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
#266 ·
It would leave a bad taste in the mouth if the FIFA lifts it's regulation for one country while it keeps bullying other hosts with ridiculous requirements. I spotted not a single NFL venue that has its player tunnel on the halfway line. I wonder if that has to be changed as it had in Kaiserslautern for the 2006 World Cup.
That'd rule out Old Trafford from our bid! I can't see them altering this; it would mean completely changing the layout of the stadium!!



No, some compromise must be made on certain issues. No bids will meet all FIFA stadium criteria.
 
#270 ·
That'd rule out Old Trafford from our bid! I can't see them altering this; it would mean completely changing the layout of the stadium!!

No, some compromise must be made on certain issues. No bids will meet all FIFA stadium criteria.
It certainly would. But the FIFA can't make compromises now when they pushed through these regulations in the past, can they. How are they supposed to tell previous hosts who were forced to fulfil even the most ridiculous demands at any cost that the FIFA are now willing to bend their own rules.
 
#268 ·
Ha ok.
Didn't know that the player tunnel has to be in the middle of the main stand.


Yes. The main stand (VIP and media) must have a roof
 
#271 ·
Old Trafford isn't being rebuilt because of the tunnel....trust me. FIFA will have to compromise if they pick England.

It's far, far, far less of a compromise than allowing countries to still use stadiums with athletics tracks in my not so humble opinion.
 
#272 ·
Can't they built a tunnel in the middle of the main stand?

FIFA is very strict. Nürnberg had just added new seats but FIFA said that the back of the seats were too small
So they had to buy new seats

Old ones
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Frankenstadion5.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Frankenstadion17.jpg

New one
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Frankenstadion/HTUR03.JPG
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Frankenstadion/HTUR01.JPG
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Frankenstadion/HTORS.JPG

Just because of some centimeters :)
 
#273 ·
Can't they built a tunnel in the middle of the main stand?
To where? The lockers are in a different part of the building. More importantly, why? Just because of tradition? I'd say Old Trafford has more tradition than FIFA, tunnel location be damned. :)


FIFA is very strict. Nürnberg had just added new seats but FIFA said that the back of the seats were too small
So they had to buy new seats

Just because of some centimeters :)
That's more than a few centimeters, probably closer to several inches. Old chairs hardly had any backs. Most importantly, the new seats have the folding feature required for safety reasons in navigating the row.
 
#274 ·
IMO this is the reason :D
The point where the players and the referees enter the playing area must be protected
by means of a fireproof telescopic tunnel. This should be at the halfway line and on
the same side as the VIP box, press stand and administrative offices
. The telescopic
tunnel should extend into the playing area far enough to prevent the risk of injury to
the match participants caused by objects thrown by spectators. Such telescopic tunnels
should be capable of being extended or closed quickly so that they may be used during
the match when a player is entering or leaving the field, without causing a lengthy
viewing obstruction.
Alternatively, the entry to the playing area may be by means of an underground tunnel,
the mouth of which is situated a safe distance from spectators. The surfaces of the
corridors and the stairs must be made of, or covered by, a non-slip material. There
should be no possibility of public interference in these corridors or security tunnels.
More show than security etc :)
 
#282 ·
That is exactly the reason why the FIFA prefers bids with a lot of proposed stadia rather than existing ones. New stadium can always designed along the newest FIFA stadium guideline. Where it is difficult and expensive to implement these requirements on existing infrastructure.
And believe me the FIFA will insist on their own ideas of what a World Cup stadium has to look like. They are neither used nor willing to make compromises.
 
#276 ·
I agree there is no way they would remodel the main stand just to move the tunnel for TV purposes. However if Man U expanded that stand then maybe then it could be moved. But I would have thought the reason the tunnel is at that side of the ground is because the locker rooms are that end.
 
#284 ·
^^

In that case the Benelux has something to offer. Possibly only 1 stadium will only be updated to meet the FIFA requirements. All the others will be brand new or expanded.
There are already plans without a WC for a lot of them, a possible WC would only boost them.
 
#285 ·
Great Britain has many very nice stadiums and a lot of traditional stadiums. But you don't have many very large stadia with a capacity of 50.000 plus X.
I believe that might be a serious problem for winning a Worldcup bid. There are quite a few countries that have more of those very large stadia than the UK. And for a worldcup you would probably need at least 6 arenas wih a capacity of 50.000 and more, I believe. And the worldcup bid is not relly anything much emotional, it's mostly about money, about the big business. And if the Fifa makes more money with a worldcup somewhere else they'll just go there instead of the UK.
So as good as the infrastructure is in the uk, the stadias capacities are mostly at the rather low end for a worldcup.
 
#287 ·
Great Britain has many very nice stadiums and a lot of traditional stadiums. But you don't have many very large stadia with a capacity of 50.000 plus X.
I believe that might be a serious problem for winning a Worldcup bid. There are quite a few countries that have more of those very large stadia than the UK. And for a worldcup you would probably need at least 6 arenas wih a capacity of 50.000 and more, I believe. And the worldcup bid is not relly anything much emotional, it's mostly about money, about the big business. And if the Fifa makes more money with a worldcup somewhere else they'll just go there instead of the UK.
So as good as the infrastructure is in the uk, the stadias capacities are mostly at the rather low end for a worldcup.
Eh?


This is Japan '02.


Yokohama International Stadium 70,000
Saitama Saitama Stadium 2002 63,000
Fukuroi Shizuoka 'ECOPA' Stadium 50,600
Osaka Nagai Stadium 50,000
Rifu Miyagi Stadium 49,000
Ōita Ōita Stadium 43,000
Niigata Niigata Stadium 42,300
Kashima Kashima Stadium 42,000
Kobe Kobe Wing Stadium 42,000
Sapporo Sapporo Dome 42,000

Germany '06 had 74,000 and 67,000 as it's largest stadiums, most were less than 50,000. So England can do better than the last two WCs in terms of seating capacity.

Just for starters:

Wembley 90,000
Old Trafford 76,000 -90,000
Stanley Park 75,000
Emirates 60,000
 
#289 ·
Hello, I've read this entire thread with some interest, as I'm keen to track the progress in England bidding for 2018.

Regarding the Stadia, there is one that hasn't been mentioned yet, although it could be a little controversial, but I'll throw it out there for discussion!

Stadium:MK in Milton Keynes.

A brand new stadium with a current capacity of 22,000. The second tier is already in place, and awaiting seating (probably this summer if financing is found) which will bring it to 32,000. However, it has also been cited that the stadium can be increased to 45,00 quite readily, should the need ever arise.
So that's a brand new 45,000 seater stadium, built to UEFA Elite standard, designed by the same people as Wembley & Emirates stadiums, with open concourse and large, padded seats (as with Emirates)
Location Wise, Milton Keynes has fantastic transport links (East Coast Main Line, M1 etc) and is a fast growing area.

It's not going to be at the top of any wish list, but is surely at least worth looking at?

(ps, please don't flame me :) )

Some pretty good images can be found HERE
 
#290 ·
Will Milton Keynes be abe to cope with the tourists etc. and, although I don't know the city well, is it really somewhere we'd like to choose over, say, Portsmouth or Bristol as a location if either of those stadiums come to fruition?

Also, I wonder whether there would be a bad taste left picking MK Dons' Stadium. A lot of football fans still don't particularly like the club and would be loathed to see its stadium representing England and English footballing tradition along with the likes of Man Utd, Newcastle, Liverpool etc.

I have to say, the stadium does look like one of the best small-medium sized stadiums in England. I'd have no worries about the quality of the ground if it were expandable to 45,000. But the other factors make me question whether it's a serious option.
 
#291 ·
^
You raised a couple of good points

With regards to 'coping' with tourists, I don't that would be a problem. MK is a fairly major business hub, so has dozens of good hotels, and has good wider transport links. Public transport would need addressing - as it's shockingly poor in MK. As to whether we would want tourists to visit MK, I don't see why not. Sure, it's got nothing on the likes of Portsmouth, Bristol, with regards to history etc, but it's still a good location, and would offer people an alternative to the more traditional towns & cities. Remember that a lot of tourists to England love to shop here, and MK is pretty much perfect for that :lol:
The sticking point, I agree, would be the whole 'MK Dons' situation. From experience, the bitterness has died down a little in the last couple of years, and are actually doing a lot to promote football in the community in general, and that's being recognised. But ultimately, it goes back to what was being said earlier, regarding it being an England bid, regardless of the host club stadiums being used. If it's the best choice of stadium, it should be used regardless of the host club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top