Jump to content

England 2026


gromit
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I understand it, the Emirates cannot be substantially expanded without removing the roof first and with the way the roof is designed filling in the corners would restrict light and airflow to the pitch. Maybe it's possible. I'll alter the post above to account for it, but I would've thought if it was easy to do they might've looked at doing it by now.

Arsenal's record on the pitch is irrelevent.

Edited by USA Rugby Guy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wembley and Emirates Stadiums would be chosen. Emirates can be expanded to at least 65,000 seats, by filling in the corners etc. Tottenham have no expansion plan for their Stadium. Emirates would also be chosen, because Arsenal (My Football Team) is the most successful London club of all time.

Haven't changed a bit, have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increasing capacity I think is totally unnecessary to Emirates Stadium or any other stadium in London given that Old Trafford in Manchester will be hosting a lot of the larger games as well. And it's not totally unrealistic to have Twickenham host some games. as Yoshi mentioned its capacity is insane, much bigger than Old Trafford. And usually it's not that hard to convert a rugby field into a football field, but perhaps I could be wrong on this point. Someone who has more knowledge about Twickenham please put some insights on this. I'm reading the stadium has never actually hosted a football game, but perhaps that's wrong.

Y'all should focus more on ensuring the lesser stadiums that will only host group games have an adequate amount of capacity and that are not heavily centered in just a handful of cities. Some people like to have a spread out games, so it's probably best not to have any other city other than Manchester and London have more than one stadium hosting some of the games for the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the Emirates cannot be substantially expanded without removing the roof first and with the way the roof is designed filling in the corners would restrict light and airflow to the pitch. Maybe it's possible. I'll alter the post above to account for it, but I would've thought if it was easy to do they might've looked at doing it by now.

Arsenal's record on the pitch is irrelevent.

I'm not trying to get into a argument with you, I've never had issues with you. My point is, the major thing stopping the Emirates Stadium being expanded is the tube upgrade. If we host a Fifa World Cup, Holloway Tube Station and Arsenal Tube Station would have increased capacity, meaning the Emirates Stadium would be expanded. Let's just wait and see until it comes to that I suppose. :)

Haven't changed a bit, have you?

I don't know. :)

I think they might try to bribe...um, persuade the RFU to let them use Twickenham. Colossal capacity, saaf of the river, good rail access, international sport experience, good views for spectators.

Twickenham will never be chosen to host Fifa World Cup matches. There is enough Football Stadiums in London.

Increasing capacity I think is totally unnecessary to Emirates Stadium or any other stadium in London given that Old Trafford in Manchester will be hosting a lot of the larger games as well. And it's not totally unrealistic to have Twickenham host some games. as Yoshi mentioned its capacity is insane, much bigger than Old Trafford. And usually it's not that hard to convert a rugby field into a football field, but perhaps I could be wrong on this point. Someone who has more knowledge about Twickenham please put some insights on this. I'm reading the stadium has never actually hosted a football game, but perhaps that's wrong.

Y'all should focus more on ensuring the lesser stadiums that will only host group games have an adequate amount of capacity and that are not heavily centered in just a handful of cities. Some people like to have a spread out games, so it's probably best not to have any other city other than Manchester and London have more than one stadium hosting some of the games for the WC.

I disagree. As an Arsenal fan, I know Arsenal could do with an expanded Capacity, we could sell 80,000-90,000 or even higher ticket capacity. We always sell out our games. The season ticket waiting list is big. Like I mentioned before, Twickenham wouldn't be chosen for a Fifa World Cup. London has enough Football Stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. As an Arsenal fan, I know Arsenal could do with an expanded Capacity, we could sell 80,000-90,000 or even higher ticket capacity. We always sell out our games. The season ticket waiting list is big. Like I mentioned before, Twickenham wouldn't be chosen for a Fifa World Cup. London has enough Football Stadiums.

London isn't hosting the world cup, England is. Wrap your head around that. Not everything has to be, nor will it be, centered in and around London. What you think as an Arsenic fan does not matter in this argument, especially when your stadium was just built in 2006. If the organization failed to take into account their popularity and did not deliver a suitable enough stadium, that's on them and an England bid for the WC should not bend over backwards for the demands of the Arsenics when the Emirates Stadium won't even be the opening and closing games of the the World Cup.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The local council capped the capacity of the Emirates at 60k because that's all the local transport networks could take. The reason the roof is slung low is to do with height restrictions also imposed by the council at the time the stadium was being planned. Both of these restrictions would have to be overcome for Arsenal to expand substantially. Given that the club last year lost its battle with local residents to have more events at the stadium (link), it's questionable whether they'd be allowed an increase in capacity as the same issues would play out trying to get planning permission.

As far as Twickenham goes, it's not a football stadium. Again, local residents and the council are very strict on the number of events held there each year and it wouldn't be worth the battles to overcome this. With London's existing football stadiums there's little need to consider Twickenham. The fact it wasn't selected for the 2018 bid should be a clue.

For London's second stadium, my post above outlining the pros and cons still stands. The Emirates is unlikely to undergo substantial modification anytime soon, and Twickenham is so unlikely a choice it wasn't worth listing.

Edited by USA Rugby Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

London isn't hosting the world cup, England is. Wrap your head around that. Not everything has to be, nor will it be, centered in and around London. What you think as an Arsenic fan does not matter in this argument, especially when your stadium was just built in 2006. If the organization failed to take into account their popularity and did not deliver a suitable enough stadium, that's on them and an England bid for the WC should not bend over backwards for the demands of the Arsenics when the Emirates Stadium won't even be the opening and closing games of the the World Cup.

Yes, but with 1 City allowed to have 2 Stadiums, London would have 2 Stadiums for a England Fifa World Cup.

The local council capped the capacity of the Emirates at 60k because that's all the local transport networks could take. The reason the roof is slung low is to do with height restrictions also imposed by the council at the time the stadium was being planned. Both of these restrictions would have to be overcome for Arsenal to expand substantially. Given that the club last year lost its battle with local residents to have more events at the stadium (link), it's questionable whether they'd be allowed an increase in capacity as the same issues would play out trying to get planning permission.

As far as Twickenham goes, it's not a football stadium. Again, local residents and the council are very strict on the number of events held there each year and it wouldn't be worth the battles to overcome this. With London's existing football stadiums there's little need to consider Twickenham. The fact it wasn't selected for the 2018 bid should be a clue.

For London's second stadium, my post above outlining the pros and cons still stands. The Emirates is unlikely to undergo substantial modification anytime soon, and Twickenham is so unlikely a choice it wasn't worth listing.

The roof is also lower to allow sunlight to the pitch, which is why the Emirates pitch is World class. If we hosted a World Cup, I'm confident that the council would allow the Emirates Stadium to be expanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Even without expanding some of the existing large stadium, the stadium capacity of any English bid would be sufficient

Wembley 90,000 seats

One of Emirates 60,400 seats, new Spurs Stadium 61,000 seats or Olympic stadium 54,000 seats

and then

Newcastle 52,500 seats

Sunderland 49,000 seats

Old Trafford 75,000 seats

Etihad Stadium 62,700 seats

Liverpool 58,500 seats

Villa Park 42,500 seats

Southampton and Leicester currently 32,000 seats but designed for easy expansion for 50,000 seats

Milton Keynes 30,000 seats but easy temporary expansion to 44,000 seats

Elland Road 37,914 seats but easy adaptable to over 40,000 seats as is Hillsborough currently at 39,732 seats

That's 12 stadiums before we even consider FIFA's ability to fudge with Kallingrad at 35,000 seats and Doha having 6 stadia !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
FA will revive World Cup bid (possibly in 2030) after Gianni Infantino named new Fifa president

The Football Association was ready to resume bidding for the World Cup – possibly in 2030 – and other Fifa events after Gianni Infantino upset the odds to be elected the new president of football’s world governing body.

Greg Dyke declared the FA would lift its ban on trying to host global tournaments, having helped Infantino sweep to a shock triumph in the race to succeed Sepp Blatter as the most powerful person in the game.

Dyke imposed an embargo on the FA bidding for Fifa events over Blatter’s refusal to stand aside as president before the arrests and indictments last year that brought the organisation to its knees and heralded the 79-year-old’s downfall.

The FA chairman ruled out trying to land the 2026 World Cup – which has been widely tipped to go to the United States – but suggested the 2030 tournament might be a target. “This is a new day, a new dawn,” he added.

Dyke leaves the FA this summer but chief executive Martin Glenn will still be on the scene.

Glenn said of a 2030 World Cup bid: “If we feel that there’s a Fifa organisation that’s transparent, open, true to the kind of principles that we want then, obviously, that would open up wider dialogue.”

England’s attempt to land the 2018 tournament famously ended in humiliation, with Blatter having admitted Fifa had decided to award it to Russia long before the ballot.

Glenn was confident there would be no such stitch-ups under a Fifa led by the now former Uefa general secretary, which also voted through a series of sweeping reforms. “That totally changes the game,” Glenn said. “So that, and I believe a new broom, would certainly make you feel more confident about the whole process.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/fifa/12175603/FA-will-revive-World-Cup-bid-possibly-in-2030-after-Gianni-Infantino-named-new-Fifa-president.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

BIG(ish) NEWS: Yesterday the FIFA President was at an English Premier League football match. I wonder when that last happened??

Whether this new guy is the man to turn FIFA around, at least he's doing things you'd expect of the head of a major sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but isn't the rule still the same continent cannot be considered from the last 2 hostings.

No, they changed the rule so a continent is only barred from bidding if the previous World Cup is held there. That means Asian countries can't bid for 2026, but European ones can...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-world-idUKKBN0OF0DM20150530

We don't know what England is planning. The most recent speculation suggests we're going for 2030. I guess the thinking is the US will get 2026.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am angry at having just seen my team lose its first league game of the season after an early red card, but it seems crazy to me for the USA to try to host again.

1) There's absolutely no reason for us to bail out FIFA after they picked Qatar instead of the USA. Why not work with a semi-decent sporting body and host something like the Rugby World Cup instead? We are awful at rugby, but least we would lose with our heads held high.

2) The quality of both the domestic player pool and the domestic league are still pretty bad. The best Americans are fringe players in the top leagues, and we frequently lose to teams like Guatemala and Jamaica within our own confederation. Jozy Altidore as our best center forward, for God's sake.

3) Although the USA has a lot of great stadiums very few of them have all three of a wide enough field for soccer, rail transit access and training facilities for several soccer teams within an easy driving distance.

England does not have the second or third problems, but I am a bit surprised that they are so easily willing to forgive the first issue. After FIFA raked the English bid team over the coals over a bit of wining and dining and while saying nothing about Russia "losing" the files from its bid, I would expect it to take a bit more than the removal of Blatter to make the English FA forgive and forget.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Scotland will never join with an English national team, but they also have their own semi-thriving league. Since Wales has teams in the Premier League anyway is there a chance their FA could merge with England for the next World Cup bid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Scotland will never join with an English national team, but they also have their own semi-thriving league. Since Wales has teams in the Premier League anyway is there a chance their FA could merge with England for the next World Cup bid?

No.

Bit like Canada joining with the USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...