shen Posted 21 June 2009 Posted 21 June 2009 Quite a good post Chandler, but if Russia get 2018, 2022 won't go to Portugal/Spain as it won't be Europes' turn. I don't know how that works now, as it wil be outside Europe for the next two World Cups, so possibly the cycle has been broken...?
Ultra Posted 22 June 2009 Posted 22 June 2009 Good luck to the Walker's Stadium. But it's all academic I think. Very few people outside England think that you have a chance for 2018 or even 2022. That's because:(1) FIFA (Blatter and Platini in particular) hate the FA and the EPL. Platini's UEFA so will have little to do with it. FIFA will go with whatever will make the most money for them. The strength of the English fanbase, and the corporate facilities on offer, will count in our favour. (2) Not only is the quality of your stadia extremely low (only two newbuilds with qualifying capacities in the EPL) virtually all English pundits are confused about what constitutes a good stadium (eg a refurbished breakers yard with a Champions League team). Just look at what South Africa have got and that's a poor country. Actually, I think you'll find it's three - Arsenal, Man City and Sunderland. And as we see UEFA finals on a regular basis, I suspect we're not the only ones "confused". (3) The EPL is the most indebted league in the world and has too many foreign owners whose allegiances lie elsewhere and who are cool towards the FA. Unless clubs get state assistance I cannot see them refurbishing or buidling anew just for the tournament. A fair point, though given the revenue the tournament could generate for the UK economy, I don't think the state would mind forking out. (4) You have an unpopular government using the bid for its own purposes (admittedly it is not alone in this regard) I think there could be some associated with the England bid who will not pull their weight as they will not want to hand Gordon Brown a propaganda triumph. The main opposition parties are fully behind the bid, and would not wish to do anything that might be viewed as undermining it, especially in the run-up to a general election. (5) English fans, particularly fans of the national team, are still perceived to be violent. Whether that is actually true or not is immaterial - your reputation goes before you. But even those dissenting from this view might have to conclude that a tournament in England would be a magnet for every hoodlum in Europe. The same was said about Germany 06 and turned out to be a massive exaggeration. In any event, SA is one of the most violent countries on earth and still got the tournamemt. My tip for 2018 is Russia. If Australia had gone for 2022 only I think they would have got it but they have weakened their case by going for both. Still Blatter seems to like them so it's between the Antipodeans and Portugal/Spain. I don't think the Russian mafia's writ runs that large. Moscow and St Petersburg might have the infrastructure in place, but none of the other cities would do.
Leicester Rule! Posted 22 June 2009 Posted 22 June 2009 Platini's UEFA so will have little to do with it. FIFA will go with whatever will make the most money for them. The strength of the English fanbase, and the corporate facilities on offer, will count in our favour.Actually, I think you'll find it's three - Arsenal, Man City and Sunderland. And as we see UEFA finals on a regular basis, I suspect we're not the only ones "confused". A fair point, though given the revenue the tournament could generate for the UK economy, I don't think the state would mind forking out. The main opposition parties are fully behind the bid, and would not wish to do anything that might be viewed as undermining it, especially in the run-up to a general election. The same was said about Germany 06 and turned out to be a massive exaggeration. In any event, SA is one of the most violent countries on earth and still got the tournamemt. I don't think the Russian mafia's writ runs that large. Moscow and St Petersburg might have the infrastructure in place, but none of the other cities would do. Couldn't have put it better myself .........
Radovan's Caravan Posted 23 June 2009 Posted 23 June 2009 Platini's UEFA so will have little to do with it. FIFA will go with whatever will make the most money for them. The strength of the English fanbase, and the corporate facilities on offer, will count in our favour.Touche on Platini. Blatter will go wherever there's money for him and his cronies if you get my meaning. There is an eerie parallel between the uneasy relationship subsisting between FIFA and the FA and the FIA and the BRDC. In the latter case the BRDC at least have a very powerful ally in FOTA (who despise the FIA for taking 50% of F1 earnings) in keeping the British Grand Prix. Your fans are your achilles heel. As for hospitality, putting it diplomatically, outside the M25 the standards in catering and accommodation are mixed (as they are in many of the other bidding countries). Actually, I think you'll find it's three - Arsenal, Man City and Sunderland. And as we see UEFA finals on a regular basis, I suspect we're not the only ones "confused". Remiss of me not to include 'The Stadium of Light' (they stole the name from Benfica you know). The only stadia outside 'the Old' Wembley to have hosted UEFA Finals are Villa Park (1999 Cup Winners Cup) Old Trafford (2003 Champions League) and Eastlands (UEFA Cup 2008). All three finals would have gone to old/new Wembley but in 1999 Wembley was tabled for demolition (this was overturned to allow you and not Spurs to win the last League Cup Final held there ) in 2003 it was just a hole in the ground and in 2008 Wembley/FA waived its UEFA Cup option to secure an 'early' Champions League Final. UEFA Finals are awarded to national FA's who then select a domestic venue. A UEFA Final is a one off event for a single venue. The World Cup is 64 events at multiple venues. In the case of the latter you would need around 15 other stadia at least as good as, say, Eastlands and nearly half of those would be expected to have capacities in excess of 50,000 (only three club stadia in England can hold more than that, he said checking carefully). Japan, Germany and South Africa have/will set standards that England just cannot meet. A fair point, though given the revenue the tournament could generate for the UK economy, I don't think the state would mind forking out. You gotta be kidding me! Your government is faced with making some very tough choices about public expenditure for the next decade. You already have an enormous budgetary black hole created by the Olympics (I find it interesting that no one has mooted deferring the reduction of the the Olympic stadium's capacity from 80, 000 to 25,000 and using it as a World Cup venue) and no administration would want to chuck another billion or two into it. The main opposition parties are fully behind the bid, and would not wish to do anything that might be viewed as undermining it, especially in the run-up to a general election. I wasn't referring to the political opposition (and, even if I were, there is often a chasm between public rhetoric and private intent - and that goes for the ruling party too). I was referring to those agencies vital for canvassing and creating awareness - like the media. My impression so far is that your spin machine has gone into reverse on this. The same was said about Germany 06 and turned out to be a massive exaggeration. In any event, SA is one of the most violent countries on earth and still got the tournamemt. South Africa got the World Cup for political, not sporting, reasons (so far during the Confederations Cup, I have heard Nelson Mandela's 'iconic moment' of handing the Rugby World Cup to South Africa at Ellis Park in 1995 mentioned three times - and we've not even reached the semi finals). It was the FA alone who hyped up the prospect of trouble in Germany (after welching on reciprocating the Germans' support for the FA's Euro '96 bid). England is widely regarded as the mother of football hooliganism. It is also seen increasingly as a country that is complacent about drink fuelled violence. I don't think the Russian mafia's writ runs that large. Moscow and St Petersburg might have the infrastructure in place, but none of the other cities would do. You're right, it doesn't. But the English mafia's does (and it aint backing the FA) FIFA - A MERE SHELL THAT IS NOT BEYOND PERSUASION I sense very strongly that 2018 is already a done deal and it isn't England. The lukewarm response of your media, the deafening silence from the EPL, this aburd city competition (containing candidate cities that have no existing facilities) due to be judged within days of the FIFA announcement and FIFA's 'advice' to Australia to focus on 2022 suggest very strongly that the FA knows this and are simply going through the motions. One more thing that has got some international observers' backs up is the perception that the FA's bid is partly borne out of their frustration with the lack of success of the national team. You weaken your lacklustre pitch by banging on about emerging talent that will be ready for 2018. Bidding for the World Cup with the intention of securing both home and probably a competitive advantage (not having to qualify) for a mediocre team could be viewed as cynical. In any case, the measures required to secure World Cup victory would screw up your public finances till 2118 .
Ultra Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 Bidding for the World Cup with the intention of securing both home and probably a competitive advantage (not having to qualify) for a mediocre team could be viewed as cynical. But wouldn't that equally apply (if not more so) to the Russians? The perceived lack of enthusiasm among the national media is probably a blessing. The jingoism of the tabloids would have done the bid far more harm than good.
Ultra Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 A new site has been launched - Back Leicester's Bid. And Gary Lineker is now on board.
BlueSi13 Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 I'd hardly call the English stadia poor quality... Exactly, didn't Franz Beckenbaur say that England boasted the best fans, stadiums and history in order to win the World Cup for 2018? In regards to our bid, just saw the piece on East Midlands today and not once was there a mention of what we will do in order to bring the world cup to Leicester in regards to stadium expansion, development of the surrounding area etc. IMO to beat Nottingham we need to extend the stadium to its maximum capacity of 55,000, develop the surrounding area from its current state of a lifeless wasteland to a green and pleasant place fit to hold fan parks and big screens, improve transport links to the stadium, massively increase hotel space and generally spend much more on development on the dire parts of town..... City wise, i believe Mandaric would have to spend at least 40million in order to bring the club upto a standard fit to host the worlds biggest sporting event, god knows how much the council will have to spend..... In essence, i think we are living in dreamland, Nottingham is sadly way ahead of us as a city and i simply can't see Mandaric or the council spending the sort of money needed, in fact i don't actually think they have a clue what needs to be done...
leicesterseddon Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 Exactly, didn't Franz Beckenbaur say that England boasted the best fans, stadiums and history in order to win the World Cup for 2018? In regards to our bid, just saw the piece on East Midlands today and not once was there a mention of what we will do in order to bring the world cup to Leicester in regards to stadium expansion, development of the surrounding area etc. IMO to beat Nottingham we need to extend the stadium to its maximum capacity of 55,000, develop the surrounding area from its current state of a lifeless wasteland to a green and pleasant place fit to hold fan parks and big screens, improve transport links to the stadium, massively increase hotel space and generally spend much more on development on the dire parts of town..... City wise, i believe Mandaric would have to spend at least 40million in order to bring the club upto a standard fit to host the worlds biggest sporting event, god knows how much the council will have to spend..... In essence, i think we are living in dreamland, Nottingham is sadly way ahead of us as a city and i simply can't see Mandaric or the council spending the sort of money needed, in fact i don't actually think they have a clue what needs to be done... I agree with most of that, although I can't see how a 55,000 capacity stadium would be necessary. I think one East Midlands city will be chosen - and neither us, Forest nor Derby need a stadium of that size. FIFA specified a minimum nett capacity (excluding segregation, media seats, etc.) of 40,000 to be included in a bid book, and I think anything around that number would probably be good enough - the stadium will probably only host an unappetising group game anyway. There are currently no stadiums of over 45,000 anyway in Yorks & Humber, West Midlands, the South West, East and South East (exld. London). Nottingham would get it over Leicester in terms of infrastructure, hotel capacity, etc. - but only stands a chance if Forest commit to building a new stadium before this December (which, in turn, would only get built if Nottingham were included in the bid). I just can't see it happening though; I also can't see why they think they need a stadium of such size, seeing as their average gate last season was only just over 22,000. So far there have been ideas mooted about a new ground, a location has been specified (which seems to change every month) and some amateurish artists' impressions have appeared, but that's about it. I mean where on earth are they going to find the money anyway? There aren't even any concrete plans yet. To be honest, I think it's more likely that they won't find the money, realise they don't need a new ground anyway and give up on the idea before December. If anything, it's Leicester's to lose. The only sticking point is, will someone commit the money for a ground expansion?
BlueSi13 Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 I agree with most of that, although I can't see how a 55,000 capacity stadium would be necessary. I think one East Midlands city will be chosen - and neither us, Forest nor Derby need a stadium of that size. FIFA specified a minimum nett capacity (excluding segregation, media seats, etc.) of 40,000 to be included in a bid book, and I think anything around that number would probably be good enough - the stadium will probably only host an unappetising group game anyway. There are currently no stadiums of over 45,000 anyway in Yorks & Humber, West Midlands, the South West, East and South East (exld. London).Nottingham would get it over Leicester in terms of infrastructure, hotel capacity, etc. - but only stands a chance if Forest commit to building a new stadium before this December (which, in turn, would only get built if Nottingham were included in the bid). I just can't see it happening though; I also can't see why they think they need a stadium of such size, seeing as their average gate last season was only just over 22,000. So far there have been ideas mooted about a new ground, a location has been specified (which seems to change every month) and some amateurish artists' impressions have appeared, but that's about it. I mean where on earth are they going to find the money anyway? There aren't even any concrete plans yet. To be honest, I think it's more likely that they won't find the money, realise they don't need a new ground anyway and give up on the idea before December. If anything, it's Leicester's to lose. The only sticking point is, will someone commit the money for a ground expansion? I'll be honest, i'd LOVE us to have a 55,000 seater beast!! however 45,000 would be far more realistic, though im sure the club and council will try and do things as cheaply as possible, so probs see plans for a 40,000 seater with no improvements to the surroundings, transport, hotels or general beautification of the city.... The council will probably believe the new highcross will be enough to bring the world to Leicester!! As for Forest i agree the new stadium is highly unlikely but i do think we'd struggle to compete with a improved City Ground of say 45,000, i really don't think Leicester would have anything to compete with Nottingham then if that were to happen.....unless we go back to the 55,000 seater monster and beat them with sheer size!! Though i'm sure Derby will be realising the same thing aswell....
The Doctor Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 I'll be honest, i'd LOVE us to have a 55,000 seater beast!! however 45,000 would be far more realistic, though im sure the club and council will try and do things as cheaply as possible, so probs see plans for a 40,000 seater with no improvements to the surroundings, transport, hotels or general beautification of the city....The council will probably believe the new highcross will be enough to bring the world to Leicester!! As for Forest i agree the new stadium is highly unlikely but i do think we'd struggle to compete with a improved City Ground of say 45,000, i really don't think Leicester would have anything to compete with Nottingham then if that were to happen.....unless we go back to the 55,000 seater monster and beat them with sheer size!! Though i'm sure Derby will be realising the same thing aswell.... Nah theyre too busy debating with the welsh as to who the real sheep shaggers are.
Webbo Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 I'll be honest, i'd LOVE us to have a 55,000 seater beast!! however 45,000 would be far more realistic, though im sure the club and council will try and do things as cheaply as possible, so probs see plans for a 40,000 seater with no improvements to the surroundings, transport, hotels or general beautification of the city.... There is only capacity to expand the stadium to 40,000.
Finchy Posted 24 June 2009 Posted 24 June 2009 There is only capacity to expand the stadium to 40,000. Nah it can go to 55,000 but Mandaric has apparently said that's only if we become a regular top 6 Premiership club haha
Radovan's Caravan Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 I'd hardly call the English stadia poor quality... 'Quality'is both a subjective and relative term. Most English football fans would consider Old Trafford to be a great stadium because it is big and the home of the world's most indebted team. That is not the view of The Miller Partnership. Don't know them? I didn't think you would. They only designed your nice stadium (and kindly sent me a magazine about how they did it and asked me if I wanted one too). Too many of your stadia are botched refurbishments (St James' Park is widely regarded as the worst by construction specialists). And too many of you regard cattle sheds, mizzen huts and chicken runs as atmospheric. If it's rambling higgledy piggledy structures you're after buy yourslef a Norman Castle. Elland Road just before it was refurbished in 1066 The long and the short of it is that you don't have enough newbuilds with 40,000+ capacities. Japan had them, Germany had them and South Africa (probably) will have them. Russia will have them because the Russian government will pour in the necessary funds. Yours won't. Russia may indeed be conniving at a short cut to World Cup victory in bidding for 2018. But remember neither they nor any other Eastern European country has even hosted the Euro finals before let alone the World Cup. As for 'The Kaiser', he is all things to all men. Franz Bechenbauer sporting his 1918 World Cup losers' medals.
lcfc_jme Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 Meh. Can't say I'm fussed by whether or not we get the World Cup. Though I had a "friend" gloating that someone said on the news they want the World Cup to come to Leicester because they finally want to see good teams playing at the Walkers. It stung, honest.
lavrentis Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 Meh. Can't say I'm fussed by whether or not we get the World Cup. Though I had a "friend" gloating that someone said on the news they want the World Cup to come to Leicester because they finally want to see good teams playing at the Walkers. It stung, honest. I hope you recover from your tragic ordeal.
lcfc_jme Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 I hope you recover from your tragic ordeal. Hmmm. Not sure I will, to be fair. It was a Man United "fan".. Which was echoed in laughter by a Newcastle fan. Irony, eh.
Fox You Forest Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 Meh. Can't say I'm fussed by whether or not we get the World Cup. Though I had a "friend" gloating that someone said on the news they want the World Cup to come to Leicester because they finally want to see good teams playing at the Walkers. It stung, honest. I saw it, was an 8/9 year old kid that said it.
C-man Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 How disappointed will they be when it turns out we get to host North Korea vs Haiti.
Anish Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 The whole argument that all WC stadia have to be newbuild and meet certain structural requirements etc is a load of bollocks. English stadia may be old (Anfield, St. James', Old Trafford etc) but they have hosted top flight Premiership and European matches for a number of years without any problem. We're not going to suddenly squeeze 100,000 into Old Trafford or 60,000 into Anfield for a World Cup match when the capacity is far less than that. What's the point in building new stadia for the purpose of a World Cup when the existing stadia are more than sufficient for the job? Yes, we will need to improve infrastructure (transport, hotels and accommodation) but seriously, anybody who says that the English stadia are not up to World Cup standard don't have a leg to stand on. Wembley, Old Trafford and The City of Manchester Stadium have all hosted European cup finals and the likes of the Emirates, Anfield and even The Stadium of Light are good enough for top European and international matches. Look at World Cup 2006 in Germany - the final was held in the Olympic Stadium, Berlin - a stadium which was designed for the 1936 Olympics!!
The Doctor Posted 25 June 2009 Posted 25 June 2009 How disappointed will they be when it turns out we get to host North Korea vs Haiti. Or North Korea V Iran, both of whom are in the USA's group the americans would be absolutely shitting themselves
Radovan's Caravan Posted 26 June 2009 Posted 26 June 2009 The whole argument that all WC stadia have to be newbuild and meet certain structural requirements etc is a load of bollocks. English stadia may be old (Anfield, St. James', Old Trafford etc) but they have hosted top flight Premiership and European matches for a number of years without any problem. We're not going to suddenly squeeze 100,000 into Old Trafford or 60,000 into Anfield for a World Cup match when the capacity is far less than that. What's the point in building new stadia for the purpose of a World Cup when the existing stadia are more than sufficient for the job? Yes, we will need to improve infrastructure (transport, hotels and accommodation) but seriously, anybody who says that the English stadia are not up to World Cup standard don't have a leg to stand on. Wembley, Old Trafford and The City of Manchester Stadium have all hosted European cup finals and the likes of the Emirates, Anfield and even The Stadium of Light are good enough for top European and international matches. Look at World Cup 2006 in Germany - the final was held in the Olympic Stadium, Berlin - a stadium which was designed for the 1936 Olympics!! Before & after shots of the Olympiastadion available for inspection below... Things have changed a little since 1966 my friend. World Cup bidding has moved away from a quiet chat in a Zurich club bar to a year round global junket. It is now virtually indistinguishable from the tendering process of that corrupt sporting drugfest that used to be called the Olympic Games. Every four years the stakes get higher and higher. If you want a World Cup now your government has to pick up the tab for it and build ten new cities. Except in South Africa's case. The ANC were lent/given the the money. They, in the finest philanthropic tradition, trousered it and emotionally blackmailed FIFA for more by dragging Nelson Mandela out of bed at 3.00AM every morning to croon Blather to sleep with 'Nkosi Sikilele Africa.' Proposed brand new stadiums became refurbishments and refurbishments became 'Goodisons'. Efficient Nazi stewarding ensured all World Cup Final ticket holders were seated 70 years before kick off The Olympiastadion empties after the air raid siren sounds - Lancasters' just visible top left
Guest Bilo Posted 26 June 2009 Posted 26 June 2009 How disappointed will they be when it turns out we get to host North Korea vs Haiti. I remember when England hosted the Rugby World Cup and the only game Welford Road got to host was Italy v Tonga. That was disappointing.
Anish Posted 26 June 2009 Posted 26 June 2009 Before & after shots of the Olympiastadion available for inspection below... I know what the Olympiastadion looks like - I was there just 2 months ago! I still don't think that anyone can question the quality of stadia in England - there's been so many new stadia built in the last 10-15 years so the whole argument that the FA (if England's bid is successful) would have to build 10 new stadia specifically for the World Cup seems a bit ridiculous. Why are the likes of Anfield, St. James Park, Old Trafford etc good enough for Premiership and European competition yet not good enough for the World Cup? Vague arguments like engineering and structures don't hold with me I'm afraid.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.