RedHux Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 They probably need one or two that are easily ditchable by FIFA, thus making Plymouth and another just canon fodder.
Fosse Boy Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Don't know if anybody saw the press conference but Lord Mawhinny - what a world class twazzock. Answered every question in an aggressive, dismissive manner and refused to answer any of them properly.Why the fook do they need 2 stadia serving the rugby hotbed that is the south west? There can't be more than 3 million people living within an hour's drive of Bristol and or Plymouth, and yet there are 2 stadia there? Just watched him. The bloke's a corrupt wrong'un and he knows it.
C-man Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Hope we still get the World Cup and I'll be joining the England Supporters Club every year now so that I can get tickets for the games at Wembley, but I'm still disappointed that Leicester didn't get it. How they can justify giving it to Nottingham who haven't even got planning permission for a stadium and giving it to clubs like Plymouth Argyle is beyond me. Milton Keynes is also a surprise I thought it'd be considered too close to London. Nevermind, at least we won't have to play games with a whole stand closed in the future.
Madrid_Fox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 To get a few things straight here. 1. It was unlikely from the onset that two East Midlands cities woould be chosen as host city's 2. I would have prefered Derby to have got a bid rather than Plymouth or MK 3. If we don't get the bid for 2018 its sangria and san miguel over at my place in Madrid City Centre (Now thats a city that shits on every city)
Fosse Boy Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Why Edgar Street was overlooked I'll never know.
Tommeh Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Also realised the Best, most atmsopheric ground in the UK isn't there. Or do Wales not play any part in this bid? Roots Hall is also 10 times any ground submitted.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Why the fook do they need 2 stadia serving the rugby hotbed that is the south west? There can't be more than 3 million people living within an hour's drive of Bristol and or Plymouth, and yet there are 2 stadia there? Nearly 5 million people live in the south west actually mate. Compare that with 2 1/2 million in the north east (which also had two cities selected) and I think you're holding your map upside down when you construct your shit know-nothing arguments.
nuneatonfox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Its Upsetting you would have thought a city of Leicester. With the university's Leicester got. I mean the FA have picked 4 grounds that have not been bulit. Anyway we won't get it because Fifa would look at the stadiums we've pick & laugh & they'd assume we not taking it seroiusly at all. Another thing is MK Dons no history just cheats who took the club from Wimbledon. As the Fa love Milton Keynes as from that point is the north. Who Fa hate. I've noticed that there's not many midlands clubs been selected like there's only Villa & Forest. Felt sorry for Derby as the history they've got.
Finnegan Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 We most likely haven't been selected BECAUSE of Nottingham and Birmingham, they're supposed to spread it around.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Its Upsetting you would have thought a city of Leicester. With the university's Leicester got. The uni is ranked about 18th in the country and what the cock has that got to with it anyway?! You think we should of hosted it on the lawns of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham?
Madrid_Fox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 The problem lies with the fact that they have attempted to make the bid as geographically varied as possible, with some obvious exceptions like the north east. I feel that the cities that should have been selected should have been based on the quality of stadiums, rather than going with this PC geographic diversity crap. The Spain/Portugal bid will not have that problem
Fosse Boy Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 The uni is ranked about 18th in the country and what the cock has that got to with it anyway?! You think we should of hosted it on the lawns of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham? Was gonna say.
Guest ttfn Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Nearly 5 million people live in the south west actually mate. Compare that with 2 1/2 million in the north east (which also had two cities selected) and I think you're holding your map upside down when you construct your shit know-nothing arguments. Keep your pants on. Sorry, so I was out by what is really not a very large amount. 2 million in a population (England) of about 50 million. Plus, I don't even know where to start with the size of the region. In terms of its population density it is very low. I still reckon that only 3 million live within an hour's drive of either. Just because there are too many stadia in the north east it doesn't mean there aren't too many in the south west. Why we even need 12 stadia in the first place is beyond me.
eleven points Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 point is people in the norst east give more of a toss about football than those in the south west.
CosbehFox Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 We most likely haven't been selected BECAUSE of Nottingham and Birmingham, they're supposed to spread it around. The fella at the conference said this wasn't the case. They have shot themselves in the foot by having 3 grounds in London and 2 in Manchester FIFA will not like that. Anyways here's my 12 grounds; Saltergate - Chesterfield Roots Hall - Southend United Edgar Street - Hereford United Christie Park - Morecambe Spotland - Rochdale Victoria Ground - Dagenham & Redbridge Whaddon Road - Cheltenham Town Underhill - Barnet St James Park - Exeter City Moss Rose - Macclesfield Town Bootham Crescent - York City Topps Park - Oadby Town
eleven points Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 I'd love to see a massive 42K new bowl stadium in Oadby
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 point is people in the norst east give more of a toss about football than those in the south west. Hardly. Look at this bird from Exeter. She eats, sleeps and shits football. It's like oxygen to her. Look at this little fvcker. He would quite literally curl up and die without his beloved Torquay United.
eleven points Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Yes and we both know there are more of them in the north east hence the size of the stadiums and clubs up there, and why nobody has a problem with Sunderland and Newcastle being host cities but do have a problem with Plymouth and Bristol being host cities.
Webbo Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Yes and we both know there are more of them in the north east hence the size of the stadiums and clubs up there, and why nobody has a problem with Sunderland and Newcastle being host cities but do have a problem with Plymouth and Bristol being host cities. I don't have a problem with Bristol holding games. Bristol's a large city and the people down there deserve a chance to see the world cup. I don't have a problem with Plymouth but a 45,000 seater stadium there will just be a white elephant. It's a shame that we can't/don't include Cardiff as part of the bid for that region. I don't see why we'd have to make it a joint bid just because we're using a Welsh stadium.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Yes and we both know there are more of them in the north east hence the size of the stadiums and clubs up there, and why nobody has a problem with Sunderland and Newcastle being host cities but do have a problem with Plymouth and Bristol being host cities. Yes, but that's to do with years of subsistence agricultural farming and inbreeding whilst the North East thrived on shipbuilding and newkie brown. I expect to see a reversal of these trends in the next 35-40 years.
Head Honcho Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 England ain't getting it anyway so who cares?
CupidStunt Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Why Edgar Street was overlooked I'll never know. I was browsing through this thread,and seen the word edgar and thought the dutch apple tart was coming to leic after all On topic, Englands bid not to include Leicester or derby for that matter,and have mk dons instead = A Joke
Part Of The Crowd Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 If the country I live in's going to host a World Cup and I have a problem with the corrupt cretins like Brian Mawhinney who are running the bid, I'll get worked up about it if I feel like it, OK?Oh, and it's not just all about you and MK ****** y'know, I have other problems with the bid too. The lack of foresight shown in the selection of host cities and the impact that this bid (if successful) would have on the English game doesn't bear thinking about. Clubs like Plymouth would never be able to sustain an unnecessarily gigantic stadium with such a small fanbase. I have F*rest mates who are deeply unhappy at the news that they'll have to move in to a horrid bowl now too if successful. If England is awarded the World Cup, then the self serving suits who somehow find themselves running football will inevitably get rich off the back of it, while the cities and clubs that they profess will benefit from host status will reap no long term rewards once the international media circus has disappeared and they find themsleves lumped with huge white elephants of stadiums, and the accompanying massive cost required to maintain them. Is the death of English club football really a reasonable sacrifice for four weeks of Summer 2018? Hope you're right. This is a massive overreaction when most likely England will not even get the bid. The clubs who put themselves forward have invested a lot of money to come up with a viable bid that will bring money to the area without damaging the clubs, if they thought that it was going to kill them then they would hardly risk it in this financial climate. Having a larger stadium will hardly make the clubs go bust though, they will be government funded and if sections are not being used then they will simply close them off, E.G Second tier at Plymouth and Second/third tier with us. The reason I concentrate on Dons is because they are the team I have an affiliation with and therefore know more about. I am also genuinely happy we were selected. I don't think it's all about us. The Forest fans while obviously aprehensive about moving stadium will unfortunately have to at some stage, whether it is now or in 20 years. I like their ground as I do most old fashioned grounds and non bowl stadia (I myself am this week mourning the National Hockey Stadium, may of been a shithole but it was our shithole and I liked it there). All in all, Milton Keynes, Nottingham Forest and Plymouth being put forward as having the potential to host the World Cup is hardly going to kill football.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.