England's World Cup bid stadiums

Tancred · Post by **Tancred** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:34 pm

beastjim wrote:
As for Old Trafford, you seem a bit harsh on the place. Hosted the UEFA Champions League final in only 03 and reported to be a 5 star UEFA stadium. Sure the South Stand might be old but the rest of the place is great and you would imagine the South Stand is in the plans to be done sometime sooner rather then later. Would easily be in the plans for the World Cup, and possibly the opening match?

Old Trafford, like may grounds in the UK, is a rundown stadium, with about 10k seats more than it really should have in the space provided. Going there can be real pain. You are forced to sit down by the security NAZI's so you spend 90 minutes with the back of the seat in front of you digging into you legs.

Being a UEFA 5 star stadium means very little for the quality of the ground. That rating is about ground lighting, a close international airport, enough hotels etc etc. It's very little to do with a decent stadium.

beastjim · Post by **beastjim** » Tue May 19, 2009 9:26 pm

Fair enough. I still couldn't see Old Trafford missing out and personally I would imagine Manchester United has plans to upgrade the older parts of the ground (South Stand mainly right?) anyways. I guess distance between the seats is an issue, but that is life. As for the getting told to sit down, well England has really cramped down on the whole "Holligans" culture and everyone sitting down in all seater stadiums is part of that.

Tancred · Post by **Tancred** » Tue May 19, 2009 9:45 pm

beastjim wrote:Fair enough. I still couldn't see Old Trafford missing out and personally I would imagine Manchester United has plans to upgrade the older parts of the ground (South Stand mainly right?) anyways. I guess distance between the seats is an issue, but that is life. As for the getting told to sit down, well England has really cramped down on the whole "Holligans" culture and everyone sitting down in all seater stadiums is part of that.

Old Trafford will be a venue for sure. I was just pointing out how meaningless the 5 star rating is.

As for sitting down, it's rubbish. The Taylor report made a lot of common sense recommendations. It statted that "standing accommodation is not intrinsically unsafe", however the Tory government pushed ahead with all seater grounds, and banned people even standing at their seat.

While it has moved the hooligan problem outside the ground and away from the stadium, it's killed the atmosphere, and the way the rules are enforced at some grounds is ludicrous.

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu May 21, 2009 1:15 am

dibo wrote:
In alphabetical order:
1. Birmingham
2. Bristol
3. Derby
4. Hull
5. Leeds
6. Leicester
7. Liverpool
8. London
9. Manchester
10. Milton Keynes
11. Newcastle
12. Nottingham
13. Portsmouth
14. Sheffield
15. Sunderland
1. Villa Park would be close to turnkey ready.
2. Neither Bristol ground is close. Need a new ground.
3. Pride Park not ready. Needs expansion and improvement.
4. KC Stadium not ready. Needs expansion and improvement.
5. Elland Road a long way from ready. Needs expansion and improvement.
6. Filbert St not ready. Needs expansion and improvement.
7. Anfield and Goodison could be brought up to standard, but at a cost. Either woud need expansion and improvement, will get at least one new ground.
8. Wembley is pretty much ready, ditto for Emirates. Surely only window dressing required.
9. City of Manchester would be close to ready, Old Trafford would need a lot of work done on the southern stand (bringing the tunnel and rooms to the centre of the stand, working on the dugout areas…) and the pitch to create the necessary buffers between field of play and fences – Sanga was down for an awfully long time after his slide and fall into boards the other night.
10. MK should be nuked, by which I mean of course that the ground needs expansion. The ground’s close to new and would be close to the right basic standards, it’s just half the size it needs to be.
11. St James’ Park might be ugly as sin but it’d be close to ready. Being ugly didn’t keep Nuremburg’s ground out.
12. Neither Nottingham ground close. Need a new ground. Plans already discussed.
13. Pompey need a new ground. Plans already discussed.
14. Either Sheffield ground would require major improvements, even if capacity is close to the mark.
15. Stadium of Light is probably in there with Villa Park, Ashburton Grove, CoM and St James’ Park as being grounds close to turnkey ready.

So on the grounds front they've got work to do as well to get up and rolling. Their economy generally might be weaker than ours, but their football economy is light years ahead.

Many of the new grounds are no closer to being built than Stadium WA is - they're kinda ideas that are thought about but not really 'in the works' as such.

In the cases of Bristol, Nottingham, MK and Portsmouth they're long term plans that might be acted on more quickly should the need arise (like a World Cup comes to town). I've not even heard of expansion plans for Derby, Leeds, Leicester or Sheffield, but they're the sort of things you do if you're hosting the big one.

None of Bristol, Nottingham, MK, Derby, Leeds or Leicester particularly need a 40k stadium either, while we're yabbering on about it...

I think you massively exagerate some of the work required. Many of those stadiums , the many typical boring 30,000 seaters are prepared for the needed expansions, which can be made quickly at very little cost, in some cases happening anway if the club reach a certain level. Expansion at Derby´s pride park was only put on hold following relegation. If the world cup comes it will just get done.

Old Trafford needs next to no work. A few rows of seats will probably be taken out like when they held the CL final. The southern stand will probably have been rebuilt by 2018, anyway, though, securing a 90,000+ capacity.

Anfield will almost certainly also have been replaced. The premier league is hardly hit much by the economy. They just re-newed their massive domestic tv-deal a few months ago, very much mid-crisis, and it grew. The overseas deal is expected to grow even more. They are going to get richer, and a continuing crisis with likely low interest rates and unemployment in the building industry is only going to make constructions easier.

The only question mark is really around Bristol. They will want that place included to achieve a reasonable geographical spread of venues, yet the place is hardly screaming for such a venue.

Anyway I highly doubt that England will actually get the tournament.

Both FIFA and UEFA are increasingly in a near-permanent state of conflict with the Premier league because of its massive and growing financial power. The FA are standing around paralysed in fear of offending anyone, while downright bizarre accusations are levelled at the premier league.
The bid campain is toning down everything they do in fear of being perceived as arrogant, which given the high profile of english football is almost impossible.

They will not get it, and why should they? Whats the point of staging the world cup in a nation that already hosts the worlds finest footballers 9 months a year, every year. very little. Most games in an english world cup will be of a lower standard and in front of fewer people than what they can see every week. An english rugby world cup makes sense, football doesnt. I would like to see it in the US. The sport is still not that big there, but growing. The tournament will make a difference and they certainly have the venues.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu May 21, 2009 1:43 pm

You would prefer the US over Indonesia?

deejaybee · Post by **deejaybee** » Thu May 21, 2009 2:20 pm

To me you can cancel out US, Japan and South Korea on merit. They have held the WC recently and I find it frankly arrogant of them to be bidding again.

England, Australia, Indonesia, Netherlands/Lux/Belgium and Spain/Portugal are the real contenders.

I think that Spain/Portugal will get 2018, while we will get 2022 (I am praying!).

Spain/Portugal are looking to be very strong.
They already have these down:

Camp Nou (which FCB are in preliminary stages to redevelop) 98,934
Bernabeu 80,350
Nou Mestalla (Valencia's new home) 75,000
Estadio La Peineta (Athlético Madrid new home) 73,000
Estadio La Cartuja (untenanted in Seville) 72,000
Estádio da Luz (SL Benfica) 65,600
San Mames Barria (Athletic Bilbao's new home, Basque country) 58,000
Estádio do Dragão (Porto) 50,400
Estádio Alvalade XXI (Sporting Portugal, Lisbon) 50,080

Plus about a dozen other potential venues, two very national strong teams and no visible signs of politicking/conflict.

And I would much rather lose the WC to Spain rather than England...

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:48 pm

Egan wrote:You would prefer the US over Indonesia?

Why Indonesia?

hot_dogma · Post by **hot_dogma** » Thu May 21, 2009 3:54 pm

It's close.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu May 21, 2009 8:57 pm

Simmo if we are talking about World Cup legacies and allowing money generated from the World Cup into increasing the standards and training of players. Plus delivering western audiences of a very positive message of an Islamic country.

Indonesia has a lot more to offer than Mexico or the US in my opinion.

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:34 am

but we're not talking about World Cup legacies and allowing money generated from the World Cup into increasing the standards and training of players. Plus delivering western audiences of a very positive message of an Islamic country.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:00 pm

I was just asking Swede why he thought the US was a more worthwhile nation to go to than Indonesia, which has an even larger population.

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:29 pm

Egan wrote:I was just asking Swede why he thought the US was a more worthwhile nation to go to than Indonesia, which has an even larger population.

The primary reason they might go to the US is not to build the game there but that it is by far the biggest money spinner for FIFA.

gyfox · Post by **gyfox** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:31 pm

deejaybee wrote:To me you can cancel out US, Japan and South Korea on merit. They have held the WC recently and I find it frankly arrogant of them to be bidding again.

England, Australia, Indonesia, Netherlands/Lux/Belgium and Spain/Portugal are the real contenders.

I thought that they had decided not to award the Cup to joint bids this time.

Simmo79 · Post by **Simmo79** » Fri May 22, 2009 1:31 pm

Egan wrote:I was just asking Swede why he thought the US was a more worthwhile nation to go to than Indonesia, which has an even larger population.

firstly, the US has the larger population. Secondly, they're heaps wealthier. Thirdly, they'll organise a better tournament. Fourthly, FIFA's more interested in growing the game in the US than in Indonesia. Fithly, I've run out of ideas but I think the onus is on you to argue why Indonesia is important to begin with...

bazza · Post by **bazza** » Fri May 22, 2009 7:42 pm

gyfox wrote:I thought that they had decided not to award the Cup to joint bids this time.

Yes - I read that they said if a single bid meets requirements over a joint bid then it will be preferred - there doesn't seem to be an official policy though