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
#970 ·
Okay I still think some of the exsisting stadiums in the bid still need some work to be quality WC Venues:

Leeds - Elland Road 51,240 - Expansion design looks crap & needs to go back to the drawing board

Liverpool - Anfield/New Anfield -Old Anfield needs a serious lick of paint if selected / New Anfield looks amazing and we need it to get built!


Manchester -Old Trafford -Already Great Capacity but could do with expanding the 1 tier stand as it looks incomplete at the moment - not a great look for a WC even though its a massive stadium


Newcastle - St James Park 52,000 - Already a great capacity but could do with expansion behind the other goal as like OT the stadium looks incomplete and thats not a great look for a WC venue


Sheffield - Hillsborough 44,000 - I know its an old stadium but the expansion designs still lacks a wow factor - could still be in trouble if FiFa decides to chop a couple of cities as its already clustered with Nottingham & Manchester.
 
#971 ·
Leeds - Elland Road 51,240 - Expansion design looks crap & needs to go back to the drawing board
That's because it's just a crude concept and hasn't even been "to" the drawing board to begin with. Give them a chance to actually commission a formal design, eh?!!

Manchester -Old Trafford -Already Great Capacity but could do with expanding the 1 tier stand as it looks incomplete at the moment - not a great look for a WC even though its a massive stadium


Newcastle - St James Park 52,000 - Already a great capacity but could do with expansion behind the other goal as like OT the stadium looks incomplete and thats not a great look for a WC venue
So you're saying Old Trafford looks incomplete but you want St. James to evolve into what Old Trafford looks like right now? Am I missing something...
 
#981 ·
Now, Rob, you may be a s**** fan but surely even you know where we're coming from. ;)

Neither City bid and that's their decision, it just seems a shame that they couldn't muster up even an attempt considering that Plymouth and Bristol have made the cut. Over the past decade or two Ipswich and Norwich have arguably been more feature players in English football than either of those other two, or compared to Milton Keynes. But as I've said before, I'll trust the organizer's to make what they feel is the most plausible bid.

Put another way, if I'm a government bloke or banker about to subsidize a stadium improvement, on paper I'd presume the facilities at Norwich and Ipswich would be used more and for greater crowds than we've come to expect in the southwest. Then again, a few months ago I would've assumed the folks at Portsmouth would've been smart enough not to waste this chance, either.
 
#974 ·
Wembley Stadium
Proposed Capacity - 84,700
FINAL, SEMI FINAL QUARTER FINAL R16 GROUPX4

Manchester United FC, Old Trafford
Proposed Capacity - 75,979
SEMI FINAL QUARTER FINAL R16 GROUPX4

Liverpool FC, New Anfield Stadium
Proposed Capacity - 72,334
QUARTER FINAL R16 GROUPX4

Arsenal FC, Emirates Stadium
Proposed Capacity - 60,000
R16 GROUPX4

Newcastle United FC, St James’ Park
Proposed Capacity - 52,409
QUARTER FINAL R16 GROUPX4

Leeds United FC, Elland Road Stadium
Proposed Capacity - 51,240
R16 GROUPX4

Sunderland AFC, Stadium of Light
Proposed Capacity - 48,707
R16 GROUPX4

Aston Villa FC - Villa Park.
Proposed Capacity - 47,300
R16 GROUPX4

Bristol Stadium:
Bristol City FC, New Ashton Vale (New build)
Proposed Capacity - 44,000
GROUPX4

Milton Keynes Dons FC, StadiumMK
Proposed Capacity - 44,000
GROUPX4

Sheffield Wednesday FC, Hillsborough
Proposed Capacity - 43,946
GROUPX4

Plymouth Argyle FC, Home Park
Proposed Capacity - 43,874
GROUPX4
 
#989 ·
I think England is hoping for FIFA to make an exception and allow them to have three hosts in a single city, but IMO, that's a bad way to go. Even if it is allowed, I think some executive committee members won't like it and may hold it against them bid. It's unnecessary and could potentially hurt the bid.
 
#980 ·
From one of my favourite sports journalists; a nice, positive article for once:

Great venues keep England's rejuvenated World Cup 2018 bid on track

When Sepp Blatter receives England’s 2018 World Cup bid document in May, Fifa’s president will feel he has picked up a book celebrating great deeds in football.

------
By Henry Winter, Football Correspondent
Published: 7:15AM GMT 17 Dec 2009
------

Anybody got Claudia Schiffer’s number? That was the shout a month ago when England’s 2018 bid appeared in crisis, assailed from many quarters and lacking the glamour that helped the Schiffer-assisted Germans win the right to host 2006.

For Goldilocks read Goldenballs. David Beckham soon sprinkled stardust on an FA campaign given even more lustre by Wenesday’s stadiums announcement.

As seen in the naming of historic grounds like Wembley, Old Trafford and Elland Road, the exciting legacy potential of Plymouth, Bristol and Milton Keynes and the remarkable community feel to a revamped Hillsborough, England always had a good technical World Cup bid. It just needed a human face, a famous one like Beckham, to make it more appealing.

The FA now has the balance right. Spain, along with Russia the main rivals to England, boasts splendid stadiums from Barcelona to La Coruña but England can play down ace after ace.

Old Trafford: home of past European champions. Ditto Anfield. Ditto Villa Park. When Sepp Blatter receives England’s bid document in May, Fifa’s president will feel he has picked up a book celebrating great deeds in football.

As Beckham showed, a touch of glamour never goes amiss.

As this charming man launched the fightback, the FA’s campaign also gained in authority by losing a charmless man. The resignation of Sir Dave Richards, the Premier League chairman who risks becoming as ridiculed nationally as he is at his old Hillsborough home, was depicted as being damaging to the FA’s campaign. Not now.

Wednesday embedded Premier League clubs like Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Sunderland to the 2018 cause. (And those with a soft spot for Leeds United know that Elland Road will be hosting elite football well before 2018.)

Richards may have turned his back on his country but his clubs are not so foolish. The World Cup represents a 21st century Klondike, generating millions for clubs, tens of millions for surrounding areas and an estimated £3.2 billion for the nation.

Just listen to Sunderland’s chairman, Niall Quinn, of the impact 2018 could have on the area he represents so ably. “Various things have happened in this region: the shipbuilding stopped, the coal mines closed and it’s been a struggle ever since to regenerate,’’ Quinn said, “but this is a huge help.’’
So good riddance to Richards and let more principled, patriotic individuals get on with bringing football home. Good people work on the bid, from chief executive Andy Anson to the chairman Lord Triesman to lesser-known but equally important employees like Jane Bateman, the FA’s head of international relations.

The FA must use the expertise of Geoff Thompson more; however meek an FA chairman he might have been, Thompson is hugely respected within Uefa and Fifa circles and his quiet influence in the corridors of power must be exploited.

Anson and Triesman must also bring onside Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive.

Scudamore’s chairman may have jumped ship but his clubs are happily on board the good ship 2018. Some of them use the bid as a catalyst to improve themselves.

The new White Hart Lane development is so exciting, so architecturally splendid, that the FA should immediately dismiss the thought of using the Olympic Stadium.

The World Cup is bigger than the Olympics anyway. Ask Claudia.


Link
 
#1,003 ·
7 to 8 of the proposed stadia have capacities of between 40k to 50k. Lets hope some of those grounds can be increased in terms of capacities to a more exiciting number.
Meh. A bit harsh, ron.

In 2006 Germany used seven 40 to 50k stadiums, two 50k+ stadiums, two 60k stadiums and one 70k stadium.

South Africa is using one 90k Stadium, one 70k, two 60k+ and six 40 to 50k stadiums.

England is offering a choice from: One 90k stadium, two 70k+, three 60k stadiums, two 50k+ and as many as eight 40 to 50k stadiums.

England's bid stacks up very well IMO.
 
#983 ·
I think it's appalling that a southern overspill town like Milton Keynes gets chosen to host matches, over an established traditional footballing city like Derby.

I've seen posts from brazilians, and other foreigners hoping Englands wins the 2018 bid, and that 'football will come home again.'

Yeah nice one! Instead of the footballing town of Derby, with it's glorious footballing history and staue of legendary Brian Clough, we're gonna stick you in Milton Keynes!!

Idiots.
 
#984 ·
Have u been to milton keynes or are u just another sheep with a stereotypical view? Its not just about history its also the chance to leave a city with a legacy and this gives the likes of MK and Plymouth a great oppurtunity. Jesus we've already got 10 other cities with amazing history so its not a problem. location wise Derby is right next door to Nottingham & Sheffield whilst MK is in a good location and fifa likes cities to be spread out. Stadium wise - I've been to both stadia and Stadium MK is much better than Pride Park in terms of facilities and looks. Also MK is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and will be a much better place for fans to visit than Derby in 2018

...and before you get the 'Wimbeldon' card out.....this bid is not about MK dons/Wimbeldon its about England providing the best cities/venues to FIFA for their 2018 bid - which after numerous presentations and visits is what they have done.
 
#986 ·
Why would I have ever been to Milton Keynes?

I'd say the same wherever it was. Derby being left out, over a place like this is criminal and smells dodgy to me. I just cannot understand it.

The close proximity to Nottingham makes no difference. Look at the other choices, some are even closer together.

Portsmouth Hull and Norwich all have more of a claim than Milton Keynes, but Derby in particular has been shat on here.
 
#998 ·
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. For the bid to be successful it has to be a combination of different things. As well as traditional football stadiums and cities, we need to include some that are in other, less popular areas. FIFA loves to talk about 'legacy' which is why as well as Old Trafford and Wembley, it's important to have games played in Bristol, Plymouth, Milton Keynes etc. At the moment Derby and MK are about the same size, but MK is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.

Besides, Pride Park isn't the Baseball Ground. It's a typical modern bowl. If the choice is between Pride Park or a newer, better stadium then I think it's reasonable to choose MK. We still have the history and tradition of Hillsborough, St. James' Park, Old Trafford etc.
 
#990 ·
Nah, it won't hurt the bid. We're giving FIFA options. If FIFA only want two in London, we'll only have two, but if they think they capital can cope with three, we'll have three. The list of 16 stadiums will be cut to around 12 if we win and that may or may not include London losing a stadium. It's flexible in that sense.

England isn't like Germany or the US with many regional centres of power. London is a primate city, almost the dictionary definition of one. It is not unreasonable for it to have three stadiums, though I'd imagine it will probably end up with two.
 
#994 ·
Yes, in the same way Old Trafford is technically not in Manchester ;) However, it is part of the wider Paris region, which is an official area I believe. And besides, they didn't purpose 3 stadia!

French cities def have more autonomy than ours, hence their better transport and so forth. However, kinda paradoxically, Paris I think gets far more attention from central gov. I mean, look at how Sarkozy is leading the way for a 'Grand' (greater) Paris project, spending 20 billion or so on some outer orbital metro thing. Can you imagine Brown or whoever doing that for London? Before that there was the whole RER project which got massive assistance from central gov; crossrail is getting a little less than a 3rd of funding from central gov and that is just one line not a whole network. I guess its just different views of how and where the State works though.
 
#995 ·
The thoughts about London are correct but I think this is less cultural thing and simply a factor of geography and urbanity (or the lack thereof). England's portion of the isle represents a smaller space than Germany, Spain or France, and the distribution of mid-sized urban centers meant some compromise (compared to most other hosts) was inevitable.

I've no objection to London using 3 venues, or multiple cities hosting more than one venue if it makes for the best bid. Better that than having stadiums with tracks, I say. It's merely a question of how the host nation wants to manage the tourism.
 
#997 ·
^^ London isn't a city (technically it's just the city of London which has 10,000 people), although it has a mayor, it's complicated. Greater London was never given city status so essentially Greater London is just a county made up 31 urban boroughs and city of westminster, run by a leader who calls himself the mayor and works from city hall.

Political Geography in England needs a massive overhaul anyway, as does the postal code syste because in many ways that dictates to people where they live. For instance although middlesex hasn't existed for over 40 years, people still say they live there because that's what their address says!

But on your actual question I think FIFA really means urban areas, or maybe even metropolitan areas!
 
#1,002 ·
^^of course, but no one cares anymore as the fact they got let in the supporters federation and now this proves. Luckily the FA have got strict rules or Scally would move Gillingham to Ashford because it's one of the UKs growth towns and medway's full of pikeys who only turn out for wembley (I kid)!
 
#1,005 ·
Wembley 84,700?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top