FIFA confirm bids received for World Cup(s)

3hn2givr7mx1sc

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Liverpool - Anfield or new Anfield

MementoMori wrote: »

Hurrah Liverpool is getting a new Anfield for 2018.

Slightly mockadious. Wonder who's going to pay for it?

Plays right into G&H hands

I highlighted the main part in ArmaniJeanss's post there for ya MM, don't be getting your hopes up too quickly.;)

I'd love for England to get it, easy to get to etc.
But if Spain/Portugal still put a bid in(didn't bother reading ArmaniJeanss link:P) then it'd be a nice holiday.:D

Seaneh

PHB wrote: »

I want England to get it for two seasons,

A. They have the biggest stadiums [Old Trafford and Wembely would be great for semis]
B. It's very close to us, we could get to see an awful awful lot of matches fairly easily

They really don't have the biggest stadiums.

Camp Nou
Bernabau
Nou Mestalla
Estadio La Peineta
all > 72500 seater.

Only Old trafford and Welbley are bigger than any of them and both are smaller than two of the above.

spain and portugal would be the best host county/ies.

Also.
Estádio da Luz
Estádio do Dragão
Estadio Jose Alvalade
Estadio Manuel Ruiz de Lopera
San Mamés Stadium
are all > 50k.

Also.. they have a good rail network, lots of internal airports with cheap fares, lots of hotels and tourist facilities and a few more massive stadiums i cant think of.

therokerroar

PHB wrote: »

Because they are trying to compete with the stadiums that England have.

Inside London:
Wembley - 90k
Twickenham Stadium - 82k
Emirates - 60k
White Heart Lane - 60k

Outside London:
Old Trafford - 80k
St James - 52
Anfield - 45k [probably up to 60 by WC]
Villa Park - 42k

5 stadiums over 60k, three over 80k.

You've left out the Stadium of Light which holds 49,000 and can easily be extended to 60,000 if needs be.

Also there can only be 3 stadiums in each city and why the **** do you have Twickenham in there :rolleyes:

OPENROAD

Seaneh wrote: »

Also.. they have a good rail network, lots of internal airports with cheap fares, lots of hotels and tourist facilities .

So does England.

The_Kew_Tour

I really do think Englands bid for 2018 is the strongest by far cant see any other country getting it based on Stadiums accomendation etc.

They have pretty much all you need.

I hope they get it too.

Fr Tod Umptious

Kingdom wrote: »

Anyone feel Australia should be given a shot at 2018 and leave 2022 to the European bids? The Aussies have a great record in sport, and I'm sure they could pull off the World Cup. Ireland would be sure to qualify!

there was a good article in When Saturday Comes a few months back discussing the possibility of an Australian bid

Apparently it would be a non starter due to FIFA's very stringent rules regarding the minimum capacity of stadiums, the numbers of stadiums that would be in each city and the requirement that FIFA have exclusive use of stadiums for 10 weeks, thus severly disturbing the AFL and NRL seasons

fullstop

PHB wrote: »

White Heart Lane - 60k

Capacity of WHL is 36k

Helix

fullstop wrote: »

Capacity of WHL is 36k

the new one is 60k isnt it?

villa park will be 52k in a few years too

ArmaniJeanss

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Apparently it would be a non starter due to FIFA's very stringent rules regarding the minimum capacity of stadiums, the numbers of stadiums that would be in each city and the requirement that FIFA have exclusive use of stadiums for 10 weeks, thus severly disturbing the AFL and NRL seasons

I think someone (maybe Xavi6) stated on another thread the other sports in Aussie would accept this disruption to their calendars 'for the greater good' of Australian sport and Australia in general.

The other issues may not be as easily overcome, though capacities can be increased.

NabyLadistheman

England will also have the infrastructure & experience from hosting the olympics

GLaDOS

torresistheman wrote: »

England will also have the infrastructure & experience from hosting the olympics

Isn't that just in London though?

Xavi6

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think someone (maybe Xavi6) stated on another thread the other sports in Aussie would accept this disruption to their calendars 'for the greater good' of Australian sport and Australia in general.

The other issues may not be as easily overcome, though capacities can be increased.

Well the whole thing is becoming a rather contentious issue over here now. Basically the AFL will allow their stadiums to be used (well, all bar the Sydney) for the four weeks of the tournament, but FIFA want no games to be played on the grounds for (I think) two months before the tournament.

The AFL are not prepared to cancel their season and have not offered any other solution, and the NRL have jumped on this bandwagon.

The MCG needs serious renovations if it's to be used but the AFL say that the clubs will lose too much money if it is closed for any period of time.

They've given the usual PR bollox about co-operating but their actions appear to contradict this completely. It's by no means a forgone conclusion that the stadiums will be available.

g-whizz

Stekelly wrote: »

They wont use 4 stadiums in london will they?

12 stadiums over 40k are needed though. Has Twickenham been mentioned or did you add that in?


Going by teh first link I found, so might not be accurate, Spain seems to only have 6 or so grounds with over 40k. Some of the teams outside the bigger teams seem to have quite small grounds.

spain has ten grounds with 40k or more at the moment with plans to build four more with capacity ranging from 43k to 75k

Ping Chow Chi

I hope England win, so Forest get a spanky new stadium

ctrl-alt-delete

FIFA rules state that one city can have two stadiums and that all other host cities must have a stadium with a capacity of 40,000.

The majority of Stadiums for the England bid have been decided;

Birmingham (Villa Park)
Bristol (New Ashton Gate)
Leeds (Elland Road)
Liverpool (Anfield or new Anfield)
London (Wembley, Emirates & Olympic Stadium or new Tottenham stadium)
Milton Keynes (Stadium:mk)
Nottingham (new Forest ground)
Manchester (Old Trafford & City of Manchester Stadium)
Newcastle (St James’ Park)
Plymouth (Home Park)
Sheffield (Hillsborough)
Sunderland (Stadium of Light)

As far as i'm aware only stadiums listed above will be and can be used now that the bid is submitted. There is not a hope of Twikenham being used. Fifa cast the deciding vote on which ones are used as far as i know too.


I'd be in favour of England hosting it for a number of reasons, and i hope they secure it when the time comes.

grenache

I'm rightly teed off that Nottingham has been selected. This means Forest will be leaving the City Ground, home for 111 years. Scene of some of our greatest triumphs (and embarrassments). Also the most picturesque ground in Britain, set against the backdrop of the River Trent. Moving to a new stadium in Gamston on the outskirts of the city, with a prosposed capacity of 45k! Its laughable! We only fill the 30k capacity of the CG maybe 6 times a year for big games. Even when we were in the Premiership 10 years ago, our average attendance was no more than 26k. So our chairman wants to build another plastic lego stadium with 20,000 empty seats most weekends? Good one that! :rolleyes:

Ping Chow Chi

Hey we have not seen the design of the new stadium yet, and there have been a few pretty decent designs resently (things seem to have moved on since prideless park era) Three of the four stands at the city ground where not there when we where winning our european cups, and the one remaining stand is in need of replacing.

As for the number of seats, I believe that they want something that will be 45K for the world cup which will then be reduced to somewhere in the mid 30's for Forest after.

....and gamston isnt that far away, especially by if they slap a tram line in.

on wards and up wards as far as I'm concerned

grenache

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Hey we have not seen the design of the new stadium yet, and there have been a few pretty decent designs resently (things seem to have moved on since prideless park era) Three of the four stands at the city ground where not there when we where winning our european cups, and the one remaining stand is in need of replacing.

As for the number of seats, I believe that they want something that will be 45K for the world cup which will then be reduced to somewhere in the mid 30's for Forest after.

....and gamston isnt that far away, especially by if they slap a tram line in.

on wards and up wards as far as I'm concerned

City Ground is our home though You can't beat walking over Trent Bridge at night and seeing the stadium beaming against the backdrop of the river. Beautiful!

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well the whole thing is becoming a rather contentious issue over here now. Basically the AFL will allow their stadiums to be used (well, all bar the Sydney) for the four weeks of the tournament, but FIFA want no games to be played on the grounds for (I think) two months before the tournament.

The AFL are not prepared to cancel their season and have not offered any other solution, and the NRL have jumped on this bandwagon.

The MCG needs serious renovations if it's to be used but the AFL say that the clubs will lose too much money if it is closed for any period of time.

They've given the usual PR bollox about co-operating but their actions appear to contradict this completely. It's by no means a forgone conclusion that the stadiums will be available.

what is the tory with the two month pitch ban? I don't remember that happening in Germany, and in England it would mean the season ending in April. Is it purely cause it is other sports that might damage the pitch in different ways to football or would need to be set up very differently.

Ping Chow Chi

grenache wrote: »

City Ground is our home though You can't beat walking over Trent Bridge at night and seeing the stadium beaming against the backdrop of the river. Beautiful!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/picture.php?albumid=909&pictureid=4502

there is a certain beauty to the lady

Jordonvito

therecklessone wrote: »

Not a chance.
.)

Throw in the City of Manchester and one of Riverside/Madejski (both have planning permission to bring up to around the 40k mark)

..

Boro cant half fill what they have

Dancor

Jordonvito wrote: »

Boro cant half fill what they have

true. Even when they had games against top 4 premier leauge teams you could still see empty seats.

ArmaniJeanss

Mitch Connor wrote: »

what is the tory with the two month pitch ban? I don't remember that happening in Germany, and in England it would mean the season ending in April. Is it purely cause it is other sports that might damage the pitch in different ways to football or would need to be set up very differently.

I think its 3 weeks beforehand, + the 5 weeks of the tournament = 2 months.

Also the entire stadium becomes a FIFA stadium for these 8 weeks, which may also cause a problem when the grounds normal use is non-football.

So its not just 5x matchdays you are giving up the stadium for, but being thrown out of your office and carparking space for 8 weeks for the convenience of Platini and Blatter and Jack Warner. The sort of thing that might be a step too far for cricket/AFL etc administrators.

FatherTed

I can see England getting 2018 as it will be due to be back in Europe by then. But there are a lot of problems with the England bid as we've seen recentlt plus there is their "devine right" attitude that will rub people the wrong way.

Probably USA in 2022, this is the list of proposed stadiums:
Atlanta Georgia Dome 71,250 (1992)
Baltimore M & T Bank Stadium 71,008 (1998)
Boston Gillette Stadium 71,693 (2002)
Charlotte Bank of America Stadium 73,778 (1996)
Chicago Soldier Field 61,000 (2003)
Cleveland Cleveland Browns Stadium 72,000 (1999)
Dallas Cowboys Stadium 100,000 (2009)
Denver INVESCO Field 76,125 (2001)
Detroit Ford Field 67,188 (2002)
Detroit Michigan Stadium 108,000 (1927)
Houston Reliant Stadium 71,500 (2002)
Indianapolis Lucas Oil Stadium 64,200 (2008)
Jacksonville, Fla. Municipal Stadium 82,000 (1995)
Kansas City Arrowhead Stadium 77,000 (1972)
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 93,607 (1923)
Los Angeles Rose Bowl 92,000+ (1922)
Miami Land Shark Stadium 75,540 (1987)
Nashville LP Field 69,143 (1999)
New York/N.J. New Meadowlands Stadium 82,000 (2010)
Oakland Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum 63,026 (1966)
Orlando Florida Citrus Bowl 65,616 (1936)
Philadelphia Lincoln Financial Field 67,594
Phoenix/Glendale University of Phoenix Stadium 71,000 (2006)
San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 70,500 (1967)
San Francisco Stanford Stadium 50,500 (1921)
Seattle Qwest Field 67,000 (2002)
Seattle Husky Stadium 72,500 (1920)
St. Louis Edward Jones Dome 67,268 (1995)
Tampa Raymond James Stadium 65,856 (1998)
Washington, D.C. RFK Stadium 45,600 (1959)
Washington, D.C. FedExField 91,704 (1997)

Also a number of new NFL stadiums will likely be built by then e.g. Minnesota, San Francisco, LA, New Orleans and Kansas City as well as some smaller capacity stadiums for MLS.

Johnny Utah

I'd like to see England getting it in 2018, but I'm a bit disappointed with some of the bland stadiums chosen- uninspiring egg cartons which you might see in any country.

And Milton Keynes ffs, as Bill Bailey said- "Milton Keynes, Satan's layby!"


So, looking at the bids from an objective point of view, I'd have to say that overall Spain/Portugal have more impressive stadia and therefore deserve to host.

Johnny Utah

FatherTed wrote: »

I can see England getting 2018 as it will be due to be back in Europe by then. But there are a lot of problems with the England bid as we've seen recentlt plus there is their "devine right" attitude that will rub people the wrong way.

Probably USA in 2022, this is the list of proposed stadiums:

Dallas Cowboys Stadium 100,000 (2009)


Also a number of new NFL stadiums will likely be built by then e.g. Minnesota, San Francisco, LA, New Orleans and Kansas City as well as some smaller capacity stadiums for MLS.

Now, that's a stadium! :eek:




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



Although, the players look like ants from the top tier.