The Nottingham Sports Thread

[Lears City]

Leicester's stadium is very accessible from the M1, which is only a short distance away.

The train station is within comfortable walking distance and there is a railway track right next to the stadium!

East Midlands Airport is close by, but we have the added advantage of being close to Coventry and Birmingham Airports.

Our stadium has been designed for future expansion.

We have several large open spaces in the city centre and also a large viewing screen.

Abbey Park is very close to the city centre and whilst a little further, Victoria Park is still only a 10 minute walk from town.

The Walkers Stadium is also accessible via the city centre and a riverside walk.

[duane]

There is also plans for a river taxi system. (Walkers Stadium - Abbey Park???)

[Bingethink]

You only have to think for a minute about other countries who compete for this event to see that any of our three cities could host some games, stadium permitting.

Nobody at Fifa is going to care that Nottingham is ten miles nearer EMA than Leicester, or that conversely Leicester is two or three miles closer to the M1. Even if one of our cities fell short on oneof the criteria - say Derby didn't have enough hotel rooms - then the other two could take in the slack. This is the Three Cities concept in miniature: in international terms, an triangle thirty miles across could very much be considered "a city".

So, it's all about the stadium.

If Nottingham can get its act together, then a proposed new-build stadium in the centre of a purpose-built sports village would piss all over Derby's Sunderland-alike set in a retail park or building additional tiers on Leicester's identikit flat-pack crisp bowl.

Can Nottingham afford it? I guess that depends on three factors: how much Forest's chairman Nigel Doughty is prepared to pump in, how much money Nottingham City Council could generate by developing the City Ground and Meadow Lane, and how much global exposure in a World Cup is worth to the city. I don;t know the answer to any of those questions, and I suspect, unless anyone has a good answer to them, they are unlikely to be able to determine the likelihood of a Nottingham super-stadium being constructed.

[Lears City]

There is no point building a new ground from scratch in Nottingham, for one or two World Cup games. Also you Nottingham lot need to convince the authorities in the next few months that the finance is in place and that there will be no planning issues. That is a lot to sort out before the deadline for the England World Cup submission.

The "Sunderland-alike" or "flat-pack crisp bowl" options are far cheaper and in the case of the latter, the planning is already granted...

[Peak Pride]

There is no point building a new ground from scratch in Nottingham, for one or two World Cup games. Also you Nottingham lot need to convince the authorities in the next few months that the finance is in place and that there will be no planning issues. That is a lot to sort out before the deadline for the England World Cup submission.

Here, here!!
It will be Derby or Leicester because we are ready and Nottingham wont be for a long time.

If Nottingham can get its act together, then a proposed new-build stadium in the centre of a purpose-built sports village would piss all over Derby's Sunderland-alike set in a retail park or building additional tiers on Leicester's identikit flat-pack crisp bowl.

Its Derby Middlesbrough Mr....

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by Lears City

There is no point building a new ground from scratch in Nottingham, for one or two World Cup games.

r

No, but there is a point in using the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of a World Cup as a catalyst for a new Forest / best-in-the-Midlands new stadium.

Also you Nottingham lot need to convince the authorities in the next few months that the finance is in place and that there will be no planning issues. That is a lot to sort out before the deadline for the England World Cup submission.

Yes, it is. That's why I say it's all about the stadium. If they can pull it off, it's a shoo-in that Nottingham will be the East Midlands city chosen.

The "Sunderland-alike" or "flat-pack crisp bowl" options are far cheaper and in the case of the latter, the planning is already granted...

FIFA aren't looking for cheap stadiums.

[pharmj]

Come on guys, really? I hate to be a pessimist, we are acting like England have even got the games! There is no way on this Earth that Derby, Leicester or Nottingham will get world cup games for football in their current state. look at the competition, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc. All have far bigger stadia, far bigger and better infra-structure etc. We are competing with the standard set by Germany, Korea, Japan and SA (who are building all new stadiums i believe). In that setting, the East Mids will lose out sorely unless Nottingham's new stadium is approved and built soonish.

Walkers stadium will be better, but not 'world cup good-enough', same for the rams in Derby. The current forest and city grounds are run down and crumbling. None of these are not world class stadiums, or anything close.

[Peak Pride]

The Royal Bafokeng Sports Palace cost $45m/£28m Dollars/Pounds to construct. This is hosting six 2010 World Cup Games in South Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bafokeng_Stadium

Pride Park = £28m / $45m
Walkers Stadium = £37m / $60m

I cant imgaine FIFA refusing one of these stadiums to host a few games when there are only really supporting the main games being held in London, Manc and Liverpool.
But lets wait and see if England will even be selected. Hopefully, as it will be great for the whole of the e.midds.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by pharmj

Come on guys, really? I hate to be a pessimist, we are acting like England have even got the games! There is no way on this Earth that Derby, Leicester or Nottingham will get world cup games for football in their current state. look at the competition, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc. All have far bigger stadia, far bigger and better infra-structure etc. We are competing with the standard set by Germany, Korea, Japan and SA (who are building all new stadiums i believe). In that setting, the East Mids will lose out sorely unless Nottingham's new stadium is approved and built soonish.

Walkers stadium will be better, but not 'world cup good-enough', same for the rams in Derby. The current forest and city grounds are run down and crumbling. None of these are not world class stadiums, or anything close.

The FA are committed to spreading the games round the country. FIFA want a maximum of two venues in a city.

If the World Cup comes here, one of our cities will provide a venue.

[pharmj]

Originally Posted by Peak Pride

The Royal Bafokeng Sports Palace cost $45m/£28m Dollars/Pounds to construct. This is hosting six 2010 World Cup Games in South Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bafokeng_Stadium

Pride Park = £28m / $45m
Walkers Stadium = £37m / $60m

I cant imgaine FIFA refusing one of these stadiums to host a few games when there are only really supporting the main games being held in London, Manc and Liverpool.
But lets wait and see if England will even be selected. Hopefully, as it will be great for the whole of the e.midds.

If you read that article carefully, it actually says just the upgrade of the roof and main stand cost that much. So that actually rather puts those figures into context. Three of the stadiums for SA are costing over £150million each. Granted we have Wembley,Old Trafford, prolly the new Liverpool and/or Everton Ground, Highbury, so lots of the hard work is done. It will need to be an immense upgrade to one of stadiums to get them up to standard.

That's why I wonder whether they will go for a premiership club where the stadium will actually be used and filled more afterwards, legacy wise. Nottingham has a far better chance of getting a purpose built stadium with all the ameneties attatched. I dont think Walkers stadium or its location could handle that much expansion and congestion, judging by the nightmare it gets around there every rush hour as it is.

[Lears City]

The decision about who will potentially host the World Cup for the region needs to be made in the next few months. It is not possible to guess which of our three teams might be an established Premiership force in the next few years.

The World Cup is not a vehicle to give Nottingham a 50,000 seater stadium, that it doesn't even need. If there is to be a city used in the region, then either Leicester or Derby are the obvious choices. The football authorities do want cheap options for stadiums, because the decision will be made in the context of a worldwide recession.

Wembley is a nightmare on matchday. All football stadiums are, because it is pointless and perhaps impossible to mould the transport infrastructure of a city, to accomodate a facility that is used for a few hours every 2 weeks and hardly at all during the summer months.

I'll go back again, to mentioning that we have the planning permission to expand our stadium already and the cost will almost definitely be less than the other two options. Also the stadium has staged a full England international and a Brazil one, both to sell-out crowds. There were no problems at all with the staging of these games.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by Lears City

The World Cup is not a vehicle to give Nottingham a 50,000 seater stadium

The World Cup is not designed to be a vehicle to give Nottingham a big stadium, but so what - it could be the catalyst needed to create one. The City Council, for example, will not stump up cash for a new football stadium without it, but the chance to promote the city in front of billions of TV homes would make them loosen their purse strings.

, that it doesn't even need.

Neither Leicester or Derby need a 45-50,000 seater stadium either for the Championship. But if they built an extension of their stadiums for the World Cup, they would have a facility that would satisfy their Premiership ambitions. Same with us.

Except Forest actually do need either a new stadium, or a major redevelopment of the City Ground (if the World Cup plans come to nothing). We don't have the quality of public areas - corporate boxes, conference facilities etc - that is to be found at Pride Park or the Walkers.

If there is to be a city used in the region, then either Leicester or Derby are the obvious choices.

Without a new stadium, that is a no-brainer. But with a new Notitngham stadium, the reverse is true.

The football authorities do want cheap options for stadiums, because the decision will be made in the context of a worldwide recession.

No, it's not like the Olympics. The FA or FIFA don't build stadiums, or bear their costs. They just want the best stadiums. If Nottingham can get the money together for a brand new state-of-the-art stadium, FIFA won't care how much Nigel Doughty or Nottingham city Council have had to shell out for it.

I'll go back again, to mentioning that we have the planning permission to expand our stadium already and the cost will almost definitely be less than the other two options. Also the stadium has staged a full England international and a Brazil one, both to sell-out crowds. There were no problems at all with the staging of these games.

Nottingham, Derby and Leicester all have regular experience of managing crowds of 30,000, and there's no reason to think that any of our cities couldn't cope with the next step-up.

It's all about the stadium. If Nottingham can bring together a consortium with the finance to build a brand new state-of-the-art stadium, then I can't think of many reason why you would choose Leicester or Derby over us. Planning will of course be necessary - but a stadium of this nature could not be considered without the early support of all the relevant local authorities anyway, so if they get that far, they won't be stymied by planning.

[Lears City]

Binge mate, we are in a recession and there is no money for something on the scale of a new stadium in Nottingham. Investors are unlikely to support such a development before the World Cup venue deadline.

Doughty has had loads of cash wiped off his net fortune. Nottingham City Council is not awash with money and they are looking to make job cuts. Banging cash into a new stadium would not sit well I don't think.

Leicester and Derby expansion offer a much cheaper alternative and though the Nottingham stadium is not an impossibility, the other two cities look far more viable at the moment and the deadline is looming.

[ben77]

I think its really a case of which city/ council wants this the most. Not wanting to belittle Derby or Leicester but i think if Nottingham wants it enough then its theirs. Its all very well saying its just about the stadium but i think its also a huge branding exercise for Fifa the FA etc and without a shadow of a doubt Nottingham is more suitable for an event like this with the eyes of the world on it. Personnaly i don't give a toss, the world cup isnt what it was, its now more of a huge corporate money spinner than a celebration of football. I don't want Forest to move away from the City ground either (its location makes it one of the great stadiums in the country) so if it means Leicester get the World Cup and Forest don't move i'll be more than happy.. Let face it Derby aren't going to get it over Leicester..

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by Lears City

Binge mate, we are in a recession and there is no money for something on the scale of a new stadium in Nottingham.

Which is why I keep saying if we can fund the stadium, then Nottingham is a shoo-in. I think it will be tough, but the reward at the end of it would be enormous. We are also looking at completion in a decade's time, when we won't be in the midst of a recession. I don't know if a deal can be done, or not. We'll see. But the stadium is what the choice will ultimately be made on, not whether or not a city has a big screen a decade before the tournament.

(Admittedly, it would't be as easy for Nottingham as it was for Leicester, as any plan would involve honouring the full cost of the thing, rather than going into liquidation and getting it at a 90% discount....)

[Lears City]

Hey Dennis Wise forced us into administration, after getting sacked for breaking the jaw of one of his team mates. He was the only creditor (via his lovely agent Eric Hall) who wouldn't accept the clubs offer of delayed repayments. Added to the collapse of ITV digital and our entrusting the spending of £25 million to Peter Taylor to aid an inevitable relegation from the Premier League - we could hardly avoid what happened to us.

Don't forget we weren't allowed to buy any players as a result of administration and several played for free for a while - so it was hardly a bonus was it. All the more remarkable that we got promoted back to the Premier League that season.

As far as I understand, Leicester City are still paying for their stadium.

Undoubtedly it would be amazing for Nottingham to have a 50,000 seater stadium. Like Leicester and Derby, you have never in your history had a home league crowd that big. Take a cheap shot at Leicester if you like, about the payments on their stadium, but it is highly likely that the Florists won't be paying for theirs either, if it ever happens.

[pharmj]

Guys, I think we are being very arrogant with this, even assuming it will come to the East Midlands.

There are 12 other cities to consider in the equation.
1. Birmingham
2. Bristol
3. Derby
4. Hull
5. Leeds
6. Leicester
7. Liverpool
8. London
9. Manchester
10. Milton Keynes
11. Newcastle and Gateshead
12. Nottingham
13. Portsmouth
14. Sheffield
15. Sunderland

Overall they are wanting about 16 stadiums. I think it can be assumed at least 3 of these will be in London (Wembly, Emirates and Chelseas ground). Manchester have Old Trafford and the Commonwealth stadium that City play in, then there's the two new grounds proposed for Liverpool and Everton. The Villa ground will be used in Brum as well. So thats 8 stadiums gone. That leaves 8 left. Newcastle, Leeds, Bristol and Portsmouth will all host some I think due to the facilties the cities have to offer (Ports do have the backing of the russian millionaire now). So we are now at 5 stadiums. Milton Keynes, Sheffield, Sunderland, Hull, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham.

I think given the fact that Nottingham has proved itself just this summer with the cricket World Cup and hosting the FA womens cup final twice we are on good ground already. Derby had also hosted this succesfully so has that working for it.

Nottingham have stated that they will boost to a new 50,000 (5th biggest) if we win the bid. If not, they are still planning to rebuild the main stand. Leicester have planned a similar increase to around 50,000 if the bid is succesful. Derby have expanded to 44,000 so number wise there isnt much in it. Nottingham will put up the investment as its needed a lot. We are talking 10years away, the recession will be well passed by then, and the Olympic spending also over and done with.

Sunderland's stadium is very large at 49,000 so that helps their bid. I really cant see it going to Hull , though I know they are eager to spread the World Cup love. The East mids has the proximity of the cities working against it really, as I dont think all 3 will get it, at least one will miss out is my prediction.

My prediction:

London x3, Manchester x 2, Liverpool x 2, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Bristol, Sunderland, Sheffield, Portsmouth, Newcastle, Leeds (Sorry Derby, just dont think its gonna happen).

Being the WORLD cup, i dont think derby is well known enough or has the more general facilities to cope with this event in the bid's eyes.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by Lears City

Hey Dennis Wise forced us into administration, after getting sacked for breaking the jaw of one of his team mates. He was the only creditor (via his lovely agent Eric Hall) who wouldn't accept the clubs offer of delayed repayments. Added to [...] our entrusting the spending of £25 million to Peter Taylor to aid an inevitable relegation from the Premier League - we could hardly avoid what happened to us.

Dennis Wise - Leicester City player

Peter Taylor - Leicester City manager.

So Leicester City weren't responsible for the spending of the Leicester City manager??? Who was, then?

Don't forget we weren't allowed to buy any players as a result of administration and several played for free for a while - so it was hardly a bonus was it. All the more remarkable that we got promoted back to the Premier League that season.

Using players that you already had bought - but demonstrably couldn't afford - during an unsustainable period of spending that caused you to go bust

As far as I understand, Leicester City are still paying for their stadium.

As far as i understand it, the new Leicester City company that came out of administration had to pay 10% of the debts of their predecessors.

Take a cheap shot at Leicester if you like, about the payments on their stadium, but it is highly likely that the Florists won't be paying for theirs either, if it ever happens.

You can't see a difference between agreeing outside investment for a project at the outset, and reneging on your debts as the company collapses, leaving many local contractors out of pocket?

[Lears City]

Dennis Wise was not a Leicester City player at the time we went into administration mate. I've just mentioned in my previous post that he was sacked - and was the ONLY creditor (he sued for his wages despite breaking Callum Davidson's jaw?) that would not accept the clubs repayment offer. All the others did, so he is the reason we went into administration.

Fair enough the club overspent and was struggling - like the Florists did and so did others before and since. Leicester did all they could to avoid administration, but one man with a grudge brought us down to our knees.

No amount of quoting me in replies and sweating to make points about this will change that indisputable fact - so forget about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...wsstory.sport2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ty/2355569.stm

Prior to this there had been hope

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...ncrisis.sport1

Text or call Eric if you don't believe me...

HALL Eric Wiliam
Eric Hall Management Limited 26 Star Street
LONDON W2 1QB
Tel:+44-171/723 96 95
Mobile:+44-831/463 448
Fax:+44-171/402 05 21

I don't think anyone connected with Leicester City would be proud of people losing out on cash as a result of our difficulties at the time.

We ARE still paying for our stadium - and don't forget we would have still gone up that season - even with a 10 point deduction for going into administration. Also, we weren't the first club to experience this and not get deducted points...(a rule that wasn't even in place then anyway).

[Bingethink]

The indisputable fact: when Forest (and Derby) got into financial difficulties, we sold prize assets or attracted further investment; when Leicester got in to financial difficulties, then went into administration, abandoned 90% of their debts overnight, and kept hold of their squad.

I'm glad you're not proud of it - you shouldn't be. But, whether others did it before or after you, you benefited from not paying what was due. You got yourself a shiny new flatpack stadium and paid for 10% of it.