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
#677 ·
Ummmm.........duane - am I not right in thinking that BeestonLad only posted that one tiny, poor quality picture of the proposed new Forest ground because there aren't actually, as yet, any proper renders for us to see?

If so, it seems to me that you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

He posted two pictures each of the existing three stadium interiors - which seems fair enough.
 
#678 ·
For a carnival atmosphere taking into account I have visited all three with Wolves.

Nottingham Forest is the only winner in my oppinion. Im not sure where the new stadium is to be located but the current city ground is a million times better as a venue then the other two for a World Cup.

The only thing Pride Park offers is fast food outlets which would be fine for the US national team to play at but apart from that it offers nothing. The accoustics in all 3 are good, but I cant look any further then the City of Nottingham hosting East Midlands games.
 
#681 ·
As posted on another thread:
Don't underestimate our city's bid. It will be a very strong one for a number of reasons, inclusive of the following:

1. The KC stadium is one of the very best, most attractive new stadiums built in this country in recent years. It was built with the ability to increase capacity to 40,000 in mind, and Tigers chairman Paul Duffen confirmed on tuesday that designs have been drawn up by the original stadium architects. With temporary seating in place for the duration of the tournament, this will be increased to 45,000.

2. The stadium is set in acres of parkland, within walking distance of the city centre, and with advanced plans for funding to build a new rail halt in the immediate vicinity.

3. There is an ongoing campaign to reopen the Beverley to York Railway line, thereby reconnecting the city centre to York via rail for the first time since Beechings axe.

4. P&O North Sea Ferries currently brings over 1,000,000 visitors per year to the UK from mainland Europe via the Port of Hull.

5. Humberside Airport has daily flights from Western Europe, Scandinavia and the Mediterranean. New takeover is imminent, investment and expansion has been rumoured.

6. First Hull Trains provides eight relatively cheap, high quality two hourly connections to Kings Cross per day using the east coast main line. The journey time is 2hrs 40mns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Hull_Trains

7. A stated aim of the England 2018 bid team is to provide a 'geographical spread' of match venues. Hull is the only major city on the east coast of England between East Anglia and Teeside, as well as serving a catchment that includes East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire



8. The city of Kingston Upon Hull is a historic port city with international links stretching back to the days of burning viking longboats on the mighty Humber Estuary. It's eminent position as the country's third port for several centuries have bequeathed it a magnificent Old Town area, regenerating rapidly with waterside cafes and restaurants. Ancient pubs and merchant houses, the largest and best collection of museums for any city of it's size in the country, and scores of visitor attractions and leisure opportunities. http://www.vhey.co.uk/

9. New Hotel accommodation is playing a big part in the regeneration of the city. Recently completed was the Holiday Inn Express (120-bed) at St Stephens. Site clearance is underway, and contracts are signed for the city centres first 4 star, 141 room, 20-storey Copthorne Hotel, directly opposite the newly completed Premier Inn (136-bed) on the River Hull. There are also Hotel plans on all of the strategic development area sites outlined in the City Masterplan including a new four star (150-200-bed) at Humber Quays and two hotels in the Fruit market district (210-bed). There are also hotel plans for a site adjacent to the stadium itself. Aside from the city centre, there are many hotels on the a63 corridor amongst the citys leafy, attractive western suburbs and in the rest of East Yorkshire.

Trinity Quays Copthorne Hotel


10. This is what Hull has been waiting for. The opportunity to turn around ignorant, misinformed perceptions from the rest of the country and actually show what we have to offer. This could be a watershed moment in the city's renaissance akin to Manchester hosting the Commonwealth Games, and even if we don't make the final cut, the raised aspiration and civic boost from having the gumption to go through with it would be priceless in the long run.

But we should get a game. One 90 minute football match between Togo and Switzerland could help this grand old city get it's mojo back for good. If there are to be two Yorkshire venues, then I would hope the organisers would consider the final reason:

11. The virtually brand new, state of the art, floodlit 50,000+ capacity Boothferry Park was overlooked for the 1966 world cup in favour of Sheffield (which also hosted a game in Euro '96.)

Check out the VIDEO:
 
#693 ·
If there are to be two Yorkshire venues
This -
http://www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/hostcityselection

Has all 3 Yorkshire venues in it.

The only one on that list I'd have question marks over is Milton Keynes - they'll never need 40,000, in fact thanks to recent gambling on promotion then who knows, there may not even be a team there by 2018 (although they'd probably just kill off someone else's football club again)

One notable city not on that list is Coventry - surely the Ricoh can be extended to 40k, and a second West Midlands venue should be welcomed for variety's sake.

So I think the make-up of a bid, looking at that list, would be -

Birmingham - City of Birmingham Stadium 55,000/Villa Park 55,000 (depends if CoBS ever gets built I guess)
Bristol - Bristol City Stadium 42,000 (temp capacity, might go back to 30,000 depending how BCFC are doing)
Derby - Pride Park 44,000
Hull - KC Stadium 40-45,000
Leeds - Elland Road 47,000 (although I'm sure I read somewhere they'd hope to redevelop to 60,000)
Leicester - Walkers Stadium 45,000
Liverpool - Stanley Park Stadium 60,000/73,000 (here's hoping a successful bid would give it a kick-start)
1st London venue - Wembley 90,000
2nd London venue - Who knows? See above
Manchester - Old Trafford currently 76,000, perhaps up to 95,000 by 2018
Milton Keynes - stadium:mk 40,000 (although I'd hope for a more realistic venue, like Coventry)
Newcastle - Sid James Park 52,000
Nottingham - new Forest stadium 50,000
Portsmouth - presumably the plans for the 36,000 seater stadium are over, file alongside Liverpool for "here's hoping"... otherwise they might have to look for Southampton for a temporary upgrade, and that won't go down well in Portsmouth...
Sheffield - Bramall Lane 44,000
Sunderland - Stadium of Light 49,000 (can go up to 64,000 but I don't think they'll ever need that)
 
#682 ·
With Nottingham's current stadium the city ground, I don't understand why they don't just rebuild the main stand (which is the single tier stand running the length of pitch) and the Bridgford End stand (the smaller stand behind the goal). The main stand certainly as space behind to be built on, and behind the Bridgford End Stand their are only a few houses that could be bought up and then that stand could be redeveloped. This redevelopment of the ground would be cheaper than a new stadium, and the grounds central location is perfect. What does everyone think?
 
#686 ·
With Nottingham's current stadium the city ground, I don't understand why they don't just rebuild the main stand (which is the single tier stand running the length of pitch) and the Bridgford End stand (the smaller stand behind the goal).
Height restrictions to allow sunlight, etc reach the housing behind those stands. Club would essentially have to buy those properties out to expand the stands with any significance.

You lot don't understand his conversation in the East Midlands forum about sporting stadiums. He just goes on and on about the Nottingham Forest Stadium. The fact is, it is not proposed and is just pictures. JUST A PICTURE!
That's fine, but here's another set of facts:

- Nottingham is among the communities already involved in the bidding process, suggesting committment from their end;
- Established min. standards require a 40k+ stadium, meaning those parties know some ground improvements will be required;
- The concept of a new ground has been discussed as part of their considerations in this process.

Thus, whether they renovate or build anew, even if at a different spot and with a completely different look, Nottingham is part of this equation. No reason to deride the lad for including the level of information already known, as the rest of us are sensible enough to understand what's existing and what's conceptual.
 
#683 · (Edited)
You lot don't understand his conversation in the East Midlands forum about sporting stadiums. He just goes on and on about the Nottingham Forest Stadium. The fact is, it is not proposed and is just pictures. JUST A PICTURE! I was pointing out that stadiums look better from the outside than the inside. So clearly if you are voting on stadiums, how can you compare a stadium from the inside, to a drawing of another? The drawing is obviously going to look better than the finished product, it always does. You just can't judge these stadiums based on these pictures. It's not comparing like with like. It is comparing a concept against the inside of another stadium.

And just for your information, there is no supporting evidence that the stadium design will be completed by the end of 2009. FACT! Stop twisting information BeestonLAD! The only information about the stadium is from June 2007. The real design could not look like that picture. You know why? Nottingham Forest have changed plans from the stadium being built in Clifton, to it being built between Lady Bay and the Holme Pierrepont. Therefore the actual stadium will not look anything like the picture.

As for the Walker Stadium the capacity figures you quote are not entirely correct. The stadium has a possible capacity of 55,000 after expansion. It was designed so that it could be easily expanded. FACT! Milan Mandrich has already mentioned he wants the stadium to have a significantly larger capacity. Leicester's stadium is only minutes away from Victoria Park and Abbey Park which together can hold hundreds of thousands of people. The atmosphere would be better in Leicester.
 
#692 ·
Why use it when there will already be two football-specific, 60,000 seater venues a few miles away? And maybe even a new Chelsea stadium (with a roof constructed by flying pigs)

Sounds like they'll be hoping to say "Look, look - it still has a use. It's not a white elephant". Although it will be a white elephant, because there'll have been an 80,000 seater stadium sat doing nothing for 6 years. How much will the maintenance cost over that time?

At least with the planned reduction of it, they can entice one of the expatriated Rugby Union clubs back to London or something.
 
#694 ·
How about:

London - Wembley 90,000
London - Twickenham 82,000
Manchester - Old Trafford 76,212
Liverpool - Stanley Park 73,000 (if built and expanded)
Sunderland - Stadium of Light ~64,000 (if fully expanded)
London - Emirates Stadium 60,355
Leicester - Walkers Stadium ~55,000 (or 45,000 if only partially expanded)
Newcastle - St. James Park 52,387
Birmingham - Villa Park ~51,000 (with corners filled in)
Nottingham - New Forest Stadium ~50,000
Milton Keynes - Stadium:mk 45,000 (if fully expanded)
Derby - Pride Park ~44,000 (if expanded)
Sheffield - Bramall Lane ~44,000 (if expanded)
Leeds - Elland Road 39,401 (plus whatever they can add)

That's 14. Personally I don't think Hull and Portsmouth's stadia will be big enough so I'd be inclined to give the last 2 to either City of Manc, CoBS, new Everton stadium or an expanded Hillsborough.
 
#695 ·
They won't allow three London Venues, Milton Keynes is a shithole, Bramall Lane probably won't be World Cup quality and Elland Road would have to be knocked down and rebuilt before it got anywhere near upto standard.

Plus if we're having two London venues, we can't have two Manchester stadiums, two Liverpool stadiums or two Birmingham stadiums, so you'd have to give them to Hull or Portsmouth.
 
#700 ·
They won't allow three London Venues, Milton Keynes is a shithole, Bramall Lane probably won't be World Cup quality and Elland Road would have to be knocked down and rebuilt before it got anywhere near upto standard.

Plus if we're having two London venues, we can't have two Manchester stadiums, two Liverpool stadiums or two Birmingham stadiums, so you'd have to give them to Hull or Portsmouth.
I think if theres going to be 16 stadia, the chances are cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham will have 2, biggest stadia = more money

Here's my list,

London - Wembley (90,000)
London - Highbury (60,000)
Manchester - Old Trafford (76,000 - 90,000)
Manchester - COMS (47,000)
Liverpool - Stanley Park (70,000)
Liverpool - New Everton Stadium (60,000)
Birmingham - New Birmingham City Stadium (55,000)
Birmingham - Villa Park (55,000)

Newcastle
Sunderland
Leeds
Portsmouth
Bristol
Nottingham
Sheffield

I cant see them implementing this rule of only 1 host city can have two stadia. I hope they dont anyway, will be a shame if we have to use 2nd rate stadia just because of location, instead of larger, better equiped missing out just because of a nearby ground.
 
#697 ·
My only concern with the England bid, is that a lot of proposed stadiums, are below or just above the 40,000 capacity. But lets remember that for a WC game, most stadiums loss between 5000 - 7000 seats, because of additional media, vip seats, security, etc....

Soooo, as an example, St. James right now is at 52,000, but im sure that will end up as a 45,000 stadium for the WC, and that is just above the requirement.
 
#701 ·
I'd sooner see Tickers get the 2nd London slot. 82,000 plays 60,000. It wouldn't take that much work, I think the RFU were quite keen, and the bid looks pretty poor with only 1 stadium over 76,000. (The capacities will decrease remember). Old Trafford won't be expanded to 96,000 - it would cost too much.
 
#705 ·
What?! US had it 15 years ago. It would be ridiculous if they got it again. They don't even like football ffs. We've waited 40 years - that's long enough.

12 stadiums make it a bit easier. Personally pick our best 10 and do up the ones that are too small.
 
#707 ·
New stadium will be Nottingham's biggest challenge
3 July 2009
Nottingham Evening Post

The biggest challenge Nottingham may face in mounting a successful bid to be a host city in the 2018 World Cup is delivering the stadium.

However, it is a challenge faced by all the other cities seeking to stage World Cup matches in the UK.

Only eight of the 21 stadiums put forward from 15 cities can accommodate 40,000 fans, plus the seats for VIPs and media.

Furthermore, it is estimated that only one stadium - Wembley - currently has the additional facilities required.

Even Old Trafford may struggle to provide the media centre, broadcast compound, and volunteering centre FIFA says it wants.

Nottingham will have to construct a new stadium to meet the necessary capacity and other requirements.

As reported in the Post last September, a master plan has been produced for a new sports quarter at Holme Pierrepont, which would include a new 50,000-seat ground for Nottingham Forest and as well as 10,000-seat stadium alongside.

Discussions between Nottingham Forest, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council have continued.

Although the aspiration to create a stadium with associated sport and leisure facilities, including a five-star hotel remains the same, the site has not been fixed.

Land at Gamston is also under consideration.
 
#708 ·
Soccer-Beckenbauer says 2018 World Cup should go to Europe

SYDNEY, July 5 (Reuters) - Franz Beckenbauer believes Europe should host the World Cup in 2018 after South Africa and Brazil stage the next two finals.

The former World Cup-winning captain and coach with West Germany stopped short of endorsing any individual bids but said England would be capable of hosting the tournament.

"It's (the decision) too far away, it's more than one year to go," he told Australia's Sun-Herald: "(But) It will be Europe's turn (in 2018).

"As a UEFA member, I would like to see it in Europe but it is an open race as to which country might get it.

"England could host it tomorrow because they have the stadiums, the infrastructure, the fans, everything.

"But there are a lot of other different countries bidding. Let's wait and see."

Beckenbauer is one of 24 members of FIFA's Executive Committee that will decide which countries host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups at a meeting in December next year.

FIFA have received nine bids for 2018 and 11 for 2022 although bids from the same continent as the successful host for 2018 would be ineligible for 2022.

The 2010 World Cup will be held in South Africa while Brazil will stage the 2014 event.

Beckenbauer said a country like Australia could be a strong candidate for 2022 if 2018 went to Europe.

"I think they have a good chance because the World Cup's never been to Australia," he said.

"Australia's a beautiful country, a beautiful continent."
 
#712 ·
I think a deal could be struck should England get the rugby world cup in 2015 where the FA agree for Wembley to be used for rugby in return for Twickenham to be used for World cup 2018.

Surely seats have to be taken out to accomodate the extra media and executive seats. Granted some of the stadia chosen might not need to change, but some must see small decreases.

OT expansion involves either bridging over or moving the railway and demolishing a row of houses. Do the Glazers have £100m? The Ronaldo money which isn't spent on transfers will probably be used for loan repayments on the debt.
 
#714 ·
Yeh, the goverment are really likely to give Man Utd, the second richest club in the world, money for development when the national debt is so huge! Old Trafford doesn't need expanding for a world cup bid, and Man Utd are big enough to do it themselves if they want a bigger ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top