England's failed 2006 World Cup bid

robbieando · Post by **robbieando** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:51 pm

I would have 12 venues

Wembley, London - 90,000
Old Trafford, Manchester - 75,000
Ashburton Grove, London - 60,000
Stadium of Light, Sunderland - 54,000
St James' Park, Newcastle - 52,000
Villa Park, Birmingham - 50,000
City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester - 48,000
Anfield, Liverpool - 45,000
Elland Road, Leeds - 40,000
Hillsborough, Sheffield - 40,000
St Mary's Stadium, Southampton - 40,000
The City Ground, Nottingham - 40,000

Important Games split like this

Final - Wembley
3rd Place Playoff - Ashburton Grove
Semi Finals - Wembley and Off Trafford
Quarter Finals - Ashburton Grove, St James Park, Villa Park and City of Manchester Stadium
2nd Round Matches - Wembley, Off Trafford, Stadium of Light, Anfield, Elland Road, Hillsborough, St Mary's Stadium and The City Ground.
Opening Match - Old Trafford
Group Matches - 4 matches per Stadium

England's 3 Group Matches would be split between Old Trafford for the Opening Match, St James Park for the 2nd match and Wembley for the 3rd and final group match.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:32 pm

Anywhere but Old Trafford.

Be good to go to Bournemouths new ground.

And I love St.Marys the new home of Southampton.

Hiraldo · Post by **Hiraldo** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:30 pm

james_ wrote:I’m not sure I’d go for Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough – that’s three venues in the north-east.

True, maybe get rid of the Stadium of Light and add another stadium near Birminham (an upgraded Molineux [Wolverhampton's ground]? There are plans for a 43,000 capacity...). I'd keep Middlesbrough because, unlike Sunderland, it isn't right next to Newcastle. I think the Riverside Stadium would look great with the current two tier stand extended around the ground and an English WC would make this possible:

james_ wrote:On the one hand, playing in Wigan and Hull would promote football in these cities and provide revenue for Hull City AFC and Wigan Athletic

That's the reason I'd have them as WC venues.

james_ wrote:but on the other hand, you’d be depriving clubs, like Bolton Wanderers, within the Greater Manchester area (in the case of Wigan).

Personally I'd like the Reebok Stadium to stay the way it is.

james_ wrote:Greater London: Wembley Stadium and Ashburton Grove.
You can’t leave Arsenal’s new ground out. Besides, London could easily get away with two venues despite what FIFA have to say.

I'd rather have Wembley as the single London venue, but hosting more group stage matches than every other venue (five instead of three or four), plus one match from from the second round, quarter-finals, third-place playoff and the final. It would be the 'face' of the tournament if it's being used so regularly (compared to the other venues).

james_ wrote:[*]South West: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Dark horse. It’s just a short trip down the M4 from Bristol, across the River Severn. I don’t think Wales would be entitled to automatic qualification if this stadium was used. Besides, Cardiff City play in the Championship and the venue has been used for recent FA Cups whilst Wembley is under construction.

IMO an English WC should be kept strictly in England, but maybe I'm just stubborn and a purist.

james_ wrote:[*]Yorkshire and the Humber: Elland Road, Leeds or Hillsborough, Sheffield
Need some serious work, but can’t be left out. Sheffield was used in 1966 and 1996 and is the fourth largest city in Britain. Leeds is the third. Tough call, but the two are within spitting distance, so I’m afraid I could only select one.

I kept this in mind when deciding over venues for each knockout stage. That is why, apart from Wembley, no stadium is used twice and no city/region has two venues hosting matches in the same knockout stage, but often have venues hosting matches in two or more different stages so people will usually have a chance of attending more than the one knockout stage.

Unless one or the other has a 60,000+ stadium, both Leeds and Sheffield should have matches because of their large populations IMO.

swede · Post by **swede** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:01 am

James, youre absolutely right, St. James isnt a certainty. I completly forgot Sunderland.

Southampton is designed for expansion, though there are no plans currently. Leicester´s is designed to go to 40,000 and I think that is likely to happen before long now it has two owners.

I just hope they will include Hull,Bristol, plymouth to at least spread matches a little bit around but still England should not get the cup!
Its going to be embarrasing when Senegal play Spain in a quarter final in front of 18,000 at Old Trafford with millions of brits glued to the screen to follow Tim Henman Jr. battling it out at wimbledon.

As long as few teams bring fans in numbers it should be played elsewhere. There is ample evidence that when brits dont care about a sport, well then they really dont care.

james_ · Post by **james_** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:45 am

swede wrote:Its going to be embarrasing when Senegal play Spain in a quarter final in front of 18,000 at Old Trafford with millions of brits glued to the screen to follow Tim Henman Jr. battling it out at wimbledon.

As long as few teams bring fans in numbers it should be played elsewhere. There is ample evidence that when brits dont care about a sport, well then they really dont care.

Hmm.

To test your theory I decided to check out the UEFA website. Here's a list of Champions League finals played in England:

1962/63 - AC Milan 2-1 SL Benfica
Wembley stadium, London, England (45,715)

1967/68 - Manchester United FC 4-1* SL Benfica
Wembley stadium, London, England (92,225)

1970/71 - AFC Ajax 2-0 Panathinaikos FC
Wembley stadium, London, England (83,179)

1977/78 - Liverpool FC 1-0 Club Brugge KV
Wembley stadium, London, England (92,500)

1991/92 - FC Barcelona 1-0 Sampdoria UC
Wembley stadium, London, England (70,827)

2002/03 - Juventus FC 0-0 AC Milan
Old Trafford, Manchester, England (63,300)

Not a bad effort. Sure when an English team wasn't involved the crowd was down a bit, but not too much.

I guess the next step would be to do the same with finals held in Germany, Spain etc.

james_ · Post by **james_** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:54 am

swede wrote:Leicester´s is designed to go to 40,000 and I think that is likely to happen before long now it has two owners.

You'd go for Walkers Stadium over Pride Park in the East Midlands?

Walkers Stadium, Leicester

Pride Park, Derby

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:26 am

james_ wrote:
swede wrote:Its going to be embarrasing when Senegal play Spain in a quarter final in front of 18,000 at Old Trafford with millions of brits glued to the screen to follow Tim Henman Jr. battling it out at wimbledon.

As long as few teams bring fans in numbers it should be played elsewhere. There is ample evidence that when brits dont care about a sport, well then they really dont care.
Hmm.

To test your theory I decided to check out the UEFA website. Here's a list of Champions League finals played in England:

1962/63 - AC Milan 2-1 SL Benfica
Wembley stadium, London, England (45,715)

1967/68 - Manchester United FC 4-1* SL Benfica
Wembley stadium, London, England (92,225)

1970/71 - AFC Ajax 2-0 Panathinaikos FC
Wembley stadium, London, England (83,179)

1977/78 - Liverpool FC 1-0 Club Brugge KV
Wembley stadium, London, England (92,500)

1991/92 - FC Barcelona 1-0 Sampdoria UC
Wembley stadium, London, England (70,827)

2002/03 - Juventus FC 0-0 AC Milan
Old Trafford, Manchester, England (63,300)

Not a bad effort. Sure when an English team wasn't involved the crowd was down a bit, but not too much.

I guess the next step would be to do the same with finals held in Germany, Spain etc.

Well the CL is a very big event and just one match. The world cup is different with many games. In euro 96 big nations like Spain got less than 20,000 for some games and even a SEMI final at Old Trafford did not sell-out and its not that surprising, really.
A football fan in Manchester may have watched 25 world class football matches during a 9 month season and paid through his nose for it.
Why would it be interesting to pay to watch a neutral match at the same level during the brief off-season where he already has to pay for a new season ticket.

Bring the world cup to the world not the already over-fed.

Well yes, I think Walkers is better and Leicester is certainly a bigger city than Derby which probably has something to say regarding hotel rooms etc for which there must be some conditions but again England is so small that matches can be staged anywhere.
Probably 80% (guessing)of the english population live on a 400 K stretch (another guess)between London and Leeds making it not too controversial where matches are staged.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:43 am

Euro 2004 showed the popularity and the fact that Europe will travel to watch their team play.

All of Europe will transcend on the UK. I dont think you will have a problem with empty stadiums...I think ticket demand will be overwelming, all of Englands games should be held at Wembley.

Hiraldo · Post by **Hiraldo** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:14 am

I'm in agreeance with swede here. I don't see much need for England to hold another WC and non-sell outs are quite possible. The country would be a suitable choice for an 'emergency' host however, which may well be needed for 2014 when South America is supposed to hold the tournament.

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:35 am

Egan wrote:Euro 2004 showed the popularity and the fact that Europe will travel to watch their team play.

All of Europe will transcend on the UK. I dont think you will have a problem with empty stadiums...I think ticket demand will be overwelming, all of Englands games should be held at Wembley.

well they havent started travelling yet. A big nation like Spain did not sell-out their EURO 2004 games in neighbouring Portugal. Neither did even bigger Italy and the stadiums were hardly that big.
I am not sure but I dont think any nation apart from Portugal and England sold all the tickets for their matches, possibly Holland.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:36 pm

I was given the impression that 95% of tickets were sold at Euro 2004.

They don't need one, this from the start was a hypothetical situation.

A world Cup in Europe, you will see the amount of supporters from other countries transcending on Germany...are we likely to go Swede, since Germany's only a stones throw away...especially if Denmark get in...which is likely with the form of Pederson the Bolton Striker

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:02 pm

Well England and Portugal played mainly in the bigger stadiums which of course also staged most of the KO matches which I guess makes it possible to sell 95% of tickets and still only get some 20,000+ crowds in 30,000 capacity venues. Crowds were certainly no disaster but you can get a high percentage by filling the big venues all the time.

Denmark brought more fans to the match against Italy than Italy did, which is no surprise as thats the way it is. Surprisingly Denmark didnt quite sell-out which I had anticipated and I would have liked to have gone there.

I think Germany will do well. Very short trip for many countries and they are very focused on keeping prices down. Also more willing than most to attend "events".
I havent actually thought about going. It may be difficult when its so close as allocated tickets will go to "regulars" at internationals which I am not.
(they are played more than 300 K away from me including an expensive bridge-crossing)

Tømrer (Pedersen) doesnt actually play all that much for Denmark, but I am sure we will qualify as we usually do.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:10 pm

Thats the only thing I dislike about Sam Allardyce he doesn't like it when his players go on international duties...hes in the form of his life at the moment...will be a great striker for Denmark if you get into World Cup 2006.

300kms away, only a 4-5 hour journey, thats easy enough...you see JF travelling 700km only to see the Swans play a regular season match in Melbourne

I suppose it will only be another 10 years when another World Cup is held in Europe.

james_ · Post by **james_** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:17 pm

Egan wrote:I suppose it will only be another 10 years when another World Cup is held in Europe.

My money's on Europe in 2018. It's a safe bet. Then after that every 12 years at the least.

You're quite right Egan, I intended for the discussion about venues to be hypothetical.

Whether England should host the World Cup is another question. On that, I'd add that at least when it's played outside England they can limit the hooligan element by barring them entry to the country. If it were held in England, you'd probably have street riots.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:08 pm

they can limit the hooligan element by barring them entry to the country.

Apparently their's no such thing as English hooligans its just a media beat up