking on abit, he'll probably be dead by 2018. To be honest I don't see him being at Leeds in 2 years time. If back in the Premiership Leeds could easily fill 50000, We had plans for a new stadium around that capacity, well before everything went downhill of course. But still, we had 250000 ticket applications for the Championship play off final a couple of years back, and probably a few more for the league 1 play off final.

I mean we got 38000 for the last game against Gillingham, and that's in league 1.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Why bother expanding Wembley? Seems quite big to me as it is.
:nuts:


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

carlspannard said:


> Why bother expanding Wembley? Seems quite big to me as it is.
> :nuts:


The way I see it Wembley is one of the great stadiums of the world and is meant to be the home of football so if there is a chance of making it bigger then it definitely should be done. For games such as the Cup Finals, England International games and WC games I would say they could easily get over 100000 at Wembley so why not expand if it is possible to do so even if it is marginal. As long as isn’t too expensive or involve closing the stadium down for a significant period why not. I'm not saying do it now but in 5/6 years the debt owed will have been cut down and surely there would be a bit of cash to finance a small expansion and there most certainly would be the demand for it.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

ccfc-4-life said:


> Does anybody know if wembley can be expanded in any way via adding a few rows at the back of the 3rd tier and / or at the front of the 1st tier - bringing the fans closer to the pitch? I've been to wembley twice and have observed what the situation is at the back of the 3rd tier and i think that 6-8 extra rows could be added - as for the front of the 1st stand, i dont know.
> 
> If it is possible then surely wembley could be expanded to 100,000 - 110,000 capacity for the WC finals...?


I answered this question on the previous page  "_Yes but it won't happen_"


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Lets not worry too much about Wembley. It's neither here nor there whether the FA can squeeze in another 10,000 seat.

It's far more important to the bid what the chances of expansion at Brammal Lane or elland road are.

As I said earlier, the top 4 or 5 facilities are fine as they are more or less taken care of.

It's the other 6 or 7 we need to look at.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Or Hillsborough, its the Yorkshire region what needs a lot of focus if the games will be spread out region by region.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

It seems that the majority of choices are a bit "M6 heavy" and in my opinion need's to be regionalised more. One in the South West (Brizzle City's new one?) one on the South Coast (New Pompey, or upgraded Soton...) and one in East Anglia (Probably Carrow Road than Portman Road, if only for being slightly more modern).


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Carrow Road is a good idea. Come on Norwich, lets be 'aving you!!!!


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

What do people think about the new spurs stadium? If its the same capacity as the emirates (60k), would it be London's 2nd stadium or would that go to the Emirates?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Is there an awesome stadium completed in 2008 in your country?

*Nominate it for SSC Stadium of the year 2008*


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Kobo said:


> What do people think about the new spurs stadium? If its the same capacity as the emirates (60k), would it be London's 2nd stadium or would that go to the Emirates?


Depends on transport, FIFA regulations for stadium design, how the ground works as a football stadium, and of course the surrounding area. It's far too early to tell yet. I hope the Naming Rights Stadium gets the nod over 4rsen4l's place, but I really don't know.

It's entirely possible that 4rsen4l may expand beyond 60k anyway so the question may be redundant in the future.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

I don't know about expanding but lets just say Emirates remains at the same capacity till then even though a possible bid for 2018 could be one more reason for them to expand.
As much as I am a Arsenal fan, i wouldn't care if the Spurs Stadium would host, because after all, in my conception, when national team duties come, any rivalry between clubs should be forgotten and in Romania this is a problem as long as the national team coach is a close partner to a owner of a club and former player at that club that takes mediocre players to the national teams when he has better options elsewhere.
So the same thing about Arsenals/Tottenhams stadium. In my opinion Emirates is a better option from the start, its position in the city is way better then Tottenham, I remember i only needed the first 2 zones in the Oyster Card to get to Emirates and Stamford Bridge while for the others more zones. 
So I don't think it will be a difference between the stadiums but the area seems better for Arsenal.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

I'l echo Paul's comments that the only important thing is that the second London site is a club stadium, no matter the club. Recent articles suggest they may fall short of 60k capacity and/or FIFA's ideal field dimensions and width from the pitch so as to make the stadium a tighter configuration for their own fans. Semantics, but something the FIFA folks would consider.

But it's tough to place bets right now considering the s**** stadium remains just a concept. Until that product is realized and proven otherwise I'll hold fast Arsenal will have the largest FIFA-ready facility among London's clubs.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Paul the Gunner said:


> So the same thing about Arsenals/Tottenhams stadium. In my opinion Emirates is a better option from the start, its position in the city is way better then Tottenham, I remember i only needed the first 2 zones in the Oyster Card to get to Emirates and Stamford Bridge while for the others more zones.


Millwall, QPR and Fulham are in Zone 2 as well.

I actually wouldn't care which ground is chosen as long as the govt doesn't spend public money on transport links for World Cup venues while other grounds are left behind.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

I really didn't think of Millwall, Queens Park Rangers...maybe Fulham...cause they were playing versus Arsenal that weekend, but no chance to get the tickets.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

What does everyone think would be England's worst possible bid to put forward.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Kobo said:


> What does everyone think would be England's worst possible bid to put forward.


Worst possible? Interesting concept... Are we talking about the worst bid that England would realistically put together? Or are we talking about 8-10 awful stadiums geographically spread around the countries less attractive spots?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

All games to be played at the Withdean?


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Kobo said:


> What does everyone think would be England's worst possible bid to put forward.


One with the following conditions, in which case they may seriously consider sitting this round out:

- Assume Iberian and Belgium/Netherlands bids recieve 100% commitment for funding and development from their govts.

- By 2018 Anfield (the current one) remains the best venue option in Liverpool and Villa Park cannot be upgraded. 

- Neither of the central communities of Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield can devise something better than a modified, 40-45k venue.

- Neither Sunderland nor Newcastle can upgrade their venues.

- More than 2 min. capacity venues in places like Bristol, Ipswich and Portsmouth. 

Currently England lacks the distribution of high quality, larger stadiums to compete with an Iberian bid. Too many decent stadia clustered together at the moment. This changes if Liverpool's new stadium comes through, Villa Park sees improvements and they can find another 50k+ stadium among the likes of Leeds, Nottingham, etc. So while they remain potentially an ideal host much of that right now hinges on clubs coming through with their stadium plans.

IMHO, anyway. :cheers:


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

I'd like to think that if the English committee are seriously committed to this:

(1) we'll finally see the City of Birmingham stadium going up,
(2) it'll be the nudge that puts the Stanley Park development go forward. Failing that, the Everton stadium will happen and the blue half of the city will be able to taunt the reds about having hosted TWO world cup tournaments!
(3) Bristol and Portsmouth will both be 'assisted' with the expansion of existing plans.
(4) Sheffield United will use it, in conjunction with all the cash West Ham are about to give them, as an excuse to radically expand Bramall Lane (which I'd love to be part of the bid due to it's historical status).


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

RobH said:


> All games to be played at the Withdean?



LOL :lol:


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> Worst possible? Interesting concept... Are we talking about the worst bid that England would realistically put together? Or are we talking about 8-10 awful stadiums geographically spread around the countries less attractive spots?


It can be however you interpret the question. How İ see it would be bad geographıcal spread, wıth mınımal expansions and few new stadiums from todays current football stadiums. Whıch ones would you pıck?


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

The simple fact is if England win the bid it will be down to the league status of the respective clubs at the time of development plans becoming concrete. Since the award of the finals is within 2 years the status of the contenders can only be as follows under normal circumstances and within the realms of reality.

1 CONFIRMED
Wembley- Final, SF-QF Group games
-no change here as wembley development status does not rely on a clubs position and its already a new build with 90,000 capacity and 1966 and all that this will host the final unless a ufo lands and destroys it. It gets the nod for a semi also because i think the fa will want to set up the draw so England can play all their games at wembley similar to euro 96 which did work quite well. I could be wrong and if i am then the 2 semis would be old trafford and new anfield.

2 CONFIRMED
Old Trafford- SF-QF Group games
-Man utd are still going to be one of the top three clubs in England for the next 10 years and ot will probably be expanded by about another 5000 taking it past the 80,000 mark. With its history, location etc etc this will without doubt be the number 2 venue for the tournament.

3 CONFIRMED
Arsenal-Group games
-Arsenal are unlikely to be anywhere other than where they are now in 2 years time and so with there stability excellent venue and capacity this will be Londons second venue and a group stage venue. It will miss out on qf status due to being in London.

4 CONFIRMED
Villa Park-QF-Group games
-this is where it gets interesting! For sure the midlands are going to have a venue and Englands second largest city is not going to miss out on a major slice of the world cup action which is why it gets the nod for a QF berth. There is talk of a 'Birmingham stadium' but lets face it Birmingham and Wolves are not going to be in any kind of position to develop and construct a 50,000 seat stadium within the next 6 years. Villa are improving all the time have a fan base that can fill a 50,000 seater providing they remain in the top 4

5 CONTENDER
St James Park-QF-Group games
-the issue here is not if the North east gets a venue because it will but which venue will get the nod and will it get the final QF berth? Its a difficult one because if Newcastle were a top three side and a regular champ league entrant then no one is in doubt they could consistently attract more than there current capacity say 60,000. But and its a big but the way the ground has been developed means there is no further scope for taking the capacity into the realms of 60k +. With the current plan just to survive and no major overseas investor interested in the club (it was on the market for 6 months with no interest) then a small redevlopment is the best we can hope for in the next 5 years.

6 CONTENDER
Stadium of Light-Group games
-very unlikely to have further redevlopment from is current 48,000 due to the clubs status and the fact that empty seat syndrome will be forefront in the clubs mind post world cup.

7 CONTENDER
New Anfield-QF-Group games
-a straight battle between the north east(newcastle) and Liverpool for the final QF berth. The difficulty here is predicting what will happen with the new stadium and what will be its final capacity. If everything goes well and the stadium gets underway within the next 24 months with a capcity of 60-75k then without doubt this will be the qf venue.

8 CONTENDER
New Goodison-Group games
9 CONTENDER
Bramall lane-Group games
10 CONTENDER
Elland road-Group games
11 CONTENDER
Hillsboro-Group games
12 CONTENDER
New Portsmouth- Group games
12 CONTENDER
New Notts Forest- Group games


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

What will happen if new Spurs one is +60,000


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I'd say St James', a venue you've listed as a contender, is more of a certainty than either the Emirates or Villa Park, venues you've listed as confirmed.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

Wembley should not host a SF and the Final, it's not quite fair for the others and after all this is the World Cup and not the Olympic Games. The 4 final matches should be awarded to 4 different stadiums if not cities.

I would see it more fair like this:

1.SF Old Trafford/New Anfield Road
2.SF Newcastle/Sunderland ( North )
3.3rd place match The other stadium in London or Birmingham Villa Park ( it's the 2nd city in England ) if not then a mix up between the 3 options though I bet everyone would choose a SF
4.Final clearly on Wembley.

---> You missed the Round of 16

Probably you're thinking of Wembley as the host of all England matches, lets say...fair enough! Even though again, totally not fair for others...in this case England would play all 3 group games at home and ONLY in case it wins its group it will play the R16, QF, SF on Wembley so in case someone sends them 2nd or even eliminates them from the group stage, the winner has the chance of playing all it's games on Wembley!?!? How would it be Argentina, France or Germany?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

the decision of where the venues will be is FIFAs not ours!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

the way it will likely be... 12 stadiums, 
5 group stages, last 16 
3 group stages, quarter final 
2 group stages, last 16, semi 
1 group stages, last 16, 3rd/4th playoff
1 group stages, quarter final, Final 

The way i would have it, 16 stadiums, each hosting 3, 4 or 5 games

8 group stages only 
5 group stages and last 16
3 group stages and quarter finals
2 group stages, last 16 and semis
1 group stages, last 16 and 3rd/4th playoff
1 group stages, quarter final and final

or

8 group stages and last 16
4 group stages and quarter final
2 group stages and semi
1 group stages and 3rd
1 group stages and final

16 stadiums would mean we could bring the tournament to everywhere and it would still be less than south korea/ japan. and it would be similar amounts to the euros which have 8-10 stadiums for a 16 team tournament and similar structure (usually)


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Sorry I didnt know where to ask this question (couldnt find a wembley thread).
How many times a year is Wembley used for events? What kind?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

The World Cup finals won't be spread over 16 grounds. That's for sure. 10 or 12 grounds, not more.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

woozoo said:


> Sorry I didnt know where to ask this question (couldnt find a wembley thread).
> How many times a year is Wembley used for events? What kind?


Around 30 first class events and about 20 corporate type events, so basically once a week. The stadium has a limit for public spectator events obviously in accordance with the council and local residents.

The 2009 events can be downloaded from the wembley national stadium site as a pdf.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Paul the Gunner said:


> Probably you're thinking of Wembley as the host of all England matches, lets say...fair enough! Even though again, totally not fair for others...in this case England would play all 3 group games at home and ONLY in case it wins its group it will play the R16, QF, SF on Wembley so in case someone sends them 2nd or even eliminates them from the group stage, the winner has the chance of playing all it's games on Wembley!?!? How would it be Argentina, France or Germany?


I really doubt England will play all there Matches at Wembley. Euro 96 was different due to the smaller stadia we had and Wembley was the only stadium that was able to cope with the large amounts of fans that had to be accomidated for England matches.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I really doubt England will play all there Matches at Wembley. Euro 96 was different due to the smaller stadia we had and Wembley was the only stadium that was able to cope with the large amounts of fans that had to be accomadated for England matches.


You are entitled to your opinion but as stated its going to be the fa decision and the pressure to use wembley will be massive. The other contributor would be the players and coach whoever they are in a few years when a definitive decision is made and again as a player and a coach staying in one place in a tournament is an advantage.

Again we see posters saying about the fans but a decision is not going to be made because another stadium has a capacity very close to wembley, 10,000 is neither here nor there when deciding this issue as explained. Lets face it Engalnd in a semi final in a world cup in England could fill a stadium with a capacity of 5 million right?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

flierfy said:


> The World Cup finals won't be spread over 16 grounds. That's for sure. 10 or 12 grounds, not more.


1. japan/korea was spread over 20 grounds... for 64 games
2. Euro 2004 had 10 grounds for 31 games

therefore as there are 64 games in the world cup for 16 stadiums it is a ratio of 1:4 less than japan/korea, there are 31 games at the euros 10 stadiums a ratio of more than 1:4, also less than euro 2004, both moderately succesful tournaments!

it's logic imho, we have a vast amount of cities and this will allow everyone a piece of the pie

but as i said in my post, it will likely be 12 stadiums, i am just saying 16 would be better!


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> 1. japan/korea was spread over 20 grounds... for 64 games
> 2. Euro 2004 had 10 grounds for 31 games
> 
> therefore as there are 64 games in the world cup for 16 stadiums it is a ratio of 1:4 less than japan/korea, there are 31 games at the euros 10 stadiums a ratio of more than 1:4, also less than euro 2004, both moderately succesful tournaments!
> ...


Japorea were two bids with 10 grounds each. After forcing both countries to host it jointly FIFA couldn't insist on a reasonable number of venues.

The number of grounds in Portugal was out of proportion either. This because of the local politics. They conceded every town in the country to be part of the party.

England, however, will stage this World Cup alone. Furthermore are English taxpayers much more sensible regarding to public investments in stadium infrastructure. The British public has no sympathy for white elephants beyond the minimum number of stadiums. Neither has the FIFA who turned down pleas by the organising committee of Germany 2006 for a greater number of host cities. It's 12 and not more.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

flierfy said:


> Japorea were two bids with 10 grounds each. After forcing both countries to host it jointly FIFA couldn't insist on a reasonable number of venues.
> 
> The number of grounds in Portugal was out of proportion either. This because of the local politics. They conceded every town in the country to be part of the party.
> 
> England, however, will stage this World Cup alone. Furthermore are English taxpayers much more sensible regarding to public investments in stadium infrastructure. The British public has no sympathy for white elephants beyond the minimum number of stadiums. Neither has the FIFA who turned down pleas by the organising committee of Germany 2006 for a greater number of host cities. It's 12 and not more.


i'm not saying it will happen, i'm saying it would be logical, based on the fact there have been precidents set and that it's the same logic as 8 stadiums hosting a 16 team tournament, which is how the euros ran at every 16 tournament except EUro 2004... 

there wouldn't be white elephants in these country most cities could sustain a 40,000 seater with premiership football (with the right pricing), i include the likes of Brighton in this aswell... 

As i have repeatedly said we don't get to decide the host cities, FIFA chooses where the host cities will be based on equal geographical distibution...


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

This is what I think could be England's worst possible bid. I have taken into consideration minimal expansions and new stadiums, and also bad geographic spread:

London:
Wembley Stadium 90,000
Emirates Stadium 60,355

Manchester:
Old Trafford 76,212

Liverpool:
New Anfield 60,000

Newcastle:
St James Park 52,387

Birmingham:
Villa Park: 43,000

Sunderland:
Stadium of Light 49,000

Middlesbrough:
Riverside Stadium 42,000

Leeds:
Elland Road 40,000

Sheffield: 
Bramall Lane 40,000

Derby:
Pride Park 42,000

Nottingham:
New Stadium 40,000


What does everyone think, could it be worse?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

plasticterminator said:


> You are entitled to your opinion but as stated its going to be the fa decision and the pressure to use wembley will be massive. The other contributor would be the players and coach whoever they are in a few years when a definitive decision is made and again as a player and a coach staying in one place in a tournament is an advantage.
> 
> Again we see posters saying about the fans but a decision is not going to be made because another stadium has a capacity very close to wembley, 10,000 is neither here nor there when deciding this issue as explained. Lets face it Engalnd in a semi final in a world cup in England could fill a stadium with a capacity of 5 million right?


Would be interesting to see what happens since obviously the FA have much more of a stake in Wembley. I suspect we'd see Wembley host the opening game, 2 england games and 1 match involving the previous champions(espeically if they were Brazil) with Old Trafford or New Anfield getting the other England game for PR sake.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

plasticterminator said:


> Around 30 first class events and about 20 corporate type events, so basically once a week. The stadium has a limit for public spectator events obviously in accordance with the council and local residents.
> 
> The 2009 events can be downloaded from the wembley national stadium site as a pdf.


Thanks 

Thats much more than I was expecting.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Kobo: Bramall lane, 40,000?

Not yet, its only 32,000 at the moment, if you want minimum expansion then its Hillsborough - only needs TLC.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Hillsborough needs relatively little work to bring it up to minimum standards - but it wouldn't be pretty - not a great look for FIFA, the FA, etc.

Bramall Lane on the other hand, has been modernised over recent years, has a fantastic new hotel opening up on site, and already has plans (dependant on promotion and the world cup) to go over 40k. The fact that the Lane is the oldest major stadium in the world to have been continuously used for league football would be an attractive element from a historical point of view.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> Hillsborough needs relatively little work to bring it up to minimum standards - but it wouldn't be pretty - not a great look for FIFA, the FA, etc.
> 
> Bramall Lane on the other hand, has been modernised over recent years, has a fantastic new hotel opening up on site, and already has plans (dependant on promotion and the world cup) to go over 40k. The fact that the Lane is the oldest major stadium in the world to have been continuously used for league football would be an attractive element from a historical point of view.


Makes a tiny bit of sense until you see that the occupiers of Bramall lane (SUFC) are looking less and less likely for promotion and expansion. The new hotel at BL is ok, but would it really sway FIFA?

Hillsborough isn't pretty, its an old fashioned english ground - maybe that might help it get some games too. Over Bramall lane, even though it is 'older'.

The oldest stadium in the world? Its not really, its been knocked down and redone that many times since it opened its not really old, plus the new modern facilities are over rated.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

A hotel right next to the stadium might help, especially that I have no idea how Sheffield is and might be a advantage...but anyway both look good.
Hillsborough isn't pretty but its still a english ground :tongue3: which is extraordinary for the view it offer from the stands, same for Bramall Lane i guess.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Steel City Suburb said:


> Makes a tiny bit of sense until you see that the occupiers of Bramall lane (SUFC) are looking less and less likely for promotion and expansion.


Currently sitting 4th in the CCC in a play-off spot, unbeaten in 6 league games, should be getting some big money from West Ham one day (not that anyone should hold their breath) which would enable them to outspend just about anyone in the CCC.



Steel City Suburb said:


> The new hotel at BL is ok, but would it really sway FIFA?


Can't hurt.



Steel City Suburb said:


> The oldest stadium in the world? Its not really, its been knocked down and redone that many times since it opened its not really old, plus the new modern facilities are over rated.


Location, location. Wembley isn't really Wembley, but the name and location carries the history. Bramall Lane may not be as famous - but it still carries the history.


----------



## raynsity (Feb 18, 2008)

plasticterminator said:


> The simple fact is if England win the bid it will be down to the league status of the respective clubs at the time of development plans becoming concrete. Since the award of the finals is within 2 years the status of the contenders can only be as follows under normal circumstances and within the realms of reality.
> 
> 1 CONFIRMED
> Wembley- Final, SF-QF Group games
> ...


Most of english stadiums have the same problems, which make them not meet the latest FIFA requirements.

Old Trafford is a well known stadium but the field is to close to the stands and what's worse is that the player tunnel isn't in the middle of the stands. Tehy need to cut the stands to meet the distance requirements but that decreases the capacityand the first row wont be on the ground level.

New Anfield will have too short rows of seating of 78cms averagely and the kop 75cms, while FIFA requires at least 80cms. The first rows are going to be below the ground level, if you put ad boards their you be able to see the lines. so if the balls crosses the line you wont know if its a goal or not.

new stadium like emirates have problems too. The distance is okay but again those sight line problems would make them fail to host.

these are typical english stadium problems, too close and too low. if they want to host then they need totally new stadiums. well, that's what i think.
i believe you guys have read the latest FIFA requirements for WC stadiums, so just think about it.


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

^^:nuts: don't read too much into that rubbish


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

its really not brain surgery to adjust a stand to add a tunnel


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

RobH said:


> Yes, but there's no way the main stand will be ripped up at Old Trafford to comply with this just for TV reasons.


That is exactly the reason why the FIFA prefers bids with a lot of proposed stadia rather than existing ones. New stadium can always designed along the newest FIFA stadium guideline. Where it is difficult and expensive to implement these requirements on existing infrastructure.
And believe me the FIFA will insist on their own ideas of what a World Cup stadium has to look like. They are neither used nor willing to make compromises.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

FIFA may well prefer a country to build 12 new stadiums but very few countries will be willing to do that. Compromises will be made in the US, in England, in Spain...it sounds like Qatar would be perfect for them!


----------



## Wuppeltje (Jan 23, 2008)

^^

In that case the Benelux has something to offer. Possibly only 1 stadium will only be updated to meet the FIFA requirements. All the others will be brand new or expanded. 
There are already plans without a WC for a lot of them, a possible WC would only boost them.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Great Britain has many very nice stadiums and a lot of traditional stadiums. But you don't have many very large stadia with a capacity of 50.000 plus X. 
I believe that might be a serious problem for winning a Worldcup bid. There are quite a few countries that have more of those very large stadia than the UK. And for a worldcup you would probably need at least 6 arenas wih a capacity of 50.000 and more, I believe. And the worldcup bid is not relly anything much emotional, it's mostly about money, about the big business. And if the Fifa makes more money with a worldcup somewhere else they'll just go there instead of the UK.
So as good as the infrastructure is in the uk, the stadias capacities are mostly at the rather low end for a worldcup.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> Yes, but there's no way the main stand will be ripped up at Old Trafford to comply with this just for TV reasons.


uhm yes it will. I remind you, its called the *FIFA* world cup. South Africa has learnt this lesson very well.


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 4, 2006)

Alemanniafan said:


> Great Britain has many very nice stadiums and a lot of traditional stadiums. But you don't have many very large stadia with a capacity of 50.000 plus X.
> I believe that might be a serious problem for winning a Worldcup bid. There are quite a few countries that have more of those very large stadia than the UK. And for a worldcup you would probably need at least 6 arenas wih a capacity of 50.000 and more, I believe. And the worldcup bid is not relly anything much emotional, it's mostly about money, about the big business. And if the Fifa makes more money with a worldcup somewhere else they'll just go there instead of the UK.
> *So as good as the infrastructure is in the uk, the stadias capacities are mostly at the rather low end for a worldcup.*


Eh?


This is Japan '02.


Yokohama International Stadium *70,000 * 
Saitama Saitama Stadium 2002 *63,000 * 
Fukuroi Shizuoka 'ECOPA' Stadium *50,600 * 
Osaka Nagai Stadium *50,000 * 
Rifu Miyagi Stadium *49,000 * 
Ōita Ōita Stadium *43,000 * 
Niigata Niigata Stadium *42,300 * 
Kashima Kashima Stadium *42,000 * 
Kobe Kobe Wing Stadium *42,000 * 
Sapporo Sapporo Dome *42,000*

Germany '06 had 74,000 and 67,000 as it's largest stadiums, most were less than 50,000. So England can do better than the last two WCs in terms of seating capacity.

Just for starters:

Wembley *90,000*
Old Trafford *76,000 -90,000*
Stanley Park* 75,000*
Emirates *60,000*


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Sunderland was designed to be expanded to 64,000. You have to think a World Cup would see that happen.

Then there's also expanded grounds at Newcastle and Aston Villa.


----------



## aldredd (Aug 26, 2008)

Hello, I've read this entire thread with some interest, as I'm keen to track the progress in England bidding for 2018.

Regarding the Stadia, there is one that hasn't been mentioned yet, although it could be a little controversial, but I'll throw it out there for discussion!

Stadium:MK in Milton Keynes.

A brand new stadium with a current capacity of 22,000. The second tier is already in place, and awaiting seating (probably this summer if financing is found) which will bring it to 32,000. However, it has also been cited that the stadium can be increased to 45,00 quite readily, should the need ever arise.
So that's a brand new 45,000 seater stadium, built to UEFA Elite standard, designed by the same people as Wembley & Emirates stadiums, with open concourse and large, padded seats (as with Emirates)
Location Wise, Milton Keynes has fantastic transport links (East Coast Main Line, M1 etc) and is a fast growing area.

It's not going to be at the top of any wish list, but is surely at least worth looking at?

(ps, please don't flame me  )

Some pretty good images can be found HERE


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Will Milton Keynes be abe to cope with the tourists etc. and, although I don't know the city well, is it really somewhere we'd like to choose over, say, Portsmouth or Bristol as a location if either of those stadiums come to fruition?

Also, I wonder whether there would be a bad taste left picking MK Dons' Stadium. A lot of football fans still don't particularly like the club and would be loathed to see its stadium representing England and _English footballing tradition_ along with the likes of Man Utd, Newcastle, Liverpool etc.

I have to say, the stadium does look like one of the best small-medium sized stadiums in England. I'd have no worries about the quality of the ground if it were expandable to 45,000. But the other factors make me question whether it's a serious option.


----------



## aldredd (Aug 26, 2008)

^
You raised a couple of good points

With regards to 'coping' with tourists, I don't that would be a problem. MK is a fairly major business hub, so has dozens of good hotels, and has good wider transport links. Public transport would need addressing - as it's shockingly poor in MK. As to whether we would _want _tourists to visit MK, I don't see why not. Sure, it's got nothing on the likes of Portsmouth, Bristol, with regards to history etc, but it's still a good location, and would offer people an alternative to the more traditional towns & cities. Remember that a lot of tourists to England _love _to shop here, and MK is pretty much perfect for that :lol:
The sticking point, I agree, would be the whole 'MK Dons' situation. From experience, the bitterness has died down a little in the last couple of years, and are actually doing a lot to promote football in the community in general, and that's being recognised. But ultimately, it goes back to what was being said earlier, regarding it being an England bid, regardless of the host club stadiums being used. If it's the best choice of stadium, it should be used regardless of the host club.


----------



## aldredd (Aug 26, 2008)

Also, I read on a post that we should be content with getting an average of 50,000 per match. Unless I'm mistaken, but for the '66 World Cup we averaged over 50,000 per match. It would be disappointing if we couldn't drastically exceed that figure.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

All seaters vs terraces don't forget. But even taking that into account, we should get an average of 60k per match in a realistic bid (according to my calculations anyway).


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

by 2018 milton keynes should be one of the countries biggest cities, so it definately could cope imho


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Quintana said:


> The "this is world cup is ours" and "there is no way we can lose" mentality prevalent among a lot of Englanders.


As a born and raised Englishman, I have to agree with you on this.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

aldredd said:


> ^
> You raised a couple of good points
> 
> With regards to 'coping' with tourists, I don't that would be a problem. MK is a fairly major business hub, so has dozens of good hotels, and has good wider transport links. Public transport would need addressing - as it's shockingly poor in MK. As to whether we would _want _tourists to visit MK, I don't see why not. Sure, it's got nothing on the likes of Portsmouth, Bristol, with regards to history etc, but it's still a good location, and would offer people an alternative to the more traditional towns & cities. Remember that a lot of tourists to England _love _to shop here, and MK is pretty much perfect for that :lol:
> The sticking point, I agree, would be the whole 'MK Dons' situation. From experience, the bitterness has died down a little in the last couple of years, and are actually doing a lot to promote football in the community in general, and that's being recognised. But ultimately, it goes back to what was being said earlier, regarding it being an England bid, regardless of the host club stadiums being used. If it's the best choice of stadium, it should be used regardless of the host club.


I don't think the hate will ever completely dissipate. I just don't see the FA putting Milton Keynes forward as part of a bid, not after the heat they took from the various supporters unions on the issue.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Milton Keynes could very possibly be at a level to cope yes, quite easily...the issue is whether the World Cup, with all it's history and heritage should go to a team, franchised from another team in a way now restricted by the FA (following the furore involved).

Surely there have to be better stadiums from better teams than them?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

flierfy said:


> That is exactly the reason why the FIFA prefers bids with a lot of proposed stadia rather than existing ones. New stadium can always designed along the newest FIFA stadium guideline. Where it is difficult and expensive to implement these requirements on existing infrastructure.
> And believe me the FIFA will insist on their own ideas of what a World Cup stadium has to look like. They are neither used nor willing to make compromises.


On the flipside though an existing stadium has less chance of being held up by building/funding problems, suffered design flaws or being a white elephant after the event. In Englands case alot of the draw for the event would be the venues people associate with famous teams aswell so having them move to new ones just before the event really wouldnt make the best of that.

The recent craze for so many totally new venues comes largely from the host not FIFA IMHO as we can see by stadiums being built but not even used(LTU arena, Toyota stadium).


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

if only London was allowed 3 stadiums, then we could add the 83,000 capacity Twickenham Stadium. (Obviously the RFU would have to comply) Then we could have around 5-6 stadiums with over 60,000 seater capacity.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Alemanniafan said:


> Great Britain has many very nice stadiums and a lot of traditional stadiums. But you don't have many very large stadia with a capacity of 50.000 plus X.
> I believe that might be a serious problem for winning a Worldcup bid. There are quite a few countries that have more of those very large stadia than the UK. And for a worldcup you would probably need at least 6 arenas wih a capacity of 50.000 and more, I believe. And the worldcup bid is not relly anything much emotional, it's mostly about money, about the big business. And if the Fifa makes more money with a worldcup somewhere else they'll just go there instead of the UK.
> So as good as the infrastructure is in the uk, the stadias capacities are mostly at the rather low end for a worldcup.


are you serious? :|


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

I think sometimes people forget we're talking about 9 years in the future and the english league. This means that it is almost certain that a number of clubs will have expanded their stadiums or moved by then. Here is my list (based upon solid rumours at the bare minimum)

Wembley/London - 90,000-100,000
Old Trafford/Manchester - 76,000-90,000
New Anfield/Liverpool - 73,000
New WHL or Emirates/London - 60,000
St James' Park/Newcastle - 52,000-60,000
Villa Park/Birmingham - 42,000-51,000
New Leeds/Leeds - 50,000
New Forest/Nottingham - 40-50,000
Brammel Lane/ Sheffield - 40,000
New Portsmouth/Portsmouth - 40,000

Other
City of Birmingham/Birmingham - 50,000
City of Manchester/Manchester - 48-60,000
New Everton - 50,000
Walkers/Leicester - 40,000
Ricoh/Coventry - 40,000
St Marys/Southampton - 40,000
Stadium of Light/Sunderland - 48,000
Pride Park/Derby - 40,000
Riverside/Middlesborough - 42,000
New Bristol City/Bristol - 40,000
Hilsborough/Sheffield Wednesday - 40,000

The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

i know wembley can go to 100,000 without lowering the pitch. In its athletics mode the extra capacity comes from installing seats where the current disabled fans sit. They would be allocated elsewhere in the stadium and an additional 10,000 seats or so can be put in place. 

St James Park can get to 60,000 but no more, not unless the listed buildings behind one of the stands are moved brick by brick and i seriously doubt that would happen.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Alemanniafan said:


> Well my posting was meant a little provokative I admit(you know the good old soccer rivalry between Germany and England  ), but I do believe the stadia in Uk are at the rather small end for a worldcup in Europe.
> 
> The thing is, you have to take the capacity of the stadia as all seaters, without terracing and at the moment you have don't have many stadia that are large enough, but of course that wil change until 2018 to some extend.
> 
> ...


My question was more about the state of Germany's satdiums at the time of the bid in 2000 rather than when the World Cup was held in 2006.

Back in 2000:

1. the Olympiastadion needed a massive refurbishment which wasn't completed until 2004.
2. the Allianz Arena wasn't built until 2005.
3. the Westfalenstadion had a seated capacity of 52,000 rather than 65,000.
4. the Veltins Arena wasn't built until 2001 (though building work had started).
5. the Mercedes Benz stadium had a seated capacity of 50,000 rather than 52,000.
6. the Nordbank Arena required no further work.
7. the Commerzbank Arena wasn't built until 2005.
8. the Fritz Walter Stadion had a seated capacity of 20,000 rather than 46,000.
9. the Rhein-Energie Stadion wasn't renovated until 2004.
10. the AWD Arena wasn't redeveloped until 2004.
11. Zentralstadion was not built until 2004.
12. the Frankenstadion wasn't renovated until 2004.

So, you see, the state of Germany's stadiums at the time of the bid wasn't so very great (only the Nordbank Arena remained substantially unchanged). Certainly, the stadiums in Germany required a lot more work to be FIFA compliant than the likely stadiums for England's bid.

The point I'm making is this. The current and existing capacity and quality of each stadium is only of partial significance. Equally important are the various plans for the improvement and increased capacity of each stadium.

I am perfectly confident, should England be awarded the 2018 World Cup, that the average capacity of the stadiums involved would comfortably exceed that of Germany 2006 (and would massively exceed the likes of France 1998).


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> So i don't see how you can support your arguement with Germany's stadia (as nice as they are).


I think this comes from the fact that right now Germany has more venues in the 40-60k range than England, and, likely, more than England could have after 2018. Reason being is that England has (as you pointed out) more venues above that and a whole lot more right below it. Which is about right considering the population disparity between the nations. England's success, right now, is the volume of great venues (more than anyone else) in the 20-40k range, which is probably what skews everyone's impressions.


www.sercan.de said:


> Can somebdy make a EXTREME list? For example:


As an option to Berkshire's list, here's what I'd perceive the realistic, best case scenario, pending new schemes not yet realized:

90k Wembley
84-88k Old Trafford (Banter among architects is the South stand expansion would be heavy on box seats so as to avoid heavy construction over the rail line, hence the capacity , 90k)
77k Emirates (Would require transportation upgrades and rumors suggest the club are investigating even higher, but I suspect this is the cost effective range for an expansion)
73k Stanley Park ('Pool will do the full size as soon as funding comes through. Which may be _3018_ the way things are being handled! hno
72k Millennium (Cardiff) (You said extreme! It's possible England could "rent" the Welsh facility without giving Wales an automatic berth, giving FIFA's wavering on permissive co-hosting for nations that would never host on their own. Doing the one venue would be more logical than entering the whole Scotland debate for that reason, plus it'd be cost effective vs. building too large in Bristol, the governments and pro leagues are already intertwined and when else would Wales host a FIFA event? Unlikely, but...)
60k St. James
52k Villa Park (Frankly they could do so much more but that would require the type of money they don't have. And again, I don't see Birmingham building larger)
50k Leeds/Nottingham 
45k Portsmouth (Possible use of "temporary" seating above one side/end)
45k Hull (Ditto)

That would yield an average attendance for group stage matches of approx. 65k, and arguably yield the best event possible. One man's opinion, anyway. :cheers:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

berkshire royal said:


> The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.


I very much hope that that does not happen. It would be quite wrong.

Such a system of subsidy works fine in countries like Italy or Germany, where the stadiums are generally owned and managed by local government. But it cannot work in England, where stadiums are owned and managed by the individual clubs.

Just imagine the outcry if, for instance, Portsmouth, Bristol City and Nottingham Forest were given £20 million of public or FA money to increase their stadium capacity by 10,000. There would be riots in Southampton, Derby and Leicester - not to mention an awful lot of unhappy Notts County and Bristol Rovers fans!

Nope, if stadiums are to be renovated and expanded, it absolutely must be at the expense of the clubs involved. If they genuinely desire the honour of becoming a World Cup host then they must be prepared to make all necessary financial committments.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

JimB said:


> I very much hope that that does not happen. It would be quite wrong.


While you're correct there is also the matter of compensation when the costs don't make sense for the club. After all, unless you're among those top tier clubs hosting more than 3-4 matches then chances are you won't be making enough money to even pay for whatever renovations you need/want. Think of it as the govt. paying a rental fee for the rights to use the facility, and in return the govt. gets the taxes made from the tourists. I know it won't be that simple or directly profitable, but that's the idea to be used.

No way the likes of Bristol or Nottingham could afford 40-50k on their own, nor would they need to. And gleaning an additional 7M GBP for three games won't exactly be worth it compared to the savings they could've incurred by simply building a more appropriate venue <31k. Thus, there'll be some public support, but hopefully leveraged in proportion to return on investment. Besides, haven't some places enjoyed _some_ public kick in, like Coventry?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

flierfy said:


> I don't share your optimism regarding proposed stadium projects.
> 
> This is a more realistic list of ground capacity in the year 2018
> 
> ...


Yes, England is in the midst of a major recession. But 2018 is nine years away and the 2018 vote will not be held until December 2010. Not even the most pessimistic of forecasts predicts the recession to last for more than a few years.

Besides, if England's bid is successful, that will inevitably stimulate a new building and redevelopment spurt.


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

*England 2018*



www.sercan.de said:


> Can somebdy make a EXTREME list? For example
> 
> Wembley 90,000-100,000 (lowering pitch and adding 3-5 rows)
> Old Trafford: 90-92,000
> ...


Here you go

*The Ultimate Bid*


*London*

Wembley Stadium  = 90,000 > 115,000 capacity from lowering the pitch and adding 5 rows to the 1st tier and adding 5-7 rows to the back of the 3rd tier.

Emirates Stadium = 60,000 > 80,000 capacity by filling in the corners and adding a few rows to the 1st tier.


*Manchester*

Old Trafford = 76,000 > 96,000 capacity by rebuilding the south stand to mimic the north stand.


*Liverpool*

Stanley Park = 60,000 - 73,000+ capacity.


*Birmingham*

Villa Park = 42,000 > 60,000+ from redevelopment of the north stand and filling in the corners on either side of the north stand. This *is* possible.


*Newcastle*

Saint James' Park = 52,000 > 80,000+ by expanding the remaining small stands and corners to mirror the two larger stands. This may however prove difficult or even impossible due to listed buildings behind one of the stands.


*Leeds*

Elland Road / New stadium = 50,000 - 55,000 capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


*Sheffield*

Hillsborough / New stadium = 50,000+ capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


*Nottingham*

New Forest Stadium = 50-55,000 capacity stadium.


*Bristol*

New Stadium = 45,000 capacity stadium that could be renovated after the WC.


*Ipswich / Norwich*

New stadium = 45,000+ capacity to be used by either Ipswich or Norwich after the WC.


*Southampton*

Saint Mary's  = 32,000 >>> 45,000 capacity through redevelopment.



*Others to consider*


*London*

New Chelsea Stadium = 65,000 >>> 80,000+ capacity.

New White Heart Lane = 60,000+ capacity

Twickenham Stadium = 82,000+ capacity


*Manchester*

City of Manchester Stadium = 48,000 >>> 60,000+ capacity by adding a 3rd tier to the stands behind each goal end.


*Liverpool*

New Goodison = 50,000 - 60,000 capacity.


*Birmingham*

City of Birmingham Stadium = 55,000 capacity.


*Sunderland*

Stadium of Light = 48,000 >>> 64,000 through expansion to a 2 tier bowl.


*Coventry*

Ricoh Arena = 32,600 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.


*Leicester*

Walkers Stadium = 32,500 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

GunnerJacket said:


> While you're correct there is also the matter of compensation when the costs don't make sense for the club. After all, unless you're among those top tier clubs hosting more than 3-4 matches then chances are you won't be making enough money to even pay for whatever renovations you need/want. Think of it as the govt. paying a rental fee for the rights to use the facility, and in return the govt. gets the taxes made from the tourists. I know it won't be that simple or directly profitable, but that's the idea to be used.
> 
> *No way the likes of Bristol or Nottingham could afford 40-50k on their own*, nor would they need to. And gleaning an additional 7M GBP for three games won't exactly be worth it compared to the savings they could've incurred by simply building a more appropriate venue <31k. Thus, there'll be some public support, but hopefully leveraged in proportion to return on investment. Besides, haven't some places enjoyed _some_ public kick in, like Coventry?


That's precisely the point. But the likes of Bristol City, Nottingham Forest and Southampton could easily expect to utilise the greater part of that extra capacity should they make it to the Premiership. Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?

Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

ccfc-4-life said:


> *London*
> 
> New Chelsea Stadium = 65,000 >>> 80,000+ capacity.


:lol:

I know this is an "extreme" list but still!

:rofl:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

JimB said:


> That's precisely the point. But the likes of Bristol City, Nottingham Forest and Southampton could easily expect to utilise the greater part of that extra capacity should they make it to the Premiership. Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?
> *
> Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?*


It would have to be a loan in effect, yes. Especially for the richer clubs if they needed a kick-start. Given that the Premier League seems to be recession-proof (look at their latest TV deal) having the struggling parts of the economy putting money into rich football clubs with no prospect of getting it back would cause outrage.

Even if it's a loan, I'm not sure people would be hugely happy about it still.

But there's no way the government should simply subsidise expansion. Either clubs build it for themselves and reap the benifit, or they get public funds, in which case the public gets a certain amount of the profit until such time that the money is repaid. The clubs will effectivley be getting benifit anyway because of extra punters coming through the gates watching the match, even if they aren't getting all the money from them.

How did it work in Germany, out of interest?


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

RobH said:


> :lol:
> 
> I know this is an "extreme" list but still!
> 
> :rofl:


Any reason behind your response?

If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measelynuts 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again:cheers:


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.

Also a bit of history in 1966 they were going to use both, but NUFC wouldn't improve the ground so Middlesbrough was used instead.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

ccfc-4-life said:


> Any reason behind your response?
> 
> If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measelynuts 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again:cheers:


Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.

Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.

Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

ArchieTheGreat said:


> There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.
> 
> Also a bit of history in 1966 they were going to use both, but NUFC wouldn't improve the ground so Middlesbrough was used instead.


You have some strange ideas about this bid. 

In the other thread you seem to be convinced London won't have two stadiums and in this thread you're advocating having two stadiums in the N.E. instead of a south coast stadium!

Your idea for the bid would be incredibly lopsided towards the north! Two London stadiums and a stadium on the coast (Portsmouth being the most likely option and it would no way be a white elephant) seems to give the best spread to me. Then have a few in the midlands, and your big northern stadiums (Liverpool, Man U, Newcastle).


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

ccfc-4-life said:


> Any reason behind your response?
> 
> If you've had a look at some of the high-profile players that abramovich has braught in then you might be able to see that when that guy spends, he spends big I wouldnt be surprised if abramovich didn't splash out the cash to give the club a huge stadium worthy of any of Europe's best teams. Why would he settle for a measelynuts 60k stadium - too common now - when he could spend big...again:cheers:


I'll echo RobH, here: West End Posers are not a large club but a rich club, and even that's incorrect as it's their owner who's wealthy. Without RA's support they don't have the budget for half their roster, the quality drops and the losses ensue. And that's assuming they never have to pay back the $1B+ owed to the russian! Thus, it's tough to say they could support 65k in perpetuity (let alone afford that extra debt) when just last year they drew 24k for a Champions League game!

If Chelsea ever build something larger than Emirates or WHL it would be a house of cards, something built on a sham.


ArchieTheGreat said:


> There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.


Again, though, consider the intent of the organizers. They've said they want to use this as an opportunity to induce investment around the country. Technically neither St. James nor SOL need expansion, WC or for their clubs, while other places could use this as an excuse to jump start truly beneficial improvements. Further, having both venues in use likely wouldn't significantly alter the tourism directed to that area, whereas you're suggesting leave another metro area out of that mix. Now I could see Middlesbrough being added as a second, but using both SOL and St. James would be logistical overkill.



JimB said:


> Why should they be subsidized thus and given such a huge advantage over other clubs?
> 
> Perhaps an agreement can be worked out whereby, whenever any part of the extra capacity is utilised, all profits are paid to the taxpayer / FA unless or until such time as the club has repaid whatever subsidy they received (including interest)?


It will be that type of approach (if at all), I'm sure. Think of it this way - In order to win the bid the organizers (and the govts) need the best bid possible. This requires stadiums and community support. Would the folks at, say, Derby rather risk not having a world cup just to deny Nottingham favorable loan conditions to improve their stadium situation? Doubtful. In the long run what's good for the game in England is good for each club, as their residuals from league revenues and advertising would increase, even if only incrementally, by simply doing nothing. After all, nations bidding for this expect a return as well, so it's part of that "Take one for the team" mentality. 

Besides, if we're going to pick on the the likes of Bristol as potential winners of this lottery then that sword must swipe at the big boys, as well, for surely they'll receive some benefits over their counterparts. Maybe go global? Why should England get this extra boost from an event when it could do more good in, say, Indonesia? Bottom line the conditions for the event may dictate some compromises on the locals, even if it means accepting your local option isn't the best one. So, it comes back to whether or not England wants to win the WC?

Sure there'll be some competition and resentment of those receiving the biggest support, but I'm confident any public support will be duly repaid.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

*LONDON*
Wembley
Emirates _or_ New WHL

*SOUTH*
New Portsmouth

*BIRMINGHAM*
Villa Park

*MANCESHTER*
Old Trafford

*LIVERPOOL*
Stanley Park

*NEWCASTLE*
St James' Park

*YORKSHIRE*
Elland Road

*EAST MIDS*
Derby expansion _or_ New Forest Stadium

-----------

^^ These nine would be definites for me. Then, depending on how many stadiums you wanted I'd also line up a Bristol new build, the Stadium of Light, and a Sheffield Stadium. But the core of the bid, and the cities and stadiums I would _definitely_ include, I've listed above.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

RobH said:


> *LONDON*
> Wembley
> Emirates _or_ New WHL
> 
> ...


 Ok seems a good geographical spread. My main concern is the new Portsmouth is going to be 36000. Even with temporary expansion it will only scrape in at the bottom end. Thats if they ever build it, the club are haemorrhaging money, selling players left right and centre, is up for sale and likely to be relegated. The other south coast stadium is a non starter as Southampton fc might not exist in a couple of weeks and definitely going into administration and the 3rd division. So they wont have the money to expand. Its good idea for a south coast stadium but practically I can't see it happening.

I also don't think the new forest stadium will be as big as they say 40K at the most. I have also concerns over the 3 possible venues in Yorkshire. Bramall lane will always be too small. When FIFA say 40K thats in world cup mode so you are really meaning 43K+. Wednesday and Leeds their redevelopments depend on getting finance, as both would need large amounts of money. The only outsider that will definitely be built is Bristol City, they're a well run club and that ground will be built.

My point is Sunderland is there it can be expanded easily and is used by 40k+ every other week. Thats why I would always include it, its a low risk option.

This highlights the problem in England the best supported clubs are the 2 in North London, 2 in Liverpool, 2 in Manchester and the 2 in the North East.


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

RobH said:


> Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.
> 
> Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.
> 
> Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.


Oh yes i definately agree with you that interms of fanbase chelsea couldnt fill a stadium as big as the emirates every game, i was merely suggesting that with RA's fortune and 'eccentricity' it was simply a possibility that he would aim high and large as he always does.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

RobH said:


> Chelsea advertise in the London papers for Champions League games. 65,000 is pushing it, 80,000 would be half empty most of the time.
> 
> Chelsea are by a distance the third club in London by fanbase. The only way a stadium of that size would be realistic would be if the Russian subsidised tickets; possible, but he seems to be putting less and less money into the club lately.
> 
> Maybe my response was OTT, but it remains unlikely that Chelsea will go any bigger than Arsenal or Spurs' new stadium. If they do it won't be by much.


Come on saying chelsea don't have the fanbase is balderdash. It is proven over time fanbases fluctuate up and down dependant on success etc, and you can never predict what is going to happen in the future.

case in point:

In the 50s Arsenal and Tottenham outdrew every club in england (most seasons) massively, regularly finishing 1 and 2 in the attendance charts and swaping with 50,000+ averages every season. I'm sure someone then suggesting manchester united or liverpool were bigger would've been laughed at!

In the early 60s Tottenham were getting the largest crowds, again manchester united's crowds still fluctuated and liverpool were nowhere to be seen... Once again who would know??

In the late 60s and 70s chelsea got bigger crowds (40,000+) that tottenham most seasons. However even west ham and palace were drawing 30,000+ during this era. Who would've thought then chelsea would struggle to get 20,000 regularly for top flight games in less than 20 years

In the 80s chelsea's fanbase dissapeared, but so did everyones except Man united's and liverpool's except in succesful seasons (Everton 87 etc). Who would've thought then with averages in 16,000s that the fans would return??

Basically what i am saying is chelsea do have an historically large fanbase, easily in the top 6 in the country, it goes up and down with success just like everyones, and i believe that a 60,000 seater is well within their remit, especially with the "current" levels of ambition and "success"! 

I personally feel the gap between Tottenham and chelsea fanbase wise is similar to that between Arsenal and Tottenham, not that big but significant!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

MoreOrLess said:


> If Villa are a "northern" club then the majority of the country is in the north. As far as the southern third of the country goes I'd say the lack of large cities, the draw of London in the east and the popularity of Rugby Union in the west are big factors. Historically I'd guess the south has tended to have fewer rich benefactors outside London aswell.


i think most southerners lump you as northern, anything north of the watford gap... yes i know it's in northamptonshire not Hertfordshire!

The rugby union comment is a bit of a myth. union is no bigger in Bristol than south wales or League is in Leeds or Bradford. 

Football is far, far bigger throughout the country with the exception of a few big towns/cities i can think of... Gloucester and St helens.

Yeah middlesbrough and Blackburn would be nowhere without there "local boys made good" owners


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Let's put this to bed.

I've got no problem accepting all of your stats - I accept that they prove that big clubs are well supported, small clubs less so, I accept that historically football success was weighted toward the North, and I also accept that the clubs I've listed come from large cities (but that's the point when it comes to the world cup, isn't it?)

Just to clarify that I'm not some foreigner shooting my mouth off based on what I've seen on tv... All of my comments are based on living in England for the first 29 years of my life, spending more than half of that travelling up and down the country for games in all four divisions of the English league.

My point all along, probably poorly made, is that the various cities discussed - whether because of historical sporting bias, economics, poor planning, poor management, etc. - aren't threatening to be a part of the big time, certainly not in time to affect a bid for 2018, and that there's little point in factoring in the possibility of a stadium in any of these towns/cities when there are venues already in place and other clubs already in a position to take advantage of new/expanded venues.

And for the record, if you check those poor attendance figures for Sunderland you'll note that they coincided with hideous economic times - particularly the 80/81 attendances during a very poor season, during the course of which half the shipyards, a number of local coal mines, and numerous other staples of heavy industry in the area were shut down, as well as quite a bit of strike action taking place. In short - no money, no football.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> It's easy to quote stats, you gotta read into them first though!
> 
> Huddersfield who play at a modern stadium with modern facilites, swindon who play in a dump!
> 
> ...


Yes it is easy to quote stats and you have nicely picked the lowest Town average attendance since 1993/94 season. I follow Town, that means Huddersfield not the team from Wiltshire. Talking of Town's attendances going up this season is misleading, you should have mentioned they fell last season. This was due to people being fed up with the chairman who was asset striped us.

A good comparison would be using the 2002/2003 season average for Town. This is when we were relegated to the 4th division and going into administration the average attendance 9506.


Although a nice new stadium does help our attendance figures went up over 80% from the old ground to the new ground.


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> No offence but white hart lane is NO better than Highbury used to be, The “Highbury the library” stuff is bull, yes it could be eerily quiet at times but at the big games it buzzed!! The emirates well, that’s
> 
> So if Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea, Spurs came calling and the odd high profile European game Highbury came alive? I reckon that makes 10-15% of games the decibel level was cranked all the way up to 3! That said I never believed in the Highbury the library nonsense, in a library the tell you to be quiet, at Arsenal's ground(s) they don't need to. Having been to the Emirates I can confidently say the loudest thing there is Bendtners boots.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

I still am not convinced that any clubs on the south coast or in the west country are able to sustain a 40k stadium. I dont see much scope for temporary additions for current stadiums neither. In Yorkshire I think I would go for Elland Road but only if it has a huge amount invested in it, because as it is, it is miles off being good enough. This would be so much easier if there wasn't so much pressure for maximum geographical spread. I wish England could somehow persuade FIFA of the benefits of allowing more than one stadium per city.Even then I would suggest both St James' and SOL should be used. 
All a bit frustrating really because with these rules the bid as it is just isn't going to be anywhere near as good as it could be.

Oh and could any of you fans of teams that have stadiums with atmosphere that puts the Emirates to shame stick some youtube clips onto the Football Fans Emotions thread because so far only Liverpool seem to have a decent representation on it. Cheers.


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

Is it true that at the Emirates they sing lullaby's instead of terrace chants?


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

No need when they are in the process of taking the piss yet again, against some shit team in the FA Cup.
You got to laugh really when crappy little teams moan about Arsenal not joining in with the party atmosphere when they come to The Emirates..


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

bigbossman said:


> The rugby union comment is a bit of a myth. union is no bigger in Bristol than south wales or League is in Leeds or Bradford.


Well South Wales and Bradford arent exactly massive centers of football either are they?



> Football is far, far bigger throughout the country with the exception of a few big towns/cities i can think of... Gloucester and St helens.


I wouldnt say Rugby was "bigger" but its big enough that there clearly is a drain on football. Whats more I'd say the drain was larger 50-100 years ago which ment there werent the big clubs for new fans to follow so they migrated to estalished teams further north or in London.



> Yeah middlesbrough and Blackburn would be nowhere without there "local boys made good" owners


It goes back further than that, pretty much every "big" club has had a rich backer at some point and the whole idea of giving back to the community though football was much stronger in the north.

As far as the bid goes remember that the FA don't have to look THAT far ahead yet. They don't need to come up with a dozen hosts but rather 16+ shortlisted potential hosts to be narrowed down if they win 2018/22.

Wembley
Emirates
Old Trafford
City of Manchester
New Anfield
New Everton
Villa Park
Sheffield
Leeds
New Notts Forrest
Expanded Pride Park
St James Park
Stadium of Light
New Portsmouth
New Bristol
New Hull

All of those could fit into any bid.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

MoreOrLess said:


> Wembley
> *Emirates*
> Old Trafford
> *City of Manchester*
> ...


Two in London, two in Liverpool, two in Manchester?

And 'new' Hull... They've only just built the current one.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> Let's put this to bed.
> 
> I've got no problem accepting all of your stats - I accept that they prove that big clubs are well supported, small clubs less so, I accept that historically football success was weighted toward the North, and I also accept that the clubs I've listed come from large cities (but that's the point when it comes to the world cup, isn't it?)
> 
> Just to clarify that I'm not some foreigner shooting my mouth off based on what I've seen on tv... All of my comments are based on living in England for the first 29 years of my life, spending more than half of that travelling up and down the country for games in all four divisions of the English league.


Fair enough, it was probably the over use of the term EPL that did it



> My point all along, probably poorly made, is that the various cities discussed - whether because of historical sporting bias, economics, poor planning, poor management, etc. - aren't threatening to be a part of the big time, certainly not in time to affect a bid for 2018, and that there's little point in factoring in the possibility of a stadium in any of these towns/cities when there are venues already in place and other clubs already in a position to take advantage of new/expanded venues.


I agree, i think it just got sidetracked, i just mentioned the possibility of Brighton and it went on from there. 



> And for the record, if you check those poor attendance figures for Sunderland you'll note that they coincided with hideous economic times - particularly the 80/81 attendances during a very poor season, during the course of which half the shipyards, a number of local coal mines, and numerous other staples of heavy industry in the area were shut down, as well as quite a bit of strike action taking place. In short - no money, no football.


Erm the hardest hit places economically were Liverpool and east London. Liverpool, everton and west ham the clubs of these areas didn't suffer massive crowd loss despite massive job losses!


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> Hull have proved this season that they can fill their stadium (average is only 1k off capacity). Bristol may well do the same if given a chance. They always used to appear better supported than most southern clubs to be fair, I'm not sure they could support a 40k venue though. Taking large numbers of supporters to Wembley is no indicator of real support - many clubs have done the same down the years. No point in having fans who will travel to London to say "I was there" if the buggers don't turn up at Ashton Gate on Saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Benjuk, I think it fair to say you underestimate Bristol's catchment area. Believe me when I say that the area surrounding Bristol (which is huge TBF) would go into a Premiership frenzy should City (or Rovers for that matter, to a lesser extent) get promoted. We were ready for it last May, and it was the flip of a coin between Hull and us really. I suppose us Bristolians can feel harder done by having been in the top four all season(and top itself on a number of occasions during the season), whereas Hull came from no-where late on to sneak into the play-offs. 
Anyway, my point is that Bristol City would *definately* fill a 40k stadium, but that would depend on them being in the top flight. They could probably sustain a 30k now in second tier, which is why we are building a 30k stadium now. But it would no doubt be extended to the designated 42k for an English WC in 2018.

With regards to Wembley last year: yes there were plenty of 'plastic' fans and hangers on that made the trip. Probably a large number in fact. But this happens even with the biggest clubs - just look at Man Utd every week! It is also true that some of these glory hunters will become 'proper followers of the club as a result. The seeds are sometimes sewn at games like these, and they can only grow the fan base...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

carlspannoosh said:


> I still am not convinced that any clubs on the south coast or in the west country are able to sustain a 40k stadium. I dont see much scope for temporary additions for current stadiums neither.


As i have previously said if you discount these regions you discount a lot of the non super cities in this country. And it would be ludicrous to discount them!



> In Yorkshire I think I would go for Elland Road but only if it has a huge amount invested in it, because as it is, it is miles off being good enough. This would be so much easier if there wasn't so much pressure for maximum geographical spread. I wish England could somehow persuade FIFA of the benefits of allowing more than one stadium per city.Even then I would suggest both St James' and SOL should be used.
> All a bit frustrating really because with these rules the bid as it is just isn't going to be anywhere near as good as it could be.


Since i last checked Newcastle and sunderland aren't the same city, infact they aren't even really part of the same urban area



> Oh and could any of you fans of teams that have stadiums with atmosphere that puts the Emirates to shame stick some youtube clips onto the Football Fans Emotions thread because so far only Liverpool seem to have a decent representation on it. Cheers.


Erm most honest Liverpool fans will tell you that the atmosphere is shite outside of the big games! You can even hear it on the telly!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Schmeek said:


> Benjuk, I think it fair to say you underestimate Bristol's catchment area. Believe me when I say that the area surrounding Bristol (which is huge TBF) would go into a Premiership frenzy should City (or Rovers for that matter, to a lesser extent) get promoted. We were ready for it last May, and it was the flip of a coin between Hull and us really. I suppose us Bristolians can feel harder done by having been in the top four all season(and top itself on a number of occasions during the season), whereas Hull came from no-where late on to sneak into the play-offs.
> Anyway, my point is that Bristol City would *definately* fill a 40k stadium, but that would depend on them being in the top flight. They could probably sustain a 30k now in second tier, which is why we are building a 30k stadium now. But it would no doubt be extended to the designated 42k for an English WC in 2018.
> 
> With regards to Wembley last year: yes there were plenty of 'plastic' fans and hangers on that made the trip. Probably a large number in fact. But this happens even with the biggest clubs - just look at Man Utd every week! It is also true that some of these glory hunters will become 'proper followers of the club as a result. The seeds are sometimes sewn at games like these, and they can only grow the fan base...


:applause: well said sir, hope you guys come up this season!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

MoreOrLess said:


> Well South Wales and Bradford arent exactly massive centers of football either are they?


that's your opinion, but i totally disagree



> I wouldnt say Rugby was "bigger" but its big enough that there clearly is a drain on football. Whats more I'd say the drain was larger 50-100 years ago which ment there werent the big clubs for new fans to follow so they migrated to estalished teams further north or in London.


i'd disagree football and rugby can co exist in most areas, look at Leeds!!!



> It goes back further than that, pretty much every "big" club has had a rich backer at some point and the whole idea of giving back to the community though football was much stronger in the north.


Some clubs are more deserving of Rich backers than others



> As far as the bid goes remember that the FA don't have to look THAT far ahead yet. They don't need to come up with a dozen hosts but rather 16+ shortlisted potential hosts to be narrowed down if they win 2018/22.
> 
> Wembley
> Emirates
> ...


Hull should definately not be on that list, Yorkshire should have 2 at the most, and there is no way Hull would be chose above Sheffield or Leeds. So shortlisting that city would be a waste of a place!

All of those could fit into any bid.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

ArchieTheGreat said:


> Yes it is easy to quote stats and you have nicely picked the lowest Town average attendance since 1993/94 season. I follow Town, that means Huddersfield not the team from Wiltshire. Talking of Town's attendances going up this season is misleading, you should have mentioned they fell last season. This was due to people being fed up with the chairman who was asset striped us.


Exactly, but it is what the "southern haters" have been doing with regard to Swindon and Plymouths crowds



> A good comparison would be using the 2002/2003 season average for Town. This is when we were relegated to the 4th division and going into administration the average attendance 9506.


sometimes solidarity is shown in hard times, sometimes we divide and fall. i'm sure their are cases of huddersfield leaking fans when relegation looms. But as you said we have to factor everything in first. Although we can take trends from stats!



> Although a nice new stadium does help our attendance figures went up over 80% from the old ground to the new ground.


Exactly, look at schalke in Germany, they never got full houses each week till the veltins!


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

bigbossman said:


> As i have previously said if you discount these regions you discount a lot of the non super cities in this country. And it would be ludicrous to discount them!


Not if the result is a white elephant. There could well be some convincing evidence that this would not be the case. I am not saying there isn't. I am just saying that I have not seen it yet.



bigbossman said:


> Since i last checked Newcastle and sunderland aren't the same city, infact they aren't even really part of the same urban area


Indeed, but I have seen comments that suggested that they shouldn't both be used because they are in the same region. 



bigbossman said:


> Erm most honest Liverpool fans will tell you that the atmosphere is shite outside of the big games! You can even hear it on the telly!


And...
I wasn't bigging up Liverpool I was genuinely asking a question.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

so as I've been saying all along:



> *
> Football at Twickers! World Cup 2018 bid team want to stage matches at rugby HQ*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue Lou (Aug 4, 2007)

MoreOrLess said:


> New Everton


Note likely to happen because it and the enabling retail park is against several planning policies.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> Since i last checked Newcastle and sunderland aren't the same city, infact they aren't even really part of the same urban area


As someone who comes from that area - the key problem with including both venues in a single world cup bid would be that they are both serviced by the same international airport, and I'm not too sure that there would be enough hotel accomodation/facilities in the area to cover the requirements for two stadiums.

On the positive side, unlike a lot of venues around England (north and south), there's plenty of land near both venues for the various FIFA requirements.



bigbossman said:


> Exactly, but it is what the "southern haters" have been doing with regard to Swindon and Plymouths crowds


The only stats I gave for Swindon and Plymouth were this seasons. I didn't go back looking for older numbers that better suited my needs. As for 'Southern haters' - behave, lad... I don't hate the south, I just don't believe any of the southern clubs can currently support a 40k venue (although I'll accept that Bristol City definately could IF they got into the EPL).



Mo Rush said:


> (re: Twickenham) so as I've been saying all along:


I think a lot of us have been hoping for this - partly because it's a huge boost in terms of quality and capacity, and partly because it'll put an end to the Arsenal/Spurs arguments about who should be the 2nd venue in London



carlspannoosh said:


> Not if the result is a white elephant. There could well be some convincing evidence that this would not be the case. I am not saying there isn't. I am just saying that I have not seen it yet.


Ditto.



carlspannoosh said:


> Indeed, but I have seen comments that suggested that they shouldn't both be used because they are in the same region.


I think there's an element to do with population here as well. Both Newcastle and Sunderland have support which is in many ways disproportionate to the local population. The entire North-East, from the Scottish border in the north to south of the Tees, has a population of around a million, yet we've got 40-50k regularly at Newcastle, 30-40k regularly at Sunderland and 25-30k at Boro. Thus, it's a bit of a hard sell to justify that million people having two venues, whilst the million in the south west have one (or none).


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Football at Twickers! World Cup 2018 bid team want to stage matches at rugby HQ
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...018-bid-team-want-stage-matches-rugby-HQ.html


I don't know quite how seriously to take this article (not just because it's in the Daily Bumwipe) as it suggests:

_"Twickenham would be used in addition to Wembley and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium."_

and

_"As things stand, Old Trafford would be used and so, in all probability, would Manchester City's home at Eastlands."_


Really? So five stadiums in two cities? :uh:


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Come one.
Ok i can understand if they will sue it instead of Emirates. But Wembley out?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

No suggestion of that sercan. Where did you get that idea?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Benjuk said:


> I think a lot of us have been hoping for this - partly because it's a huge boost in terms of quality and capacity, and partly because it'll put an end to the Arsenal/Spurs arguments about who should be the 2nd venue in London.


Twickenham would certainly offer a bigger second London stadium than Emirates or the new Spurs or Chelsea stadiums. But I'm not so sure that capacity is a major issue. Wembley will be the main London bid stadium and it has more than enough capacity for the big games. A 60K capacity would be perfectly adequate for smaller games, between less glamorous or popular nations. Besides, if rumours are to be believed, Arsenal will look to increase capacity to 70K or so in the not too distant future.

As to quality - there I have to disagree with you. The Emirates stadium (just as the new Spurs or Chelsea stadiums will be) is of a far higher quality than Twickenham. Other than the new south stand, Twickers is just an ugly, concrete giant. Its corporate areas aren't anything like the quality of the Emirates' and neither are the general public concourses. The Emirates also has an infinitely superior pitch for football that won't have to undergo any last minute overhaul. Lastly, although the Emirates' stands are too far from the pitch for my liking, I believe that they would still be considerably closer to the pitch than those at a Twickers in football mode.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

RobH said:


> No suggestion of that sercan. Where did you get that idea?


Dmans sorry. I thought instead of :nuts:
My fault. But 3 stadiums in London?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Exactly. They might be right that England 2018 are considering Twickenham, but they almost certainly aren't right about 3 stadiums being used in the capital plus two in Manchester. It's not very well researched and there are no quotes.

A pinch of salt required until we get more information I think.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Well there could be a deal on here, as the RFU want to use Wembley in a possible 2015 English Rugby Union world cup, and if so then the FA would want to use Twickenham in a 2018 World Cup. Here is an article on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/20/football-2018-world-cup-twickenham


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> As someone who comes from that area


hmmm 



> I think there's an element to do with population here as well. Both Newcastle and Sunderland have support which is in many ways disproportionate to the local population.


No they don't tyne and wear has a population of over a million people in it. 2 professional teams for a million people = two well supported teams!!



> The entire North-East, from the Scottish border in the north to south of the Tees, has a population of around a *million*,


no it doesn't

the population in north east england based on the 2001 census is 2.5 million.

are you sure you're from the north east... 




> yet we've got 40-50k regularly at Newcastle, 30-40k regularly at Sunderland and 25-30k at Boro.


I re-iterate. 3 clubs in that area should = three well supported clubs




> Thus, it's a bit of a hard sell to justify that million people having two venues, whilst the *million* in the south west have one (or none).


If Bristol has half a million, and plymouth has a quarter of a million. do you honestly think the population of the rest of the south west is 250,000.

Devon has over a million people for crying out loud!

The actual population of the south west is
4,928,458

So if the north east got 2 venues and the south west got none it would be completely unfair. However considering the south west has only 2 cities that can sustain it, the same as the north east. 2 stadiums in the NE and one in the SW wouldn't be unfair at all!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Kobo said:


> Well there could be a deal on here, as the RFU want to use Wembley in a possible 2015 English Rugby Union world cup, and if so then the FA would want to use Twickenham in a 2018 World Cup. Here is an article on it:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/20/football-2018-world-cup-twickenham


Now that type of quid pro quo would lead me to believe Twickers could very well be used, however this line from the linked article caught my eye and I'm now gauging how much salt needs to be applied here:


> _Fifa has made it clear that each city in the bid can have up to three stadiums and, while Wembley Stadium will inevitably be the centrepiece and host the final, Twickenham and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium are both impressing the team behind England's bid._


'm not sure if they mean simply for bidding purposes and the list will be culled by FIFA, or if they mean above and beyond the minimum distribution of venues and cities (10 & 9). I wouldn't be disappointed if Twickenham was indeed used for the cup, but it'd be a shame to see a quality club venue left out at their expense.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> The other possible venues in London would include one that does not yet exist – Tottenham's proposed new ground near their current White Hart Lane home which is not beyond the planning stage – and Chelsea's Stamford Bridge. However, neither is felt to be up to the required standard


Amazing that they already know! Stamford Bridge, fair enough; that'll never be chosen over the Emirates. But, if this is true and isn't just paper talk, they're being rather hasty on Spurs' new stadium!


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> hmmm
> 
> (re: population of north-east being 1 million) No they don't tyne and wear has a population of over a million people in it. 2 professional teams for a million people = two well supported teams!!
> 
> ...


Why would I lie about my heritage? I was born in Durham and grew up in Sunderland, first house I owned was in Washington. Have had jobs in Sunderland, Washington and Newcastle. Have attended several games at St James' Park, the old Ayresome Park and the Riverside, and the vast majority of home games played by Sunderland between 79-99.

As for the population figures - re: North-east, Tyne & Wear and south-west, I got my numbers mixed up. Very simple. I remembered the figure of a million and incorrectly associated it with the north east rather than with Tyne & Wear.

I think it's funny that you accuse someone of bashing the south, but when the same person suggests that two stadiums in the north-east and only one in the south-west is unbalanced you immediately switch round to saying that the south-east can't support the required stadiums (which was my point earlier in the thread).


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> Why would I lie about my heritage? I was born in Durham and grew up in Sunderland, first house I owned was in Washington. Have had jobs in Sunderland, Washington and Newcastle. Have attended several games at St James' Park, the old Ayresome Park and the Riverside, and the vast majority of home games played by Sunderland between 79-99.


I'm happy for you!



> As for the population figures - re: North-east, Tyne & Wear and south-west, I got my numbers mixed up. Very simple. I remembered the figure of a million and incorrectly associated it with the north east rather than with Tyne & Wear.


ok... and the fact you thought there were 1 million people in the south west....?



> I think it's funny that you accuse someone of bashing the south, but when the same person suggests that two stadiums in the north-east and only one in the south-west is unbalanced


It is unbalanced in overall population terms, but it's not that black and white

if you look a few pages back, i was advocating a 16 stadium bid, based on the fact that they use 8 stadiums in the euros for 31 games, the world cup is 64 games...

However as it is a maximum 12 stadium bid i have no problems in the NE having 2, because as there are 8 regions in England, at least 4 will have two stadiums, it's unavaoidable! 

The north east has the facilities already regardless



> you immediately switch round to saying that the south-east can't support the required stadiums (which was my point earlier in the thread).


No i didn't, stop lying. 

I said 1 stadium for the *SOUTH WEST*, i still maintain the "greater *SOUTH EAST*" should have at least 3 stadiums, 2 of which should be in London and another in one of the major settlements (portsmouth, Southampton, Reading or brighton etc)


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

RobH said:


> I don't know quite how seriously to take this article (not just because it's in the Daily Bumwipe) as it suggests:
> 
> _"Twickenham would be used in addition to Wembley and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium."_
> 
> ...


I'd guess they maybe getting confused between a shortlisted stadium and a definate host. As I said I wouldnt be at all supprized if the FA presents a bid with 10-12 stadiums at or very near FIFA standards then another half dozen new stadiums or major redevolpments to get the best of security(no repeat of 1986 or the rumours around 2010, not that I think there was ever much behind them Mo ) and sustainable redevolpment. One possilbe weakness I an see with an English bid is that rivals will point out the problems we have getting new stadiums approved and built so not depending on them maybe a smart move.

The most interesting point in that for me and something I hadnt considered was the cost of the twickenham redevolpment. Recouping the £80 million or whatever it was may well be enough to overcome objections to football and perhaps spend some cash on projects to sweeten the local residents.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> I'm happy for you!


I'm glad you are. I've got no problem with people picking fault with my numbers, my reasoning or my general thickness, but it gets my goat when my heritage (or honesty) is questioned!



bigbossman said:


> ok... and the fact you thought there were 1 million people in the south west....?


Probably should have said more than a million, it was simply to indicate that the south-west would have fewer stadiums for AT LEAST the same number of people (I was fairly sure it was more, I didn't realise it was that much more)... Which could be considered to be unfair. Your numbers strengthen my case on that score. It's not something I agree with - put the world cup games where people currently go to watch football, seems a fair concept to me.

Re: South-East/South-West. It was a typo on my part, apologies. I was referring back to your previous comments about Swindon, Plymouth, etc.

For the record, I fully support the idea of the North-East having two venues, principally because I support the notion of an English world cup being held in 'existing' stadia (that is, stadia that would be there whether we won a world cup bid or not). There aren't too many countries in the world who could do this and I think it would be something of a point of pride to be able to say that we can do this without making any significant stadium changes. The main reason I put the opposing argument was to show (a) a lack of bias, and (b) the reality that some of the required facilities (airports, hotels, etc) for Sunderland to host would already be a part of Newcastle's 'quota'. I'm not sure how FIFA would calculate this. I understand an international airport is required for host cities - I'm not sure if the same international airport can service two of those cities or not.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Sorry I still don't see the argument for using both St. James' *and* SOL unless as a backup. It will surely be the former with the latter in reserve.
Both stadiums are very good, and SOL is worthy of WC action, but I can't see any justification for needing two stadiums so close to each other in a fairly remote area of the country. Yes I know Middlesbrough is just down the road as well, but I think the KC would get the nod before the SOL.
Yes, I've heard the argument about Old Trafford and the new Anfield being close together, but we're talking here about the two biggest clubs in the country which belong to core cities lying in very densly populated areas. It's simply a different kettle of fish...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ firstly it's hull

secondly, Yorkshire has two stadiums/cities ahead of it in the pecking order leeds and sheffield. It shouldn't and won't beat out either of these, so if we include it, it would mean three stadiums for one region, which isn't fair at all.

we have 8 regions and 12 stadiums. 4 regions will have two stadiums, it's a given it will be yorkshire, the north west and london that will get two, the other i'd sooner have the north east personally


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

^^ I think you mis-read my sentance. But then again it was badly written/misleading I suppose.
I meant Hull's KC would be more desirable tied in with a bid containing St. James' rather than the latter being with the Riverside or SOL.


----------



## Wolds Mariner (Dec 31, 2008)

On what basis?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Schmeek said:


> ^^ I think you mis-read my sentance. But then again it was badly written/misleading I suppose.
> I meant Hull's KC would be more desirable tied in with a bid containing St. James' rather than the latter being with the Riverside or SOL.


For me sunderland is a much greater prospect than hull. no offence but hull.

I think you misunderstood my point. Hull is in Yorkshire not the north east, so can't really be tied in with Newcastle. For that matter middlesbrough is in yorkshire *and* the north east (major paradox :nuts. However, the point is Yorkshire already has two candidate cities (Sheffield and Leeds) above Hull. So Hull is out of the running, for me anyway.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Wolds Mariner said:


> On what basis?


We seem to be going round in circles on the same issue in two seperate threads...
Look, it's nothing against Sunderland - fantastic club, very impressive stadium, rich history, never been to the town so can't comment on that. My opinion is based solely on the basis of geographic spread (god I hate that termhno. I simply can't see the justification on using two grounds so close together, when other areas have none at all. Yes I understand these areas will require new stadia/upgrading but this is what happens at world cups. I cant think of any WC's where no building work was necesary except usa '94, and I suspect maybe even there there might have been something done (cant be arsed to research).
So there you have it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Grew up in Sunderland and spent an awful lot of time at the Stadium of Light... Speaking from that point of view, but trying to look beyond my Wearside-blinkers... If there are going to be 10 stadiums in England, then I can't see Sunderland being one of them - UNLESS someone can justify completing the second tier.

Geographically speaking - Sunderland and Newcastle are so close together and so well linked by public transport and roads, that which stadium is used very much comes down to capacity.

From a footballing point of view, and from the needs of the local community, I can't think of a reason to complete the second tier at Sunderland. However, the stadium was designed with the extensions in mind - so bumping capacity to 63k at the SoL would be far cheaper and far easier than bumping St James' to anything close to that capacity.

From the point of view of urban regeneration - no doubt if Sunderland bumped the capacity up and the FA/FIFA opted for our place the stimulus to the city center and particularly the area around the stadium would be enormous. (political rant starts here) The center of Newcastle on the other hand is already extremely well developed due to successive projects and local government schemes which have been centered on the Tyne rather than the Wear.

Perfect world, both venues would be used because they're both top class and but for the front couple of rows of seating they both match FIFA's guidelines.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> For me sunderland is a much greater prospect than hull. no offence but hull.
> 
> I think you misunderstood my point. Hull is in Yorkshire not the north east, so can't really be tied in with Newcastle. For that matter middlesbrough is in yorkshire *and* the north east (major paradox :nuts. However, the point is Yorkshire already has two candidate cities (Sheffield and Leeds) above Hull. So Hull is out of the running, for me anyway.


I don't think you can discount Hull simply because its in Yorkshire and so are Sheffield and Leeds. The fact is that Hull is a long way from those 2 venues. Leeds and Sheffield are closer to Manchester than thay are to Hull. If you discount Hull on its proximity to other venues then Brighton would be also too close to London ditto Reading, Nottingham too close to Birmingham etc.

Big plus for Hull is the stadium location, a city centre park next to a railway, so lots of room for hospitality and potential for a rail halt. Saying that the big question mark over Hull as a venue would be hotel rooms, at the moment nowhere near enough, and no real demand for the numbers required. So i think that Hull's chance will in the end come as a backup if Sheffield and Leeds can't put together redevelopment packages, and with the work required that isn't beyond the realms of possibility.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

To me the argument about SoL or St James is easy to solve, it will be both, as little upgrade is required to meet the venue requirements. There is no reason NOT to choose SoL & St James. IF there is an argument Sunderland is too close to Newcastle then maybe its a case of them sharing games, these 2 venues don't need 4-5 games each to make it viable for them to be venues. Surely that makes these 2 automatic choices?


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Well at present they would be certainties. That's for sure, as there is no reason against using both _right now_. But my argument is a hypothetical one, which reasons that if/when competition arrives in the form of new stadia/expansions in areas of the country where present infrastructure is inadequate (which is a highly likely scenario), then would both still be certainties?


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

The probelm is the area - Sunderland is a dump (no offence intended to locals)

Also, I dont think Sunderland has the amenities to support and cater for large numbers of international football fans. Not enough hotels, bars, restaurants etc. The thousands of supporters would be watching football at SoL and then travelling back to their hotels....in Newcastle.

So really we may aswell have just Newcastle in the bid.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

^^
That’s my thinking as well. Newcastle is a classy and underrated city, and St James' is the bigger of the two but also a far more known stadium worldwide.

I think and hope that at least 2 maybe 3 new stadiums will be built with the help of government funding and all the other stadium get some kind of improvement and modernisation. Sadly I can see the team being to short sighted and cocky though and just putting in stadiums that are built and not offering much in terms of financial help for teams building or improving their stadia hno:


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

ccfc-4-life said:


> The probelm is the area - Sunderland is a dump (no offence intended to locals)
> 
> Also, I dont think Sunderland has the amenities to support and cater for large numbers of international football fans. Not enough hotels, bars, restaurants etc. The thousands of supporters would be watching football at SoL and then travelling back to their hotels....in Newcastle.
> 
> So really we may aswell have just Newcastle in the bid.


As a native of Sunderland, I've been saying this for quite a while now. However, I resent it coming from someone from Coventry! :bash::lol:

As I said before, the only way I can see the Stadium of Light involved is if we upped our capacity to 63k, and used the hosting scenario to upgrade the area around the stadium and the city center. There's plenty that could be done but hasn't over the years because everytime there's public money available it seems to go to Newcastle.
eg/ the Metro transit system, paid for by Tyne & Wear rate-payers, wasn't connected to Wearside for 20-25 years after it opened on Tyneside.

I'll take that chip off my shoulder now.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

berkshire royal said:


> ^^
> That’s my thinking as well. Newcastle is a classy and underrated city, and St James' is the bigger of the two but also a far more known stadium worldwide.
> 
> I think and hope that at least 2 maybe 3 new stadiums will be built with the help of government funding and all the other stadium get some kind of improvement and modernisation. Sadly I can see the team being to short sighted and cocky though and just putting in stadiums that are built and not offering much in terms of financial help for teams building or improving their stadia hno:


I have to say it's been a pet peeve of mine that various clubs have bent over backwards to redevelop their own stadia, at their own cost, over the last 20 years, often sacrificing spending on players and getting themselves into all kinds of trouble (I'm looking at Coventry, Southampton, and to an even more dramatic extent Oxford)... All of a sudden, some bugger is going to get lucky (Bristol, Norwich, possibly a Yorkshire club and maybe one of the east midlands, maybe even Pompey down south) and have a large chunk of their stadium paid for as part of the world cup program.

We have a chance to do it in existing stadia - I'd love to see us do it that way. After all, the biggest strength of the English bid is the popularity and success of the game in England - what better way to prove that popularity than to be able to say, we'll do it with what we've already got, we're so good we don't have to build anything!


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Benjuk said:


> I have to say it's been a pet peeve of mine that various clubs have bent over backwards to redevelop their own stadia, at their own cost, over the last 20 years, often sacrificing spending on players and getting themselves into all kinds of trouble (I'm looking at Coventry, Southampton, and to an even more dramatic extent Oxford)... All of a sudden, some bugger is going to get lucky (Bristol, Norwich, possibly a Yorkshire club and maybe one of the east midlands, maybe even Pompey down south) and have a large chunk of their stadium paid for as part of the world cup program.
> 
> We have a chance to do it in existing stadia - I'd love to see us do it that way. After all, the biggest strength of the English bid is the popularity and success of the game in England - what better way to prove that popularity than to be able to say, we'll do it with what we've already got, we're so good we don't have to build anything!


Agreed. If any permanent structure at any stadium is to be built with public money, then the money must only be in the form of a loan at a market interest rate.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A loan yes, but surely it'd have to have a lower rate. Otherwise what's the advantage in taking public money?

Unless you're suggesting the taxpayer gives money to clubs that banks wouldn't, in which case that sounds rather risky, for the clubs and for the taxpayer.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

probably a loan which on which repayment could be deferred until a certain time - 5 years for instance.

However, this is where my home town has the advantage I feel. City's new stadium is planned to be expandable especially for the WC on a temporary basis.
This means that the club would not benefit in this way, as the temporary expansion would be removed afterwards, and no money would be spent by the club itself.


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> As a native of Sunderland, I've been saying this for quite a while now. However, I resent it coming from someone from Coventry! :bash::lol:
> 
> As I said before, the only way I can see the Stadium of Light involved is if we upped our capacity to 63k, and used the hosting scenario to upgrade the area around the stadium and the city center. There's plenty that could be done but hasn't over the years because everytime there's public money available it seems to go to Newcastle.
> eg/ the Metro transit system, paid for by Tyne & Wear rate-payers, wasn't connected to Wearside for 20-25 years after it opened on Tyneside.
> ...


Hey, Coventry is no Venise, we all know that:lol:

But I wouldnt go as far as to say that Coventry is as bad as Sunderland or worse! 

Even if SoL was expanded to 64k, I just cant see why a place like Sunderland should be hosting games for the world's biggest sporting event (football pisses over the olympics:cheers::bananaI think larger cities around the country should be given priority over Sunderland IMO.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> I don't think you can discount Hull simply because its in Yorkshire and so are Sheffield and Leeds. The fact is that Hull is a long way from those 2 venues. Leeds and Sheffield are closer to Manchester than thay are to Hull. If you discount Hull on its proximity to other venues then Brighton would be also too close to London ditto Reading, Nottingham too close to Birmingham etc.


The difference being. That Brighton and reading are in a different region to London. And nottingham is in the east midlands, birmingham in the west. Hull maybe far from Leeds but it's all yorkshire, and it's hardly heavily populated area that deserves it's own representation. 



> Big plus for Hull is the stadium location, a city centre park next to a railway, so lots of room for hospitality and potential for a rail halt. Saying that the big question mark over Hull as a venue would be hotel rooms, at the moment nowhere near enough, and no real demand for the numbers required. So i think that Hull's chance will in the end come as a backup if Sheffield and Leeds can't put together redevelopment packages, and with the work required that isn't beyond the realms of possibility.


And so it should be


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> A loan yes, but surely it'd have to have a lower rate. Otherwise what's the advantage in taking public money?
> 
> Unless you're suggesting the taxpayer gives money to clubs that banks wouldn't, *in which case that sounds rather risky*, for the clubs and for the taxpayer.


Not necessarily.

The banks have swung from one extreme to another. That's why the government are desperately trying to get them to start lending again. Banks have become overly cautious.

As to offering a lower rate, why should a select few clubs benefit from an arbitary decision on the location of World Cup venues? How would you feel, for instance, if Spurs were struggling to pay off their stadium loan at a high interest rate and Arsenal were suddenly given public money at a lower interest rate to increase their capacity to 75K? I know that I would be furious.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC :happy:


----------



## ccfc-4-life (Nov 6, 2006)

Gherkin said:


> Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC :happy:


I thought 45,000 was the minimum capacity for a WC bid?


----------



## Wolds Mariner (Dec 31, 2008)

Not yet. I've heard FIFA are looking at increasing the minimum figure, but it is still 40,000 at the moment.


----------



## Wolds Mariner (Dec 31, 2008)

Schmeek said:


> We seem to be going round in circles on the same issue in two seperate threads...
> Look, it's nothing against Sunderland - fantastic club, very impressive stadium, rich history, never been to the town so can't comment on that. My opinion is based solely on the basis of geographic spread (god I hate that termhno. I simply can't see the justification on using two grounds so close together, when other areas have none at all. Yes I understand these areas will require new stadia/upgrading but this is what happens at world cups. I cant think of any WC's where no building work was necesary except usa '94, and I suspect maybe even there there might have been something done (cant be arsed to research).
> So there you have it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


On this occasion, my specific query was in relation to the KC. Great arena though it is at the moment, surely this could well be another Reading in the making - talk about expansion one moment only to see that shelved indefinitely if or when results on the pitch go wrong. 

If you are not going to use Sunderland, and I really do think you're wrong on that one, then the safest option is Sheffield. At the present moment, Hull can only be considered as a back-up for both footballing, accommodation and transport reasons.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Gherkin said:


> Bristol City's new stadium can officially be expanded to 42,000 seats for the 2018 WC :happy:


Told you so:yes:

With the 45k thing, yes Blatter has been blethering about this amongst other mumblings, but I doubt it would be implimented before 2018 if at all. Considering the bidding has begun it would be a bit cheeky to start changing the rules.


----------



## Robert23262 (Jul 24, 2005)

I can't see it being a problem for City's new stadium if the capacity required was 45,000. The design of the extra two tiers (6,000 each) could easily be increased, I mean it's only an extra 1,500 seats they would need to add to the two tiers.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

Schmeek said:


> Told you so:yes:
> 
> With the 45k thing, yes Blatter has been blethering about this amongst other mumblings, but I doubt it would be implimented before 2018 if at all. Considering the bidding has begun it would be a bit cheeky to start changing the rules.



I think the 45k comes from the fact that the stadiums have to have a net capacity of 40k. That means after taking out all the seats for the media etc. So to make sure you'll be easily over 40k need to have several thousand in excess.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Gherkin said:


> Swapping Eastlands for a stadium in the East would be a waste of money - there's no question. If FIFA want a stadium in the East then they'll build one, but if they don't want one and allow Eastlands to be used then that'll be a lot more convenient for us.


If we were going to go down that sort of route (which we won't, because FIFA won't allow it), then it would make far more sense to use three London stadiums than to use Old Trafford, New Anfield and Eastlands.

1. The population of the south east is twice as big as that of the north west.

2. Twickenham and / or a new Spurs or Chelsea stadium will be superior to even an expanded Eastlands.


----------



## Loranga (Apr 24, 2003)

Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:

1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?

Just pure speculations, just interested to hear your opinions.
IMO England have better stadia than Spain, but I doubt England beat Spain-Portugal.
And the "only-one-city-with-two-stadia rule" is more of a disadvantage for England than for Spain-Portugal.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

None would be tipping points as at this stage all the FA have to do is present a list of stadiums which could be worked into a final list of stadiums. It's only after a country has won that FIFA and that country choose the definitive list.

I have no problem including Twickenham and the Emirates on that long provisional list of possible stadiums during the bid. From my personal perspective, if England win I hope the case for the Emirates is then argued by the FA.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Edit: So as not to confuse readers, due to some miracle of technology my post has been placed ahead of one that I quoted! 



Loranga said:


> Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:
> 
> 1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
> 2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
> 3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?


1. I think most Englishmen would be fine, if it was the tipping point.
2. Ditto here, as the relationships of England/Wales and FA/Millennium are more intertwined at present I feel. Plus, as I've opined before it would be a 1-facility deal wherein Wales could be convinced to waive any rights to an autobid in exchange for the publicity. Meanwhile...
3. ... the coordination with Scotland would be more politically involved and thus less appealing. Whereas the use of Millennium would be taken as a nice, cooperative gesture, the idea of "needing" Scottish aid/venues seems to rub some people raw. Sure, Murrayfield and either Parkhead or Hampden would add large established venues but would they be worth it? Which English cities would have to forfeit their hope to be involved? Would Scotland ask for an autobid in exchange?


> Just pure speculations, just interested to hear your opinions.
> IMO England have better stadia than Spain, but I doubt England beat Spain-Portugal. And the "only-one-city-with-two-stadia rule" is more of a disadvantage for England than for Spain-Portugal.


Well the Spain Portugal bid already has one disadvantage in Blatter's recent dismissal of joint bids for those nations capable of hosting on their own. England doesn't want to even appear in need of aid, and in theory FIFA would look more favorably on their independent efforts than on Spain trying to gain an advantage by calling upon a neighbor country. Personally I don't think Spain needs the help but are using this to try and leapfrog England in the race for the next European host. And while you're right in that the "1-with-2" rule appears to hurt England, if done properly this will aid the nation in the long run by forcing stadium upgrades in places that otherwise might not have pursued them. 


RobH said:


> I have no problem including Twickenham and the Emirates on that long provisional list of possible stadiums during the bid. From my personal perspective, if England win I hope the case for the Emirates is then argued by the FA.


Agreed. The use of an acceptable club football ground should be given priority if available. Even if it's in Tot... erm, I mean Chel... uh, yeah even if it's an expanded Valley!




Gherkin said:


> Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place.


So you're certain that an expanded Eastlands, for which there is no current need or plans for an expansion, would be better than the new s**** ground, for which we've seen only a few concept sketches, and yet you're unclear about it being better than a new Chelsea home despite that concept being nothing more than doubted internet fodder? Amazing!


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

Loranga said:


> For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English...


Because that would mean three countries bidding for a WC. FIFA would not want that for certain.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

JimB said:


> If we were going to go down that sort of route (which we won't, because FIFA won't allow it), then it would make far more sense to use three London stadiums than to use Old Trafford, New Anfield and Eastlands.
> 
> 1. The population of the south east is twice as big as that of the north west.
> 
> 2. Twickenham and / or a new Spurs or Chelsea stadium will be superior to even an expanded Eastlands.



Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place. I'd swap Eastlands for Twickers any day. It's not exactly costly to change the pitch in Twickers and swap the rugby posts for football nets for a couple of weeks. 

I just don't like seeing World Cup quality venues not being used because of their Geography or current use. Building a new stadium in Norwich/Nottingham when there are perfectly good stadia in London makes no economical sense. It would be convenient to have 4 or 5 stadiums in London, but it won't happen! 





Loranga said:


> Some questions, particularly to the English forum members:
> 
> 1. If using Twickenham would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
> 2. If using Millenium stadium would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?
> 3. If using Scottish stadia would be a tipping point to get the bid, would you accept it?


I'd like to see Twickenham used. No bid would overlook a 82,000 seater stadium! The Millennium stadium and grounds in Scotland would damage the English bid. England will have enough stadiums without having to borrow from other countries...


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Loranga said:


> For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.


a)FIFA rules and Blatter's stated preference for single nation bids, unless the joint bidders would be incapable of hosting on their own. The issue of allotting automatic births with shared bids is a big logistical problem here.
b) Pride. As the "home of football" England doesn't want to suggest a "need" for outside assistance.
c) Lost opportunity to upgrade facilities elsewhere. If England is supposedly weak enough to need such outside help then it begs to question the their worth to begin with.

On the surface it would be very appealing, but especially in dragging the socio-politics of England vs Britain into the picture the organizers know it's best to stay away from that if possible. The only reason Millennium might be applied is if 1) Wales waives their right to automatic entry (very possible), and 2) the notion that Wales could never host a major tournament on their own. Scotland could possibly do the latter through a Euros.


> Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?


Based on things as they are today? Unlikely. Based on what's proposed and possible, it becomes very likely. Whether people agree with it or not some government monies would be used to ensure the completion of several new/upgraded facilities to ensure a top-notch event. We simply don't have the level of conceptual images to base this on as yet, as opposed to what we've seen for Spain.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Methinks this is a Star Trek episode. I keep quoting posts that apparently occurred after my own!


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Gherkin said:


> Well an expanded Eastlands would certinaly be prettier than what Spurs are planning and have better transport links. We're in no position to say whether a new 60,000+ stadium for Chelsea would be better or not as there are little plans in place.


We can't really say which will be the "prettier" - if that even matters.

Eastlands looks reasonable on the outside. I like the roof but the remainder of the exterior is no more than okay. The interior, however, seems rather soulless to me. When (and if) expanded, I rather think that the interior will look a lot better but the roof at either end will almost certainly have to be rebuilt in order to accomodate the extra 12,000 seats. In which case, the best aspect of the exterior will have been compromised.

As to Spurs' new stadium, we can't really be sure how it will look yet. The initial renders weren't of the highest quality and much will depend on the cladding. It's also possible that there will be changes between those first images and the final design. It's now more than two months since Spurs released those images and they said then that further renders would be published within a month. The fact that that hasn't happened could suggest that the architects are working on some design changes after guaging initial reaction to the original design.

On the inside, I'm hopeful that the new White Hart Lane will look rather better than the interior of Eastlands. The stands should certainly be closer to the pitch. I also expect that the new White Hart Lane's corporate areas will be both more extensive and of a higher standard of finish than Eastlands.


----------



## Loranga (Apr 24, 2003)

KiwiBrit said:


> Because that would mean three countries bidding for a WC. FIFA would not want that for certain.


Well, not necessary, Wales would not really host the WC, just lend one of their stadiums.


----------



## Wolds Mariner (Dec 31, 2008)

Quite simply, Loranga, yes.


----------



## Loranga (Apr 24, 2003)

Gherkin said:


> I'd like to see Twickenham used. No bid would overlook a 82,000 seater stadium! The Millennium stadium and grounds in Scotland would damage the English bid.


For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.



Gherkin said:


> England will have enough stadiums without having to borrow from other countries...


Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Loranga said:


> For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.


Not being *at all *English. The stadiums are in a different country! This would mean a joint host with the Welsh and the Scottish... and FIFA won't allow joint bids. 




Loranga said:


> Enough good stadiums to beat the other bidders?


If it hasn't got good enough stadiums then it will have to build more or revnovate/expand current stadia. If it doesn't build new stadia it won't win the bid! England could host a World Cup tomorrow but it would use a few grounds that aren't World Cup class.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

JimB said:


> As to Spurs' new stadium, we can't really be sure how it will look yet. The initial renders weren't of the highest quality and much will depend on the cladding. It's also possible that there will be changes between those first images and the final design. It's now more than two months since Spurs released those images and they said then that further renders would be published within a month. The fact that that hasn't happened could suggest that the architects are working on some design changes after guaging initial reaction to the original design.


Some changes may be needed, but the reports suggested a good deal of design work had already gone into this stadium.

I suspect the delay has more to do with our current league predicament.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

JimB said:


> We can't really say which will be the "prettier" - if that even matters.
> 
> Eastlands looks reasonable on the outside. I like the roof but the remainder of the exterior is no more than okay. The interior, however, seems rather soulless to me. When (and if) expanded, I rather think that the interior will look a lot better but the roof at either end will almost certainly have to be rebuilt in order to accomodate the extra 12,000 seats. In which case, the best aspect of the exterior will have been compromised.
> 
> ...


I agree.

Also, with regards to using Twikenham - if it wins us the bid, then of course we'd go with it. Great stadium. But we don't need it and so shouldn't even begin to go down the path of using stadia outside the realm of football.
Same with Millenium stad. If we have to, and it's great but It'll never happen. The fact that it's in a different country means it's a non-starter. So is Scotland.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> As the more iconic and larger venue, OT would appear to be the more likely.


More likely? The likelihood of using Eastlands over OT is about as likely as using the Hawthorns instead of Villa Park. Never.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Schmeek said:


> More likely? The likelihood of using Eastlands over OT is about as likely as using the Hawthorns instead of Villa Park. Never.


Two things - 

One - I've heard it suggested that Eastlands offers better opportunities for FIFA's commercial operations (tenting villages, etc.) 

Two - with FIFA, you never know what's going on.



Loranga said:


> For a foreigner, can you explain why it would damage the English bid? Apart from not being purely English.


Would it harm a purely Spanish bid if they had a single Portugese stadium, or the German bid if they had added a Polish venue rather than building in Leipzig? Wales and Scotland, for the purposes of football, are entirely different countries. It's really as simple as that.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

just a quick note.

this sort of thinking about whether venues are football or rugby may matter to England but FIFA really aren't interested whether you want to host matches in your "football realm" or outside of it.

It looks for a venue that offers world cup potential.
Reasonable distance to the main accommodation node, transport (within 2/3km), SPACE for the commercial and venue operations and of course the stadium structure itself which must provide the relevant spaces as required.

Because the English want a world cup within a "football realm" won't really impact on FIFA's choice of venues, whether its presented by the FA to FIFA or not.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

You've said this more than once Mo and nobody disagrees with you. Doesn't make it right though and it doesn't mean many people won't feel as though we'll not be doing as good a job as we can do with FIFA's interferences.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> You've said this more than once Mo and nobody disagrees with you. Doesn't make it right though and it doesn't mean many people won't feel as though we'll not be doing as good a job as we can do with FIFA's interferences.


I don't think FIFA's concern for its sponsors that pump in prob closer to 5 billion dollars for 2018 should be considered an "interference".

The only reason I'm saying what I say is so that people don't get their hopes up for a football realm type tournament when thats not how things work.
Its venue vs. venue according to what FIFA needs to host a world cup.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Is it too much to ask for the sponsors to have a tented area with some parking? for the media to have a decent temporary media centre? a waiting area for volunteers? a reasonable area for a medium size transport mall?


No, it's not too much to ask. But the choice of stadiums should be worked out based on footballing reasons and what the fans would enjoy most: that's the primary consideration. _Then_ you do your utmost to induldge the sponsors. Tents by the stadium where possible, sure! Tents in the city centres, why not?! Huge amounts of billboard space around the stadiums and in the cities, great idea! etc. etc.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> But the choice of stadiums should be worked out based on footballing reasons and what the fans would enjoy most


and the "fans" would enjoy a 60,000 seat stadium rather than an 82,000 seat packed venue because its in the "football realm".

ticket sales vs sponsorship?

i repeat. if you're paying $5 billion, a tent next to the stadium, a decent temporary media centre, emergency areas, vip parking, volunteers areas etc. is not asking too much.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> and the "fans" would enjoy a 60,000 seat stadium rather than an 82,000 seat packed venue because its in the "football realm".
> 
> ticket sales vs sponsorship?
> 
> i repeat. if you're paying $5 billion, a tent next to the stadium, a decent temporary media centre, emergency areas, vip parking, volunteers areas etc. is not asking too much.


Hang on a minute, Mo, I think you've got this all the wrong way round.
Why are the sponsors paying out ridiculously large sums of money? Just for laughs? For charity? Of course not, it's so that they can use the tournament to increase their business. We shouldn't be thankful to them, they should be thankful to the game of football and FIFA for the opportunity to promote themselves to such a huge broad audience..


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Schmeek said:


> Hang on a minute, Mo, I think you've got this all the wrong way round.
> Why are the sponsors paying out ridiculously large sums of money? Just for laughs? For charity? Of course not, it's so that they can use the tournament to increase their business. We shouldn't be thankful to them, they should be thankful to the game of football and FIFA for the opportunity to promote themselves to such a huge broad audience..


have you seen the global climate?

dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.

that and the 1km ban on advertising surrounding the venue


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> have you seen the global climate?
> 
> dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.
> 
> that and the 1km ban on advertising surrounding the venue


The last reason I do see as very strange and I can hardly imagene it is legal.
(just a feeling I have.)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

RobH said:


> There is a big difference between "isn't always used for football" and "has never hosted a football match in its history".
> 
> Footballing history may not be essential but it is something we have which bids from the likes of the US and Australia won't have. The appeal of a world cup in Premier League (and some football league) stadiums is strong and I don't want to see that diluted.


any new stadium won't have a history thats fact, and if a stadium like Twickenham can't be used just because it has never hosted a football match but has everything else would be ridiculous. if it meets the criteria which Fifa provide then it should be allowed to host (obviously depending on the RFU). it probably meets the criteria moreso then majority of the football stadiums on offer. it hardly dilutes the bid with regards to history, its only one stadium. if the stadium means more real fans get to attend then im all for it. we should not just dismiss an 82,000 seater stadium.

In an ideal world i'd prefer London to have 3 stadiums.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

skaP187 said:


> The last reason I do see as very strange and I can hardly imagene it is legal.
> (just a feeling I have.)


oh its very legal.
if its not yet legal in your city, it will be if you want to win the bid.

when you sign that host city agreement you're hooked.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

No person shall, except with the prior approval of the City Manager, and to the extent applicable and within the area of jurisdiction of the City, *conduct any advertising activity* on any public advertising media –

(a) *during the final draw *and for a period of two weeks immediately prior to the final draw;

(b) during the period of the Competition and for a period of 2 weeks immediately prior to the first match and 2 weeks immediately following the final match,

(c) in the following areas -

(i) immediately outside or surrounding *airports*;
(ii) in or immediately outside or surrounding *main train stations*; and
(iii) within a *1 kilometre radius* of the central business district of the area of jurisdiction of the City or as demarcated by the City Manager; and
(iv) to the extent the City has jurisdiction, on the *principal routes* from the airport and main train stations to the central business district of the area of jurisdiction of the City and to the stadium.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> dont confuse me with a sponsor lover. im just suggesting that perhaps, given the bundles of sponsorship revenues they throw at FIFA, that a tent outside a venue along with other necessary requirement for world cup matces is not asking too much.


Yes and no. Some wonderful, older stadiums and those in established urban areas may have everything needed to host the event except this extraneous outside space. When you factor in how such barren landscapes can be detriments to the day-to-day health for such urban areas it seems an egregious request for what is for most communities just one month and 3-5 games. 

If this request can be handled gracefully within existing development and urban fabric, then there is no issue. If it is more difficult then FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods, like the use of convention centers and nearby parks, so that the event doesn't become more costly than needed nor leaves an ill-conceived void just to temporarily accommodate some ugly t-shirt give-aways. I'd rather the sponsors pay less then dictate urban form.


----------



## Dan-87 (Mar 2, 2009)

I don't want us to win the bid for the World Cup, having a trip to Spain with thousands and thousands of English will do me nicely .
It would also mean more clubs will lose their original stadiums to make way for bigger venues, although it will happen anyway for a fair few it will just speed the process up and English football is losing it's soul as it is, let alone having more plastic, souless bowls.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

No person shall erect, maintain, distribute or display a sign, a billboard or an advertising structure in a Controlled Access Site or an *Exclusion Zone*

Exclusion zone indicated in red. 
Loftus Versfeld Exclusion Zone


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> Yes and no. Some wonderful, older stadiums and those in established urban areas may have everything needed to host the event except this extraneous outside space. When you factor in how such barren landscapes can be detriments to the day-to-day health for such urban areas it seems an egregious request for what is for most communities just one month and 3-5 games.
> 
> If this request can be handled gracefully within existing development and urban fabric, then there is no issue. If it is more difficult then FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods, like the use of convention centers and nearby parks, so that the event doesn't become more costly than needed nor leaves an ill-conceived void just to temporarily accommodate some ugly t-shirt give-aways. I'd rather the sponsors pay less then dictate urban form.


Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.

I refer to an article by Patrick Ronan, a leading private sector international major event risk management and safety and security legislation specialist based in Johannesburg. He refers to *Newlands stadium*, proposed in the bid book for the 2010 FIFA world cup, in Cape Town, and *subsequently dropped by FIFA* as world cup venue after the bid was won.


"The elevated global security environment since 9/11 aside, one must appreciate the behavioural profile of football supporters, rugby supporters and attendees at rock concerts is somewhat different to that of spectators to athletic events.

The bottom line is that Newlands Stadium/a community based stadium, hemmed in by narrow streets, a railway line, and a mixed residential commercial node, is not, for example, conducive to the deployment of internationally benchmarked safety and security strategies designed to protect the most important stakeholder who attend sporting events at Newlands - the general public.

For example, the deployment of multiple concentric rings of security strategies at such events requires space as spectators who exited Newlands Stadium immediately after the Tri-Nations test against Australia in July can attest to." Patrick Ronan

Space is not only important to sponsors and FIFA but important to protect spectators.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> FIFA should be accepting of alternative methods.


Or FIFA can drop the venue. Its happened before.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.


True enough, but it's leaning towards a form of extremism that I feel is unwarranted. By comparable logic we should never go through airports or fly, every structure should be acres apart and motorways should be abandoned as simply too dangerous. 

Clearly newer and larger stadiums will feature larger footprints with exterior space comparable to what FIFA is requesting, for transport and safety reasons as well as possible tents and temporary events. But if sound building codes suggest a facility is capable of hosting within tight spaces then i should be allowed. It's very much like the issue with allowing modern fans to stand during matches. Germany is showing it can be done with architectural tweaks (compared to days of old) and better crowd control. Similarly, just because a venue may be deeply urban doesn't mean it HAS to be a transport or security nightmare. It simply requires more attention than some venue in the middle of acres of open space.

I don't think anyone is doubting your intentions or spirit, Mo. It's simply a thin line in determining how much the architecture should be compromised to accommodate various functions, and I for one don't wish to see a sport in some space that's so dehumanizing and stale that I'm not at a sporting event but rather some interactive corporate commercial that coincidentally features some type of athletic activity. :cheers: 

Then again this is FIFA. Sepp probably thinks we're all there to see him and are simply catching a game or two while in the neighborhood. :nuts:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Or FIFA can drop the venue. Its happened before.


They can, surely. But they'll run the risk of further hampering the intention of increasing the number of potential host nations and the possible hosting venues. Perhaps they're out to make everyone build brand new, in which case I'll loathe this organization all the more as blind, foolish tyrants of a myopic empire. Football can thrive without FIFA. The converse, however, can not be called true.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> True enough, but it's leaning towards a form of extremism that I feel is unwarranted. By comparable logic we should never go through airports or fly, every structure should be acres apart and motorways should be abandoned as simply too dangerous.
> 
> Clearly newer and larger stadiums will feature larger footprints with exterior space comparable to what FIFA is requesting, for transport and safety reasons as well as possible tents and temporary events. But if sound building codes suggest a facility is capable of hosting within tight spaces then i should be allowed. It's very much like the issue with allowing modern fans to stand during matches. Germany is showing it can be done with architectural tweaks (compared to days of old) and better crowd control. Similarly, just because a venue may be deeply urban doesn't mean it HAS to be a transport or security nightmare. It simply requires more attention than some venue in the middle of acres of open space.
> 
> ...


I hear you. But deeply urban, in the form of a city centre/nearby is very different to deeply urban, stuck in the middle of a neighbourhood with houses on each side of the venue.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Benjuk said:


> So far as FIFA is concerned they are NOT in the same nation. It's not complicated.
> 
> ... And don't get me started on the use of tax-payers money. Let's not forget that Scottish taxes are spent by the Scottish parliament, Welsh taxes by the Welsh, Irish by the Irish, but English by the British (thus spent on national projects including Wales, Scotland and Ireland)!


Whether its "fair" of not there would be political capital to be made from it just as there is by having venues for the olyimpic football there in 2012. 

I'm not saying theres nothing standing in the way of it but the outright dismissals here are more down to peoples nationism and natural desire to see there local venues used IMHO. A German WC with 1 polish venue would not be in the best interests of any german organisation involved and would damage the image of the event, an English WC with 1 welsh and Scottish venue would be in the interests of many and not be nearly as damaging, maybe even a positive.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> Perhaps the community based stadium is no longer suited to hosting major events, cannot cope with the security required in these times, or the level of safety required for the movement of spectators.


The trouble with this logic is the stadiums which have supposedly been brought into question in our bid are the Emirates and St James' - stadiums which hold "major events" every fortnight.

It's got sod-all to do with safety and security and everything to do with $$$ and these corporate tents in my opinion.

-----

Don't take this as me having a go btw Mo. I know your posts only try to reflect FIFA's thinking and your country having gone through this process means you know a lot about it - so your contribution is valued.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

So Mo....are to believe that, if the Spain / Portugal bid was to win the vote to host the 2018 World Cup, the Bernabeu will NOT be among the selected stadiums? After all, it is surrounded by buildings and major roads.

Somehow, I think FIFA will find a way around having their beloved tents immediately adjacent to the stadium. They would be made to look irredeemably foolish if they were to exclude one of the greatest and most iconic stadiums in all of world football (if not THE greatest and most iconic) on the basis of the lack of space to erect a few sheets of canvass.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

RobH said:


> The trouble with this logic is the stadiums which have supposedly been brought into question in our bid are the Emirates and St James' - stadiums which hold "major events" every fortnight.
> 
> It's got sod-all to do with safety and security and everything to do with $$$ and these corporate tents in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Exactly my thoughts. Every two weeks 52,000 cram into St James's Park and there is no security issue here, suddenly the venue is considered unsafe? You'd be ruling out some of the most historic grounds in the country, Anfield is penned in too.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Steel City Suburb said:


> What a load of crap.
> 
> Your league is on about 23 games.
> 
> The premier league is on 28.


what a load of crap

they both have 10-11 games to go


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it. 

The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> I can't see how you can look at those stats - dating back over an elongated period and not accept that they indicate a superiority. Take any individual season and I accept that random elements - a lucky result here, a lucky draw there can come into effect - total things up over 10 years and the fact that the richest league in the world comes out on top makes it quite clear that this league is dominating things.
> 
> The point of concern for FIFA appears to be that the dominance is growing stronger - 6 out of 8 semi finalists in the last 2 years, 8 out of 12 in the last 3 - 4 out of 16 remaining teams in the current competition (3 of them leading after the 1st leg).


Firstly i notice you only replied to that point as that is clarly all you fealt you could.

England have had 3 more teams than spain in the quarter finals. But the same amount in the semi's and less in the final. I take reaching the final over the quarters. SO i'd say based upon those stats they are equal. However you have to bare in mind Englnads stats are inflated by the last two years. You siad over the last decade, a decade is ten years not two great seasons which mask everything. 

The point is the fact that this is happening is not down to a superior league. 

The fact is if the 6+5 rule was in play English clubs wouldn't have a leg to stand on except man united. And thats the point if you say english clubs "dominate". But the point is it would'nt change that match, in a 2 legged 1 off match, Liverpoool with 6 english players have same chances as with 3. It's not a tournament of skill!!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Steel City Suburb said:


> But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it.
> 
> The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.


they had runaway after 23 games


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

I don't think you get it, so im off for a while..


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Steel City Suburb said:


> But the point was that the point tally in the Premier league was higher because the top 4 have run away with it.
> 
> The fact is, its not that way at all as the PL has played around 5 games more in those tables.


I just showed it as an example not as statistical hard evidence. Of course the actual tables from two different leagues with a different numver of contestants and different number of games played will not be 100% comparable. But the quoted top of the tables show a major aspect. In the premier league there is a much bigger gap of points between the top teams and the rest than in the Bundesliga. I strongly encourage you to take the time to look at teh finan standings of the last years not necessarily the last decade even the last 5 years do. And when you compare the bundesliga to the premiere league you'll easily see some fundamental differences. The race for the title in the bundesliga has been much closer. the race for the UEFA-Cup and Championsleague places also. And in the bundesliga there's hardly any gap between the top teams and the rest. And the top teams vary much more there's much more fluctuation than in the premiere league. Look at the past seasons and you'll easily see that. But I surely won't quote all the tables of the final league standings here, but you'll see several fundamental differences in these two leagues. Especially at the top. But also the difference between the first and second Bundesliga is much smaller, you'll see a bigger fluctiation of teams in germany, more teams that sucessfully stay in the top league for a few years teqams that drop out and find themselves fighting to remain in the second league like Hansa Rostock at the moment. In Germany it's a much closer race than in england, in most areas at least. Not only in the race for the title, but also in the lower leagues, fighting for the relegations.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Alemanniafan said:


> Well, since Blatters statement is discussed so lively here. I'd like to explain my own personal worries and my opinion, which is very simmilar to blatters, but with a little different argumentation than he used. It turned out to be a pretty long post, so if you're not interested in discussing the matter just skip it and accept my apology for taking my part in this large off topic discussion.
> 
> First of all in any professional sport, soccer too, sucess is largely a matter of available money. Not only but largely. If you look at the money teams have availabe to spend you get a fairly accurate estimate on how sucessfull the teams are and will be. The financial ranking and the sports ranking are fairly equal, with a few exceptions of course.
> 
> ...



although i agree with you slightly. you have some massive misconceptions.

Manchester united aren't bankrolled by the glazers, the glazers bought manchester united to service their debt. Manchester untied made their money through crazy marketing around the world and having a much bigger stadium than everyone else, and being sucessful at just the right time.

Chelsea are a different case, ambramovich has pumped a lot of money into them.

Liverpool and Arsenal are up their due to traditional wealth and the fact that they keep the champions league places on lockdown.

Tottenham would be up their if they spent their money more wisely.

I consider financial doping to be false and creative accounting, and securing loans against projected future earnings (like Leeds did). The club was in a false position. 

I think your point about owners is slightly wrong. You have to remember in the 90s the onnly way clubs in italy competed way abo ve everyone else is by being back rolled by rich owners

Fiorentina (cecchi gori), Parma (parmalat), Inter (Morratti), Milan (berlusconi), Juventus (agnelli/FIAT), Lazio (cirio), Roma (Sensi). Not forgetting sampdoria, Napoli and verona in the 80s

The clear difference although most of the best international stars played in Italy, the teams were *heavily italian*, No italian team featured in a final without 6 italian players, and many had up to 9. And this is the case as recently as the 2007 champions league final when milan started with 7 italians and ended the game with 8. Liverpool on the other hand started with 3 englishmen (ending with 4). Spot the difference.

The english league isn't the english league in essence. If it was forced into fielding a quota of english players it's financial clout wouldn't matter at all. The point is the other major leagues compete at a high level with squads full of nationals always have done always will do. If you look Real madrid and inter are the only real exceptions.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Alemanniafan said:


> In the Bundesliga any team can beat another. Noone is truely dominant only Bayern München stands out a little, but even they are not overly dominant, basically pretty much any team can somewhat reasonably win the championship and any pretty much any team can also drop out.


Id have to disagree here. Bayern has indeed been very dominant in the last 10 years.

*Bundesliga:*

1998/99 *FC Bayern München*
1999/2000 *FC Bayern München*
2000/01 *FC Bayern München*
2001/02 Borussia Dortmund
2002/03 *FC Bayern München*
2003/04 Werder Bremen
2004/05 *FC Bayern München*
2005/06 *FC Bayern München*
2006/07 VfB Stuttgart
2007/08 *FC Bayern München*

*EPL:*

1998–99 *Manchester United*
1999–2000 *Manchester United*
2000–01 *Manchester United*
2001–02 Arsenal
2002–03 *Manchester United*
2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 *Manchester United*
2007–08 *Manchester United*




> Hamburger SV and VfL Wolfsburg for example fought hard to remain in the bundesliga two seasons ago, now they both allready compete for the title in a close race again, with just as much poinst as Bayern München have.


True, but then again it has been a while since Hamburg won the league the last time, and Wolfsburg has just been kicked out of the UEFA Cup by St-Germain's B-squad, once again illustrating how uncompetitive german clubs have become in the last decade. 



> And even the english national team also suffers in several ways from these developements, from the overall conditions in the premiere league. The German national team for example on the other hand has much better conditions here with the Bundesliga and the number of german players that play here in the top teams, or the first league in general.


The english national team has always been rather unsuccessful since '66 no matter how many foreigners have played in their league.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

GNU said:


> Id have to disagree here. Bayern has indeed been very dominant in the last 10 years.
> 
> *Bundesliga:*
> 
> ...



Stats really skew things

Ony the 1999 and 2008 championships went to the final day. and only 4 teams have come in the top two since that date. And Liverpool only did so once.

In the bundesliga however in that time i can think of it going to the last day at least 4 times. And i can remember both Bayer leverkusen and Schalke some how throwing league titles away. Schalke on at least 3 occassions. As well as those teams stuttgart have come runners up. That's already 2 more than England.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> What he is referring to is the best talent being stock piled at the biggest clubs in one country, which is wrong.


But it's not like the Prem is hoarding all the best players. Unless, of course, Man City gets some of their dream signings, in which case England would have a fifth "big club" to further disparage the supposed Big Four oligopoly. I'd wager the average global citizen would name more stars for the likes of Madrid, Barca, Milan, etc than they could for the Prem. Most fans I know can barely name Prem "stars" outside of Torres, Gerrard and the ManU and Chelsea rosters, and there'd be a lot of debate about whether the likes of Adebayor constitutes the level of talent being hoarded by Premiership money.



> The premier league is only globally popular because it has financial clout. ...
> They are watching because the game is an international circus, not representative of english football with the exception being the frenetic pace.


I can't dispute this but I don't think it can be confirmed, either. Granted I come from a sporting background where my friends and I support teams, not players, and I DO watch Premiership games because of the nature of the English game and especially the crowds. Nothing disappoints me more than seeing an Italian (or Brazilian, French... whatever) match played in front of half-empty buildings, especially if it becomes a series of isolated 1-2 man shows as opposed a team game. Clearly my tastes are but my own, but they resonate with/from the folks I hang with here in metro Atlanta. EPL games are on in several pubs because their EPL games, not because player X is on. Now, maybe the EPL is marketing it's overall brand as having a wealth of talent and as such people blindly watch the whole brand. But It's not like the EPL has cornered the market like league of galacticos. 


> When we had three births there was a genuine big 6. Arsenal, chelsea, Liveprool, Newcastle, MAchester united and Leeds, and this was by no means exclusive. And the fact that the same 3 didn't qualify every season meant that they didn't mop up the TV revenue and meant competition was greater. The theme would be to decrease the amount of places per big league from 4 to 3 or ideally 2, that will neve happen though.


Which essentially proves my point, that having a cadre that matches the allotment of ECL berths (and thus access to ECL cash) enforces the theory that it's a select group, but if the number swings one way or the other to create variety in ECL spots the image would be viewed as less oppressive.


> Germany doesn't lack big clubs. Schalke, Dortmund, Hamburg etc are all big clubs. The fact is Bayern didn't finish in the top 3, 2 seasons ago (when was the last time man utd didn't??), and the champions that season came mid table the season after and before. The league is more competitive.


I'll rephrase: Big in terms of global branding and wealth. I love the Bundesliga and consider it easily one of the top 2 leagues going for entertainment. But the same ownership rules that foster this competitive balance also minimize their ability to compete against the Milans and ManUs of the world. Personally, I'd love to see the fiscal and ownership rules for Bundesliga clubs applied across the globe.


> The spanish league is very competive. Real madrid and Barcelona regurlarly come outside the top two. Barca specifically, with the exception of the messi/ronaldinho years barcelona have been off the pace this decade. Playing in the uefa cup and battling for 4th.


But again, the global appeal of other clubs and their ability to sustain top finishes is paltry compared to the two giants. When Madrid slips it's considered an anomaly and they're capable of rebuilding the next year. The same cannot be said for the likes of Valencia, Betis, etc. Hopefully the stadium boom and continued growth of La Liga overall will help this. 


> I take it you've never heard of the seven sisters?? the 5 you mentioned plus fiorentina and either napoli or parma. Napoli are italy's fourth biggest club, bigger than Roma. The fact that clubs like bologna, Udinese, Genoa and sampdoria have challenged for champions league places in recent years also highlights the competitiveness.


I have (but couldn't have named them, so thank you) but I see this much like Spain. Milan and Roma are capable of recovering and sustaining challenges on an annual basis, much more so than the likes of Fiorentina and Napoli. And again, hopefully measures like shared TV contracts will help improve the balance here and make the league more appealing.


> The point is England doesn't have a fifth power. And that wouldn't make things better. It would make things worse.


Here's the thing, as I see it (feel free to disagree): England is experiencing a cycle whereby their powers are also global ones, and it's due to a lot of factors whereby those clubs do get a lot of money. By succeeding in Europe as well as in England it provides a larger chorus among people tired of seeing the same names. In time the cycle will fade. I'd rather see more overall balance than the introduction of another power, but having a 5th "power" club would at least provide rotations among ECL participation and this in turn could disrupt the so-called domination of Europe by English clubs. 


> *THATS A LIE*, sky sports news did a report but two weeks ago that TV revenue overtook matchday revenue 6-7 years ago. and is the biggest revenue stream for all clubs!!!


Whoa chief! I'm talking about in comparison to clubs _outside_ England, where the likes of Milan and Inter were overwhelmingly dependent on TV for their revenue. Point being that while the EPL's massive contract (1.4B GBP, IIRC?) does provide tremendous revenues, the English clubs are traditionally among the strongest at the gate as well. Translation - Local fans are driving support and ultimately the demand for viewership. 


> Not at all because that would mean growth of small clubs is limited and they'd never be able to challenge. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article5587342.ece


Keep in mind I'm calling for more balance in disbursement of league and UEFA revenues, and that I'm not against the use of outside funding for facilities and one time expenses. The problem is that as structured right now the only way the small clubs can compete is via the Sugar Daddy, which means winning football is almost guaranteed to be a financial loss and thus isn't a sound business.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Alemanniafan said:


> If we cut down the leagues to the "national championships", to their essential key element, the contest of finding out which team is the best.
> Then, if we only look at this very single aspect. We see, that the Bundesliga is a very reasonable pool of contestants fighting to win the championship. In the Bundesliga any team can beat another.
> ...
> 
> Now on the other hand there is the premier league. There, if you only look at the championship candidates again, basically the pool of the contestants is rationally just chosen "too large".


I'm sorry but I think your portrayal of the situations is a collection of half-truths. But please remeber I'm with you in wishing there was greater parity.




> Now if we take a look at all the other aspekts the "sideaspekts" which are also very important, we see that the premiere league has many advantages to the Bundesliga there.
> In those fields the premiere league is extremely successful! And that is why it's so popular and dominating to most other leagues!


Bottom line here is marketing, and what the Premier League clubs are doing is neither illegal, immoral or something the Bundesliga sides are incapable of doing (as best as I know). Tours of foreign countries, setting up TV opportunities like matches against the MLS all-star team, establishing academies across the globe, selling all sorts of god-awful merchandise... These are the things that ManU (often called Merchandise United), Chelsea and others are doing to increase their brand and their revenue. Ditto Barca, Milan, Celtic and others. Dortmund and Leverkusen are free to do the same. That it's been profitable for one doesn't ensure profit for another, but clearly the volume of EPL clubs making themselves available to their global fans is paying off. I don't know what the German clubs are doing but I know nothing is stopping them from trying. Other than that there's nothing underhanded that the EPL sides are doing to make money. They are businesses, after all, and for the most part they're using their soccer brand to grow their business, and vice versa. 



> But the "rest" of the premiere league (even though it's in fact the vast majority) they don't really compete for the championship, they basiacally just play along or fight to remain in, very unlike the nature of the Bundesliga.


You mean for clubs like Energie Cottbus, Arminia Bielefeld and Bochum? (Forgive spelling errors, please) Let's be fair:
1) The Bundesliga has a different set of ownership and financial rules compared to the rest of Europe, rules that foster greater parity but also inhibit the larger potential of a single club. Now, I wish this approach were used across the globe but it isn't, and other clubs and leagues shouldn't be disparaged for playing by the rules that apply to them.
2) Every league will have it's perennial powers and it's perennial strugglers. That's sport, especially pro sports with mass media involvement. People like Cinderella stories involving small teams, but in numbers they also follow their team and bigger cities and clubs will always be big draws and thus have more money. You wouldn't have the thrill of surprise champions if there isn't already an established power to be upset, no?
3) These things can take time and happen in cycles. For a while the Italian clubs were more prevalent in Europe, and in time the English clubs will see more struggles. Meanwhile, domestically the likes of Man City, Aston Villa and Everton are trying to build from within to challenge for trophies. If Villa gains ECL status next year they have the ability to sustain it and alter the Big Four. Things could also change depending the financial health of Chelsea with RA, Manu with their debt balance, etc. 


> In the premiere league it's naturally quite different. The top teams have much, much more money than all the rest. The distribution of the wealth is quite different much mor unequal. And one major aspect, one very important fact: the top teams don't really generate their income only with the "product soccer". They get their money "externally", with that I mean not just from marketing themselves or soccer or economically providing something in return for the money they get.
> Bayern München for example basically generates and raises as much money as any team can, solely from the value of soccer and the sport, the brand the stars, fans image TV money (under the given conditions in the bundesliga of course)... they only have the classical type of sponsors.
> ManU or Chelsea on the other hand don't just live from marketing themselves or the "product soccer". They live from the millions Abramovic and Gazer pump into their team additionally on top of the classical marketing and fundraising, the usual way most other teams in the premiere league or elsewhere have to get their money.
> 
> ...But in my opinion the premiere league is only so succesfull because the top teams are financially "doped" by their owners. And of course also because they too get a very large share of the TV money.


WAY off here, IMO. Yes, Chelsea's current largesse comes from an outside source (Abromovich), but if anything this is the exception. Meanwhile the EPL has been among the most balanced distributors of revenues. (Could be better, but every team gets a solid share.) ManU is in debt because of the Glazers and their wealth is derived form exactly the form of marketing that you allow Bayern and others to do. Put simply, they do that part better. Is it loud and annoying seeing all the ManU crap? Definitely. But if people buy into it that's their fault and I don't begrudge ManU for making money. Ditto Liverpool, Milan, etc. Liverpool is also in debt because of their ownership and neither they nor ManU have been given large sluch funds from their owners that have changed their effective place in the Premiership. Arsenal, meanwhile, are among the most frugal big clubs around and are routinely outspent by other European giants, including Bayern for select player purchases like Ribery. The Arsenal Board are trying to fight off a supposed takeover by an Uzbeckistani magnate to avoid the same financial fate as Liverpool and ManU. I truly believe you're confusing Chelsea's condition (and that for Man City of late) with that of all EPL's Big Four, and that's most definitely not the case. There may be some past money that's contributed to establishing their status, but for the most part these clubs have gone about achieving their wealth via the same thing Bayern and the Bundesliga does, they simply have been better at capitalizing on their global appeal as of late. 



> Manchester United surely doesn't have all that many fans of Manchester but a lot of fans from their superstarplayers, all over the world. Hardly anyone in Germany follows Chelsea because of the London club, the local team, but much rather because of Michael Ballack.


And yet I can't find many people in the States that can name a "star" player for Arsenal, or someone for Liverpool beyond Torres and Gerrard. So while Chelsea and ManU certainly have some star power to their name it's disingenuous to attribute that to the whole of the Big Four or to suggest that's the only reason people watch the EPL. I can watch up to 5 EPL games a weekend, meaning a near guarantee of games involving teams not in the Big Four. Yet I can barely watch a La Liga or Serie A match without Madrid, Barca, Milan or Juve. Yet those leagues have Kaka, Totti, Henry, Messi, Raul... Once you consider that there'll be a level of circus to any club at the top of the food chain then it appears there must be _something_ more to the EPL overall that's contributed to their success. 



> And even the english national team also suffers in several ways from these developements, from the overall conditions in the premiere league. The German national team for example on the other hand has much better conditions here with the Bundesliga and the number of german players that play here in the top teams, or the first league in general.


I've never understood this argument. If the EPL is so successful because they hoard all the top players in the world, wouldn't that in turn force their potential national team players to perform at even higher levels by regularly competing against the best? he fact is the EPL is large enough for worthy players to earn roster spots, but the coaching within the National Team has been average at best and the raw talent has not been properly developed. Most importantly, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE LEAGUE TO DEVELOP THE NATIONAL TEAM! Each club is supposed to develop their own roster, and if those players make the national team then great. But there is nothing within the directives of these clubs that they are obliged to think of the national team first and their own success second! If local fans demand the team try to do that, then the club will respond because it makes a sound business move. Otherwise the clubs are supposed to try to win and be financially sound.

Abromovich could've bought into a Spanish club, or the Dubai partners could've bought into Genoa instead of ManCity, but they didn't. That's not the EPL's fault, and it tells me those investors feel there's more to the league than just ManU and Ronaldo. I wish more leagues demanded a Bundesliga model for financial prudence, that the use of outside funds was restricted and that league and UEFA money was distributed more fairly, but in the interim there is no special privilege that the EPL is exploiting to achieve success.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Guys can we go back to the topic?


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> I ManU is in debt because of the Glazers and their wealth is derived form exactly the form of marketing that you allow Bayern and others to do.


Certainly true. The Glazers took up a loan in order to buy ManU and transferred this loan onto the club after the purchase, therefore putting it in debt.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

GunnerJacket said:


> But it's not like the Prem is hoarding all the best players. Unless, of course, Man City gets some of their dream signings, in which case England would have a fifth "big club" to further disparage the supposed Big Four oligopoly. I'd wager the average global citizen would name more stars for the likes of Madrid, Barca, Milan, etc than they could for the Prem. Most fans I know can barely name Prem "stars" outside of Torres, Gerrard and the ManU and Chelsea rosters, and there'd be a lot of debate about whether the likes of Adebayor constitutes the level of talent being hoarded by Premiership money.


The problem with the prem is not so much the big clubs, but the middling clubs. The fact that Bolton can out spend feyenoord or celtic for the most part is an absolute joke. What is needed is European paratity, and the only way i see this is through 10 or so regional leagues.

i have an idea that i am working on i might post it on here one day...



> I can't dispute this but I don't think it can be confirmed, either. Granted I come from a sporting background where my friends and I support teams, not players, and I DO watch Premiership games because of the nature of the English game and especially the crowds. Nothing disappoints me more than seeing an Italian (or Brazilian, French... whatever) match played in front of half-empty buildings, especially if it becomes a series of isolated 1-2 man shows as opposed a team game. Clearly my tastes are but my own, but they resonate with/from the folks I hang with here in metro Atlanta. EPL games are on in several pubs because their EPL games, not because player X is on. Now, maybe the EPL is marketing it's overall brand as having a wealth of talent and as such people blindly watch the whole brand. But It's not like the EPL has cornered the market like league of galacticos.


The point is in Europe for the most part we could care less who represents us on the pitch, yes we want good players, but the brand of exciting attacking football isn't the most important thing to most fans.



> Which essentially proves my point, that having a cadre that matches the allotment of ECL berths (and thus access to ECL cash) enforces the theory that it's a select group, but if the number swings one way or the other to create variety in ECL spots the image would be viewed as less oppressive.


So reduce the spots don't increase the competition for places. LEss clubs making big bucks is better.



> I'll rephrase: Big in terms of global branding and wealth. I love the Bundesliga and consider it easily one of the top 2 leagues going for entertainment. But the same ownership rules that foster this competitive balance also minimize their ability to compete against the Milans and ManUs of the world. Personally, I'd love to see the fiscal and ownership rules for Bundesliga clubs applied across the globe.


Agreed, Big clubs are still big, but they are big off their own back, through fanbase and marketing, which is how it should be.



> But again, the global appeal of other clubs and their ability to sustain top finishes is paltry compared to the two giants. When Madrid slips it's considered an anomaly and they're capable of rebuilding the next year. The same cannot be said for the likes of Valencia, Betis, etc. Hopefully the stadium boom and continued growth of La Liga overall will help this.


Valencia were until recently. The stadium and their debts have crippled them. Atletico madrid should be but they're cursed.



> I have (but couldn't have named them, so thank you) but I see this much like Spain. Milan and Roma are capable of recovering and sustaining challenges on an annual basis, much more so than the likes of Fiorentina and Napoli. And again, hopefully measures like shared TV contracts will help improve the balance here and make the league more appealing.


Napoli should be being the fourth biggest club and having a massive TV contract.

The thing is in italy they'd never go back to 2-3 live games a week, which is clearly for the good of football, they have gone too far the other way. 

What is needed is

1. Parity in terms of TV contracts like you said. Similar to premier league but allocated based upon final league postiion. So 50% is shared equally, and the other 50% is allocated based upon where you finish. That is a much more fair system.

2. Also a similar policy to the NFL black out rule, but more strict. If you don't sell out then the game is not televised anywhere around the world, then you'd see clubs building better facilities and trying to fill there stadium. Also you forfeit your TV revenue from that week as well, and that goes into a pool to aid football lower down. 

3. Put a minumum capacity on all stadiums that would stop clubs building stadiums to small for themselves to sell out. Something like 30,000 is the minimum. Unless you play in an urban area of less than 150,000 people then it could be 20,000. Then you will see clubs making an effort to get fans into the grounds, serie A had an average of 38,000 in 1985. More than half the league averaged above 40,000, TV has ruined the league.



> Here's the thing, as I see it (feel free to disagree): England is experiencing a cycle whereby their powers are also global ones, and it's due to a lot of factors whereby those clubs do get a lot of money. By succeeding in Europe as well as in England it provides a larger chorus among people tired of seeing the same names. In time the cycle will fade. I'd rather see more overall balance than the introduction of another power, but having a 5th "power" club would at least provide rotations among ECL participation and this in turn could disrupt the so-called domination of Europe by English clubs.


I see your point, i'd rather reduce our places, that would provide even greater competition, because less clubs would be sharing the wealth pool, meaning an aston villa could get closer without spending the massive amounts they already have done. People forget how much villa have spent.



> Whoa chief! I'm talking about in comparison to clubs _outside_ England, where the likes of Milan and Inter were overwhelmingly dependent on TV for their revenue. Point being that while the EPL's massive contract (1.4B GBP, IIRC?) does provide tremendous revenues, the English clubs are traditionally among the strongest at the gate as well. Translation - Local fans are driving support and ultimately the demand for viewership.


clubs got "lucky" that the taylor report happened. There stadiums were forced to reduce capacity and become glitzy and modern just when the money was coming into the game and demand was increasing. They were also lucky that they *rejected* the recommendation that ticket prices be raised incrementally by inflation. If things had happened different the money at the gate would be so different. I mean Arsenal lost 20,000 in capacity by going all seater. It didn't matter because demand and "new fans" meant that they could keep prices artificially high.If clubs didn't play in stadiums too small for themselves there wouldn't be this demand,

UEFA needs to lead the charge in re introducing terracing, if platini is pationate about returning the game to as near to it's roots this is how he can start. Make it compulsory that clubs have terraced areas within there stadium that are cheap. That will help repress demand. If Arsenal could convert an end to terrace that could add 10,000+ places and an atmosphere! 



> Keep in mind I'm calling for more balance in disbursement of league and UEFA revenues, and that I'm not against the use of outside funding for facilities and one time expenses. The problem is that as structured right now the only way the small clubs can compete is via the Sugar Daddy, which means winning football is almost guaranteed to be a financial loss and thus isn't a sound business.


agreed, thats how hoffenheim have got to the top, invested wisely in scouting and a youth set up and a new stadium. I would be for it, but then we have to change transfer rules, to stop clubs with more financial clout paching players. 

6+5 would be a great idea, but if not legal, reduce squad sizes (18+) to a maximum of 18 players.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

sorry, was typing a post so didn't see your request sercan


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Maximum of 18 players?

Are you stupid?! It would do nothing to the quality of the top 4, it would mean teams with bad injuries would be hopeless too!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> Guys can we go back to the topic?


My apologies, as well. Bossman, check your PMs.

BTW, has anyone heard anything more defining regarding the aspirations in Portsmouth? Seems they're trying to usurp Liverpool's claim to "longest running stadium saga." I'd think they'd at least lock in the site and garner formal building permission, even if the nuances of their design are left undetermined.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Steel City Suburb said:


> Maximum of 18 players?
> 
> Are you stupid?! It would do nothing to the quality of the top 4, it would mean teams with bad injuries would be hopeless too!


LMAO calling me stupid!

18 players, above the age of 18. 

Chelsea have a squad of +30 if they are restricted to 18 and no loaning, then a lot of good standard players would be available to "smaller teams".

So if you start getting injuries you'd have to start using your youth team. I see no problem with that, as teams would be forced to develop youth. Injuries don't discriminate by size of club you know!

Anyways back on topic


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

GunnerJacket said:


> My apologies, as well. Bossman, check your PMs.
> 
> BTW, has anyone heard anything more defining regarding the aspirations in Portsmouth? Seems they're trying to usurp Liverpool's claim to "longest running stadium saga." I'd think they'd at least lock in the site and garner formal building permission, even if the nuances of their design are left undetermined.


i'll reply in due course


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

I think there are two reasons that over looked in the Premier League becoming the dominant league in the world.

Britain up until the 50's /60's still had an Empire which British culture, including sport, were well publicised. This gave clubs in the English leagues overseas publicity right from the start.

The BBC world service broadcasts English Football radio coverage and results round the world and has been doing for over 50 years.

What these two things have done is that when live TV coverage happened there was already a market for the Premier League round the world. This doesn't just work for Premier league teams. A lot of people round the world will have heard of Blackpool, Preston North End and Notts County. How many people not from Italy could name an Italian 4th division team?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

ArchieTheGreat said:


> I think there are two reasons that over looked in the Premier League becoming the dominant league in the world.
> 
> Britain up until the 50's /60's still had an Empire which British culture, including sport, were well publicised. This gave clubs in the English leagues overseas publicity right from the start.
> 
> ...



1. Blackpool and preston north end are in the 2nd tier. I'm sure lots of people can name 2nd tier italian teams. Bari, Parma etc 

2 Blackpool, preston and NOtts county are all historic names in english football who have played in the top flight. In notts county's case, in the last 20 years. Historic Italian teams tend to all be in serie A especially atm, italy has a far shorter and less even footballing history

3. It is clear that people around the world could name as many italian 4th division teams as english. because, i doubt many people would know who is in the fourth division and i doubt people around the world have heard of Rochdale or Lincoln city. Same as tin pot italian clubs.

4. The empire theory doesn't account for the majority of South east asia and south america and Francophone africa, where the biggest upsurge has come from


----------



## Noostairz (Sep 11, 2002)

whether COMS would be used - who knows (although recent press coverage has speculated that both OT and COMS may feature in the bid)...

(w/ thanks to Gherkin from the uk stadium section:



> *MAN CITY THINK BIG
> Plans to make Eastlands 65,000-seat stadium *
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/spo...ans-to-make-Eastlands-65000-seat-stadium.html

fan mock-up posted by jrb:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Apart from how the "new" stand comes into the corner, that's a nice mock-up. Would be very nice but... why bother? Citeh are averaging 42k right now and, IIRC, a high of 45k after COMS opened. Thus I'm assuming they don't have a waiting list for season's tickets. Assuming these owners have some business sense, they should continue to develop the side and make plans for the expansion but hold off until after a year or two of sell-outs to drive demand.

Then again, with their resources they can probably skip the part about needing business sense.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

They could, if they wanted, ramp it up to 65,000 and subsidise a fair amount of the tickets - they've got the money.

However, a successful Man City side - one that is looking to qualify for the Champions League - could draw these kind of numbers without ticket subsidies. And it's fairly likely that such a side will exist by 2011/12 i.e. when the stadium could be extended.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

will doing that at both ends add 18,000? It would certainly look good if that's how they decided to increase..

I think their lower than capacity attendances might be down to season ticket sales and and away fan support. In so far as they might be selling all their available season tickets, and away fan support might fluctuate as well as floating support. With more season tickets available maybe their crowds will go up. That is speculation of course.

oh yeah and as rob says success breeds glory hunters


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> oh yeah and as rob says success breeds glory hunters


Except at Chelsea, I'm told. They're _all_ long-time die-hards at Stamford Bridge. hno:


----------



## Shinjuku (Jul 25, 2006)

hello everybody, i'm french from marseille, i'm 18 and i would like to make an english penpal who could talk with me on MSN messenger. i'd like to improve my english. I'm a football fan and i would like to talk football with english.I love barclay's premier league.
I know this site is not a a site to make friends, but i didnt find any person.
if you are interressed please answer me on this thread.=) thank you


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

^^ NooStairz said he will - PM him


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Hey everyone, I read this article today on England's 2018 world cup arguing for Milton Keynes to be part of the bid. Here is the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/may/17/world-cup-england-2018-bid-venues

What does everyone think about Milton Keynes being part of a bid?


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Not happening.


----------



## ben77 (Sep 1, 2006)

Milton Keynes is a shit hole. I doubt the FA would want fans or press from other countries to visit the place. I think that they just have to allow them to bid to be polite. The ground is definitely better than most of the new grounds in this county though..

I have heard that Forest will be releasing designs of their new ground in the late summer. Although i'd rather we stayed where we are and rebuilt the main stand (which would create a great looking stadium close to town and along the banks of the Trent) perfect for the world cup. I think the council have got even bigger ideas and want us to move to some sort of "dedicated sports city" area. I have heard that the plans incorporate a large amount of steel work creating the Forest "Tricky Tree" emblem (sounds pretty dodgy)!


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Its good news that the cities are wanting the games. Fans seem pretty up for the games too.

Im a Sheffield Wednesday fan and the bickering over which stadium in Sheffield should get the WC games if the bid wins is only just beggining.


----------



## Jizzy (Sep 28, 2008)

England for 2018 for sure.

Oz to get 2022.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

> THE ROAD TO 2018
> The Bid Team FIFA's process Host City Selection
> England 2018 Host City Selection CHOOSING ENGLAND’S HOST CITIES
> 
> ...


Notable absentees are:

Middlesbrough
Norwich
Ipswich
Wolverhampton
Southampton
Plymouth
Coventry


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> Notable absentees are:
> 
> Middlesbrough
> Norwich
> ...


Agreed. Still time to submit bids but I was surprised to see both Ipswich and Norwich absent from the list. Especially given the calls for a nice "geographic spread" across the country. I realize that's not the most populous part of England, but still.

Wolverhampton and Coventry probably assume they'll be muscled out just by proximity to Birmingham, a certain host. Bristol appears better poised to represent the southwest so Plymouth may not put forth the effort. And while Middlesbrough would serve the "spread" better than using _both_ St. James and the SOL, knowing that one of those two is certain and that Hull is growing more and more likely an option, the competition for Middlesbrough is growing stronger and stronger. (I often wonder if they'll _ever_ be able to outgrow their namesake! hno: ) And lastly, how many of the Leeds/Sheffield/Nottingham/Derby quartet will make the cut?! 

Nice to see the race now engaged in earnest. Curious to see what evolves from the other bidding nations, but mostly hopeful to see what this does to help English soccer climb closer to Germany in boosting attendance figures. Definitely need a few more clubs finding ways to host 40k+.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

My early predictions:

London
Manchester
Liverpool
Birmingham
Newcastle/Sunderland (one of)
Bristol
Portsmouth
Nottingham/Derby (one of)

Assuming London hosts two venues that leaves three more communities needed, with Leeds, Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Hull, Ipswich and Norwich among the major metros still on the table. Leeds and Sheffield certainly evoke more soccer pedigree than the others but the idea of spreading the games around suggest Hull and Middlesbrough might be given the call. 


Question: To what degree would the selection committee pass over a Leeds (or Nottingham, or Sheffield...) in hopes that those communities would see investment in their venues regardless of the WC? I'm wondering if they might try to use this opportunity to stir enthusiasm elsewhere and trust the local support for such clubs might see them through and ultimately yield better venues across the nation.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

These are my choices about cities and matches.

Birmingham: B3-B4, H1-H2, D4-D2, C2-C3 
Derby: A3-A4, F3-F4, D4-D1, G2-G3
Leeds: C2-C3, D1-D3, G4-G2, F2-F3	
Liverpool: B1-B2, H3-H4, A4-A1, F4-F1	
London (emirates stadium): F1-F2, B4-B2, H1-H3, E2-E3	
Manchester (Old Trafford): C1-C2, A1-A3,E1-E3, B4-B1 
Nottingham: E1-E2, B1-B3, F4-F2, G4-G1
Newcastle: E3-E4, A4-A2, H4-H2, C4-C1 
Porstmouth: D3-D4, C4-C2, G1-G3, B2-B3 
Sheffield: G3-G4, E4-E2, D2-D3, H4-H1
Sunderland: D1-D2, C1-C3, A2-A3, E4-E1	
Wembley: A1-A2, G1-G2, F1-F3, H2-H3

A1: England


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

After reading The Guardian's quick review of each community I'm leaning this way.

London (2)
Manchester
Liverpool
Birmingham
Newcastle/Sunderland (pick 1)
Leeds
Sheffield
Nottingham
Bristol
Portsmouth
Hull

It's a bit crowded in the middle of the country but maybe the thinking will be those folks will also be within easy drive of each other and regional attractions. Perhaps Middlesbrough, Ipswich or Norwich will replace Hull or Nottingham, but considering the ability of each community to play off being an ideal host I think this allotment does pretty well of putting visitors in nice places with things to see/do and will feature decent venues. Especially since Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield all have reason to believe their grounds will be more than the min. capacity and would be well used after the event. Thus, assuming we see no other yet-unpromoted expansions or developments:

90k Wembley 
60k Emirates
76k Old Trafford
70k Stanley Park 
52k Villa Park
50k St. James
50k Nottingham's new ground
45k Elland Road upgrade
45k Sheffield venue
42k KC Stadium
42k Bristol City new ground
40k New Portsmouth ground

Unfortunately I don't see anything else popping up in the 50-60k range, but at least several of the newer developments could contribute to substantial club and league attendance improvements. Not to disparage the likes of Wigan and WBA, but having the likes of Leeds and Nottingham in the Premiership with 50k venues would make for much more entertaining atmospheres.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

CaliforniaJones said:


> These are my choices about cities and matches.
> 
> Birmingham: B3-B4, H1-H2, D4-D2, C2-C3
> Derby: A3-A4, F3-F4, D4-D1, G2-G3
> ...


Bristol is almost certain to be one of the chosen cities. So one of Newcastle, Sunderland, Nottingham, Derby, Leeds or Sheffield will miss out.

As Gunnerjacket says, Hull is another option.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

GunnerJacket said:


> After reading The Guardian's quick review of each community I'm leaning this way.
> 
> London (2)
> Manchester
> ...


It's a fair bet that a few of those stadiums will be considerably bigger by 2018 or 2022 - especially once they are chosen as WC venues:

Old Trafford - 76K--------> 90-95K
St James Park - 52K------> 60K

I'd be very surprised if either of those fails to materialise.

Emirates - 60K --------> 70-75K?

That's also very possible.

New Anfield / Stanley Park - isn't that 72-73K?

And the new Elland Road will, I reckon, be at least 50K. There hardly seems to be any point increasing capacity by a mere 5,000.

It will also be interesting to see whether FIFA are prepared to allow the use of more than 12 stadia. For instance, I've seen a couple of articles that have Twickenham down as one of the stadiums entered in the initial bid venues. The new White Hart Lane and whatever stadium Chelsea might have by then too. Also the new Everton stadium and Eastlands.

There's no reason why FIFA couldn't allow England to showcase all its best stadia. So rather than St James' Park, say, hosting three games, it could host two and the Stadium of Light could host the third game in the north east.

Probably won't happen but it would make the distribution of games even more egalitarian.


----------



## legolamb (Apr 29, 2006)

As posted on another thread:


legolamb said:


> Don't underestimate our city's bid. It will be a very strong one for a number of reasons, inclusive of the following:
> 
> 1. The KC stadium is one of the very best, most attractive new stadiums built in this country in recent years. It was built with the ability to increase capacity to 40,000 in mind, and Tigers chairman Paul Duffen confirmed on tuesday that designs have been drawn up by the original stadium architects. With temporary seating in place for the duration of the tournament, this will be increased to 45,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

With Nottingham's current stadium the city ground, I don't understand why they don't just rebuild the main stand (which is the single tier stand running the length of pitch) and the Bridgford End stand (the smaller stand behind the goal). The main stand certainly as space behind to be built on, and behind the Bridgford End Stand their are only a few houses that could be bought up and then that stand could be redeveloped. This redevelopment of the ground would be cheaper than a new stadium, and the grounds central location is perfect. What does everyone think?


----------



## duane (Aug 7, 2008)

You lot don't understand his conversation in the East Midlands forum about sporting stadiums. He just goes on and on about the Nottingham Forest Stadium. The fact is, it is not proposed and is just pictures. JUST A PICTURE! I was pointing out that stadiums look better from the outside than the inside. So clearly if you are voting on stadiums, how can you compare a stadium from the inside, to a drawing of another? The drawing is obviously going to look better than the finished product, it always does. You just can't judge these stadiums based on these pictures. It's not comparing like with like. It is comparing a concept against the inside of another stadium. 

And just for your information, there is no supporting evidence that the stadium design will be completed by the end of 2009. FACT! Stop twisting information BeestonLAD! The only information about the stadium is from June 2007. The real design could not look like that picture. You know why? Nottingham Forest have changed plans from the stadium being built in Clifton, to it being built between Lady Bay and the Holme Pierrepont. Therefore the actual stadium will not look anything like the picture. 

As for the Walker Stadium the capacity figures you quote are not entirely correct. The stadium has a possible capacity of 55,000 after expansion. It was designed so that it could be easily expanded. FACT! Milan Mandrich has already mentioned he wants the stadium to have a significantly larger capacity. Leicester's stadium is only minutes away from Victoria Park and Abbey Park which together can hold hundreds of thousands of people. The atmosphere would be better in Leicester.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

^^ :lol:


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

But will hundreds of thousands of people turn out to watch USA V Mali? 

Afterall thats what the East Midlands will be hosting.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Kobo said:


> With Nottingham's current stadium the city ground, I don't understand why they don't just rebuild the main stand (which is the single tier stand running the length of pitch) and the Bridgford End stand (the smaller stand behind the goal).


Height restrictions to allow sunlight, etc reach the housing behind those stands. Club would essentially have to buy those properties out to expand the stands with any significance.



duane said:


> You lot don't understand his conversation in the East Midlands forum about sporting stadiums. He just goes on and on about the Nottingham Forest Stadium. The fact is, it is not proposed and is just pictures. JUST A PICTURE!


That's fine, but here's another set of facts:

- Nottingham is among the communities already involved in the bidding process, suggesting committment from their end;
- Established min. standards require a 40k+ stadium, meaning those parties know some ground improvements will be required;
- The concept of a new ground has been discussed as part of their considerations in this process.

Thus, whether they renovate or build anew, even if at a different spot and with a completely different look, Nottingham is part of this equation. No reason to deride the lad for including the level of information already known, as the rest of us are sensible enough to understand what's existing and what's conceptual.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> Height restrictions to allow sunlight, etc reach the housing behind those stands. Club would essentially have to buy those properties out to expand the stands with any significance.


Im not 100% but Im sure Forest already own these houses and use them to house their youth players


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> That's fine, but here's another set of facts:
> 
> - Nottingham is among the communities already involved in the bidding process, suggesting committment from their end;
> - Established min. standards require a 40k+ stadium, meaning those parties know some ground improvements will be required;
> ...


Thankyou, Im not sure what the problem is with posting a picture of a concept design, obviously more detailed designs will be released in good time


----------



## Lawl (Jun 21, 2007)

I hope Forest stay with the City ground, such a perfect location off of the Trent, gorgeous location with gorgeous stadium... bliss!

YOU REDS!


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

i prefer forest to host w/c games in whichever stadium they decide to go with.LOL at duane :bash:


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

These two articles from the BBC emerged about the use of the London 2012 Olympic stadium as a football venue for a 2018 world cup bid:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8125959.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/8121536.stm

What do you all think about it being used?


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Kobo said:


> These two articles from the BBC emerged about the use of the London 2012 Olympic stadium as a football venue for a 2018 world cup bid:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8125959.stm
> 
> ...


Why use it when there will already be two football-specific, 60,000 seater venues a few miles away? And maybe even a new Chelsea stadium (with a roof constructed by flying pigs)

Sounds like they'll be hoping to say "Look, look - it still has a use. It's not a white elephant". Although it will be a white elephant, because there'll have been an 80,000 seater stadium sat doing nothing for 6 years. How much will the maintenance cost over that time? 

At least with the planned reduction of it, they can entice one of the expatriated Rugby Union clubs back to London or something.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

legolamb said:


> If there are to be two Yorkshire venues


This -
http://www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/hostcityselection

Has all 3 Yorkshire venues in it. 

The only one on that list I'd have question marks over is Milton Keynes - they'll never need 40,000, in fact thanks to recent gambling on promotion then who knows, there may not even be a team there by 2018 (although they'd probably just kill off someone else's football club again)

One notable city not on that list is Coventry - surely the Ricoh can be extended to 40k, and a second West Midlands venue should be welcomed for variety's sake. 

So I think the make-up of a bid, looking at that list, would be -

Birmingham - City of Birmingham Stadium 55,000/Villa Park 55,000 (depends if CoBS ever gets built I guess)
Bristol - Bristol City Stadium 42,000 (temp capacity, might go back to 30,000 depending how BCFC are doing)
Derby - Pride Park 44,000
Hull - KC Stadium 40-45,000
Leeds - Elland Road 47,000 (although I'm sure I read somewhere they'd hope to redevelop to 60,000)
Leicester - Walkers Stadium 45,000
Liverpool - Stanley Park Stadium 60,000/73,000 (here's hoping a successful bid would give it a kick-start)
1st London venue - Wembley 90,000
2nd London venue - Who knows? See above
Manchester - Old Trafford currently 76,000, perhaps up to 95,000 by 2018
Milton Keynes - stadium:mk 40,000 (although I'd hope for a more realistic venue, like Coventry)
Newcastle - Sid James Park 52,000
Nottingham - new Forest stadium 50,000
Portsmouth - presumably the plans for the 36,000 seater stadium are over, file alongside Liverpool for "here's hoping"... otherwise they might have to look for Southampton for a temporary upgrade, and that won't go down well in Portsmouth...
Sheffield - Bramall Lane 44,000
Sunderland - Stadium of Light 49,000 (can go up to 64,000 but I don't think they'll ever need that)


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

How about:

London - Wembley 90,000
London - Twickenham 82,000
Manchester - Old Trafford 76,212
Liverpool - Stanley Park 73,000 (if built and expanded)
Sunderland - Stadium of Light ~64,000 (if fully expanded)
London - Emirates Stadium 60,355
Leicester - Walkers Stadium ~55,000 (or 45,000 if only partially expanded)
Newcastle - St. James Park 52,387
Birmingham - Villa Park ~51,000 (with corners filled in)
Nottingham - New Forest Stadium ~50,000
Milton Keynes - Stadium:mk 45,000 (if fully expanded)
Derby - Pride Park ~44,000 (if expanded)
Sheffield - Bramall Lane ~44,000 (if expanded)
Leeds - Elland Road 39,401 (plus whatever they can add)

That's 14. Personally I don't think Hull and Portsmouth's stadia will be big enough so I'd be inclined to give the last 2 to either City of Manc, CoBS, new Everton stadium or an expanded Hillsborough.


----------



## trmather (Feb 7, 2008)

They won't allow three London Venues, Milton Keynes is a shithole, Bramall Lane probably won't be World Cup quality and Elland Road would have to be knocked down and rebuilt before it got anywhere near upto standard.

Plus if we're having two London venues, we can't have two Manchester stadiums, two Liverpool stadiums or two Birmingham stadiums, so you'd have to give them to Hull or Portsmouth.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Doesn't capacity have to be over 45,000 for a world cup. At first this bid looked a certainty, but actually if they are going to be pedantic over having a stadium in each large city, it's pretty rubbish. I can see very little investment going into this.


----------



## miguelon (Oct 25, 2006)

My only concern with the England bid, is that a lot of proposed stadiums, are below or just above the 40,000 capacity. But lets remember that for a WC game, most stadiums loss between 5000 - 7000 seats, because of additional media, vip seats, security, etc....

Soooo, as an example, St. James right now is at 52,000, but im sure that will end up as a 45,000 stadium for the WC, and that is just above the requirement.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> How about:
> 
> London - Wembley 90,000
> London - Twickenham 82,000
> ...


you can forget that, there will definately be a stadium on the south coast and one in the west country. FIFA insist on geographical spread... Portsmouth and bristol as a football cities deserves to be there ahead of the likes of Derby, Leicester and MK anyway...


----------



## Sysbase (Dec 24, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> you can forget that, there will definately be a stadium on the south coast and one in the west country. FIFA insist on geographical spread... Portsmouth and bristol as a football cities deserves to be there ahead of the likes of Derby, Leicester and MK anyway...


Soon there will be on every block! Why not? Great Stats BTW :banana:


----------



## Bluey Mike (Feb 14, 2009)

trmather said:


> They won't allow three London Venues, Milton Keynes is a shithole, Bramall Lane probably won't be World Cup quality and Elland Road would have to be knocked down and rebuilt before it got anywhere near upto standard.
> 
> *Plus if we're having two London venues, we can't have two Manchester stadiums, two Liverpool stadiums or two Birmingham stadiums, so you'd have to give them to Hull or Portsmouth.*


I think if theres going to be 16 stadia, the chances are cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham will have 2, biggest stadia = more money

Here's my list, 
*
London - Wembley (90,000)
London - Highbury (60,000)
Manchester - Old Trafford (76,000 - 90,000)
Manchester - COMS (47,000)
Liverpool - Stanley Park (70,000)
Liverpool - New Everton Stadium (60,000)
Birmingham - New Birmingham City Stadium (55,000)
Birmingham - Villa Park (55,000)*
Newcastle
Sunderland
Leeds 
Portsmouth
Bristol
Nottingham
Sheffield

I cant see them implementing this rule of only 1 host city can have two stadia. I hope they dont anyway, will be a shame if we have to use 2nd rate stadia just because of location, instead of larger, better equiped missing out just because of a nearby ground.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work, I think the RFU were quite keen, and the bid looks pretty poor with only 1 stadium over 76,000. (The capacities will decrease remember). Old Trafford won't be expanded to 96,000 - it would cost too much.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Luke80 said:


> I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work


We might even be able to afford to get the roof finished


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

I thought they restored the bowl a couple of years ago.


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

Bluey Mike said:


> I cant see them implementing this rule of only 1 host city can have two stadia. I hope they dont anyway, will be a shame if we have to use 2nd rate stadia just because of location, instead of larger, better equiped missing out just because of a nearby ground.


It's not a case of whether they'll implement that rule or not - it already is a rule. Only one city can have two stadia in any world cup bid. For example, in South Africa only Johannesburg has two stadia, in France only Paris had two stadia, and in Germany, Japan + Korea there were no cities with two stadia. And it's nonsense to have 16 stadia in a world cup bid - 10 is the minimum, 12 is likely.

This is too bad for you guys in the UK, since some pretty good stadia will have to be left out, assuming London will be the city with two venues. I must say I'm somewhat disappointed with the list of stadiums that you've got at the moment, especially considering you have the biggest football league in the world! Stadiums like Elland road etc are no good for a world cup... I always thought of England as the favourite for 2016, but I think Spain/Portugal or the USA are real contenders, with Australia and Belgium/Netherlands as outsiders.

And besides, you guys already have the Olympics and probably the Rugby World cup comming your way, leave something for the rest of the world


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

What?! US had it 15 years ago. It would be ridiculous if they got it again. They don't even like football ffs. We've waited 40 years - that's long enough.

12 stadiums make it a bit easier. Personally pick our best 10 and do up the ones that are too small.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Using Twickenham as part of the 2018/2022 bid would be awesome!


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*New stadium will be Nottingham's biggest challenge *
3 July 2009
Nottingham Evening Post

The biggest challenge Nottingham may face in mounting a successful bid to be a host city in the 2018 World Cup is delivering the stadium.

However, it is a challenge faced by all the other cities seeking to stage World Cup matches in the UK.

Only eight of the 21 stadiums put forward from 15 cities can accommodate 40,000 fans, plus the seats for VIPs and media.

Furthermore, it is estimated that only one stadium - Wembley - currently has the additional facilities required.

Even Old Trafford may struggle to provide the media centre, broadcast compound, and volunteering centre FIFA says it wants.

Nottingham will have to construct a new stadium to meet the necessary capacity and other requirements.

As reported in the Post last September, a master plan has been produced for a new sports quarter at Holme Pierrepont, which would include a new 50,000-seat ground for Nottingham Forest and as well as 10,000-seat stadium alongside.

Discussions between Nottingham Forest, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council have continued.

Although the aspiration to create a stadium with associated sport and leisure facilities, including a five-star hotel remains the same, the site has not been fixed.

Land at Gamston is also under consideration.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Soccer-Beckenbauer says 2018 World Cup should go to Europe *

SYDNEY, July 5 (Reuters) - Franz Beckenbauer believes Europe should host the World Cup in 2018 after South Africa and Brazil stage the next two finals.

The former World Cup-winning captain and coach with West Germany stopped short of endorsing any individual bids but said England would be capable of hosting the tournament.

"It's (the decision) too far away, it's more than one year to go," he told Australia's Sun-Herald: "(But) It will be Europe's turn (in 2018).

"As a UEFA member, I would like to see it in Europe but it is an open race as to which country might get it.

"England could host it tomorrow because they have the stadiums, the infrastructure, the fans, everything.

"But there are a lot of other different countries bidding. Let's wait and see."

Beckenbauer is one of 24 members of FIFA's Executive Committee that will decide which countries host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups at a meeting in December next year.

FIFA have received nine bids for 2018 and 11 for 2022 although bids from the same continent as the successful host for 2018 would be ineligible for 2022.

The 2010 World Cup will be held in South Africa while Brazil will stage the 2014 event.

Beckenbauer said a country like Australia could be a strong candidate for 2022 if 2018 went to Europe.

"I think they have a good chance because the World Cup's never been to Australia," he said.

"Australia's a beautiful country, a beautiful continent."


----------



## Bogus Law (Mar 6, 2009)

Joop20 said:


> It's not a case of whether they'll implement that rule or not - it already is a rule. Only one city can have two stadia in any world cup bid. For example, in South Africa only Johannesburg has two stadia, in France only Paris had two stadia, and in Germany, Japan + Korea there were no cities with two stadia.


Although the same rule applies to hosting EURO, they made an exception for Portugal in 2004. They had 2 stadia in Lisbon and another 2 in Porto. So, you never know...


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

That's UEFA though, not FIFA.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Luke80 said:


> I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work, I think the RFU were quite keen, and the bid looks pretty poor with only 1 stadium over 76,000. (The capacities will decrease remember). Old Trafford won't be expanded to 96,000 - it would cost too much.


First, I don't see why the RFU would be keen to have football there? They certainly weren't when the FA approached them about playing FA Cup finals there. I wouldn't want them offered the chance of making something out of a World Cup, not when they wouldn't help football out back then.

Second, why would capacities decrease? The 40,000 minimum requirement includes VIP & media. Does anyone actually think capacity requirements are *after* you take them out? Bloody hell, no-one would have held a world cup recently if that was the case.

Third, why wouldn't OT increase to that size? Such a development would cost around £100m - seeing as an English bid infrastructure is already in place, all that's needed is money for expansions, and so it'd probably be cheaper than bids for other countries.

Fourth, why would a bid with 1 stadium larger than 76,000 be poor? Brazil & South Africa will only have 1 stadium bigger than that. Germany didn't even have one.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

I think a deal could be struck should England get the rugby world cup in 2015 where the FA agree for Wembley to be used for rugby in return for Twickenham to be used for World cup 2018.

Surely seats have to be taken out to accomodate the extra media and executive seats. Granted some of the stadia chosen might not need to change, but some must see small decreases.

OT expansion involves either bridging over or moving the railway and demolishing a row of houses. Do the Glazers have £100m? The Ronaldo money which isn't spent on transfers will probably be used for loan repayments on the debt.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

As I say, other World Cup bids involve lots of central government spending. I'm sure there'd be financing for other expansions, so I don't see why Man Utd couldn't apply for it too.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yeh, the goverment are really likely to give Man Utd, the second richest club in the world, money for development when the national debt is so huge! Old Trafford doesn't need expanding for a world cup bid, and Man Utd are big enough to do it themselves if they want a bigger ground.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

RobH said:


> Yeh, the goverment are really likely to give Man Utd, the second richest club in the world, money for development when the national debt is so huge! Old Trafford doesn't need expanding for a world cup bid, and Man Utd are big enough to do it themselves if they want a bigger ground.


Why shouldn't the goverment put some money back into football infrastructure, surely football's world cup will bring in millions in increased revenues for the government?


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed. 

Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that. 

Conversely, communities like Bristol and Portsmouth are likely to see substantial help for several reasons:
- The organizers and English government have expressed a desire in, and have a sincere interest in, spreading the games across the country as a means of distributing tourism and financial impacts. This will require direct involvement in order to make this happen, and thus government spending.
- This support will be levied with likely specific conditions that ensures proper return on investment and doesn't exactly equate to outright gifts to local clubs. Bristol had been planning a new venue, anyway, so odds are the extra funding they'll receive will cover the modifications to ensure WC capability. Meanwhile the club will be burdened with the expenses due to repay the local government for their share and not necessarily enjoy full ownership (at least, not for a while) like other clubs.
- Ensuring WC capability at some venues means not only expansion but possibly temporary conversions/ expansion. Government support for this is seen as payment in exchange for the use of the venue. 

Bottom line, as each facility will have unique needs to reach WC viability they will be treated differently with respect to access to government aid.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

GunnerJacket said:


> Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed.
> 
> Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.
> 
> ...


jeez louise. finally somebody gets it.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> Clubs whose facilities are already sufficient for hosting will likely not see access to funding unless it's a stipend to cover venue modification (Handicap access, media boxes, etc.) Otherwise preliminary indications are that this will be a thrifty bid, and as such government spending will be for the minimum amount of investment needed.
> 
> Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.
> 
> ...


I've said for some time that I suspect a lot of clubs are announcing plans for 35-40k seater stadiums in the hope that England wins the world cup and the authorities will step in with assistance to bump capacities up over the 45k mark. Pompey being the prime example - they've announced 2 or 3 plans to build a 35-36k venue if memory serves me.


----------



## lilyayo (Mar 9, 2008)

...


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Anyway. A world cup venue meeting FIFA standards does not necessarily imply a lack of atmosphere or a non-intimate bowl. The image below is a comparison of the Mbombela World Cup Stadium and Wembley Stadium.


----------



## NMAISTER007 (Oct 29, 2008)

I don't remember England hosting a championship in a while, they should host the world cup, England are ready to host this tournament.

Possible cities:

London (wembly, emirates and olympic)
Manchester (old trafford and city)
Newcastle
Birmingham
Southampton
Liverpool (Anfield and goodison)

They might build a few more stadiums, but if England win this bid, then these are the possible venues.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

^^^ The last major tournament I can think of England hosting in Euro '96 (If you want to take all of Great Britain into account then Wales and Scotland hosted a few 2007 Rugby World Cup matches).

With regards to Portsmouth, there have been plans for a new stadium, but with the club in financial trouble, is the new stadium still a possibility? If it's not then do you think the local or national governments will pitch in enough money to get the new stadium done so they can host, assuming England is granted host?

Also, The Guardian has a slideshow with 15 potential host cities, along with the pros and cons of each: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...rld-cup-2018-england-cities?picture=350029254


----------



## BS3_RED (Jan 8, 2008)

NMAISTER007 said:


> I don't remember England hosting a championship in a while, they should host the world cup, England are ready to host this tournament.
> 
> Possible cities:
> 
> ...


If that was the spread of stadiums we used we wouldnt get the World cup.
Fifa has stated that the host venues must be spread around the country.

Also, you seem to forget that only ONE city can have two stadium, the rest can only have one.


----------



## IcyUrmel (Mar 1, 2006)

GunnerJacket said:


> Now, if a local community wishes to increase their investment that will be up to them. Thus, if the powers that be behind Old Trafford can convince the local governments that they'll see a return on their investment in exchange for help with an expansion they'll be free to explore that.


That's not so easy anymore under EU law. My English is not good enough to give you the legal terms, but recently, EU rules have caused many problems with governmental funds to privat entities. Union Berlin or example was not allowed to purchase the ground of their stadium for the symbolic price of 1 Euro (this would have been an illegal support under EU law), the only were allowed to rent it with a long-term contract.
And all the new stadia in Germany that were built with public money are still owned by the communities (like Kaiserslautern, Köln, Berlin, Frankfurt, Düsseldorf). Those clubs that own(ed) the stadiums theirselves could only hope to get minor support, like an improved traffic infrastructure (Munichs Allianz Arena) or public credit guarantees helping to keep the interest rates low.

So I doubt that the City of Manchester will be allowed to support the expansion of OT in the way some people here may expect it. Government might help changing the way of the rail line, they of course can build new stations, tram lines, maybe even parkings. But I don't think they are permitted to help in the expansion itsself.


----------



## IcyUrmel (Mar 1, 2006)

BS3_RED said:


> If that was the spread of stadiums we used we wouldnt get the World cup.
> Fifa has stated that the host venues must be spread around the country.
> 
> Also, you seem to forget that only ONE city can have two stadium, the rest can only have one.



Is this really an official rule? I have never seen anything official, just the usual explanations that it must be so as it was handled that way in the past. Yes, of course there has not been more than one city with two world cup stadia since 1990 (but before in Mexico even three cities!), but why? For legal reasons, or simply for practical ones?

In case this was an official and strict rule, wy does Australia apply for a WC then? Are they willing to build oversized stadia in Cairns, Gosford or whereever, while some high class venues in Sydney or Melbourne keep "no-go-areas"? I don't think so.

So could anybody please confirm the existance of such a "rule"? Otherwise I would regard it as a SSC legend.


To make it clear, I do not expect any city except London to have more than one WC Stadium, but not because of any questionable legal request, but simply because FIFA generally prefers a wide spread of venues.
And England should have no problems providing 11 WC cities.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

ryebreadraz said:


> ^^^ The last major tournament I can think of England hosting in Euro '96 (If you want to take all of Great Britain into account then Wales and Scotland hosted a few 2007 Rugby World Cup matches).


What about the 1999 Rugby World Cup?


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I have a list of english cities and stadiums for a world cup.

London-Wembley (final)
London-Emirates stadium (3rd place playoff)
Manchester-Old Trafford (semi-final)
Liverpool-New Afield (semi-final)
Birmingham-rebuilt West Ham stadium
Newcastle-St James Park modernized
Sunderland
Leeds
Sheffield
Nottingham
Portsmouth
Leicester

I consider cities with clubs in PremierLeague.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Birmingham-rebuilt West Ham stadium


Not sure about that one! I mean, I know the East End's a bit of a dump, but moving to Birmingham would hardly be an upgrade.

:lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> With regards to Portsmouth, there have been plans for a new stadium, but with the club in financial trouble, is the new stadium still a possibility? If it's not then do you think the local or national governments will pitch in enough money to get the new stadium done so they can host, assuming England is granted host?


Portsmouth's following and finances remain stronger than nearby Southampton. Given that the organizers practically need to have a host site on the south coast the conditions are all but tailor made for Portsmouth to serve as a host-site if they can must the resources to have a viable facility.

Presumably the club will be at the least renovating the current ground to up capacity near/over 25k, provided they can sustain Premiership level without breaking the bank. Then, if the new ownership (another wealthy oilman from an Arabian nation) does come about, then he's suggested he'll build a new ~ 35k facility as quickly as possible, as the odds are that expense could easily be recouped by increased valuation and revenues for the club. 

Should all this fail then Southampton's St. Mary's venue would become a viable option but would need almost full government funding to be renovated, something the government would like to avoid.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

RobH said:


> Not sure about that one! I mean, I know the East End's a bit of a dump, but moving to Birmingham would hardly be an upgrade.
> 
> :lol:


Maybe Californiajones got Villa and Hammers mixed up because of the team colours...


----------



## Alix_D (Apr 7, 2008)

It has to be Villa for Birmingham, classic ground.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

CharlieP said:


> What about the 1999 Rugby World Cup?


Haha, yeah that too. This is what happens when an American tries to remember things about rugby.


----------



## pixel2008 (Sep 18, 2008)

RobH said:


> Not sure about that one! I mean, I know the East End's a bit of a dump, but moving to Birmingham would hardly be an upgrade.
> 
> :lol:


That is actually a good idea. Do you know how much money do you have to spend in London for a plot of land where a new stadium could be built? :lol:


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

IcyUrmel said:


> So I doubt that the City of Manchester will be allowed to support the expansion of OT in the way some people here may expect it. Government might help changing the way of the rail line, they of course can build new stations, tram lines, maybe even parkings. But I don't think they are permitted to help in the expansion itsself.


Sports clubs (as companies) have benefitted a lot down the years through funding from the National Lottery, or funds like the Football foundation, which is specifically for modernisation of football grounds. So there will be ways to bend any such rules, especially when there's pressure 'from above' if you will.

(By the way, I'm not talking about OT specifically here, I'm suggesting there may be central funding for most projects, whether they're new builds or partial redevelopments)


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

RobH said:


> Not sure about that one! I mean, I know the East End's a bit of a dump, but moving to Birmingham would hardly be an upgrade.
> 
> :lol:


*pedant alert* 

West ham don't play in the East end!!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Portsmouth's sale finally went through, which is big for England's bid. With spread being key for them and the need to have a stadium hosting in Portsmouth's region, this sale makes it far more likely that Pompey get their new stadium and host in 2018.


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

CaliforniaJones said:


> I have a list of english cities and stadiums for a world cup.
> 
> London-Wembley (final)
> London-Emirates stadium (3rd place playoff)
> ...


Your plan has one flaw. Almost half the cities you propose don't have a team in the Premier League.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

KiwiBrit said:


> Your plan has one flaw. Almost half the cities you propose don't have a team in the Premier League.


Does that really matter if the stadium's themselves are up to world cup standard?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

matthemod said:


> Does that really matter if the stadium's themselves are up to world cup standard?


I believe he said that because the original poster said he was considering Premier League cities.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

matthemod said:


> Does that really matter if the stadium's themselves are up to world cup standard?


It doesn't. It is, however, doubtful that a Football League side is able to pay off the investment to lift their ground to World Cup standards.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

SSE said:


> Personally I think that's a rubbish idea. They have had an incredibly turbulent board room for the last couple of years, and last season averaged 21,000 and even the derby with Sheffield United only drew 31,000. That's 8,000 empty seats for their biggest game of the season. I think they could do with renovating Hillsborough certainly, but I don't see the point of expansion without a sustained period of stability and Premiership football.
> 
> I think they should step aside and let Brammall Lane, which is in considerably better condition and already has plans to increase the capacity to around 40k to be the Sheffield stadium.


I don't.

Hillsborough is, despite aging, in ok nick and needs investment in projects what will provide revenues year round.

The old regime has gone and the boardroom is now very stable. Hillsborough currently holds 39,000, Bramall lane holds just 32k. 

Expansion for the lane is conditional on sucess what is not likely to happen (uniteds current positions in finances, loan repayment and failed bids to get back to the premier league adds to all this).

If its Sheffield, its Hillsborough.


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

My England 2018 World Cup stadium list.

Wembley Stadium, London (Capacity 90,000)
Old Trafford, Manchester (76,000)
Stanley Park/New Anfield, Liverpool (73,000 according to LFC's website)
Emirates Stadium, London (60,000)
St. James' Park, Newcastle (52,000)
Villa Park, Birmingham (51,000 after expansion)
New Forest Stadium, Nottingham (45-50,000)
Elland Road, Leeds (40-46,000)
Hillsborough, Sheffield (40,000)
New City Stadium, Bristol (40,000)

Reserves (because all World Cup bids have back-up venues).

New Everton Stadium, Liverpool (50,000)
Stadium of Light, Sunderland (48-64,000)
City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester (48,000)
Bramall Lane, Sheffield (36-40,000)
Pride Park, Derby (33-40,000 can be expanded)

I have tried to spread the venues out as much as possible. Some (Hillsborough & Elland Road) would need some renovation work. Others (New Forest and Bristol Stadiums) would need England to host the 2018 World Cup to even get built.


----------



## NMAISTER007 (Oct 29, 2008)

^^ Just as some ppl told me here, only one city is allowed to have 2 stadiums. London will possibly use the wembley and the emirates, but all of the other stadiums must be in different cities.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

I'm hoping the second stadium in London will be Twickenham. :banana:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

His list doesn't have two stadiums in more than one city. The other list is reserves or back ups.


----------



## likasz (Sep 4, 2008)

Only three things are certain:death, taxes and... WORLD CUP 2018 or 2022 in England


----------



## NMAISTER007 (Oct 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> His list doesn't have two stadiums in more than one city. The other list is reserves or back ups.


Still, the reserve's might also be used so just a little error.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think so. The reserves will come into play if the main stadium in that city can't host, so I don't think there's any replication.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

It's too bad that England won't joint-host with the rest of the U.K. and Ireland.

It'd be nice to see World Cup matches hosted at places like Parkhead/Ibrox, Millenium, Landsdowne Road, Murrayfield, etc..


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> It's too bad that England won't joint-host with the rest of the U.K. and Ireland.
> 
> It'd be nice to see World Cup matches hosted at places like Parkhead/Ibrox, Millenium, Landsdowne Road, Murrayfield, etc..


Err...no thanks!


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Isn't Old Trafford technically not in Manchester anyway?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Bobby3 said:


> Isn't Old Trafford technically not in Manchester anyway?


Yes, hence the name. They renamed the metro region Greater Manchester, though, so I guess it's now correct.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

krudmonk said:


> Yes, hence the name. They renamed the metro region Greater Manchester, though, so I guess it's now correct.


They never renamed anything... greater manchester was a county created out of an urban blob (Manchester, Salfrod, Bolton, Stockport etc) which straddled two counties as it made more sense. The fact that manchester united play outside the official city boundary (since 1909) is irrelevant as it's just a line on a map. 

We don't have metros like you do in america... If we did Manchester and Liverpool would be in the same one...


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> We don't have metros like you do in america... If we did Manchester and Liverpool would be in the same one...


Its strange how for a world cup in England you could use manchester and liverpool. Yet in australia places like frankston are counted as melbourne and penrith as sydney could not count as a seperate city altough they are a long distance away and run more or less indapendently of the city they are included in. Maybe this is a way the Australian bid could get past the one stadium per city rule by counting places with suitable populations such as penrith, paramatta, Frankston and Dandenong as citys unto themselves.


----------



## PortoNuts (Apr 26, 2008)

Our enemy's bid!:nuts:

I might sound hypocritical but I seriously hope that England gets the World Cup. If we did, Portugal would just be the shadow of its co-host country, Spain, which is almost five times bigger than us. Spain would get all the merit and glory for the organisation of this event.

Good luck!


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Bobby3 said:


> Isn't Old Trafford technically not in Manchester anyway?


Old Trafford isn't in Manchester in the same way that Stamford Bridge and the Emirates aren't in London.

It's not about city limits, its about conurbations. They don't like multiple venues in the same conurbations because it's much more preferable to have transport, hotels etc spread about.


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

To Clarify: the reserve list only becomes relevant if one of the A-list venues suddenly cannot fulfill it's obligation to stage World Cup games. The planners have to cover every eventuality. However, the reserve list is almost never used. As to their location, many of the big stadiums in Britain are clustered in a relatively small number of cities. Finding suitable venues in places that do not already have stadiums on the A-list is not that easy.

London is by far the biggest city in Britain, NMAISTER007, and so will almost certainly get 2 venues in the World Cup. The fact that it's the capital only adds to its pre-eminence.

Sorry RMB2007 but I doubt Twickenham will be used as a World Cup venue for 3 reasons. 1 - It's a rugby stadium. 2 - It's in west London, the same as Wembley. 3 - The RFU (which owns Twickenham) has a agreement with the local council to only stage a limited number of big events there per year. It's so that the local residents are not disturbed too much. Hosting World Cup games would probably be a violation of that accord.

England won't joint host with the rest of the UK for 2 reasons KingmanIII. 1 - England is big enough to do it alone. 2 - FIFA probably wouldn't allow a bid with 5 potential hosts (England, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, Scotland & Wales) and thus 5 automatic entrants into the competition.

You're correct that Old Trafford isn't technically in Manchester Bobby3. It's like Giants Stadium is in East Rutherford, NJ. However, the New York Giants and the New York Jets play there so to most people it's in New York. Likewise Manchester United play at Old Trafford so to most people it's in Manchester.

I suppose in one sense Liverpool and Manchester could be classified as a single entity, mvictory. However, the centre of Manchester is about 34 miles from the centre of Liverpool and on satellite pictures (such as Google Earth) there is enough of a gap for them to be considered separately. Plus, can I get on the local transit network in Manchester and go to Liverpool (or vice versa)? No, they have separate local networks and thus, to my way of thinking, they're 2 distinct cities.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Plus if you ask a manc or a scouser whether they live in the same city, you'll be in trouble!


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

Luke80 said:


> Plus if you ask a manc or a scouser whether they live in the same city, you'll be in trouble!


...Indeed :bash:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> They never renamed anything... greater manchester was a county created out of an urban blob (Manchester, Salfrod, Bolton, Stockport etc) which straddled two counties as it made more sense. The fact that manchester united play outside the official city boundary (since 1909) is irrelevant as it's just a line on a map.
> 
> We don't have metros like you do in america... If we did Manchester and Liverpool would be in the same one...


Thanks for the schooling in semantics.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

RMB2007 said:


> Err...no thanks!


Why not? Some of those stadiums are cathedrals of football, others are absolute palaces.



jandeczentar said:


> England won't joint host with the rest of the UK for 2 reasons KingmanIII. 1 - England is big enough to do it alone. 2 - FIFA probably wouldn't allow a bid with 5 potential hosts (England, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, Scotland & Wales) and thus 5 automatic entrants into the competition.


Wouldn't the entire U.K. count as one entity, though? The only other joint entrant would be Ireland.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^



jandeczentar said:


> England won't joint host with the rest of the UK for 2 reasons KingmanIII. 1 - England is big enough to do it alone. 2 - FIFA probably wouldn't allow a bid with 5 potential hosts (England, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, Scotland & Wales) *and thus 5 automatic entrants into the competition.*


No way will FIFA allow 5 teams automatic qualification. It is half against joint bids between two countries for partly that reason, let alone 3 or 4 or 5.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

CorliCorso said:


> Old Trafford isn't in Manchester in the same way that Stamford Bridge and the Emirates aren't in London.
> 
> It's not about city limits, its about conurbations. They don't like multiple venues in the same conurbations because it's much more preferable to have transport, hotels etc spread about.


Stamford Bridge and the Emirates are both well within the London city-limits.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

London should just organize it on its own already.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Don't be daft. 

Cities capable of hosting;
London (Wembley - 90,000+, Emirates)
Sheffield (Hillsborough - 40,000 - Planned 45,000)
Leeds (Elland Road 40,000)
Newcastle (St James Park - 60,000+ planned)
Manchester (Old Trafford - 75,000+)
Bristol (Ashton Vale - 40,000 planned)
Leicester (Walkers - expansion to 40,000)
Derby (Pride Park - Expansion to 40,000)

All these are good cities and should host games.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

Good _stadiums_. I've been to most of those cities and I would curse Queen and country if my home nation was drawn to play in Leicester. Awful place. Half the fun of attending World Cup matches is that you're on vacation in an exotic or otherwise fun place.

Our (the Dutch) bid faces the same problems of course. Nobody in the history of the planet has ever spoken the words "I can't wait to go to Eindhoven."


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> Why not? Some of those stadiums are cathedrals of football, others are absolute palaces.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the entire U.K. count as one entity, though? The only other joint entrant would be Ireland.


No it wouldn't. It should, even according to FIFA's own regulations on the subject, but it doesn't. When international football first started to be played in the late 19th century it was the British who wrote the rules on what constituted a country and what didn't. As a result, the constituent parts of the UK each got their own 'national' team. By the time the rules were changed, the concept of Scotish or Welsh national team was so ingrained that it was kept even though they aren't independent countries. As a result any UK bid for the World Cup would involve at least 4 'nations' (5 including the Republic of Ireland which is a separate entity).


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Still don't think that Emirates will feature. Not without a serious plan to accommodate world cup requirements around the venue.


----------



## KingsofOmega (Jun 3, 2009)

Steel City Suburb said:


> Don't be daft.
> 
> Cities capable of hosting;
> London (Wembley - 90,000+, Emirates)
> ...


No Liverpool?

If Stanley Park (73,000) is ready on time that would make a great stadium.

If not then Anfield could host, as I don't see that kirkby or whatever stadium going ahead.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

So do you think the news that Eastlands, Manchester City's football ground are planning to expand from 48,000 to 60,000 would help get this stadium part of the England 2018 bid. Here is the article on the expansion:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/18/manchester-city-stadium-upgrade-eastlands


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Kobo said:


> So do you think the news that Eastlands, Manchester City's football ground are planning to expand from 48,000 to 60,000 would help get this stadium part of the England 2018 bid. Here is the article on the expansion:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/18/manchester-city-stadium-upgrade-eastlands


This is where it would get very delicate, I mean disregarding the whole "Old Trafford isn't in Manchester" thing and just assuming that they are, if Man City were able to boost their stadium to a total similar to that of Old Trafford (which i'm not sure if it is possible),would this choice over Old Trafford be beneficial to the bid overall?

I mean if you think about it, Man Utd are possibly the biggest football club in the world, with the biggest global support...their presence in an English bid would surely be a great bonus to the bid overall, regardless of whether Eastlands could be a potentially better/bigger stadium. 

Unless of course they take the "2 stadiums in 1 city" aspect out of London! What a coup that would be!


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

If FIFA guidelines are strictly adhered to and only one stadium is permitted per city then I think Old Trafford would still get the nod.The best English stadiums are in clusters around 4 or 5 cities though so I would like to see FIFA make some compromises. 
Also I think Emirates Stadium would be used as the 2nd London stadium. If it doesnt get chosen then maybe the new Spurs stadium would get the nod but at the moment it doesn't have the transport links that the Emirates has.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> If it doesnt get chosen then maybe the new Spurs stadium would get the nod but at the moment it doesn't have the transport links that the Emirates has.


At the moment it doesn't have the _stadium_ that the Emirates has!  We'll see how transport links compare once the stadium's up.



> So do you think the news that Eastlands, Manchester City's football ground are planning to expand from 48,000 to 60,000 would help get this stadium part of the England 2018 bid. Here is the article on the expansion:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...rade-eastlands


60,000 is still 17,000 seats short of Old Trafford so if it's only one Manacher stadium it'll still be the red, not the blue one.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

SE9 said:


> Stamford Bridge and the Emirates are both well within the London city-limits.


London's city limits encompass about 3 square km. Conurbations and cities are different things. That's why, for the sake of this thread, you wouldn't get away with trying to use two stadiums in the Manchester and Liverpool areas by saying they're not technically in the same city.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Slagathor said:


> Our (the Dutch) bid faces the same problems of course. Nobody in the history of the planet has ever spoken the words "I can't wait to go to Eindhoven."


I once said _"I'd like to see Eindhoven."_ Granted, it was for a football match...



Kobo said:


> So do you think the news that Eastlands, Manchester City's football ground are planning to expand from 48,000 to 60,000 would help get this stadium part of the England 2018 bid.


Magic Eight Ball says... _"Outlook not good!!!"_

a) I'm still doubtful this scheme will come to pass. That same article emphasizes the point that Eastlands isn't selling out now so it's probable the ROI on any expansion would be abysmally low, if not an outright loss. So while the owners could afford this, they're likely shrewd enough to also that playing in front of more empty seats wouldn't do much for the club's image.

b) As has been pointed out, Eastlands won't be able to supplant Old Trafford as the prestige factor alone means ManU's home ground will be in the mix, even if Citeh are someday matching their average draw (which won't happen). So unless FIFA allows England to have more than one city hosting 2 venues, this won't happen. 

I truly suspect this is simply the handlers for Citeh trying to keep their vision in the press and in everyone's mind, much the same way Newcastle spent time and energy touting an expansion of St. James even as the club was struggling. Cheap advertising.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

CorliCorso said:


> London's city limits encompass about 3 square km. Conurbations and cities are different things. That's why, for the sake of this thread, you wouldn't get away with trying to use two stadiums in the Manchester and Liverpool areas by saying they're not technically in the same city.


London's city limits encompass 659 square miles.

Stamford Bridge, the Emirates, the Valley, White Hart Lane etc. are all within London city-proper.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Bad news for your bid.... hno:

A bad remake of "Green Street Hooligans"






I'm sad too see that and as a Paris-SG fan I know the probleme very well...

That kind of violence has already cost you the obtention of world cup.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Unless there are repeats of incidents on this scale between now and the end of next year (and I'll stick my neck out and wager there won't be), this will cause no more than short term damage. Poland would not be hosting Euro 2012 if hooliganism was a big determining factor in choosing hosts. Besides which, even if it were, England is one of the world leaders in dealing with hooliganism and our leagues are now among the safest in world football. FIFA knows this so I don't think they'll let last night cloud their judgement, but they will want to see us acting swiftly and firmly after witnessing what is a blemish on our otherwise very good recent record.


----------



## 2020 (Jun 14, 2005)

parcdesprinces said:


> Bad news for your bid.... hno:
> 
> A bad remake of "Green Street Hooligans"
> 
> ...


I don't see why this would affect the bid. It is one match out of thousands of domestic games each season, and is only getting airtime because our domestic hooligan record has been so good over the past 15 years.

It is an isolated incident, and FIFA are intellegent enough to know that, despite the media bandwagon.

Far worse happens in many European countries each week.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Yes far more violence occurs in other European countries, but all of you are forgetting Platini seems to be totally against English football. This is the kind of rubbish excuse he could use.

The police asked for this when they halved the away ticket allocation, meaning they were left to deal with thousands of angry ticketless fans looking to get back at the police outside the ground. This meant the stewards were virtually on their own and powerless to stop the 3 pointless pitch invasions.

It has to be said Millwall were _fairly_ well behaved and it was the West Ham fans who let the side down last night. That said, racist chanting is totally unacceptable.


----------



## PortoNuts (Apr 26, 2008)

If FIFA decided not to choose the English bid just because of that it would be very childish. I think this institution makes well thought decisions and doesn't let its opinion to be manipulated by the media.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

We had crowd trouble at a Newcastle - Sunderland game last season with both sets of fans on the pitch. Nothing was made of that because it wasn't Millwall. Football scapegoats I'm afraid.

It's big news because they made a couple of films about it. The media want to cash in on this interest.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

One of the reasons FIFA are strict when it comes to the space around the venue and the location of transport facilities. This is the sort of thing which can spiral out of control in a World Cup. It can happen anywhere in the world, but precautions need to be taken, esp during the world's most watched event.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Millwall and West Ham firms won't turn up for Tunisia vs Ecuador and Upton Park won't host a WC game anyway.

Wembley and the Emirates are far better prepared and spaced out - the Boleyn is an old fashioned ground surrounded by terraced streets. There aren't that many of those in our bid so the argument doesn't apply.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Luke80 said:


> Millwall and West Ham firms won't turn up for Tunisia vs Ecuador and Upton Park won't host a WC game anyway.
> 
> Wembley and the Emirates are far better prepared and spaced out - the Boleyn is an old fashioned ground surrounded by terraced streets. There aren't that many of those in our bid so the argument doesn't apply.


how about serbia and croatia?

my point was not that these issues or stadium issues were exclusive to england, or even that englands bid had many "residential" venues but rather that perhaps there is some sense behind the "madness" of FIFA's safety precautions.

Personally, I don't think Emirates has the required space around it.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

PortoNuts said:


> If FIFA decided not to choose the English bid just because of that it would be very childish. I think this institution makes well thought decisions and doesn't let its opinion to be manipulated by the media.


Well, I'm not so sure considering the past, remember the last English bid.. Hooliganism was the first reason why they didn't obtained the WC (troubles have occured with english "fans" during France '98 in Marseille (I remember very well), Euro 2000 and euro 2004)...

An old article wrote just before the last English bid fails (found on the BBC website) : 



> *Is England's 2006 World Cup bid over?* (Sunday, 18 June, 2000)
> 
> *Hooligans could end 2006 World Cup bid.
> BBC Sport Online's football editor, Howard Nurse, fears England's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup finals is doomed.*
> ...


@Luke80: Don't worry about Platini, he doesn't like the Real Madrid either, as he proved it yesterday (with his Anti-Real plan)..... Anyway, although he's a member of the FIFA' executive committee, he doesn't make the decision...
About his UEFA presidency, I'm not even sure he supports our bid for Euro 2016 hno:....


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Our authorities have been among the best in the world at stamping out football hooligans. We never get trouble at any home international fixtures, even when teams like Croatia and Russia turn up.

Poland and Ukraine still have to have fences around their grounds and they got 2012.

The way the police deal with it here isn't perfect, but it is very good compared to other countries where either you're free to trash the place, or everyone is a criminal and 14 year olds need to be beaten across the face while they are lying on the floor petrified and crying.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

It seems Millwall have been scapegoated as the hooligan problem in the England, and if England doesn't receive a genuine honest chance from FIFA because of this one event...for one act of hooliganism and for "previous events", surely that's making our country the scapegoat for the rest of the world.

Just ignore Russia, Poland, Serbia etc. No the problems are Englands alone. Sorry maybe my opinion's a bit clouded but i'm sick of our how Media here is exaggerating one event.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

matthemod said:


> Just ignore Russia, Poland, Serbia etc. No the problems are Englands alone. Sorry maybe my opinion's a bit clouded but i'm sick of our how Media here is exaggerating one event.


You and every other football fan in this country. The media are cashing in on the event. These weren't football hooligan firms (they would have met as far away as possible). 

I'd say 2 sets of people:
1. teenagers trying to prove themselves
2. drunk fans without tickets getting back at the police


----------



## Lucky Luke (Oct 20, 2004)

Seriously compared to what hooligans do in Poland this was like a kindergarden play.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Lucky Luke said:


> Seriously compared to what hooligans do in Poland this was like a kindergarden play.


Exactly.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

If a load of pushing & shoving, and wannabe hooligans failing to get near each other, is what passes for the worst hooliganism in England these days... then I'd say that's a pretty good advert for English football. 

20 years ago it wouldn't have been worthy of mention. Safety is much, much better around grounds today - the only thing that's gotten worse is journalism.


----------



## ghost101 (Feb 15, 2009)

CorliCorso said:


> *London's city limits encompass about 3 square km.* Conurbations and cities are different things. That's why, for the sake of this thread, you wouldn't get away with trying to use two stadiums in the Manchester and Liverpool areas by saying they're not technically in the same city.


The City of London i.e. 2.9 sq km (1.12 sq miles, colloquially known as the "square mile") has no stadia within it. It is the financial distirict of London.

London on the other hand covers 1707 sq km (659 sq miles). This covers an enormous number of stadia.

I find this is something which always confuse people from outside London. Especially if the only google it without reading what the "city of london" actually is. 

The City of London is the number 1 shown on the map below. Canary wharf which would be of interest to people in this forum is located at the bottom loopy bit of Tower Hamlets (number 8).










London itself includes all the other districts known as london boroughs.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

It sickens me that English fans are always accused of hooliganism. Our record over the last 20 years is better than any other major footballing nation. Brazil, Argentina, Holland, France, Spain have all had major incidents (including large scale racism) at domestic matches in recent times, and a few years ago Italy had to suspend their league after a Police officer was killed at Catania (I think it was there anyway). That's before we get onto the likes of Partizan and Red Star Belgrade, Galatasary, Dinamo Zagreb and other eastern european clubs.

Yet one incident and it's splashed all over the press, because the media and a large percentage of the population over here can't wait to see the bid fail, so they can blame hooliganism for it.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow, that's a paranoid post. I don't think anyone wants to see the bid fail and I don't think people are "always" accusing the English of hooliganism. It's arguable that the press went a bit over the top this week, but their reasons for doing so weren't so that they could gloat if we lose the bid.

Considering it cost the UK economy at least £1bn when we failed to qualify for Euro 2008, do you really think anyone in the media would have an agenda of trying to lose us a world cup on home soil, when it would be a huge boon to their industry? Please, please think before you post such things!


----------



## DaveyCakes (Jun 17, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> Well, I'm not so sure considering the past, remember the last English bid.. Hooliganism was the first reason why they didn't obtained the WC (troubles have occured with english "fans" during France '98 in Marseille (I remember very well), Euro 2000 and euro 2004)...
> 
> An old article wrote just before the last English bid fails (found on the BBC website) :
> 
> ...


England didn't get the 2006 World Cup because they tried to shaft Germany on an agreement that Germany wouldn't compete with England's bid for Euro 96 in return for England not competing for WC 2006, and everyone voting knew this. Hooliganism had nothing to do with it.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

DaveyCakes said:


> England didn't get the 2006 World Cup because they tried to shaft Germany on an agreement that Germany wouldn't compete with England's bid for Euro 96 in return for England not competing for WC 2006, and everyone voting knew this. Hooliganism had nothing to do with it.



That and the fact that our bid for 2006 consisted of us jumping up and down like a 5 year in a tantrum and screaming 'but it's our turn! France got it twice so why can't we???'

At least this time we've actually got a decent bid.


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

Hooliganism has nothing to do with assigning the hosts to the World Cup or any other sporting event, for that matter. If it did, Euro 2012 wouldn't be in Poland and Ukraine (or anywhere else in Eastern Europe), the 2005 Champions League Final wouldn't have been in Istanbul and the 2009 Final wouldn't have been in Rome.

Who gets to host major sporting events is down to politics and economics. The best examples of this are the Olympics. Beijing got the 2008 games because the Olympic sponsors wanted a foothold in the Chinese market. The 2014 winter games went to Sochi because Russian energy company Gazprom signed a sponsorship deal with the IOC. It's the same for the World Cup. The tournament will go to the place that makes the most political and financial capital for FIFA (and to the bid team that greases the most palms).


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Your forgetting that 2014 was also sort of a consolation prize for the Russians, having lost their Moscow bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The Olympics is sort of like that, should a country try for a Summer games and fail, but bid for a Winter one afterwords, they'd get the Winter games as a consolation.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ I agree, it was the same for Albertville '92, because Paris was candidate and failed for the '92 summer olympics....


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

Slightly off the topic of hooliganism...:tongue2: but here's my interpretation of what I reckon England's 2018 bid will end up looking like:











With the final event, in my opinion, looking like this:











It's based on the concept of using 12 stadia in 6 regions, with only London possibly using 2 stadia (which I personally believe it will). Obviously if the bid team decide to use more stadia then things will change.

It is also assumed that the minimum requirement for stadium capacity will be 45,000 rather than the current 40,000.

In terms of last 16, Quarters, Semis and Final, I predict the following:











Just my thoughts anyway... got my fingers crossed for winning this one - will be the final feather in Britain's 'Golden Decade of Sport' cap... :cheers:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

^^^^ Looks great to me and it would have me voting for England if I had a vote. The only change would be to remove the Olympic Stadium and insert Emirates or even the new White Hart Lane because the Olympic Stadium will have been downsized by 2018 or 2022.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

There wouldn't be two stadiums in the south west, so I'd cross Plymouth off the list. Plus, I haven't heard of any plans to increase the capacity of Home Park to anything approaching 40,000 (I'm pretty sure the club doesn't have the money). I would think there would be a more central southern option instead. Possibly Reading (with the plans to expand the Madejski) but much more likely Portsmouth or Southampton.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the new Nottingham Forest stadium taking precedent over Leicester, that is if it actually happens.

Also, I doubt the olympic stadium will still be at 80,000, so the Emirates (which may well have been expanded a little by then) or the New White Hart Lane would be my favourites for the other London venue. I would suggest that they might investigate using Twickenham, but I'm not sure it meets certain FIFA standards and I think Arsenal and Tottenham would kick up a fuss (not that they wouldn't if the olympic stadium was used). My money is on the Emirates.

My only other difference of opinion from that list would be that I don't think a semi-final will be played at Wembley.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Twickenham in for Olympic Stadium would be my choice, but it appears not to be viable so I would have the Emirates. Remember that by this time the olympic stadium will have been reduced to 25,000. Besides the view would be crap with that athletics track.

Plymouth can't build a 45,000 seater stadium - they don't come close to filling Home Park as it is.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Luke80 said:


> Twickenham in for Olympic Stadium would be my choice, but it appears not to be viable


twickenham is more vialble than emirates


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> twickenham is more vialble than emirates


The transport links to Ashburton Grove aren't great but could be improved rather quickly. Twickenham, however, is difficult to get to. Nothing I would call viable.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

flierfy said:


> The transport links to Ashburton Grove aren't great but could be improved rather quickly. Twickenham, however, is difficult to get to. Nothing I would call viable.


its the lack of space around the venue that could be the issue.

you only need transport links within 1.4km of the venue.

any station right next to or on top of the venue will likely be closed and the second nearest would be used.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> twickenham is more vialble than emirates


I was referring to the point made earlier in the thread about the RFU limiting the amount of events taking place. I thought there was some sort of deal being sorted between the FA and the RFU.

Neither stadium is particularly easy to get to, but at least the Emirates is accessible by underground and mainline trains.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Luke80 said:


> I was referring to the point made earlier in the thread about the RFU limiting the amount of events taking place. I thought there was some sort of deal being sorted between the FA and the RFU.
> 
> Neither stadium is particularly easy to get to, but at least the Emirates is accessible by underground and mainline trains.


if fifa want twickenham, fifa will get twickenham


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

:lol: Sounds good to me!


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> if fifa want twickenham, fifa will get twickenham


I don't think they'll want Twickenham. 

I love it as a stadium, but it is a bugger to get to and from. The tube is a long, long walk to Richmond and Twickenham station isn't the best for crowds (although they have got quite good at handling it now). St. Margaret's (I think it's St. Margaret's) is between Twickenham and Richmond on the main line but it's still quite a walk and it's not capable of handling any large volume of crowds. 

Besides, I don't think FIFA will care about an extra 20,000 seats. Especially when the Emirates is such a nice stadium and is home to one of Europe's biggest clubs.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Luke80 said:


> I was referring to the point made earlier in the thread about the RFU limiting the amount of events taking place. I thought there was some sort of deal being sorted between the FA and the RFU.
> 
> Neither stadium is particularly easy to get to, but at least the Emirates is accessible by underground and mainline trains.





Mo Rush said:


> if fifa want twickenham, fifa will get twickenham


One should also note that England 2015 won't work without the use of Football Stadiums throughout the country. Should the FA want Twickenham, they will get it.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

SSE said:


> I don't think they'll want Twickenham.
> 
> I love it as a stadium, but it is a bugger to get to and from. The tube is a long, long walk to Richmond and Twickenham station isn't the best for crowds (although they have got quite good at handling it now). St. Margaret's (I think it's St. Margaret's) is between Twickenham and Richmond on the main line but it's still quite a walk and it's not capable of handling any large volume of crowds.
> 
> Besides, I don't think FIFA will care about an extra 20,000 seats. Especially when the Emirates is such a nice stadium and is home to one of Europe's biggest clubs.


Yes, but emirates has no space around it for sponsors/media/hospitality


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> Yes, but emirates has no space around it for sponsors/media/hospitality


 There is space around The Emirates though I havent a clue if it is enough space because I don't have a clue what the FIFA requirements are. How much space is required?


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

SouthBank said:


> In terms of last 16, Quarters, Semis and Final, I predict the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which stadium would you want to use for the 3rd/4th place match?

I personally think that the semi finals should go to Old Trafford in Manchester and Stanley Park in Liverpool as these 2 clubs are probably the most famous in England, and their grounds are most likely to be the largest in the tournament besides Wembley. I don't think they will use the Olympic Stadium in London, I feel at the moment that Arsenals Emirates stadium would be used, unless Chelsea, Tottenham or West Ham build bigger or more modern stadium before 2018. Twickenham could be used, and it will be interesting to see if it gets selected over one of the London football clubs I mentioned. 

In terms of stadiums in the South of England, I don't think Plymouth will be used although it would be nice to play matches in Devon. I would have thought that new stadiums in Bristol and Portsmouth would be selected. 

But I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens, I am a little nervous about the Spanish / Portuguese bid as that will be strong.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

*Final:* Wembley

*3rd-4th place play-off:* Twickenham

*Semi finals:* Old Trafford, Stanley Park

*Quarter finals:* Wembley, Twickenham, Villa Park, St. James Park

*Last 16:* Wembley, Twickenham, Old Trafford, Stanley Park, St. James Park, Villa Park, Bramall Lane, Elland Road.


----------



## SouthBank (Nov 18, 2004)

^^^^

I'd be very surprised if both Stanley Park and Old Trafford were chosen to host Semis given the tiny distance between Liverpool and Manchester. The hotel/transport/flights/security situation would be a nightmare.

I suspect that London, assuming it gets 2 venues, will host every stage of the competition from opening match to final, but also suspect it will host just one game per round after the group stages... 

For the 3rd/4th place play-off, which I forgot about in my original post, I'd suggest that assuming Stanley Park is built, either it or Old Trafford will host the game, with the other hosting one of the Semis.



> There wouldn't be two stadiums in the south west, so I'd cross Plymouth off the list. Plus, I haven't heard of any plans to increase the capacity of Home Park to anything approaching 40,000 (I'm pretty sure the club doesn't have the money). I would think there would be a more central southern option instead. Possibly Reading (with the plans to expand the Madejski) but much more likely Portsmouth or Southampton.


Plymouth has already promised to build a 45,000-seater (I reckon they realise the South-West lends itself well to a bid but is lacking in stadia...). I agree they'll struggle to fill it after 2018, so wouldn't be surprised to see a permanent 30,000-seater, with a large number of temporary seats.

As far as Southampton and Reading goes, they haven't put their names forward as candidate cities, so you can rule them out. Portsmouth is a definite alternative though.



> Twickenham in for Olympic Stadium would be my choice, but it appears not to be viable so I would have the Emirates. Remember that by this time the olympic stadium will have been reduced to 25,000. Besides the view would be crap with that athletics track.


I agree about the athletics track - far from ideal, but lets not forget that the final of the last world cup was played in an athletics stadium...

I still think it's the front runner as London's second venue - they transport links are superb, there is tonnes of open space around the stadium for fan zones, hospitality etc (indeed some could intentionally be left over from the Olympics). It would also go some way to justifying the expense of the stadium and prevent a lot of inconvenient 'white elephant' headlines for the powers that be, so don't be surprised to see it included...

Twickenham is clearly the better stadium for football, and personally would be my preferred choice, but the transport really is shocking. Emirates and the new Spurs stadium are even better for football and have decent transport links but simply don't have the space around the stadium required by FIFA.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

They've said multiple times that the Olympic Stadium will be reduced following the games. Coe said so just a day or two ago and even mentioned the World Cup would not keep them from reducing the stadium. It will not be a World Cup venue.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Using an Olympic athletics stadium for an English bid would be a shitty idea anyway. England has such a big club football tradition with arguably the most popular league in the world and I think it would be sad if this of all countries couldn't provide a sufficient amount of football specific stadiums for a World Cup.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

SouthBank said:


> ^^^^
> 
> I'd be very surprised if both Stanley Park and Old Trafford were chosen to host Semis given the tiny distance between Liverpool and Manchester. The hotel/transport/flights/security situation would be a nightmare.


They could quite easily take place on different days to ease congestion/security issues. I was just trying to spread games in the latter stages out between the best grounds.

You could have the semi's at Old Trafford and Twickenham and the 3rd/4th place playoff at Stanley Park.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

OT and Stanley Park for semis? Not both.
It will most certainly be OT and one in London.


----------



## MelbournesNT (Sep 9, 2009)

Give up on this thread, Australia is getting the 2018 WC, and thats that.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Oh OK then! :lol:


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

Well. Least us Brits can entice your ladies


----------



## ormey (Jul 15, 2007)

MelbournesNT said:


> Give up on this thread, Australia is getting the 2018 WC, and thats that.


cant see it at all


----------



## ormey (Jul 15, 2007)

the sheffield bid man in charge paul cant remember his second name said the sheffield bid is seen to be very striong by the fa and the fanzone could be unique with the donvalley area been a strong possibility with the don valley stadium the arena and don valley bowl this was on radio sheffield btw.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

_Football's coming home?

*Skysports.com looks at the 16 locations in England which are hoping to be included in the bid to host the 2018 World Cup finals*

*The competition to host the 2018 World Cup is gathering pace and England is therefore preparing to fine tune its bid by selecting the 12 venues which will act as potential stages for the competition.*

A Football Association committee, charged with the task of picking the correct locations to include in an overall proposal designed to bring football home, is therefore considering its options from 16 possible candidates before cutting four candidates from the running and submitting an agreed application to Fifa.

The FA will select its 12 venues focusing on the Fifa requirements of stadia, training facilities, base camps and Fan Parks. There is also an expectation for public support, excellent accommodation and transport services, and robust plans for safety, security and sustainability.

Birmingham

England's 'Second City' would expect to be one of the lynchpins of a 2018 World Cup in the country and it already appears well suited for the job.

In Villa Park, Birmingham has a 43,000-seater ground which is adept at hosting major footballing events after perennially staging FA Cup semi-finals, while plans are to update and increase capacity and quality.

Villa Park was a venue during the 1996 European Championship and provided the scene for the last Cup Winners' Cup final in 1999.

International events also take place at the National Exhibition Centre and the National Indoor Arena, meaning the city already has organisational experience, superb travel links and potential areas for training and media.

A geographical location in the centre of England helps in regards to access, a factor which saw a culturally-vibrant Birmingham considered for a new national stadium prior to the re-development of Wembley.

Birmingham City's previous owners had plans for a City of Birmingham Stadium at a suburban Brownfield site, which could have been an option, but this now appears unlikely.

Bristol

The city is perfectly positioned to act as a venue in the South West of the country, with only Plymouth offering competition in the region.

Bristol City's new stadium in the Alderman Moores allotments area has been partially agreed by the council and it has been reported that FA bid committee members have already carried out an inspection.

Bristol has hosted international cricket matches and so is aware of the necessary procedures of catering for the needs of visiting fans, travel and safety.

The city also provides a piece of English history which would be in contrast to more metropolitan areas, with an abundance of inner-city green spaces and a scenic working harbour seemingly ideal for Fan Zones.

If fully-approved, built and selected as a venue, City's new 30,000-seater stadium, which has been the subject of complaints regarding environmental issues, would be expanded to meet Fifa's minimum capacity of 40,000 for the World Cup.

Blue Square Premier side Forest Green Rovers would act as a training venue for teams if Bristol is picked.

Derby

Pride Park is the figurehead for Derby as the modern stadium is already in good condition to host World Cup matches.

The 30,000 capacity would only need to be slightly increased, but the out-of-town setting would mean that should not be an issue.

Derby County's 1997-built ground is up to date in comparison with some and therefore has all the necessary trimmings, including car parking and a comfortable walk to the city's train station.

As with Birmingham, a Midlands position works in its favour and makes travel complaints less of an issue.

But if local rivals Nottingham's plans for a new stadium are selected, Derby's bid could stumble.

Hull

The city has come in for ridicule in the past, but it is now a bustling area and all the ambition is in place to prove a vibrant World Cup venue.

Proposals are to expand Premier League Hull City's small, but impressive, 2002-built KC Stadium to a 46,000 capacity and the edge-of-city location and comfortable access, aided by a park and ride system, should mean that is not a problem.

There are also plans for a specialised train station to be built next to the stadium, although the central station is within walking distance.

Hull has invested heavily in transforming its image and building a mix of culture and entertainment, including the renowned The Deep aquatic attraction.

FA inspectors have already visited Hull on at least two occasions, meeting with the likes of Hull City manager Phil Brown.

Leeds

Sport is central to the city, with the hugely successful rugby league side Leeds Rhinos and fallen football giants Leeds United.

The sporting facilities are therefore in place to reflect the passion, and Elland Road, the home of United, would provide a sizeable and well-equipped venue.

A capacity of more than 40,000 would require only a bit of housekeeping and the experience of hosting games during Euro 96 and rugby league finals also bodes well.

Leeds, which has been visited by bid officials, has produced a DVD promoting its bid and copies have been circulated to local schools in order to generate interest among youngsters.

The city boasts attractive shops, nightlife and excellent travel links to the north and south, while it is also in close proximity to the picturesque Yorkshire Dales.

Roundhay Park has staged music concerts including the likes of Robbie Williams and would provide an excellent area for a Fan Park within easy reach of the city centre.

Headingley Stadium on the outskirts of the city could be an option for meeting visiting teams' training requirements.

Leicester

The Walkers Stadium, the home of Leicester City, would be the obvious focal point for a bid, which is backed by World Cup legends Peter Shilton and Gary Lineker.

After opening in the 2002/03 season, the ground has played host to Premier League and international football, and European rugby to build experience of hosting major sporting events.

Plans to expand a current capacity of 32,500 to 45,000 have already been outlined to officials and there is potential to add a further 10,000 seats.

Leicester has obtained the support of the famous sporting facilities at Loughborough University, home of the National Cricket Academy, to offer a state-of-the-art training base as part of its bid.

Leicester Tigers' Welford Road Stadium, which will play an important role in the rugby union World Cup in 2015, could also accommodate sides' preparations.

The city's Victoria Park and Abbey Park have been highlighted as suitable venues for Fan Parks following Germany's success with this scheme in 2006.

As with all Midlands-based bids, a central position in England will greatly boost Leicester's prospects, but the competition for places will be keenly contested.

Liverpool

The passion for football on Merseyside is rightly being used as a selling point for a bid, which also features the prospect of two new stadia.

Liverpool and Everton both have plans to move from Anfield and Goodison Park, respectively, to plush homes in Stanley Park and Kirkby which should be ready for 2018.

Either ground could act as a venue, but it is likely that it will only be London that is handed the luxury of two stadia in one city so there could be direct competition.

There are concerns regarding a recession-induced delay on Liverpool's new ground, which is planned to seat in the region of 61,000 with an option for expansion, while Everton's move has been met by local complaints.

Anfield and Goodison Park will be considered if new grounds are not available but, despite quality and history, aging grounds and poor travel links to out-of-city locations could prove an issue in the FA's assessment.

Stanley Park or the world famous Albert Docks in the city's centre would act as excellent bases for Fan Parks.

A status as the 2008 European City of Culture saw a detailed development and clean-up of the city, investing more than £400million in the last decade, which earned excellent results and reviews.

London

The capital would be viewed as the HQ for a World Cup and is certain to host the final, if England is selected, but it also has selling points of stadia, travel, public spaces and experience which could obtain additional matches.

Wembley, the home of the England national team, is the ace in the pack and has played host to a range of international sporting and music events, while with 90,000 seats and a sliding roof it comfortably meets Fifa rules on capacity for the opening match and the final.

Arsenal's 2006-built Emirates Stadium could easily act as a semi-final venue after being designed to high quality and security specifics with a capacity of 60,000 at a cost in the region of £430million.

Chelsea's Stamford Bridge would be in contention to host group games after a revamp in recent years saw hotels, bars and restaurants attached to the stadium, which seats around 42,000 before a possible expansion.

The Bridge, though, faces a tough task to sway the bid committee when up against Wembley and The Emirates, while even the 2012 Olympic Stadium could be considered for matches, media and training.

Fulham's Craven Cottage and West Ham's Upton Park could also be used as preparation bases.

London's bid team, London United, have released a promotional video 'Park Life' which highlights the integration between professional sport and grass roots.

Manchester

The city is using a reputation for attracting major sporting events as the foundations of a bid in the North West.

Manchester has hosted a UEFA Champions League final, FA Cup semi-finals, European Championship football, international cricket, the world swimming championship and the Commonwealth Games in recent years to carve significant potential, while Olympic events will also be held in the city in 2012.

The fame of Manchester United and the emerging ambition of Manchester City are lures for fans, with both Old Trafford and the 48,000-seater City of Manchester Stadium offering excellent potential venues.

Manchester City Council is also keen to point out a grassroots football programme designed to offer support from schools to the professional level.

Despite trouble surrounding the 2008 Uefa Cup final, Fan Parks would be possible in a city centre which was rejuvenated in the 1990s, while both stadia are accessible by public transport.

Old Trafford, which has its own train station and is the only Uefa five-star-rated facility in England, and its capacity in the region of 76,000 would be a definite venue for a semi-final.

The City of Manchester Stadium may find it difficult to be involved considering the probability that only London will enjoy the luxury of two stadia in one city.

Milton Keynes

Stadium:mk is one of the most modern grounds bidding to host World Cup matches and Milton Keynes hopes that will work in its favour.

Though only currently hosting League One football, the town is ambitious regarding the future in football and expects to be playing at a higher level by 2018.

Milton Keynes has hosted Under 21 internationals and the stadium has been given a four-star rating by Uefa, meaning it would be capable of hosting a Europa League final.

There are current plans to increase a 22,000 capacity by 10,000 seats and that could be expanded further above the 40,000 minimum by the time of the finals.

Milton Keynes, which has only been in existence for around 40 years, hopes that the FA will be keen to spread host venues around England and that there will be a desire to place possibly less-famous venues on the map.

An 88-page brochure has been handed to FA representatives and when bid committee members re-visited in September plans were outlined for a £20million development of stadium:mk, which would include the addition of two new tiers, a sports store, health club, restaurants, a media area and a medical centre.

Newport Pagnell, Stony Stratford and Manor Fields in Bletchley have been visited by inspectors and could offer training bases.

It has been claimed that Milton Keynes' 'unique road grid system' makes travelling 'quick and easy'.

NewcastleGateshead

In a similar scenario to Liverpool, the much-heralded love of football in the North East is being used in promotion and the Geordie spirit is a particular highlight.

NewcastleGateshead boasts a host of sporting venues from Newcastle's St James' Park to the Newcastle Arena and the Gateshead Athletics Stadium, while the Great North Run, the world's largest half marathon, also takes place in the region.

St James' Park would be the centrepiece venue at a capacity of 52,000 that is within easy walking distance of the city centre and has hosted matches at Euro 96.

The surrounding Newcastle University, Benfield Centre for Sporting Excellence and a planned International Conference facility, which is undergoing a feasibility assessment, would cater for visiting teams, fans and media.

A formerly industrial area has undergone a facelift over the last 10 years after £300million worth of investment to improve cultural facilities, especially in the Quayside area, meaning very little alterations would be required to host World Cup matches.

Nottingham

A bid will be centred around a two kilometre long River Trent World Cup Park, which will connect the city centre to a newly-built stadium, media centre, VIP area and camping facilities for visiting fans.

Nottingham Forest's new environmentally-friendly stadium, planned to be built by 2014 and expected to hold around 45,000 spectators, will be the heart of the Park in the city's Gamston area.

The development would also include the construction of schools, a shopping centre and community sports facilities, which are likely to impress Fifa.

Plans are in place to increase the capacity of the new stadium, which has a proposed name of Brian Clough Stadium, should Championship side Forest regain Premier League status.

However, Nottinghamshire County Council has indicated that it is not in favour of a new stadium and would prefer a bid based on the City Ground.

The fame of Forest, two-time European Cup winners in the 1970s, will also be used in the bid while the recent renewal of aspirations at Notts County, the Football League's oldest club, could play a part.

Nottingham regularly hosts international Test cricket to demonstrate an ability to host major sporting events.

Plymouth

A scenic, one-off location and distinctive identity will work in Plymouth's favour if the bid committee are eager to spread matches across England in order to improve access to the entire country.

Plymouth Argyle's stadium, Home Park, has already undergone a relatively recent revamp and therefore only additional expansion, to a proposed capacity of 45,000, would be required if selected.

The ground's setting will prove positive, with the stadium surrounded by a green area ideal for a Fan Park, while the natural amphitheatre of Plymouth Hoe, which overlooks the harbour, would also offer an excellent setting for visitors.

World Cup football would be seen as a superb soapbox for promoting the sport in the region and possibly increasing the status of clubs in Devon and Cornwall.

The city was a latecomer to bidding but has planned for rapid improvements to transportation, sporting facilities, accommodation and events at grassroots level in order to leave a legacy of the finals.

St James Park, the ground of neighbours Exeter City, is a potential training base for visiting teams competing in the World Cup.

It is expected that Plymouth or Bristol will be nominated, and not both, so competition is fierce.

Portsmouth

A replacement for Portsmouth's current ground, Fratton Park, is the main focus of a bid and would hope to capitalise on a lack of competition on the South East coast.

The club have been working with architects regarding a new stadium for a number of years, but it remains to be seen if the finances are available for such a project.

Heritage would be a major selling point for a bid, with a historic dockyard at the centre of advertising.

Portsmouth already possesses good travel links to meet Fifa requirements for access, and green or waterside areas would be ideal for Fan Parks.

However, a successful bid would be entirely dependent on guarantees that a new stadium would be developed.

Sheffield

A bid has been launched under the eye of 'Sheffield 2018', which is a team of stakeholders with expertise in specific fields and has earned backing from Fifa president Sepp Blatter.

Arch-rivals Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United have joined forces, but both respective grounds, Hillsborough and Bramall Lane, have aspirations towards hosting games.

It is therefore expected that it will come down to one or the other, with London expected to be the only city to be awarded two grounds.

Bramall Lane now holds approximately 32,500 after recent development, and planning permission has been approved for further expansion to meet the 40,000 minimum criteria and to include conference facilities ideal for media.

United's ground would have the edge in terms of being adjacent to the city centre, but Hillsborough, which was a Euro 96 venue and has hosted FA Cup semi-finals, holds the advantage of a surrounding green area perfect for a Fan Park.

A £22million revamp, including a new education facility and increase to a 45,000 capacity, has been approved by the city's council and will take place if the ground is selected.

Both grounds are within access of the city's major train stations, with Hillsborough connected by a 'Supertram' network.

The nearby Don Valley Stadium could be used as a Fan Park and would provide an ideal base for training facilities or media.

Sunderland

The atmospheric, 49,000-seater Stadium of Light will take much of the focus for Sunderland's bid and the Premier League football club already has strong community projects.

England have played World Cup qualifiers in Sunderland during the re-development of Wembley, while the Academy of Light would provide a training base of international pedigree.

Due to the relatively modern build of the ground, the Stadium of Light is already well equipped to deal with media demands and that of Fifa.

There would, however, need to be improvements to parking, although a Metro line and park and ride system serve the area, while plans for additional footbridges across the south bank of the nearby River Wear have been mooted.

Durham County Cricket Club's ground at Chester-le-Street has been included in the bid process as a potential training venue._

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11662_5700566,00.html


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Really excellent series of video reports on each of England's bidding cities (10 mins)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

So, which four cities should the bid team drop?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

So, which four cities should the bid team drop? 

*The four I'd drop would be:

Plymouth
Milton Keynes
Leicester
Hull*

Plymouth's plans don't seem as good as Bristol's and only one South-West city should be put forward.

Milton Keynes isn't a city I'd want to show off to the world and the manner in which the club was created still leaves a bad taste in the mouth amongst many.

I had to drop one East Mids City as having Nottingham, Derby and Leicester in the final running is unrealistic. Nottingham is my favourite of the three whichever stadium they put forward, so then it was a matter of choosing which of the identikit stadiums was cut. Having been to Pride Park a couple of times I have a soft spot for Derby and their fans and my last visit to Leicester didn't leave me wanting to go back. So Leicester is out, despite Lineker's support.

I'm reluctantly cutting Hull only because I don't want to cut Sheffield or Leeds. I nearly put Portsmouth as my fourth city to be cut (because of their financial situation), but that would leave the map of bid cities looking quite top heavy. They need to get their act together though.


----------



## Dan_NUFC (Oct 8, 2008)

RobH said:


> Really excellent series of video reports on each of England's bidding cities (10 mins)


Apart from Manchester, Newcastle, Sunderland and Liverpool of course.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

RobH said:


> So, which four cities should the bid team drop?
> 
> *The four I'd drop would be:
> 
> ...


There are 16 bid cities, so surely you have to drop 5 cities and have 2 stadiums in London, no? 

There should be at least 4 venues in the south of England, 2 in the midlands and 6 in the north.

So i'd drop the 4 you mentioned, although i'd prefer Plymouth of Sunderland as the impoverished far south west would be completely neglected (and to balance it out), but i'd also drop derby in favour of a second london venue. Derby and Nottingham are almost the same urban area and definately part of the same metro.

So I'd drop:
Plymouth or Sunderland
Milton Keynes
Leicester
Hull
Derby


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> There are 16 bid cities, so surely you have to drop 5 cities and have 2 stadiums in London, no?


I don't think so, no. The article I posted above is quite clear that 4 cities will be dropped by the FA. And a quick search on Google News suggest this isn't an error as lots of other news sources are reporting the same.

Besides which, at the bidding stage countries only present the _cities_ they are putting forward. So we'll effectively put forward both Sheffield stadiums as options, three or four London stadiums, both Merseyside stadiums, both Manchester stadiums etc. in our final bid.

Only when a country has won the bid do FIFA, that country's organising committee, and the sponsors choose the stadiums.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ I didn't really read the article, but why are we shearing off cities now then, wait til after the bid surely? 

I always thought it was FIFA who chose cities from our selection not vice-versa

That's also why I think Plymouth will get the nod, as i've said be for geographical coverage 2m plus people in devon and cornwall who receive a lot of EU funding as it is iirc.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm not really sure what the thought process is. I know Holland/Belgium have recently selected 12 cities to present to FIFA. Perhaps 12 cities is the requirement at this stage. If Mo's reading this thread maybe he'll be able to tell us, he seems to know a lot about the FIFA selection process.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

I think that in both the 2010 and the 2014 WCs the choice of the host cities was up to FIFA AFTER the countries were chosen hosts, but I'm only sure about the 2014 one.

Brazil picked 16 pre-qualified cities. FIFA wanted us to have 8-10 hosts, but our football confederation pushed to get 12 cities to host the games. Then, FIFA selected the 12 hosts. However, according to the progress of the works in the cities, FIFA will confirm the host cities in 2011, and may cut out some host cities that are lagging behind in their works.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

Wasn't Bristol promoting itself as the South-West's city? I know it is not in the heart of the SW (i.e. cornwall, devon and somerset), but it is technically part of that region going by the government's official definition of English regions. I think the FA would probably prefer the NE to have 2 venues than the SW simply due to the fact they already have 2 stadiums of high capacity, plus it’s seen as a football 'heartland'. But hey, who knows what goes in within the minds of FA personnel!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*English team, Mexican Wave, South African stadium - 20 November 2009*



























*The team from Hull & Humber took time out from boat preparations to pay a visit to Cape Town’s newest construction.*

Green Point Stadium has been built to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup and in just 26 days time, the finished project will be handed over to the city. It has taken three years to complete and the bold and modern design will be able to seat 70,000 fans. The first match will be played there on June 29th and it will also host quarter and semi final games.

For now, the site is very much the domain of the constructors but thanks to Tourism Cape Town, the crew were allowed a unique glimpse of the site. With almost all the seats in place, the floodlights on and the pitch growing a healthy shade of green, it is clearly going to be a venue of character and atmosphere.

Wearing their ‘Back the Bid’ t-shirts, the hard hat wearing crews watched as construction workers several hundred feet up dangled in climbing harnesses as they added the final stretched fibre-glass mesh cladding to the outer frame. Hull is one of the UK cities bidding to host World Cup games should England’s bid for the 2018 World Cup be successful.

Arthur Bowers, a long time supporter of Hull City FC and _Hull & Humber_ crew member was hugely impressed with what he saw and hoped that it will be England who step off the pitch as semi-final winners when the game is played next summer. Arthur lead his team mates in a few impromptu Mexican Waves much to the amusement of the watching security guards.

One thing that’s certain is the football fans travelling to Cape Town will have an extraordinary experience - the stadium has the ocean on one side, Table Mountain on the other and the lively nightlife at the V&A Waterfront just a few minutes walk away.


----------



## haggiesm (Mar 18, 2008)

kerouac1848 said:


> Wasn't Bristol promoting itself as the South-West's city? I know it is not in the heart of the SW (i.e. cornwall, devon and somerset), but it is technically part of that region going by the government's official definition of English regions. I think the FA would probably prefer the NE to have 2 venues than the SW simply due to the fact they already have 2 stadiums of high capacity, plus it’s seen as a football 'heartland'. But hey, who knows what goes in within the minds of FA personnel!


i heard something on sky sports that bristol and plymouth competing with each other as host cities. the proposed stadiums were slightly dissapointing, but they would be the smallest anyway so that's not a big deal i guess. otherwise they both look like decent hosts.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Whats happened to all this talk of Twickenham being the 2nd London stadium? was mentioned a few months back but now gone quiet and now seems to be more talk of the Olympic Stadium being chosen instead??


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Twickenham has shitty transport links, the olympic stadium is by Stratford one of the best connected places in London and has a massive park surrounding it...


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Portsmouth have just pulled out of the race to be a host city: http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_5718856,00.html

This must be a massive boost for both Milton Keynes & Plymouth now who were both considered outsiders. I bet Southampton are a bit regretful they didnt put St.Marys forward now.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

r0w84 said:


> Portsmouth have just pulled out of the race to be a host city: http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_5718856,00.html
> 
> This must be a massive boost for both Milton Keynes & Plymouth now who were both considered outsiders. I bet Southampton are a bit regretful they didn't put St.Marys forward now.


Bad news for the England bid, if I do say. Portsmouth provided a nice alternative destination and some geographic disparity, especially as a partner city with Bristol or Plymouth. I feel for the club, too, as this would've been a boon for their efforts to improve their status among mid-tier clubs.

One other note, no way in Hades does Milton Keynes make the cut, and if they do England likely wouldn't, and likely shouldn't, win the bid. If that's among the best the nation has to offer then woe be unto England.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

I duno i have a sneaky feeling about Milton Keynes. Already have an impressive Uefa 4* Stadium and is much better looking than say Pride Park & Walkers Stadium, has the awsome MK Bowl as a fan park nearby, is like the fastest growing place in europe and will be pretty huge by 2018, location wise it just about sneaks into the East Anglia region and is the only contender in the bid to do so, Also has a unique driving grid system so easy for people to travel around the city.

Also people go on about what MK did to Wimbeldon football club etc. Absoloute Horseshit...that wasnt Milton Keynes/Peter Winkleman's fault....it was the fault of the Wimbeldon council who had like 15years to sort Wimbeldon a ground out yet they couldnt be bothered and didnt see it as that important. Winkleman bought a club to a city which a whole city community can now enjoy insted of letting a club continue to rot being watch by only a couple of thousand every week on the other side of London.....and if winkelman hadnt of taken them to MK i guernetee Wimbeldon FC would of gone out of business now anyway....there was no way Wimbeldon FC could of continued like that sharing at Selhurst Park and the Wimbeldon Council were not willing to do anything about it so what other option was there??


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ what? 

Firstly the council is called *MERTON*, sheeesh

Secondly if Wimbledon had gone out of business so be it. It happens, it's not the councils fault that the club moved away from Plough lane before working out a contingency.

Thridly Wimbledon Football Club were a London football club and represented that community, this is the 21st century and football isn't american sport where you can move a club to another city to tout for business, 100 years ago when the game was more turbulent by all means. Most countries have a minimum relocation distance rule, and so now does the FA who stupidly had this loophole

Fourthly, MK didn't show that they deserved a club, they didn't get behind the club they already had. You can argue MK is a new town yadda yadda, but so is Stevenage, Crawley and Telford and they all at the time had clubs in the Conference, so they got behind there team despite being as young. The facts are MK didn't and the only reason the team was moved there was to cash in.

Fifthly the AFC wimbledon fans have proven that there was and is on option, given the fact that they now own a stadium and get healthy crowds in the conference. Youth forgot about the fans in your analysis didn't you... 

Sixthly given the fact the Winkleman has given up all claims to the legacy of Wimbledon (FA cup etc now held by Merton Council) and MK dons are considered a completely new entitity I think we can infer from that he knows that the club isn't wimbledon anymore thus they might as well have gone bust.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

Furthermore it isn't the fastest growing urbanisation in the UK let alone Europe (the growth rate has also slowed significantly in both absolute and relative terms since the early 1980s, although I appreciate there are plans to increase its size over the next couple of decades). It also has nothing to do with East Anglia; it is officially part of the South East of England according to government records and quite a bit away from Norfolk and Suffolk.

Finally, the town suffers from a negative image in both a football and social sense. There would be a pretty large backlash from supporters groups.

Personally, I don't get this desire to rush forward this process and rule anywhere out since the 2018 WC is almost 10 years away. Things could change hugely in just a couple of years. Brazil hadn't chosen their host cities until well after they were awarded the event. In fact, they only picked them last May (or FIFA did). England should just follow suit and say they have 18/20 cities bidding for the right to host games and present the bid as such. If they want to make it easier just declare the very obvious hosts now (London, Manchester, etc) and say the rest is up for grabs, which would probably only be about 5 cities.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, as I said, Belgium and Holland have narrowed their bid to 12 cities. Perhaps it's a FIFA requirement at this stage of the bidding process that 12 cities are presented.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

Fair enough if that is the case. Personally, however, i think it should be fine to present more than 12 bidding cities as long as a) each one will meet the necessary requirements (a given i guess) b) it is sorted no more than 4 months (or whatever) after being given the right to host the WC c) half of the host cities should already have been confirmed, including the final and opening venue (which would be easy in England's case).

But whatever, its FIFA's cashcow.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

well the East Anglia news seem to include Milton Keynes in their section....tho it is kinda on the border. 

tho the birth of MK Dons wasnt ideal, the wimbeldon/merton council (whichever one it is) has to take a lot of the blame for it. At the end of the day this bid isnt about MK Dons its about the Town/City of Milton Keynes and looking at the facts it already has a fantastic 4* stadium, great transport links to all the other cities in the bid and is perfectly set up with the MK Bowl near the stadium as a fanpark, is extremley modern looking and shall be a pretty big city by 2018with loads to do for visiting fans. Its an exciting Place and will only get bigger.

I still think it will be the surprise candidate along with plymouth (good chance due to location it will be used now because of portsmouth pulling out ) and be selected. The cities i think will fall out are Hull (Leeds & Sheffield will be chosen instead), Sunderland (to near to Newcastle), Leicester and Derby (Nottingham for East Midlands)


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

r0w84 said:


> there was no way Wimbeldon FC could of continued like that sharing at Selhurst Park and the Wimbeldon Council were not willing to do anything about it so what other option was there??



Out of interest (and as a Palace fan) why was this not a realistic option? Not owning their stadium and having to pay rent is something that a fair number of clubs do around Europe (Palace were doing it themselves at the time), so that can't be a factor. In 1999 a Wimbledon had their highest ever average attendance of just over 18,000, and it was only in 2001, after the rumours about the Milton Keynes plans surfaced that the supporters left and formed AFC Wimbledon in 2002. It was the Milton Keynes plans that killed off that club and nothing else. 

If Wimbledon had got the money together (maybe 10-15m or so), there is no reason they couldn't have bought Selhurst Park from Ron Noades. Croydon Council have always said they'd only allow the land to be used for sporting purposes so Noades would have been delighted to make a profit (during the deal when he sold CPFC to Mark Goldberg, Noades valued the ground at around 7 million). They could have owned their own stadium in an area close enough to maintain their original fanbase, and where they were clearly building a decent local following. They would have had Palace paying rent to play there as a source of extra income as well! This was talked about by Palace fans at the time and was outlined as the nightmare scenario!


Back on topic, given it's impressive stadium, transport links and it's rapid growth, I think Milton Keynes could be a very good shout for a world cup bid. I think it might be a good ploy to throw it in as well, FIFA might look more kindly on a bid that mixes traditional, classic stadiums along with new stadiums in areas that aren't necessarily hotbeds of English football.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Think we'll just agree to disagree on the wimbeldon thing but i dont think it should effect Milton Keynes bid as a host city as this bid is not about MK Dons but as Milton Keynes as a City as a whole.

I personally would like to see Twickenham used as the 2nd London stadium but this now looks unlikely so i think the bid will look a little like:

LONDON

Wembley 90,000

Emirates 60,000

MANCHESTER

Old Trafford 76,000 (possible expansion to 95,000 by 2018)

LIVERPOOL

New Anfield 61,000 -70,000

NEWCASTLE/GATESHEAD

St James Park 52,000 (60,000 for 2018 by expanding stand behind the goal)

BIRMINGHAM

Villa Park (44,000 - expand to 52,000 for 2018)

LEEDS

Elland Road (40,000 - desperately need to redovelop 3 of the stands for 2018)

SHEFFIELD

Hillsborough (44,000 for 2018)

NOTTINGHAM

New City Ground (45,000 built for 2018)

MILTON KEYNES 

Stadium:MK (44,000 expansion for 2018)

BRISTOL

New Stadium (40,000 for 2018)

PLYMOUTH

Expand Home Park to 40,000 for 2018


Also i read earlier on the Telegraph website i think (not 100% sure) that they have said that contrary to reports more than one city can actually have more than 2 stadiums and that both stadiums in Manchester and all 4 in London could actually all be used. Not sure where they got this info from tho.....and of course typically i cant find this article now so cant post it up :bash:


----------



## Bobsi (Dec 11, 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1230928/Olympic-Stadium-running-named-Londons-list-potential-2018-World-Cup-hosts.html?ITO=1490


How does it work, does the the clubs involved rely on public funding, if their stadium (to-be-built) is chosen as a venue?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I back England but they are redefining the words self implode


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

England wants this but we seem to be doing everything possible to **** it up!

Here's a thought - the 2 London stadiums of Wembley and the stunning-looking new WHL?


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

EDIT: Double Post!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> England wants this but we seem to be doing everything possible to **** it up!
> 
> Here's a thought - the 2 London stadiums of Wembley and the stunning-looking new WHL?


Could well be. London are putting forward 4 stadiums for consideration. I suspect Wembley and the Emirates will be the two, but I'd love it if the New WHL was selected instead of the Death Star.

The Olympic stadium's a non-starter for me. It should be converted into legacy mode as soon as possible after the Games, along with the rest of the Olympic Park. And whilst running tracks haven't been a problem for FIFA in the past, if given the choice between a stadium without one, and a stadium with one there will only ever be one answer. London, Boris Johnson et al are playing silly buggers for even considering the Olympic Stadium as a world cup venue given the wealth of purpouse built football stadiums the capital will have by 2018, and the millions it will cost to maintain the stadium for the 6 years between the Olympics and the world cup.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!

Also just said on Sky Sports that 10 cities and 12 stadiums will be chosen, take it this means they plan on using 'City Of Manchester Stadium' aswel as Old Trafford and 2 London Venues?


----------



## TallPaul_H (Oct 19, 2009)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2009/11/time_to_play_englands_2018_tru.html

A blog from today about the host cities, alot of good points made by people in reply to it


----------



## TallPaul_H (Oct 19, 2009)

r0w84 said:


> Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!
> 
> Also just said on Sky Sports that 10 cities and 12 stadiums will be chosen, take it this means they plan on using 'City Of Manchester Stadium' aswel as Old Trafford and 2 London Venues?



Wembley is guaranteed, so I'm guessing it would be 1 of the Emirates or the new White Hart Lane?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

r0w84 said:


> Yeah i think they should ditch the Olympic Stadium idea.....it would be great to hold the first ever World Cup without a Single Running Track in 1 of the venues. The Olympic Park tho would make an amzing Fan Park though!


Exactly! Don't faff around trying to get the 80,000 seat stadium maintained for six years, get the PARK ready for a world cup after the Olympics - make sure it's in full legacy mode by 2018! A huge fan site, with concerts, entertainment etc. And it's even been suggested the reduced Olympic stadium could be a training base for a team like Brazil, which is a fabulous idea.

:cheers:


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

I agree that the Olympic stadium shouldn't be used and the current plan of reducing it to a quarter of its capacity is a good one. However, why are they including that stadium over stamford bridge? It's just strikes me that they are concerned about something

Personally, I wouldn't touch the new WHL; its a terrible area miles from central London with poor transport links. There is nothing for fans to do around there and that is important. We already have one stadium in a bad local environment in Wembley (I live less than 10 mins from the ground and grew up around here, so i know how ill suited the place is for a 90,000 seater stadium!)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Chimbanha said:


> RobH, it is virtually the same situation that is happenning in São Paulo. We're offering a fully renovated Morumbi, with two big inconveniences: the athletics track and the lack of space around the stadium (see my avatar). FIFA is willing to discuss the track situation, but the outside space is NON-NEGOTIABLE. They have already stated that, unless São Paulo builds another stadium, it will only host up to the Round of 16. But São Paulo already has 4 stadiums and no teams are interested in building a new one. So, what does FIFA want? A stadium with no tenants, i.e. a big ol' white elephant. They do not care about legacy.


If that really is the case I don't know why we're bidding. But as I said, I'm quitely confident nobody at FIFA will think twice about including stadiums like the Emirates in their world cup. Such venues are recognised the world over and that would more than make up for the kind of creative compromises they may have to make over space for sponsors.

I'll say this...if FIFA want the world cup in England, these problems will very quickly dissapear. If they don't, they'll be used as excuses.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

RobH said:


> I didn't suggest otherwise with regard to the bid process and no, I'm not missing the point.
> 
> What is wrong, exactly, with offering Wembley, the Emirates and the New White Hart Lane? If FIFA think that's not good enough then we can do without their world cup as far as I'm concerned. A London bid with these three stadiums is more than good enough; in fact it's world class. So, there's absolutely _no need_ for the Olympic Park legacy to be completely thrown out of kilter for the prospect of two or three matches. And I doubt anyone at FIFA would expect it to be if we explained the situation.
> 
> ...


It is indeed a no-brainer. The problem is, FIFA has extremely strict guidelines and they usually do not accept many exceptions.

One of the only times when they did, by accepting the Berlin stadium to the World Cup final, has caused a lot of cities in Brazil to use this precedent in order to make FIFA accept stadiums with blind points and a considerable distance to the pitch. And now FIFA repeatedly states that it was one exception, and because they might not grant this free-pass to all cities just because it did to one of them. 

All we're trying to say is, FIFA is not afraid of pressuring cities to get them to do what FIFA wants in spite of legacy. Stadium legacy is not a factor to them. São Paulo and Munich had their plans rejected and had (will have to) to build new stadiums, at the threat of not hosting the most important games.

But now the bid commitee has already offerred the Olympic Stadium, hasn't it? FIFA doesn't even have to consider legacy. The comittee members were supposed to do it, and they still offered the stadium.



RobH said:


> I'll say this...if FIFA want the world cup in England, these problems will very quickly dissapear. If they don't, they'll be used as excuses.


I do agree. But the FIFA pressure continues after the host choice. Actually, it _ starts _ there. I just wonder how they would pressure London to build a new stadium or to use the Olympic Stadium, since they couldn't threat the city like they did to Munich or São Paulo. A "we'll take the finals to other city" would obviously not fly.

Just to make it clear, I think it would be absolutely crazy to not accept a Stadium like the Emirates to a WC.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> But now the bid commitee has already offerred the Olympic Stadium, hasn't it? FIFA doesn't even have to consider legacy. The comittee members were supposed to do it, and they still offered the stadium.


Yes, the Olympic stadium has been offered, so you're right that it's not really FIFA's concern. It was a stupid decision to include it though and you do have to wonder _why_ it's in the shortlist. Is it because of FIFA recommendations? Or is it because the legacy plans for 2012 are changing? Or is it purely wishful thinking on the part of "London United" (the team behind London's host city bid)? I'd love to hear an explanation, but I don't suppose we'll get one.

Whatever the reason, no explanation for the decision will convince me it's anything but a stupid one. Whether it's because of FIFA's requirements or a decision supported by the Mayor, tearing apart London 2012's legacy plans and including a stadium in England's bid which is far from ideal for football when there are better alternatives *is* a bad idea.


----------



## Marin Mostar (Jan 3, 2009)

Maybe they pickd olimpic stadium so that they dont have to chose bitwen WHL or Emirates. In that case neither club is favorised or damaged.


----------



## Bobsi (Dec 11, 2008)

My Q. got lost in all the locomtion.

Is the public/city counsils/whatever gonna finance the stadiums in any way - for instance, if Liverpool gets chosen, will they receive money to help building their new stadium?


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

This from the Guardian website:

'Stadiums must have usable capacities of at least 40,000 (meaning a total of around 45,000 once dead seats are taken into account) and meet a series of exacting criteria including regulations about the amount of space around the ground, provision for fan parks, media and so on.

*None of the stadiums submitted yesterday already meet the criteria*, but all have promised to do so if selected. The amount of space required around the ground will be more of an issue for some than others – the Emirates Stadium and St James' Park, for example, will have to come up with alternative accommodation for hospitality and fan parks. In Liverpool, that will mean using Stanley Park. Cities will also be tested on hotel provision, transport plans and so on.'

Kind of kills that myth that 'we can host the damn thing tomorrow/next week'.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, but anyone who believes that is being silly.

It also suggests the space around the Emirates isn't an insurmountable problem and that solutions can and will be found. That's good.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

kerouac1848 said:


> This from the Guardian website:
> 
> 'Stadiums must have usable capacities of at least 40,000 (meaning a total of around 45,000 once dead seats are taken into account) and meet a series of exacting criteria including regulations about the amount of space around the ground, provision for fan parks, media and so on.
> 
> ...


Exactly what I was saying. These are simply non-negotiable post South Africa 2010.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Ever since Italia 1990 I have been very wary of how building stadiums around a World Cup can seriously ruin a country's stadium infrastructure. Rather than bending to FIFA who have shown they would happily choose an Athletics stadium over a real football stadium for their set piece matches, I would rather England drops out and let FIFA go ruin some other country's infrastructure.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

RobH

That’s the problem, people do. Most still seem to think that we have the best collection of stadiums in the world; when looking at Germany alone this is clearly nonsense. Even the media in this country tout on about how far ahead England are on this issue, despite the fact that the Spain/Portugal bid actually offers more 5 star UEFA certified venues than any other bid plus more capacity than any other Euro bid (they have 7 or 8 venues and England have 3 I believe). I think, however, a large part of that is due to average person kind of forgetting that Portugal are joint hosting and built a bunch of new grounds just half a decade ago..... 

I guy I use to live with from Sheffield, who I regard as pretty smart and knowledgeable, said something like if England don't get the WC it will just prove that FIFA is corrupt and anti-English. This kind of thinking unfortunately appears the norm and really just reminds me that our island mentality is still strong. 

I really think England is in danger of doing a Chicago or Paris.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

In order to please FIFA even Germany with its excellent stadiums felt compelled to use the white elephant Zentralstadion plus a couple of athletics stadiums.They show little regard for a country's long term interest when it comes to these things.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

carlspannoosh said:


> Ever since Italia 1990 I have been very wary of how building stadiums around a World Cup can seriously ruin a country's stadium infrastructure. Rather than bending to FIFA who have shown they would happily choose an Athletics stadium over a real football stadium for their set piece matches, I would rather England drops out and let FIFA go ruin some other country's infrastructure.


Exactly. Certain compromises are fine (and I'm sure there'll be many), but some are beyond the pale - the London situation being the most obvious and frustrating example. I'd rather we stood our ground on certain important things and risked not getting a world cup than end up doing things which aren't right for cities and regions in this country. It's not as though England needs a world cup for the world to know our footballing heritage and importance. It'd be nice, yeah, but not at any cost. We're not Korea, Japan, or even South Africa - in footballing terms we have little to prove to the world.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

The things is, England has options. Lots of them.

So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.

That said, I think the rest of the venues all have sufficient space. Wembley will be tight but using some buildings around it could be fine.

The WC finals venue needs a 10,000sqm media centre, 6000sqm more than other WC venues.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.


Twickenham I could just about live with, but it's not even being put forward. The Olympic stadium, as you've probably gathered from my other posts, certainly wouldn't be "fine"


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Mo Rush said:


> The things is, England has options. Lots of them.
> 
> So if its between a 60,000 seat emirates with no space and an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium/Twickenham with space then thats fine.
> 
> ...


 Twickenham would be acceptable but for much the same reasons RobH stated earlier it still sounds like a grim idea to me. 
The Emirates Stadium has hosted 60k sellout internationals very succesfully in the past and although there is no parkland directly around the stadium itself it certainly isnt as tightly situated as the likes of Anfield, Goodison or WHL and there is a 30 acre park within a 3 or 4 minute walk of the stadium plus more open space parkland a little bit further away.I am biased of course but I really like the idea of a World Cup venue in Central London. It would have a unique atmosphere, but maybe I am being impractical.The Olympic Stadium is the rubbish option and I hope it doesn't happen. 
It is going to be interesting to see how the England bid pitches this though.


----------



## TheFly (Jul 5, 2003)

Mo Rush said:


> Exactly what I was saying. These are simply non-negotiable post South Africa 2010.


if Old Trafford , with acres of parking on 3 sides of the ground, does not meet the criteria, today, I'll eat my hat...google map it!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ yah but the stands are surely too close to the pitch, i swear in Dortmund they had to demolish rows FIFA won't accept tarped seating by the looks...


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

Yep, look at the CL where grounds like Old Trafford and Anfield have several empty front rows due to their large advertising boards....

I agree with RobH, England should just present their bid as what’s best for England. Let’s face it; the country doesn't need the WC from a football perspective and even arguably a socio-economic one. They can't (or should I say won’t) do what London did for its Olympic bid and bang on about transforming a massive poor urban area and historical legacy. There probably won't be any more than 2 or 3 newly built grounds and most of the bid cities are just suggesting a bit of tarting up and some capacity increases. Leeds and Sheffield, to use 2 examples, are talking about spending no more than £20, £30 million in upgrades. Comparing to the past 4 WC's before it (so including Brazil) and this is pretty conservative. Most people just want it because they think it’s the best chance England have of winning the WC.

However it doesn't have to be a bad thing. The bid team should argue it from the perspective that they'll be organising a football fans WC and what would happen here would be totally unique to anywhere else as result. If that doesn't work then so be it, but no FIFA dick sucking please.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A certain amount of sucking up is fine. But as I said, whatever's done has to be what's best for England first, FIFA second. In 95% of cases what's best for FIFA will be what's best for England so it's not a huge worry. But sensible compromises must be made in the 5% of cases where FIFA and England may disagree - those compromises have to work both ways, not England pandering to FIFA's every whim.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Southampton are planning to Gatecrash the party following Portsmouth's withdrawel: http://www.2018england.co.uk/southampton-hoping-to-be-allowed-late-city-bid.html


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

The whims of FIFA in terms of space are no longer negotiable. These aren't if or maybe's anymore post 2010. These are your basic requirements, that form part of the requirements for the stadium.

Ignore them at your own peril.


----------



## TheFly (Jul 5, 2003)

kerouac1848 said:


> Yep, look at the CL where grounds like Old Trafford and Anfield have several empty front rows due to their large advertising boards....


United's pitch is one of the biggest around...so space aint an issue in the stadium.
Re seats being lost?

Well. only Stretford end, has cordoned off areas...and maybe 500 less seats out of 76,000. That will be before any other options like lowering the pitch or other redevelopments are considered.

Aint an issue.

OT is currently, along with Hampden, the best for space in the UK


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ yah but the stands are surely too close to the pitch, i swear in Dortmund they had to demolish rows FIFA won't accept tarped seating by the looks...


That would be rubbish if that had to happen. It works fine for the best league in the world, but not for internationals?


----------



## Kjello0 (May 1, 2009)

I don't know the FIFA demands, but UEFA demands for Euro stadiums is atleast 7,5 m between the field of play and the stands behind the goal. And atleast 6 m between the field of play and the stands on the long sides. In adition it's a demand that the first row for spectators should be 1 m above the pitch level. 
And that's why Old Trafford can't use the lower rows.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Pointless beaurocracy from UEFA. Why am I surprised...


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Hopefully he'll be good for his word when it comes to the vote...

Fifa's Jack Warner backs England's 2018 World Cup bid 

*Fifa vice-president Jack Warner has said it "is England's time" to host the 2018 World Cup after meeting Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Trinidad.*

Warner, who is head of the Concacaf union of North American and Caribbean football associations, had previously called England's bid "lightweight". 

But he has backtracked, saying: "Brown felt England's time had come. I agreed. 

"England has the best infrastructure to stage the tournament. After a 52-year gap this is England's time." 

Warner's support is seen as crucial to England's hopes of winning the bid. 

In his role as head of the Concacaf union, he will effectively control three of the 24 votes on Fifa's executive committee when it chooses the 2018 hosts in December next year...

Brown's comments appear to have swayed Warner who did not repeat his previous concerns about the leadership of the England bid, headed by FA chairman and Labour peer Lord Triesman. 

Warner said: "It was an exceptionally good meeting - it was the best case I have heard for a long time about the World Cup being in England. 

"I was very impressed by Brown's humility, his sincerity, his knowledge of the game, and most importantly he didn't feel England had any divine right (to host the tournament). 

"He felt that England's time had come - a point to which I subscribed. 

"Next week I will meet David Beckham in Cape Town. These are not for my ego, but they are the assets that the bid should be using and I am happy to see that they are being used." 



Link


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

RobH said:


> "England has the best infrastructure to stage the tournament. After a 52-year gap this is England's time."


Well I guess he has to say something sensible in his lifetime! :lol: He's bang on this time and that is exactly why we should get it.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

kerouac1848 said:


> This from the Guardian website:
> 
> 'Stadiums must have usable capacities of at least 40,000 (meaning a total of around 45,000 once dead seats are taken into account) and meet a series of exacting criteria including regulations about the amount of space around the ground, provision for fan parks, media and so on.
> 
> ...


Typical bad Guardian Journalism. They've probably only gone from the station to st james' and back as quickly as possible to return to the safety of London. Behind the Leazes end of St James' park is Leazes Park and Leazes Moor plenty of space.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...7841,-1.625472&spn=0.009113,0.027874&t=h&z=16


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> Hopefully he'll be good for his word when it comes to the vote...
> 
> Fifa's Jack Warner backs England's 2018 World Cup bid
> 
> ...


In other words...a bribe.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> That would be rubbish if that had to happen. It works fine for the best league in the world, but not for internationals?


i'm sorry what does the bundesliga have to do with England's FIFA world cup bid...

FIFA are trying to create an image to sell their product, which is basically the world cup. To do so they want to control as many factors as possible to maximise revenue in the ways they think they can. That's why they have all these seemingly ridiculous rules. Almost all their revenue comes from the world cup and if it isn't right it will diminish that stream.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> Pointless beaurocracy from UEFA. Why am I surprised...


it's hardly pointless... it's for the sponsors, everything is about money! They don't want any fans intefering with their precious advertising boards, although i've heard they claim it's to keep fans away from the pitch.

I love fans being on top of the pitch it creates a much better and more intimate atmosphere.


----------



## PerrasoxD (Nov 28, 2009)

Europe again ??? lol...
thx.


----------



## poxuy (Apr 27, 2008)

PerrasoxD said:


> Europe again ??? lol...
> thx.


After South Africa 2010 and Brasil 2014 :nuts: lol...


----------



## Kjello0 (May 1, 2009)

PerrasoxD said:


> Europe again ??? lol...
> thx.


This will be the first time ever that Europe has to wait over 8 years between two world cups. I think neither Europe or FIFA is ready to wait 16 years between two European World Cups already.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

PerrasoxD said:


> Europe again ??? lol...
> thx.


well it will be Europe's turn in 2018 and lets face it without UEFA, FIFA will not survive.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I wonder what Diamond Jack got in return.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> it's hardly pointless... it's for the sponsors, everything is about money! They don't want any fans intefering with their precious advertising boards, although i've heard they claim it's to keep fans away from the pitch.
> 
> I love fans being on top of the pitch it creates a much better and more intimate atmosphere.


I agree. Completely pointless from a fans point of view, but then who cares about them?!


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Artists impressions of a 50k Elland Road for the world cup bid -
















http://www.leedsunited.com/news/art...d-road-for-world-cup-20091201_2247585_1891857



Mo Rush said:


> In other words...a bribe.


Ah, then we've finally found a language he understands.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Bit of a dull expansion......cant believe theyre not epanding the other stand behind the goal....its a bloody shed at best!


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

MK Dons shouldn't exist as a club, end of. They are a travesty to the integrity of English football.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^of course, but no one cares anymore as the fact they got let in the supporters federation and now this proves. Luckily the FA have got strict rules or Scally would move Gillingham to Ashford because it's one of the UKs growth towns and medway's full of pikeys who only turn out for wembley (I kid)!


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 4, 2006)

roninja1999 said:


> 7 to 8 of the proposed stadia have capacities of between 40k to 50k. Lets hope some of those grounds can be increased in terms of capacities to a more *exiciting number*.


Meh. A bit harsh, ron.

In 2006 Germany used seven 40 to 50k stadiums, two 50k+ stadiums, two 60k stadiums and one 70k stadium. 

South Africa is using one 90k Stadium, one 70k, two 60k+ and six 40 to 50k stadiums.

England is offering a choice from: One 90k stadium, two 70k+, three 60k stadiums, two 50k+ and as many as eight 40 to 50k stadiums.

England's bid stacks up very well IMO.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Capacity of venues don't usually win the bid. It also does not matter how many large stadia there are except of course to meet the huge demand.

Once you've met the minimum requirements as set out by FIFA the rest is up to the city/country.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Wembley 84,700?


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

matthemod said:


> MK Dons shouldn't exist as a club, end of. They are a travesty to the integrity of English football.


Well start up a thread about how much u hate MK Dons. This thread is about England 2018 not MK Dons/Wimbeldon


----------



## bumdingo (Jan 25, 2007)

matthemod said:


> MK Dons shouldn't exist as a club, end of. They are a travesty to the integrity of English football.


Based on that logic half the clubs in the English league system shouldn't be in existence


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

London’s venue options (shame Twickenham wasn’t involved)

*Wembley*
































































*Emirates*





































*Tottenham Hotspurs new stadium*



















OR

*Olympic Stadium*


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Ahem, it's Tottenham Hotspur (not Hotspurs)! Either that or you missed out an apostrophe.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ I think he missed an apostrophe...


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> (shame Twickenham wasn’t involved)


Yeah, especially since it's the home of kicking.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

RobH said:


> Ahem, it's Tottenham Hotspur (not Hotspurs)! Either that or you missed out an apostrophe.


:lol: thanks for pointing out my typo Rob, i know if i was a spurs fan i'd be annoyed. yes i missed the apostrophe:yes:


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

I think a bunch of things have to happen to really solidify the bid:

- The new Liverpool stadium has to begin construction in the next year. That would erase any big doubts over whether a historic footballing city can make it work.

- The controversy over the new Bristol stadium has to be resolved and the way cleared for construction. If FIFA senses that there may be trouble with regards to Bristol, they would start thinking that the bid may not be able to deliver on spreading the matches beyond the power cities.

- Should London go with two venues or three? I think that while using the club venues may make the list "look better", I think if they can keep the maximum capacity of the Olympic Stadium in place through 2018 that they should go with just two big stadia of over 80,000 capacity. That would be sufficient. Since you're going to lose seats to the "FIFA sponsors", anyway, why not just go with the bigger capacities? The track can be covered up with green carpeting, like they did in the UAE during the Club World Cup.

I also think that unless one of the Manchester venues drop out that one more city would be cut between Sheffield, Leeds or Nottingham. The Northeast is its own cluster and can receive at least two groups, so Sunderland would remain part of the mix, regardless. The Southwest, if both Bristol and Plymouth can get their act together, would also be hard to cut. While I hate the thought of Winkleman being rewarded (again!) for his abandonment of the Merton faithful, I also think it's hard to argue against MK's inclusion just on geographical spread. Therefore, one of the traditional footballing cities would get the chop, I fear.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Most of that makes sense, especially the bit about Liverpool (by far the biggest boost England 2018 could get would be Liverpool getting their act together).

I'd disagree with regard to thge Olympic stadium though. It's been estimated that it'll cost around £100m to maintain the Olympic stadium and convert it to FIFA standards (remember it has no inbuilt facilities and is merely a temporary shell).

A compromised stadium with a track, putting off the Olympic legacy for a further six years, and paying out an extra £100m to maintain and convert the stadium seems very foolish when Spurs are building a fabulous new football stadium in the next few years. If London is to have three grounds, the New White Hart Lane must be ahead of the Olympic Stadium. From what the FA have said, they also agree. The inclusion of the Olympic stadium seems to be a belt and braces approach, in case Spurs' stadium plans hit some bumps in the road.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^Thinking about it Naming Rights and The emirates are in shithole areas I wouldn't send 10s of 1000s of tourists to north Tottenham or Holloway... welcome to our slums! At least Stratford and Wembley are sheltered from their surroundings!


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

I grew up in Wembley and man, its a hole. Has to be one of the worst places to hold a major sports stadium. I feel sorry for anyone that has to come via Wembley Central! (look at the great pound stores you can shop at!) Don't know if it is any worse than Tottenham though....


----------



## TallPaul_H (Oct 19, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Established traditional football city? Well, to outsiders:
> 
> - The club is Derby *County*, despite Derby being a place within the county Derbyshire. Do most people even know there's a town in there?
> 
> ...



You have no idea what they hell you are talking about. What has a one-off poor season under mismanagement have to do with the World Cup?!

Yes we do have the record of the worst season in history, but Plymouth/MK Dons/Bristol City etc haven't got a patch on Derby history wise!

You mention the county thing, so what, Notts County also have the name, so does that mean Nottingham is a town?!

Derby and the whole of Derbyshire are known for its passion for football, Derby County get consistant attendances no matter how good or bad we are doing as a team, it was said when we went to the Playoff final we had enough requests to fill Wembely Stadium THREE times!!

And why bring up the Baseball Ground? It was named after baseball after the sport was played there before football in the 1800's - is that a problem for you? Does that mean Derby aren't a footballing city capable of hosting the WC due to a sport played at their previous home in the 1800's?

By the way, Pride Park had plans for an upgrade to 44,000 - the shape of the ground with one stand higher than the rest is so it can easily be upgraded if needs be. Plus extensive plans for the outskirts of the Stadium to be made into a continental plaza are always being drawn up. The owners are always wanting to upgrade allsorts of facilities.


----------



## TallPaul_H (Oct 19, 2009)

Personally, I thought if the Portsmouth bid went through, then that would beat Milton Keynes, but when Portsmouth pulled out, I was disappointed not to see Southampton put their name forward


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RE: Derby.

He did say he was talking from an outsider's perspective. So I suppose that's an excuse of sorts for not knowing what he's talking about! Though having said that, they were three very bizarre "reasons"! :lol:

I quite liked Pride Park when I was there and the plans for expansion have been in place a while haven't they? I can only assume it's outside factors (the need for geographical spread, hotels, transport, stadium location etc.) that led to Derby being dropped. Because the stadium itself (expanded of course) would have been fine in my opinion.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Yeah i know Derby obviously have more footballing history than say Milton Keynes and Plymouth - but i doubt very much fans from all over the world coming over for the world cup will be like "DERBY WOW!! The Footballing History!!"....jesus its not as though its Liverpool, Nottingham or Manchester lol


----------



## ormey (Jul 15, 2007)

r0w84 said:


> Stadium:MK just looks more slick and modern in my opinion (i dont like Pride Parks roof either - older sort of design with all them pilon things everywhere - which a lot of 90's built grounds/stands in England have, looks ugly nowadays....& also its stuck in the middle of an industrial park which couldnt of helped Derby's cause


i think derbys pride park in my opinion is far better than milton keynes they should never have a wc there due to the history of what happened with wimbledon .


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ FIFA make the decision and facilities are far more important to them rather then how a club came into being. Besides the cities were bidding not the clubs. MK provided a better bid so they got chosen, also alot of other cities around Derby got chosen hence they lost out, not because of MK.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Doesn't matter. Both Derby and MK would be fringe cities anyone, honestly I don't think MK stands a chance of being in the chosen cities. Plymouth has a better chance due to it's isolation, it's not as if Truro could put a bid forth.


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

Bobby3 said:


> Doesn't matter. Both Derby and MK would be fringe cities anyone, honestly I don't think MK stands a chance of being in the chosen cities. Plymouth has a better chance due to it's isolation, it's not as if Truro could put a bid forth.


Milton Keynes has already been chosen? ....am i wrong?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

r0w84 said:


> Milton Keynes has already been chosen? ....am i wrong?


Yes for the England bid, but Fifa make the final decision when the host country is chosen as to which cities will be host cities. England have forwarded a list of the cities that they think have potential to host and then Fifa will narrow the list down as necessary. I think if England do end up hosting and MK is not chosen as a host city, then London should get 3 host venues as this will balance out the number of North and South venues.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but the fact that stadium:mk was built to achieve UEFA 4-star elite status would give it a big advantage over Derby and others.


----------



## nandofutbolero (Aug 7, 2008)

to be honest it's time for England to host a world cup I don't know why they(FIFA Committee) doesn't give England the oportunity? it's weird in a way that's were modern football started


----------



## Fizmo1337 (Mar 26, 2009)

It's still politics and gaining votes from other federations. If it was purely based on 'who deserves it more' I'm quite sure London (3rd time) wouldn't have been chosen for the 2012 olympics ^^

But it's the best chance England has and I think they will get it.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Yes for the England bid, but Fifa make the final decision when the host country is chosen as to which cities will be host cities. England have forwarded a list of the cities that they think have potential to host and then Fifa will narrow the list down as necessary. I think if England do end up hosting and MK is not chosen as a host city, then London should get 3 host venues as this will balance out the number of North and South venues.


I was shocked to not see an East Anglian venue for that reason.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

No East Anglian cities bid Bobby.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

_
Tottenham Hotspur say new stadium will outshine Olympic venue in 2018 bid
*
Tottenham Hotspur believe they can persuade Fifa, football's world governing body, to choose their new state-of-the-art ground over the 2012 Olympic stadium if England wins the right to stage the 2018 World Cup next year.*

Tottenham are leaving White Hart Lane for a new multi-million development adjacent to their home of 110 years in time for the 2012-13 season with the club's 56,000-capacity ground going against the main venue used for the 2012 London Olympics.

The Olympic stadium will be reduced from 85,000 seats to a permanent capacity of 25,000 after 2012, but preliminary discussions have been held about repurposing the stadium for 2018. The venue is being considered because many of London's stadiums do not easily satisfy Fifa's requirements. 

If England are successful in December's vote in 2010, Fifa will cut the shortlist to a maximum of 12 but Tottenham believe they will have far better claims to be used over the Olympic venue.

"Once the stadium is built, it will be impossible for FIFA to leave us out," a Spurs source told Inside the Games.

"It will the best football stadium in Europe without a doubt. Both from a technical and environment point of view.

"But our detailed plans will blow FIFA away. We have no problem with the timing."

Tottenham executive director Paul Barber has has already said the state-of-the-art arena will outshine their London rivals, including Chelsea and Arsenal.

"Our stadium will be as technologically advanced if not more so than any other in the world," he said last month.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-will-outshine-Olympic-venue-in-2018-bid.html_

Hmmm, that's quite a statement. I've no doubt it'll be a better footballing venue than the Olympic stadium whose inclusion on the shortlist, I hope is nothing more than an insurance policy, but the best stadium in Europe? I think someone's getting a wee bit carried away, and I say that as a Spurs fan (though I'd love them to be right orf course)! :lol:

I do think it'll be a fantastic ground though, very much deserving of world cup matches.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Well their right, at least from a fans point of view which is what really matters (of course FIFA don't see it that way!)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Bit more detail on the WHL story:

December 23 - Tottenham Hotspur are convinced they can persuade FIFA to choose their new ground over  the Olympic stadium if England wins the right to stage the 2018 World Cup.

Spurs have not made any official comment since a three-man panel selected the 17 prospective stadiums for hosting 2018 games, with Tottenham’s new 56,000-capacity ground going head-to-head against the venue being built for the 2012 London Olympics.

If England are successful in December next year, FIFA will whittle down the shortlist to a maximum of 12 but Spurs believe they will have a far stronger case than the Olympic venue - especially if it remains primarily a track and field arena.

Wembley and The Emirates are the only London stadiums that seem certain host matches but Spurs, who aim to have their new ground under construction by the time FIFA makes the firm and final decision in 2013, are confident they will get the nod.

"Once the stadium is built, it will be impossible for FIFA to leave us out," said a high-ranking Spurs source.

"It will the best football stadium in Europe without a doubt.

"Both from a technical and environment point of view.

"We knew there was a possibility that we would not be chosen outright because we have not yet gone through planning and then we have the funding issues.

"But our detailed plans will blow FIFA away.

"We have no problem with the timing."

With a maximum of three London stadiums being allowed, Tottenham's case appears to rest on whether the Olympic arena (pictured) will remain at its 80,000 capacity or be reduced to 25,000 after the Games.

Spurs believe they can persuade FIFA that a pure football ground will be a far better option than a converted track and field venue.

"What are they going to do with it between 2012 and 2018?" the source told insideworldfootball.

"That's the issue.

"You can't operate an 80,000 stadium for half a decade.

"It's not viable.

"Besides it will have a running track round the outside.

"The expectation is that it's very unlikely FIFA would choose a running track-type stadium over a football-specific, state of the art stadium."

He rejected reports that the new Spurs ground, costing around £400 million and being constructed adjacent to White Hart Lane, might not be operational in time.
*
"We told the 2018 panel that we would be operational for a minimum three seasons before the World Cup comes to England.*

"We aren't at all surprised that Arsenal's ground was in because the FA needs some stadiums that are built and ready for the bid book.

"But we will be the newest soccer-specific stadium in the country at the time of the World Cup.

*"Can you imagine the reaction of the football family if FIFA goes for an athletics stadium over a state-of-the-art football ground?"*


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

vs


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

how eager are you rob... anyway those Tottenham renders are way to generous there is no way those stands will be _that_ close!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

8 metres all the way around bigbossman.

Given its perspective, I'd say the render is fine.

Look at pictures of the Allianz Arena from the same perspective and it doesn't look very different.

Its stands are 7.5m away from the pitch (so only 0.5m difference from the New WHL).


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

fair enough, it just looks a lot closer than the allianz in those white hart lane pictures. 

BTW is the yiddome expandable?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

*England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup has been given an injection of Gallic charm with David Ginola joining the campaign as an ambassador.*

The former Newcastle, Tottenham and Aston Villa star now lives back in his native France but is a well-known figure in England because of his exploits in the Premier League.

Ginola is not the only overseas personality among the team of ambassadors, with Chelsea midfielders Michael Essien, John Obi Mikel and Michael Ballack also on board along with former Tottenham player and manager Ossie Ardiles among many others.

Ginola, who was part of the bid to include Newcastle and Gateshead as one of the host venues for the tournament, said: "I had a tremendous time playing in front of passionate English crowds. They always brought the best out of me and I feel they would spur the world's greatest players into producing a truly memorable tournament if the World Cup was staged in England.

"People all over the world love watching English football and every visiting team, player and supporter would find a home-from-home welcome at a World Cup in England. It would inspire fans everywhere and I am proud to be backing England 2018."

Ginola's role as an ambassador will be to support the bid team at home and abroad at meetings which may prove crucial to England being confirmed as the successful bidders by FIFA in early December.

England 2018 bid chief executive Andy Anson added: "It is a glowing endorsement of English football that so many foreign players have stepped forward to support us.

"David Ginola was an exceptionally talented footballer and is a charismatic international figure. He will be an excellent ambassador for the bid and we look forward to working with him over the course of the campaign." 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/.../ginola-joins-2018-world-cup-bid-1874596.html

*It also gives me an excuse to post one of my favourite ever Tottenham goals:
*


----------



## nickswfc (Oct 21, 2004)

The best stadium in Europe! :-S


----------



## rolo1984 (Jan 26, 2010)

has anyone got/or have they even released photos of what the Home Park / Stadium:MK / Elland Road Redovelopments will look like?


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> *England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup has been given an injection of Gallic charm with David Ginola joining the campaign as an ambassador.*


:lol::lol:

Beware, this guy could make you lose !! 

Because of him we missed a world cup, and I remember very well his wrong predictions on the Brit TV about the French team during France '98 (too young and inexperienced blah blah blah)...

Anyway, thanks to you, he could finally take part at his first WC ("ambassador" is better than nothing I guess) :lol: !


----------



## salgovernale (Mar 8, 2010)

parcdesprinces said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> Beware, this guy could make you lose !!
> 
> ...


:lol:didnt the coach blame him for frances failure to qualify in 94!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> Beware, this guy could make you lose !!
> 
> ...


I know the French don't much like him, but he has a much better record in England; he's a Spurs legend. If he decides to start working for France's Euro 2016 bid as well, maybe you should worry, but having him with England 2018 is great. :lol:


----------



## citizensmith (Mar 9, 2010)

My Final 12 WC venues

London Wembley 
London Emirates
Birmingham
Bristol
Milton Keynes
Nottingham
Sheffield 
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester Old Trafford
Newcastle
Sunderland

Six from the North and six from the South/Midlands gives a good spread. Plymouth is unrealistic they don't have the support to warrant a 46,000 ground plus I don't think the transport connections are good enough. I included Milton Keynes for it's transport links to London and the West Midlands also Luton Airport. Only one city has two stadiums and that has to be London. If West Ham move to the Olympic stadium that could be used instead of the Emirates.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

> Six from the North and six from the South/Midlands gives a good spread.


Not really, there is no stadium on the South Coast or East Anglia and only 3 in the South proper (and 2 of those are in London). More people live in the South and Midlands; heck our two largest urban centres are based there (going by metro areas London and B'ham are probably up to 17.5 million people. The counties of the North have about 14.5 million). I know Sunderland already has a stadium but I don't feel the NE warrants two venues when other places have none, especially since it isn't far from Newcastle. 

As for Plymouth, it isn't that badly connected at all. You can get direct Cross Country trains to B'ham (3.5hrs), Manchester and other WCML places, not to mention Bristol and London, plus there is always the coach (The stadium could be built to 27-30,000 with a temporary stand(s) to take it to 40,000. That is what Cuiaba is doing in Brazil). England (the UK even) is a tiny country; it's smaller than NY State and will probably be the smallest WC host since, well, England in '66. I think people that live here and only go away for a 2 week annual holiday don't realise this. I remember I went up to Glasgow from London by coach and it was a 9hr ride and people were saying that’s long. It's nothing after you've been on a 24hr coach ride somewhere else. Our small size and compactness is an advantage; cheaper travel in quicker times. After 2 WC's where using a plane for domestic travel will be common for fans, FIFA might be happy that you can hop on a bus and be in most cities no more than 4-5 hrs later. 

Oh and no to MK. It's a bland, weary town which is very unappealing to visitors.


----------



## citizensmith (Mar 9, 2010)

kerouac1848 said:


> Not really, there is no stadium on the South Coast or East Anglia and only 3 in the South proper (and 2 of those are in London).


 No city from the South Coast or East Anglia are on the shortlist so the FA can't pick them if they didn't apply.


> More people live in the South and Midlands; heck our two largest urban centres are based there (going by metro areas London and B'ham are probably up to 17.5 million people. The counties of the North have about 14.5 million).


 50% of the Premier League teams are from the North. Also as you say most of the South's population are concentrated in two cities where as the North has more medium-large cities which make large grounds more viable. I believe FIFA has a rule that only 1 city can have 2 grounds. (I'm not sure though, could someone clarify this) 


> I know Sunderland already has a stadium but I don't feel the NE warrants two venues when other places have none, especially since it isn't far from Newcastle.
> As for Plymouth, it isn't that badly connected at all. You can get direct Cross Country trains to B'ham (3.5hrs), Manchester and other WCML places, not to mention Bristol and London, plus there is always the coach (The stadium could be built to 27-30,000 with a temporary stand(s) to take it to 40,000. That is what Cuiaba is doing in Brazil).


 Why build temporary stands when there is a perfectly good ground in Sunderland? Also the North East has much better footballing history than a no-mark football town like Plymouth after all that's what we are selling to FIFA is football coming home and all that. Football comes home to Plymouth:lol:



> Oh and no to MK. It's a bland, weary town which is very unappealing to visitors.


 MK is there as it is 30mins from both London and Birmingham so visitors wouldn't be forced to stay there plus as you say most of the population live in the London and Birmingham urban areas.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

> No city from the South Coast or East Anglia are on the shortlist so the FA can't pick them if they didn't apply.


Yeah I know, I just thought that the cities you chose were what you would want regardless of the FA's shortlist. If you didn't mean that then don't worry.



> 50% of the Premier League teams are from the North. Also as you say most of the South's population are concentrated in two cities where as the North has more medium-large cities which make large grounds more viable. I believe FIFA has a rule that only 1 city can have 2 grounds. (I'm not sure though, could someone clarify this)


Tbh that is irrelevant. This isn't about the PL plus who knows what the geographical spread will be in 8-12 years time. Using that logic we shouldn't have any venues based in Yorkshire proper (i.e the counties of West, North and South Yorkshire) because there are no Yorkshire clubs currently. 

The South proper (excluding the midlands) has plenty of large urban areas. The S'hampton/P'mouths metro area (offically considered as one) contains over a million people. Bristol and Brighton's urban areas are within England's top 10. Bournemouth, Reading and Plymouth are over a quarter of a million. Now add the midlands to that.




> Why build temporary stands when there is a perfectly good ground in Sunderland? Also the North East has much better footballing history than a no-mark football town like Plymouth after all that's what we are selling to FIFA is football coming home and all that. Football comes home to Plymouth


Because this isn't just about stadiums is it? Geographical spread, the attraction of the cities themselves and legacy are equally important. That is why FIFA have rules in the first place otherwise hosts would just have venues in their football mad cities to save money. The latter point is important because I think a weakness of the England bid is the lack of a legacy. What will the WC leave? England has to create the argument that having the WC isn't just about offering the national side their best shot at winning the thing. Plymouth could be used as an example of regeneration, of perhaps balancing up our unbalanced football family in a geographical sense. Remember we are competing against the likes of Russia who will have a lot of legacy arguments. It is how London won 2012. Finally, you are missing the point that the NE will have a venue and I am not talking about getting rid of that. You can have your cake and eat it!



> MK is there as it is 30mins from both London and Birmingham so visitors wouldn't be forced to stay there plus as you say most of the population live in the London and Birmingham urban areas.


Err, isn't that a reason not to have it (i.e the fact it is so close to other venues)? Personally I would like to see Brighton chosen in place of MK and as the South Coast's representative. Great city which is building a modern stadium that could be expanded, good transport links, etc. Seems daft to ignore it.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

England bid book highlights

http://www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/bidbookhighlights.aspx


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Not the fanciest of venues. Nice mix of venues. It would make sense for London to opt for two large venues i.e. Wembley and Olympic Stadium simply due to the demand for tickets.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Mo Rush said:


> Not the fanciest of venues. Nice mix of venues. It would make sense for London to opt for two large venues i.e. Wembley and Olympic Stadium simply due to the demand for tickets.


The Olympic Stadium won't be a large venue in 2018.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

CharlieP said:


> The Olympic Stadium won't be a large venue in 2018.


There's no conclusive proof that it will or will not be a large venue.

Even if retained at 55,000, increasing capacity temporarily to 80,000 for World Cup matches would make sense.


----------



## beats (Dec 21, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> fair enough, it just looks a lot closer than the allianz in those white hart lane pictures.
> 
> BTW is the yiddome expandable?


Levy said that the ground does have the option to be expanded in the future

also this is my first post but can I just say it is disgrace that Derby is not in the bid, 

Considering they have plans to build a 44,000 seater stadium if they get back in to the premiership 

and also the one of the people running the bid has criticised Spurs and Liverpool for not starting yet with their builds, when Nottingham's stadium does have the city's council support the proposed site however is in the county and the county council have refused planning permission and said they cant build there

This may result in the East midlands not being represented, whilst some teams will have stadiums that they will never utilise


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

England 2018: A message from Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Prime Minister 






David Beckham has presented England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup finals to Fifa president Sepp Blatter in Zurich.






npower Wallace & Gromit Back the Bid TV Ad Full version 






England 2018 World Cup bid - Register your support (with Gary Lineker)


----------



## Inferious (May 30, 2009)

lol hand of dog


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

The biggest question is this: How would Becks pronounce this word: "chahnce"...seems like he's already pronouncing "chance" that way. Would he say it that same way?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)




----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

If worse comes to worse, at least some matches can be played at the old, mythical Anfield(even if renovated over the decades).


----------



## aus16 (May 25, 2009)

england just stuffed up big time with accuasations


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Triesman has to go, now.

Stupid man, stupid journalism.


----------



## BS3_RED (Jan 8, 2008)

Nice of a English newspaper to screw up our bid. Thanks for that Daily Mail, i know what paper i wont ever be buying is.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, he has gone, but the damage has been done. What a complete **** up. Well done indeed. hno:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

And I might add, if I were Beckham I'd jump off this sinking ship, I don't think anyone would blame him if he did.

Not that I think the Daily Fail is blameless at all. People say things in private - even if they don't fully believe them or have evidence to back them up - that they'd never ever say in public. I'm fairly sure people behind the other bids have said things in private that could seriously harm their bid if they said them in public; that's just human nature. I couldn't see a Russian or Spanish paper killing their bids by setting up a sting in this way. The gutter press at its worst.

But the damage has been done and Treisman should have been more savvy.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

What a fucking disgrace. hno:

This was possibly the easiest World Cup bid ever!

I could run the fucking campaign and win the bid for goodness sake. Yet again internal politics is ruining our chances.

I just hope FIFA can see through the idiots running the bid and realise it's been far too long since this country hosted the world cup and we have the infrastructure already there, let alone the interest. Oh wait no that's far to logical an answer for muppets like Blatter and Warner to comprehend!

Disgusting unpatriotic journalism.

Triesman = pr*ck :gunz:
Daily Fail = pr*cks :gunz:

:badnews:


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

I feel sick with anger and betrayal.
How did this come about? Why would our own paper do such a thing? Oh, of course - might shift a few thousand more rags this week...

I hope karma catches up with them when millions of football fans boycot the paper.

Tw*ts.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yeah, and next week they'll be back to complaining about CCTV cameras and the Big Brother state. Hypocritical C+nts.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

WHAT A FUCKING DISGRACE!

I WOKE UP TODAY AND THE FIRST THING I DID WITH MY DAILY MAIL AFTER I READ IT WAS CHUCK IT IN THE BIN! I will be taking it off my paper order. Fucking *****.

OUR NATION'S MEDIA IS A FUCKING SHAM!


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Impressive stadiums - especially Wembley and London Olympic Stadium. With a bid like that, I really do hope London gets 2018 (or 2022 - which ever we don't get :lol.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Impressive stadiums - especially Wembley and London Olympic Stadium. With a bid like that, I really do hope London gets 2018 (or 2022 - which ever we don't get :lol.


We aint getting it.

The jerks involved have just made sure of that the bunch of cocks. Seriously. Do the Daily Mail or any Newspapers have any fucking sense? 

Im getting old. I want to see England host a world cup. If we dont get it in 2018 now will we ever get it before the world ends or football becomes unimportant?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

What happened?! I thought England was a front runner?

Edit: Nevermind, I just checked the Daily Mail. That's horrible. Hopefully they'll just overlook that and give 2018 to England.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

^^ Not give it, they need to win it. This incident does not help their case since in the informel circuit this will be brought up by the competition again and again and again. It gives the Dutch-Belgium bid a better chance because I would like to see a world cup in my country as well. .


----------



## hugenholz (Feb 15, 2009)

Maybe Triesman can fix the Wembley pitch?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Mind the language please.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

He can't do **** all now because he's gone.

Mind you it won't make any difference because a) the damage is done and b) he did **** all when he was in charge!

What was he doing saying such accusations if they were completely unfounded anyway?

EDIT: For language!


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Ecological said:


> I WOKE UP TODAY AND THE FIRST THING I DID WITH MY DAILY MAIL *AFTER I READ IT* WAS CHUCK IT IN THE BIN!


Waste not, want not, eh? :lol:


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

Oh snap. England is managing to ruin the easiest bid ever. How can an English newspaper do such disgrace to the bid? There might be a lot of Russians celebrating with vodka right now.

That is indeed awful but England's headstart might be bigger than we think.


----------



## Fobos2030 (Mar 18, 2009)

Chimbanha said:


> There might be a lot of Russians celebrating with vodka right now.


Yes, yes!! With VODKA and BEARS!!! And of course balalayka with me!!! 

Men you just funnyhno:


----------



## AILD (May 1, 2010)

Fobos2030 said:


> Yes, yes!! With VODKA and BEARS!!! And of course balalayka with me!!!


I already imagine brits are duscussing Triesman was a KGB agent whose job was to ruin UK bid :lol:

Someone still living in the past and don't want to upgrade their vision  . Their problem though.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think Chimbanha is British going by his signature.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

AILD said:


> I already imagine brits are duscussing Triesman was a KGB agent whose job was to ruin UK bid :lol:
> 
> Someone still living in the past and don't want to upgrade their vision  . Their problem though.


Wow! Good to see the Russians are gracious in victory...

What's more your point is irrelevant for the reason RobH gave (his grammar is also a good hint).


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

I know Putin and Medvedev are great behaving little boys but still not enough to make us forget the behavior of their predecessors. I just assumed that's how you guys expressed joy.

Now, seriously, lighten up :chill: I'm Brazilian and it's not like our president doesn't like a caipirinha 



> What's more your point is irrelevant for the reason RobH gave (his grammar is also a good hint).


:bleep:


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

The bidding process to stage any major tournament is inherently corrupt. How can it not be? The direction of billions of dollars/pounds/euros etc. is determined by the decisions of a very small number of people. If it costs a few million to grease the right palms then most bid teams would consider that a small price to pay in return. The mistake the Salt Lake City 2002 organisers made was not bribing IOC officials, but getting caught doing it. All the bids will be sliding backhanders to the officials who make the decisions because if they didn't, they would have no chance of winning.

Some Russians probably will take offence, RobH, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Triesman or Alemanniafan was wrong. Some Russians on here seem unusually sensitive to criticism of anything their country does.


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

The bidding process to stage any major tournament is inherently corrupt. How can it not be? The direction of billions of dollars/pounds/euros etc. is determined by the decisions of a very small number of people. If it costs a few million to grease the right palms then most bid teams would consider that a small price to pay in return. The mistake the Salt Lake City 2002 organisers made was not bribing IOC officials, but getting caught doing it. All the bids will be sliding backhanders to the officials who make the decisions because if they didn't, they would have no chance of winning.

Some Russians probably will take offence, RobH, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Triesman or Alemanniafan were wrong. Some Russians on here seem unusually sensitive to criticism of anything their country does.


----------



## Jimmy10 (Dec 8, 2009)

I just had a look at the English Bid book , congratulations it is simply amazing..... couldnt be better.
I hope England gets the WC in 2018, it simply deserves it.... too long it was last time..... and the stadiums and the atmosphere is absolutely fantastic, I have been a few times in your stadiums, I loved it. Only the flags is something I think it missed, but cant be perfect.
Ciao and in bocca al lupo


----------



## jlch1987 (Feb 7, 2010)

Fobos2030 said:


> Yes, yes!! With VODKA and BEARS!!! And of course balalayka with me!!!
> 
> Men you just funnyhno:


Nahhh, it's just a joke, I bet if Russia's head woud have said the same thing, you'd be saying:

Now english are celebrating with tea and cookies... and fish and chips...:lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Tea and biscuits Sir, not cookies


----------



## Fobos2030 (Mar 18, 2009)

jlch1987 said:


> Nahhh, it's just a joke, I bet if Russia's head woud have said the same thing, you'd be saying:
> 
> Now english are celebrating with tea and cookies... and fish and chips...:lol:


Tea and cookies (oh, sry biscuits) is not a Vodka. I don't drink at all and for me this is really offensive.


----------



## jlch1987 (Feb 7, 2010)

Fobos2030 said:


> Tea and cookies (oh, sry biscuits) is not a Vodka. I don't drink at all and for me this is really offensive.


And I'm not british but I think they'd find insulting any joke about their (not so tasty) food...

We are in this forum to discuss the goodness and badness of the bids, not vodka or conspiracy theories...


----------



## Fobos2030 (Mar 18, 2009)

jlch1987 said:


> And I'm not british but I think they'd find insulting any joke about their (not so tasty) food...


Ah, did i say somtheing insulting about british food? 



> We are in this forum to discuss the goodness and badness of the bids, not vodka or conspiracy theories...


You are right...


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

The problem with the FA (and the UK in general) is we are too nice. All this English fair play stuff was all well and good in the 19th Century when we were THE superpower but nowadays other countries use it against us all the time. We need to be more ruthless like the Russians or Americans. The fact still remains that the FA have the power (although they've been giving it away for along time) to bring FIFA to their knees. It's embarrassing that we are forced to beg for votes. It's time the FA stood up to FIFA and UEFA. Of course it won't happen but it would be nice if the Lions roared for once. International Football Association Board


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

What do you suggest exactly? :|


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

I suggest realpolitik!:guns1:



> Thus, FIFA's approval is necessary for any IFAB decision, but FIFA alone cannot change the Laws of the Game; they need to be agreed by at least two of the UK members.


Put it this way if the French had the veto on the IFAB every other WC would have been staged in France!


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Melb_aviator said:


> Like it on not, FIFA like to look outside the square and England seem to just play on its 'home of football' self proclaimed title.


:bash: It is the home of football! Don't you think 52 years is long enough to wait for a country who gave birth to the sport?

Anyway the bid team aren't using that slogan at all so what's your point?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> :bash: It is the home of football! Don't you think 52 years is long enough to wait for a country who gave birth to the sport?


I've been saying the same thing for the longest.

If Mexico can host two WC's in a 16-year span, why can't England get one in the last half-century?

That said, I would prefer to see a British Isles WC, not just England. There's some awesome venues in Scotland, Wales and Ireland that don't deserve to be left in the dark.


----------



## AILD (May 1, 2010)

England hosted EURO 1996  . It's not a WC, but still a huge football event. So it's not 52 years  .


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Well, it is, because we're talking about the world cup.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

3SPIRES said:


> The problem with the FA (and the UK in general) is we are too nice. All this English fair play stuff was all well and good in the 19th Century when we were THE superpower but nowadays other countries use it against us all the time. We need to be more ruthless like the Russians or Americans. The fact still remains that the FA have the power (although they've been giving it away for along time) to bring FIFA to their knees. It's embarrassing that we are forced to beg for votes. It's time the FA stood up to FIFA and UEFA. Of course it won't happen but it would be nice if the Lions roared for once. International Football Association Board


MORE RUTHLESS! You cant know very much of what goes on in this country behind closed doors then! Its just that we have been better at hiding it (what we do on the sly) than most other countries and we dont have as much finance as those two countries you mentioned so we can bribe less! As far as trying it on we are as corrupt as anyone-its more of a question of find me someone who isn't corrupt and you have found a needle in a haystack.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> That said, I would prefer to see a British Isles WC, not just England. There's some awesome venues in Scotland, Wales and Ireland that don't deserve to be left in the dark.


It gets very sticky when you get into that though - the other home nations don't like that sort of thing you know! :lol:


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

A British WC would be (have been) awesome-

London, Wembley 90k Final QF GR
Cardiff, Millennium 75k SF QF GR
Manchester, Old Trafford 80k SF QF GR
Glasgow, Ibrox park 65k QF GR
Edingburgh, Murrayfield 60k GR
Liverpool, New Anfield 75K GR
Newcastle, St James Park 60k GR
BirminghamVilla Park, 50k GR
Sheffield, Bramall Lane, 44k GR
Portsmouth, Fratton Park 40k GR
London, New white Hart Lane 60k GR
Belfast, Windsor Park, 50k GR


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

plasticterminator said:


> A British WC would be (have been) awesome-
> 
> Edingburgh, Murrayfield 60k GR


Why would Murrayfield lose 8,000 seats?


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

plasticterminator said:


> A British WC would be (have been) awesome-
> 
> London, Wembley 90k Final QF GR
> Cardiff, Millennium 75k SF QF GR
> ...


Fifa dont want 4team host 1 world cup:lol:


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

A look at how London's Olympic Stadium would look in football mode for the World Cup. 80,000 seats, and each not as far from the pitch as I thought.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

I'd still rather see White Hart Lane used purely from a football perspective. Ok the seats arent that far away, that photo shows it is relatively close but England consists of so many fantastic football stadiums, even with slightly less capacity but we should have a bid without running tracks, without massive outfields, we are England, we know how to build football stadiums, and with a fantastic infrastructure, how to stage a fantastic World Cup.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

plasticterminator said:


> A British WC would be (have been) awesome-
> 
> London, Wembley 90k Final QF GR
> Cardiff, Millennium 75k SF QF GR
> ...





crazyalex said:


> Fifa dont want 4team host 1 world cup:lol:


Why London tried that thing with their Preliminary football competition for the Olympics, but unfortunately had to axe Belfast, due to the fact that although the stadium was the minimum 20,000 for Olympic football preliminaries (though it seats 14,000, I'm sure temporary seating would have been added to make it 20,000, or even general upgrades), it lacked the modernness of the other regional cities on offer. That coupled with the lack of general infrastructure and lack of hotels forced the city to be axed from football preliminaries. This was done during the Candidate phase of London's 2012 bid.


----------



## eagle in sky (Feb 9, 2010)

Does English federation(FA) think be candidate to 2020 European championship ?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The world cup is the focus. Even if we lose 2018 I'd be incredibly surprised if we bid for the Euros, especially since we had one in '96.


----------



## kramer81 (Feb 7, 2010)

plasticterminator said:


> A British WC would be (have been) awesome-
> 
> London, Wembley 90k Final QF GR
> Cardiff, Millennium 75k SF QF GR
> ...


Ibrox is only 50k, and the 3rd biggest in Glasgow. Celtic Park or Hampden would be more likely. 

FIFA tend to prefer single bids, and they definitely wouldn't let 4 teams qualify automatically. There would only be another 9 or 10 european teams who would qualify.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

England 2018 balloon flying round all the bid cities and regions:

*Eden Project, Cornwall*





































*Chelsea FC Training Ground, London*



























*
Wembley Stadium, London*



















http://www.balloon.tv/


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

*The man who was in charge of organising the 1990 World Cup has given his backing to England's bid to host the 2018 tournament.*

Luca Montezemolo told the BBC: "England has all the ingredients to organise a successful World Cup."

Mr Montezemolo, now president of Ferrari, said England had a "huge tradition" in football. 

Mr Montezemolo, who is one of the most famous men in Italy, managed the committee which planned and put on Italia '90.

"England has a huge tradition in soccer. They have good stadiums, good teams. They have one of the best national teams with a very good national trainer," he said, referring to his countryman Fabio Capello.

When asked if England should host the World Cup, he replied emphatically, "Yes. Yes." 

And he advised any hosting nation to pay the utmost detail to its preparation.

"[Have] clear goals, establish the best team of people and have the best national companies to work with and have as partners in the organisation. Telecommunications companies, logistic companies, television companies."

It is very important to use "all the best elements of the country", he added. 

Link


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

*Cape Town shares with England 2018 bid team*

*Wanless reflects on World Cup visit *

SAFC's Louise Wanless speaks about her visit to South Africa.














SAFC's head of media and communications, Louise Wanless, says South Africa are putting on a great show as hosts of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.


Wanless was part of an England 2018 Candidate Host City delegation which embarked on a week-long fact finding trip to the country as the bidding process for the 2018 tournament continues.


She said: "South Africa has done fantastically well. There was a lot of consternation in the English media in the run-up to the tournament about how South Africa would cope, but you have to understand the challenges they have faced to get to this point.


"They've had to build stadiums and infrastructure and that's been a massive task over the last four years. There were always going to be teething problems but so far they have put on a fantastic tournament."


The tournament will leave a legacy for South Africans long after the final ball has been kicked, with billions of rand pumped into stadia, infrastructure and facilities.


"I spoke to a lot of South Africans while I was out there and asked what they felt the tournament had done for them," Wanless said.


"The main thing they mentioned was the improvement to transport and infrastructure. Roads have been widened and improved and rail links have been upgraded. The public transport network wasn't great so the World Cup has improved that.


"The tournament has brought in over 500,000 tourists so far which will boost the economy and raise the profile of South Africa on the world stage."


Now the bid team have returned to the UK and will spend the next few months hoping to impress FIFA ahead of the big decision by the governing body's Executive Committee.


While in South Africa, the group attended presentations, toured a number of locations, spoke to members of the South African organising committee and took in three matches.
"Going over was an extremely useful experience," Wanless added. "You can't comprehend the scale of a World Cup unless you see it for yourself. 



"We know what it takes to put on football matches - we do it every week - but we had no idea of the sheer scale of the tournament prior to going out there.


"We spoke to the Cape Town organising committee, who were hugely impressive. They had been getting by on two or three hours' sleep a night for weeks to get things over the line."


All eyes are now on the 2018 bidding process, with Sunderland taking their place as a potential Host City should the country's bid be selected.
Wanless is confident the country has what it takes, but stressed England does not have an automatic right to host the tournament.
"England is definitely a safe pair of hands in terms of a World Cup bid. We have the stadia, infrastructure, knowledge and experience of hosting big sporting events.
"More importantly, we have the passion and desire. England does not have an automatic right to host the World Cup. But we have got everything needed to make the tournament a success."


----------



## fortcali (Aug 3, 2005)

I would like to see the world cup in england but hosting with scotland cities Glasgow and edhinburg and Cardiff, could be fantastic and not necesary clasificate scotland and Wales, just England.
London
Manchester
Liverpool
Newcastle
Birmingan
shellfield
Leeds
Cardiff
Glasgow
Edinburg


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

fortcali said:


> I would like to see the world cup in england but hosting with scotland cities Glasgow and edhinburg and Cardiff, could be fantastic and not necesary clasificate scotland and Wales, just England.
> London
> Manchester
> Liverpool
> ...


Scottish and Welsh wont agree


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

And FIFA wouldn't want three nations qualifying automatically. It's a non-starter. Let's stick to England 2018.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

fortcali said:


> I would like to see the world cup in england but hosting with scotland cities Glasgow and edhinburg and Cardiff, could be fantastic and not necesary clasificate scotland and Wales, just England.
> London
> Manchester
> Liverpool
> ...


Why would you give it to those cities when England can quite easily host it itself? Its not rugby.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

fortcali said:


> I would like to see the world cup in england but hosting with scotland cities Glasgow and edhinburg and Cardiff, could be fantastic and not necesary clasificate scotland and Wales, just England.
> London
> Manchester
> Liverpool
> ...





crazyalex said:


> Scottish and Welsh wont agree





RobH said:


> And FIFA wouldn't want three nations qualifying automatically. It's a non-starter. Let's stick to England 2018.


Why can't they just host as Great Britain or the U.K.?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Because there is no such entity in the footballing world. It's an England bid from the English FA.


----------



## *SFCboy* (Nov 15, 2008)

edit


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

You what?


----------



## *SFCboy* (Nov 15, 2008)

edit


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

*SFCboy* said:


> jejej i have a question, is only england or all UK


----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)

KingmanIII said:


> Why can't they just host as Great Britain or the U.K.?


No because FIFA would make them field a Great Britain team and Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland will never agree to that.
On a separate topic, Twickenham is the second largest stadium in England. Would the English Rugby authorities ever allow it to host World Cup Football games?


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Well, like I said - I hope you are right.
But the village green thing is around a thousand years old I think and it's not something people can just brush aside at will when it suits them.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Oh you would be surprised. Each country is different but at the end of the day Blatter and Valcke will ask. Do you want to be a host city? Cities will have to decide on their answer and sign the host city agreement. At some point there is no negotiation, just the question.
> 
> Alongside the word "power" in the dictionary, you will not see "the IOC" or the "UN". You will see "FIFA". I am afraid 20 residents opposing the site stand no chance.


Good analogy :lol:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Schmeek said:


> Well, like I said - I hope you are right.
> But the village green thing is around a thousand years old I think and it's not something people can just brush aside at will when it suits them.


Except that it was a tip
I think there is plenty of time and the original plan will succeed with some sweeteners of course


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*David Beckham has given England's 2018 World Cup bid a massive boost by promising to coach youngsters round the world for free if the campaign is successful. Former England skipper Becks will show his support for the bid by giving 200 youngsters and coaches a workshop and skills programme in Trinidad this weekend.*

Beckham is the most popular public face of the England bid and a huge draw for the 24 FIFA Executive Committee members who hold the campaign's fate in their hands in Zurich on December 2.

And the Three Lions' most-capped outfield player has pledged to stage similar courses with the David Beckham Academy in all six FIFA Confederations over the next six years if the vote goes England's way.

Beckham suggested this week's course, part of a football festival in Trinidad and Tobago, when he met influential CONCACAF President Jack Warner in Cape Town last December.

Warner effectively controls three votes on FIFA's key body and his support is vital for the England bid as they face what increasingly looks like a showdown with Russia for the right to host the biggest show on earth.

Beckham, along with bid chiefs Andy Anson and David Dein, will also be attending the FIFA women's Under-17 World Cup Final in Port of Spain while the project will demonstrate how the global concept could work, illustrating England's promise that a successful bid will have a legacy effect around the entire footballing planet.

The former England skipper said: "I am extremely proud and committed to the David Beckham Academy. The proposal with England 2018 is an exciting one as football is such a great way to inspire and educate young people in so many ways."

In a very positive move for the England bid, Warner publicly thanked Beckham and added: "It is heartening to know that a man of such international stature remains committed to the development of talent worldwide.

"This is remarkable opportunity for the 200 participants. The fact that despite his busy schedule David has taken the time to open this festival, to share his knowledge with the children is testament to his character."










http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...osts-of-the-2018-World-Cup-article585145.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> *David Beckham has given England's 2018 World Cup bid a massive boost by promising to coach youngsters round the world for free if the campaign is successful. Former England skipper Becks will show his support for the bid by giving 200 youngsters and coaches a workshop and skills programme in Trinidad this weekend.*
> 
> Beckham is the most popular public face of the England bid and a huge draw for the 24 FIFA Executive Committee members who hold the campaign's fate in their hands in Zurich on December 2.
> 
> ...


I'd rather see him teaching the Trinidadian National team.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Trelawny said:


> I'd rather see him teaching the Trinidadian National team.


I'd rather see the Trinidadian team get paid, oh, and the demise of Jack Warner.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> I'd rather see the Trinidadian team get paid, oh, and the demise of Jack Warner.


I think a fair few people are waiting for the day


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Seems like a real nice guy. How sad that we have to pander to these types of people. Maybe that's what makes them the arseholes they are; the power they have every four years to have people squirming and licking their boot laces.


----------



## UK86 (Sep 20, 2010)

I think if the World Cup came here to England then they would need to seriously think about putting a lot of money into the road system. Although I would rate our roads good they simply just wouldn't cope with the volumes of traffic in certain areas. Even now I think the government isn't spending enough on looking after the roads. I would hope that would be included in the bid somewhere?!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I have asked this elsewhere but it seems impossible to get an answer.

Why is London not hosting the entire WC on its own?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mo, don't stir things 

LOL


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

London hosts how many Premier League/First Division etc. matches on a busy weekend?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

<sarcasm>London can't host its own WC until it gets over 300,000 "Likes" on Facebook. Better luck in 2026!</sarcasm>


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> London hosts how many Premier League/First Division etc. matches on a busy weekend?


I guess theoretically Spurs, Arsenal, Fulham, Chelsea, West Ham, QPR, Crystal Palace, Millwall and Charlton could all play at home one weekend.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

ryebreadraz said:


> I guess theoretically Spurs, Arsenal, Fulham, Chelsea, West Ham, QPR, Crystal Palace, Millwall and Charlton could all play at home one weekend.


and theres the chance Wembley is hosting something, the Olympic stadium too at some point.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Schmeek said:


> Seems like a real nice guy. How sad that we have to pander to these types of people.


My sentiments exactly. It's degrading to have Warner criticising England's bid when he has personally been involved in no fewer than three major financial scandals during his time at FIFA. What on Earth gives him the right to speak about fair play? hno:

Horrible, weasley man who would have been pushed out of FIFA a long time ago were it not as corrupt as he. hno:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> I guess theoretically Spurs, Arsenal, Fulham, Chelsea, West Ham, QPR, Crystal Palace, Millwall and Charlton could all play at home one weekend.


The Police would never, ever allow that!! :lol:

List of London stadiums:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/united_kingdom/england/london.shtml

A map of London grounds going to Conf South level:


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> Horrible, weasley man who would have been pushed out of FIFA a long time ago were it not as corrupt as he. hno:


That would get half of the rest of FIFA's exec committee fired.

Blatter: we want to fire you 
Weasel: i will tell everybody about everything
Blatter: ok but be good from now on


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

RobH said:


> The Police would never, ever allow that!! :lol:
> 
> List of London stadiums:
> 
> ...



Wembley and Wimbledon are far away enough to be declared host cities.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

RobH said:


> My sentiments exactly. It's degrading to have Warner criticising England's bid when he has personally been involved in no fewer than three major financial scandals during his time at FIFA. What on Earth gives him the right to speak about fair play? hno:
> 
> Horrible, weasley man who would have been pushed out of FIFA a long time ago were it not as corrupt as he. hno:


He holds key votes unfortunately hno:


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Mo Rush said:


> I have asked this elsewhere but it seems impossible to get an answer.
> 
> Why is London not hosting the entire WC on its own?


The frightening prospect of having to cope with Qatari hooligans, should their city qualify with eleven non-residents.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

hno:

*The couple was first rebuked by authorities in Qatar for kissing in public along the beach. So the two Lebanese expats argued that they were married and were doing nothing wrong.

But the plea, ironically, put them in even more trouble, as their union was judged unlawful by a court in this conservative Muslim Persian Gulf country.The couple, who fled Qatar before the verdict was announced, was sentenced in absentia to a year of prison for having an illicit sexual relationship, according to recent media reports. 

The trouble started in April when a Qatari family complained to police about the couple kissing in public, Gulf Times said.The man, who works in Qatar, said he had done nothing more than place his hand on the shoulder of his wife, who had arrived to the country 10 days earlier.*

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/12/qatar-interfait.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

David Beckham flew to Trinidad yesterday on a 24-hour mission to win hearts, minds and crucial votes at the beginning of the end-game to bringing the 2018 World Cup to England. In just 67 days' time in Zurich, the 24-man FIFA executive committee will announce who will host the biggest football show on earth after Brazil entertain the world four years from now.

'A World Cup in England would be an inspiration for a whole new generation - just as the Olympics already are,' said Beckham. 'The prospect of having the world's best players in the world's best tournament right on your doorstep is truly amazing.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-My-mission-bring-World-Cup-England-2018.html


----------



## dot.pl (Aug 6, 2009)

Football must come home. 

I will be keeping my fingers crossed for English bid. :cheers:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> The frightening prospect of having to cope with Qatari hooligans, should their city qualify with eleven non-residents.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> I guess theoretically Spurs, Arsenal, Fulham, Chelsea, West Ham, QPR, Crystal Palace, Millwall and Charlton could all play at home one weekend.


The fixtures are always arranged so only half are at home any weekend. Spurs will never be a home the weekend as Arsenal for league games (similarly, around the country, Liverpool/Everton, Man Utd/Man City etc are home on alternate weeks).


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*FIFA says president Sepp Blatter will meet British Prime Minister David Cameron in London next week, when government support for England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup will be on the agenda. Cameron invited Blatter to 10 Downing Street in May, within days of taking office and on the eve of England's bid leaders presenting FIFA with technical plans to host the finals.

FIFA says it can't specify on which day Blatter will visit, or if he will attend England's European Championship qualifier against Montenegro at Wembley next Tuesday.*

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ca...qM5h4CGXlj2ts0SRQQbBdaKRKVpB8Hw?docId=4753648


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*England's 2018 bid team has unveiled 18 key commitments it will adhere to as it bids to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022. The commitments have been outlined in a new document entitled 'Pledges to Partners’ and highlight how a World Cup in England would directly impact on six key stakeholder groups. These groups are Fifa, participating teams and players, fans from around the world, legacy partners in the areas of football and social development globally, Fifa’s commercial partners and the global media. The document contains new commitments and previously unrevealed details from the England 2018 bid book covering every aspect of the bid. They encapsulate the campaign themes of welcoming and benefitting the world.

Some of the 18 pledges for 2018 include:
A World Cup in England will make a projected profit for Fifa of $240 million (£161m) from the Local Organising Committee (LOC) alone.

Journey times for Fifa Executive Committee members will be a maximum of 30 minutes from hotel to stadium on match days in London, and a maximum of 20 minutes outside London.

Each visiting team will be hosted by a Premier League or Football League club and will have full access to all of its training and medical facilities.

Fans, and all accredited personnel, will be able to travel for free on public transport on match day within cities with match tickets or accreditations.

England 2018 bid Chief Executive Andy Anson said: “The ‘Pledges to Partners’ highlight some new commitments we are making to Fifa and to its stakeholders and reaffirms others we have made within the detail of our bid book. We believe these commitments provide a clear demonstration of why we would be the best possible partner for Fifa and the global football family.

“They cover every aspect of our bid: passion, diversity, world-class infrastructure, minimal risk, major events experience, commercial leadership and the creation of a significant global impact. "The combination of these factors will lead to the most ambitious, spectacular festival of football imaginable and a lasting legacy of football and social development all around the world – ours is not a World Cup that will benefit one country alone but is truly a Fifa World Cup for the world.*

http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/1...rld-cup-bid-team-promises-free-travel-to-fans


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*The 18 Pledges
*
*1 Journey times for Fifa members will be a maximum of 30 minutes from hotel to stadiums in London
2 Fans with match tickets will be able to travel for nothing on public transport within host cities

3 Free transport between cities on match days for ticketed fans

4 A projected profit for Fifa of £161m

5 A minimum of 60,000 hotel rooms

6 Each visiting team will be hosted by one of England's professional clubs

7 A maximum of two hours' travel time from team base camps to the 17 proposed stadiums

8 82 team base camps have been contracted to suit the needs and budget of each squad

9 400,000 rooms will be available for visiting fans at all budget levels

10 One billion people will be reached by England 2018's legacy proposals

11 'Football United' will deliver development programmes worldwide

12 Project 2028 will create home-grown players, coaches and referees over a 10-year period

13 England will present unprecedented opportunities in stunning, iconic locations

14 Total government support and legislation to protect partner rights

15 Outdoor media for Fifa and its commercial affiliates

16 The international broadcast centre in London is double the required size

17 Innovative technological broadcast and media solutions

18 The latest digital technology creating 'virtual global fan fests'*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/06/world-cup-2018-england-pledges


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

MysteryMike said:


> *The 18 Pledges
> *
> *1 Journey times for Fifa members will be a maximum of 30 minutes from hotel to stadiums in London
> 
> ...



See above


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

I think England has done more for the development of the game than almost any other country in recent history. So the legacy aspect certainly has to be there for England. In terms of stadiums obviously England is covered and certainly there was no questioning of the legacy of the bid by FIFA during the technical inspection, the only question was the hotel rooms required for the World Cup and with these 18 pledges England has well and truly covered that. We all know for the 2006 bid, hooliganism and "a gentleman's" handshake ended up costing England the hosting rights, this time the technical report is pretty much perfect and it's all guns blazing ahead. We will find out whether it's been enough on the 2nd of December.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*England 2018 hopes to secure the support of nine of the 24 Fifa executive-committee members in the first round of voting for the World Cup host nation, thus gaining the necessary momentum to carry the bid to victory. Thirteen votes are required to win the right to host the tournament. A source close to the process told Digger that England's tactic is to be within four votes of success after one round of voting.

It is an ambitious target and with less than 60 days to go before the ballot, in Zurich on 2 December, the intentions of many voters are not known. But a source close to the process explained the 2018 bid team's hope that, given English football organisations' recent activity in football-development projects in more than 100 nations, sufficient goodwill towards the bid exists among committee members.

Other political considerations could also play favourably for England. As well as having concentrated much of its football-development efforts on Africa, England supported Issa Hayatou's failed bid to become Fifa president eight years ago. As a Fifa vice-president Hayatou is Africa's most influential member of the executive committee and there is a feeling that his gratitude for England's support remains. If that is true, and the Cameroonian can carry the three other committee members from Africa, the votes would be a coup for England 2018.

The word on the grapevine is that England 2018 has also worked particularly hard with two senior committee members from the Pacific. The vote of Geoff Thompson, the English Fifa vice-president, is guaranteed and there is believed to be support from at least one other European member. If all those votes come in, England 2018 executives will be a long way towards delivering the tournament that English fans crave.*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/07/england-2018-world-cup-bid


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

Has England's bid book been posted yet? You can view it online (click on it):

http://www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/bidbookhighlights.aspx



And perhaps off-topic, but here is the view of the area surrounding the Olympic stadium after 2012. If England's bid decides to use the Olympic stadium instead of The Emirates then what a brilliant space next to the stadium for big tv screens etc.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

first of all why are fifa so stupid about the capacity reductions for the world cup, wembley holds international and cup finals to 90k saftley every time no problem but to lose 6k seats is bloody stupid

and the england bid book didn't say anything about the potential capcity increase to the stadiums apart from leeds i think.

surely it is possible to assume that 3 or 4 of those clubs could have had expansions by then of there on back. newcastle to 60k, sunderland, 56k,man utd 82-85 k by 2018 possible, aston villa to between 50 and 60 k,

makes the bid look really week with so many just 40 k stadiums in it


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

FIFA have already said England has the best stadiums. The quality or seating capacity alterations will therefore have negligible impact or more likely no impact. It's just all up to how much support England can garner within the FIFA boardroom.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Harry1990 said:


> first of all why are fifa so stupid about the capacity reductions for the world cup, wembley holds international and cup finals to 90k saftley every time no problem but to lose 6k seats is bloody stupid
> 
> and the england bid book didn't say anything about the potential capcity increase to the stadiums apart from leeds i think.
> 
> ...


The capacity reductions are because of FIFA's press requirements rather than health and safety, iirc.

As to 40K stadia, only Spain / Portugal of the European bids has fewer 40K stadia. And since they have only managed that by presenting a joint bid (something that, I'm certain, will count against them), it's not really much of an advantage for them.

Russia and Holland / Belgium will have smaller average stadium capacity than England.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> See above
> 
> 3 Free transport between cities on match days for ticketed fans
> 
> ...


It almost certainly wouldn't include air travel, but then again rail travel would probably be quicker anyway. You can get from most big cities to another within 2-3 hours, and as a consequence there won't even be air links between most cities.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Flying between cities would be silly. Wait for an hour and a half at check-in OR you could be nearly to your destination on a train? You'd possibly fly to Scotland if you had to, but using planes for inter-city travel within England isn't something you'd do....I've never done it anyway.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

If there was the unfortunate circumstance that say one team gets a game at Brizzle...and then their next in Noocassle maybe, but that would just be poor management.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*Premier League managers have joined together for the “England United” campaign to host the Fifa World Cup in 2018. Leading managers including Sir Alex Ferguson, Harry Redknapp, Arsene Wenger, Roberto Mancini and Steve Bruce are all featured in a new video supporting the 2018 bid while all 20 Premier League managers, from seven countries across Europe, have also backed the campaign and praised the passion and facilities in England as ideal for a World Cup.

The managers’ support as individuals and through the League Managers Association comes ahead of Fifa president Sepp Blatter’s visit to see Prime Minister David Cameron. Sir Alex Ferguson, winner of a record 11 Premier League titles, said: “It’s always been part of Manchester United to open our doors to football people across the world. It’s a family here and if England was to host the World Cup fans would be made to feel part of that family.

“The facilities in England are superb which gives players the chance to perform to their highest levels.” Meanwhile Carlo Ancelotti, manager of Premier League champions Chelsea, insisted England would be a "perfect setting" for the competition. *

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...gue-managers-come-together-for-england-united


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*The Prime Minister is hosting Sepp Blatter, the governing body's president, at 10 Downing Street in the next few days and will be in contact with a series of key decision-makers in the buildup to the December 2 vote, as the campaign moves up a gear.

'He will be playing a very significant role in terms of contacting FIFA executive members,' said 2018 chief executive Andy Anson. Tony Blair played a similar role in the latter stages of the London Olympics campaign and the bid team believe Cameron's hosting of Blatter shows his commitment to a charm offensive. 'It will give us an opportunity to get the message across that the World Cup here is a World Cup for the world,' said Anson.* 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...win-2018-World-Cup-bid.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gherkin said:


> Has England's bid book been posted yet? You can view it online (click on it):
> 
> http://www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/bidbookhighlights.aspx
> 
> ...


What a fantastic venue for a Fan Fest that would be, however I doubt the Emirates would miss out.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

RobH said:


> Flying between cities would be silly. *Wait for an hour and a half at check-in OR you could be nearly to your destination on a train?* You'd possibly fly to Scotland if you had to, but using planes for inter-city travel within England isn't something you'd do....I've never done it anyway.


While I agree with the fundamental point of your post, Rob, you don't have to wait that long on domestic flights. It can be as little as half an hour. In which case it can be more time-effective to use the skies rather than the rails.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Schmeek said:


> While I agree with the fundamental point of your post, Rob, you don't have to wait that long on domestic flights. It can be as little as half an hour. In which case it can be more time-effective to use the skies rather than the rails.


UK airports tend to be geared towards international flights, with all the extra security checks they involve, so 1/2 an hour would be pushing it at the bigger airports.

And at the the smaller ones, the odds are there might not even be flights to many cities, particularly at weekends.

Going from the south to Newcastle, or the north to Plymouth would probably be worth it, but once you've added time for getting to/from the airports, check-in, baggage reclaim etc, it wouldn't be worthwhile.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*Fifa president Sepp Blatter is set to meet Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday as England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup reaches its final phase. Blatter is expected to watch a bid presentation and meet football figures during his Downing Street visit.

"We will take this opportunity to provide first-hand evidence of England's passion for the game," said 2018 bid chairman Geoff Thompson. Fifa will decide on the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts on 2 December.

Thompson said the Downing Street meeting would highlight the potential legacy a successful England bid could create. "The Prime Minister spoke with president Blatter shortly after taking office to reiterate the British government's support for the bid and to invite him to Downing Street," stated Thompson.

"We are delighted the Fifa president has accepted and we are honoured that he and Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke will be visiting England so close to the decision in December."*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9085253.stm


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

What are the chances of two hosting countries winning the world cup on home soil in a row? Brazil will win 2014 at home but England winning 2018 at home?? lol.


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

Trelawny said:


> What are the chances of two hosting countries winning the world cup on home soil in a row? Brazil will win 2014 at home but England winning 2018 at home?? lol.


Wishful thinking at its worst.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Trelawny said:


> What are the chances of two hosting countries winning the world cup on home soil in a row? Brazil will win 2014 at home but England winning 2018 at home?? lol.


england WINNING a world cup, you been smoking some baaaaad gunja my friend :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

England last won the world cup when the event was hosted in England. So winning the world cup bid, could mean literally winning the world cup. We all know that almost always hosts perform better and hosting the event may give England that added zip/advantage which has been sadly missing from recent world cups. The psychological/physical advantage in not having to go through qualifying around Europe would be also of extreme benefit to the England team, who have struggled with mixing the intense EPL schedule/qualifying duties/world cup and euro tournaments. It would be a massive massive boost for England if 2018 came to the home of football.


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

Trelawny said:


> What are the chances of two hosting countries winning the world cup on home soil in a row? Brazil will win 2014 at home but England winning 2018 at home?? lol.


Well lets look at the form shall we; England have hosted 1 World Cup (1966) and won it giving a 100% success rate, Brazil have hosted 1 World Cup (1950) and didn't win it giving a 0% success rate. HTH


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

MysteryMike said:


> England last won the world cup when the event was hosted in England. So winning the world cup bid, could mean literally winning the world cup.


haha.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Well lets look at the form shall we; England have hosted 1 World Cup (1966) and won it giving a 100% success rate, Brazil have hosted 1 World Cup (1950) and didn't win it giving a 0% success rate. HTH


Brazil only lost just though but yes more than likely they were distracted by all the women dancing in the stands and the music. England won't of course get distracted by that, the upcoming crop of stars are responsible, unlike Terry, Cole, Rooney etc. They should be GPS tracked at all times, from now until 2018 ends, no distractions.


----------



## derzberb (Aug 13, 2009)

Trelawny said:


> Brazil will win 2014 at


Brazil will not win WC for next 50 years.

WC 2018 in England will ensure England to reach1/8-finals, where they get knocked out by Australia. That would be fun!


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

derzberb said:


> Brazil will not win WC for next 50 years.
> 
> WC 2018 in England will ensure England to reach1/8-finals, where they get knocked out by Australia. That would be fun!


No. England vs Australia in a final and Australia win after a controversial penalty in time-on. That would piss them off.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Will737 said:


> No. England vs Australia in a final and Australia win after a controversial penalty in time-on. That would piss them off.


won't happen

England like to excel at all things, and why choke in a final when you can choke in a semi-final and go home early

The English Football Team. Every year finding new and more interesting ways to lose the unloseable match :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Will737 said:


> No. England vs Australia in a final and Australia win after a controversial penalty in time-on. That would piss them off.


I think those are the 2 most unlikely nations to benefit from refereeing decisions.


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

Wow, lot's of deluded Aussies on this thread the only football you could be world champions at is Aussie Rules Football, but you'd have to find some other moronic country to play that dirge against.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Wow, lot's of deluded Aussies on this thread the only football you could be world champions at is Aussie Rules Football, but you'd have to find some other moronic country to play that dirge against.


Seriously mate, I don't think you will find a single Australian who honestly believes we are remotely a chance to win a world cup ever

that being said, we get great joy watching you boys come oh so close :lol:


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Wow, lot's of deluded Aussies on this thread the only football you could be world champions at is Aussie Rules Football, but you'd have to find some other moronic country to play that dirge against.


Which WC failure are you going to cry over tonight?


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Wow, lot's of deluded Aussies on this thread the only football you could be world champions at is Aussie Rules Football, but you'd have to find some other moronic country to play that dirge against.


I think Ireland is actually world champion in aussie rules


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

T74 said:


> Seriously mate, I don't think you will find a single Australian who honestly believes we are remotely a chance to win a world cup ever
> 
> that being said, we get great joy watching you boys come oh so close :lol:


You not only haven't got a chance of winning the World Cup, you are not even near England's level. We are the 5th best team in the history of World Cups you are the 44th best team. Our level is Argentina (4th) and Spain (6th) your level is Norway (43rd) and Senegal (45th). http://www.planetworldcup.com/NATIONS/maraton.html


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

Resisting...from...getting...into...a...pointless...debate...AHHHHHH ITS SO HARD!(thats what she said)


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Just in case you had all forgotten, this thread is about England's 2018 World Cup bid.

If you wish to discuss England - Australia sporting rivalry or the quality / prospects of individual nations' football teams, I'm sure that there are plenty of appropriate websites that can accommodate you!


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Edit: double post.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> You not only haven't got a chance of winning the World Cup, you are not even near England's level. We are the 5th best team in the history of World Cups you are the 44th best team. Our level is Argentina (4th) and Spain (6th) your level is Norway (43rd) and Senegal (45th). http://www.planetworldcup.com/NATIONS/maraton.html


hno: I expected more from you, Australia are ranked 24th in the world actually and they were ranked as high as I think 14th, a few months ago. England haven't actually played Australia in a while, because the FA haven't forgotten this. Obviously Australia are not better than England in football but they certainly deserve respect.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*Blatter was in London to meet the Prime Minister David Cameron and, while it is usual for him to offer warm platitudes about just every potential host nation, his acclaim for England sounded both genuine and personal. With England still generally considered favourites to host the 2018 Word Cup, it was also intriguing that Blatter should predict that his casting vote is unlikely to be needed when Fifa’s 24-man executive committee make their final decision in December. 

“England has given so much to football and England is going to carry on giving much to football,” said Blatter. “You have given to the world security in the stadiums. This is a big legacy. Now we say where are the hooligans?” Blatter’s remarks followed the match in Genoa on Tuesday night between Italy and Serbia that had to be cancelled due to crowd violence. “If only all the national associations in the world, and their leagues (had stadiums like this),” he said.“If this had been the case we would not have had the problems we had in Genoa. Your bid has impressed me personally. As the motherland of football, shall the World Cup came back here in 2018? I wish you well and success.” Blatter’s repeated description of England as a “motherland” was somewhat ironic as one narrative that the 2018 bid has tried to avoid is the rather arrogant idea that football would somehow be coming home.

As well as a reception at Downing Street, Blatter was in the House of Commons to watch Prime Minister's Questions. Cameron made a particular point of stressing England’s success at tackling racism in football; an issue that remains more problematic for Russia and Spain, two of the bid’s main competitors.“We want it really badly,” said Cameron. “Football is our national game, it is the glue that binds the country together. We are the most diverse football nation in the world and we have travelled so far in kicking racism right out of football and that is one of the reasons why I believe we can make 2018 such a success. "England is ready, willing and able to deliver the best World Cup ever and provide the biggest legacy ever. Not for us, not for this country, but for the world.” *

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...d-Cup-bid-by-praising-hooligan-crackdown.html


----------



## marrio415 (Jun 18, 2006)

MysteryMike said:


> *
> “England has given so much to football and England is going to carry on giving much to football,” said Blatter.*


*

England has given so much to football.Yeah we know blatter the game was invented here and given to the world.*


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

marrio415 said:


> England has given so much to football.Yeah we know blatter the game was invented here and given to the world.


Ahh Blatter, so many things can be said :drunk:


----------



## Paul D (Jul 3, 2004)

*England withdraw bid for 2022 World Cup*

England have withdrawn from the race to host the 2022 World Cup after the United States ended their bid to stage the 2018 tournament.

England will now focus entirely on their campaign for 2018, which will definitely be held in Europe.

This is because of Fifa rules that the competition cannot be held on the same continent on successive occasions.

England and Russia remain in the running for 2018 along with joint bids by Belgium/Holland and Spain/Portugal.

The United States had been the last non-European bidders remaining in the race for 2018 following Australia's withdrawal in June and remained in contention for both 2018 and 2022.

Chairman of the US committee, Sunil Gulati, said: "For some time we have been in conversations with Fifa and Uefa about the possibility of focusing only on the 2022 bidding process.
"We are confident this is in the best interests of the USA bid. We wanted to make the announcement now - still 48 days before the final decision - in order to make our intentions clear during the last part of our campaign.

"This also enables Fifa to finalise the selection procedures during its upcoming scheduled executive committee meeting."

That meeting will take place in Zurich on 28 and 29 October.

Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke said: "We have had an open and constructive dialogue with the USA bid for some time now, after it became apparent that there was a growing movement to stage the 2018 Fifa World Cup in Europe.

"The announcement by the USA bid to focus solely on the 2022 Fifa World Cup is therefore a welcome gesture which is much appreciated by Fifa."


The prime minister encouraged Trinidad and Tobago to support England's bid

A number 10 statement

A statement from the England bid team read: "England 2018/22 today confirmed to Fifa that it was withdrawing its candidature from the Fifa World Cup 2022 and will now focus on its bid to host the tournament in 2018.

"This followed consultation with Uefa president Michel Platini on the most appropriate moment to withdraw.

"England 2018 is delighted it is now clear that the Fifa World Cup will be coming to Europe in 2018 following the withdrawal of the United States bid."

On Friday Prime Minister David Cameron met his Trinidad and Tobago counterpart Kamla Persad-Bissessar to canvas support.

Persad-Bissessar is a political ally of Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, who is a member of her cabinet as well as head of the North and Central American football federation Concacaf.

Concacaf has three votes on Fifa's executive committee meaning Warner is likely to have been an influential voice when the 2018 hosts are chosen on 2 December.

Mr Cameron's predecessor Gordon Brown met Warner for face-to-face talks during a visit to Trinidad last year.

After the meeting at Downing Street, a Number 10 spokesman said: "The prime minister congratulated Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar on her country's work as chair in office of the Commonwealth.

"They agreed to work closely to help the organisation realise its enormous potential, particularly in fostering international trade.

"The prime minister also updated Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar on England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup and the lasting legacy the tournament could have worldwide, and encouraged Trinidad and Tobago to support England's bid."

Fifa president Sepp Blatter visited Mr Cameron on Wednesday at Downing Street, where he saw a presentation by ambassadors for the England bid.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Need the Tony charm offensive, I'm not sure if Cameron is the man for the job.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## labytnangi (Feb 6, 2010)

It is an alternative video for Russia's 2018 World Cup bid. You can learn Russian better and learn each city separately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0MufOiEtrw


----------



## labytnangi (Feb 6, 2010)

It is an alternative video for Russia's 2018 World Cup bid. You can learn Russian better and learn each city separately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0MufOiEtrw


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

labytnangi said:


> It is an alternative video for Russia's 2018 World Cup bid. You can learn Russian better and learn each city separately.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0MufOiEtrw


Wrong thread, fella.

This is the *England* 2018 bid thread.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Yeah, what's doing there :lol: This is why you shouldn't drink and post


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

JimB said:


> This is the *England* 2018 bid thread.


Can't say anything else? Senility setting in, old boy?


----------



## labytnangi (Feb 6, 2010)

JimB said:


> Wrong thread, fella.
> 
> This is the *England* 2018 bid thread.


I know but sometimes interesting to see the bid of its competitors


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

labytnangi said:


> I know but sometimes interesting to see the bid of its competitors


That's why there's a thread for the Russian bid. It's not like we're not allowed to look at other threads. Facepalm.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

labytnangi said:


> I know but sometimes interesting to see the bid of its competitors


Probably best to post it in the general FIFA 2018 & 2022 bids thread.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Gondolier said:


> Can't say anything else? Senility setting in, old boy?


??


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Love the England vid, does a good job of showing how mad the English are about soccer and how ingrained it is in their culture. Also shows off Wembley too! Also nice nod to racial integration in that add too, if you've ever heard about the race problems in Spain and Russia it's no small thing. Don't hear monkey chants much in England. 

I think England deserves the wc due to the fact that the Spanish bid pays lip service to Portugal, they've had it after England and Russia's bid IMO isn't as impressive as England's, which contains Emirates, Wembley, Old Trafford + more.

And aussies and brits, why the hate? If they win 2018, and we win 2022, we can go visit each other's nations and see a world cup. We're not competing for the same world cup, so chill everyone! Feel the love I say. If England host the 2018 it'll be epic. As much as I loved the African world cup, it'd also mean no vuvuzelas. :lol:


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

The video is only London, I thought it was an english world cup? Seems a little like Doha 2022 if you ask me. 

Maybe it's just in London were you can actually find a south asian and a black kid kicking a ball.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Trelawny said:


> The video is only London, I thought it was an english world cup? Seems a little like Doha 2022 if you ask me.
> 
> Maybe it's just in London were you can actually find a south asian and a black kid kicking a ball.


Each of the host cities have produced or will produce their own video.

As to the ethnicity of the population of various cities, I don't see why it's relevant. But, if it is really so important to you, most English cities are very multicultural.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

JimB said:


> Each of the host cities have produced or will produce their own video.
> 
> As to the ethnicity of the population of various cities, I don't see why it's relevant. But, if it is really so important to you, most English cities are very multicultural.


He's never been to Bradford or Birmingham apparently.


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

But anyway the 2018 race is looking tight. Don't know who is going to win.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Trelawny said:


> The video is only London, I thought it was an english world cup? Seems a little like Doha 2022 if you ask me.
> 
> Maybe it's just in London were you can actually find a south asian and a black kid kicking a ball.


The bid cities all made videos and London's bid video is for me, better than the English bid video, which is kind of funny, but hey the more bid videos the better I say.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

That video is a bit stale.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Richo83 said:


> *And aussies and brits, why the hate?* If they win 2018, and we win 2022, we can go visit each other's nations and see a world cup. We're not competing for the same world cup, so chill everyone! Feel the love I say. If England host the 2018 it'll be epic. As much as I loved the African world cup, it'd also mean no vuvuzelas. :lol:


I didn't know there was any hate. We have a great rivalry in many things, especially sport but have seldomly met in soccer. Sentimentally I was personally a little mythed at why the UK would suggestively do a deal USA before Australia (yanks, we love you too) but quickly understood each others strategic position.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

There was no deal, England were really only going for 2018, that's where the European bid is going to win, not in 2022


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

Wayne Rooney is leaving Man U!!!!! Crazy!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

MysteryMike said:


> There was no deal, England were really only going for 2018, that's where the European bid is going to win, not in 2022


I know that, I was reffering to my sentiments of suggestions England would link up with the US before Australia. Kind of like a mother picking one child over the other.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Trelawny said:


> Wayne Rooney is leaving Man U!!!!! Crazy!


Of course he is, he's also a money grabbing, granny shagging useless tosser.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Walbanger said:


> I know that, I was reffering to my sentiments of suggestions England would link up with the US before Australia. Kind of like a mother picking one child over the other.


I didn't know you were part of the family? :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*ENGLAND'S dream of hosting the World Cup in 2018 was boosted last night by the FIFA bribes row. An investigation exposed some members of a key FIFA committee secretly touting for cash to vote for rival nations. And experts said the storm could increase our chances of landing the tournament because it proved England's bid was not corrupt.

During the investigation a former FIFA official told undercover Sunday Times journalists we had hampered our own chances because the FA did not resort to bungs. He said: "England have got all the good reasons why they should host it but don't strike the deals." Last night the claims were being investigated by soccer's ruling body FIFA, whose president Sepp Blatter was said to be furious. Investigators posing as lobbyists for the US bid had covertly filmed Amos Adamu, head of the West African Football Union, asking for £500,000 to "guarantee" his support. Nigerian Adamu claimed the money was for building pitches.

Fellow FIFA executive committee member Reynald Temarii, of Tahiti, allegedly asked for £1.5million for a sport academy. Temarii also boasted that bribes of £6million had been offered by two rival nations. Last night business leader Sir Keith Mills said: "FIFA will take this very seriously. Neither I nor my colleagues had any idea this was going on."

Another source said: "It can only help our cause if bribery is rooted out because England's bid is clean."The hosts of the 2018 Cup will be decided by FIFA's executive committee by ballot on December 2. England is up against rivals Russia and joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium, with the US since having dropped out. At a secret meeting in London, journalists approached Adamu to strike a deal for his vote for what he thought was the American bid. After asking for 800,000 dollars, about £500,000, he said: "Certainly if you are to invest that, that means you also want the vote." In Auckland, New Zealand, Oceania Football Confederation president Reynald Temarii claimed two bid committees had offered between ten million and 12 million dollars.

Temarii, a former French footballer, said he was "keen to discuss" finance for a sports academy. Former FIFA official Ahongalu Fusimalohi, from Tonga, was secretly filmed saying England's bid had been hindered by not offering bribes like some other bidders. He said: "England don't strike the deals. These people will go all over the world to get it at any price." The investigators also met Ismail Bhamjee, from Botswana, who was forced to resign as a FIFA official over a tickets scandal in 2006. Yesterday Temarii said he was "confident" about his "integrity" - but admitted: "I made a mistake by talking in that way. I asked the FIFA president to investigate." FIFA's independent ethics panel is scheduled to discuss his case on Wednesday. It claimed to have "closely monitored" the bidding process for the 2018 tournament.*


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-by-cash-for-votes-scandal.html#ixzz12z26MXQw


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*England's 2018 World Cup bid is set for a major boost when it is named the stand-out candidate to host the tournament by FIFA.While the world governing body is trying to deal with the fall-out of the cash for votes scandal that saw Nigeria's Amos Adamu and Tahitian Reynald Temarii suspended pending a full investigation, there are now less than six weeks until the venue decision is taken in Zurich on December 2.

A major element that Sepp Blatter's 24-man Executive Committee will take into account is the official FIFA Inspection Team's report into the bidding nations' campaigns. That team, headed by Chile's Harold Mayne-Nicholl's, includes South Africa's Danny Jordaan, the favourite to be co-opted to take over Adamu's Ex-Co seat next month.

And UEFA chiefs are understood to believe the report, due to be published in the middle of November, will make it clear that England and not Russia or the joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium is the best candidate for 2018. One highly-placed UEFA source said: "From what we have heard, the English bid is miles ahead of the rest in terms of the lack of risk, infrastructure and readiness to host the World Cup."

If the intimations are correct, it will give England's bid team a huge step forward in the vital last few weeks before the decision is made.The temporary suspensions of Adamu and Temarii came as Blatter was forced to promise he would expel "these devils you find in football" and vow: "We have to fight that the people in charge of FIFA behave as they should do and if this is not the case then we have to intervene."

If Temarii is also expelled, as seems likely, the most probable successor as Oceania representative would be New Zealander Fred De Jong, expected to be enthusiastic towards an England bid. But Blatter is now under huge pressure to ensure the vote for 2018 and 2022 is clean, with Spain/Portugal and 2022 candidate Qatar at serious risk of being thrown off the ballot by FIFA's Ethics Committee if they are found to have colluded in a banned vote-swapping deal.

Jordaan hinted earlier this month that the report will make firm recommendations, when he said: "You will have a good idea of how we see the full strength of the cases when the report comes out next month. We will report objectively on what we find." And if the Technical report does come down as strongly in England's favour, it will justify the view of insiders such as Northern Ireland's Jim Boyce, who will replace England's Geoff Thompson as the Home Nations' FIFA vice-president in June.

Boyce said: "I feel England has to be given the 2018 World Cup. The country already has proper infrastructure and proper stadiums. England has everything in place and could organise a World Cup in 10 days' time. I would be very disappointed if England are not successful."*

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...and-was-the-best-candidate-article609365.html


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I do back England but surely even though Japan is not favourite, its venues are probably all ready, and transport is already in place in most cases...?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Mo Rush said:


> I do back England but surely even though Japan is not favourite, its venues are probably all ready, and transport is already in place in most cases...?


There venues are likely ready or very nearly ready to use(although the Kobe stadium's capacity is smaller now) but I'd guess the transport infrastrcture might not be as good, most of them have afterall not been used to capacity since the WC.

A good half of the stadiums used at the last WC had athletics tracks aswell with one of the others being a baseball stadium.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

As a footballer. as a fan. give me Anfield, Old Trafford, Wembley, English fans any day of the week. Its the perfect bid. If FIFA was told one nation must host the world cup for as long as it existed. England would be the only choice.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

> *As an Englishman*, give me Anfield, Old Trafford, Wembley, English fans any day of the week. Its the perfect bid. If FIFA was told one nation must host the world cup for as long as it existed. England would be the only choice.


Corrected it for you. You know, there are other countries with great stadia and fantastic fans out there as well.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

AlekseyVT said:


> It's real videos which show behaviour of English fans after own defeats. It must be in this thread. If you dislike it that it's your personal problems.


I can dig up at least 20 vidoes of Russian football violence. Now kindly go **** your mother or discuss things properly.

I'm really fed up with shits like you and am not in the mood.

EDIT: I was going to edit this post because it's inappropriate, but actually I can't be bothered. It's what I think whether you like it or not. Russians are ruining these threads with their discussions of the British press and their vidoes and their constant fucking whining. An IQ of ten between the lot of you, I'm certain of that. I'm also certain most Russians aren't like the six or seven who post here and would be embarrassed to be in the same room as any of you. I've always found at least one person from a bidding nation on these kinds of forums - be it a world cup, CWGs or Olympics - who isn't a blind nationalist and is able to discuss things without resorting to trolling, but the Russians on this forum are an exception to the rule. Not one redeeming member between all of you. Congratulations!

I'm now of the opinion that ALL the world cup threads should be locked and not reopened. It's like hitting your head against a brick wall.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

AlekseyVT said:


> It's real videos which show behaviour of English fans after own defeats. It must be in this thread. If you dislike it that it's your personal problems.


One video of an England fan singing - yes, shocking, I know.....he was actually SINGING - on the Moscow Underground / Metro....................yeah, that's fucking awful behaviour, that is. As punishment for such an atrocity, England should not only be banned from hosting the World Cup, they should also be banned from ever again competing in international football. That'll teach that England fan not to behave so disgracefully again.

Seriously, AlekseyVT, are you so far up your own arse that you think that singing on public transport is a hanging offence?

Get a life!

As to the other video, it's hard to tell but it seems to be footage of a gang of Russians attacking some English fans on the Moscow Underground / Metro.

In which case............yes, you're absolutely right. How dare the English travel on public transport in Moscow? Unforgiveable behaviour. How dare any of those English fans get their chins in the way of any wholsesome Russian fists? Clearly, the English deserved to be attacked by fine, law abiding, upstanding, gentle and not at all xenophobic (not in the slightest) Russian youths.

.............

.............

Doh!


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> like I said some people never learn hno:


Are about Brits?


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

RobH said:


> I can dig up at least 20 vidoes of Russian football violence. Now kindly go ***** your mother* or discuss things properly.
> 
> I'm really fed up with *shits like you* and am not in the mood.


You really so naive? I have personally been in this match and I saw your countrymen in a bad way. But I did not write that whole Britain is a barbaric country. And your compatriot wrote it about my country and you defend his point of view. When I ask you to be careful, you produce more BS.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> You really so naive? I have personally been in this match and I saw your countrymen in a bad way. But I did not write that whole Britain is a barbaric country. And your compatriot wrote it about my country and you defend his point of view. When I ask you to be careful, you produce more BS.


Sarcasm detecting fail no.2


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

can some one please ban this idiot from talking on the english bid page, he is syaing untrue and highly offensive things that are dangerously close to libel. i am getting sick and tired of people thinking we are still holligans like in the 1970's, since then we have cleaned up our act, built proper seated and safe stadiums, kicked racism out of the game, helped football devolp in third world countries where as countries like spain, italy, russia, poland, ukraine etc you can't go on the pitch without being called a monkey or have banana's thrown at you, or our fans get beaten up by stewards etc im not saying that all people that attend football in those countries are/ or do those things but it is clearly evident.

and russian person, england had the largest traveling support for the world cup this year and there was absolutly no arrest made on english people so the fact you call us holligans is laughable. and stop saying british bid and british people its and english bid.

sorry my rants over now can we please go back to discussing the stadiums of each bid and hopefully the russians will either have proper discussion with use about merits on they should use there own russia page


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

Harry1990 said:


> third world countries where as countries like spain, italy, russia, poland, ukraine


LOL wtf ami reading

>Russian should use there own russia page
Im agree with you


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

crazyalex said:


> LOL wtf ami reading
> 
> >Russian should use there own russia page
> Im agree with you


I think you misunderstood him.

He was talking about how the English FA and Premier League facilitate and invest in football coaching programmes in many "third world" (I hate that expression!) countries.

He then contrasted that with the overt racism too frequently experienced in some European countries.

I'm not entirely certain that his argument has been well thought out but I am pretty sure that he wasn't suggesting that the likes of Spain, Italy, Russia, Poland and Ukraine are "third world" countries!


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

TheoG said:


> Sarcasm detecting fail no.2


what sarcasm :nuts:


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Has there been any comment from the Times on the article they (apparently) didn't publish on the Russian allegations as to why they didn't publish it?


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> i am getting sick and tired of people thinking we are still holligans like in the 1970's, since then we have cleaned up our act, built proper seated and safe stadiums, *kicked racism out of the game,*





Harry1990 said:


> helped football devolp *in third world countries where as countries like spain, italy, russia, poland, ukraine....*


Thank you, British guys. You said it. For this reason we always will be against English bid. Can you say how you helped football development in my country? 

No more comments. I'm better will go eat.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> Thank you, British guys. You said it. For this reason we always will be against English bid. Can you say how you helped football development in my country?
> 
> No more comments. I'm better will go eat.


Read the sentence again, he wasn't saying they helped football in Russia (and so on), he was saying they help football in other countries when Russia and so on don't.

Not saying its right or wrong, but this sentence has been misread a lot (which is understandable, even for native English speaker it is not so clear)


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> what sarcasm :nuts:


He failed to notice sarcasm in this post twice:


Mr Trebus said:


> Good evidence for why a world cup shouldnt be held in barbaric Russia..this would never happen to foreign fans in England.hno:


WTF is with the video??


----------



## void0 (Oct 8, 2008)

Alexey, leave brits alone, discussions and proven something doesn't make any sense.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

void0 said:


> Alexey, leave brits alone, discussions and proven something doesn't make any sense.


I can't really work out what your trying to say


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Rephrasing apples & pears rant:




Harry1990 said:


> ...kicked racism out of the game, helped football develop in third world countries; whereas, in contrast, in countries the likes of spain, italy, russia, poland, ukraine etc you can't go on the pitch without being called a monkey or have banana's thrown at you, or our fans get beaten up by stewards


Don't get agitated by anonymous cyber individuals with selective perception, deploying ad hominem tactics.


----------



## WFInsider (Oct 27, 2010)

TheoG said:


> Sarcasm detecting fail.


*Mr Trebus* wasn't sarcastic. Read his other comments.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

WFInsider said:


> *Mr Trebus* wasn't sarcastic. Read his other comments.


So, is he not allowed to be sarcastic in one post without being sarcastic in the others? The post was more ironic than sarcastic, granted, but he was making a joke about how the Russians posted loads of videos of English football violence.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Rephrasing apples & pears rant: Don't get agitated by anonymous cyber individuals with selective perception, deploying ad hominem tactics.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Majority back Bristol City Football Club's new stadium bid, new polls reveals

MORE than half of people surveyed about Bristol City Football Club's new stadium plan say the fields at Ashton Vale should not become a town green.

The figures have been revealed in a poll of 1,000 people across the city carried out by research and polling consultancy, ComRes.

The survey, carried out over four days in October, revealed 53 per cent of Bristol residents don't want the site to be made a town green, while 33 per cent think it should.

And two online surveys go even further – so far showing 21,210 signatures against town green status and just 830 in favour.

The survey was carried out following the recommendation from a planning inspector that the whole of the 42 acre site should be registered as a town green.

If it was it would scupper the club's plans for a £92 million new stadium, that could be used to host World Cup games if England wins the 2018 bid.

It also showed that 64 per cent of people supported the stadium plan, with only 24 per cent against.

Interviewees were split into two areas – Greater Bristol and those living in the area close to the proposed stadium site.

The survey revealed that across Greater Bristol, 69 per cent of those questioned were in favour of the football club building a new stadium in Ashton Vale.

And more than half – 58 per cent – of people living close to the proposed stadium site were also in favour of the development.

The football club won planning permission for the stadium earlier this year, but a group of residents opposed the development and it led to an application for the land to be given town green status.

People living near the site said it had been used for many decades as amenity land by local people and that it should not be developed.

The questionnaire also revealed that 56 per cent of residents considered the issue of whether to build a new football stadium as "very" or "fairly" important. Of those who say the club should not be allowed to build a new stadium at Ashton Vale, 71 per cent believe it should be allowed to build a new stadium at another location in the Bristol area.

The most popular alternative locations for a new stadium are Temple Meads and Avonmouth but nearly 32 per cent of people said they did not know where else the ground should be built.

The survey was commissioned by ITV's regional news programme, The West Country Tonight, and the results are due to be broadcast on its programme at 6pm this evening.

Bristol City Football Club chief executive Colin Sexstone said: "The survey was not commissioned by us but the results come as no surprise to me.

"It is reassuring to know the vast majority of people in Bristol want the stadium to happen.

"We now have to make it happen."

Link


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

RobH said:


> Majority back Bristol City Football Club's new stadium bid, new polls reveals
> 
> MORE than half of people surveyed about Bristol City Football Club's new stadium plan say the fields at Ashton Vale should not become a town green.
> 
> ...


These green tossers should be shot in my opinion, honestly. The stadium's not a bloody coal powered power station but it's been treated like one, morons. BTW has anybody read Bin hammam's embarrassing statement blaming the English media for FIFA's corruption? What a bloody joke :lol: Honestly I don't think the other media outlets have backed the English press enough but either way FIFA are dead, if they do not do something against these collusion statements. If Spainyol/Portucorrupt bid or Doha win then quite frankly there will be massive chaos in world football, I can guarantee you that much.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Ok, we get it, you like that song.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

MysteryMike said:


>


Are you actually English or are you just taking the piss? The more I see it the more I want Russia to win.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

That is horrible.


----------



## WFInsider (Oct 27, 2010)

> *SUNDAY TIMES PROBE 'UNETHICAL'*
> 
> A senior FIFA figure has condemned an undercover investigation into World Cup bidding as "unethical".
> 
> ...


http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...RY_NAME=soccer/10/11/02/SOCCER_World_Cup.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

matthemod said:


> Ok, we get it, you like that song.


No I don't like it, I beeping love it  Can be replaced with we're hosting the world cup real soon


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Schmeek said:


> That is horrible.


Yeah but you're from Bristol. I on the other grew up with decent music.


----------



## westendwilly (Dec 23, 2009)

Schmeek said:


> That is horrible.


Me thinks you are being a bit polite, its far worse than just horrible.:badnews:


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

JimB said:


> I think you misunderstood him.
> 
> He was talking about how the English FA and Premier League facilitate and invest in football coaching programmes in many "third world" (I hate that expression!) countries.
> 
> ...


thank you i wasn't calling russia, spain, portugal etc third world countries was saying england help out third world countries sending out coachs, education programs etc sorry about the confusion i wrote the message quite late so some of my sentances don't quite make sense, and i hate the word third world too but its the only one i could think off


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Harry1990 said:


> I hate the word third world too but its the only one i could think off


I think it's a brilliant term to brand poor countries like Jemen and Qatar from a footballing point of view. I guess you'd feel more comfortable with politically correct tagging as in 'emerging markets'.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

God that England video is embarrassing!


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

MysteryMike said:


> Yeah but you're from Bristol. I on the other grew up with decent music.


'Grew up' - Past tense?
Can't work out if you are being sarcastic or not. I hope for your sake you are.
Which town/City you accosiate yourself and 'decent music' with, I can't quite imagine. Cheeseville perhaps...
Looks like you're in the minority taste wise. Anyway, each to their own I suppose.

By the way, looks like Jason McAteer in that last vid!


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

well i can say i was surrounded by those elements during my growing up thanks to my family but I actually grew up in the desert so FAIL really.


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Hmmm.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Let's hope the stories in the press about England's bid being "harmed" by the bribing scandal are true. I'm English but the last thing I want is years and years of the English media telling me how England will win the world cup at Wembley and countless references to '66 :nono::down::blahblah::blahblah::gaah::horse:

Russia deserves to win the bid.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

AdidasGazelle said:


> Let's hope the stories in the press about England's bid being "harmed" by the bribing scandal are true. I'm English but the last thing I want is years and years of the English media telling me how England will win the world cup at Wembley and countless references to '66 :nono::down::blahblah::blahblah::gaah::horse:
> 
> Russia deserves to win the bid.


Strange conclusion. What if the English media (because everyone else is useless) has more than what they're letting on at the moment


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

AdidasGazelle said:


> Let's hope the stories in the press about England's bid being "harmed" by the bribing scandal are true. I'm English but the last thing I want is years and years of the English media telling me how England will win the world cup at Wembley and countless references to '66 :nono::down::blahblah::blahblah::gaah::horse:
> 
> Russia deserves to win the bid.


Russia deserves nothing, it should earn its right.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> I think it's a brilliant term to brand poor countries like Jemen and Qatar from a footballing point of view. I guess you'd feel more comfortable with politically correct tagging as in 'emerging markets'.


rofl


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A very good article on the England bid, giving a different perspective on things:
_*
England 2018 remain highly confident about their chances of winning the right to host the World Cup less than four weeks out from FIFA’s bid D-day.*

In the midst of a quiet news week, the England team have had to endure a series of negative headlines in their domestic media amidst fears that a forthcoming BBC Panorama investigation will – as one unnamed but widely quoted source put it – put the “final nail” in the English bid’s coffin.

INSIDER understands that England 2018 CEO Andy Anson met with BBC director general Mark Thompson to discuss his concerns about the programme earlier this week.

But such fears that the programme and last month’s Sunday Times expose of two FIFA executive members have derailed England’s chances are wide of the mark. INSIDER has spoken to sources within the England bid, the BBC and in Zurich about the English media. While concerns do exist, they are considered as attributable to the unpredictable mindsets of certain FIFA Ex-co members than any pre-occupation with muck-raking.

One journalistic colleague described the tone of the reports as reflecting the “typical conceit” that the British press has a monopoly on upsetting FIFA.

Brazilian, German-speaking, Nigerian and Scandinavian journalists have all been thorns in FIFA’s side, even if they have still to come up with a scoop with the implications of last month’s Sunday Times expose.

The domestic naval gazing was exemplified by the BBC’s sports editor effectively using a blog to comment on his own employers. Such actions surely raised eyebrows in BBC headquarters.

There was also a sense that Mohamed Bin Hammam’s widely reported comments from his own blog, that suggested the Sunday Times methods were “unethical”, were taken out of context. Bin Hammam used the same forum to lavish praise on western journalists, who he said were “serving the public justice.”

England bid sources have been alternatively irritated and sanguine about the coverage. One source described the stories as “an inevitable challenge of any long-term campaign or strategy during a quiet week.”

He said that the focus was on Zurich at the end of this month for the final round of presentations and pointed out that England have “always performed exceptionally well at FIFA’s big set pieces” which the team believe forms the most crucial moments of the process.

Imagined crises
This isn’t the first time England 2018 have had a crisis decreed by their own press corps. Almost a year ago to the day I sat in a back room of Doha’s Ritz Carlton while England’s former bid chairman David Triesman was torn apart by a roomful of merciless journalists.

Crimes real and imagined were reeled off by his compatriots: not giving out promotional bags at a football industry conference, arguments over the composition of the bid board, ungracious remarks Jack Warner made while on a visit to London. One journalist decreed “We just don’t like you very much” and probably got to the nub of their opprobrium. A colleague described himself “embarrassed” to be present at this character assassination.

England 2018 quickly turned things around, at least in their public’s eye. They were aided in several key personnel developments. Within days of the Doha briefing the board had been trimmed down, including the departure of one individual deemed “poisonous” by his former colleagues. By strange coincidence the damaging leaks from England’s bid team stopped virtually overnight.

They were helped too by the appointment of the Harvard-educated Simon Greenberg as chief of staff, one of the sharpest minds in the game. By turns dogmatic and charming, he had acquired a reputation among journalists for being a man not to be meddled with in his former role as director of communications at Chelsea. This period coincided with the first days of Roman Abramovich’s ownership of the club and Jose Mourinho’s controversial tenure as manager; keeping the club out of the papers was as much a prerogative as keeping them in. What better grounding for someone about to step into the eye of the storm of the most bitched about bid of the ten contenders?

Sticks and carrots were used to bring the laddish and virulent English press corps onside. Access to the unfortunate Triesman, the most briefed against figure in British sport, was limited overnight. The most malicious journalists were called into line. The sort of set-piece PR disaster witnessed in Doha would no longer be conceivable, but subtle methods were used as well.

The increased focus and discipline coincided with the rise to public prominence of its CEO, Andy Anson. Previously he had been treated like a jealously guarded secret by his media advisers, his few public appearances limited to heavily scripted platitudes about English football’s passion. Unkind comparisons to the hapless former England manager Steve McLaren – to whom he bears a passing physical resemblance – were sometimes made.

But finally let off the leash and allowed to speak for himself, he showed himself in public to be an erudite and skilful operator and that the destiny of England’s bid could be in no better hands than his own. Certainly, few other people in the entire bid process have worked harder or travelled further than Anson.

England 2018 were soon back on track and the renewed momentum carried them through their worst crisis, when bid chairman David Triesman was the victim of a tabloid sting in May, in which he was secretly taped making unfavourable remarks about rival bids. Bid sources have suggested that Triesman wanted to try and stick it out, but that his management team demanded he walk away. Within less than a day of the story breaking Triesman had stepped down, and the storm clouds started to clear.

Today bid sources describe that moment as a key moment in the campaign, not so much for the way that their ruthless treatment of Triesman was quickly vindicated, but for the way in which the whole country united around them. Anger at the Mail on Sunday was virtually universal. “It was proof to us that the whole country was on our side,” says one bid insider.

Inspection Report anticipated
England bid sources insist that the fundamentals of the bid have always been strong and that nothing really has changed. Anson has referred to the palaver this time last year as “noise”. Certainly, once England 2018 had secured its full £15million bid budget by applying a £250,000 levy to its 12 applicant host cities – as they did last December – there was little to carp about bid operations. 

t’s important to remember that while all hell was breaking loose in Doha, England 2018’s technical director, Ian Riley, was quietly at work on the bid book. FIFA is expected to deliver its verdict in the next ten days on the technical bids, but after the FIFA visit in August, inspection chairman, Harold Mayne-Nicholls hailed a “perfect” trip to England – breaking with his cautious protocol.

The one fear that England 2018 might justifiably have is that the technical document is re-written for political reasons.

Ten years ago, when England were bidding for the 2006 tournament, they were ranked third, behind rivals Germany and South Africa. Former sports minister Tony Banks described himself "spitting blood" at a "total stitch-up" and the FA described it as a “travesty of justice.”

It compared minor failings in English stadia which were already built with designs for stadia elsewhere that remained on the drawing board, while ranking England’s security guarantees below South Africa. The report – which was delayed then as well – followed positive comments by inspection chairman Alan Rotheburg when he was in England.

A Parliamentary report subsequently concluded:

“The report of the Inspection Group emerged only a few days before the final decision on where the 2006 FIFA World Cup would be held, and was recognized as a less than objective analysis by some members of the FIFA Executive Committee. Nevertheless, the study may have given members of that Committee with doubts about the England bid a respectable cover for switching allegiance.”

At England 2018 headquarters at Wembley Stadium they await the 2018 inspection report eagerly and believe that FIFA will do the right thing. As we approach the final lap of bidding, the bid team will tell you that England’s destiny rests on this verdict and the final presentations in Zurich, not “noise” about the whims of FIFA Ex-co members and their supposed concerns about the British media.

But at the same time they would do well to heed the lessons of the 2006 bid.

“The most important lesson of the England bid for the 2006 World Cup is that extraneous factors and the politics of international sport will always matter as much as if not more than the inherent technical strengths of a bid,” concluded the parliamentary report.

“In consequence, bidding for events of this nature will remain a hazardous business. This is a lesson that should not be lost on other sports and other sporting organizations in this country.” _

Link


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

It's technical report time


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

RobH said:


> A very good article on the England bid, giving a different perspective on things:
> _*
> England 2018 remain highly confident about their chances of winning the right to host the World Cup less than four weeks out from FIFA’s bid D-day.*
> 
> ...


I've also heard panorama have already had a chat with FIFA regarding the matters, so really the public would be like woah, but FIFA won't be because they've already seen the evidence a month out from the vote  Hopefully it had some good stuff in there to actually takeout a couple of these bids.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

can someone tell me if there is a place to sign up and support the England 2018 bid??

And if you guys are smart, fans of a 2018 bid should make a deal with fans of a 2022 bid, and get everyone to sign up in support of each other's bid! A sudden doubling of supporters would look very impressive for both bids

(I think I'll post the same message on the Australian forum)


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

MysteryMike said:


>


what a fantastically produced video, arguably that format should have been rolled out to all the other non London bid cities.


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


>


What is this monument?


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


>


Ive seen those words before


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

GO RUSSIA:banana:GO ! You can do it!


----------



## chrisbramley85 (Oct 14, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> What is this monument?


Bobby Moore


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Madman said:


> what a fantastically produced video, arguably that format should have been rolled out to all the other non London bid cities.


Yeah it is a good vid. Pity the whole thing has been thrown into jeopardy by 22 nimbys and a very odd decision by an independant inspector to vindicate their appeal/application for town green.

You wouldn't believe how massive a story this has been in Bristol. There is practically a story every day in the media in support of the stadium. The whole city is behind it, apart from a few local residents (and a few Gas!) yet it seems we will lose.

Here's a sample:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news...s-stadium/article-2845876-detail/article.html


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Schmeek said:


> Yeah it is a good vid. Pity the whole thing has been thrown into jeopardy by 22 nimbys and a very odd decision by an independant inspector to vindicate their appeal/application for town green.
> 
> You wouldn't believe how massive a story this has been in Bristol. There is practically a story every day in the media in support of the stadium. The whole city is behind it, apart from a few local residents (and a few Gas!) yet it seems we will lose.
> 
> ...


I can't believe that it might not happen. It's ridiculous that this group of locals want to class it as a town green. They don't need it as a town green, they live on the edge of the city right next to the bloody country side. I will be upset if this project gets canned if England win the 2018 bid. I am off to sign the petition to support the Bristol bid.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Madman said:


> what a fantastically produced video, arguably that format should have been rolled out to all the other non London bid cities.


Absolutely they should have rolled out maybe not identical but similar kind of productions, Bristol has done an excellent job with the bidding video. But as stated above the green town thing is utter rubbish.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> What is this monument?


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Kobo said:


> I can't believe that it might not happen. It's ridiculous that this group of locals want to class it as a town green. They don't need it as a town green, they live on the edge of the city right next to the bloody country side. I will be upset if this project gets canned if England win the 2018 bid. I am off to sign the petition to support the Bristol bid.


If you actually look at the site its even more unrealistic, this is overgrown wasteland over a former landfill next to an industrial estate, its going to be replaced with a good deal of landscaped parkland around the stadium aswell. As clear a case of nimby's dioshoniestly hyjacking the the law for their own ends as you'll find.

Sadly there have been far too many NIMBY enabling groups and politicans over the past couple of decades in this country.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

MoreOrLess said:


> If you actually look at the site its even more unrealistic, this is overgrown wasteland over a former landfill next to an industrial estate, its going to be replaced with a good deal of landscaped parkland around the stadium aswell. As clear a case of nimby's dioshoniestly hyjacking the the law for their own ends as you'll find.
> 
> Sadly there have been far too many NIMBY enabling groups and politicans over the past couple of decades in this country.


Couldn't agree with you more. I mean if they wanted to have turned it into a town green, they would have applied to do it years ago.

Does anyone know what the odds are for this stadium not going through? And does Bristol City have a plan B for another site in the city?


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

It's up to Bristol City Council to make the call now. The decision probably won't be reached till the start of next year so it's going to be after the world cup host vote.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

I just couldn't help but laugh at South Korea's football development plans. England has been doing this for many years now in Asia and many other nations and suddenly just to win some votes South Korea comes in lol. Could only make me chuckle. 


*"I have first-hand experience of the deep impact and benefits of its thoughtful projects, particularly in Asia," he said in an article entitled 'Building Premier Partnerships' that appeared in the EPL's annual review published this week. "AFC and the Premier League have a strong relationship based on trust, mutual respect and utmost faith in the great good our game can generate.

"There is no denying that the Premier League walks the talk.

"Coaching clinics in India, keynote speakers who share their wealth of knowledge in AFC’s seminars, Asian referee attachments in England, Premier League club tours of our continent. The Premier League has come forward enthusiastically to improve Asia’s learning curve." Bin Hammam adds: "For me, the ‘Future is Asia’ and AFC is the driving force in achieving this dream with the Premier League as sincere and well-meaning partners."

England's bid chiefs are privately delighted at the comments made by Bin Hammam, who could influence the three other Asian votes for the 2018 World Cup which is expected to be awarded to Europe. The other FIFA Ex-co members are Korea's Chung Mong Joon, Worawi Makudi of Thailand and Japan's Junji Ogura.

A key plank of the England 2018 bid is its commitment to investing in football development programs in Asia and internationally. Bin Hammam's thinly disguised backing for England 2018 is perhaps not so surprising given that he allowed the bid team led by international president David Dein to make a presentation to the AFC's executive committee in March.

England was the only one of the nine bidders in the 2018/2022 bid race invited to present to the AFC executive at its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

In that pitch to the AFC, the bid presentation team, which also included bid CEO Andy Anson, director of campaign operations Jane Bateman and ambassador David Ginola, underlined the global potential of an England World Cup and the additional benefits to Asia that would come from the Football Association's international development programme.*

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33597


----------



## Schmeek (Mar 28, 2007)

Kobo said:


> Couldn't agree with you more. I mean if they wanted to have turned it into a town green, they would have applied to do it years ago.
> 
> Does anyone know what the odds are for this stadium not going through? And does Bristol City have a plan B for another site in the city?


This explains what will be happening better. The main problem is that although the council are fully behind the stadium, and could in theory overturn the inspectors' decision, this route would inevitably lead to an appeal and would probably take years for _any_ decision, let alone a favourable one. It would have an effect on the whole country probably, and might eventually shake up the Village green laws (which desperately need doing) but it would not be helpful for the club, the City, the or the council and world cup bid so is best avoided. 

http://www.bristol247.com/2010/11/07/ashton-vale-town-green-meeting-before-christmas/

I'd say the odds are 60-40 against.


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

*England 2018 bid "not even in the running"*

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=840053&sec=global&cc=5739

*England's chances of landing the 2018 World Cup might be far worse than previously imagined with one senior FA figure warning: "It's now between Russia and Spain."*

The most pessimistic appraisal from an influential FA figure comes at a time when there have been confessions that the bid has been "harmed" by the English media's investigations into FIFA corruption.

But it hasn't been appreciated just how bad that might be until one senior FA figure confessed: "The word from within the FIFA executive is that England might very well have blown it completely."

Claims of corruption in the 2018 World Cup bidding process by the English press have seriously damaged FIFA's reputation and that, in turn, has impacted badly on England's bid.

"I'm sure there's damage for FIFA and for the World Cup," FIFA executive member Junji Ogura recently told BBC Sport.

England's biggest hope is that opinion within FIFA swings back in their favour before the final vote next month - but at the moment the signs are ominous.

ESPNsoccernet has been told the strength of feeling is running high within FIFA's voting executive. "The word is that it is now between Russia and the joint Spain and Portugal bid," the source said. "England? Not even in the running anymore. At least that is what is now being suggested.

"If you know the way FIFA's mind works then it looks like we haven't got a prayer. Talk about our bid being harmed, well, that is the least that has happened. There has been a huge backlash and the word inside FIFA is that they won't be voting for England.

"Look, it doesn't mean I agree with their view. I don't. I am not saying it is wrong to expose vote-rigging and corruption, but there is a proper way of going about it.

"If the papers have the moral high ground and believe it is their right to investigate, then fine, but why didn't they take their findings to FIFA first, let them act, and then report it? The evidence should have been handed over to FIFA first."

The FA's 2018 bid committee has been lobbying frantically in the last week to try to pull the situation around, and it will be a huge achievement if they can pull off what would now be seen as a shock decision in favour of England's bid.

ESPNsoccernet's FA source has direct contact with those lobbying within FIFA Executive circles, but the bid committee are taking advice from Lord Sebastian Coe, who successfully led England's 2012 Olympic bid, about how to turn it around at the last minute.

The bid team will make their final presentation on December 2 in Zurich, and that is why there is panic within the FA ranks that England may struggle. The 2018 Bid team are third up after Holland/Belgium and Spain/Portugal. The order was confirmed by the drawing of lots.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

All because FIFA are *****


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

If that's the case, what little respect and credibility FIFA may have had is just utterly tarnished.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

It simply can't be reality.
England will be final two
Spain has damaged Russia's bid,no doubt

If EthCo do their job things will be back to normal re the vote.If they don't then football as a product will be devalued by these 24 men at the expense of the 3 billion football followers they represent.
Are these people ,or a majority anyway,prepared to take such a retrograde step?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Ok lets get real.

I still think England will win, but it will of course be close. It all depends on "first votes" and off the top of my mind, England is a natural first choice for many FIFA execs.

Can Russia win? Yes.

But if you're going to look at the final 2, and see Russia go up against England, I'm going to put my money on England.


----------



## Pfeuffer (Sep 9, 2009)

hey english mates,
do you really want to see your next defeat against Germany at home again ??


----------



## WFInsider (Oct 27, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Spain has damaged Russia's bid,no doubt


HOW?

Guys, do you live in your own reality?


> All because FIFA are *****


ok, "*****" don't need you.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

WFInsider said:


> HOW?
> 
> .



Collusion with Qatar takes them to 7 votes straight away.We know England have more than this so it leaves Russia out in the cold.
Spain has stolen votes of Russia in the last few weeks

Russia and the USA have been the biggest losers from the collusion between MBH and the Iberians


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm wondering if this isnt a bit of reverse phycology by the english bid, the more we hype up the potential damage to our bid the more choosing us is the "anti corruption" option.

That said I'm never supprized by the level of brazen corruption and self interest within FIFA. At the end of the day who are they accountable to? who could actually take action agenst them?


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

TBH I hope we don't get it (England) - we don't need it and we can spend the money on something else - I'd give it to Spain or, if it wasn't so corrupt, Russia


----------



## USP (Sep 29, 2010)

The main problem of english bid is that FIFA must choose hosts of next two WC at once and -we can definitely tell- WC in 2022 will be held by an english speaking country (both USA and Australia bids are great... were in Australia just a month ago). Two WC succesively in english speaking countries - it is just wrong. It's like Euro2012 in Germany - right after Austria hosted it or Euro2016 in Russia - after Ukraine. So if the fate of WC2022 didn't dare at the same session as WC2018, i'd give my vote for England.


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

RobH said:


> All because FIFA are *****


The main difference between English and Russian fans in the fact that Russians does not consider other bids as "second-class" bids. For this reason England fans are not deserve the World Cup.


----------



## Mr Trebus (Oct 18, 2010)

RobH said:


> All because FIFA are *****


+1000000000000000000000000

when russia are 'awarded' 2018..i hope theres a concerted campaign by our press to expose that slimeball toad blatter and they **** all his corrupt lackeys and minions up the arse..time to CLEAR HOUSE.:bash:**** FIFA!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

USP said:


> The main problem of english bid is that FIFA must choose hosts of next two WC at once and -we can definitely tell- WC in 2022 will be held by an english speaking country (both USA and Australia bids are great... were in Australia just a month ago). Two WC succesively in english speaking countries - it is just wrong. It's like Euro2012 in Germany - right after Austria hosted it or Euro2016 in Russia - after Ukraine. So if the fate of WC2022 didn't dare at the same session as WC2018, i'd give my vote for England.


I understand what you are getting at but was it wrong for FIFA to give the World Cup to 3 Spanish speaking countries consecutively in '78, '82, '86.


----------



## Mr Trebus (Oct 18, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> The main difference between English and Russian fans in the fact that Russians does not consider other bids as "second-class" bids. For this reason England fans are not deserve the World Cup.


nonsense,we dont consider the other bids second class at all.What we hate is the corrupt and criminal organisation known as FIFA


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

Mr Trebus said:


> +1000000000000000000000000
> when russia are 'awarded' 2018..i hope theres a concerted campaign by our press to expose that slimeball toad blatter and they **** all his corrupt lackeys and minions up the arse..time to CLEAR HOUSE.:bash:**** FIFA!





Mr Trebus said:


> nonsense,we dont consider the other bids second class at all.What we hate is the corrupt and criminal organisation known as FIFA


Your posts contradict each other. You blame Russia, not Spain (who is under investigation now). Like other English fans.


----------



## Mr Trebus (Oct 18, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> Your posts contradict each other. You blame Russia, not Spain (who is under investigation now). Like other English fans.


no they dont..they both have the fundamental point that FIFA is a corrupt organisation run by a slimeball weasel.


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

Mr Trebus said:


> no they dont..they both have the fundamental point that FIFA is a corrupt organisation run by a slimeball weasel.


May be, FIFA like IOC are damaged by corruption. But if they choose England, Spain/Portugal or Belgium/Netherlands, nobody of Russians fans will cry - "We're are the best, FIFA betrayed us! We must be winners".

When I visited UK two years ago, my guide said that if Brits are losing, they do it with dignity. But now times are changing, and I'm very doubt in this.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

AlekseyVT said:


> The main difference between English and Russian fans in the fact that Russians does not consider other bids as "second-class" bids. For this reason England fans are not deserve the World Cup.


I don't consider the other bids as second class at all. Try harder next time you want to start an argument.

I do however think England's bid is very good and should certainly not be out of the running at this stage. Let's hope none of these stories are true. If they are, FIFA, collectively are idiots.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

AlekseyVT said:


> May be, FIFA like IOC are damaged by corruption. But if they choose England, Spain/Portugal or Belgium/Netherlands, nobody of Russians fans will cry - "We're are the best, FIFA betrayed us! We must be winners".
> 
> When I visited UK two years ago, my guide said that if Brits are losing, they do it with dignity. But now times are changing, and I'm very doubt in this.




:lol::lol::lol:

Stupid generalisations aside, you don't get it do you?

If Russia or Spain was seen to be in the lead and we had no corruption within FIFA, no members willingly selling votes, no reports suggesting England's bid is damaged through no fault of its own, it'd be fine. We would, if our bid eventually lost, congratulate the victor and move on.

But this is not the case, as you well know. If England loses and doesn't get a decent number of votes, there will be very few who will believe FIFA hasn't held a grudge. Losing gracefully and congratulating the victor is one thing (I will congratulate Russia if they win), but that doesn't mean keeping quiet about a bid process which has been mismanaged to the point of almost total collapse. And nor, by the way, does it rule out England taking retributive action against FIFA, be it through the courts or financially with, I would hope, the cooperation of the other losing bids who've had to _endure_ this joke of a bid process.

I'm quite certain, if the positions were reversed, you'd not be happy either. FIFA have mismanaged this completely and whoever loses (that includes Russia by the way) has a right to make their displeasure about FIFA and their processes known.


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

RobH said:


> I don't consider the other bids as second class at all. Try harder next time you want to start an argument.
> 
> I do however think England's bid is very good and should certainly not be out of the running at this stage. Let's hope none of these stories are true. If they are, FIFA, collectively are idiots.


Rob, who selects the host of the World Cup? - The members of FIFA.

Why do members of FIFA to vote for the country? - Only due to subjective opinion. Subjective opinion is determined by several factors. People's mood is changeable. Today I can like one thing, tomorrow I can dislike it.

Should England must get the World Cup? - This is a subjective position of each fan, which largely depends on his nationality.

If England get a small number of votes, what does this mean? - Nothing, it's just subjective opinion of the members of FIFA. Of course, you will say what England is motherland of football, that Mother England have good infrastructure, stadiums, railrads. But it's don't mean that Mother England should to win without any questions.

I know situation with voting for Winter Olympic Games 2014. It was choice good Austrian ski resort with excellent infrastructure and two unknown cities in South Korea and Russia, which never host any major winter event before. And Salzburg lost in first round.

If England bid will lose in 1st round, there will be never reasons for protest without any serious proofs.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

"But it's don't mean that Mother England should to win without any questions." Where on earth did he, or any other English poster on here even imply that? You're just fishing for an argument.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

There will absolutely be a reason to moan if any bidy is eliminited in Round 1, especially England's. This bid process is bordering on being a complete farce. I don't need the English media to tell me that.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

AlekseyVT said:


> Rob, who selects the host of the World Cup? - The members of FIFA.
> 
> Why do members of FIFA to vote for the country? - Only due to subjective opinion. Subjective opinion is determined by several factors. People's mood is changeable. Today I can like one thing, tomorrow I can dislike it.
> 
> ...


There's no reason for any bid to protest the eventual winner if the winner has done nothing wrong, and there's no reason for a bid protesting losing out, becuase some bids will have to. There are, however, plenty of reasons for making a fuss about how FIFA have gone about their business - the winning bid won't do this (obviously), but the losing bids have every right to.

If, and I hope this situation doesn't arise (becuase it doesn't have to), England 2018 is humiliated and the FA feel with good reason they've been dumped on because of the Times' investigations, then they will not need any serious proof. A very simple solution instead would be for English football to pull out of its committments to football development programmes around the world (£75m a year) until FIFA cleans its act up. When poorer federations start wondering where the money is the execs will have to answer to them, and so the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, with the Press helping out. It's very simple, if FIFA doesn't play this straight English football and the Press in this country has the power to hit them where it hurts.

If they do play it straight, and Russia wins, then that's fine; no problem there. This isn't about England winning or losing, it's about how FIFA operates.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

AlekseyVT said:


> The main difference between English and Russian fans in the fact that Russians does not consider other bids as "second-class" bids. For this reason England fans are not deserve the World Cup.


Either you've been in England questioning a lot of England fans (which I doubt or you wouldn't have come to that conclusion) or you're another Russian trying to tread on the English without any evidence or foundation (which is more likely) because I live in England, I'm English, I know a lot of England fans and I have spoken to a lot of people about the future world cup and I do not know one single person here in England that thinks the other bids are second class. You really ought to wind your neck in before spouting unfounded allegations - it's what contributes to the rest of the world realising that Russia is corrupt.. or is it just that you consider your own bid to be second class?


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Mo Rush said:


> There will absolutely be a reason to moan if any bidy is eliminited in Round 1, especially England's. This bid process is bordering on being a complete farce. I don't need the English media to tell me that.


Absolutely England deserves to host the world cup based on what they have done for the game in the recent past. South Korea is going on about developing football when a vote is on in less than a month and claiming all sorts of rubbish but England's the one who has actually been doing it for the game in their own backyard. This combined with the fact that England is the home of football and England has the stadiums already ready means England should get the nod. As stated in the technical committee analysis, Russia is in serious trouble with being able to complete the required transformations of their stadia in time for the 2018 edition and I doubt FIFA wants a further headache to deal with at this time. Put it simply the fact that the European bid is for 2018 means Russia's greatest enemy is time and that is why I believe no matter what the reports say that England will get the 2018 edition and deservedly so.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> Russia is in serious trouble with being able to complete the required transformations of their stadia in time for the 2018 edition and I doubt FIFA wants a further headache to deal with at this time. Put it simply the fact that the European bid is for 2018 means Russia's greatest enemy is time and that is why I believe no matter what the reports say that England will get the 2018 edition and deservedly so.


Even the total farce of Wembley's rebuild was completed within 7 years of its last game. Having "only 8 years" to get ready isn't remotely an issue. The only question on that front is finance.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Russia having issues with preparing stadia in time is really far fetched especially in light of the Sochi 2014 progress.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Even the total farce of Wembley's rebuild was completed within 7 years of its last game. Having "only 8 years" to get ready isn't remotely an issue. The only question on that front is finance.


That's just one solitary stadium, it's pretty funny comparing that to what this bid is all about.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> That's just one solitary stadium, it's pretty funny comparing that to what this bid is all about.


The point is that a stadium rebuild which was a total nightmare and went about as badly as any stadium build can be expected to be, was still completed in a shorter time-frame than the 8 years you are suggesting is too tight to allow Russia to build stadiums. 

Even for a major stadium, the absolute tops for construction time is 2-3 years. We are not talking the Three Gorges Dam project here.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

The whole process of desiding two WC's at once reeked of Blatter allowing for a double dip of corruption just to make sure he won what will likely be his final presidential term from the very start to me.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

MoreOrLess said:


> The whole process of desiding two WC's at once reeked of Blatter allowing for a double dip of corruption just to make sure he won what will likely be his final presidential term from the very start to me.


As I said previously he has the perfect opportunity now to boot out Bin Hammam and his cronies. He should use it


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

* British Prime Minister David Cameron met the South Korean vice president of Fifa on Thursday as England enters the final stretch of a battle to host the 2018 World Cup.

Cameron held around 30 minutes of talks with Chung Mong-Joon, who is also president of Korea's FA, ahead of the Group of 20 summit of advanced and emerging economies which starts in Seoul on Thursday.

The British PM joked that his priorities were clear ahead of the December 2 vote, saying he had earlier told South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak that "I was spending much more time on the World Cup than on the G20".

England, Russia and joint bids by Spain-Portugal and Netherlands-Belgium are in the running to host the 2018 World Cup.*

http://supersport.com/football/england/news/101111/British_PM_meets_Fifa_deputy_for_WCup_bid


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 4, 2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...must-edge-past-Spain-Portugal-to-win-bid.html




> World Cup 2018: optimistic England must edge past Spain-Portugal to win bid
> *For all the navel-gazing over the UK media’s role in revealing alleged corruption at Fifa, a service that has antagonised elements within the world governing body and demoted England’s World Cup bid to second favourites at best for the 2018 race, campaign insiders still believe they have a chance of victory.
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Boris is coming! :baaa:
_
Boris Johnson is to play a starring role as England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup reaches its climax next month.

The Mayor has agreed to attend the vote at Fifa's headquarters in Zurich at the request of bid leaders, who want to make the most of his international appeal.

He will attend with two City Hall aides and remain for the vote, sharing media duties with other ambassadors such as David Beckham, Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard. A bid win could enhance his chances in the 2012 mayoral elections and would trigger a big economic boost to the capital, which would have up to three World Cup stadiums._











How can we possibly lose this bid now?!


----------



## AlekseyVT (Dec 21, 2009)

RobH said:


> How can we possibly lose this bid now?!


Now all our hopes on Mr. Putin. Undoubtely, he is more charismatic leader than all British politicians put together.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

RobH said:


> Boris is coming! :baaa:
> _
> Boris Johnson is to play a starring role as England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup reaches its climax next month.
> 
> ...


Yay...it's him...again...


And we thought that the Sunday Times hindered our bid


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

LOL at the first one


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

The prime minister David Cameron has telephoned Jack Warner, a Fifa vice-president, to invite him to lunch in an effort to boost England's hopes of hosting the 2018 World Cup.

Warner's support is perhaps the most crucial for England to capture and that is reflected by Cameron's invitation to lunch ahead of the vote in Zurich on 2 December.

Warner is president of the Concacaf confederation and could deliver three votes to England, and is also a government minister in Trinidad.

He told the Trinidad newspaper Newsday: "He called to ask me for my support for the English bid and he asked me to join him for lunch next week, Thursday, and he hoped [David] Beckham was a good ambassador and said that if there was anything he can do for Trinidad and Tobago he will be prepared to do so."

Warner said he had still to decide which way he would vote but appeared to write off the chances of Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium, telling Cameron that Russia are England's main rivals.

"If he can overcome the Russian bid, which I think is gaining momentum, he doesn't have a problem," added Warner. "I don't think he has to worry about the other countries too much."

Warner said he was certain England 2018 would present a compelling argument to Fifa's executive committee.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/18/david-cameron-jack-warner-2018-vote


----------



## Mr Trebus (Oct 18, 2010)

AlekseyVT said:


> Did you not watched the match yesterday? Knowing you, it's impossible to belive in this. hno:


i think he was sleeping with your mum:lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I wouldn't trust this man as far as I could throw him and think it's sickening that he still has a position of power within FIFA, but I've just read a Guardian article and Warner was quoted in it, apparently writing off all of England's rivals apart from Russia:
_
Warner said he had still to decide which way he would vote but appeared to write off the chances of Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium, telling Cameron that Russia are England's main rivals.

"If he can overcome the Russian bid, which I think is gaining momentum, he doesn't have a problem," added Warner. "I don't think he has to worry about the other countries too much."_

Interesting...

Link


----------



## DenilsonUK (Jun 3, 2010)

slipperydog said:


> Certainly isn't bad, I think France may had something to do with it though. If I recall, England is having trouble selling out Euros.


If I remember correctly, there was 'officially' 3k French there last night. There was pockets of them all over the stadium though, especially behind the goal they were attacking in the first half, so I'd say there was maybe 4/5k of them altogether. Like RobH says, 80k+ for a friendly on a night like last night isn't too bad - especially when the majority knew that it was going to be a weak team playing.

I can't think of any positives to come out of last night, Carroll had barely any service to make any kind of impact, Henderson was anonymous in the middle of the park and Gibbs had no cover from Milner at all.. and then we had the usual dross served up from the likes of Barry (God knows how he is playing top level football, one of the most overrated players in English football) & co.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

The French junior team played much better than their senior team has played for a long time.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

In Lisbon, Portugal welcomed World Champion Spain in arguably the match of the day. Both managers fielded their very best XI (not to mention six players each from Barcelona and Real Madrid) in what proved to be an open, clever, and aesthetic game of football. The hosts shredded Spain to pieces on the counter and thoroughly embarrassed them 4-0, in what turned out to be anything but a “friendly.” Two, late, bone-crunching tackles exchanged between Busquets and Ronaldo highlighted the intensity on the pitch. But this match was also staged as a presentation of the Iberian Peninsula’s bid for the World Cup. Patches affixed to the sleeves of the players heralded the joint Spanish-Portuguese bid, as did Luis Figo’s presence in the stands (shocker). Unfortunately, they were the only ones interested.

The teams played in front of a lackluster 20,000 fans at Benfica’s Estadio da Luz, well short of the 66,000 capacity. Empty sections littered the stadium. Whether from lack of faith in the Portuguese squad after recent performances, or a failure by Portuguese football officials to promote and advertise this match thoroughly, or even a combination of both, the bid failed to muster much excitement. Any FIFA representative with a vote would be hard-pressed to find satisfaction in Portugal’s s overall commitment to host the grandest competition on the planet.

Meanwhile a bit farther north, England faced off against their eternal rival France in front of a sold out Wembley. Braving the cold, rainy weather, 90,000 supporters filled the stadium and added a level of passion and competitive atmosphere to showcase Old Blighty. And to be fair, nobody has ever questioned the passion of English football fans. But on a day when their rivals missed an opportunity, the English presence was ever more noticeable. Results aside, and the hosts were thoroughly outclassed by a more organized and creative France, viewers were treated to a fever pitch atmosphere rarely seen at such friendlies.

It was a breathe of fresh air for the bidding process. The past few months have produced some of the most disingenuous and slanderous attacks between bidding nations (in England’s case within their own camp as well). For once, we could ignore the bureaucrats and party wrangling over Lord Triesman and Russian racism and Qatar’s unfathomable summer heat. For once, ball and foot spoke louder than words. The paying public, not the greedy aristocracy, had a chance to plead their country’s case. FIFA saw a disinterested base of support in one half of the Iberian bid, even though the champions were put to the sword. On the other hand, an enamored English public came out to make their voices heard through action and attendance.

France may have dulled their hearts in the short term, but the English public enhanced their country’s bid last night more than they could have imagined.

http://www.caughtoffside.com/2010/1...-cup-bid-with-well-attended-defeat-to-france/


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> Anyway, despite the performance 85,000+ at Wembley for a meaningless friendly on a cold November evening ain't bad. I don't think many countries would manage that.


:yes: :yes: I was there and I enjoyed the "meaningless" game  !! (despite the rainy and cold weather)


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

Evaluation report about England:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/33/74/53/b6enge.pdf


----------



## Hansadyret (Jun 22, 2008)

I'm sure Warner has gotten some shipping of Vodka(or something else) from Russia. This guy is one of the most corrupt persons in international sports. It's just crazy that he is still the vice president of Fifa. It just shows what Blatter is made of, keeping his hand over him to keep his power.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Not wrong there. He's got an international friendly, a David Beckham Academy, and lunch from the PM courtest of England's bid. It's quite sickening that bids are under pressure to treat people like him as VIPs.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

RobH said:


> Not wrong there. He's got an international friendly, a David Beckham Academy, and lunch from the PM courtest of England's bid. It's quite sickening that bids are under pressure to treat people like him as VIPs.


What about the likes of George Bush, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan etc etc, there are far worse people in the world who get treated like VIP's than Jack Warner. At least Jack Warner can't ruin the world, although him being a parliamentarian is a bit of a concern but supposedly he does nothing there.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ :lol:................................hno: (But yes I agree !...BTW: Who is Jack Warner (???))

:runaway:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ :lol:................................hno: (But yes I agree !...BTW: Who is Jack Warner (???))
> 
> :runaway:


Jack Warner is a FIFA vice president, right hand man to Blatter and he is the one of the voting executives for CONCACAF (The North American and Caribbean region). He is from Trinidad and Tobacco. This video will explain a bit more about some of his activities.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

^^ Too bad, MystressMike...whether you like him or not, Mr. Warner is on the FIFA board. And nuttin' you can do about it!! :nuts:


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Fot the FIFA World Cup 2018 I can only see two serious contenders, one is UK and one is Portugal/Spain. The other bidders lack in a number of areas.

UK vs Portugal/Spain

Airports

Here Portugal/Spain wins hands down, almost all are new modern and with lots of excess capacity. In UK most airports are runing att 100%+ capacity and delays are commonplace.

Railways

Here UK has the upper hand, faster, more frequent and more reliable. However, Spain and Portugal are in process of improving their railnetworks so by 2018 they might have an upper hand.

Highways

Portugal/Spain outclass UK by a factor of several, really there is no comparison.

Hotels

Portugal/Spain wins this one easily, the hotel capacity is huge and not only in the largest cities but also in the smaller ones.

Stadiums

Here UK wins hands down, newer, more comfortable and most often more accesible. However, the Portugal/Spain bid has some 300.000 more tickets on offer, that is ca 5000 more tickets per game available to the fans.

Organisation

This one UK wins, not only to they have way more experience with hooligans but they also have the answers to deal with them. The Olympics will give the organisers valuable experience and I can not see how Portugal/Spain could put up a better tournament.

IMO it is a pretty close one, both have pros and cons but the fact that UK hosted 1966 and Spain 1982 it think it will go to UK.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

steveedster said:


> I feel airing the Panorama program 2 days before the vote is sensationalist and not 'in the public good'. They should put back this program. If the findings were that important they should have quietly informed FIFA and released a program at a later date. If they insist on reporting old issues that have already been dealt with it will just feel to FIFA like the media in England is having a dig at them. Obviously from outside the country human nature may very well kick in and think why award it to this country when they think that of us.
> 
> I also feel that entrapment style stings are really not very good in that way. I lot of people may not actually be 'actively corrupt' but may be easily led, a difference should be made here, I am not defending what was revealed as it is clearly wrong, but so was our FA buying members wives expensive handbags etc!
> 
> If we lose the right to host 2018, the ultimately self serving 'free press' will certainly be to blame in my opinion as we were clear favorites at one stage before all this kicked off.


Call me cynical, but if the world cup is in held in the UK 100 BBC employees don't get a months trip aboard. Maybe that explains their reluctance to back the bid.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> ^^ Too bad, MystressMike...whether you like him or not, Mr. Warner is on the FIFA board. And nuttin' you can do about it!! :nuts:


Did I also mention he's going after Africa's world cup slot? Yeah try love him now :lol: If anything he's even working against the US bid, because not even he believes in it, just as your other confederation executive Salguero from Guatemala as well doesn't believe in it. No government guarantees, backed by failing economy = FAIL for the US bid. Who knows where the US could be in 12 years time, might be one of China's outposts, ready for the 2034 edition :lol:


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> Did I also mention he's going after Africa's world cup slot? Yeah try love him now :lol: If anything he's even working against the US bid, because not even he believes in it, just as your other confederation executive Salguero from Guatemala as well doesn't believe in it. No government guarantees, backed by failing economy = FAIL for the US bid. Who knows where the US could be in 12 years time, might be one of China's outposts, ready for the 2034 edition :lol:


Pls don't make me laugh.

BTW, It's going to be Russia 2018 and USA 2022. That's being decided at the NATO meet in Lisbon this very week. Byeeee UK and OZ!!


----------



## Mr.Underground (Jan 15, 2007)

Gondolier said:


> Pls don't make me laugh.
> 
> BTW, It's going to be Russia 2018 and USA 2022. That's being decided at the NATO meet in Lisbon this very week. Byeeee UK and OZ!!


Do you think Russia and USA will host WC in 2018 and in 2022?

BTW, what 're your favourite bids for both the editions?


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

Mr.Underground said:


> Do you think Russia and USA will host WC in 2018 and in 2022?
> 
> BTW, what 're your favourite bids for both the editions?


I think the UK and the USA are the sanest, safest bids. Nearly all the stadia are already there. You don't have to have this stadium-building frenzy that we saw in Korea and Japan...that Russia, Oz and Qatar hope to emulate with all their lofty, air-headed ideals...and will only make stadium-designers and contractors and websites like this, rich. We all know how that crush of stadia in Japan and Korea 8 years ago have not amounted to much!!


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> I think the UK and the USA are the sanest, safest bids. Nearly all the stadia are already there. You don't have to have this stadium-building frenzy that we saw in Korea and Japan...that Russia, Oz and Qatar hope to emulate with all their lofty, air-headed ideals...and will only make stadium-designers and contractors and websites like this, rich. We all know how that crush of stadia in Japan and Korea 8 years ago have not amounted to much!!


Wait wait, this is the same person who say goodbye to England? Please you just have no idea at all, you even contradict your own embarrassing statements. Australia's stadiums are pretty much ready already, they have 12 years to fix whatever else is required. You comparing the purpose built English football stadiums with US gridiron garbage is an embarrassment as well. England and Australia both have complete bipartisan government support for their bid, compared to the US where it's totally unstable in every sense, both economically and politically, nobody knows who's supporting who and we have people like Glen Beck on one side. I'm sure a small band of USSF tossers don't count and the fact the costings for the USSF is total garbage, mean FIFA are extremely nervous about the US bid, including 2 out of 3 confederation executives for a confederation that has no other bidder is embarrassing.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

It's a bit rich of Jack Warner to need any more convincing from the England bid. He already successfully blackmailed the English FA into playing a friendly on his island that he just happened to control the ticketing for. But that was yesterday's favour and for Jack it's "what have you done for me lately?"


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

MysteryMike said:


> Wait wait, this is the same person who say goodbye to England? Please you just have no idea at all, you even contradict your own embarrassing statements. Australia's stadiums are pretty much ready already, they have 12 years to fix whatever else is required. You comparing the purpose built English football stadiums with US gridiron garbage is an embarrassment as well. England and Australia both have complete bipartisan government support for their bid, compared to the US where it's totally unstable in every sense, both economically and politically, nobody knows who's supporting who and we have people like Glen Beck on one side. I'm sure a small band of USSF tossers don't count and the fact the costings for the USSF is total garbage, mean FIFA are extremely nervous about the US bid, including 2 out of 3 confederation executives for a confederation that has no other bidder is embarrassing.


You actually have a lot in common with Glenn Beck.... Nobody with an IQ exceeding 40 takes you seriously


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

JYDA said:


> It's a bit rich of Jack Warner to need any more convincing from the England bid. He already successfully blackmailed the English FA into playing a friendly on his island that he just happened to control the ticketing for. But that was yesterday's favour and for Jack it's "what have you done for me lately?"


England has done more for Jack Warner and in more particular Trinidad Football than the entire USSF bs brigade have ever done. That's why Jack Warner is out on a sabotage mission for the US bid.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> England has done more for Jack Warner and in more particular Trinidad Football than the entire USSF bs brigade have ever done. That's why Jack Warner is out on a sabotage mission for the US bid.


Uh-huh! :lol: :lol:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Gondolier said:


> Uh-huh! :lol: :lol:


I agree on the last bit:lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Gondolier said:


> I think the UK and the USA are the sanest, safest bids. Nearly all the stadia are already there. You don't have to have this stadium-building frenzy that we saw in Korea and Japan...that Russia, Oz and Qatar hope to emulate with all their lofty, air-headed ideals...and will only make stadium-designers and contractors and websites like this, rich. We all know how that crush of stadia in Japan and Korea 8 years ago have not amounted to much!!


The ones in Japan are in regular use. The domestic league is fairly healthy, with a top division average over 19000. Urawa average 44000.

The Korean stadiums were white elephants though, but you can blame that on FIFA for not just awarding the cup to Japan, as originally planned.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

wish some of the clubs would come out with if and when the will be increasing capicity in their grounds, as some are a little to small in my opinion,
i know leeds, villa, sheffield wednesday etc are expanding their grounds but any new on sunderland maybe increasing to 56k or newcastle to 60k i think if we get the WC than hopefully because we also have the rugby world cup in 2015 than the venie s that are being used in both like SJP, Elland Road, liverpool current or old can be expanded or built nice and early so we don't have last minute dash to complete them.

i do wish that forrest we keeping the city ground though i think they new ground looks preety horrible imo


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Harry1990 said:


> wish some of the clubs would come out with if and when the will be increasing capicity in their grounds, as some are a little to small in my opinion,
> i know leeds, villa, sheffield wednesday etc are expanding their grounds but any new on sunderland maybe increasing to 56k or newcastle to 60k i think if we get the WC than hopefully because we also have the rugby world cup in 2015 than the venie s that are being used in both like SJP, Elland Road, liverpool current or old can be expanded or built nice and early so we don't have last minute dash to complete them.
> 
> i do wish that forrest we keeping the city ground though i think they new ground looks preety horrible imo


Capacity won't make a difference, England has the best footballing grounds going around and with developments within Liverpool etc occurring they will only get better.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

Russia will win,:banana: this is a political vote not a technical one. Go Russia go!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> Capacity won't make a difference, England has the best footballing grounds going around and with developments within Liverpool etc occurring they will only get better.


Germany's grounds are considerably better than England's. Bigger, better, and they somehow have the ability to build new grounds that are distinctive and have character.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Germany's grounds are considerably better than England's. Bigger, better, and they somehow have the ability to build new grounds that are distinctive and have character.


I don't think so, nobody can match the iconic stature of England's football grounds. These clubs and grounds have history and an atmosphere that you won't get at no plastic ground made tomorrow. The clubs themselves make the ground, it belongs to that club and that ground is the symbolic home of the people within the town. You can make the most gigantic stadium in the world, pave it with gold and put dancing ballerinas at the top of the stadium but will they have the character and symbolism of English grounds? No, they won't. When you talk football grounds around the world, the grounds people know are Anfield, St James's Park, Stamford Bridge etc etc, they are English grounds, not some yankee doo grid iron stadium or some bundelisga arena that no one can pronounce the name of.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike, you're getting seriously embarrassing.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

plasticterminator said:


> Russia will win,:banana: this is a political vote not a technical one. Go Russia go!


:bash:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

_Jack Warner blasts Panorama

FIFA vice-president Jack Warner has hit out at BBC Panorama's investigation into World Cup bidding by claiming it has been "deliberately designed to negatively impact" on England's chances of hosting the 2018 tournament. [:lol:]

Panorama are planning to screen a programme next Monday, three days before the vote, and have written to Warner as well as FIFA president Sepp Blatter asking for responses to a number of allegations. 

Warner, whose vote is crucial to England's hopes, has been targeted by Panorama in the past and he claims it is "a personal vendetta" and that the programme is merely returning to old allegations.

England 2018 leaders last week branded the BBC "unpatriotic" for screening the investigation so close to the vote, fearing it will lead to a backlash from FIFA members.

Warner told Press Association Sport in an email: "I am sure it's a personal vendetta. But it is sooooooooooo stupid... for it can have no effect on me personally or on anyone else in the FIFA for that matter.

"In my personal opinion, it is deliberately designed to negatively impact on England's chances.

"It is just a rehash of the same old b******* so I continue to sleep very soundly at nights." _


Link

---------

We'll have to see what the programme contains, but it's hardly a surprise that the most greasy, corrupt man in FIFA doesn't like the idea of this documentary.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> I don't think so, nobody can match the iconic stature of England's football grounds. These clubs and grounds have history and an atmosphere that you won't get at no plastic ground made tomorrow. The clubs themselves make the ground, it belongs to that club and that ground is the symbolic home of the people within the town. You can make the most gigantic stadium in the world, pave it with gold and put dancing ballerinas at the top of the stadium but will they have the character and symbolism of English grounds? No, they won't. When you talk football grounds around the world, the grounds people know are Anfield, St James's Park, Stamford Bridge etc etc, they are English grounds, not some yankee doo grid iron stadium or some bundelisga arena that no one can pronounce the name of.


Being iconic doesn't make a ground good. The old Wembley was more iconic than any English league ground, but it was still a cramped crumbling dump with awful views. The new Wembley is pretty iconic too, but if you go there you get the distinct feeling every was designed for those in the executive seats, and everything else was an afterthought.


But if you are having trouble pronouncing some if the German stadiums, you could point them out and maybe someone would give you tips.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

David Dein, president of the England 2018 World Cup bid, says his bid team is working flat out to bring the World Cup back to the country for the first time since 1966.

Speaking to reporters at the Soccerex Global Convention in Rio, Dein said: "It's a critical time, everybody is working full-out now to try and get the World Cup back to England in 2018.

"We have to concentrate on one thing only, to give it our best shot. We are in it to win it. Hopefully we will get a good result and we need the country behind us."

The former Arsenal and FA vice-chairman claimed the excitement around the build-up the Brazil 2014 World Cup had made the England bid even more determined to see off rivals Holland-Belgium, Russia and Spain-Portugal to win the hosting rights on Dec. 2.

"That's what we have been working for these past two years. We have a few very interesting days to come. Obviously we want to do our best and we are in it to win it, that's all I can say at this time."

Dein made a brief appearance at the conference, giving a presentation to delegates on the evolution of the English Premier League, before catching a plane to Paraguay. Talking to reporters, he insisted the EPL was a great advert for English football and the bid. "We have a lot going for us," he said.

The England 2018 bid is staging a day-long safety and security seminar at the home of CONMEBOL in the Paraguyan capital Asuncion on Tuesday, part of its campaign to woo the South American FIFA Executive Committee members.

Serving as a meeting to educate South American federations and clubs affiliated to CONMEBOL, it will give Dein - the most well-connected member of the England bid - a chance to rub shoulders with the confederation president Nicolas Leoz and leading football officials from the region.

Delegates were treated to a world exclusive of the trailer to "The night football changed forever", which looks at how a clandestine meeting in May 1990 between senior officials of the top five English clubs led to the formation of the Premier League and dramatically transformed the landscape of English football. The league became a "runaway success", Dein says in the film.

By way of explanation, Dein pointed out that the Premier League's turnover in 1992/93 was a meagre 46 million pounds, with average attendances of just 21,125

In 2010/11, the EPL's turnover is 1.25 billion pounds and average gates are 34,000.

"In UEFA, it's the first league for the money it achieves and it goes out to 210 countries around the world."

Asked how the EPL could sustain its growth, Dein predicted that stadia would continue to get bigger - making reference to the new venues planned for Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur - while TV income and sponsorship revenues would also increase "always assuming the game is kept attractive".

In turn, he said, the EPL would continue to offer the biggest salaries and attract the best players.

"You pay the best money, you get the best talent," he said.

Before his speech at the conference, Dein presented FIFA honorary president Joao Havelange with a shirt of his favourite European team Arsenal, which was emblazoned with the 94-year-old's name. Despite his age, Havelange had showed the sharpness of his mind in a lengthy and wide-ranging interview conducted by two Brazilian icons of broadcast and print journalism.

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33912


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt arrived in Kuala Lumpur today to encourage support for England’s 2018 World Cup bid.

Mr Hunt joined England 2018 chairman Geoff Thompson, chief executive Andy Anson and ambassador Paul Elliott to highlight England’s strong case to host the tournament to football world governing body FIFA’s Asian members.

The delegation will stress the legacy aspects of England’s bid such as the FA’s Football United project that will use the power of football to benefit the lives of young people around the world by investing in grassroots projects.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7583.aspx


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

MysteryMike said:


> I don't think so, nobody can match the iconic stature of England's football grounds. These clubs and grounds have history and an atmosphere that you won't get at no plastic ground made tomorrow. The clubs themselves make the ground, it belongs to that club and that ground is the symbolic home of the people within the town. You can make the most gigantic stadium in the world, pave it with gold and put dancing ballerinas at the top of the stadium but will they have the character and symbolism of English grounds? No, they won't. When you talk football grounds around the world, the grounds people know are Anfield, St James's Park, Stamford Bridge etc etc, they are English grounds, not some yankee doo grid iron stadium or some bundelisga arena that no one can pronounce the name of.


I don't know where to start with this :nuts:

If you *seriously* believe that the atmosphere inside English stadiums is great then you are totally and utterly deluded. Up there with the legendary urban football myth that Newcastle have the best fans in the world. The majority of the fans in England who would make a noise for 90 minutes have been out-priced from attending and have been replaced with families waiting to be entertained whilst eating their sandwiches from their lunch boxes.

Anfield is a very famous football ground and along with Old Trafford it is the most famous club ground in England. Iconic? Possibly. But trying to say that St James Park and Stamford Bridge are iconic world-renowned stadiums is laughable. And embarrassing. 

I'm hoping and praying that England fails in its attempt to secure the 2018 World cup because the utter nonsense spouted by MysteryMike will be repeated by numpties across the country, that and the fact that England will win the thing. Oh God, please spare us this..........please.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Must be imaginging the noise on the telly.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

*Prime Minister David Cameron will spend three days in Zurich next week lobbying on behalf of England's 2018 World Cup bid, Downing Street has announced.*

The prime minister's decision to travel to Switzerland so far in advance of the 2 December vote will be seen as a major boost to England's campaign.

Cameron is likely to meet most of the 22 members of Fifa's executive committee during his visit.

Russia, Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium are also vying for the vote.

Cameron had been expected to be in Zurich for the final hours of the campaign, but it has now been agreed that he will travel to Switzerland on Tuesday, more than 48 hours before the Fifa vote.

He is likely to return briefly to London for Prime Minister's Questions on the Wednesday, before flying back to Zurich later that evening. 

Link


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*England bid superior to rivals*

Gordon Taylor, a vice-president on England's 2018 World Cup bid committee, does not believe any of the other bids to host the 2018 finals can compete with his nation's.

Taylor, also chief executive of the English Professional Footballers' Association, is confident that England will be awarded the 2018 World Cup when the final vote takes place on December 2 and revealed his hope that all outside influences will be put aside in order for FIFA to vote on the best bid.

"I would like to see a better bid than ours," Taylor told ESPNsoccernet. "If Russia or the joint bid from Spain and Portugal win then fair enough, if it's better than ours, but I don't believe that it is.

"What is going on with Panorama and the investigation with the Sunday Times might have jeopardised the bid, as everyone seems to think, but that would be appalling, because it has nothing to do with the bid.

"Politics could scupper England's bid, but it shouldn't be allowed to as politics should not dictate to sport, and when you look at the bid process, it shouldn't have an effect. Instead, look at the bids - that's the idea of it, and our bid is the best."

Taylor feels that the global appeal of the Premier League and England's rich footballing heritage is what marks the bid out as better than those of rivals Russia and Spain/Portugal.

"Our stadiums, our love of the game, the way we welcome so many people from all over the world - not just players and managers but fans as well - the travel system, the hotels, the willingness of foreign players to come here and the way foreign players like Didier Drogba have backed the bid and feel that England is like home from home," he said.

"We are so multi-national and no other country has so many players from different parts of the world - there were more England-based players at the World Cup than any other nation.

"I believe the World Cup should be coming home to England. We've not staged the World Cup since 1966 and since then we have been a model for the rest of the world to follow in the way we have reconstructed our all-seater stadia, our crowd control. Safety is such a priority, and our supporters in South Africa in the summer were commended on their behaviour.

"From Argentina to Japan, to Korea and around Europe, there are nations who love English football, and I know for a fact how many of them would be so pleased if the World Cup was held in this country.

"Of course, I would never be presumptuous and say I am convinced that we shall prevail but, yes, I am confident. We have the finest bid and the best ability to host it. As I have said, if we do not win it I want to know what has made the successful country earn the votes and what they've got that we haven't got." 

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/58634.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Prince William will spearhead the final stage of England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup, the royal's office formally confirmed Wednesday.

The Prince, president of the Football Association, will form part of a high-powered English delegation which includes Prime Minister David Cameron and football stars such as David Beckham and Gary Lineker.

Prince William will spend his time privately meeting FIFA voters ahead of the vote in Zurich on December 2.

Confirmation of William's participation came as England 2018 board member Sebastian Coe urged the country's delegates to mount a charm offensive in the final week before voting.

Speaking at an event in London, Coe said the 2018 team needed to deluge FIFA members with positive messages about England's bid to minimise the impact of a BBC documentary to be aired next week which is expected to pore over corruption allegations involving FIFA officials.

"You have to focus absolutely on the job at hand," Coe said. "(Outside) noises are not what is going to get you across the line. They're not going to stop you getting across the line.

"It is really a very important discipline in the process of a bid to just simply focus on the messages.

"You deliver those messages right to the moment where there is nowhere else to go and you maintain clear heads," added Coe, who masterminded London's stunning victory to host the 2012 Olympic Games defeating favourites Paris.

England faces stiff competition from Russia as well as joint bids from Spain and Portugal and Holland and Belgium at next Thursday's vote.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.f4b8f8621b4af01e00ed9997660b0ca4.411


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> Must be imaginging the noise on the telly.



There is a bit of singing but to say that English grounds have the *best* atmospheres is ludicrous. Have a taste of some Turkish "noise".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotmpIa0-EQ


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*England bid may get extra voter as Oceania consider quick Reynald Temarii replacement*

The move may boost England's chances as Oceania has been a major recipient of FA development funding in the last decade, and Temarii was considered sympathetic to the bid before his suspension.

Should he be replaced, the OFC vote in 2022 should go to Australia as the AFC Congress mandated Temarii to back their bid earlier this year.

Temarii was suspended with Nigeria's Amos Adamu for breaches of Fifa rules, reducing the electorate to 22 votes. 

As the OFC president has a seat on the Fifa executive committee by right, however, were Temarii to abandon his appeal against the one-year suspension, it would clear they way for his deputy David Chung, of Papua New Guinea, to vote next week.

A special meeting of the OFC executive committee on Saturday will examine if one of its representatives can take Temarii's place, assuming he is willing to suspend his appeal.

"There are some provisions we are looking at to appoint someone in Reynald's place," OFC general secretary Tai Nicholas said on Wednesday. "There are a number of options that are open to us legally. We are exploring those. The objective is to allow the OFC to cast its vote."

The arrival of a new voter will add another variable to a race that is difficult to call.

On Wednesday, the Spain-Portugal bid confirmed that Ronaldo and Iker Casillas will be in Zurich to as part of the official delegation, along with Luis Figo, Fernando Hierro, Emilio Butragueno and Eusebio. The national coaches, Vicente del Bosque and Paulo Bento, will also be supporting the Iberian bid.

They will be up against England's triumvirate of Prince William, David Beckham and David Cameron, who 2018 board member Lord Coe said has already had a big effect on the campaign.

"I know from feedback that he's [Cameron] made a big impression with the engagement that he's had so far in this process.

"And it is very important that the executive committee members of Fifa know that this bid has the full support from the very highest political level in the land."


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

AdidasGazelle said:


> There is a bit of singing but to say that English grounds have the *best* atmospheres is ludicrous. Have a taste of some Turkish "noise".
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotmpIa0-EQ


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

I don't think you can say that one culture's way of supporting their team is better or worse than another, they're entirely different in very different ways.

The English fervour for chanting etc has dulled somewhat with the increase in price to go see games, the popularity of watching games from home and so forth, however it is still there and an established English trait.

I speak of personal experience, yesterday evening I went to watch my football team play Barnet at their ground. The attendance was 2500, but 1200 of those were for my team and we were in very good voice. We went 1-0 down, but would come from behind to win 2-1, and the atmosphere was electric.

I'm not saying that 1200 Gills fans are going to compete in terms of noise to 10'000 Turkish ultras...but the fact is there is an inherent English excitement in football that when released can be astounding.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

MysteryMike said:


>


If that is your proof that English stadiums have the best atmosphere then I know you are on a wind-up. 

Picture the scene.....Liverpool are playing Fulham at home in the Premier league. The teams are ready to walk onto the pitch and suddenly booming out of the PA system comes Gerry and the pacemakers. When it reaches the chorus the sound cuts and the Kop sings its anthem. It then finishes and we have silence. Followed by silence. More silence. The odd song sung by a couple of thousand Koppites are briefly heard but that is about it. Two minutes to go and the Kop sings its anthem again. Liverpool have played poorly and the score is 0-0 and so it is sung half-heartedly. A few boos ring out at the final whistle. The end.

Anyone who hasn't visited Anfield are told of these urban myths about the mighty Kop and how "amazing" it is. When they finally experience it they are shocked. Shocked at how poor it is nowadays. Even Liverpool fans whinge and moan about the "types" who now sit in the Kop. Compare this with the Kop of old. Nearly 30,000, mainly scousers, swaying and singing in unison and supporting their team for 90 minutes. I visited many times during the 80s with United and I know how hostile and noisy it was. It used to be impressive. The first song sung nowadays by visiting fans is "Where's your famous atmosphere?" 

The best grounds today in the Premier league for noise are Spurs and Stoke. Although the atmosphere at Stoke is not as good as their 1st season in the Premier league. The novelty has worn off for them in two years. 

The contrast with the atmospheres in Turkey, Poland, Germany and others compared to the middle class "fans" of England are like chalk and cheese. 

MysteryMike is not only living in the past but also cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

matthemod said:


> I don't think you can say that one culture's way of supporting their team is better or worse than another, they're entirely different in very different ways.
> 
> The English fervour for chanting etc has dulled somewhat with the increase in price to go see games, the popularity of watching games from home and so forth, however it is still there and an established English trait.
> 
> ...


I think you would be genuinely surprised at how different foreign fans are to English fans. The ultra scene has never taken off here but the organisation these groups have abroad is on a totally different level. It is a huge part of their lives...not just turning up 2 minutes before kick off and then waiting till the next game and turning up 2 minutes before kick off. For instance, did you see and hear the Bursaspor fans when United played in Turkey a few weeks ago? United were beating them easy and the game was dead for Bursaspor but their fans never shut up. A few United lads I know that were out there said that the United lads gave up trying to be heard with their own songs because there was no sound dip and so they joined in with the Bursaspor songs. That level of support or noise is not heard in England. Anyone who says it is is deluded. Just listen to your average Premier league game on the TV. It is dead.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

AdidasGazelle said:


> If that is your proof that English stadiums have the best atmosphere then I know you are on a wind-up.
> 
> Picture the scene.....Liverpool are playing Fulham at home in the Premier league. The teams are ready to walk onto the pitch and suddenly booming out of the PA system comes Gerry and the pacemakers. When it reaches the chorus the sound cuts and the Kop sings its anthem. It then finishes and we have silence. Followed by silence. More silence. The odd song sung by a couple of thousand Koppites are briefly heard but that is about it. Two minutes to go and the Kop sings its anthem again. Liverpool have played poorly and the score is 0-0 and so it is sung half-heartedly. A few boos ring out at the final whistle. The end.
> 
> ...





AdidasGazelle said:


> Football in England is dead. Middle class families don't create any kind of atmosphere and they wait to be entertained. It is not the game of the working classes anymore.
> 
> I'm just glad I was around in the 70s and 80s when football was football, not this horrible sanitised version that SKY money has created.


Yeah good luck to you, it all belong with your racism stories and all :lol: what a joke, you tell me that I'm living in the past. What's it like being a pensioner troll? that's fantastic. You must be very proud of yourself :lol:


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

MysteryMike said:


> Yeah good luck to you, it all belong with your racism stories and all :lol: what a joke, you tell me that I'm living in the past. What's it like being a pensioner troll? that's fantastic. You must be very proud of yourself :lol:


I'm trying to watch the ashes here!

Racism? 

I'm not living in the past. You said that the atmospheres in English stadiums are the best. I informed you that they are indeed amongst the *worst* in the world. The total opposite. The atmosphere used to be decent in English grounds but were never the best in the world. Never. Have a gander at Argentinian crowds. Then have a gander at a new Wembley crowd for an England international. It is embarassing. Hence why I said you were living in cloud cuckoo land.

You also said Stamford Bridge and St James' park were "iconic" stadiums. They were iconic in the North East of England and West London respectively about 50/60 years ago. Outside of those areas they are nothing. Nadda. Hence why I said you were living in the past. 

I get the impression you know nothing about football and even less about football outside of the UK. You are a SKY "footie fan". Do you paint your face?

Shit! Pieterson out :bash:


----------



## n_pon88 (Mar 5, 2009)

Interesting article on the qatar bid. have a look, but i'm not sure you can see the video if your from out of the uk. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9224946.stm
By Tim Franks
BBC sports news correspondent

"The thumb-shaped Qatar peninsula," warns the Lonely Planet guide (1st edition, published 2000) "is not exactly one of the world's major tourist destinations."

The chapter on the Qatari capital is even less enticing. "Around the Gulf, Doha has earned the unenviable reputation of being the dullest place on earth."

Ten years on, Qatar has been pricked into the most determined reaction. It has launched an attempt to stage the 2022 World Cup. It is a bid so improbable, it might just come true.

This is a country with a population of little more than a million, promising to fill 50,000-seater stadiums. It is a country of little apparent footballing pedigree, lying 108th in the Fifa rankings. And it is a country where, at the time of year the tournament is held, the weather can touch 50 degrees Celsius. Fifa guidelines hold that any temperature above 32 degrees puts players at "extreme" risk.

Qatar, though, believes it not only has the answers but an irresistible allure. Of that, more later. First, though, to the issue of players, coaches and fans suffering heatstroke by the plane-load.

The bid committee's prize exhibit lies off the E-Ring Road, on the outskirts of Doha.


This being Qatar, a place where money is not so much on tap as sluiced through a vast pipeline, they are not relying solely on child-sized models and whizzy graphics to make their case.

When the suits from the Fifa technical committee came for an inspection in September, they were taken to a 500-seater, five-a-side stadium that had been erected in a matter of weeks, in an attempt to prove that it is possible to play football in Qatar in the summer.

Fifa rules demand that World Cup matches be played under an open roof. Qatar's answer to that is to create a three metre-high bank of cool air in which players can play and spectators can watch.

The source of the air-conditioning can be found in the swathe of desert adjacent to the stadium: a "solar farm", where photovoltaic cells pour energy, year-round, into the national grid and where tubes of water are heated to 200 degrees Celsius, before their energy is alchemised into cooling vast freezer packs that sit under the stadium.

According to Lee Hosking, one of the architects from Arup Associates, the British specialists responsible for the design of the showcase building mentioned above, the process is zero carbon.

"Bring it on," he declaims, as the heat beats down, even on this November morning. "How much energy do you need? We've got it from the sun."

There are some unanswered questions.

For example, what might happen should the wind begin to stir the cool and hot air?

How big an area might you need for the "solar farms" that service the bigger stadiums (the PV cells off the "E" Ring Road take up about twice the area of the prototype stadium)?

And how expensive is it all (the architects were unable to say how much even this small stadium cost to build)?

It's the greatest ability to put the Middle East on a platform and for the world to see it for what it truly is



On the last issue, money does indeed appear to be immaterial. Some might baulk at the increasingly stringent demands that governing bodies such as Fifa or the International Olympic Committee make of any country that has the temerity to offer to stage one of their tournaments.

Oil and gas-rich Qatar, in contrast, appears to be standing, legs astride, mouth grinning, hands beckoning. It is offering to spend £25bn ($40bn) on a rail and metro system to transport fans around the peninsula. It is promising to dismantle its stadiums after the competition and transport them to poorer countries in the region.

All that is, to use the jargon du jour, the "vision".

But Qatar is keen to show that it is a player, even now. Some of these Gulf states prickle with frustration when they are derided as gold-plated baths of bad taste.

Qataris know that respect is earned by more than the size of their shopping malls. Which is why, on the most recent night scheduled for international friendlies, the game between Argentina and Brazil was not held in Buenos Aires or Rio but at the Khalifa stadium in Doha.

Ronaldinho sparkled and Messi ruled, watched by a stadium full of men in their sparkling white dishdashas, adorned with their Brazil or Argentina scarfs.

"We are confident and we shall do it," one beaming fan told me. "Inshallah, we shall bring the World Cup in '22." "Why not?" asked his friend. "Don't worry."

The message was clear: bringing a World Cup to the Middle East might be novel but it is not unimaginable.

At the same time - and at who knows what expense - a four-day conference of international sporting supremos was taking place at the Aspire Sports Academy in Doha.


As Argentine midfielder maestro Ossie Ardiles was giving local children a masterclass on the outdoor pitches, Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson was singing the bid's praises inside the venue. The Scot described the promise to flat-pack the stadiums and deliver them to poorer footballing nations as "a key card" that will "pull the heartstrings of everyone".

In a way, so far, so predictable. All bids, these days, claim that they will provide amazing facilities and an inchoate thing called "legacy".

But Qatar's application goes beyond this. Hassan al Thawadi, the immaculately attired 31 year-old chief executive of the bid, lays down a polite but firm challenge to the conservative men of Fifa.

It is not simply, he says, that Qatar is the "15th safest country in the world - ahead of Switzerland or Singapore". Bringing the World Cup to Qatar will, he says, offer nothing less than an antidote to the toxic clash of civilisations.

"It's the greatest ability to put the Middle East on a platform and for the world to see it for what it truly is," al Thawadi says. "More importantly, it allows the Middle East to interact with the rest of the world, and any misconceptions that people in the Middle East might have about the West can be taken away.

"If there's ever an opportunity to unite everybody towards one goal, then the passion for football and the World Cup is the ultimate tool."

It is vaulting language: to claim a place among those whose mark was felt across east and west - from Alexander the Great, to Suleiman the Magnificent and now, so we are asked to imagine, to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalfia al Thani, Emir of Qatar.

That a country so low in the rankings, so hot and so small, can be one of the favourites to host the second biggest sporting event in the world after the Summer Olympics, rips up conventional wisdom.

But then, travelling the emirate, it is clear that tiny Qatar has a huge sense of itself.

It will find out if that belief is misplaced on 2 December, when it goes up against Japan, the United States, Australia and South Korea for the right to host the 2002 World Cup.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> *England bid may get extra voter as Oceania consider quick Reynald Temarii replacement*
> 
> "


England's going to need every vote it can muster especially with supporters like MiseryMike poisoning every other bid. :lol: :lol:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

AdidasGazelle said:


> There is a bit of singing but to say that English grounds have the *best* atmospheres is ludicrous. Have a taste of some Turkish "noise".
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fotmpIa0-EQ



Fair enough but last I looked Turkey weren't bidding

Its fair to say that England have a great history as far as support goes whether it be football,rugby,cricket.Not every nation has this.Ovbiously the term "crowd control" has had an impact as well,so you are likely to have more atmosphere sometimes where the crowd is less "restrained by authorities"


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Not quite related but with the Ashes on and in the spirit of great touring fans.




"We all shagged kylie and so did my mates.
She moaned and she groaned and she took it up the billabong. We all shagged kylie and so did my mates"


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

^^ Classics :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*Simply the best, Capello sings praises of England's 2018 World Cup bid*










For most managers South Africa 2010 was their last competitive World Cup involvement for four years at least. Not for Fabio Capello. The 64-year-old Italian who manages England is also an ambassador for the country’s bid to win host rights to the 2018 finals.

Why are you backing the England World Cup bid ?

I've worked in three countries - Italy, Spain and England - and I think that the football here is really important. People are so passionate about the game. All the people involved in the bid - the stadiums, the facilities, the training grounds, infrastructure, everything - is top class.

Something else that is really important is security in the stadiums where the stewards’ work is crucial. Also, it helps [with security] that all the clubs own their own stadiums. In Italy all the stadiums are the property of the local authorities and in Spain not all of the stadiums are owned by the clubs, either.

Another thing is that England is a multi-ethnic country and all the countries that play here will find people from their own countries born here. It’s like Italians going to the United States: everyone coming here can find a home from home.

What has surprised you most about England since you've been here? Not just about the football, but living in England, living in London?

London is not England, there is a big difference between the capital and the other cities and other parts of the country. I enjoy the culture here and I enjoy the fact that so many people are so involved with the game. The stadiums are always full and are all-seater which is really important. Another important thing is the respect that you find here among people.

Is England a more tolerant country to live in than Italy?

It is different, the culture is different. People coming here probably find it easier to integrate because the size of a city likes London means they can find similarities with their own countries. That’s important. Maybe it’s because of historical factors, people coming from the Commonwealth and so on.

How was it for you as an Italian living through the 1990 World Cup in your own country?

I was proud of it. The organisation was very good but we had had to build new stadiums and other infrastructure. Here you can find everything already; England is ready to host the World Cup now. In London, you have five stadiums which could be ready now to host the games. Then there are two famous stadiums in Birmingham, in Manchester and in Liverpool. The airports, trains, buses, Tube, are all OK. That’s important.

Do you know the members of the FIFA executive committee?

I know a lot of people because I started to play professionally when I was 18 and now I am 64. I look forward to meeting them. 

What will you tell them next week in Zurich, before the vote on Thursday?

Firstly, that England is the country where football was born. That’s important. Also they hosted the World Cup only once and a long time ago.

When you decide which country needs to host the World Cup you have to know what the situation is in the country. In this country the situation is very good; you can find everything. That’s an important message for the people who have to decide. When I met the inspection team at Wembley I told them this. It’s a really fantastic country.

What about the policy of World Cup selection – is it more important to go to new countries or stay loyal to the foundation nations?

Sometimes it's about promoting new countries but I also think you have to remember the history of the game. The World Cup in South Africa was really important for the country and for the continent and not just for its football. I think that showed that there are a lot of countries in Africa and other regions who can host the World Cup.

But . . . it’s also important to respect history. For example Italy is important because it has won the World Cup four times. But England is the home of football and that deserves to be considered.

It's the best country to host the World Cup. Simple: absolutely the best country to host it.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*ENGLAND'S WORLD CUP BID HOPES GET BIG BOOST*











The Oceanic Confederation have lost their vote on Fifa’s Executive *Committee (ExCo) because their *representative *


Reynald Temarii was suspended after getting embroiled in the *cash-for-votes scandal.

But now they are trying to get their place back, which could add another vote for England’s cause.


The Oceanic Confederation have *always been strong supporters of the England bid and before Temarii got involved in the scandal the Three *Lions delegation believed he would vote for their bid.


The Oceanic Executive Committee will meet on Saturday, where they will try to get Temarii to admit his guilt and resign his position.


If that is the case, Fifa have made it clear Oceania can put forward *another representative to stand on ExCo, reinstating their vote. That man is likely to be David Chung, from Papua New Guinea.


And it is widely expected that he would vote for England, which would be a major coup for our bid.


Lord Coe, who masterminded *London’s successful bid for the 2012 *Olympics, has urged the World Cup team to put any possible distractions – like the bribes row – to one side and just concentrate on the job in hand.


Coe, who is also on the 2018 board, said: “You have to focus absolutely on the job at hand.


“(Outside) noises are not what is going to get you across the line.


“It is really a very important *discipline, in the process of a bid, to just simply focus on the messages.


“You deliver those messages right to the moment where there is *nowhere else to go and you main-tain clear heads.”


Coe’s bid to bring the Olympics to London is widely *believed to have been boosted by then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s three days of lobbying IOC members prior to the vote.


It was confirmed yesterday that current PM David Cameron will spend a similar amount of time at FIFA’s headquarters in Zurich ahead of next week’s vote, *something Coe believes could prove decisive.


“I think it’s very important,” said the former Olympic goal medallist.


“I know from feedback that he’s made a big impression with the *engagement that he’s had so far in this process.


“And it is very important that the Executive Committee members of FIFA know that this bid has the full support from the very highest *political level in the land.”


Cameron will eventually be joined in Zurich by Prince William and *David Beckham, and Coe added: “It’s a pretty good triumvirate, isn’t it?”


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

_X_ said:


> Fair enough but last I looked Turkey weren't bidding
> 
> Its fair to say that England have a great history as far as support goes whether it be football,rugby,cricket.Not every nation has this.Ovbiously the term "crowd control" has had an impact as well,so you are likely to have more atmosphere sometimes where the crowd is less "restrained by authorities"


England teams in many sports have had great followings over the years, no one is debating that. I did it myself. This MysteryMike kid made the claim that England football stadiums *had the best atmospheres*. Only someone who is totally clueless, or been watching 'footie' for 3 or 4 years on SKY and listens to what hairy hands says, would make such a statement. The atmospheres in English football grounds in the main are very very poor. The odd 'big' game can be decent but on the whole they are libraries. And it will only get worse. Arsenal will soon be the first, but not the last I'm sure, English club to charge £100 for a 'normal' seat at the Emirates. Not an executive, just a run of the mill seat. That £100 will ensure that no one around you will make any noise so your time will be a pleasant affair.



Walbanger said:


> Not quite related but with the Ashes on and in the spirit of great touring fans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Barmy Army are the best fans in cricket but what have they got to do with English football grounds? They are allowed to drink and stand all day if they like so no wonder they have a good time. But even the barmy army are nothing like some foreign football fans.

Try Boca Juniors. I bet they wish they could be like the 'Barmy' army:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQjeJ2oe30k


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^Even in my post I said that is wasn't directly related to the England bid. I wasn't trying to compare cricket fans to those of Soccer. I was merely paying tribute to a bunch of funny bastards from England whom Australia happens to be playing at the moment in a 5 game Test series of Cricket known as "the Ashes". I wouldn't expect people from non cricket nations to know of it or care.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Anyyyyyway......

Five former England internationals are to bolster the 2018 World Cup bid team in Zurich next week as the battle to secure votes continues.

Sir Bobby Charlton, Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer, Andy Cole and John Barnes join a 30-man party that is led by Football Association president Prince William.

Prime Minister David Cameron, England boss Fabio Capello and ex-captain David Beckham are also in the delegation. 

*Full England 2018 delegation:*
HRH Prince William of Wales (FA president)
Rt Hon David Cameron, (Prime Minister)
David Beckham (vice-president, England 2018)
Andy Anson (England 2018 chief executive)
David Dein (international president, England 2018)
Eddie Afekafe (ambassador, England 2018)
Lord Coe (England 2018 board member)
Roger Burden (acting FA chairman)
Richard Scudamore (Premier League chief executive)
Greg Clarke (Football League chairman)
Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt (Secretary of State Culture, Media Sport & Olympics)
Paul Elliott (England 2018 board member)
Lord Mawhinney (England 2018 board member)
Andy Cole (football ambassador)
Rt Hon Hugh Robertson (Minister for Sport)
Sir Bobby Charlton (football ambassador)
Fabio Capello (England manager)
John Barnes (football ambassador)
Alan Shearer (football ambassador)
Gary Lineker (football ambassador)
Kadra Ege (legacy ambassador)
Boris Johnson (Mayor of London)

[The remaining eight places within the 30-man delegation are taken by support and technical staff from the bid team.]


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

http://en.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1563427.html

UEFA Champions League final ambassador Gary Lineker says walking up the Wembley steps to lift a trophy "is about as special a feeling as you can get" as he looks ahead to the event. 

UEFA Champions League final ambassador Gary Lineker tells UEFA.com his favourite Wembley moments and explains what makes the stadium unique as he looks ahead to the showpiece match in London next May. Having scored 25 goals at the famous old ground and won the FA Cup there with Tottenham Hotspur FC, the former England international is certainly well qualified on the subject.

*UEFA.com: What makes Wembley so special?*

Gary Lineker: It's got so much history. The original stadium had so much history going right back to FA Cup finals, the [FIFA] World Cup final, European Cup finals. All the players I think aspired, right around the world, to actually play there. I don't think that has changed with the new stadium. What you have now is the same environment, which is on the same site, but you've also got a beautiful stadium. The new Wembley is magnificent.

*UEFA.com: And the memories are still there ...*

Lineker: Very much so, it's still got the same sort of feel. Clearly that comes from the fact that it's on the same plot of land, really. Players will still dream of playing at Wembley and certainly they'll dream of playing the Champions League final at Wembley.

*UEFA.com. What is your favourite Wembley memory?*

Lineker: My favourite memory has to be the 1991 FA Cup final for Spurs. I played in two cup finals – one in 1986, which was the first all-Merseyside final, between Everton and Liverpool and even though I scored on that occasion, I ended up on the losing side. But I was determined to get back there one day and lift the cup and did it with Spurs.

*UEFA.com: You had scored twice in the semi-final against Arsenal that season ...*

Lineker: Yes, and that was the first-ever semi-final to be played at Wembley as well, which was almost as special a memory as the final, because it was such an important game. Arsenal were so strong – nobody fancied Tottenham to win on that occasion. But against the odds we did. I got two goals and Gazza [Paul Gascoigne] scored an unbelievable free-kick. But without winning the final, the semi-final would not have meant so much.

*UEFA.com: Can you describe the feeling of walking up the steps to receive the trophy?*

Lineker:"Walking up those steps to receive a trophy is just about as special a feeling as you can get". It's great they have kept that, it's really important. It's really hard walking up there when you have lost. Those steps seem very tiring. But when you've won, they don't seem to affect you at all.

*UEFA.com: How does it feel to be the UEFA Champions League ambassador this season?*

Lineker: It makes me feel proud. I think the Champions League is a wonderful competition, with the best teams in Europe, the best club competition in the world. And the fact it's coming to London as well, to Wembley – a long time since it's been in London. So it's great, and it's nice to be part and parcel of both the Champions League and the fact it's at Wembley.

*UEFA.com: The last time a final was held at Wembley was in 1992 when your former club Barcelona beat Sampdoria ...
*
Lineker: I was at that game, I went along to watch. I had finished at Barcelona a few years previously, so I was desperately keen that they won it and they thoroughly deserved to. It was [Ronald] Koeman who knocked it away for the winner. It was a very emotional occasion and a terrific atmosphere, as there always was at Wembley and still is.

*UEFA.com: It would be great to have another memorable goal like Koeman's perhaps this May ...*

Lineker: Yes, terrific strike. Not many players can hit it as well as he used to do. Let's hope there's more than just one in this final. And it would also be nice perhaps to see an English team in the final. The fact it's in London, you've got three London teams as well, so there's probably more chance than you would normally have in the Champions League of actually getting a 'home-ish' team in the final.

*UEFA.com: If you could play alongside a current UEFA Champions League striker, who would it be?*

Lineker: I pick Messi all day long. It would be a dream to play with him as a striker – because not only does he beat people and score wonderful goals himself, he's also unselfish and a brilliant little passer of the ball around the box. I always love watching Lionel Messi play, he's just such a fabulous talent. He's one of those players that when you're watching a football match, you're desperate for him to have the ball, because he lights up any stadium.


----------



## bigchrisfgb (Nov 7, 2008)

Does anyone think that the fact that South America have said they will vote for Spain/Protugal will harm Englands bid?


----------



## YearOfTheOx (Dec 19, 2009)

The passion for football in England runs much deeper than the 'big' clubs though, there are over 110 full-time professional clubs.
Here's a clip from a game last season from the fifth tier of English football, I doubt you would get the same atmosphere in a game from the same level in any other country in the world.


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

bigchrisfgb said:


> Does anyone think that the fact that South America have said they will vote for Spain/Protugal will harm Englands bid?


Are you a girl? And yes.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

bigchrisfgb said:


> Does anyone think that the fact that South America have said they will vote for Spain/Protugal will harm Englands bid?


Not greatly.

I'm pretty sure that virtually everyone within football circles already knew that the three South American delegates would support Spain / Portugal.

England certainly wouldn't have been counting on their votes. So the announcement makes no difference to them.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

YearOfTheOx said:


> The passion for football in England runs much deeper than the 'big' clubs though, there are over 110 full-time professional clubs.
> Here's a clip from a game last season from the fifth tier of English football, I doubt you would get the same atmosphere in a game from the same level in any other country in the world.


Indeed, in terms of total attendence the Championship (England's 2nd division) is the fourth best attended league in Europe, and average attendences are very similar to the Eredivisie and not far off the French Premier League.

League 1 (England's 3rd division) is roughly equivilent to the league above it in Spain, and indeed England has more than twice the number of professional clubs compared with the Spanish. England's 3rd division also draws 1m more fans than the Russian Premier League over the course of a season, and has an average attendence only a few thousand lower than the top league in Russia.

Only Germany really comes close to matching the sheer depth of the English game - and I'm not even sure Germany can match England below, say, level 3. This is something that should be pushed by our bid team. It is undoubtedly the biggest strength of our country's footballing history.

I always find this website to be very interesting, the Pyramid.info, showing the complete league structure in England:

http://www.thepyramid.info/asp/pyramid3.asp

And, even more detail here; a list of clubs and leagues in England by attendence (a couple of years old):

http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/attcomp.htm

And how appropriate that we should be talking about this on an FA Cup Weekend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/9228363.stm


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)




----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

i was thinking that england will win easily this bid but after seeing a report, i think russia is able to steal the show.

And you think the money "under the table" they can put..

But England did the same to win the olympics bid for 2012 because i honestly think in term of structures paris was ahead but it is another debate!

Sebastien Coe did the great part of the job


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

London won because it presented a clear and brilliant concept which is coming nicely to fruition, combining new venues in a massive inner-city park with world renowned exisiting venues like Wembley, Wimbledon, Lords, Old Trafford, the O2 etc. London's final presentation was also, in every way, superior to Paris' which was dull and demanding. London outboxed Paris for 2012. Simple as that. Paris may have been ahead in terms of structures but nowhere does it say that the safest technical bid has to win.

If Russia wins it'll be because FIFA likes its concept, despite it being a long way behind England in terms of exisiting infrastructure. Unless you've evidence to the contrary rather than insinuations I'll take a Russian victory to be deserved - just as London 2012's was - and I'll certainly congratulate them if they win.

That's not to say there's not HUGE question marks over FIFA and their processes. Those question marks will be hanging over FIFA no matter who wins, as they have done for the last decade at least.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

With only seven days to go until FIFA announces which nation will host the 2018 FIFA World Cup™, England's bid has received a major boost from sponsor Morrisons.

*England legend Alan Shearer and actress, model and England fan Kelly Brook this morning delivered over 1.6 million signatures to the England 2018 Bid offices* at Wembley. The giant petition was the result of an eight-month campaign by Morrisons, an official partner of the England 2018 bid, that encouraged its customers to Back the Bid by signing up in-store.

_The campaign, which was launched by Shearer in March, has seen customers from across the country pledge their support for the bid and is believed to be amongst the largest petitions ever registered in England.
_
http://www.england2018bid.com/news/365/1-6m-morrisons-customers-back-england-2018.aspx


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Gondolier said:


> England's going to need every vote it can muster especially with supporters like MiseryMike poisoning every other bid. :lol: :lol:


The levels of self delusion on this forum reaching new heights I see.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

On the atmosphere thingy. Can anyone name the only nation which actually managed to drown out those bloody Vuvuzela's at the last world cup?

Ummm ... England.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Whatever you think of the atmospheres, a great weekend for the Premier League to go goal mad. 36 goals in 8 games. Good timing that.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

And this is the difference between English fans and Everyone else. Its across the board.

100,000 Aussies ... and then the English 






Outnumber the Yanks thousands of miles away for a Boxing Belt


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

english fans are stupid sometimes! :rant: how can they not respect and national anthem away?!!! They use to do this everytime when there's a big match! (argentina, germany, france in wembley 1999 etc...) It's just a stupid habit they have now! and all of those guys aren't even hooligans!!!

The same at wimbledon when a english player plays! they boo others players and applause each time if he makes a fault! just a shame

It's a shame! I don't want to see this if england has the world cup 2018!

Stop this exacerbated nationalism that leads to win nothing


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A minority of idiots Axel. Just like when Ashley Cole was booed every time he touched the ball vs Khazakstan at Wembley after he'd made a mistake for their goal. Some of the press ran with that as if the whole stadium was booing but, being in the stadium that night, I can tell you it was probably less than 1 in 20 people.



> The same at wimbledon when a english player plays! they boo others players and applause each time if he makes a fault! just a shame


That's not true (I've never ever heard that), and if it is, certainly not to the same extent as Roland Garros, the Grand Slam with *by far* the worst reputation in that regard. I've never seen a nasty crowd at Wimbledon but they can get quite partisan and nasty in the French Open. There is a definite culture of booing and heckling among a number of French tennis fans which you just don't get at any of the other Slams.

Nadal was booed at the French last time he played there. Sharapova, the Williams sisters and Hingis have experienced the same. By contrast, Nadal is loved at Wimbledon, and was cheered today at the O2 when he played and beat Murray in the ATP Masters semi-final.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Axelferis said:


> english fans are stupid sometimes! :rant: how can they not respect and national anthem away?!!! They use to do this everytime when there's a big match! (argentina, germany, france in wembley 1999 etc...) It's just a stupid habit they have now! and all of those guys aren't even hooligans!!!
> 
> The same at wimbledon when a english player plays! they boo others players and applause each time if he makes a fault! just a shame
> 
> ...


I agree. The Barmy Army footage is terrific but the boxing fans are cringe worthy. Even England's football fans learned the hard way some time time ago that booing national anthems inevitably boosts the opposition's performance and it makes them look classless.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> english fans are stupid sometimes! :rant: how can they not respect and national anthem away?!!! They use to do this everytime when there's a big match! (argentina, germany, france in wembley 1999 etc...) It's just a stupid habit they have now! and all of those guys aren't even hooligans!!!
> 
> The same at wimbledon when a english player plays! they boo others players and applause each time if he makes a fault! just a shame
> 
> ...


The same at Wimbledon? Booing of other players?

Stop making shit up, you silly sausage!

Yes, of course Wimbledon crowds get massively behind Andy Murray. They don't cheer because the other player has made a mistake. They cheer because Murray has won a point. Pretty obvious, I would have thought. Duh!

I guarantee you that you get the exact same reaction from fans in Paris when a French player is playing; or New York when an American is playing; or Melbourne when an Aussie is playing.

As to football fans booing opposition national anthems, that no longer happens in England. It went out with hooliganism.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

^^Actually I would also agree. Nothing wrong with the support at Wimbledon. I hadn't noticed Axelferis's tennis comment when i made my previous post.


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

Ecological said:


> On the atmosphere thingy. Can anyone name the only nation which actually managed to drown out those bloody Vuvuzela's at the last world cup?
> 
> Ummm ... England.


The same could be said anywhere!! Every EPL game is the same boring song anyway. "Oh when the saints". Channel change needed.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> ....not to the same extent as Roland Garros, the Grand Slam with *by far* the worst reputation in that regard. I've never seen a nasty crowd at Wimbledon but they can get quite partisan and nasty in the French Open. There is a definite culture of booing and heckling among a number of French tennis fans which you just don't get at any of the other Slams.


Latin culture (hot-tempered people) ! :yes: 
Remember that Roland Garros is the only non-Ango-Saxon slam.



RobH said:


> Nadal was booed at the French last time he played there. Sharapova, the Williams sisters and Hingis have experienced the same.


Because they deserved it ! Especially that crybaby girl named Hingis !!! 

Ho, and BTW, most of players love the atmosphere at Roland Garros, precisely because of the French fans !


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yeah exactly, on the flipside the atmosphere is often great at RG; much better than Wimbledon often creates. I was just countering Axel's claim that Wimbledon somehow has a bad reputation for being partisan. It really doesn't, especially compared with the French Open.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Trelawny said:


> The same could be said anywhere!! Every EPL game is the same boring song anyway. "Oh when the saints". Channel change needed.


Maybe if the channels where you live could afford to show something other than "Season Review 1983" it'd be different.

That Steve Moran though...could turn out to be some player, huh?


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

JimB said:


> The same at Wimbledon? Booing of other players?
> 
> Stop making shit up, you silly sausage!
> 
> ...


a few years ago i notice they were applausing the faults of the player opposed to a british ,i don't remember his name (2005),

i was shocked because it was unusual at wimbledon (i was a fan of tennis and it is for me my prefered tournament  ) it was the younger (22-25 people especially those bi**** of girls who eructed like orgasm their stupidity )

And the booing habit still to exist as goes the importance of a game (world cup or euro for example)

Please stop to defend systematically your fans when they are wrong! The video with the boxe match is just a shame :bash:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> a few years ago i notice they were applausing the faults of the player opposed to a british ,i don't remember his name (2005),
> 
> i was shocked because it was unusual at wimbledon (i was a fan of tennis and it is for me my prefered tournament  ) it was the younger (22-25 people especially those bi**** of girls who eructed like orgasm their stupidity )
> 
> ...


1. Again......why is it so hard for you to understand that when British players like Andy Murray or Tim Henman play at Wimbledon, the crowd cheer every point they win - regardless of whether those points were won as a result of their excellence or as a result of their opponents' mistakes? There's nothing wrong or unusual in that at all. It happens all over the world. Stop trying to imply that only the English do it. It's utter bollocks.

2. And the booing of opposition national anthems at England football matches is now very rare. And when it does occur, it has nothing to do with the importance of the occasion. It only ever happens if the opposition fans have already disrespected England's national anthem.

3. I didn't try to defend the boxing crowd. So why throw it back at me?


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Trelawny said:


> The same could be said anywhere!! Every EPL game is the same boring song anyway. "Oh when the saints". Channel change needed.


Even I have to disagree with you here. Well sort of. There is one version of 'Oh when the saints" that is one of the best football songs/chants around. The way the spurs fans sing it very slow is superb. 

Most other sets of fans 'happy clap' their way through that particular song/chant. Any match-going lad will know what I mean.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

JimB said:


> 1.
> 2. And the booing of opposition national anthems at England football matches is now very rare. And when it does occur, it has nothing to do with the importance of the occasion. It only ever happens if the opposition fans have already disrespected England's national anthem.
> 
> ?


people don't disrespect england anthem don't invent this! hno:


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Axelferis said:


> people don't disrespect england anthem don't invent this! hno:


Err.........yes, they do, on rare occasions.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*2018 World Cup: England is best placed to spread the gospel of football*










England has a fantastic case and this week I will be going to Zurich with the rest of the 2018 team to argue – humbly but passionately – that we deserve to be given a chance. It is vital not to sound boastful about our role in the history of the game (and frankly we don’t have that much to boast about lately on the pitch); and the England bid is not so much that we are a nation of football fans with all the facilities already in place – though both points are strong. Our case is that an England World Cup in 2018 would be the best way of spreading the benefits of football training around the world.

This summer I found myself stuck in a vast traffic jam in Dar es Salaam, and as I listened to the Swahili football commentary on the radio I realised that it was live coverage of the Fulham-Man U game. Then I looked around me in the traffic, and was amazed to see how many dalla-dalla minibuses were decked in the livery of Chelsea or Manchester United, and it hit me that there were almost certainly more Chelsea fans in Dar es Salaam than in Chelsea itself.

These brands – English premiership clubs – are simply colossal in the imaginations of young people around the world. London clubs are already engaged in outreach programmes in some of the poorest communities on earth, helping to bring football training, for instance, to townships in South Africa. The key proposition of England 2018 is that we will create a festival of football that would raise the revenues to multiply that effect around the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-placed-to-spread-the-gospel-of-football.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Arrests of English and Welsh soccer fans for disorderly conduct at matches in the 2009-2010 season fell by 10 percent from the previous campaign, according to the U.K. Home Office.

There were 3,391 arrests in the season, a decline of 395, according to a statement e-mailed today. The figures include the World Cup in South Africa, where no English or Welsh fans were arrested, the Home Office said.

The U.K. has used banning orders for the last decade to prevent supporters with criminal histories from attending matches. Those bans increased to 3,248 in November from 3,180 12 months earlier. Ministers and police said the situation has improved since 2000, when 950 British hooligans were expelled from Belgium in one night during the European championships.

“There are many factors behind this and the greatest credit must go to the fans,” Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire said in the statement. “But I want to see them continue to build on that good behaviour. We must also applaud the work of police in making football a safer environment for all.”

England is bidding to host the 2018 World Cup, and a committee at FIFA, the sport’s governing body, will vote Dec. 2 on where the event will be held. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...english-welsh-soccer-fans-dropped-by-10-.html


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*Islander’s work is a boost for England’s World Cup bid*

ONE Islander’s efforts could prove decisive in helping England to win their bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

St Brelade resident Sir Bob Murray, the former chairman of Sunderland Football Club, has played a major role in convincing the Football Association to give the green light to a state-of-the-art National Football Centre.

He believes that the go-ahead for the new centre in Burton-upon-Trent could not have come at a better time, as it could prove vital in England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup, which will be decided this week.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

I think we can safely say the England bid came to an end tonight at 21:00 GMT. Thanks BBC and the so called 'public interest'. FIFA will no longer vote for us after that rehash of old allegations. Why did they have to broadcast this three days before the decision?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't agree that it should have been moved and mucho respect for the BBC for doing this. And actually, having seen it, I don't think it's killed our bid either...

The allegations against Warner were certainly new (having not been sacked from FIFA for selling tickets to touts during the 2006 world cup, he tried to sell 10s of thousands of pounds worth of tickets on the black market during South Africa 2010).

The naming of the members on the ISL list was new, though the list itself was known about for some time.

And, thanks to the Dutch, who decided to publish FIFA's list of "confidential" demands on a host nation, we now also know that FIFA expects their organisation to be granted TOTAL tax exemption for the entire duration of the world cup, and tax breaks for its ExCo members and senior staff. England, the USA, Spain; whoever hosts the world cup in 2018/22 will become an offshore tax haven for FIFA for a fortnight.

And, scarily, I agree 100% with David Mellor.

So, nothing explosive, but a few new revelations from Panorama tonight.

I'm not sure there's enough there to really scare off FIFA from England to be honest...most people will forget about all this by next week, because telling them FIFA is corrupt is a bit like saying the Antarctic's a bit nippy.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

RobH said:


> I don't agree that it should have been moved and mucho respect for the BBC for doing this. And actually, having seen it, I don't think it's killed our bid either...
> 
> The allegations against Warner were certainly new (having not been sacked from FIFA for selling tickets to touts during the 2006 world cup, he tried to sell 10s of thousands of pounds worth of tickets on the black market during South Africa 2010).
> 
> ...


But its not next week its Thursday. Plus its going to antagonise the people making the decision.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Well they shouldn't have tried to sell black market tickets then should they? Or accepted kickbacks? For feck's sake, if allegations against some MPs came out and were aired the night before a vote in Parliament we wouldn't be hounding the BBC. Why should this unelected clique, many of whom are criminals, expect special treatment from our media?

This really angers me. So the BBC are going to take the blame if England lose and FIFA will carry on doing "business" as normal, is that it? Because of FIFA's untouchability and total unaccountability we end up with a perverse situation where an organisation proved to be as corrupt as the night is long gets off scot free, whilst the BBC, for exposing them, is hounded. Is that how things are supposed to work?

Well, count me out Archie. I'm not sure I want a world cup in this country if it means getting into bed with FIFA and changing the way our media works to accommodate their criminality. It's not as though we need a world cup to continue being one of the biggest footballing nations on earth. FIFA needs us on their side far more than we need them. It's about time we showed them that, and tonight's documentary was as good a start as any.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> Well they shouldn't have tried to sell black market tickets then should they? Or accepted kickbacks? For feck's sake, if allegations against some MPs came out and were aired the night before a vote in Parliament we wouldn't be hounding the BBC. Why should this unelected clique, many of whom are criminals, expect special treatment from our media?
> 
> This really angers me. So the BBC are going to take the blame if England lose and FIFA will carry on doing "business" as normal, is that it? Because of FIFA's untouchability and total unaccountability we end up with a perverse situation where an organisation proved to be as corrupt as the night is long gets off scot free, whilst the BBC, for exposing them, is hounded. Is that how things are supposed to work?
> 
> Well, count me out Archie. I'm not sure I want a world cup in this country if it means getting into bed with FIFA and changing the way our media works to accommodate their criminality. It's not as though we need a world cup to continue being one of the biggest footballing nations on earth. FIFA needs us on their side far more than we need them. It's about time we showed them that, and tonight's documentary was as good a start as any.


:applause:

Very well said.

Much as I would like England to host the 2018 World Cup, it is far more important that pressure is relentlessly brought to bear on FIFA until they become an open and fair organisation, free from rampant corruption.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

RobH said:


> Well, count me out Archie. I'm not sure I want a world cup in this country if it means getting into bed with FIFA and changing the way our media works to accommodate their criminality. It's not as though we need a world cup to continue being one of the biggest footballing nations on earth. FIFA needs us on their side far more than we need them. It's about time we showed them that, and tonight's documentary was as good a start as any.


Tonight's documentary will serve as a vehicle for FIFA to demonstrate 'impartiality' on 2 December 2010.


----------



## TheoG (Mar 20, 2010)

I was out-voted on the TV front in favour of Miranda Hart rather than Panorama - how was it?


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

Damn I feel bad for England, both Russia and England have good bids, but i think i would have prefferred England"s bid. Oh well Russia 2018.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

FIFA is worse than most despotic regimes. Now they won't have an impartial look at England's bid and vote based on its merits but instead Jack Warner and his gang of thieves are pissed off because an independent tv station dared to expose their lying, corrupt ways.

Sepp Blatter is scum. Always has been always will be. Try to keep him as far away from your country as possible.


----------



## bestbud (Jul 31, 2008)

Why are our Government shamelessly doing business with those who are allegedly involved in corruption, or at the very least appear to be condoning corruption? 

Any other public related body would be in serious hot water if they even attempted to enter into a contract of any kind without carrying out due dilligence beforehand. Surely EU rules on procurement have an implication somewhere.

Long live the BBC


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*
Why South Africa's empty World Cup stadiums could boost England's 2018 bid*

*Do Fifa want to risk a stampede from another herd of white elephants?*











In May 2004, Fifa announced that South Africa would host the 2010 World Cup. A delegation led by former president Nelson Mandela erupted in celebration.

Amidst a a few voices of concern about the country's alarming crime rate, HIV/Aids problems and wealth inequality, the decision was largely met with acclaim.

The nation's journey from being the pariah of the sporting world to hosting the World Cup filled us all with hope and optimism.

Six years on and 22 Fifa executive committee members are set to decide where the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be held.

This small group of middle-aged men have the power to make a decision that will impact on millions of lives - and lead to the expenditure of billions.

Fresh in their memory will be the 2010 World Cup which has been deemed both a success and a failure depending on who you speak to and how they define what makes a World Cup successful.

As a spectacle some would argue South Africa 2010 was a failure. With the noisy drone of vuvuzelas suppressing the cheers and jeers of the crowd it was certainly not a treat for the ears.

Moreover the low-scoring opening matches and a series of superstars that failed to light up the tournament also fuels the belief that South Africa 2010 was not a vintage World Cup.

But giving the World Cup to South Africa was never about providing the optimum conditions for Lionel Messi to dazzle and nor was it about convenience for the core football market of Europe.

The decision to award the World Cup to Africa in the first place was all about taking football into a new market and creating a legacy that will benefit a whole continent.

So perhaps the true barometer of whether World Cup 2010 delivered the goods is to ascertain whether there are any signs of that legacy in South Africa today.

South Africa spent a whopping 38 billion rand (£3.7 billion) on stadiums and infrastructure to realise the vision of Africa's first World Cup.

But what happened after Spain, the tournament's winners, packed up their boots and got on the plane back to Madrid?

For Neal Collins, a South African-born author and journalist, Fifa have left behind them a shameful legacy of empty stadiums.

"The white elephants - 10 magnificent football stadiums lying empty and unused - serve as a constant reminder of the expensive legacy of the Fifa World Cup," says Collins.

The World Cup stadiums in the northern cities of Polokwane and Nelspruit lie empty and seem doomed to remain so for many years to come.

Collins says: "In Polokwane, the new Peter Mokabe stadium, capacity 45,000, sits unused next to the old Peter Mokabe stadium, capacity 20,000, which was quite suitable for South Africa’s northernmost city. In rural Nelspruit, the Mbombela Stadium has no suitors. Neither city has a side in the local Premier League."

In Durban the Moses Mabhida stadium was recently snubbed by neighbouring rugby team the Sharks as its operators searched for a new tenant, whilst cricket bosses are unhappy that the playing areas of all the new stadiums are too small for their sport.

Soccer City in Johannesburg served as the flagship stadium of the World Cup and largest sports venue in Africa. The 95,000 seater venue underwent a £300 million renovation before the World Cup and costs around £250,000 a month to maintain.

It is regarded as the de facto national stadium for the South African football team but other than the occasional derbies between local rivals Kaizer Chiefs and the Orlando Pirates, the stadium has struggled to generate post World Cup revenue.

The 2010 World Cup organising committee chief Danny Jordaan wants to turn the venue, which under its previous guise as the FNB Stadium hosted Nelson Mandela's first speech following his release from prison, into a tourist attraction.

He said this week: "What do we offer the many tourists who come to the venue where Spanish soccer recorded its finest hour? They come to see the stadium where their team conquered the globe and we offer them nothing. All they can do is just sit on the stands, pose for a picture and that's it.

"Why don't we sell them a Spain or a Bafana jersey, a tiny piece of the pitch, a meal, the 2010 World Cup memorabilia?"

Should south-west Johannesburg and the township of Soweto not take off as a tourist destination for Spanish fans, the future of Soccer City, which is currently at the centre of a naming dispute over whether it must revert to being called FNB Stadium, is clouded in uncertainty.

A concert announced by Irish rockers U2 for February 2011 offers some hope that music could fill the void but a coherent plan on how to make the mammoth venue profitable remains elusive.

Meanwhile in South Africa's legislative capital, Cape Town's Green Point stadium, which hosted England's second group match against Algeria, hosts the odd Ajax Cape Town football match, luring an average of 7,000 supporters to the venue which has a capacity of 55,000 (reduced from 64,000) after the World Cup.

In rugby-loving Cape Town the best hope the stadium's owners have is to lure the union team, the Stormers, away from the Newlands Rugby Stadium. But with Western Province - another rugby team saying no thanks, it is unlikely the Stormers will fill the void.

Cape Town tourism's PR manager Sky Grove insists the stadium has a bright future: "Cape Town Stadium has not become a white elephant since the end of the World Cup.

"Most recently it has been used for the Nelson Mandela Challenge where Bafana Bafana played the USA, and in addition has been used for other sporting and spiritual events.

"There is already a line-up of music, entertainment and sporting events planned for 2011."

Grove says that the World Cup benefited Cape Town by fast-tracking much needed improvements to infrastructure.

"We have a new state-of-the-art airport, an upgraded City station, an affordable airport shuttle, more security cameras and specialist police training around hosting mega-events. An entire area, known as the stadium precinct, was created, complete with a green park."

However, she adds: "It is too early to measure the long-term economic benefit of the World Cup. The direct, short term benefits were not as great as initially perceived but there could be several reasons for this, including the fact that the world was in the throes of an economic depression.

"There are already sentiments to suggest that it is more economically viable to focus on a greater spread of smaller events across a number of trades, disciplines and areas of interest, than to focus on attracting other large events in the future."

Should the site of an empty Soccer City, which served as such a magnificent venue for the opening and closing ceremonies and matches of the 2010 World Cup, rest on the conscience of any Fifa Executive Committee members then it is hard to imagine how front-runners Russia, who have pledged to build eight new stadiums, can seem such a desirable option.

Fifa likes to use the World Cup to spark new markets for the game in areas that could do with such as boost. They want to grow the global game by taking it to every corner of the planet.

But in places such as Russia - where the average attendances for the top division (12,500) fall below those in the Scottish Premier League - spending billions on stadiums and infrastructure would be another massive gamble.

Brazil in 2014 will likely lead to the creation of another herd of white elephants - four host cities, Manaus, Brasilia, Cuiabá and Natal, do not have a club in the country's top three divisions.

Another World Cup leading to another cluster of empty stadiums in a country with high unemployment and wealth discrepancies will only lead to more criticism for Fifa and Brazil's football authorities.

Those executive committee members with the foresight to see that might just feel that England's "ready to host the World Cup tomorrow" factor is not just the safest option for 2018. It's the only viable one too.

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3541...-africas-empty-world-cup-stadiums-could-boost


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

MysteryMike said:


> *
> Why South Africa's empty World Cup stadiums could boost England's 2018 bid*
> 
> *Do Fifa want to risk a stampede from another herd of white elephants?*
> ...



I replied to this on goal.com

1. 10 magnificent football stadiums lying empty and unused:

Half of the venues were existing and already in good use. If Loftus or Ellis Park etc. are standing empty its because the rugby season is sort of over, its now sevens in George, and rugby/football will use them as needed.


Soccer City has regularly been hosting events and has sold out a few times alreayd. Cape Town was sold out for the Bafana Clash, sold out for U2, and has other concerts planned, conferences back to back last week.



> Travel Corporation Gala
> Bridal Fair
> Jewish Conference Event
> Design Indaba Gala
> Cell C Launch


Heck, even Mbombela and Polokwane now have deals to host Premier League matches.



> *Mpumalanga Black Aces will today sign a contract with the Mbombela municipality to use the stadium for category 'A' matches coming up in the next few months. *
> 
> KickOff.com has learnt that the contract will be signed at the stadium at 11h15 this morning.
> 
> ...





> *Duo to call Polokwane home*
> 
> SuperSport United and Mamelodi Sundowns look set to make the Peter Mokaba Stadium their home when they participate in Confederation of African Football (CAF) fixtures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

This image is from *BEFORE* the World Cup











*AFTER* the World Cup:

SA vs NZ Tri Nations match - *SOLD OUT*

Telkom Charity Cup - *SOLD OUT*



> *Record crowd for Charity Cup*
> 
> August 7 2010 at 03:21pm
> 
> ...











Orlando Pirates vs FS Stars PSL match

Both legs of the Chiefs-Pirates MTN 8 semi final

Ghana vs. South Africa: 50,000

Soweto Derby - *SOLD OUT*

U2 - *Almost SOLD OUT* (Largest stop on their current world tour)



> U2 tickets nearly sold out Monday, 25 October 2010 16:56
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Chiefs vs. Pirates: November 2010










*


Future Events



> *TELKOM KNOCKOUT CUP TICKETS SOLD OUT*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

I'm not sure what the facts are Mo, I trust what you are telling me is the truth, but the article is really trying to fry FIFA for being utter knobs, not the other way around.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Join us at the Scoop for the FIFA World Cup 2018 Announcement 

No reminder needed that England is in the race to host the FIFA World Cup 2018 and the announcement this Thursday will mark the final milestone in the England bid. 

Fans are invited to join the excitement right here in London with a free, live event and public screening of the decision which will take place in the
The Scoop next to City Hall with the iconic Tower Bridge as the backdrop.

As well as the public screening of the announcement from Zurich, the Mayor is putting on a celebration of the ‘beautiful game’ with a whole range of performers including the Street Utd artists performing freestyle soccer, beat boxers, DJs, street dancers and more.

The fun kicks off at 2.30pm, with the announcement expected between 3.00-7.00pm. Entry is free and on a first come, first served basis. In this cold weather please make sure you wrap up warm if you are coming along!

Share this page with your friends and get down to The Scoop on Thursday for what we hope is going to be a huge celebration!

FIFA World Cup 2018 Announcement at The Scoop

Date: Thursday, 2nd December 2010

Time: 2.30pm – 3.00pm

Entry: free on a first come, first served basis

Venue: 

The Scoop
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

http://www.london.gov.uk/event-meeting/2010/dec/join-us-scoop-fifa-world-cup-2018-announcement


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

David Beckham has signed the official British Airways aircraft at Terminal 5 today, to support England's bid to host the 2018 Fifa World Cup.

BA is the official airline of the England 2018 bid and flies the team to Zurich today to hear Fifa announce the host nation on Thursday (2 December).

Beckham's signature sits alongside hundreds of names collected on an electronic board in Heathrow’s Terminal 5 during August's Back the Bid week.

The signatures include Rio Ferdinand, Fabio Capello, Bobby Zamora, Daniel Sturridge, Ray Clemence, Trevor Brooking, Gary Lineker, Stuart Pearce and Andy Anson.

Beckham said: "I'm extremely proud to be flying to Zurich to represent the England 2018 bid, and to be travelling with the hopes of the nation on this official aircraft.

"I hope that the next time I'm on British soil, I'll be with the winning England 2018 bid team."

BA will also fly the prime minister David Cameron and the culture minister Jeremy Hunt to Zurich as part of the bid.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

MysteryMike said:


> Beckham said: "I'm extremely proud to be flying to Zurich to represent the England 2018 bid, and to be travelling with the hopes of the nation on this official aircraft.
> 
> "I hope that the next time I'm on British soil, I'll be with the winning England 2018 bid team."


I hope so too, if it means seeing the back of him for another 12 or 24 years. :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

CharlieP said:


> I hope so too, if it means seeing the back of him for another 12 or 24 years. :lol:


lets just be glad that England has a person of the caliber of Beckham to lead the bid, imagine if he wasn't there, who would be sent instead? He has kept his life together unlike so many of England's footballers and he should be applauded for that alone.


----------



## bigchrisfgb (Nov 7, 2008)

Lets hope we get this World Cup.

Anyone think SJP has a chance of being a venue for games after the group stages if we do win?


----------



## Locke (Sep 18, 2005)

FIFA looked dodgy mcdodge in that doco, corruption should be exposed and stamped out but at the same time that doco has killed Englands chances, you reckon the rest of the upstanding members of the board will want 8 years of that sort of scrutiny, don't bet on it. 

The beeb effectively killed the bid, some would call it unpatriotic in it's timing, I'd have to agree, though I think the doco should be seen and heard. I think though that the Beeb knew it would sink the bid and thats self centred on their part considering it's not the English that are at fault here. If FIFA is the target then the Beeb took out an innocent party as well, massive collateral damage, so that was a poor decision and a poor outcome on the Beeb's part.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

MysteryMike said:


> That's funny coming from some one with a rainbow in their avatar :lol: I think we all know your sexual orientation from the day that you turned up, shame it's mixed with such racist bigotry. Why don't you go and do what you best, rimming qatarson or is it qatarson 333 or waqif or mmm. Either way I hope he pays you well.


*Infraction.*


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Sky Sports News are already showing a piece about....wait for it....yep you guessed it....the '66 World Cup. And people wonder why many are against this England bid. They haven't even won the bid yet but the constant '66 references are happening. Everyone I know who is into football hate the '66 overkill. It is mind-numbing. Imagine 8 years of this stuff :wallbash:


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

If you don't like what they are reporting it is your choice to ignore it. You can turn your TV off you know.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Well said; ignore our resident grumpy old man. As I said, God forbid people should be excited at the prospect of a world cup in England eh?!


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Steel City Suburb said:


> If you don't like what they are reporting it is your choice to ignore it. You can turn your TV off you know.




That's not the point though is it? The German media don't do this, and God knows if any European media are entitled too then it's the Germans, it is just our pathetic journalists. If we win this bid they will then move on to us being favourites to win it. It is all nonsense. England didn't have a prayer of winning the World Cup earlier this year, the team just isn't good enough, but our media had them down as being one of the favourites and then when we duly failed the backlash happened. It was the journalists who put them as one of the contenders to start with. YCMIU.

You will not be able to get away from this crap if England win the bid. it will be everywhere. :bash:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Seriously, you're getting boring now.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

RobH said:


> Seriously, you're getting boring now.


It's simple. Don't read it if you don't want to see it :lol:


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

You really are a plonker.


----------



## gezza (Nov 10, 2010)

Mo Rush said:


> *Infraction.*


Mo do you know if South African TV is showing the announcement live?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Probably. I'm listening in on i-phone


----------



## venki04ss (Nov 6, 2009)

ENGLAND BIDDING - JOKER.! They were using Some DIRTY premier league stadium's.! Don't Worry ENGLISH FANS .. They should watch Premier league Every year.! 

England defeat in First Round what a joker :lol::lol::lol:

CONGRATS RUSSIA.


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha,arrogant English pricks !! Well done Birmingham City!!!


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Classy.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

There is such a thing as a graceless winner. I see we have two already.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

Pricks? 

F**k off you self centred people. How a bid with 'High Risk' won I don't know, we all know corruption was behind Russia's win. 

England couldn't have done much more tbh, it's a joke.


----------



## Mr Trebus (Oct 18, 2010)

venki04ss said:


> ENGLAND BIDDING - JOKER.! They were using Some DIRTY premier league stadium's.! Don't Worry ENGLISH FANS .. They should watch Premier league Every year.!
> 
> England defeat in First Round what a joker :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> CONGRATS RUSSIA.


the biggest joke is youre from India:lol:Heres a grain of rice for you to scribble on what india has given the Football world on you knobhead,Stick to kabbadi ya jealous muppet.


----------



## London_Canary (Jun 22, 2009)

We were fighting a losing battle from the off, despite having the best technical bid it's now pretty clear that Fifa is only interested in Football virgin Nations, South Africa 2010, Russia 2018, Qatar 2022. It's BS how our greatest strengths ended up being our greatest weakness. I.E being a developed football country with an existing passion for football. Thanks to the clowns at Fifa several generations of people in England will never get the chance to see a World cup on home soil, which is criminal for a nation that has done so much for this sport. Alan Shearer put on a gracious face during his interview with the BBC but you know he was thinking exactly the same as me.

Good luck to African teams traveling to Russia in 2018, they will need it. I'm sure 2022 will be full of passion too, with only rich part time pawn sandwich fans attending games, wont be many real fans about though. Well done Fifa, bravo!


----------



## WFInsider (Oct 27, 2010)

Mr Trebus said:


> the biggest joke is youre from India:lol:Heres a grain of rice for you to scribble on what india has given the Football world on you knobhead,Stick to kabbadi ya jealous muppet.


Someone ban this troll FFS


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

England got two, yes two, votes in the 1st round :lol:


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

AdidasGazelle said:


> England got two, yes two, votes in the 1st round :lol:


:lol:

Russia has a lot of money but i didn't imagine at this point !


----------

