SkyscraperCity Forum banner

-

Status
Not open for further replies.

ENGLAND - FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bid

292K views 2K replies 236 participants last post by  venki04ss 
#1 ·
England to bid for 2018 World Cup

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."
 
See less See more
#638 ·
LMAO calling me stupid!

18 players, above the age of 18.

Chelsea have a squad of +30 if they are restricted to 18 and no loaning, then a lot of good standard players would be available to "smaller teams".

So if you start getting injuries you'd have to start using your youth team. I see no problem with that, as teams would be forced to develop youth. Injuries don't discriminate by size of club you know!

Anyways back on topic
 
#640 ·
I think there are two reasons that over looked in the Premier League becoming the dominant league in the world.

Britain up until the 50's /60's still had an Empire which British culture, including sport, were well publicised. This gave clubs in the English leagues overseas publicity right from the start.

The BBC world service broadcasts English Football radio coverage and results round the world and has been doing for over 50 years.

What these two things have done is that when live TV coverage happened there was already a market for the Premier League round the world. This doesn't just work for Premier league teams. A lot of people round the world will have heard of Blackpool, Preston North End and Notts County. How many people not from Italy could name an Italian 4th division team?
 
#641 ·
1. Blackpool and preston north end are in the 2nd tier. I'm sure lots of people can name 2nd tier italian teams. Bari, Parma etc

2 Blackpool, preston and NOtts county are all historic names in english football who have played in the top flight. In notts county's case, in the last 20 years. Historic Italian teams tend to all be in serie A especially atm, italy has a far shorter and less even footballing history

3. It is clear that people around the world could name as many italian 4th division teams as english. because, i doubt many people would know who is in the fourth division and i doubt people around the world have heard of Rochdale or Lincoln city. Same as tin pot italian clubs.

4. The empire theory doesn't account for the majority of South east asia and south america and Francophone africa, where the biggest upsurge has come from
 
#642 ·
whether COMS would be used - who knows (although recent press coverage has speculated that both OT and COMS may feature in the bid)...

(w/ thanks to Gherkin from the uk stadium section:

MAN CITY THINK BIG
Plans to make Eastlands 65,000-seat stadium



MANCHESTER CITY are ready to take a major step towards becoming a world superpower by raising their stadium capacity to 65,000.

The project to make Eastlands the second biggest ground in the Premier League could be completed by the 2011-12 season. The stadium currently holds just under 48,000. Old Trafford seats 76,000.

A source said: “There have been rumours floating around the construction industry for a few months that City are looking at how to expand the ground.

“The owners are looking into it but there are a few obstacles to get through before they can get any work started.”

The club’s Arab owners believe building another tier on the stands behind both goals plus some minor adjustments could give them the capacity they want to further their dream of making City a top European power.

But any plans would need the agreement of Manchester Council, which owns the ground.

Long-term City could buy Eastlands outright but owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan would be happy to finance the extra building work in the short term if the council gives the go-ahead.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/spo...ans-to-make-Eastlands-65000-seat-stadium.html

fan mock-up posted by jrb:

 
#643 ·
Apart from how the "new" stand comes into the corner, that's a nice mock-up. Would be very nice but... why bother? Citeh are averaging 42k right now and, IIRC, a high of 45k after COMS opened. Thus I'm assuming they don't have a waiting list for season's tickets. Assuming these owners have some business sense, they should continue to develop the side and make plans for the expansion but hold off until after a year or two of sell-outs to drive demand.

Then again, with their resources they can probably skip the part about needing business sense.
 
#644 ·
They could, if they wanted, ramp it up to 65,000 and subsidise a fair amount of the tickets - they've got the money.

However, a successful Man City side - one that is looking to qualify for the Champions League - could draw these kind of numbers without ticket subsidies. And it's fairly likely that such a side will exist by 2011/12 i.e. when the stadium could be extended.
 
#645 ·
will doing that at both ends add 18,000? It would certainly look good if that's how they decided to increase..

I think their lower than capacity attendances might be down to season ticket sales and and away fan support. In so far as they might be selling all their available season tickets, and away fan support might fluctuate as well as floating support. With more season tickets available maybe their crowds will go up. That is speculation of course.

oh yeah and as rob says success breeds glory hunters
 
#647 ·
hello everybody, i'm french from marseille, i'm 18 and i would like to make an english penpal who could talk with me on MSN messenger. i'd like to improve my english. I'm a football fan and i would like to talk football with english.I love barclay's premier league.
I know this site is not a a site to make friends, but i didnt find any person.
if you are interressed please answer me on this thread.=) thank you
 
#651 ·
Milton Keynes is a shit hole. I doubt the FA would want fans or press from other countries to visit the place. I think that they just have to allow them to bid to be polite. The ground is definitely better than most of the new grounds in this county though..

I have heard that Forest will be releasing designs of their new ground in the late summer. Although i'd rather we stayed where we are and rebuilt the main stand (which would create a great looking stadium close to town and along the banks of the Trent) perfect for the world cup. I think the council have got even bigger ideas and want us to move to some sort of "dedicated sports city" area. I have heard that the plans incorporate a large amount of steel work creating the Forest "Tricky Tree" emblem (sounds pretty dodgy)!
 
#654 ·
THE ROAD TO 2018
The Bid Team FIFA's process Host City Selection
England 2018 Host City Selection CHOOSING ENGLAND’S HOST CITIES

England has many excellent football stadiums in cities spread across the country. Fifteen cities have so far applied to be considered for inclusion in the Bid Book as an Applicant Host City.

After a competitive process and detailed inspections by the England 2018 team, approximately 16 stadiums will be selected for inclusion in the Bid Book.

The list of cities selected to be Applicant Host Cities will be announced in December 2009.



THE APPLICANTS
In alphabetical order:
1. Birmingham
2. Bristol
3. Derby
4. Hull
5. Leeds
6. Leicester
7. Liverpool
8. London
9. Manchester
10. Milton Keynes
11. Newcastle
12. Nottingham
13. Portsmouth
14. Sheffield
15. Sunderland
Notable absentees are:

Middlesbrough
Norwich
Ipswich
Wolverhampton
Southampton
Plymouth
Coventry
 
#655 ·
Agreed. Still time to submit bids but I was surprised to see both Ipswich and Norwich absent from the list. Especially given the calls for a nice "geographic spread" across the country. I realize that's not the most populous part of England, but still.

Wolverhampton and Coventry probably assume they'll be muscled out just by proximity to Birmingham, a certain host. Bristol appears better poised to represent the southwest so Plymouth may not put forth the effort. And while Middlesbrough would serve the "spread" better than using both St. James and the SOL, knowing that one of those two is certain and that Hull is growing more and more likely an option, the competition for Middlesbrough is growing stronger and stronger. (I often wonder if they'll ever be able to outgrow their namesake! :eek:hno: ) And lastly, how many of the Leeds/Sheffield/Nottingham/Derby quartet will make the cut?!

Nice to see the race now engaged in earnest. Curious to see what evolves from the other bidding nations, but mostly hopeful to see what this does to help English soccer climb closer to Germany in boosting attendance figures. Definitely need a few more clubs finding ways to host 40k+.
 
#656 ·
My early predictions:

London
Manchester
Liverpool
Birmingham
Newcastle/Sunderland (one of)
Bristol
Portsmouth
Nottingham/Derby (one of)

Assuming London hosts two venues that leaves three more communities needed, with Leeds, Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Hull, Ipswich and Norwich among the major metros still on the table. Leeds and Sheffield certainly evoke more soccer pedigree than the others but the idea of spreading the games around suggest Hull and Middlesbrough might be given the call.


Question: To what degree would the selection committee pass over a Leeds (or Nottingham, or Sheffield...) in hopes that those communities would see investment in their venues regardless of the WC? I'm wondering if they might try to use this opportunity to stir enthusiasm elsewhere and trust the local support for such clubs might see them through and ultimately yield better venues across the nation.
 
#657 ·
These are my choices about cities and matches.

Birmingham: B3-B4, H1-H2, D4-D2, C2-C3
Derby: A3-A4, F3-F4, D4-D1, G2-G3
Leeds: C2-C3, D1-D3, G4-G2, F2-F3
Liverpool: B1-B2, H3-H4, A4-A1, F4-F1
London (emirates stadium): F1-F2, B4-B2, H1-H3, E2-E3
Manchester (Old Trafford): C1-C2, A1-A3,E1-E3, B4-B1
Nottingham: E1-E2, B1-B3, F4-F2, G4-G1
Newcastle: E3-E4, A4-A2, H4-H2, C4-C1
Porstmouth: D3-D4, C4-C2, G1-G3, B2-B3
Sheffield: G3-G4, E4-E2, D2-D3, H4-H1
Sunderland: D1-D2, C1-C3, A2-A3, E4-E1
Wembley: A1-A2, G1-G2, F1-F3, H2-H3

A1: England
 
#658 ·
After reading The Guardian's quick review of each community I'm leaning this way.

London (2)
Manchester
Liverpool
Birmingham
Newcastle/Sunderland (pick 1)
Leeds
Sheffield
Nottingham
Bristol
Portsmouth
Hull

It's a bit crowded in the middle of the country but maybe the thinking will be those folks will also be within easy drive of each other and regional attractions. Perhaps Middlesbrough, Ipswich or Norwich will replace Hull or Nottingham, but considering the ability of each community to play off being an ideal host I think this allotment does pretty well of putting visitors in nice places with things to see/do and will feature decent venues. Especially since Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield all have reason to believe their grounds will be more than the min. capacity and would be well used after the event. Thus, assuming we see no other yet-unpromoted expansions or developments:

90k Wembley
60k Emirates
76k Old Trafford
70k Stanley Park
52k Villa Park
50k St. James
50k Nottingham's new ground
45k Elland Road upgrade
45k Sheffield venue
42k KC Stadium
42k Bristol City new ground
40k New Portsmouth ground

Unfortunately I don't see anything else popping up in the 50-60k range, but at least several of the newer developments could contribute to substantial club and league attendance improvements. Not to disparage the likes of Wigan and WBA, but having the likes of Leeds and Nottingham in the Premiership with 50k venues would make for much more entertaining atmospheres.
 
#660 ·
It's a fair bet that a few of those stadiums will be considerably bigger by 2018 or 2022 - especially once they are chosen as WC venues:

Old Trafford - 76K--------> 90-95K
St James Park - 52K------> 60K

I'd be very surprised if either of those fails to materialise.

Emirates - 60K --------> 70-75K?

That's also very possible.

New Anfield / Stanley Park - isn't that 72-73K?

And the new Elland Road will, I reckon, be at least 50K. There hardly seems to be any point increasing capacity by a mere 5,000.

It will also be interesting to see whether FIFA are prepared to allow the use of more than 12 stadia. For instance, I've seen a couple of articles that have Twickenham down as one of the stadiums entered in the initial bid venues. The new White Hart Lane and whatever stadium Chelsea might have by then too. Also the new Everton stadium and Eastlands.

There's no reason why FIFA couldn't allow England to showcase all its best stadia. So rather than St James' Park, say, hosting three games, it could host two and the Stadium of Light could host the third game in the north east.

Probably won't happen but it would make the distribution of games even more egalitarian.
 
#661 ·
^^ jimb there is no reason why we can't have more stadiums, except that thems the rules...

Euro 2008 8 stadiums for 31 games

World cup 2018 16 stadiums for 64 games

would give a greater distribution of games per stadium than the euros, by FIFAs rules the euros should use 6 stadiums...

So i wouldn't have thought that 1-2 more stadiums would be a problem...
 
#662 ·
Yup. Those are the rules. Except......

....rules are there to be broken - especially if there is no overwhelmingly good reason for them.

FIFA probably won't deviate from the current plan but you never know. They're forever fiddling with the rules after all. The tournament only grew to 32 teams as recently as France 1998 (when 10 venues were used). And it wasn't so long ago (Spain 1982, in fact) that as many as 17 different stadiums and 14 cities hosted games for only 24 teams. Four years earlier, there were 16 teams in Argentina and only 6 stadiums and 5 cities hosted games. Finally, of course, two different countries hosted games in 2002!

So the precedent for change is certainly there even if not, currently, the desire.
 
#663 ·
^^I agree FIFA just changes the rules when it suits them, what was it 20 stadiums for 2002? But will they again for England...

For me the only thing i see counting against us adding more stadiums is that they didn't let Germany in 2006, they had to leave out Bremen, Dusseldorf and Monchengladbach. 2 of which were brand new stadium. So that was the time to set a precedent really, although Germany did seem to redefine tournaments and more cities joining the party can only be better if we can create something like that.

I would love 16 stadiums, then nobody misses out but hey we'll probably lose out to the USA anyway...
 
#664 ·
Forget USA. And Australia. And any other non European bid.

England's only competition will be Spain / Portugal, Netherlands / Belgium and Russia.

One of 2018 or 2022 will definitely be hosted by a European country (or joint bid) - which means, of course, that the other will definitely not be hosted by a European country (or joint bid). So England is not in competition with the USA. It's all about European rivals.
 
#668 ·
You say you would be amazed, but why would it be expanded for the WC Jim? Yes if Newcastle stay up and get themselves out of this current muddle or come back up to become title contenders again (I can't see it I'm afraid) they may want to expand.
But for the WC is another matter, and I fail to see who would want to pay for this, especially as 52k is a decent capacity anyway.
 
#669 ·
Until this dreadful, relegation threatened season (when they're still averaging 93% of capacity), Newcastle sold out pretty much every home Premiership game over the past 15 years - even when their league form was no more than average. Clearly, the demand is there to justify a bigger capacity - as recognized two years ago when Newcastle announced plans to increase capacity to 60K.

So I'm not suggesting that Newcastle would increase capacity just to impress at the World Cup. But the World Cup would be an excuse, a deadline or a catalyst to get the work done.
 
#671 ·
Re: St. James expansion
Unless the costs for construction (excluding land) throughout different parts of England are directly disproportionate as general costs of living, the problem here is that expansion may not yield the net benefit suggested. I can't find it but somewhere I recently saw a table of season ticket prices for the Premiership clubs, related to articles about ManU's coming increase in prices. The table was truly amazing as I hadn't figured how diverse the costs really were. Even at the lower levels Arsenal and other London clubs had prices far beyond what the likes of Wigan and WBA were charging, almost to geometric proportions.

Bottom line, Newcastle may have the fan base but expansion costs may not provide the financial returns to make the idea worth pursuing. The modern economic structure of the game is to maximize the revenues on a per seat basis. In some cases it's better to raise prices on existing capacity (wherein your operating costs would remain the same) then to expand at additional costs.

Re: Leeds and Elland Road
Yes, they may go to 50k and, as with Newcastle, they likely have the base for such expansion. But seeing as so much of the stadium already needs a makeover I'd heard that renovation costs may eat into prospects for larger expansion. Especially considering they're now wallowing in League 1 for at least one more season. If the long term model allows for further expansion, the suspicion is they'll aim for a masterful renovation at something they know they'll sell out even for most Championship games, again to maximize revenue per seat.

Re: Number of stadiums
Comparable to the "per seat" theory applied above, FIFA and the English organizers will certainly look to minimize their expenditures for the event. While simply moving a game from St. James to SOL may seem innocuous, it means a whole new security plan, a whole new set of ushers and servicemen to work with, additional transport to coordinate, etc. Especially for what would likely amount to just 1-2 games for such venues, it's not worth it, IMO. Noble idea, and if you're going to do it go whole hog. But as I've opined before there will be a lot of discussion about the net benefit of such measures, and I suspect they'd rather maximize revenues and then do some special dispensation to a stadium fund for all members, rather then do extra work for marginal benefit to just a few other clubs.

and lastly...
You say you would be amazed, but why would it be expanded for the WC Jim? Yes if Newcastle stay up and get themselves out of this current muddle or come back up to become title contenders again (I can't see it I'm afraid) they may want to expand.
But for the WC is another matter, and I fail to see who would want to pay for this, especially as 52k is a decent capacity anyway.
If someone is thinking about an expansion then the WC is exactly the time to do it (pending funding, of course). Hosting clubs gain their return from this event via tickets and concessions. Why postpone an expansion when doing one before the event might yield an additional 1-2M GBP per match hosted? Especially considering the events will be guaranteed sell-outs at maximum prices.

It's not much difference by comparison, but it's money there for the taking. So if you're thinking expansion, doing so to cash in on this event makes sense, pending other conditions.
 
#675 ·
Re: Leeds and Elland Road
Yes, they may go to 50k and, as with Newcastle, they likely have the base for such expansion. But seeing as so much of the stadium already needs a makeover I'd heard that renovation costs may eat into prospects for larger expansion. Especially considering they're now wallowing in League 1 for at least one more season. If the long term model allows for further expansion, the suspicion is they'll aim for a masterful renovation at something they know they'll sell out even for most Championship games, again to maximize revenue per seat.
The part of Elland road that needs renovating first is the west stand as it was built in the 50's. Leeds have stated that they aren't going to renovate it they will just pull it down and replace it. When they replace it, it will be with a stand similar in size to the east stands 17K seats. That gives an extra 6k-7k seats. Thus renovating and expanding the stadiums capacity in one go.
 
#673 ·
2018 World Cup: England, East Midlands Venues

After the announcement that 3 cities from the East Midlands are in the running as possible hosts for England’s 2018 World Cup bid, its likely that only one will be picked in the final 12 venues. Which venue would you chose and why?

New Forest Stadium, Capacity 50,000


(Actual designs expected Mid-late 2009)

Redeveloped City Ground, Capacity 40-45,000



Extended Pride Park, Capacity 44,000



Extended Walkers Stadium, Capacity 40-45,000



Sorry for the crappy pics I couldnt be bothered to spend hours searching for decent ones!
 
#680 ·
Cheers Kobo :cheers:. I'm pretty sure that only one will be chosen, there are 16 bids and the general consensus is that 4 will miss out. So looking at things geographically I would assume that 2 of these to miss out will be from the East Midlands. Im torn between a new stadium in Nottingham or a redeveloped city ground myself, the current location of the city ground is perfect and actually quite picturesque but the downside is at least one stand will need replacing and am not sure how feasable it would be :dunno:
 
#676 ·
This question is bias. The pictures of Leicester and Derby's stadiums are actual pictures from the inside. The Nottingham one is from the outside and it just a picture. You can't judge this fairly on this. Beestonlad you really are a tit! To make up for this I have added the pictures of Derbys stadium and Leicester stadium.

Walkers Stadium



Pride Park



The Nottingham forrest stadium is not likely to be built. The other stadiums are already built. There is no evidence for the figures you state for seats and I'm sure both Pride Park and the Walkers Stadium could both extend their capacity to 50,000 quite easily. Don't let Beestonlad twist facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top