FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bids

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

2002: Asia (Japan/South Korea)
2006: Europe (Germany)
2010: Africa (South Africa)
2014: America (Brazil)
2018: Asia's turn again

...so either China or Australia.

Depends what mood Blatter is in (this week) - sometimes he says 'the rotation will continue' (in which case, most likely China or Australia for 2018), but if he's in his placating UEFA mood, it'll be England or Spain, with the rotation coming back in 2022 (Asia), 2026 (Americas), etc.

Personally, I can't see it being out of Europe for more than 2 tournaments in a row.

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by Vermeer

Give the World Cup to a country where football means anything.

We're working on building the game here. The Straylian appearance in Germany raised the profile of the game to the point that crowds of 50k have turned up for Melbourne games - I've no doubt the same would have happened in Sydney had they dominated the league (because the Aussies do love a winner!). Hosting a Finals tournament would put the game over the top, which would destroy AFL (please).

Originally Posted by Vermeer

Football has to start on the ground. To start on the top with a professional league and hope that it would grow from the bottom, has never worked.

Australia has no football tradition. The have an artificial professional league where the best teams maybe could compete in the top league in Luxemburg.

Every Saturday I go watch a team that has just celebrated it's 50th anniversary. Tradition enough? They play in the 3rd division of the Victorian State League - does this indicate enough depth in the league structure?

After being semi-professional in England, I played for a couple of seasons after arriving over here - in a side 2 divisions BENEATH the 3rd division of the Victorian league. Enough depth now?

As for the A-League's comparitive skills... After watching a number of matches last season, and noting the players playing here, I'd say that the better teams could play in the CCC in England, definately the SPL. They wouldn't win it - but they could compete.

Originally Posted by Vermeer

OK, they had a national team that made it to the world cup and had a few good results, but the team and the players did not impress anybody outside Australia. The name of these players indicated that their football traditions came from all other countries than Australia.

The same can be said of the Aussie cricket and rugby teams - does that make them any less valid?

The only truly Aussie footy code is AFL, and the 'Aussie' names that dominate the sport? Well, they all sound English, Scottish, Greek, Italian, etc., to me - rather than indiginous.

I understand where you're coming from in all your other points, and I know your not bagging Australia (as a Pom living down here, bagging the Aussies is something I enjoy).

Originally Posted by Vermeer

Only a few countries should be allowed to host the World Cup. For me that would be England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. They have the interest, the population and most of them the economy. The rest of us have to accept that we comes from small countries where it becomes too expensive or countries without any real football interest where it would be a waste of money.

Why accept it? Would South Africa have been on your list of 'acceptable' hosts 5 or 6 years ago, or would you have been scornful of an African nation hosting a finals? They'll do a good job. As much I doubt it will happen - I know the Aussies would do an amazing job if they got the chance.

[Kobo]

These are the football grounds and cities I would hope to get picked for a potential England 2018 World Cup. I have chosen them to give a wider geographical spread of England. They have their potential capacity and the rounds they would be used for. Only 1 city can have 2 stadiums, and its an English bid hence why Millennium Stadium, Hapeden Park etc are not on the list.

LONDON:
Wembley Stadium, 90,000. Group stages, Quarter Final, Final.

Emirates Stadium, 60,432. Group Stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.


SOUTHERN ENGLAND:
Bristol, New Stadium for Bristol City 40,000. Group stages, Round of 16.

Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000. To be built by 2009 hopefully add 4,000 extra seats to meet minimum capacity. Group stages, Round of 16.


MIDLANDS:
Birmingham, Villa Park 51,000. To be expanded by 2012. Group stages, Round of 16, 3rd/4th place match.

Nottingham, New Nottingham Forest Stadium 50,000. To be built by 2014. Group stages, Round of 16.


EAST ANGLIA:
Norwich, New Stadium for Norwich City 40,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.


YORKSHIRE:
Sheffield, Re-developed Hillsborough 45,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.

Leeds, New Stadium for Leeds United 50,000. Plans have been announced in past for new stadium but Leeds would have to get back to Premiership. Group Stages, Quarter Final.

NORTH WEST:
Manchester, Old Trafford 96,000. There have been plans to expand to this capacity in the future but it would be hard. Group stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.

Liverpool, Stanley Park 78,000. To be built by 2009 can be expanded from the initial 68,000 capacity. Group Stages, Quarter Final.

NORTH EAST:
Newcastle, St James Park 60,000+ to be redeveloped in the near future. Group stages, Quarter Final.

[BeestonLad]

Not bad although get rid of norwich and limit yorkshire to one, 10 stadiums should do us! would be rather strange having the final at wembley if old trafford had been increased to 96k! Although obviously it would still have to be Wembley!

[DennisRodman]

USA 2018.......

[Its AlL gUUd]

Originally Posted by DennisRodman

USA 2018.......

oh please no, there are so many other sports, why does football have to be americanised aswell?

ENGLAND 2018!

[Kobo]

Originally Posted by BeestonLad

Not bad although get rid of norwich and limit yorkshire to one, 10 stadiums should do us! would be rather strange having the final at wembley if old trafford had been increased to 96k! Although obviously it would still have to be Wembley!

Hi BeestonLad, yeah I have selected 12 so to give the most geographical spread over England, hence why a venue is in Norwich. I see this potential 2018 World Cup as a massive global touirst promotion for our island.

With Norwich, it has good tranportation links with an International Airport and trains to London in under 2 hours. Its in an area of outstanding natural beauty with the Norfolk broads, and is the most complete medieval city in Britain. So already has hotels to cope with the tourists. It would also be able to promote Cambridge which is near by with its colleges and famous punting. Norwich City are one of those sides that do make appearences in the premiership for a season or 2, so I would have thought they would have a large fan base for a 40,000 ground.

Yes it would be odd if Old Trafford had a larger capacity to Wembley, but everyone would want an English World Cup final to be played at Wembley. However maybe Old Trafford could be used as the opening match venue.

[Aceventura]

Originally Posted by Sparks

No World Cup's should ever include Diana Ross.

Germany had Shakira and Wyclef, a Columbian and a Hatian. That IS Miami!

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by Kobo

Hi BeestonLad, yeah I have selected 12 so to give the most geographical spread over England, hence why a venue is in Norwich. I see this potential 2018 World Cup as a massive global touirst promotion for our island.

With Norwich, it has good tranportation links with an International Airport and trains to London in under 2 hours. Its in an area of outstanding natural beauty with the Norfolk broads, and is the most complete medieval city in Britain. So already has hotels to cope with the tourists. It would also be able to promote Cambridge which is near by with its colleges and famous punting. Norwich City are one of those sides that do make appearences in the premiership for a season or 2, so I would have thought they would have a large fan base for a 40,000 ground.

Yes it would be odd if Old Trafford had a larger capacity to Wembley, but everyone would want an English World Cup final to be played at Wembley. However maybe Old Trafford could be used as the opening match venue.

Agreed on Norwich. I thought it was staggering that all the post 'Government back 2018 bid' analysis failed to include the East Anglia area despite banging on about the need for a venue in the South West. Why one and not the other?

I will, once again, query the inclusion of St James Park (at 60k). By the time they have 60k seats shoe-horned in the ground, Sunderland (only 10 miles away) could have 64k in their ground (which was designed specifically for such an extension). What's more, both of these grounds are likely to be developed by the clubs themselves due to supporter demand. Is there such demand in Bristol or Sheffield, even Norwich, and taking into account Leeds recent bankruptcy, their League One status and the fact that they already have a near 40k capacity (any money they make will have to be used on keeping them in the Prem should they get their) - I find it hard to imagine them splashing out on a new ground early enough to help out a 2018 bid.

I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.

[Kobo]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

Agreed on Norwich. I thought it was staggering that all the post 'Government back 2018 bid' analysis failed to include the East Anglia area despite banging on about the need for a venue in the South West. Why one and not the other?

I will, once again, query the inclusion of St James Park (at 60k). By the time they have 60k seats shoe-horned in the ground, Sunderland (only 10 miles away) could have 64k in their ground (which was designed specifically for such an extension). What's more, both of these grounds are likely to be developed by the clubs themselves due to supporter demand. Is there such demand in Bristol or Sheffield, even Norwich, and taking into account Leeds recent bankruptcy, their League One status and the fact that they already have a near 40k capacity (any money they make will have to be used on keeping them in the Prem should they get their) - I find it hard to imagine them splashing out on a new ground early enough to help out a 2018 bid.

I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.

I personally feel that the FA / Government shall choose both Newcastle and Sunderland for the 2018 bid, due to the sizes of their stadiums.

However I would have thought Newcastle to be able to offer more interms of infrastructure and tourism for fans. Newcastle has an international airport, metro system linking the airport with all of Newcastle, Gateshead, the coast and St James Park. Newcastle has fantastic cultural attractions such as the Baltic Centre (one of largest contemporary art centres in europe). The Angel of the North and recently regenerated Grainger town, a distrct in the heart of Newcastle, which blends Victorian & Georgian architecture with modern cafe culture. It also has Europes largest shopping complex in the Metro Centre. Plus a fantastic nightlife which I am sure all the football fans would appreciate.

With regards to the stadiums Newcastle have anounced that they shall expand St James to 60,000+ in the near future. Sunderlands at the moment is 48,707 with the North & West stands being developed more recently. Sunderlands next expansion would be the South stand taking it to 55,000, then the East stand with then a capacity of 64,000.

Here are comparisons between Sunderlands Stadium of light and Newcastles St James Park.

St James Park currently 52,387:



Possible St James Park after future expansion 60,000+ :



Stadium of Light currently 48,707:





Bristol would have to be chosen its Englands 6th largest city and has the infrastructure to cope with such an event. Bristol City have a wealthy chairman who wishes them to become the football giant of the South West. They also occasionally share their stadium with Bristol Rugby Club for local fixtures. City have the fan base to fill my proposed stadium capacity providing they start to achieve more. With Bristol's South West location it would promote its own attractions, along with neighbouring places: Bath (A world heritage city), Stonehenge, Glastonbury (Glastonbury festival would be taking place along side World Cup in June) and the coasts of Devon and Cornwall just down the M5.

Leeds and Sheffield are the 4th & 5th largest cities in England and both have large football communities. They both currently have large stadiums but these would need to be refurbished or new ones built. I would have thought both the clubs and the government would pay for such schemes, as it is happening to the football stadiums being used for the 2012 Olympics.

[Kobo]

Originally Posted by Sparks

No World Cup's should ever include Diana Ross.

I strongly agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXjCKwBtG0I

[Flogging Molly]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.

What the hell are you going on about? Wolves built thier own stadium unlike Manchester City, Wolves have funded a new world class Training facilty ... on thier own, Wolves have plans to develop the stadium ... on thier own.

Same as Derby, Preston, Southampton and Portsmouth.

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by Kobo

However I would have thought Newcastle to be able to offer more interms of infrastructure and tourism for fans. Newcastle has an international airport, metro system linking the airport with all of Newcastle, Gateshead, the coast and St James Park. Newcastle has fantastic cultural attractions such as the Baltic Centre (one of largest contemporary art centres in europe). The Angel of the North and recently regenerated Grainger town, a distrct in the heart of Newcastle, which blends Victorian & Georgian architecture with modern cafe culture. It also has Europes largest shopping complex in the Metro Centre. Plus a fantastic nightlife which I am sure all the football fans would appreciate.

Can't dissagree that Newcastle has more to offer visitors than Sunderland, but then again, Sunderland is only 20 minutes away from the middle of Newcastle by Metro, 30 minutes by car... I tend to agree that it would be Sunderland as well as Newcastle rather than instead of.

As for Newcastle's expansion - bare in mind no renders were ever released of the expansion plan, no planning permission has been applied for, and a lot of the land they have marked out for building is (allegedly) not available - and that it just happened to be announced as Sunderland hit the top of the Championship table, with nothing but silence since.

[Benjuk]

Originally Posted by Flogging Molly

What the hell are you going on about? Wolves built thier own stadium unlike Manchester City, Wolves have funded a new world class Training facilty ... on thier own, Wolves have plans to develop the stadium ... on thier own.

Same as Derby, Preston, Southampton and Portsmouth.

Not intended as a slight toward Wolves or any of the other clubs mentioned. A simple statement of fact - Sunderland and Newcastle both already have 48k plus stadiums, both have proved that when given any level of success they can fill those stadiums, both are currently in the Premier League with new owners, and are optimistic about the future.

With the exception of Derby and Portsmoth, the other teams I listed are not currently in the Premier League, and are well short of the required capacity. Pompey's new ground is planned well short of the 40k required, I suggested at the time they announced it that the plan would be to get the government (whether local or national) to pony up some extra cash to make the venue world cup friendly - I'll stand by that assesment because it would be dumb of any business NOT to take advantage of any outside funding.

[Kobo]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

Can't dissagree that Newcastle has more to offer visitors than Sunderland, but then again, Sunderland is only 20 minutes away from the middle of Newcastle by Metro, 30 minutes by car... I tend to agree that it would be Sunderland as well as Newcastle rather than instead of.

As for Newcastle's expansion - bare in mind no renders were ever released of the expansion plan, no planning permission has been applied for, and a lot of the land they have marked out for building is (allegedly) not available - and that it just happened to be announced as Sunderland hit the top of the Championship table, with nothing but silence since.

I have only seen renders of the conference centre and hotels planned as part of this expansion. But never any images of an extended St James Park, hence why I used the photoshop image. Didn't realise they announced this info when Sunderland got to the top of Championship, how cheeky of them. However Newcastle might be planning as Aston Villa are, to expand for the 2012 Olympics, as their stadium is going to be used for the Olympic football tournament.

I would expect that both would be used in potential 2018 W.C as both teams have large fan bases and clubs could afford expansions instead of asking government for money, which I am sure the goverment would approve of. However Sunderlands future expansions are a lot easier then Newcastles. Newcastle can't expand on one side due to listed building, and on the other where they can (Gallowgate end), there is a metor line that runs in that area so makes it trickier.

[b13]

I think Canada should bid for World Cup 2018! We did so good in the Gold Cup this year making all the way to the semi-finals facing the USA. We lost 2-1 but the game should of been tied but the line man called off side after we scored rhe tieing goal in the final seconds of the game! We got robbed and everyone knows if you don't believe me go check the highlights of the last goal it clearly shows we were on-side, but then again the USA has to get everything. We also moved up 38 spots in the FIFA rankings. Also the FIFA U-20 World Cup will be help in Canada this year mostly in Toronto and just about all the tickets for each game is sold out, it is said that 95% of the whole event is sold out! Also Toronto recieved a new soccer team this year in the MLS league called Toronto FC which everyone thought would not survuve but to their surprise All the season tickets sold out in 2 months time, and all single game tickets are sold out! Soccer does really well in Canada it's just that too many people think all Canada cares about is Hockey and that is not true! Canada would host an amazing World Cup especially the city of Toronto which is the most-multicultural city in the World! All we need to do is prove that were capable of hosting the World Cup 2018 this summer with Fifa U-20 world cup! Canada for World Cup 2018!

[CarlosBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by b13

I think Canada should bid for World Cup 2018! We did so good in the Gold Cup this year making all the way to the semi-finals facing the USA. We lost 2-1 but the game should of been tied but the line man called off side after we scored rhe tieing goal in the final seconds of the game! We got robbed and everyone knows if you don't believe me go check the highlights of the last goal it clearly shows we were on-side, but then again the USA has to get everything. We also moved up 38 spots in the FIFA rankings. Also the FIFA U-20 World Cup will be help in Canada this year mostly in Toronto and just about all the tickets for each game is sold out, it is said that 95% of the whole event is sold out! Also Toronto recieved a new soccer team this year in the MLS league called Toronto FC which everyone thought would not survuve but to their surprise All the season tickets sold out in 2 months time, and all single game tickets are sold out! Soccer does really well in Canada it's just that too many people think all Canada cares about is Hockey and that is not true! Canada would host an amazing World Cup especially the city of Toronto which is the most-multicultural city in the World! All we need to do is prove that were capable of hosting the World Cup 2018 this summer with Fifa U-20 world cup! Canada for World Cup 2018!

Maybe I think so...!!
2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 North America
By FIFA President said!!

[Its AlL gUUd]

Originally Posted by CarlosBlueDragon

Maybe I think so...!!
2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 North America
By FIFA President said!!

Thats just ridiculous tho, Europe cant go 16 years without a world cup, the continent which makes up half the teams in the toutnrament, the continent which is the heart and soul of world football, the best leagues, the best teams, most watched matches on TV, home of UEFA, without which FIFA literally doesn't exist, etc etc.

Another reason why Sepp Blatter is an Idiot.

England 2018 makes the most sense

[b13]

No Canada should have it! We deserve it

[Its AlL gUUd]

Originally Posted by b13

No Canada should have it! We deserve it

Not particularly