SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The LEICESTER Sports Chat

308K views 4K replies 74 participants last post by  Luke-Knight 
#1 ·
I can't remember if we have one of these already. And if we have... Why has it been allowed to fall off the front page?

anyhoo... Here's a sight to warm the cockles of any Fox's heart ;)

 
See less See more
1
#171 ·
I cant believe we have lost out in this bid, beaten by shitty Nottingham.

If we were beaten by Derby then fair enough, we both have new stadiums that can be "easily" exapanded. New Forest Ground doesnt even exist yet.

Its all regional!, there was no way that plymouth beat leicester on stadia, its all about there location. If a west country or southern team were not given a place, then there would have been an outcry.

MK won it on what grounds? Its not even a town, its a London expansion town. Again location Why dont we give a stadia to Cardiff - Millenium stadium for the sake of it!

Hope we dont win this shitty world cup bid! Go Oz!
 
#173 ·
Here is the reaction in the Mockery.

Leicester loses out in World Cup 2018 bid after 'absurd' decision
Thursday, December 17, 2009

Leicester's dream of hosting World Cup football is over after losing out to rivals Nottingham in what was called an "absurd" decision.

The biggest sporting event on the planet will not now grace the Walker's Stadium should the World Cup come to England in 2018.

Instead, matches could be played 30 miles up the M1 in Nottingham after Lord Mawhinney – chairman of the England 2018 selection panel – announced the list of 15 winners yesterday.

The only other two unsuccessful cities were Derby and Hull. Four of the successful 15 still have to build new grounds.

The team behind Leicester's bid reacted with shock at news that the city had been beaten by East Midlands rivals Nottingham.

They said they were particularly confused by Lord Mawhinney's opening statement that the winning cities were chosen on the basis they presented the "lowest possible risk to FIFA".

Nottingham's bid is based around an as yet to be built 45,000-seat stadium in Gamston that has been opposed by local residents and has divided politicians and planning officers.

Councillor Ross Willmott, leader of Leicester City Council, said: "I do not know how they can call it low risk because Nottingham is high risk by any chalk.

"I wish them all the best, but it seems to contradict what the selection panel said.

"The whole process has been very secretive so it is hard to understand.

"On the face of it, it is absurd and we will look to find out where we failed."

Nottingham City Council leader Jon Collins said the decision was "fantastic news", showing the city was capable of delivering on its ambition.

Leicester's bid team gathered around a tiny television set in the town hall for the news.

Programme manager for the bid, Mark Laywood, said: "We are naturally disappointed. I am sure that the stadia selected have been selected for the right reasons and we wish them all the best.

"We did everything we possibly could to put ourselves in the best possible position but, just like in football, there are always winners and losers."

The announcement signaled the end of a five-month process costing more than £110,000.

Martin Traynor, managing director of Leicestershire Chamber, said: "I am hugely disappointed and very surprised that Nottingham is on the list considering their new ground is extremely unlikely to get planning permission."

Lee Hoos, chief executive of Leicester City Football Club said: "Nottingham is the highest risk without a doubt.

"If it does not come off there will be a lot of people with egg on their faces."
 
#176 ·
A bit more from the Mockery...

'Best package' for Leicester's World Cup bid rejected by FA
Thursday, December 17, 2009

The team behind Leicester's failed World Cup bid have insisted there was nothing more they could have done to convince the selection panel of the city's merits.

Leicester was one of just three cities that fell at the last hurdle in their attempt to get World Cup matches if England host the 2018 tournament. Hull and Derby were the others.

In doing so Leicester has lost out on an estimated windfall of £90m for the local economy.

Despite the huge disappointment among the bid team, members were unanimous in saying Leicester had presented the best possible package.

The team was made up of city councillors, council officers, figures from local football teams and representatives of local regeneration body Prospect Leicestershire.

Manager for the Leicester bid Mark Laywood said: "We submitted a fully-compliant bid, we met all the criteria and there's no regrets; there's nothing else anybody could have done."

Mr Laywood's comments were echoed by the panel charged with making the final selection for England's 2018 bid.

FA chief executive Andy Anson said Leicester's bid team had done a "very good job" and that it would be unfair to say the bid had been "inadequate."

He argued England was "fortunate" to have so many strong bids and would not be drawn on individual submissions.

However, he did say in relation to Leicester's bid: "From the football club to the city council they've been very joined-up, but we had to make a decision and we made what we believe is the right decision.

"We had to convince ourselves all aspects – accommodation, transportation, security, fan fest – really came together in an impressive way.

"We acknowledge there'll be some cities that won't be happy, but we've come up with a very strong bid for England."

Criticism was levelled at the Leicester bid team in November when all of the cities vying for selection travelled to Wembley to submit their final bid document.

Other delegations were led by football legends such as Alan Shearer and Sir Roger Hunt – one of the 1966 England World Cup-winning team members – while Leicester placed its hopes in the hands of city councillors, grassroots sports teams and Filbert Fox.

Mr Laywood, however, defended the decision not to invite local stars such as Gary Lineker, Peter Shilton or Gordon Banks, saying its approach mirrored the key principles of Leicester's bid.

He said: "In retrospect it was absolutely the right decision."

Meanwhile, in Leicester city centre shoppers reacted with disappointment.

Richard Aldham, 45, from Desford, said: "It is a bit poor really. We've just lost the chance to have the Grand Prix' at Donington as well.

"It would have brought in a lot of people from abroad."

Carl Grayston, 37, from Eyres Monsell, said: "It's surprising. We have one of the most modern venues in the Midlands. You would think Leicester would be on the map by now."
We should have sent an ex-Legend really...
 
#177 ·
Mockery Opinion...
World Cup defeat needs explaining
Thursday, December 17, 2009

It is dreadfully disappointing that Leicester has missed out on the possibility of staging games during the World Cup of 2018. It is especially disappointing as we effectively lost out to our East Midlands rivals, Nottingham.

The fact that Nottingham does not have a suitable stadium, or viable plans to build one, simply rubs salt into the wound.

On the face of it, Leicester was the obvious choice for an East Midlands base for World Cup games. Derby is probably too small, leaving the FA to choose between Nottingham and Leicester.

The Walkers Stadium could have been enlarged relatively easily whereas plans for a new stadium in Nottingham have already run into trouble.

In terms of general facilities, such as hotels and restaurants, Leicester has plenty. The city is more accessible than Nottingham both in terms of the roads into Leicester and journey time from London. We also have a long footballing tradition - something that a number of those chosen cannot possibly claim.

So why did we lose out? It really is difficult to say. Even in announcing the results, the FA said it had gone for the safe option which seemed to contradict early indications that any city which said it needed to build a new stadium would be seen as high risk.

Undoubtedly there will be recriminations - already one local councillor is branding the decision as political.

Clearly there is nothing that can be done now to change the decision, however, it is important that the city does try to work out what went wrong so that we can strengthen our case to attract future high-profile events.

The biggest single question that needs answering is whether Leicester's rejection was down to a failure of the city itself to come up to the mark or whether it was due to the structure and presentation of the bid.
 
#179 ·
It seems that will always be the case doesn't it. Because the Nottingham Urban Area is a bit bigger than ours, it looks like we will lose out on everything...Despite the fact that our TTWA's are almost identical in population - which is a better indication of the actual "size" of each city. Oh and we have a shoddy council and their is far more pro-active and confident. That is how it seems to me anyway.

In Nottingham they replace lost railway bridges to build tram networks. Here in Leicester we knock them down. Spot the difference...
 
#180 ·
I aint too upset about midlands teams getting the nod. It "grinds my gears" is Milton Keynes - on what grounds did there stadium and location win a bid?

If the NW can have 3 sites then why cant we? We are in a optimum location in the midlands which is equal driving distance and easy to get to from our airort (at least from europe). The Derby stadium is easily accessible from M1 J24. The foxes stadium can be accessed from the PR Site

How is Plymouth going to host all the hundreds of thousands of people that will visit? What happens when the world cup finishes? (I suppose they were choosen because Mahwinney prob thought people should see the West Country!)

Milton Keynes stadium is poorly built, and transport links are just as bad to there stadium!

Lets hope the forest ground fails, and plymouth decide that they cant deal with the logistics of the world cup, ha!
 
#182 ·
Didn't think The Birch would be impressed...a London lad by the way.
Leicester City fans dismayed at World Cup bid failure

The Walkers Stadium will not be hosting World Cup football

Fans and officials have reacted with dismay in Leicester after the city lost its bid to become a potential host during the 2018 World Cup.

Alistair Reid from Leicester City Council said: "We will now move on to other things, but we were disappointed as we thought we had a good bid."

Mr Reid said Leicester's transport links and excellent accommodation would have made it an ideal host city.

Thousands of people in Leicester had signed a petition supporting the bid.

'Always underdogs'

The only other cities to miss out at this stage are Derby and Hull.

Former Leicester City star Allan Birchinall said: "The mood around the club is disappointment. But I am not surprised.

"There was fantastic effort by the city council and Ross Wilmot and also everybody connected to the club.

"We are always the underdogs in everything.

"It sounds like sour grapes now but we've got the infrastructure with hotels near the M1 and we have had the junior internationals at the stadium and the Special Olympics.

"In Nottingham, they don't even have planning permission where they want to site their new ground."

Nottingham was one of 12 cities to be named as part of England's official bid for the 2018 event.

England will find out if the bid to host the World Cup is successful in December 2010.
 
#185 ·
Gutted!

I'm not particularly surprised that the bid team have only gone for one East Midlands venue (bit miffed they went for Plymouth and MK).

While Nottingham has a bit more footballing history, and is more of a tourist destination, the obstacles to actually getting that stadium built are massive. I hate to say it, but I can definitely see Nottingham's stadium going the way of Donnington's grand prix...
 
#186 · (Edited)
Don't tell me its just sour grapes...

FA to announce World Cup cities

Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 07:00

The Football Association will today announce which stadiums and cities will be included in the nation's bid to host the 2018 Fifa World Cup. Charles Walker and Bryan Henesey consider Nottingham's chances of being chosen.

It is decision day for Nottingham's bid to become a host city in the 2018 World Cup. The Football Association will give its verdict this afternoon on which of 20 stadiums and 15 applicant cities will be chosen to be part of the nation's bid to stage the richest sports event in the world.

So, does Nottingham have what it takes to be included?

The easy answer is 'no'. After all, Notts does not have a stadium that meets Fifa requirements.


But Nottingham's bid team insists this need not block the way, since other cities, like Liverpool, face similar challenges.

One member of the bid team said: "The FA will look at risk around each of the bids and they will be looking at the grounds that need significant improvement or rebuilds. There are risks around the other grounds as well."

All of the applicant cities have met with the FA to answer questions on their bids in the last few days.

Nottingham believes it has made enough progress on plans for a new stadium to persuade the FA to include the city , despite local disputes and opposition. And there is a genuine belief that this city has one of the best bids in England.

Hugh White, the city's World Cup bid coordinator, said: "We are still confident and excited that Nottingham has got a uniqueness. We feel we can create a legacy for football and, together with events we are looking to organise for international visitors and local residents, we think we have something a bit special.

"And we are confident we have a proposal that can deliver a new ground."

The stadium plan proposed to the FA includes a new ground for Nottingham Forest on land east of Gamston and would depend upon the development of 4,500 new homes nearby, as part of a "sustainable urban extension".

Rushcliffe Borough Council is currently considering whether to include the proposal in the first draft of its long term plan, known as a core strategy, which will be published for consultation in January.

That will be a key decision, but the Nottingham bid team has had to face the FA not knowing which way it will go.

Rushcliffe borough councillors have expressed significant concern about the proposals, and the Conservative members hope that any change of Government will enable them to avoid the level of house-building currently demanded of them.

However, council officers have endorsed the proposal to develop housing at the site put forward by Nottingham Forest and its partners, because it could help the borough meet the large housing requirement set down by the current Government. The bid team has been encouraged by that.

In addition, the Post understands the Greater Nottingham Joint Committee on Strategic Planning, which includes representatives from councils across the conurbation, has also included a development at Gamston in a report about housing growth it was due to consider. No doubt this will have been drawn to the FA's attention.

The strategy of the Nottingham bid team has been "to stay in the game" as long as possible and they hope they have done enough to still be in it after the announcement of the preferred stadiums and cities is made in London at 3pm today.

However, the decision may not be as simple as being in or out of the World Cup.

It is anticipated the FA will select 12 stadiums. Some applicant cities have more than one stadium – London has four, Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester, two each – so there will be fewer than 12 of the 15 applicant cities chosen.

It is possible the FA will select 12 stadiums (and associated cities) and a number of reserves, which could step in should one of the 'A' list fail to deliver.

In Germany, which hosted the World Cup in 2006, four stadiums hosted matches that were not included in the original submission to Fifa.

There is a belief in Nottingham that the FA would like this city to fly the flag for the East Midlands, due to international recognition for the iconic associations it has with Robin Hood and Brian Clough, as well as superior hotels and hospitality compared with Derby and Leicester.

So, Nottingham could yet squeeze into the "first team", with Leicester or Derby on the bench, allowing more time for the planning issues associated with a new stadium to be considered.
on the website on the day of the vote. Even the Evening Post didn't rate There own bid.

The Selection committee had a list of criteria which they we're "supposed" to be judging the bids on. ALL the cities results (Win or lose) should be revealed. If there decision was unbiased, this will show it.

The list of concerns/risk associated with Nottingham's bid should clearly have put them out of the race.
 
#188 ·
But, if it should clearly have put them out of the race, why are they still in the race?

It's clearly true that the Nottingham stadium is a long way from even beginning to be built. It's clear that there have been massive arguments between city and council. All of this is public knowledge.

Yet still the FA chose Nottingham. Why? What does the FA gain by being "biassed"? Unless you can answer that question, I think you need to seriously reassess your view of your own city's bid, because it was beaten by a bid that didn't even have a stadium
 
#191 · (Edited)
http://www.thisisbusiness-eastmidlands.co.uk/bmi/s-arguments-FA-s-decision/article-1619348-detail/article.html

It's all over now but arguments over FA's decision to go on

Thursday, December 17, 2009, 08:16

IN the end, togetherness lost out to disunity. Derby's bid, with a stadium and most of its infrastructure in place, was beaten by Nottingham's, which does not have a ground or even the full backing of its two main councils.

The incredulity of those involved in Derby's presentations was almost tangible as they gathered at the Varsity pub to hear the announcement on Sky Sports News.

As soon as the word Nottingham was uttered by selection panel chairman Lord Mawhinney, they knew the game was up.

Other cities, including Plymouth and Bristol, were also given the green light despite their stadia needing to be built or dramatically extended. But Hull and Leicester also missed out. It is Nottingham's success, however, which rankles most.

The history of its bid is chequered and the future of its proposed stadium is without resolution.

Its presentation was led by Nottingham City Council and Nottingham Forest.

However, their ambitious plans are for a stadium outside the city at Gamston.

It is within the boundaries of Nottinghamshire County Council, which has rejected the development proposals.

The leaders of the two councils have been involved in a war of words for months.

County council leader Kay Cutts withdrew support for the bid if a site at Gamston was the only option for a stadium.

It was, however, the only option presented to the FA this week.

Mrs Cutts claimed the city council and Nottingham Forest did not consult the county council before announcing their proposals for the stadium.

Jon Collins, leader of Nottingham City Council, accused the county council of dishonesty.

Nottingham's success has left people across Derby, including those from Derby City Council and Derby County Football Club, who led its bid, baffled and angry.

Derby County president and chief executive Tom Glick said: "The FA told us all along that they would pick cities that were low risk and there have been questions about Nottingham's stadium and a lack of consensus among the organisations involved.

"We're all greatly disappointed. Thousands of hours of hard work has been put in across the city from a number of agencies. We need to get some feedback as to why the bid was not successful.''

Adam Wilkinson, chief executive of Derby City Council, said: "I'm shocked and disappointed. I was expecting at least two East Midlands cities to be chosen because that's what the FA hinted there was potential for. It hurts but Nottingham is 14 miles down the road and Derby can still play a part."

Professor John Coyne, vice-chancellor of the University of Derby, which also supported the bid, said: "The entire team at the city and the club did a great job in putting together the most compelling proposition. It is a travesty the cities selected are as they are.

"The technically least compelling bid in the Midlands scoops the prize on the back of promises riddled by disputes.

"I have been on the Nottingham Evening Post website and even correspondents there cannot believe that Derby didn't get it."

John Vicars, Derby County's vice-president of operations, said: "I haven't got a clue why it failed because we submitted a fully-compliant bid. There was no indication over the past seven months that anything was untoward or didn't comply with the FA's criteria.

"When Nottingham was read out I was surprised because they have had well-publicised problems and difficulties with their stadium, but we'll wait and see what the FA says."

Sam Whitworth, Derby City Council's project manager for the bid, said she was extremely disappointed.

She said: "I'm gutted. It's been six months of hard work by a lot of people.

"Everybody who has helped put the bid together has done it alongside their day job."

The total cost of Derby's campaign came to £140,000 and the city will not get its money back.

But Ms Whitworth insisted the bid had not been a waste of time or money.

She said: "We can't look at it like that. Despite the negative outcome it's been a very positive experience.

"We've formed some very good relationships with people in the city that will serve us well in the future.

"We're now a practised city in putting bids in and I'm confident Derby still faces a big future."

Former Rams striker Roger Davies summed up the feelings of football fans across Derby.

He said: "I watched it on television, along with everyone else, and once you heard Nottingham's name announced that's when you knew it was curtains for us.

"Who is going to invest the money in Nottingham's new stadium? Is it going to come from the Government, or from the World Cup fund?

"They've got a ready-made stadium in Derby, as advanced as any in the East Midlands, that would have only needed small changes to bring it up to capacity.

"And why, of all the cities in there, did two in the East Midlands get dropped? Questions need to be asked."

Heartbeat actor Steven Blakeley, from Derby, was another who said he would like to know the reasons Nottingham was chosen ahead of Derby. He said: "Given the fact that Derby has everything Nottingham has – and had a unified bid rather than the infighting in Nottingham – it's a very surprising decision.

"I will be interested to hear the reasons."

Secret Millionaire star Kavita Oberoi, who is based in the city, said the news was a massive blow to business in Derby.

She said: "We have the infrastructure in Derby, especially with the level that Pride Park Stadium is already at, and better travel links.

"It's a real blow. Derby was so much further on than Nottingham. Surely it would have been a better choice?"

Richard Williams, the city council's assistant director for regeneration and bid leader, said Derby would be ready if Nottingham had to pull out due to its stadium problems.

He said: "Nottingham has had its problems so we could still be needed.

"But I wouldn't wish anything to go wrong with any of the other cities because that is the last thing England's World Cup bid needs.

"We'll still be able to have the fan zones and all we can do is try and capitalise on the benefits of having the World Cup come to the East Midlands should it come to Nottingham."

England 2018 chief executive Andy Anson said: "Derby did a very good, professional job all the way through this. We just had to make decisions that made the strongest possible bid for 2018 and that's what we believe we have done."

He declined, however, to say why Derby had not been picked to be part of England's bid.

When questioned about Nottingham, Mr Anson said: "I think we felt it was worth taking that risk.

"We did look at Nottingham's bid in its entirety and it was one of the most impressive bids.

"We do want some newly-built stadiums in England's bid and the stadium plans were very exciting for Nottingham."
Much has been made about Liverpool sweating on being picked. They have a site with planning permission, they have a set of detailed plans, they have far less objection from fans/residents, they have local government backing, they have the backup of redeveloping Anfield. Plus there pedigree is unquestionable. Funding for them is proving to be the problem.

That opening line sums it up for me. If Nottingham had turned up with detailed plans, a site with planning permission, backing of the councils/politicians and residents/fans. I genuienly would have accepted the decision as just and based on sound decision making. You we're a million miles away.

I would love to hear Mawhinney answer the criticism of Leicester/Derby inparticular. I need to see him justify the decision. He is the guy who mentioned "lowest Risk" and "geography not being a deciding factor"... that makes the choices look even more bizarre.
 
#192 ·
http://www.thisisbusiness-eastmidlands.co.uk/bmi/s-arguments-FA-s-decision/article-1619348-detail/article.html



Much has been made about Liverpool sweating on being picked. They have a site with planning permission, they have a set of detailed plans, they have far less objection from fans/residents, they have local government backing, they have the backup of redeveloping Anfield. Plus there pedigree is unquestionable. Funding for them is proving to be the problem.

That opening line sums it up for me. If Nottingham had turned up with detailed plans, a site with planning permission, backing of the councils/politicians and residents/fans. I genuienly would have accepted the decision as just and based on sound decision making. You we're a million miles away.

I would love to hear Mawhinney answer the criticism of Leicester/Derby inparticular. I need to see him justify the decision. He is the guy who mentioned "lowest Risk" and "geography not being a deciding factor"... that makes the choices look even more bizarre.
Perhaps they just thought your city was shit? :lol:

Seriously though you guys need to get over it. Yes Nottingham's bid was based on plans in their early stages. So what? 2018 is 9 years away, plenty of time there. If your bid was superior then it would have been picked, it really is that simple. If England are to be succesful then they need to have the best cities and bids to convince FIFA. Obviously your bid wasn't really that impressive hence why despite my earlier assumptions it seems that if Forest don't build their stadium there will be no east midlands venue - you're not even a "reserve".
 
#197 ·
This is an article from the local Plymouth rag. It's a summary of the response from the unselected three....

WHILE there were plenty of celebratory stories appearing in newpapers published yesterday in Plymouth and Milton Keynes and other cities selected as host venues by England's 2018 World Cup bid, the mood was glum in Derby, Leicester and Hull.

All three cities lost out when the Football Association picked its dozen host venues which will be part of England's bid to stage the tournament in nine years' time. FIFA, world football's governing body, will pick a country to put on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups this time next year.

Plymouth faces the prospect of raising millions of pounds to transform Argyle's dated Home Park ground into a World Cup venue. In contrast, Hull, Derby and Leicester call all boast modern stadiums which are complete, rather than an artist's impression, which is all that can be seen of the Pilgrims' planned new home at present.

The Derby Telegraph was in an aggrieved mood at the snub to its city. The newspaper claimed: "It's a bigger outrage than when Diego Maradona punched the ball past Peter Shilton in 1986. It's a bigger disgrace than when Zinedine Zidane butted Marco Materazzi three years ago.

"The World Cup and controversy go hand in hand, but seldom has it produced a bigger injustice than that perpetrated by the Football Association yesterday. Its decision to reject Derby's case to be a host venue if England is awarded the competition in 2018 – and include Nottingham instead – not only dashed the hopes of thousands in our city but also defied logic."

The Leicester Mercury, like Derby's newspaper, reacted with what read like jealousy to the choice of East Midlands rivals Nottingham as a host venue. It wrote: "The team behind Leicester's bid reacted with shock at news that the city had been beaten by

Nottingham, whose bid is based around a yet-to-be-built stadium that has been opposed by local residents and has divided politicians and planning officers."

The Mercury quoted Councillor Ross Willmott, the leader of Leicester City Council, who declared: "Nottingham is high risk by any chalk. I wish them all the best, but the whole process has been very secretive, so it is hard to understand. On the face of it, it is absurd, and we will look to find out where we failed."

The Hull Daily Mail turned most of its scorn on Milton Keynes. "Many fans will struggle to comprehend how such sporting hotbeds as Milton Keynes and Plymouth got the nod over Hull," the newspaper whined. "Milton Keynes? You're having a laugh. Let's face it, there's really no contest.

"In one corner, there's new town plonked in the middle of Buckinghamshire with no footballing pedigree other than having 'stolen" the spirit of Wimbledon in an audacious spot of franchise robbery and re-branded it with a set of initials.

"In the other, there's a historic city overlooking the country's largest estuary with a proud footballing history stretching back more than 100 years.

"There's also the small matter of regular Premier League football. No amount of trendy modern architecture and road grids can eclipse that."

The Yorkshire Post warned that Plymouth should not take it for granted that World Cup football is coming to Devon, even if England is chosen as the tournament venue. The newspaper noted: "The FA did deliver the geographical spread that had been widely predicted by plumping for Plymouth and Bristol.

"Whether both will make the final cut if England are awarded the 2018 World Cup remains to be seen, with FIFA having the final say on which stadia will host games. World football's governing body always has the final say, and there is every chance the 15 venues named yesterday will be whittled down to 12 by 2013."

Portsmouth could have been a south- coast rival to Plymouth, but the Hampshire city pulled out of the bidding process last month. The Portsmouth News wrote: "Councillors decided the financial risk of bidding was too great – despite spending £250,000 on preparations. City finance bosses estimated it could cost taxpayers up to £24 million to host three or four games."

Yesterday, the same newspaper aired the views of a Portsmouth FC fan who said: "If a place the size of Plymouth can get on the list, then Portsmouth definitely would have. I can't believe the council didn't take the chance."
 
#198 ·
Yes I can see where you are coming from MPH and hopefully we will have clear visibility of the decision process soon.

Milton Keynes is a strange one, at the moment they have a 30,000 seat stadium with only 22,000 installed seats. The other 8,000 are due to be put into the top tier when the demand is there. However they are only averaging around 10,000 so is it likely that they'll even need the extra 8,000 seats let alone another 20,000 to get up to fifa standards? I doubt it!
 
#201 ·
From what I read, the Leicester bid may not have looked poor, but it did look unexciting. You always ran the risk of being eliminated by not distinguishing yourself from the pack. Some of us identified that much earlier in the bid, if you read through the thread, but, of course, most of the Leicester posters on here chose to ignore that.

Your USP seems to be that Leicester would be "a safe pair of hands" - the most exciting thing that the head of the Leicester bid could say about it was that it was "fully compliant" But actually - the bid has plenty of fully compliant, "safe pairs of hands" which punch way above the weight of the Walkers Stadium, Leicester - Wembley, Old Trafford, the Emirates, the CoM Stadium etc. There was always space in the bid for some new builds.

What you took to be a clear advantage (your existing, not-big-enough stadium) was obviously not as important as you thought. This shouldn't have come as a surprise - it was always the case that new stadium did not need to have planning permission or even be designed.
 
#202 ·
Interesting take from a Leicester City fan:

Exactly... Ultra and his council friends can scream foul play as much as they want. Until they actually make the city into something people want to visit we will constantly be let down and overlooked for major events.

Can you image a delegation from Fifa turning up to inspect the city. They step off the train to be greeted by a 30 storey blue stickle brick. Take a nice walk through the underpass where they meet the local tramps asking for some spare change, whilst breathing in the stench of 500 late night pisses.

Carry on down Granby Street and take in the local businesses like Dixy Chicken, Maryland Chicken, Munch Munch Chicken, Nandos Chicken and Bennys Chicken... obviously being careful to dodge the puke and discarded chicken bones.

Go down Gallowtree Gate and stop off to buy the mrs something.... hang on I forgot all the shops are closed!! Ok, we'll go and look and the curve instead. "Oooooooh that's nice" say the delegates, "Hang on is that a swingers club over the road? Are they prostitutes I can see just down the road".

They wait for 75 minutes to catch a bus so they can see "The Golden Mile"... when they finally get there they discover it's really nothing special. Unless of course you like 500 takeaways on one road.

Maybe they could see what activites the city offers its residents. Maybe an ice rink? Maybe a concert featuring a good band? Maybe a Leisure Centre?... No sorry none of that. The concert venues are all closing to build more student flats, the Leisure centres all closed down, no ice rink either... you can go and watch an amateur dramatics group do a shit play though in the half empty Curve.
 
#210 ·
Thanks for pointing this out

As amazing as that would be, would it really be worth it for the aformentioned Egypt v New Zealand on a Wednesday night that we'd get from it? Nottingham's tram service may indeed hide a lot of the shit, but that shit is easy to find once you leave it's city centre. Beyond that area, Nottingham is a bit of a tip. The city centre is like lipstick on a pig. It's a serious point, how on earth can cities like Nottingham, Plymouth and Milton Keynes compete with the likes of Malaga, Bilbao and Faro?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top