ENGLAND - Stadium and Arena Development News

[rantanamo]

All great points. The northeast or say the east coast would be great. Just hated to leave out some of the great venues in the rest of the country. One could just do the NE states.

New Giants Stadium
New Jets Stadium
possibly Giants Stadium if they don't tear it down
Gillete Stadium
Lincoln Financial
Heinz
M&T Bank
FedEx Field
New Colts Stadium
Paul Brown
Cleveland Browns
Ford Field
Ohio Stadium
Pontiac Silverdome
Rich Stadium
Soldier Field(if you wanna stretch it all the way to Illinois)

I'd still rather do the whole country. By then, the warmer cities like Miami, Dallas and Phoenix will join Houston with new retractable roof stadiums. I'd imagine that Cowboys Park's 100,000 capacity would be attractive as well for a Finals site.

[Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm]

I thought FIFA officials were quoted as saying Brazil is pretty much a "lock" for the 2014 World Cup?

[Loranga]

Originally Posted by Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

I thought FIFA officials were quoted as saying Brazil is pretty much a "lock" for the 2014 World Cup?

Me too, but I guess Brazil has to build a couple of new stadiums then, I don't believe many of these are up to FIFA standards.

[Gavin]

England could hold a 12stadium WC. But using Scotland and Wales's best stadiums would help.

You need zones to cut travel times.

1.S.E. - Wembley, Arsenal, Chelski
2 N.W. United, City, Liverpool
3. N.E - Newcastle, Sunderland, Hampden
4 Midlands - Birmingham Done, Villa, Millenium

[Sikario]

I bloody hope the US don't get the World Cup in 2014, that wouldn't make any sense what so ever.

[rantanamo]

why wouldn't it make sense? FIFA wants to line pockets just like any other organization.

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by Gavin

England could hold a 12stadium WC. But using Scotland and Wales's best stadiums would help.

You need zones to cut travel times.

1.S.E. - Wembley, Arsenal, Chelski
2 N.W. United, City, Liverpool
3. N.E - Newcastle, Sunderland, Hampden
4 Midlands - Birmingham Done, Villa, Millenium

Not sure if that would really be needed considering the comparatively small size of the country compaired to say the US(I don't think germany is doing so for example), plus I'd guess that the FA would be pushed into playing at least 1 of the England group games in the north.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by Gavin

England could hold a 12stadium WC. But using Scotland and Wales's best stadiums would help.

You need zones to cut travel times.

1.S.E. - Wembley, Arsenal, Chelski
2 N.W. United, City, Liverpool
3. N.E - Newcastle, Sunderland, Hampden
4 Midlands - Birmingham Done, Villa, Millenium

There's no chance that, after Germany 2006, Europe will get the World Cup before 2018. Possibly not until 2022.

And if England is Europe's choice, then in 13 or 17 years' time, there will be many more big stadia from which to choose. Everton and Tottenham, in particular, will almost certainly have 50,000+ capacity stadia by then. And if Leeds have recovered sufficiently from their current plight, you can bank on Ken Bates (or the old bugger's successor) redeveloping Elland Road

And there's no way that England would share a World Cup with Scotland and / or Wales. Only smaller footballing nations need to do that.

[Urban Dave]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

If the WC was to be hosted in one of the countries that I'd guess would be interested(Brazil, Spain, US, England, Austrialia etc) which stadia would you use?

In my Opinion England, Spain or US would not host the WC if they won the bid for the 2012 Olympics ( Remember that New York, Madrid and London could be a Olympc city in 2012).
Also, US hold the WC in 1994, so maybe it's too soon (only 20 years! I amb getting old! )

Maybe a southafrican or southamerican country?

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by Urban Dave

In my Opinion England, Spain or US would not host the WC if they won the bid for the 2012 Olympics ( Remember that New York, Madrid and London could be a Olympc city in 2012).
Also, US hold the WC in 1994, so maybe it's too soon (only 20 years! I amb getting old! )

If you mean that FIFA are unlikely to award it to a country thats hosted the olympics I don't think thats the case, if anything prooving you can host one big event helps your bid for another as with Paris right now.

I doubt the cost of hosting both would be a factor either as unlike say Japan or Portigal England, Spain and the US would not need to build a lot of stadia espeically for the event.

Maybe a southafrican country?

...and rename it the Nelson Mandela cup?

[AcesHigh]

Brasil is actually waiting for a World Cup as an excuse to finally update our stadiums and build new ones. Most brazilian stadiums were built between 1950 and 1970... some of the newest ones are from second division teams and thus are not that great either.


The only really modern stadium in Brasil is Arena da Baixada, in Curitiba, home to Atlético Paranaense club. Its capacity is 32.000, but as you can notice, they havent still built one of its sides. I guess that when they build the other side, the capacity will rise to at least 45.000.

[Relay]

My thought about future world cup hosts would be this.
2006 Germany
2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 USA
2022 China

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by Relay

My thought about future world cup hosts would be this.
2006 Germany
2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 USA
2022 China

20 years without a european world cup?

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Urban Dave

In my Opinion England, Spain or US would not host the WC if they won the bid for the 2012 Olympics ( Remember that New York, Madrid and London could be a Olympc city in 2012).

I don't think it would make any difference. Remember:

1968 - Mexico City Olympics
1970 - Mexico World Cup

1972 - Munich Olympics
1974 - West Germany World Cup

[Relay]

Originally Posted by MoreOrLess

20 years without a european world cup?

Yep and i dont see any problem even if i am from Europe.

[carlspannoosh]

Originally Posted by SouthBank

15) Stamford Bridge, London: Home of Chelsea F.C.
Capacity – 43,000

Will the new champions need to add to their stadium or will they have to find a new site?Will 43000 be enough?If they ever do find a new site will they be able to take the Chelsea name with them? Interesting times ahead for Chelsea.

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by Relay

Yep and i dont see any problem even if i am from Europe.

Because France have already hosted it recently?

A 5 or 6 continant rotation policey is grossly unfair if you ask me as the number of countries actually able to host it in Asia, North America, Oceania and maybe even Africa is so small.

[Toadboy]

15,000 is enough for everyday Chelsea. if they expand they'll be playing in athe biggest white elephant in league football in 5years.

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by carlspannard

Will the new champions need to add to their stadium or will they have to find a new site?Will 43000 be enough?If they ever do find a new site will they be able to take the Chelsea name with them? Interesting times ahead for Chelsea.

Its been rumoured here that the Bates motel out back is going to be demolished to makeway for an expansion. The whole thing done in the style of the newest stand would look great if you ask me.

[eddyk]

Originally Posted by The Boy David

We could host a world cup no bother - and it'd be a bloody spectacular one at that, especially when wembly stadium is finished. Scotland is jealous of that beast!!
"

Tell me about it....you dont know how many welshmen, scottish and irishmen has said its a waste of money...its a crap design and all of that!

Never seen such green faces!