Chairman of the Bored Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Launched tomorrow by the FA and according to today's Observer we are one of 14 grounds being lined up to compete for a game (should we win). http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ma...2018-bid-venues
Matt Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Still, some smaller cities and football clubs do see the World Cup as an opportunity to expand or build a new stadium. Derby County's Pride Park, Hull's KC Stadium, Leicester's Walkers Stadium, and stadium:mk in Milton Keynes are all recently built venues whose designs incorporate the possibility of expanding. Nottingham Forest are already planning a new £100m, 50,000-seat stadium next to the Holme Pierrepont national watersports centre, while both Sheffield football clubs are committed to improving their grounds if theirs is chosen as a host city. So obviously subject to expansion of our stadium, Would we pay for the expansion or would F.A? Surely we would get some grant or money thrown our way to expand?
Basingstoke Fox Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 So Bristol City think that they will be getting attendances of 42k in the premiership by 2012 and Forest are getting a 50k capacity stadium. Ok then.
Big Ol' Bob Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Oh Cool so basically all the generic stadiums that are being built everywhere will host them then. KOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL
The Stig Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Notting Forest's stadium plans do make me laugh. 50,000? They quite simply won't fill it, or even come close, unless they get back in the Premier League.
TrickyTrev Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Surely it will be one of Derby, Forrest and Leicester to host Togo V Costa Rica and Iran V Ecuador.
Basingstoke Fox Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Surely it will be one of Derby, Forrest and Leicester to host Togo V Costa Rica and Iran V Ecuador. That would be nice, I'm half iranian
Maybes Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 The World Cup shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Milton Keynes.
Ultra Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 All cities will be required to show they can host fans' parks, with big screens, similar to those that became the big hit of the 2006 World Cup in Germany. That gives us a definite advantage. Victoria Park would be perfect for that.
Tommeh Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 As if the Olympics hasn't cost this country enough. If we put on a world cup tomorrow using: Old Trafford Wembley Emirates Stadium Hillsborough Villa Park Elland Road Anfield Goodison Park Stadium of Light St James' Park Stamford Bridge Eastlands It would be streets ahead of any potential venues mentioned in that link for 2018. If non elite clubs like Bristol City, Pompey, Forest and the ****** want to Jump on the bandwagon and get 2 group games featuring Paraguay, Togo, China and Switzerland then start 2018/19 season with 40% filled grounds then let them. Hoping LCFC arn't too serious about this move.
C-man Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 As if the Olympics hasn't cost this country enough.If we put on a world cup tomorrow using: Old Trafford Wembley Emirates Stadium Hillsborough Villa Park Elland Road Anfield Goodison Park Stadium of Light St James' Park Stamford Bridge Eastlands It would be streets ahead of any potential venues mentioned in that link for 2018. If non elite clubs like Bristol City, Pompey, Forest and the ****** want to Jump on the bandwagon and get 2 group games featuring Paraguay, Togo, China and Switzerland then start 2018/19 season with 40% filled grounds then let them. Hoping LCFC arn't too serious about this move. Apparently Goodison, Elland Road and Hillsborough aren't up to UEFA's standards, but Leicester and St. Marys are. Its a joke.
Koke Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Apparently Goodison, Elland Road and Hillsborough aren't up to UEFA's standards, but Leicester and St. Marys are. Its a joke. Hillsborough is about to fall apart. Nice ground and all that but it needs vast improvements. In terms of facilities both Walkers and St Marys are superior. We just don't have a 40k capacity. I agree with Tommeh. If non-elite clubs like Bristol, Forest and the ****** wants a 40-50k stadium, then by all means be our guest. Once the season starts again their ground will be an embarrassment with only 40% of it full. I just hope we stay well out of this. A 32k ground is good enough for us.
ASH17LCFC Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Apparently Goodison, Elland Road and Hillsborough aren't up to UEFA's standards, but Leicester and St. Marys are. Its a joke. 3 shite grounds, been all 3 and their just big old empty souless grounds. Hillsborough being one of the most boring away days of the season.
Corky Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 I just hope we stay well out of this. A 32k ground is good enough for us. Yes. If they allow us to have a 32k stadium for a group game between Trinidad and Ecuador then we should take it, but if we are required to increase the capacity, it's not worth it really.
Koke Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Yes. If they allow us to have a 32k stadium for a group game between Trinidad and Ecuador then we should take it, but if we are required to increase the capacity, it's not worth it really. Many grounds at Euro 2008 had around 30k capacity as well. I can't see a huge demand for a group game between Trinidad and Ecuador so our ground should be good enough The infrastructure and facilities at the Walkers are top notch, and location wise it can't get much better than Leicester.
Ultra Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Apparently Goodison, Elland Road and Hillsborough aren't up to UEFA's standards, but Leicester and St. Marys are. Its a joke. I can think of 96 reasons why Hillsborough shouldn't get a look-in. It would be like defiling the graves of those who were killed. Bramall Lane or Don Valley would be better venues.
Tommeh Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Apparently Goodison, Elland Road and Hillsborough aren't up to UEFA's standards, but Leicester and St. Marys are. Its a joke. Yeah not surprised by that to be honest mate. Those 3 grounds are what football in this country should be about not the Wembleys, SOL and Emirates and the lesser versions such as Ours, Pride Park, Soton and the even smaller ones now coming into play such as Doncaster, Dons and Colchester.
Corky Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 I can think of 96 reasons why Hillsborough shouldn't get a look-in. It would be like defiling the graves of those who were killed.Bramall Lane or Don Valley would be better venues. But it was a venue for Euro 96 though
purpleronnie Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 I can think of 96 reasons why Hillsborough shouldn't get a look-in. It would be like defiling the graves of those who were killed. eh?
Sparky Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 Yeah not surprised by that to be honest mate.Those 3 grounds are what football in this country should be about not the Wembleys, SOL and Emirates and the lesser versions such as Ours, Pride Park, Soton and the even smaller ones now coming into play such as Doncaster, Dons and Colchester. Agree with that fully , only thing i would say is that for International events like World Cups the atmosphere will be amazing in whatever stadia you put the games in. Not fussed if Walkers involved but im desperate for us to get it , Euro 96 had such a massive effect on the public and im convinced the World Cup would be 3 times as good . We would put on a cracking show.
Ultra Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 But it was a venue for Euro 96 though Indeed it was, which did the FA no credit whatsoever. But a lot of other grounds have been built or expanded since then.
jonno24 Posted 17 May 2009 Posted 17 May 2009 I read somewhere that if the walkers was extended to full capacity it would be able to hold 50,000 people is this correct ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.