Jump to content

England 2018- World Cup Bid


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It shouldn't matter if the governing body does its job properly and if its leaders are actually worthy of the offices they hold. I suspect there are many British reporters who would say that the task

Reading one of the papers today, it would seem that the Russian bid has seen the Triesman rubbish and raised us by insulting every single football fan in this land. Russia 2018 bid: "England fans are

Fifa made the right decision. Quite frankly, I am ashamed of England's behaviour in the wake of the decision. What if they had won? Would they be so boisterous in their calls for reform in FIFA? NO! W

  • 2 weeks later...

Possibly the most absurd stadium story I've read in ages today with Tottenham apparently seeking a temporary home at MK Dons.

DONS SPURRED ON (News of the World)

Quite apart from the fact that I despise Pete Winkelman and everything his disgusting pre-school franchise club stands for, there is no logical reason for Spurs to move (even temporarily) from a 36,000 capacity ground to one a third smaller. Ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That rumour has been doing the rounds for a good 2 or 3 months. On top of that, I've heard Spurs are willing to help finance an expansion of MK Dons' Stadium if this were to go ahead. So we wouldn't be moving into a ground 2/3 the size of WHL but once roughly the same size.

All speculation, but nothing new there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An expansion to what? The stadium is already two tier but only one tier has been completed so far, hence the 22,000 capacity. Completing the top tier would take that to around 30,000. Does this rumour suggest going further than that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I think there's probably more of a fervour for a World Cup in England than there is for an Olympic Games, simply because of the passion that there is for football above other sports.

I was at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland the other week. Perhaps could do with a lick of paint and an extra tier to balance it up, but what a wonderful stadium. I haven't heard an atmosphere louder at any football ground in this country for a very long time. Great venue, great people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's probably more of a fervour for a World Cup in England than there is for an Olympic Games, simply because of the passion that there is for football above other sports.

I was at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland the other week. Perhaps could do with a lick of paint and an extra tier to balance it up, but what a wonderful stadium. I haven't heard an atmosphere louder at any football ground in this country for a very long time. Great venue, great people.

The odd thing I find is why many of these older stadiums have not been replaced and why new stadia are built below the capacity requirements for World Cup .

This is the birth place of football and you would think 45000 to 60000 seats would be a given when building a new stadium in England. No major league outdoor sport in North America builds bellow 45000 with the exception of Major League soccer and Canadian Grid Iron Football. Hence why America has about 50 stadia ready for a world cup without touching a Major league Soccer Stadia or any of the WC 1994 Stadia.

There are some great stadia bellow the World Cup Capacity level in England , turf there would never be a question of but you would think normal club play would warrant the extra seats considering the popularity of the game in the UK.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

It might seem logical to you on the other side of the Atlantic, but it's by no means as clear-cut as that. There are certain factors which you always have to account for in England, namely the history of the clubs and traditional catchment areas plus the cost of watching top level football.

Let us consider the examples of Reading and Wigan to name two. Though both have been in the top division in recent times (and Wigan still are), neither are what could be described as traditional top-level clubs. They are smaller teams from areas that have not been historical hotbeds of football. Wigan as a town is almost certainly better known for its far more illustrious rugby league side than it is for its football team.

Reading had plans to expand their ground capacity to 38,000 from the current 24,000, but these were shelved after they were relegated from the Premier League last season. Why? Because the financial discrepancy, and the common drop in crowds between the Premier League and the division below are so great that it is simply not financially viable to do it. Though Hull City are also talking about stadium expansion now they are in the top division, do not be surprised if those plans are quietly dropped if they end up being relegated in the not too distant future.

You also have to consider what it costs to watch professional football in this country. While a number of clubs have taken much needed and welcome steps to try to reduce the costs for supporters, it is still an expensive thing to do with your leisure time, particularly if you have children of a certain age who you would normally take with you. Wigan, for example, have some of the cheaper ticket prices in the Premier League but their crowds are, comparatively speaking, very low. So why would they entertain the idea of a bigger ground when it is clear that it is not needed? There is no point at all, World Cup or no World Cup, in building facilities which aren't needed. Particularly when, in the cases of Reading and Wigan, you have London and Manchester not too far away.

You touched on the quality venues which don't meet World Cup requirements at the moment. We are already seeing how a lot of these clubs are looking at expanding their grounds with a view to trying to bring matches to their cities if the England 2018 bid is successful. Only today, Sheffield United have announced their intention to mount a phased expansion of their Bramall Lane ground to bring the capacity up from its present 33,000 to the 40,000 threshold. This thread documents many, but probably not all, of the other clubs who are also drawing up similar proposals.

But there's something more than simply the capacity of a ground that is important here. What the traditional English grounds like the Bramall Lanes and the Villa Parks and the Old Traffords and the St James Parks have is soul. They have history. These truly are some of the venues where the game grew and prospered and that should mean something. What England has, and will undoubtedly continue to develop in the years ahead, are more world-class venues which also maintain that link with the heritage of football in this country. I believe that is absolutely vital, a unique point which nobody else in this race can offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
<font color='#000000'>To host both the 2012 olympic games followed by the world cup in 2018 would not be a problem at all for England. The country would be able to do that very easily.

The reason is that for the 2018 world cup England would not need to build any new stadiums, so it would not by any means  be a massive drain on public money.

All of the English stadiums listed at the beginning of this thread are either already existing or will be completed within the next few years. So unlike Japan and South Korea, which had to build the majority, the majority of facilties are already existing.

Thats why sometime in 2001, maybe even early 2002, there was talk of Japan/ South Korea pulling out as the 2002 hosts (obviously this rumour was total rubbish).

Nevertheless, England said it would be host the contest at short notice, if needed.</font>

Yeah that is why Wales and Scotland have Stadia for the London 2012 Fifa Olympic Tournament. 6 Stadia for 2012 is what half the Stadia required for the World Cup and yet 33 percent of the Soccer Venues for 2012 are indeed not in England. I don't think it is severe as England only has four stadia for a world cup but considering some of these stadia have been on hold for a while like Stanley Park Stadium and Villa Park I would not hold my breathe.

A joint UK bid is more realistic it would seem.

Hosting on Short Notice for England Exclusively even today means the Tournament is 4 Stadia Short unless you wavier the rule of restricting 2 cities to having two host stadia. The More realistic and Attractive Short Notice Countries are Germany, China, Russia and America. Both Japan and South Korea had enough stadia in 2002 to host the world cup on their own and they used 10 stadia a piece for their hosting. England in 2010 would be like going back to Argentina 1978 for number of Stadia. Even many of the new stadia outside of Manchester and London are on the very low end of Crowd Capacity Required for a World Cup. In the past ten years new stadia have gone up in England but not even to the minimum Crowd Capacities.

America , 50 new Stadia fully able to host the World Cup with more then enough Capacity and none of those 50 where used in WC 1994. All The new NFL Stadiums have been designed with the provisions to configure seating for the World Cup. Hell America has 10 domed Stadia of Capacity none of which were used for 1994. Domed Stadiums are certainly allowed as was shown in 1994 with the use of the Pontiac Silverdome. The Silverdome would not even make the list as Ford Field , a new Domed stadium in Detroit is in Place. The Cotton Bowl would be out as the Dallas Cowboys have a New 90000 seat stadium ready to be opened next year. Atlanta was excluded from WC 1994 but has the Georgia Dome. Soldier Field Chicago and maybe the Rose Bowl in LA would be the only repeat Stadia on a moments notice both having extensive renovations recently. Meadowlands in New Jersey which hosted WC 1994 is being replaced by 2010.

As local premiership soccer stadia go England has what it has but stepping into a emergency rescue World Cup for 2010 there are many better options .

By 2018 Stanley Park Might be completed . Considering it has been on the books since 2003 and now has had construction hauled due to the financial crisis who knows when it will be opened.

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
It might seem logical to you on the other side of the Atlantic, but it's by no means as clear-cut as that. There are certain factors which you always have to account for in England, namely the history of the clubs and traditional catchment areas plus the cost of watching top level football.

Let us consider the examples of Reading and Wigan to name two. Though both have been in the top division in recent times (and Wigan still are), neither are what could be described as traditional top-level clubs. They are smaller teams from areas that have not been historical hotbeds of football. Wigan as a town is almost certainly better known for its far more illustrious rugby league side than it is for its football team.

Reading had plans to expand their ground capacity to 38,000 from the current 24,000, but these were shelved after they were relegated from the Premier League last season. Why? Because the financial discrepancy, and the common drop in crowds between the Premier League and the division below are so great that it is simply not financially viable to do it. Though Hull City are also talking about stadium expansion now they are in the top division, do not be surprised if those plans are quietly dropped if they end up being relegated in the not too distant future.

You also have to consider what it costs to watch professional football in this country. While a number of clubs have taken much needed and welcome steps to try to reduce the costs for supporters, it is still an expensive thing to do with your leisure time, particularly if you have children of a certain age who you would normally take with you. Wigan, for example, have some of the cheaper ticket prices in the Premier League but their crowds are, comparatively speaking, very low. So why would they entertain the idea of a bigger ground when it is clear that it is not needed? There is no point at all, World Cup or no World Cup, in building facilities which aren't needed. Particularly when, in the cases of Reading and Wigan, you have London and Manchester not too far away.

You touched on the quality venues which don't meet World Cup requirements at the moment. We are already seeing how a lot of these clubs are looking at expanding their grounds with a view to trying to bring matches to their cities if the England 2018 bid is successful. Only today, Sheffield United have announced their intention to mount a phased expansion of their Bramall Lane ground to bring the capacity up from its present 33,000 to the 40,000 threshold. This thread documents many, but probably not all, of the other clubs who are also drawing up similar proposals.

But there's something more than simply the capacity of a ground that is important here. What the traditional English grounds like the Bramall Lanes and the Villa Parks and the Old Traffords and the St James Parks have is soul. They have history. These truly are some of the venues where the game grew and prospered and that should mean something. What England has, and will undoubtedly continue to develop in the years ahead, are more world-class venues which also maintain that link with the heritage of football in this country. I believe that is absolutely vital, a unique point which nobody else in this race can offer.

Never said England was not the place for Soccer at all and I understand the catchment areas. It seems to me that when the second most valued club in the England Premiership only matches the the value of the 20 th valued club in the National Football League in America being the Tennessee Titans it teels the scale of things . Nashville is really not a big place in the overall scheme of things but they have a 68000 seat stadium that is less then 10 years old and they have NCAA Gridiron football to compete with both with Vanderbelt locally and the University of Tennessee down the Road in Knoxville.

What England lacks is a native Entrepreneur Class interested in ownership of teams. Russians buy Premiership clubs. Hell The Nigerian's are in Talks for Newcastle United. Seems Ironic that the CEO of GLO in Nigeria may end up owning a team at 400 million pounds but Glasgow can't even get 150 million from the National Lottery for the Commonwealth Games.

Jim Jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah that is why Wales and Scotland have Stadia for the London 2012 Fifa Olympic Tournament. 6 Stadia for 2012 is what half the Stadia required for the World Cup and yet 33 percent of the Soccer Venues for 2012 are indeed not in England. I don't think it is severe as England only has four stadia for a world cup but considering some of these stadia have been on hold for a while like Stanley Park Stadium and Villa Park I would not hold my breathe.

A joint UK bid is more realistic it would seem.

Since when has the football tournament for the Olympics, an event being staged for and by BRITAIN, made any difference to a World Cup bid of ENGLAND? It would seem to me that any connection, which is utterly irrelevant to start with, is only being made in your head. The Olympics are a British event and it is therefore sensible for venues across Britain to be used. Let's keep relevant here, shall we?

Hosting on Short Notice for England Exclusively even today means the Tournament is 4 Stadia Short unless you wavier the rule of restricting 2 cities to having two host stadia. The More realistic and Attractive Short Notice Countries are Germany, China, Russia and America. Both Japan and South Korea had enough stadia in 2002 to host the world cup on their own and they used 10 stadia a piece for their hosting. England in 2010 would be like going back to Argentina 1978 for number of Stadia. Even many of the new stadia outside of Manchester and London are on the very low end of Crowd Capacity Required for a World Cup. In the past ten years new stadia have gone up in England but not even to the minimum Crowd Capacities.

Even allowing for the fact that the chances of the 2010 tournament being moved away from South Africa now appear to be extremely remote, I'm curious to know just how many times you have to be told something before you accept that you are wrong. It is simply false to say that England would be short of venues if asked to host at short notice. The fact is that England has nine grounds that can host World Cup matches now, one more than what I understand to be the absolute bare minimum and only one fewer than South Africa have put forward to host the 2010 tournament straight off. Therefore, your claim of being four short is just the same sort of misinformation that we always seem to get from you.

As local premiership soccer stadia go England has what it has but stepping into a emergency rescue World Cup for 2010 there are many better options .

It doesn't matter what you or I think on that issue. I suspect Hell freezing over is more likely than the 2010 finals being moved now.

By 2018 Stanley Park Might be completed. Considering it has been on the books since 2003 and now has had construction hauled due to the financial crisis who knows when it will be opened.

You can sit on the other side of the Atlantic ignorantly sneering and misinforming people as much as you like but that won't alter the fact that Liverpool's new stadium will be built. It's not a question of whether Liverpool as a club can afford it. The simple truth is they cannot afford not to build it and be further left behind the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal in terms of matchday revenues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never said England was not the place for Soccer at all and I understand the catchment areas. It seems to me that when the second most valued club in the England Premiership only matches the the value of the 20 th valued club in the National Football League in America being the Tennessee Titans it teels the scale of things . Nashville is really not a big place in the overall scheme of things but they have a 68000 seat stadium that is less then 10 years old and they have NCAA Gridiron football to compete with both with Vanderbelt locally and the University of Tennessee down the Road in Knoxville.

What England lacks is a native Entrepreneur Class interested in ownership of teams. Russians buy Premiership clubs. Hell The Nigerian's are in Talks for Newcastle United. Seems Ironic that the CEO of GLO in Nigeria may end up owning a team at 400 million pounds but Glasgow can't even get 150 million from the National Lottery for the Commonwealth Games.

The usual Jones tactic of throwing enough mud in the hope that some will stick is seen yet again here. You don't understand the circumstances here. Your comments are irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to tell that these comments are coming from a user in a bedsit on the other side of the world from because they certainly have no relevence to England's world cup bid. Jones, your knowledge of my country has proven again and again to be about as good as your average redneck's knowledge of anything outside of their borders. Arwebb clearly has the patience of a saint and you should thank him for bothering to correct the multiple inaccuricies which riddle your posts. I'm off to Wembley this weekend; the jewel in the crown of our upcoming bid. I couldn't care less what Nashville has or hasn't got. It's just not relevent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob you must know, a philosophy is u facts and others are pure warheit.England league currently plays the best football in Welt.Liga have a lot of money from Russian, Arab billion, because Award, television rights usw.Arsenal, Chelse, Liverpool, Manh are best FOOTBALL clubs of Welt.So you need to say how englender and not hipotetisch.Farbe must be known Rob.Wann I'm Englender then I struggle with these facts for 2018 World Cup in England, but I fight for Holland and Belgium for World Cup 2018. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very easy to tell that these comments are coming from a user in a bedsit on the other side of the world from because they certainly have no relevence to England's world cup bid. Jones, your knowledge of my country has proven again and again to be about as good as your average redneck's knowledge of anything outside of their borders. Arwebb clearly has the patience of a saint and you should thank him for bothering to correct the multiple inaccuricies which riddle your posts. I'm off to Wembley this weekend; the jewel in the crown of our upcoming bid. I couldn't care less what Nashville has or hasn't got. It's just not relevent.

It's quite simple. I hate inaccuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rob you must know, a philosophy is u facts and others are pure warheit.England league currently plays the best football in Welt.Liga have a lot of money from Russian, Arab billion, because Award, television rights usw.Arsenal, Chelse, Liverpool, Manh are best FOOTBALL clubs of Welt.So you need to say how englender and not hipotetisch.Farbe must be known Rob.Wann I'm Englender then I struggle with these facts for 2018 World Cup in England, but I fight for Holland and Belgium for World Cup 2018. :rolleyes:

I'm sure they'd be happy to have you as a supporter. Maybe you could apply for a job as communications officer.

Edited by Rob ♪
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a delay more than a crisis:

Credit crunch delays Liverpool's new stadium

It's just the way things are at the moment - look at the problems London are having raising capital for the Olympic village. Liverpool are sensibly putting things on hold, a luxury London 2012 obviously doesn't have. I'd be incredibly surprised, bringing this thread back on topic a little, if Liverpool didn't have a new stadium by 2012/13, let alone 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baroness Amos confident Caribbean contacts will secure England's 2018 World Cup bid

England's 2018 World Cup bid company will not start work in its Wembley offices until next month, but elsewhere in the National Stadium last Saturday it was clear that the campaign is well under way.

As England took on Kazakhstan, influential figures from across the football world were being entertained. Jerome Champagne, Fifa’s director of international relations, and Danny Jordaan, chairman of South Africa 2010, joined Football Association chairman Lord Triesman for lunch, while delegations from the football federations of Saudi Arabia, Botswana and Brazil were introduced to Sir Bobby Charlton, celebrating his 71st birthday.

Manchester’s World Cup-winning knight is an inevitable presence in this campaign, but so is anxiety as to whether the 2018 effort will be more successful than the 2006 bid which ended in humiliating defeat.

The early signs are encouraging. In 2006 a disputed 'gentleman’s agreement’ made Germany Europe’s preferred bidder, but this time England have an outstanding chance of success. After tournaments in South Africa and Brazil, emerging nations that pose organisation challenges, Fifa may welcome a return to Europe in 2018, where the time zone and mature market will ensure a media rights bonanza. The emotional argument for a tournament in the home of the game, and most popular league in the world, is strong too.

To deliver, however, the FA will have to demonstrate that reservations about their strategy, personnel and politics are misplaced. As one source with a decade of experience inside Fifa put it recently: “England has a fantastic chance to win this bid, it has everything you would want from a World Cup host. But England’s biggest enemy is always themselves. With England, it is always political.”

As if to make their point, the 2018 board unveiled last weekend was dominated by Westminster figures. Triesman will chair the board, with Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney serving as vice-chairman and potentially leading the bid should Triesman be persuaded that leading the FA and 2018 is too heavy a load.

They will be joined by sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe, his predecessor Richard Caborn, now the prime minister’s World Cup ambassador, and Baroness Amos, a former leader of the House of Lords. London 2012 vice-chairman Sir Keith Mills, advertising guru Sir Martin Sorrell, Manchester United chief executive David Gill and the yet-to-be-appointed chief executive complete the board.

The political majority has led to concerns that the bid will be long on Westminster clout and short on contacts among the 24 members of Fifa’s executive committee.

It is an easy charge to lay against former minister Triesman, and one he rejects. The imminent appointment of a chief executive and a board of vice-presidents with football experience is expected to redress the balance.

The FA’s strategy is also becoming clear, and is in part explained by the inclusion of Amos, a former international development minister and, like Triesman, a Spurs fan.

England 2018 is to be sold as a World Cup to benefit world football. No modern sporting event is complete without a legacy, and for England 2018 it will be the promise of development work in Africa and the Caribbean, where Amos has excellent contacts.

In her first interview since accepting the post, Amos told Inside Sport that she is confident of helping the bid deliver.

“I am not on this board as a politician,” she said. “I’m there for my international experience as a minister at the Foreign Office with responsibility for Africa, the Caribbean and the Commonwealth.

“We want to show that having the World Cup in England will benefit the development of football around the world. We have to remember that this is a global game and a global business, so looking to the international dimension will be a big part of this, as will leaving a legacy.

“I hope my contacts in the Caribbean and Africa will be useful, but we have to win the support of our own confederation first, and win the support of the public. We can’t just expect it to happen. There will be a lot of hard work, and we will need all the stakeholders to pull together.”

Achieving this last point may prove the biggest challenge of all. The 2018 board may be dominated by Westminster figures, but the small 'p’ politics of English football loom large, and squaring competing domestic interests may be Triesman’s biggest challenge. Before the world can be convinced, the FA need to harness the support of Uefa, whose president Michel Platini has been openly hostile to the English game in recent months.

Triesman’s call last week for a debate on the subject of debt in English football can be seen as part of that effort, but among Premier League clubs his comments prompted irritation, and bridges will have to be built if the awesome global promotional power of the league is to be harnessed. Finding a role for league chairman Sir Dave Richards would also ease tensions, and add depth to the bid’s contacts book.

Relations on the 2018 board will need nurturing too. Caborn was a key figure in delivering London 2012 and the contacts made during seven years as sports minister deserve respect, but he had to fight to even get a seat at the table. Former FA chairman Geoff Thompson also needs to be hugged close by his successor. As a vice-chairman of Uefa and Fifa, Thompson is England’s man on the inside, but he has appeared semi-detached from the 2018 effort in recent months.

Bring Thompson onside, smooth tensions with the Premier League, court Platini, keep government at arm’s length and persuade Fifa that the bid is about football first and foremost, and the FA have an outstanding chance of laying the shame of 2006 to rest.

Telegraph Article

--------

The ball seems to be rolling now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...