FA considers 2018 World Cup bid

England last hosted the World Cup in 1966

Football Association chief executive Brian Barwick says that England may bid to host the 2018 World Cup after the success of the 2012 Olympics campaign.
He said: "It's right and proper for the London Olympics bid to take precedence but why wouldn't we go for it?

"I think we would bid further down the line. The next time that it should come to Europe is probably 2018 and we have got enough time to get organised."

The FA, who missed out in the 2006 bid, have yet to make any firm decisions.

Next summer's World Cup will be staged in Germany and is not expected to return to Europe for another 12 years.

England hosted the World Cup in 1966 - when the home nation won the tournament - and also staged Euro 96.

But their efforts to host the 2006 World Cup ended in failure, with the English FA accused of breaking an agreement to support Germany after they backed England's Euro 96 campaign.

I considered London 2012 a blow to those hopes but then remembered Germany and America hosting both within a few years of each other

Barwick, meanwhile, is hopeful that England will win next summer's World Cup.

"I see 2006 as a big year for the Football Association. Hopefully we will qualify for the World Cup and give it a real go," he said.

"If and when we qualify, we would go into the World Cup as one of the teams that can win it. It's in the right climate and the right time-zone.

"We have a very good team and are making impressions on European club football too.

"I think we've made progress as an international footballing nation and can be expected to do well. This country will come to a halt if we do."

Ill be 30

Bloody hell.


Cant see us not winning this though.

i'm sure the next soccer world cup which will take place in europe will be in england. the other big soccer nations of europe had the world cup finals not long ago (Germany 2006, France 1998, Italy 1990 and Spain 1982). So it'll be corollary that england will make it.

but it's another point if this will happen as early as 2018

2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 Europe AGAIN??? i'm not sure. whats about asia, north america, australia,...

but i would prefer england instead of north america or australia because those are not football (soccer) countries but england is.

It's about time we bid for the World Cup again. And it makes sense to have Europe more often than other continents since Europe is the heart of footballing culture.

Germany
South Africa
Brazil
England

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

2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 Europe AGAIN??? i'm not sure. whats about asia, north america, australia,...

Depends on how they work the rotation I spose, I'v never heard a definitive statement on exactly what they intend to do. Does the German world cup even count as a rotation for example as it wasnt award on that basis but after a normal world wide bidding process.

The idea is amazing the bid would be great, soccer world cup would be welcomed home almost in a sense...

That damn ball did not cross the line.

If according to the rotation system, then Australasia should get it in 2018. Then again, there's no big soccer nation down under. North America will have better hope of staging it then.

yep, agreed. Oz should get it in 2018. Give someone else a go. Europe has had a fair suck of the tit already.

^^

And rightly so.

I bet you get the Rugby World Cup again before England does.


N.America 1994
Europe 1998
Asia 2002
Europe 2006
Africa 2010
S.America 2014
Europe 2018

Thats all but Oceana....where Football is their 4th sport.

If according to the rotation system, then Australasia should get it in 2018. Then again, there's no big soccer nation down under. North America will have better hope of staging it then.

If Germany 2006 counts as a rotation then surely Japan/Korea 2002 does aswell in which case 2018 should be in North America(or the US again effectively unless the Mexicans get it for a 3rd time). Kind of brings up the flaw in the system really as outside Europe and maybe South America most feds only have a couple of countries who could actually host a WC. I don't think anyone begrugdes SA or Brazil the WC but when/if the US gets to host it twice in almost 20 years I don't think its going to be very popular.

I'v often heard it rumoured the rotation system was only invented in order to make sure SA got the 2010 WC as Sepp Blatter was depending on African votes to win the FIFA presidentcy again.

If according to the rotation system, then Australasia should get it in 2018. Then again, there's no big soccer nation down under. North America will have better hope of staging it then.

I'm not sure that the rotation system will be strictly on continental lines. If it was, then Australia would be virtually guaranteed the World Cup once every twenty years while countries such as England, Italy and Spain (where, let's face it, football is the major sport, unlike Oz) would only get the World cup once every hundred or even two hundred years.

I suspect that what will happen is that Europe will stage the World Cup on every third occasion, the Americas (north and south) likewise, while Africa, Asia and Australasia will share the final third.

That damn ball did not cross the line.

True. But if you've watched the whole match, you'll know that England were winning 2-1 in the last seconds of normal time, when the referee gave a free kick against England which should clearly not have been given. Germany scored from that free kick and the full time whistle blew immediately after the restart.

So it's only fair that that linesman should even up the score!

Besides, England won 4-2 in extra time, so it doesn't matter that that "goal" shouldn't have stood. :)

I suspect that what will happen is that Europe will stage the World Cup on every third occasion, the Americas (north and south) likewise, while Africa, Asia and Australasia will share the final third.

That seems like a more realistic option to me. I'd be pretty confident on the next asian/ocieanian world cup being in China rather than Australia awell, just too large a potential market for FIFA to turn it down IMHO.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/267WembleyStadium_pic1.jpg

World Cup Final in here?

maybe they will expand the wembley for the worldcup :D

They can change the seating arragements on the lower tier and make it a 100,000 seater...god knows what the capacity would be if they did it to the whole stadium...115,00 maybe :D

They can change the seating arragements on the lower tier and make it a 100,000 seater...god knows what the capacity would be if they did it to the whole stadium...115,00 maybe :D

I'd guess it would be fairly easy to do aswell since the additional seating is needed for the 68,000 athletics mode capacity. I believe 90,000 was the heightest capacity they could get planning permission for at the time but I wouldnt be supprized if they could get an exception made for the world cup.

Which other stadiums do you think would make up our bid though?

Ah yes...it would be easy to change the seats....but what about the roads and such...trasport...its been improved to end to account for the 90,000 fans...image if they added 20,000 more to that.

'Which other stadiums do you think would make up any kind of bid though?'

In England or around the world?

My List for England 2018

1. Wembley, London 90,000
2. Old Trafford, Manchester 75,000
3. New Anfield, Liverpool 61,000
4. Emirates, London 60,000
5. St. James Park, Newcastle 53.094
6. Stadium of Light, Sunderland 48,353 (expandind possible?)
7. City Of Manchester Stadium, Manchester 48,000
8. Villa Park, Birmingham 42,799 (is a expanding possible?)

maybe new stadiums in Leeds, Blackburn, Nottingham etc.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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


Being a pedantic cunt. 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.

Being a pedantic cunt. 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 cunt ;).

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

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

Again 1966!!!!:cheers:

Damn, I will be too old by 2018. That just makes me feel like dirt.

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

I didn't mean to be sarky.

So do rugby or football games pull in better crowds in SA?

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...

Did they make a profit?

I don't believe any of the Japanese venue's have actually been demolised. I doubt Japan turned a profit if the $4.5 billion cost of the 10 stadia I'v heard is correct but they don't seem to be complete white elephants as J league games regularly pull in 20,000-30,000 these days with Urawa Reds often getting over 50,000

I don't believe any of the Japanese venue's have actually been demolised. I doubt Japan turned a profit if the $4.5 billion cost of the 10 stadia I'v heard is correct but they don't seem to be complete white elephants as J league games regularly pull in 20,000-30,000 these days with Urawa Reds often getting over 50,000

perhaps the venues that were demolished were korean venues.but some were demolished.

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.

They're hoping to use a number of them in the 2011 Rugby World Cup...

perhaps the venues that were demolished were korean venues.but some were demolished.

I'm pretty sure that none of them in either korea or Japan has been demolished. Perhaps one or more of them had temporary stands that were taken down after the WC? The Jeju Stadium looks like the the second level on the open side may have been temporary although I can't find any info on it.

Building starts for 2010 SWC
02/11/2004 21:41 - (SA)

Marjolein van der Stad

Johannesburg - Construction on the various stadiums to be used in the Soccer World Cup tournament in 2010 will begin in May.

This was said by Danny Jordaan, CEO of the South African Football Association at a conference of the South African Property Owners Association.

Jordaan says the rugby stadiums will be improved by the rugby authorities in South Africa, while the other stadiums will probably be built and improved by the various local authorities.

Jordaan said: "It is important that construction begins as soon as possible to create job opportunities brought about by securing the WC tournament. The provisional organising committee has already established that the stadiums should be completed by December 2007."

He said the tournament should leave a legacy.

"The 2010 tournament should not mean the end, but a new beginning for South Africa," Jordaan said.

Several of the stadiums built for the WC tournament in South Korea and Japan were demolished a while ago, after they became white elephants as they were not used or maintained.

"We do not want that to happen in South Africa. The infrastructure and use of stadiums after the tournament are important," Jordaan said.

Create job opportunities for South Africans

The organising committee will conduct an audit of every city that wants to host a match in the tournament.

"We will look at matches in the first round followed by the quarter, semi-final and final rounds, which will create different needs of a city. The infra-structure is important, because a city with a small airport cannot handle 30 000 spectators," Jordaan said.

The FNB stadium, which belongs to Safa, will be upgraded at a cost of R300m and will probably host the opening and closing ceremonies.

Sheryl Ozinksy, tourism consultant, says the legacy of the tournament will be tourism, which will create job opportunities for South Africans.

"The Olympic Games in Sydney and Athens showed the greatest advantage of such a large tournament is that you market your country on a large scale.

"Greece improved its image overseas and South Africa must use this opportunity to improve the negative image overseas countries have of Africa," Ozinsky said.

Francois Pienaar, CEO of the 2011 rugby bid company and former Springbok rugby captain, said rugby could continue the legacy of the SWC tournament.

Pienaar said: "Rugby and soccer authorities are co-operating well. Seven of the stadiums to be considered for the SWC tournament are rugby stadiums. Now that soccer has ensured the World Cup tournament, rugby can continue the initiative."

Several of the stadiums built for the WC tournament in South Korea and Japan were demolished a while ago, after they became white elephants as they were not used or maintained.

Anything more definate than that as I can't find any refference to it elsewhere. I find it very hard to believe that even a white eleplanht stadium would be demolished or fall into a state of disrepair where it had to be demolished within 3 years considering that they all probabley cost upwards(quite along way upwards I'd expect) of $50 million.

but it's another point if this will happen as early as 2018

2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 Europe AGAIN??? i'm not sure. whats about asia, north america, australia,...

According to Franz Beckenbauer, Europe who have more countries than other confederations, can't host only one WC envery 20 years as Oceania, North America or even South America. So,
- Europe should host WC every 12 years
- other confederation every 24 years
- Asia and Oceania would be one only confederation

The rotation for next WC should be:
- 2002: Asia or Oceania (Korea-Japan)
- 2006: Europe (Germany)
- 2010: Africa (South Africa)
- 2014: South America (Brazil: of course, it is the one only bid...)
- 2018: Europe (England, UK ?)
- 2022: North America (Canada ?)
- 2026: Asia or Oceania (Australia ?)
- 2030: Europe
- ......

According to Franz Beckenbauer, Europe who have more countries than other confederations, can't host only one WC envery 20 years as Oceania, North America or even South America. So,
- Europe should host WC every 12 years
- other confederation every 24 years
- Asia and Oceania would be one only confederation

The rotation for next WC should be:
- 2002: Asia or Oceania (Korea-Japan)
- 2006: Europe (Germany)
- 2010: Africa (South Africa)
- 2014: South America (Brazil: of course, it is the one only bid...)
- 2018: Europe (England, UK ?)
- 2022: North America (Canada ?)
- 2026: Asia or Oceania (Australia ?)
- 2030: Europe
- ......

The problem I see with that system is that North America only has two countries who can really host a WC in the US and Mexico both of which have held one since the last south american country did. I very much doubt Canada would want to build 10-12 40,000 stadiums considering they only need 4 right now two of which need baseball configerations.

The problem I see with that system is that North America only has two countries who can really host a WC in the US and Mexico both of which have held one since the last south american country did. I very much doubt Canada would want to build 10-12 40,000 stadiums considering they only need 4 right now two of which need baseball configerations.


I think I'd consider 'the americas' to be a single continent.

2002 - Asia (Japan-Korea)
2006 - Europe (Germany)
2010 - Africa (South Africa)
2014 - Americas (Brazil)
2018 - Europe (England)
2022 - Asia (China/Aus)
2026 - Africa (Morocco?)
2030 - Europe (Spain?)
2034 - Americas (Mexico/USA)

Given that Europe is the homeland of football I think it's only fair that UEFA gets it more often than Africa or Asia.

Damn, I will be 28 in 2018:D

I think I'd consider 'the americas' to be a single continent.

2002 - Asia (Japan-Korea)
2006 - Europe (Germany)
2010 - Africa (South Africa)
2014 - Americas (Brazil)
2018 - Europe (England)
2022 - Asia (China/Aus)
2026 - Africa (Morocco?)
2030 - Europe (Spain?)
2034 - Americas (Mexico/USA)

Given that Europe is the homeland of football I think it's only fair that UEFA gets it more often than Africa or Asia.

I think it'd be better...

06- Europe
10- Africa
14- Americas
18-Europe
22- Rest of World
26- Americas
30- Europe
34- Rest of World


How many countries in Africa/Asia besides SA, Japan and SK, can hold the WC?

I think it'd be better...

06- Europe
10- Africa
14- Americas
18-Europe
22- Rest of World
26- Americas
30- Europe
34- Rest of World


How many countries in Africa/Asia besides SA, Japan and SK, can hold the WC?

Morroco, China and Australia I guess.

Maybe it might be easier just to stage the World Cup every two years, then everyone can a go.

Maybe it might be easier just to stage the World Cup every two years, then everyone can a go.

Didnt FIFA hint at that awhile ago? I'd guess the major stumbling block would be that the european championships would have to be gotten rid of to make space for it which I doubt UEFA would be happy about.

I think Malaysia or Thailand could hold a World Cup too.

I think Malaysia or Thailand could hold a World Cup too.

Jugding by the number/size of the stadia they have now I'd say Malaysia seems the more likely of the two.

2030 will mark 100 years from when the first World Cup was held. It's only a good way to bring it back to Uruguay. Something like this should happen:

2006 Germany
2010 South Africa
2014 Americas (Brazil)
2018 most likely Europe again
2022 Asia (China/Malaysia)
2026 Africa (Egypt/Morocco)
2030 Uruguay
2034 Europe (Portugal)
2038 Australia
2042 United States

or maybe a joint Thai/Malay or Malay/Singapore bid à la Korea/Japan.

Jugding by the number/size of the stadia they have now I'd say Malaysia seems the more likely of the two.

Have they even been to a world cup?

2030 will mark 100 years from when the first World Cup was held. It's only a good way to bring it back to Uruguay. Something like this should happen:

2006 Germany
2010 South Africa
2014 Americas (Brazil)
2018 most likely Europe again
2022 Asia (China/Malaysia)
2026 Africa (Egypt/Morocco)
2030 Uruguay
2034 Europe (Portugal)
2038 Australia
2042 United States

Meaning that South Africa in 2010 would host the 80th Birthday of the Soccer World Cup, i think thats quite symbolic...

I think its only fair to reward the England, British and Ireland fans with a World Cup - tournments without them are dull, they travel the world in numbers bigger then armies, its costly, I know, I've struggled to see England in two major tournments, my 3rd will be next year, its not easy ... we bump the local economies so much we deserve something back, I know we got the Olympics, but I would swap that any day for a World Cup ...

brumculture,

That's a bit arrogant! What about the Dutch, German, Brazilian, and Argie fans?

--

About KJ02 venues...

None have been demolished. Most are being put to use. The only 2 that I can think off which are total white elephants are Miyagi stadium (local team have their own brand new stadium), and Seogwipo (no local team to utilise it).

--

Malaysia and Thailand are struggling at the moment to host the Asian cup, which is a much smaller tournament than the world cup, although I think in the case of Malaysia it's more about tight fistedness than inability. They can easily host it by themselves if they wanted to.

brumculture,

That's a bit arrogant! What about the Dutch, German, Brazilian, and Argie fans?

All very well supported I'm sure(although I guess the Dutch and Brazilians have many fans outside there countries) but in my only expereince of a major comp outside the UK at euro 2004 British fans outnumber everyone else many times over. Not only did they take pretty much every seat not sold direct to the other sides fans at England games(must have been 50,000 of them at the France game) but they made up a very sizeble percentage of a crowd at every other game I went to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4208814.stm

That seems to confirm that european teams will at least be allowed to bid for 2018.

brumculture,

That's a bit arrogant! What about the Dutch, German, Brazilian, and Argie fans?



Its not that arrogant (for Brumculture ;)), by next year Germany would have hosted the World Cup twice since we have, and if Brazil gets 2014 as everyone thinks then we will be the major footballing (and revenue ;)) country with the longest time not having a World Cup.

I know we got the Olympics, but I would swap that any day for a World Cup ...

It's quite a difficult one that, as much as I would love the World Cup to come to England, got to say, I would just favour hosting the Olympic Games, but it's very marginal ;)

we bump the local economies so much...

...and we bump the locals on the head even more. :(

I was supporting Wales to beat England yesterday as I've actually decided I don't want England to qualify as I'm that embarassed about how a small minority (yes, I know it's a minority) of English supporters behave at championships...

...and we bump the locals on the head even more. :(

I was supporting Wales to beat England yesterday as I've actually decided I don't want England to qualify as I'm that embarassed about how a small minority (yes, I know it's a minority) of English supporters behave at championships...
Except there was no trouble whatsoever at the last Euros and the World Cup, no trouble whatsoever in Madrid or Denmark, and despite the best efforts of Welsh hooligans the game in Cardiff passed off pretty much peacefully. The days of Dublin '95 are long gone.

There's always 2 sides to every story.

I'm not sure you can even call what trouble makers that remain supporters as the games themselves and the buildup/aftermath were totally without incident at euro 2004 from my expereince. All your left with now are a load of yobs who came over to the Algarve to get drunk and fight instead of doing so in the UK or in Ibiza.

Its gotten to the stage now where the "english football thug" has become so ingrained into popular culture that anything that does take place is blown massively out of proportion. In comparason we have racist chants in Spain and eastern Europe, Welsh/Scottish fans booing national anthems just as loudly as England fans, missiles raining down on Seria A pitchs, Turkish fans murdering Leeds supporters and Dutch/ German fans killing a policeman at euro 2000 all of which are quickly forgotten. I'd guess its partly down to other nations using it as a political tool agenst us and partly because the UK press is far more self critical than many other european countries.

Its gotten to the stage now where the "english football thug" has become so ingrained into popular culture that anything that does take place is blown massively out of proportion. In comparason we have racist chants in Spain and eastern Europe, .

The 'monkey noises' from Madrid were a disgrace and UEFA should have cracked down like a ton of bricks on the Spanish FA. I think we all know what would have hapenned had an English crowd made such noises. Expulsion.

The 'monkey noises' from Madrid were a disgrace and UEFA should have cracked down like a ton of bricks on the Spanish FA. I think we all know what would have hapenned had an English crowd made such noises. Expulsion.

Maybe not expulsion but certainly the threat of expulsion or at least to have games played behind closed doors, the tiny fines that were handed out gave no incentive for anything to change. Don't confuse my post with stating that theres no problem in English footbal anymore, there is still a problem(even if its mostly away from actual matches) however I don't think its any worse than many other nations problems.

Maybe not expulsion but certainly the threat of expulsion or at least to have games played behind closed doors, the tiny fines that were handed out gave no incentive for anything to change. Don't confuse my post with stating that theres no problem in English footbal anymore, there is still a problem(even if its mostly away from actual matches) however I don't think its any worse than many other nations problems.

I think the current UEFA system of small fines is utterly inadequete. They either need to start docking points or suspend/expel teams whose fans make racist chants. England have been threatend with expulsion before and I see no reason why UEFA can't treat other in a similar fashion.

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.[/QUOTE]

How wrong you are! And believe me Portugal WOULD NEVER team up with Spain for any tournament or anything for that matter.

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.

How wrong you are! And believe me Portugal WOULD NEVER team up with Spain for any tournament or anything for that matter.[/QUOTE]


Well, then Portugal will never host a World Cup.

Oz/NZ on behalf of the Oceania region are "officially" going to attempt to host the 2018 tourney. FIFA has a rotation policy between the regions in place so Europe won't get it back until 2026 after North America hosts it in 2022.

Currently Europe is hosting it in 2006, Africa in 2010, South America 2014, then Oceania's turn/South Pacific/Asia in 2018.

sepp blatter endorsed englands bid the other day, so i think theres a pretty good chance that it will go to europe in 2018
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4208814.stm


not gonna find out till 2010 though are we?!

Australia will NOT host the World Cup in 2018.

As much as we hope it wont happen.

Rumours of a possible dry run bid for 2014


FA prepares bid for 2014 World Cup

· Barwick in Treasury talks to secure Brown's backing
·Football determined to build on Olympic success

Matt Scott and Larry Elliott
Friday September 16, 2005
The Guardian


The Football Association is holding talks with the Treasury to seek backing from Gordon Brown for a bid to stage the World Cup in England for the first time since 1966. Heartened by London's success in winning the 2012 Olympic Games, Brian Barwick, the FA's chief executive, has opened discussions with the chancellor over plans for England to host the tournament in 2014 or, more likely, 2018.
"Exploratory discussions have been held with a view to a bid," said one source close to the talks. He added that these centred on whether the FA could expect the support of Brown if, as expected, he has become prime minister by the time a formal pitch for the event is made.

The Treasury confirmed that discussions were under way with the FA and stressed that Brown would be as supportive of a bid for the World Cup as Tony Blair had been during London's campaign for the 2012 Olympics. The FA believes its best chance of winning the right to hold sport's second biggest event will be in 2018, but is contemplating using the 2014 tournament as a dry run. It has already been decided that the 2010 World Cup will be held in South Africa and it is thought likely that the 2014 event will go to South America, which has not been host to the tournament since Argentina in 1978 - Colombia was awarded the 1986 tournament but pulled out and it moved to Mexico City.
Brazil, the five-times winners and favourites for next year's tournament in Germany, has not held the World Cup since 1950 and is expected to put up a strong case for 2014. "The next time that it should come to Europe is probably 2018 and we have got enough time to get organised," said Barwick last month. Treasury officials said the chancellor was enthusiastic about the prospects of bringing the tournament to England and believed that the cost to the taxpayer could be kept to a minimum. Blair's commitment to London's Olympic bid was seen as crucial when the votes were cast in Singapore two months ago and the FA has told Brown that it will need full ministerial backing if it is to fend off what is expected to be strong competition from other countries.

England's last World Cup bid, to stage the 2006 finals, ended in ignominy five years ago. The FA was accused of reneging on a gentlemen's agreement between the then chairman Sir Bert Millichip and the German football authorities. That accord, in which Germany's support for England's Euro 96 bid was pledged in return for reciprocity over its 2006 World Cup campaign, was struck in the presence of Uefa officials.

The FA then failed to keep its word and, despite a slick presentation which included an impassioned speech from the 1966 World Cup winner Sir Bobby Charlton, the bid was doomed to failure. Disturbances in Charleroi involving England fans at the Euro 2000 finals, a matter of weeks before the Fifa vote, added to the criticism of England's credentials. However, the conduct of England supporters at the 2002 World Cup and Euro 2004 finals in Portugal has restored confidence in the FA's ability to contain hooliganism.

The FA, whose leadership has changed several times since 2000, has told the Treasury that England will boast enough modern grounds, big and small, to cope with a 32-nation tournament. The final would be held at the new Wembley Stadium, with Old Trafford, St James' Park, Arsenal's new Emirates stadium and Villa Park all having the capacity to host big games. Games expected to draw smaller gates would be held at modern all-seat stadiums with smaller capacities.

Barwick is seeking assurances from the Treasury that it would match any favourable tax treatment other bidders might offer in order to win the support of the members of Fifa, and that the right infrastructure would be in place across the country to cope with overseas supporters coming to England.

The FA's enthusiasm to press ahead with a bid has increased since London's surprise victory over Paris to host the Olympics. Good reports from the International Olympic Committee about the readiness of the capital to host the games has inspired confidence that a bid would be successful. The FA could turn to key figures in the 2012 Olympic bid process, such as the communications director Mike Lee, to provide expertise in the politicking for the World Cup.

All the large European countries - Germany (twice), Spain, Italy and France -have held the World Cup since England was host in 1966, and Sepp Blatter, the president of Fifa, said 12 months ago that he would urge a bid. "I would say yes, they should bid - it is the homeland of football. They are building stadia and other facilities for the Olympics, Wembley is almost finished and maybe they would be used for a World Cup bid."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4155856.stm

There going for 2018 rather than 2014 according to that. Since FIFA seems set on a Brazilian WC for 2014 I'd guess they think their better off working with them rather than agenst them. We'd probabley only have beaten Brazil on bids if they'd had a problem financing the construction of a new set of stadia and if that were to happen swapping the two hosts(us to 2014 them to 2018) would be the obvious answer seeing as most of our stadiums will be built independently of a WC.

The FA, whose leadership has changed several times since 2000, has told the Treasury that England will boast enough modern grounds, big and small, to cope with a 32-nation tournament. The final would be held at the new Wembley Stadium, with Old Trafford, St James' Park, Arsenal's new Emirates stadium and Villa Park all having the capacity to host big games. Games expected to draw smaller gates would be held at modern all-seat stadiums with smaller capacities.

Not sure how that would be possible unless they have altered the ticketing by then given that the stadiums are allocated and alot of the tickets sold before each fixture is even confirmed now.

England should bid for 2018. I may have a few grey hairs by them, but so what.

Not sure how that would be possible unless they have altered the ticketing by then given that the stadiums are allocated and alot of the tickets sold before each fixture is even confirmed now.

We could probably sell out by the end of September!

I bet if England was told it was hosting the 2018 World Cup tommorrow and tickets went on sale, they would be sold out in a matter of weeks if not days.

germany 2006 is using 12 stadiums, all over 40,000 capacity. from what i can tell three are 60,000+, three are 50,000+, and the remaining six are 40,000+.

england could use:

1) wembley (90,000) - u/c
2) old trafford (75,000 > 90,000 if redeveloped further) - u/c
3) new anfield (61,000) - pp
4) emirates stadium (60,000) - u/c
5) st james' park (52,000+ if redeveloped further)
6) stadium of light (48,000+ if redeveloped further)
7) city of manchester stadium (48,000)
8) villa park (42,000)
9) stamford bridge (42,000+ if redeveloped further)

after that take your pick from a whole host of 30-something-thousand stadiums that could easily be redeveloped, such as st mary's, walkers, the riverside, the valley, and so on. throw on top of that a possible new spurs stadium and the new olympics stadium, with a possible redesign to accomodate football after 2012 a la the city of manchester stadium after the commonwealth games.

there is also the possibility of using england's rugby home of twickenham (82,000) and the millenium stadium (74,500) which, while it is the welsh national stadium has pretty much been absorbed into a part and parcel piece of the english footballing calender while wembley's being rebuit.

have i missed anything out?

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/267WembleyStadium_pic1.jpg

World Cup Final in here?
a very beautiful stadium

germany 2006 is using 12 stadiums, all over 40,000 capacity. from what i can tell three are 60,000+, three are 50,000+, and the remaining six are 40,000+.

england could use:

1) wembley (90,000) - u/c
2) old trafford (75,000 > 90,000 if redeveloped further) - u/c
3) new anfield (61,000) - pp
4) emirates stadium (60,000) - u/c
5) st james' park (52,000+ if redeveloped further)
6) stadium of light (48,000+ if redeveloped further)
7) city of manchester stadium (48,000)
8) villa park (42,000)
9) stamford bridge (42,000+ if redeveloped further)

after that take your pick from a whole host of 30-something-thousand stadiums that could easily be redeveloped, such as st mary's, walkers, the riverside, the valley, and so on. throw on top of that a possible new spurs stadium and the new olympics stadium, with a possible redesign to accomodate football after 2012 a la the city of manchester stadium after the commonwealth games.

there is also the possibility of using england's rugby home of twickenham (82,000) and the millenium stadium (74,500) which, while it is the welsh national stadium has pretty much been absorbed into a part and parcel piece of the english footballing calender while wembley's being rebuit.

have i missed anything out?

We'd need to host 8 groups.

1) London;
Wembley 90,000
Emerites 60,000
2) Birmingham;
Villa Park 52,000*
Wolverhapmton/New BCFC? 40,000 bare minimum
3) Manchester;
OLD TRAFORD 76,000/92,000*
city of manchester 48,000/60,000*
4) Liverpool;
New Anfield 61,000
New Goodison 55,000***
5) North East;
Stadium of Light 48,000/55,000*/64,000**
St James Park 52,000/60,000
6) Midlands;
Walkers Stadium 32,000/40,000*
Pride Park 34,000/40,000*
7) Yorkshire;
Hillsborough 40,000*
Elland Road 40,000*
8) South Coast;
St Marys 32,000/52,000*
Majdeski Stadium 25,000/40,000*

There's 8 groups laid out. Of course we wouldn't use 16 stadiums and it's a shame that Twickenham will not be available (nor will Stamford, I doubt that FIFA will want more than 2 stadiums within London, even if there could be 6 suitable ones by 2018). But we'll probably be looking at something like this for the regional diversity of the groups.
Some stadiums would require more work than others. New Goodison for a start. Most of the new stadiums are built with swift expansion in mind. The Yorkshire group is the least likely to be viable given the precaripous financial states of Leeds and Wednesday.

As far as capacities are concerned I'd prefer to be seeing all gounds to be 50,000 minimum but that would tend to concentrate them around London, Lancashire and the NE but I'd bet that the FA would prefer a more regional format.

Of course this all assumes that the G-14 don't kill off the World Cup before then.

We'd need to host 8 groups.

1) London;
Wembley 90,000
Emerites 60,000
2) Birmingham;
Villa Park 52,000*
Wolverhapmton/New BCFC? 40,000 bare minimum
3) Manchester;
OLD TRAFORD 76,000/92,000*
city of manchester 48,000/60,000*
4) Liverpool;
New Anfield 61,000
New Goodison 55,000***
5) North East;
Stadium of Light 48,000/55,000*/64,000**
St James Park 52,000/60,000
6) Midlands;
Walkers Stadium 32,000/40,000*
Pride Park 34,000/40,000*
7) Yorkshire;
Hillsborough 40,000*
Elland Road 40,000*
8) South Coast;
St Marys 32,000/52,000*
Majdeski Stadium 25,000/40,000*

There's 8 groups laid out. Of course we wouldn't use 16 stadiums and it's a shame that Twickenham will not be available (nor will Stamford, I doubt that FIFA will want more than 2 stadiums within London, even if there could be 6 suitable ones by 2018). But we'll probably be looking at something like this for the regional diversity of the groups.

I doubt the groups would need to be that region specific as they certainly arent doing it for germany 2006, you only need to do that kind of thing in a country the size of the US IMHO. Maybe if it was a "UK" world cup(but with only England qualifing as hosts) they might want to avoid having groups with games in Scotland and London but overwise I can't see it being a problem.

I doubt the groups would need to be that region specific as they certainly arent doing it for germany 2006, you only need to do that kind of thing in a country the size of the US IMHO. Maybe if it was a "UK" world cup(but with only England qualifing as hosts) they might want to avoid having groups with games in Scotland and London but overwise I can't see it being a problem.

Fair point. A south coast group was scraping the barrel a bit. I'm also none too sure how fusst FIFA would be about the 2 stadiums per city maximum. If theres one city on earth that can cope with more it's London;

Wembley 90,000
Twickenham (unlikely) 82,000
Olympic (?) 80,000?
Emerites 60,000
Stamford Bridge 42,000
White Heart Lane 37,000
Upton Park 35,000
The Valley 40,000 soon

Well it would be quite likely that either Soton or Portsmouth would be a venue as they serve a large urban area (a couple of million people live in close proximity of the cities plus they are only 1 hrs journey from London). In addition Fratton Park is likely to be redeveloped soon as well so it could easily end up being a 40,000+ stadium without the World Cup anyway.

We'd need to host 8 groups.

1) London;
Wembley 90,000
Emerites 60,000
2) Birmingham;
Villa Park 52,000*
Wolverhapmton/New BCFC? 40,000 bare minimum
3) Manchester;
OLD TRAFORD 76,000/92,000*
city of manchester 48,000/60,000*
4) Liverpool;
New Anfield 61,000
New Goodison 55,000***
5) North East;
Stadium of Light 48,000/55,000*/64,000**
St James Park 52,000/60,000
6) Midlands;
Walkers Stadium 32,000/40,000*
Pride Park 34,000/40,000*
7) Yorkshire;
Hillsborough 40,000*
Elland Road 40,000*
8) South Coast;
St Marys 32,000/52,000*
Majdeski Stadium 25,000/40,000*


As I understand it FIFA rules only let you have up to two cities using two stadia - your list has two in London, two in Manchester, two in Liverpool and possibly two in Birmingham...

A thread for the English world cup bid. News and Discussion.

So, what venues are we going to include? Should they be all in london? - I hope not, should each region have a set amount of stadia?

This has been discussed heavily here, (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=413117) so expect some flak for that. Still, this bid probably could use it's own thread as things grow more serious, but a couple things should be clarified right off the bat:

- It's established FIFA policy that only one city/metro can have two stadiums, so unless England pursues a waiver you wont see (the games) "all in London," as you put it.

- Some geographic dispersal will be pursued but among pundits here the debate clearly shows the balance between viable cities vs. most likely place to house and use a stadium. For instance, Hull and Bristol would help spread the wealth but undoubtedly don't need a 45k seat venue long-term.

- England will not be seeking aid from Wales (Millennium Stadium) or Scotland (Hampden), both as a matter of need (or lack thereof) and pride.

With that, the floor is now open to discussion. :cheers:

Ah, sorry folks!

Although that place is becoming a tad too overcrowded now with more people going more in depth about their countries and other countries bids.

No problem. As I said, this should have it's own thread, just don't be surprised to see some of the conversation already resolved.

I've no time to add pictures of everything but will try to jump start the thread with some recap and a visual aid. First some random notes to consider.

- Re: London, Chelsea will be hard pressed to cram more than 55k in Stamford Bridge and leaving the Bridge would cost not only large $ for the new digs but also buying the naming rights for the club away from the Chelsea Pitch Owners Association. Having already gifted $1B to the club, is Abromovich willing to go this extra mile. Tottenham and West Hame are also considering new facilities but have yet to offer solid evidence they could surpass Emirates in size. Further, Arsenal have hinted at the potential to expand sometime after Highbury is paid off. Thus, Emirates will likely be stadium #2 in London.

- Birmingham City FC remain involved in stadium partnership discussions with the government. Provided the club maintain strong gates for their next spell in the championship this is still a solid option, and the City will likely do something on the order of 45k+ to ensure they have a solid venue for the Games. Villa Park can expand but would the end result be more convenient, modern and attractive compared to a new facility, even if the new one is slightly smaller? My contacts suggest no, unless Villa Park reaches about 10k more than the new stadium.

- Once it's realized there will be some substantial investment required by both clubs and the governments, expect some effort to help those clubs that can maximize the investment. Ipswich, Norwich, Nottingham... there are plenty of places that seem non-starters to begin with but then one realizes this investment could make a significant difference in the value and fortunes of these clubs. The bid organizers will work closely with the clubs as they want this to be a showcase of English football. (For that same reason I don't expect Twickenham to host.)

Thus...

"Given" host sites

London - Wembley (90k), Emirates (60k)
Manchester - Old Trafford (75k)
Liverpool - Stanley Park (70k)
Birmingham - New BCFC ground/ Vila Park (~50k)
Sunderland - Stadium of Light (53k)
Until Newcastle proves to me their expansion can truly happen, the above is easier and cheaper to produce and I'm doubtful Sunderland and Newcastle will both be hosting.
Portsmouth - New Pompey Stadium (43k, reduced after games)
There'll be something on the south coast, and this will be easier to arrange than amending St. Mary's in Southampton.

That leaves 5 spots for the following candidate sites:
Bristol
Hull
Sheffield
Leeds
Nottingham
Ipswich
Norwich
Middlesbrough
Derby
Leicester

How about a map for referencing by those unfamiliar with grand old Engerland!

http://www.itraveluk.co.uk/images/maps/england.gif

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.

South West: Bristol - a new stadium obviously needed. For tourism purposes, and tourism purposes only - to up returning visitors - A stadium around the Bath area.

South: Pompey and Southampton.

Now, this is where it gets interesting as the number of clubs rapidly increases in this area.

The Midlands:
Aston Villa and Birmingham would be ideal.
Nottingham and if needed, Leicester could come into the frame - The stadiums need a lot of work at the moment though.

Yorkshire:
Sheffield. Now here it will get heated, what club - in footballs birth place - will host the world cup if the Uk is choosen? At the moment do you go for Hillsborough, or The Lane? Or do you consider the future and how Hillsborough could be modernised as at the moment, despite being an owl, the Lane is better and more modern, despite being smaller.
Then you have Hull or Leeds. I'd pick Hull due to the fact they are close to the sea and well, are a port. A lot better transport than Leeds.

Heading West..
Liverpool (new stadium) and Manchester United would be good enough.

Heading North east..
Newcastle needs some work doing to it, but if Sunderland become more stable in the Premiership, they could have a really good shout.

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:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 70,000 - 80,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.


What do you think about these cities?

Reserve Stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Southampton, St Mary's, 40,000 - 45,000.

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:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 70,000 - 80,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.


What do you think about these cities?

Reserve Stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Southampton, St Mary's, 40,000 - 45,000.

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

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/

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 :D

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.

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.

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 :DI 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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


:lol:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Hillsborough_South_Stand.JPG

Hillsborough North Stand:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Hillsborough_North_Stand.JPG

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.

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

I believe the Benelux bid is being discussed here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=547368) and a general thread on this matter can be found here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=413117)

http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=2446

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.

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.

South West: Bristol - a new stadium obviously needed. For tourism purposes, and tourism purposes only - to up returning visitors - A stadium around the Bath area.
South: Pompey and Southampton.

Now, this is where it gets interesting as the number of clubs rapidly increases in this area.

The Midlands:
Aston Villa and Birmingham would be ideal.
Nottingham and if needed, Leicester could come into the frame - The stadiums need a lot of work at the moment though.

Yorkshire:
Sheffield. Now here it will get heated, what club - in footballs birth place - will host the world cup if the Uk is choosen? At the moment do you go for Hillsborough, or The Lane? Or do you consider the future and how Hillsborough could be modernised as at the moment, despite being an owl, the Lane is better and more modern, despite being smaller.
Then you have Hull or Leeds. I'd pick Hull due to the fact they are close to the sea and well, are a port. A lot better transport than Leeds.

Heading West..
Liverpool (new stadium) and Manchester United would be good enough.

Heading North east..
Newcastle needs some work doing to it, but if Sunderland become more stable in the Premiership, they could have a really good shout.



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).

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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...

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

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?

This is the kop of Hillsborough.

http://file040a.bebo.com/4/large/2008/05/05/12/4156868473a7650506898l.jpg

Is that the stand you are on about?

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

http://i32.tinypic.com/20tjina.jpg

Ska P 187 Paint productions Copyright reserved.

No Sheffield stands like that.

You must be thinking of the wrong city!

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

maybe you're on about Southamptons old ground?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/anfield_god_forever/imgs/2/6/26f78efe.JPG

http://www.wspgroup.co.uk/upload/images/Projects/St%20James%20Park%20NUFC,%20Newcastle,%20UK%2001.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ENG/St_James_Park_A.jpg

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.

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.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44757000/jpg/_44757677_portsmouth_pa_416.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44757000/jpg/_44757686_portsmouth_204_pa.jpg

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

^^^^^^
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?

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...

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/north_east/sunderland_light1.jpg
http://www.footballgroundguide.com/sunderland91.jpg

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).

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

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/aston20.jpg
http://www.footballgroundguide.com/villa60.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk28/myoldman82/Holteend.jpg


Only picture I could find of possible expansion
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/Ginola90/newstand.jpg

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

http://www.manutdpics.com/image/Old-Trafford-aerial-shots_203481.jpg
http://www.manchesterbars.com/photos/oldtrafford-300.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h69/coopermanuk/STB_0165.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Old_Trafford_outside_20060726_1.jpg/800px-Old_Trafford_outside_20060726_1.jpg

New Anfield
Liverpool
Proposed capacity: 61-73,000
http://www.anfieldroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/new-anfield-v3-01-kop.jpg
http://www.anfieldroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/new-anfield-v3-01-overhead.jpg

Wembley
London
Capacity: 90,000
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42722000/jpg/_42722513_wembley_aerial_pa_416.jpg

Emirates Stadium
Arsenal, London
Capacity: 60,355
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2006/07/18/emirates3_440x330.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/london/london_emirates1.jpg

St James' Park
Newcastle United, Newcastle, North East
Capacity: 52,387
Potential Expansion: 60,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/north_east/newcastle_st_james_park1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/north_east/newcastle_st_james_park2.jpg
http://www.chelseafc.com/javaImages/13/69/0,,10268~3041555,00.jpg


Candidates

Bramall Lane
Sheffield United, Sheffield, Yorkshire
Capacity: 32,609
Potential Expansion: 40,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/yorkshire_humber/sheffield_bramall1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Bramall_Lane_End.jpg/800px-Bramall_Lane_End.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Bramall_lane1.jpg

Expansion:
http://www.sufc.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/ac/16/0,,10418~3479212,00.jpg

Elland Road
Leeds United, Leeds, Yorkshire
Capacity: 40,242
Potential expansion: 50,000 (no definite plans) major refurbishment required
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ENG/Elland_Road.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/yorkshire_humber/leeds_elland_road1.jpg

St Mary's Stadium
Southampton, South Coast
Capacity: 32,689
Potential capacity: 50,000 (no definite plans)
http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Southampton/St%20Marys%20Panoramic.jpg

Pride Park Stadium
Derby County, Derby, East Midlands
Capacity: 33,597
Potential capacity: 44,000 (provisional plans announced last summer)
http://www.footballgroundguide.com/Derby30.jpg

Molineux
Wolverhampton Wanderers, Midlands
Capacity: 28,525
Potential capacity: 45,000 (provisional plans announced)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/west_midlands/wolverhampton_molineux1.jpg

City Ground/New Stadium
Nottingham Forest, Nottingham, East Midlands
Capacity: 30,602/50,000 (provisional plans announced)
Potential capacity: 46,000
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/975-2/nottinghamcity.jpg

Carrow Road
Norwich City, Norfolk, Eastern Coast
Capacity: 26,034
Potential Capacity: 35,000
http://www.cpfc.premiumtv.co.uk/javaImages/10/ce/0,,10323~3395088,00.jpg
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/sports/gallery2/d/830-2/norwich.jpg

Stadium Of Light
Sunderland, North East
Capacity: 49,000
Potential Capacity: 64,000 (unlikely to happen)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/beezilhunter/StadiumofLightBright.jpg

City Of Manchester Stadium
Manchester City
Capacity: 47,726
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/north_west/manchester_city_stadium2.jpg

Kirby Stadium
Everton, Liverpool ?
Capacity: 50,401
http://stadium.evertonfc.com/assets/images/site_elements/articles/stadium_sideshot.jpg
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolecho/jul2007/9/3/F2DD3C84-C1EF-F163-545B37C080481D2B.jpg

New Pompey Stadium
Portsmouth, South Coast
Capacity:36-45,000
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44757000/jpg/_44757677_portsmouth_pa_416.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44757000/jpg/_44757686_portsmouth_204_pa.jpg

cant think of any more candidates

Wembley would be the finals for sure right?

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 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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 know the 2 stadiums for one city rule. We can have one or the other. Almost 100% sure it would be Emirates.

As far as the other expansions are concerned, where there's a will, there's a way.

I can see the possibilities for Norwich but doubt very much it would be justified post 2018. Bristol has a lot of potential, it's been what, 25yrs+ since City were in Div 1? I think there's a good possibility they could pull big crowds given a decent team.

I doubt we'd see a swathe of new facilities being built. I suspect we'll see 2 at most specifically for the WC. What I expect to see is current facilities extensively upgraded and expanded.

How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?

How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?

I wondered about that myself. Just to delay the conversion a few years can't be so terrible can it?

I think the problem would be that we'd have 11 football stadiums plus on with spectators 15M from the pitch. Good for the extra 20,000 or so who could get into each games vs Emirates however.

Erm, running track.

How about keeping the olympic stadium for a few extra years and using it to host one of the WC matches?

If the stands are being built as temporary structures, would they still be in suitable condition after 6 years?

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

I'd imagine there would be problems if the government/FA paid for improvements to the property of a club, but if government funding was used to construct a stadium for Bristol, Norwich or Birmingham, to be owned by the government/local councils, and leased to the clubs, so that the club wasn't at a huge advantage is probably wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Erm, running track.

Could always lower the pitch? Although that would be at tremendous cost!

People continue to look over one major factor. By 2018, all major refurbishments when the legislation is passed once Conservatives come to power will see any club being given the option of up to 20% of thier stadium being designated for "safe standing". The majority will take them up on it.

It could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams.

People continue to look over one major factor. By 2018, all major refurbishments when the legislation is passed once Conservatives come to power will see any club being given the option of up to 20% of thier stadium being designated for "safe standing". The majority will take them up on it.

It could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams.

Even if standing room returns, it's a non-starter for World Cup games.

The Conservative Party, thankfully, have no control over FIFA or UEFA and both of those bodies require all seated stadia.

I'm also not sure with this suggestion that a majority will take them up on it - what good will it do clubs like Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn or Middlesbrough, whom already cannot fill their stadia? Perhaps cheaper tickets may encourage more fans through the gates but that does not necessarily increase revenue. I'd say only larger clubs, who could fit twice as many supporters into standing room as seating room and sell standing tickets for less than half of seated tickets would be interested in transformation.

Indeed, this ignores the cost of transformation - more people in a stadium requires more vomitories and staircases and more egress routes. This cannot be done cheaply in many existing stadia so it's not even worth a club's while to do this in order to remain revenue neutral after the change. Especially in new build stadia, the conversion would prove incredibly difficult.

Finally - there is no sound plans from the Conservatives about the introduction of terracing. Cameron once said something to a question posted on his website that has been totally blown out of proportion by football fans since then - Cameron said that, if he got to power, he would consider a review because it may be possible to have safe standing areas - this is a lot different to what has been suggested on this and other forums in the year and a half since Cameron last mentioned this.

Ironically, there was an early day motion in the house of commons, raised by the Liberal Democrat MP, Mike Hancock. The motion received more support from Labour MPs than Conservative MPs.

matthemod - one of the major problems the Olympic Bid has is that it made a promise to maintain the stadium as athletics venue. Essentially, the track has to stay and this is, apparently, why big clubs like West Ham and Tottenham weren't interested in relocating to the stadium. It's highly improbable that any digging down will take place at the Olympic stadium and as Benjuk says there would also be concerns about potential degradation of the temporary stands at the stadium.

Interestingly - in theory, it may well be possible to use Wembley, Emirates and Twickenham if the logic of Portugal's Euro 2004 bid is followed - Portugal met the minimum requirement of 8 stadia in 8 cities but, ultimately, submitted a bid with 10 stadia in 8 cities. This bid was accepted because, while there were two stadia used in two cities, the minimum requirement was already met. Perhaps it could be possible, should England make the other minimum requirements that three London stadia, as well as the minimum required elsewhere, were presented?

As a matter of interest, and I apologise if this has been posted elsewhere in this thread; this is the 2007 feasibility study carried out into the practicalities of hosting the 2018 World Cup in England:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/F/world_cup_feasibility.pdf

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

It's possible to add more seats behind the goals (above the TV screens and seats at the top of the stadium) but this just means more money being spent on it. It won't happen.

I see you guys are unware of the actual term "safe standing". Its amazing how some here can debate England credentials for its world cup stadia yet know nothing about the changes which are being considered.

“There has been a debate going on for some time and my attention has been drawn to new technology in Germany and I said I was opened minded and willing to look at it. I then asked the Football Licensing Authority to give me a report on these grounds, which they could not do because they did not have an up-to-date record, but they have now visited the grounds and so I am now waiting for their reports. In the meantime, supporters' organisations themselves have gone out and visited a number of the grounds and I am in receipt of their report.

We are waiting to hear what the FLA says. I am very conscious that this whole debate has to be handled in a very sensitive way. But I am hoping that because the FLA has been looking at this that we will now get the Premier League to look at it seriously.

We are not talking about going back to the old-style terraces, which were very unsafe and were not stewarded properly. What I am talking about and what supporters are talking about is whether it is possible for what we would call small standing areas that would allow people to stand in safety and would allow people to sit without people standing around them.

Even if standing room returns, it's a non-starter for World Cup games.

I see people talk alot about things they dont really know about on this forum.

i'll explain in my next post.

umm wierd. post came out before.

The Conservative Party, thankfully, have no control over FIFA or UEFA and both of those bodies require all seated stadia.

Other post. And NO! they dont. It was the football associations choice implemented by the natioinal goverment.

I'm also not sure with this suggestion that a majority will take them up on it - what good will it do clubs like Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn or Middlesbrough, whom already cannot fill their stadia? Perhaps cheaper tickets may encourage more fans through the gates but that does not necessarily increase revenue. I'd say only larger clubs, who could fit twice as many supporters into standing room as seating room and sell standing tickets for less than half of seated tickets would be interested in transformation.

Very wrong. It would bring an aura and a sense of traditonalism back to the game. Something which has been lost, along with many fans. Football was about enjoyment. Now its about money. With so many foreign takeovers and increased TV deals. Ticket sales are down the priority compared to revenue like it was all those years ago.

ndeed, this ignores the cost of transformation - more people in a stadium requires more vomitories and staircases and more egress routes. This cannot be done cheaply in many existing stadia so it's not even worth a club's while to do this in order to remain revenue neutral after the change. Especially in new build stadia, the conversion would prove incredibly difficult.

Please research "SAFE STANDING"

Finally - there is no sound plans from the Conservatives about the introduction of terracing. Cameron once said something to a question posted on his website that has been totally blown out of proportion by football fans since then - Cameron said that, if he got to power, he would consider a review because it may be possible to have safe standing areas - this is a lot different to what has been suggested on this and other forums in the year and a half since Cameron last mentioned this.

Conservative MP's have always been the voice on this concept. Labour did a review. 80% chance with Cons. to 20% with Labs. LD would pass it straight away.

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/img/standing.jpg

I see people talk alot about things they dont really know about on this forum.

i'll explain in my next post.

What's your point? Standing is not allowed for World Cup games. Fact.

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing for league games but this thread is about a World Cup bid so standing has no relevance here.

What's your point? Standing is not allowed for World Cup games. Fact.


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.

First of all, let me say that I really don't think the tone of your post is in keeping with the discussions elsewhere in this thread and in this forum.

Now:

Very wrong. It would bring an aura and a sense of traditonalism back to the game. Something which has been lost, along with many fans. Football was about enjoyment. Now its about money. With so many foreign takeovers and increased TV deals. Ticket sales are down the priority compared to revenue like it was all those years ago.

I don't think tradition has much of a role to play when a football club faces drops in revenue and profits from a potential costly change to terracing. I don't know how I'm 'very wrong' when this post is, in essence, in agreement with my post - a majority of clubs are not likely to take up terracing because it would not guarantee increased revenues, even if it means more people through the gates. Clubs will only take it up if it increases revenues and if the transformation of the ground is cost effective.

Please research "SAFE STANDING"

I know what 'safe standing' is - none of that changes the fact that if you, "could increase capacities by an average of 5,000 fans per Championship and lower league club. More so for Premiership teams," then modifications would need to be made to stadia, both inside and outside, in order to cope with the extra 5,000+ fans, regardless of where they are located within the stadium - 5,000 extra fans means that 5,000 more fans have to enter and leave the stadium safely, it means that all the other health and safety issues that go along with 5,000 extra fans have to be in place. Your apparent suggestion that there would be little conversion required because of the design of safe standing areas is absurd.

Thanks for the link to the govt. document.

It was interesting that the German government spent an average of 50M pounds per venue.

If our glorious leaders could match that then I would like to see a scheme where, for example, the clubs could apply for perhaps 50% of the cost of an expansion project should it meet predetermined capacity. Up to the 50M

For example, if Sunderland got a quote of 70M for bringing the SOL to a full 64,000 they might expect to get 35M in a grant. Suddenly the average 60,000 that I've proposed seems feasible. Even the 'potential' 100M expansion of OT to 95,000 seems possible.

I recognize that the government has made no such proposal nor made such any offers. But Big Gordon seems to like public+private partnerships.

If the govt. is paying for half an expansion they might even be able to demand that a certain % of seats be priced reasonably for a set number of seasons after the WC unless the club want's to repay the grant.

It should work out a LOT cheaper than the Olympics.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

- 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.

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?

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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 70,000Color 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.

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.

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



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




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

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!

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.)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

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.

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

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).

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

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?

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

Nominate it for SSC Stadium of the year 2008 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=771596)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:D.

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

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?

All games to be played at the Withdean?

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:

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).

All games to be played at the Withdean?


LOL :lol:

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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

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)

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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!
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.

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...