ike74ph Posted December 10, 2007 Report Share Posted December 10, 2007 My pick for the shortlist would be: 1. England - old football tradition, good transportation, new stadia, excellent attendance, too bad England didn't qualify for Euro 2008. (personally, I hate events held in Europe but only because of the time difference) 2. Australia - good infrastructure, sporting tradition, warm climate, venues seem to be too spread out though. 3. China - potential TV audience in China alone would draw huge advertisers in, problems with pollution. 4. USA - good infrastructure, huge stadium attendance, but too recent a host. 5. Mexico - reliable but a 3rd time? Maybe if the other bids or host fail or withdraw, Mexico can save the World Cup again. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 My pick for the shortlist would be: 1. England - old football tradition, good transportation, new stadia, excellent attendance, too bad England didn't qualify for Euro 2008. (personally, I hate events held in Europe but only because of the time difference) 2. Australia - good infrastructure, sporting tradition, warm climate, venues seem to be too spread out though. 3. China - potential TV audience in China alone would draw huge advertisers in, problems with pollution. 4. USA - good infrastructure, huge stadium attendance, but too recent a host. 5. Mexico - reliable but a 3rd time? Maybe if the other bids or host fail or withdraw, Mexico can save the World Cup again. What do you think? #4 - Too recent? By 2018, that would be 24 years -- 6 turns. There are 6 habitable continents. It should be the US' turn. We are owed it; we deserve it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 I suspect you've just spouted that baloney to get some sort of angry response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 2. Australia - good infrastructure, sporting tradition, warm climate, venues seem to be too spread out though. Australia will have weaknesses in its bid. Though i dont think distance is one of the. Australia has a local football competition that requires teams to travel the entire country (and even to New Zealand) week in week out. This occurs in AFL, rugby union (2games much more physically demanding than football) cricket, soccer/football, basketball...the list goes on. Each of the main capital cities are well connected and in a sense "built for each other". Most Australian cities have significantly larger domestic terminals than in comparison to other cities around the world. Lets not forget the longest trip time for an Australian cup is around 7:30 hours. Lets not forget its cheap! At one point i could fly from Perth-Melbourne for around US$89. Cheaper than driving London to Manchester! Also. You have mentioned that Englands strong point is new stadiums. You have a nice new Wembley and Arsenal Stadium correct. But doesnt the US have bigger, newer venues...so too China and to a degree Mexico? Stadiums (when compared to other countries is not a strong point for England). The only good thing Englands stadiums have going for them is history and the fact most are nice and close to the pitch. Anfield, Old Trafford, St.James etc might have history but really they aren't THAT visually pleasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Hold it. I know petrol prices have gone over a pound a litre, but I don't think it would cost me £45 to drive from London to Manchester. Now the railway is another story. As for the stadia issue, it's obvious that nobody can be totally certain at this stage of which grounds would be used. However, my educated or otherwise guess would be that probably half of the grounds would either be venues that haven't been built yet or have only been opened within the last decade or so. Grounds like the Stadium of Light in Sunderland or Pride Park in Derby come into that category. And aesthetics? This isn't an architecture contest, is it? The whole strength of England's bid, in my view, is that it brings together the modern and the new with the traditions and heritage that make football the global sport that it is today. One problem that a lot of new stadia have is that they seem like soulless bowls. At places like Old Trafford, you have that sense of history and tradition, principally because they have been sporting venues for so long and they have kept with the times. You may not know but there are plans on the table to develop the Gallowgate End at St James' Park, which would bring it up to the same level as the larger end of the ground. Of course it looks unbalanced as it is, but that is part of its charm. And the people up there are among the friendliest, most passionate supporters of their team that you could ever wish to meet. Nobody with any sense is taking Australia lightly, but we need to make sure we're getting our facts right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 2. Australia - good infrastructure, sporting tradition, warm climate, venues seem to be too spread out though. The thing is with Australia, as it became clear researching the 2026 fantasy bid, is if you were going to be responsible and go where the population is and distances are short, you could hold the hold damn thing in the three big eastern States. Melbourne has two acceptable stadia (MCG, Telstra Dome) and add in Geelong for Victoria. For NSW Sydney ditto has two (ANZ and Aussie), plus add in Newcastle and Wollongong. Include Canberra and you have the capital and the Sydney-Melbourne mid-point. For Qld, Brisbane of course, and the Gold Coast could support it population-wise. And there you have your eight cities. Add in Townsville if you only accept one of the big cities having two stadia. So there's really no need to go anywhere else. Population-wise, Perth's about the only other must, but then you have the distance/transport problem surfacing. Not, as Aaron said, that it's such a big deal _ we had the Rugby WC more spread out. Of course, if you confined it to Vic-NSW-Qld, you'd be committing political suicide here and lose any support for a national bid. That was the hard part of the fantasy bid, working out the compromises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Of course, if you confined it to Vic-NSW-Qld, you'd be committing political suicide here and lose any support for a national bid. That was the hard part of the fantasy bid, working out the compromises. A 3 way bid would probably result in WA disbanding from the commonwealth and the creation of a new country...and yes it has been considered before... Especially considering how much Perth gave to establishing the old NSL. Hold it. I know petrol prices have gone over a pound a litre, but I don't think it would cost me £45 to drive from London to Manchester. Now the railway is another story. Haha. Top Gear told me otherwise...damn you Richard Hammond! but ok, ill take your word for it. At places like Old Trafford, you have that sense of history and tradition, principally because they have been sporting venues for so long and they have kept with the times. You may not know but there are plans on the table to develop the Gallowgate End at St James' Park, which would bring it up to the same level as the larger end of the ground The fact is, i dont see FIFA seeing Englands stadiums as one of its strong points. I am not saying that its a weak point, i just dont believe its the bright light in the bid. China and the US really have the wood over England this time. They have new stadiums that are also practical for football, easy for broadcasts and with larger capacities than those in England. I dunno, theres something funny to me about not seeing Anfield and Old Trafford as oceans of red. Just wouldnt turn me on at all to see an army of dutch supporters in a stadium i associate with the premier league. Maybe the history is too strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 To be perfectly honest, I'm staggered by that line of argument. You can build all the flashy new stadia that you want, but unless you can fill them and unless you have the atmosphere and fervour for football that England does, that view does not stand up. If we're talking about capacity being key, clearly nobody told the Germany 06 bid team or the Japan and Korea team that because their grounds weren't exactly massive, were they? The bid is about the sum of all its parts and I would argue that England is better placed all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 The bid is about the sum of all its parts and I would argue that England is better placed all round. Nope. Europe's had it too often. The US has equally good and large stadia' besides, t's North America's turn again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 You can build all the flashy new stadia that you want, but unless you can fill them and unless you have the atmosphere and fervour for football that England does, that view does not stand up. So Englands football history will make Canadian supporters cheer louder when their team plays Austria at St.James Park in 2018? Except for the home team games i dont think the atmosphere would be different from any of the bidding nations. I think the crowd would be equally as loud for a Ivory Coast v Russia game in England as it would in China, or the US or Australia etc. As far as im concerned the US and China have better, bigger stadiums and they would easily fill...and that having the cup in England would mean the crowd would be more entertained is just crap. AGAIN, im not saying Englands bid is weak; it is very strong. I just dont believe the "stadium" arguement is one of its strong points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Nope. Europe's had it too often. The US has equally good and large stadia' besides, t's North America's turn again. We've had this argument before and I'm more than happy to have it again if I need to. To argue that it is North America's "turn", and by extension the USA's turn again, flies in the face of common sense. It is pure insanity to propose the kind of rotation that you are calling for, a rotation system that takes no account of the numbers of nations who can host and the popularity of the game in those areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 So Englands football history will make Canadian supporters cheer louder when their team plays Austria at St.James Park in 2018? Except for the home team games i dont think the atmosphere would be different from any of the bidding nations. I think the crowd would be equally as loud for a Ivory Coast v Russia game in England as it would in China, or the US or Australia etc. As far as im concerned the US and China have better, bigger stadiums and they would easily fill...and that having the cup in England would mean the crowd would be more entertained is just crap. AGAIN, im not saying Englands bid is weak; it is very strong. I just dont believe the "stadium" arguement is one of its strong points. You are misinterpreting what I am saying. My point, and I will emphasise it yet again, is this. England has the kind of passion and fervour for football that the likes of the US, China and Australia frankly can only dream of. Other than the hosts, which nation has more fans go to tournaments than any other? When we qualify, it's us. As I've said before, you can build all the flashy new stadia that you want, but they are nothing without passionate supporters filling them. We have them far more than our main rivals. To argue we are not strong on venues is utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 You're saying more English support the English side than Americans support the US side? so what? England will only play a max of 7 games in the 2018 Cup (if they make it). Aside from that support would be just the same accross any of the bidding nations. I cant speak directly for the other nations but Australia is not lacking the support i think people imagine we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 That is not what I said at all and I suspect deep down that you know it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 no. i really dont see your point. the door is wide open for you to better explain yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Well try asking yourself this. Is football as big a sport in China, the USA or Australia as it is in England? I think we both know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Well try asking yourself this. Is football as big a sport in China, the USA or Australia as it is in England? China, the US and OZ are about the same size and equally bigger than England, so, yes -- there is more wisespread support for football there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Well try asking yourself this. Is football as big a sport in China, the USA or Australia as it is in England? I think we both know the answer. So your saying because England has more football fans it will put on a better world cup? No matter who hosts the stadiums will be fantastic, the seats will be filled and the atmosphere will be there.... It pretty much comes down to what each bid offers. England, standard english football, same old European feel. China and Australia offer new markets and a different style of play. The US is something in between. Then again it is likely only 1 of either China or Australia will bid under the AFC's Asia plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaufy Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Should be Europe in 2018. America doesn`t deserve the World Cup. They had it in 1994, they said it would build soccer in the U.S. not so sure if that happened. The States team sure doesn`t play any better than they did either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 So your saying because England has more football fans it will put on a better world cup? No matter who hosts the stadiums will be fantastic, the seats will be filled and the atmosphere will be there....It pretty much comes down to what each bid offers. England, standard english football, same old European feel. China and Australia offer new markets and a different style of play. The US is something in between. Then again it is likely only 1 of either China or Australia will bid under the AFC's Asia plan. It comes down to the entire bid package, including passion of the bidding nations for the sport and you cannot argue that England aren't ahead of Australia, etc on that score. You can dismiss it as same old, same old if you like, but that says more about your own prejudices than England's bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 It comes down to the entire bid package, including passion of the bidding nations for the sport and you cannot argue that England aren't ahead of Australia, etc on that score. You can dismiss it as same old, same old if you like, but that says more about your own prejudices than England's bid. I just dont want to see Germany all over again. Not that Germany was bad (it was fantastic) i just do want to see a similar thing masked as England. The whole package...does that include who has the better national team? 1-3? Harry you legend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Should be Europe in 2018. America doesn`t deserve the World Cup. They had it in 1994, they said it would build soccer in the U.S. not so sure if that happened. The States team sure doesn`t play any better than they did either. It did build soccer; there is the Major League Soccer -- and look who's jjoined: no less than David Beckham. So, yes, we definitely deserve it for 2018 again. Can't u see how much better it will be for US (and world) soccer once the World Cup comes here again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 It did build soccer; there is the Major League Soccer -- and look who's jjoined: no less than David Beckham. So, yes, we definitely deserve it for 2018 again. Can't u see how much better it will be for US (and world) soccer once the World Cup comes here again? Business got David Beckham. Not support of fans and clubs in MLS. He is only their to play exhibition matches and attempt to draw bigger crowds. He is growing football in the US and he was only aquired to make money, rather than to grow the game. The World Cup didnt. If im not wrong, the A-League (about 15,000) has larger average crowds than MLS (about 13,500). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 I just dont want to see Germany all over again. Not that Germany was bad (it was fantastic) i just do want to see a similar thing masked as England. The whole package...does that include who has the better national team? 1-3? Harry you legend! You don't want to see Germany again? Well, lucky for you that Germany aren't bidding then. If you think that an England bid will be just like Germany, then I'm afraid I believe you are mistaken. And when did meaningless friendlies ever count for anything? Dear oh dear, if that's all you've got to throw back then you've got problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 It did build soccer; there is the Major League Soccer -- and look who's jjoined: no less than David Beckham. So, yes, we definitely deserve it for 2018 again. Can't u see how much better it will be for US (and world) soccer once the World Cup comes here again? No. Going back to the USA in 2018 would be like going back to France in 2022 - far too soon for reasonably minded people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.