Jump to content

England 2018


Recommended Posts

I don't see London 2012 having a negative impact on a potential England 2018 bid.  There is a safe 6 year separation in the two events and the WC is spread out over several cities.  England has a wealth of capable stadia and the New Wembley will be the jewel in the crown.  The two events would also have slightly different audiences and sponsors.

I know I have said that a WC hurts an 2016 Olympic bid for South Africa and Brazil, but I think the other way around (Olympics first, then WC) doesn't hurt as much because the WC is more spread out.  In fact, it probably helps.  There is some precedent - Mexico hosted Olympics in 1968 and WC in 1970; Germany hosted Olympics in 1972 and WC in 1974.

And Baron...normally, I think you have some bang on observations, but I seriously do not see FIFA staying out of Europe that long.  The 2018 World Cup has Europe written all over it and England is the last major European country to have not hosted in a while (last time in 1966).  The USA is not a big enough FIFA market and 1994 wasn't that long ago.  I see them milking China before they come back to North America again.  Maybe when all the soccer kids grow up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the Olympic Games would be a bonus for the WC bid in 2018.

It'll show that the UK can pull off a major sporting event.  And, unlike the Olympics, there will be no major infrastructure upgrades needed for the Cup.

Technically, England could host next years WC without needing to do any building work (apart from finish Wembley).  We've got more than enough football stadiums around the country that can easily accomodate the matches.  Even teams down in league 1 (the '3rd' league after the Premiership and the Championship) have good enough stadiums to host WC games.

And, unlike certain other countries, there wouldn't been that much travelling needed between the matches - it would be very compacts compared to somewhere like the US (unless the US hosted all the matches within one particular state?).

" It'll show that the UK can pull off a major sporting event.  And, unlike the Olympics, there will be no major infrastructure upgrades needed for the Cup."

Where do you actually come from ?

Didn't you see Euro 96 , The Commonwealth Games or Rugby World Cup ? . The UK is home to some of the greatest annual sporting events in the world and you talk as if we're Pakistan !

Sorry - where did you get that impression from?

I actually said that we could host the world cup now if we wanted to and we've got everything in place already (except Wembley itself which will be ready in Jan).

Pretty much every Premiership stadium could host World cup matches (that's 20), the majority of Championship stadiums could also host them (probably another 15 or so) and even some from League one - maybe another 5 or 6.   So, that's around 40 football grounds ready to host World Cup matches without needing to spend a single penny on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll also have a few new modern stadiums by then aswell.  Ashburton Grove (Emirates Stadium for Arsenal) and maybe a new one for Liverpool too.

I also think a successful 2012 Olympics will benefit Englands canditure should they bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Blimey the next century could be exciting times for our land of blighty. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much every Premiership stadium could host World cup matches (that's 20), the majority of Championship stadiums could also host them (probably another 15 or so) and even some from League one - maybe another 5 or 6.   So, that's around 40 football grounds ready to host World Cup matches without needing to spend a single penny on them.

Well, talking of spending a penny, I would like to think that some of them would upgrade their toilet facilities prior to any World Cup, particularly the ones in the away ends. Some Premiership clubs have "facilities" which would make a Siberian gulag look luxurious.  And also catering needs some work.  The grounds that do good food run out of it in five minutes flat, and the ones that don't... well, less said the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go on, name some names.

A WC Bid based on the Premiership grounds is a non-starter if only because it would be too concentrated in London (6 teams), the Northwest (7 teams), and the Northeast (3 teams), with all the games very close to eachother.

But since you asked for a review of grounds

Really crap grounds in the Premiership

1. Craven Cottage (Fulham)

2. Goodison Park (Everton)

3. Highbury (Gooners) - and I'm an Arsenal supporter, I'm no great lover of the North London Library, and am very pleased that Arsenal will finally move to a new home that is more appropriate for a team of its stature

4. St Andrews (Birmingham) - too small and the main stand is a real dump

5. Portsmouth - ground from a different era. Can't pull it down quick enough

6. Crystal Palace - ok they got relegated, but their ground's dire anyway

Grounds (Premiership & Championship) that would need a lot of work before being considered for a WC Bid

1. Elland Road (Leeds) - a Euro 96 ground and Leeds would need to be included in a WC Bid to spread it around geographically. One good stand..  the rest is a dump

2. Hillsborough (Sheffield) - also need to include Sheffield for the spread of the bid, and this Euro 96 ground would need a serious rebuild to be up to scratch and to compare with grounds used in more recent tournaments

3. WHL (Spurs) - good atmosphere and great screens, but transport is crap

4. The Valley (Charlton) - I really like this ground, but it would need at least one new stand entirely and the capacity would still be too small. They want to upgrade to 40,000 and would need to do so before being considered

5. City Ground (Nottingham) - Euro 96 ground. Too small now for a WC bid, and the other grounds in the East Midlands (Leicester, Derby) are not much bigger, so it's a problem area

6. Other ground in the West Midlands - since St Andrews is a dump, the FA would need to find another ground in the West Midlands to host a group alongside Villa Park. Where? West Brom? Too small. Wolves? Too small. Coventry? Probably too small

7. Upton Park (WHU) - great new stand, but the one opposite is dire and it would be very difficult to rebuild it as there are blocks of flats very close to the back of it.

Grounds that would need some work:

1. Ewood Park (Blackburn) - would need a new main stand, otherwise it's ok

2. Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) - great stadium now, but access is not the best, there's little parking for coaches (where the coaches park now is getting redeveloped) and it's difficult to segregate fans outside the ground

So, basically, a London bid would be looking at a fair bit of new building work (Leeds, Sheffield, a new stadium in Birmingham and possibly another in Liverpool), and may still have geographic problems in the East Midlands and the lack of a decent sized stadium in the south if Portsmouth can't get their act together (Anyone for Twickenham?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt it Glasgow thats going for the comonwealth games next in the uk??? :P

i know we are bidding, just cant remember the year we are going for, but if thats the case im sure a Scottish commonwealth bid wont be affected only enhanced by London 2012 :cool:

Yes ,Glasgow is and good luck to Glasgow too . They had better do a better job of it than Edinburgh did because that was embarassingly bad .

Edinburgh'86 was a great success in terms of organisation. The main problem was politics...more specifically Thatcher's total intransigence and inability to keep her mouth shut in the run up to the games. Added to that England's insistence of making a bad situation much much worse by putting zola bub in their team at a time when the Commonwealth was going ballistic over the British atitude towards SAfrica....all in all the government f*cked over Edinburgh'86 and then took no responsibility for it, leaving the city to pick up the tab....which thankfully they could just about afford. Many people rightfully think the government owes Edinburgh....and I agree with them. Manchester got unqualified political and financial support from the Major government and Blair.....not so for Edinburgh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isnt it Glasgow thats going for the comonwealth games next in the uk??? :P

i know we are bidding, just cant remember the year we are going for, but if thats the case im sure a Scottish commonwealth bid wont be affected only enhanced by London 2012 :cool:

:) Now that Hamilton, Ont. has formally announced it's intentions to bid, Glasgow will now have a real tough time of it.

England (IMO) will likely host the FIFA WC in 2018 and and with London only being two years previous, the UK will still be on a high but will expect the VERY best from Glasgow, in facilities, infrastructure etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There won't be any more than two grounds used in any one city.

London - Wembley and Ashburton Grove

Manchester - Old Trafford and City of Manchester Stadium

Liverpool - New Anfield

Birmingham - Villa Park and possible new City of Birmingham Stadium

Yorkshire - Hillsborough and Elland Road or expanded KC Stadium

North East - St James Park and Stadium of Light

Other possibles:

Expanded East Midlands stadium, most likely Pride Park or the Walkers Stadium

A Bristol stadium if they ever get their act together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There won't be any more than two grounds used in any one city.

London - Wembley and Ashburton Grove

Manchester - Old Trafford and City of Manchester Stadium

Liverpool - New Anfield

Birmingham - Villa Park and possible new City of Birmingham Stadium

Yorkshire - Hillsborough and Elland Road or expanded KC Stadium

North East - St James Park and Stadium of Light

Other possibles:

Expanded East Midlands stadium, most likely Pride Park or the Walkers Stadium

A Bristol stadium if they ever get their act together

Pretty much agree with that assessment, but I can't help but think that there aren't enough grounds for a 32 team WC. Does anyone know how many grounds were used in Japan/Korea?

I'd be more inclined to look at 8 regional centres (for each of the 8 groups), each with 2 stadia ... one main one (40k+) and one smaller one (30k+), so

1. London (Wembley, Emirates)

2. Manchester (Old Trafford, CoMS)

3. Yorkshire (rebuilt Elland Road, new Sheffield Stadium or rebuit Hillsborough)

4. Northeast (St James, City of Light)

5. Birmingham (Villa Park, plus hopefully the new City of Birmingham Stadium, and if not then it would be a desperate search around West Brom or Wolves!)

6. Liverpool (New Anfield, plus hopefully a new Everton ground, if not then you might have to look at Ewood)

7. East Midlands (most likely Pride Park and Walkers, unless Notts Forest can return to former glories)

and then AN Other, which could be, in rapidly declining order of probability:

1. South Coast (new Portsmouth ground, plus St Mary's) or

2. Southern (Twickenham plus St Mary's) or

3. East Anglia (Olympic Stadium plus Portman Road) or

4. Beg FIFA to allow them to include the Millenium Stadium for the day and match it with a stadium in Bristol, but it's not very likely or

5. Really beg FIFA and use Glasgow for the day, with either Celtic Park, Ibrox or Hampden being used ... but there's no chance of that happening

Question: Is Glasgow the only city in the world with 3 football stadia, each holding more than 50,000 people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think that the most likely stadium to be used in the East Midlands would be the City Ground? Granted it would have to have some seats added but surely this wouldn't be a big deal, after all it's easier than building a new stadium.

The reason I am asking this is because Nottingham is the regional capital and is a lot more famous than Derby and Leicester for shopping, night life, restaurants etc and I would think because of this it would also have higher number of hotel rooms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think that the most likely stadium to be used in the East Midlands would be the City Ground? Granted it would have to have some seats added but surely this wouldn't be a big deal, after all it's easier than building a new stadium.

The reason I am asking this is because Nottingham is the regional capital and is a lot more famous than Derby and Leicester for shopping, night life, restaurants etc and I would think because of this it would also have higher number of hotel rooms?

I guess it will depend on how Forest do in the next decade or so. I can't see a Division 2 (league 1 whatever) side wanting to up their capacity to 40,000+ and I really don't think they could afford to at the moment.

Also, Nottingham might be the centre of the East Midlands but it's actually a really small city - the city centre is very small and dense (I think there are something like 300 bars in one square mile, for example).

Having said that, the Walkers and Pride Park are both new completed stadiums and I'm not sure how they'd go about expanding those as they're "done".

Pride Park is currently favoured over the city ground as it has hosted international matches and England Under 21s recently but it is too small for a world cup stadium. Pride Park has the room around it as it's on an old industrial park suurounded by grass. It's a great stadium to watch football in but, as I've said I don't know how they'd expand it. I can't comment on Derby as a city as I've only been to the football ground.

I can't comment on Leicester or the Walkers as I've never been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go on, name some names.

OK, here are some names for you...

Charlton: the home facilties are great, but unless they have made radical improvements in the last year, the away end is an absolute disgrace. Last time I was there, the "facilities" were a single filthy portaloo and everyone was queuing for their pies outside in the rain.  Oh, and the away end food vendors won't accept ten pound notes.

West Ham: very nearly as bad.

Birmingham City:  They don't call it "The Sty" for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think that the most likely stadium to be used in the East Midlands would be the City Ground? Granted it would have to have some seats added but surely this wouldn't be a big deal, after all it's easier than building a new stadium.

The reason I am asking this is because Nottingham is the regional capital and is a lot more famous than Derby and Leicester for shopping, night life, restaurants etc and I would think because of this it would also have higher number of hotel rooms?

No doubt about it ... Nottingham is a substantially nicer city than either of the two rival E Mids cities ... but as far as modern football stadia go, then the other two both have reasonably sized (30-32k) stadia fit to go, whereas the City Ground would need a new main stand (ie a copy of the Clough Stand opposite) and some adjustments to the stand behind the goals.

Two issues ... why does a team now sadly in the third level of English football need a gleaming new grandstand,a dn how could they maintain it thereafter? and

at least parts of the ground can't be built any higher due to local planning restrictions

Either way, it would be difficult

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the usual WC venues strategy is to have 12 venues in 6 groups. I suspect that the venues chosen will be largely based upon the Euro'96 strategy. it would probably look something like this.

Group A - London (Wembly, Emirates)

Group B - Midlands (Villa Park and Walkers stadium)

Group C - Liverpool (new Anfield and probably new Goodison)

Group D - Manchester (Old trafford and Man city stadium)

Group E - Yorkshire (Elland Road and Hillsborough)

Group F - North East (St James park and Stadium of Light)

I suspect they would use the 2018WC to upgrade Elland road, Hillsborough and probably Goodison Park, with an increased capacity for the Walkers Stadium. If Notingham Forest's fortunes picked up it would be chosen over Leicester since it is closer to East Mids Airport and is more of a tourist destination because of the robin hood stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think that the most likely stadium to be used in the East Midlands would be the City Ground? Granted it would have to have some seats added but surely this wouldn't be a big deal, after all it's easier than building a new stadium.

The reason I am asking this is because Nottingham is the regional capital and is a lot more famous than Derby and Leicester for shopping, night life, restaurants etc and I would think because of this it would also have higher number of hotel rooms?

No doubt about it ... Nottingham is a substantially nicer city than either of the two rival E Mids cities ... but as far as modern football stadia go, then the other two both have reasonably sized (30-32k) stadia fit to go, whereas the City Ground would need a new main stand (ie a copy of the Clough Stand opposite) and some adjustments to the stand behind the goals.

Two issues ... why does a team now sadly in the third level of English football need a gleaming new grandstand,a dn how could they maintain it thereafter? and

at least parts of the ground can't be built any higher due to local planning restrictions

Either way, it would be difficult

There has been talk of a ground share between Forest and Notts County, maybe this would open the door for an increase in the capacity of the City Ground.

Furthermore the City Ground is not really that much smaller than Pride Park and the Walkers Stadium and looks like the easiest one to expand.

Walkers-32,500  City Ground-30,600  Pride Park-33,597

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been talk of a ground share between Forest and Notts County, maybe this would open the door for an increase in the capacity of the City Ground.

Furthermore the City Ground is not really that much smaller than Pride Park and the Walkers Stadium and looks like the easiest one to expand.

Walkers-32,500  City Ground-30,600  Pride Park-33,597

Can't see why a groundshare would open the way for increased capacity ... what's Notts County's average gate?

But I certainly take the point about which ground would be easier to expand ... both Pride Park and Walkers are pretty well contained, completed stadia. En extension to either would involve and fair bit of work. City Ground would "just" need a new grandstand and some work to the funny shaped stand behind the goals. But the question still remains, what would 1st division Notts Forest do with the ground thereafter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notts County's average gates was just over 5,000 last season, so a groundshare probably would only become viable if and when both clubs climb the leagues.

Equally, I suspect the support for a groundshare among fans of the two clubs would be minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...