Daggers Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 How can they have Mk and Nottingham over us? Because Nottingham, as a city, pisses on Leicester and, whether you like it or not, the club has a better heritage. And MK - far better infrastructure than City. Any of you grumpy about this need to remember Leicester have just dodged a financial bullet too. And none of you will be able to get a ticket anyway. Fuck the World Cup.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 I for one am really upset that these games that I can't afford, won't be able to get a ticket for and aren't really interested in anyway aren't happening PRACTICALLY on my doorstep. Perhaps this means we'll get a Status Quo concert instead
eleven points Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 I for one am pretty gutted we've not got it. Imagine if we got one of the African nations playing in Leicester, even if you couldn't get a ticket, it would of been awesome watching them in Vicky park on the big screens. The influx of some foreign fans into the city would of been quality.
Ultra Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Once again, the FA have let this country down big-time. Gut-wrenching though today's decision was, at least we now know how the rest of the bid venues are going to feel next year when England gets overlooked - and deservedly so. There is no credible justification whatsoever for favouring Franchise over us, Derby, Sheffield United or Everton. The four clubs have over 500 years of history between us - Franchise has just SIX. With five of the stadia selected not even built, the bid no longer has sufficient international credibility. Spain and Portugal already have both the stadia and the infrastructure in place, as does the USA. It's only a matter of time before the likes of Mawhinney, Winkelmann and Ken Bates discover they'll be way out of their depth at international level. No amount of hype or spin can save England's bid - it now lies dead in the water.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Once again, the FA have let this country down big-time.Gut-wrenching though today's decision was, at least we now know how the rest of the bid venues are going to feel next year when England gets overlooked - and deservedly so. There is no credible justification whatsoever for favouring Franchise over us, Derby, Sheffield United or Everton. The four clubs have over 500 years of history between us - Franchise has just SIX. With five of the stadia selected not even built, the bid no longer has sufficient international credibility. Spain and Portugal already have both the stadia and the infrastructure in place, as does the USA. It's only a matter of time before the likes of Mawhinney, Winkelmann and Ken Bates discover they'll be way out of their depth at international level. No amount of hype or spin can save England's bid - it now lies dead in the water. Bollocks. Plenty of countries have won the world cup on the promise of fvck loads of new stadiums. Think 7 out of the 10 being used in South Africa didn't exist when they made their bid. I don't even care if England win it but it's in no way doomed. We're still the favourite with the majority of bookmakers, here and abroad. Fact is, we've got a horrible identikit stadium done on the cheap and some shocking infrastructur. It was going to take a decent campaign to win it and they didn't do that. They fvcked it up. Simple.
Guest Bilo Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 There have been a lot of noises about taking it to a whole new market for 2018. Australia would be my bet.
Guest Bilo Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 Bollocks. Plenty of countries have won the world cup on the promise of fvck loads of new stadiums. Think 7 out of the 10 being used in South Africa didn't exist when they made their bid. I don't even care if England win it but it's in no way doomed. We're still the favourite with the majority of bookmakers, here and abroad. Fact is, we've got a horrible identikit stadium done on the cheap and some shocking infrastructur. It was going to take a decent campaign to win it and they didn't do that. They fvcked it up. Simple. To be fair, FIFA decided some time ago that Africa would get a World Cup no matter what. The only time South Africa had any proper competition was for the 2006 World Cup, which they promptly lost to an already established nation with stadia in place. They may as well have been unopposed for 2010 when up against Morocco and Libya. They'll go for somewhere that already has the stadia and infrastucture in place this time round, either Spain/Portugal or Australia, which has some awesome rugby stadia that could be quickly converted. Same with US football stadia. One of the main reasons why England is fave with the bookies is the same reason why England are fourth faves to win the thing next year, the patriotic punt is particularly huge among England fans betting as much in hope as expectation. Reading between the lines of what has been said by FIFA about England's bid, we're an outsider.
Shrenchel Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 To be fair, FIFA decided some time ago that Africa would get a World Cup no matter what. The only time South Africa had any proper competition was for the 2006 World Cup, which they promptly lost to an already established nation with stadia in place. They may as well have been unopposed for 2010 when up against Morocco and Libya. They'll go for somewhere that already has the stadia and infrastucture in place this time round, either Spain/Portugal or Australia, which has some awesome rugby stadia that could be quickly converted. Same with US football stadia. One of the main reasons why England is fave with the bookies is the same reason why England are fourth faves to win the thing next year, the patriotic punt is particularly huge among England fans betting as much in hope as expectation. Reading between the lines of what has been said by FIFA about England's bid, we're an outsider. I think you're winging this argument mate. I don't see how you can say they'll go for somewhere that's already got all the stadia in place. Japan & South Korea had only one of the 10 stadiums used built when they made their bid for 2002. Germany put in a bid with 6 stadiums not built yet for 2006 and won. Even if they did want a bid with everything in place, I don't see how that nails on Australia?! I swear I read their bid included a considerable amount of building as well.
Plymouth Pete Posted 16 December 2009 Posted 16 December 2009 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. Who do you think built the ships that fought the Spanish Armada, Plymouth has been shipbuilding since the start of recorded history and has the largest dockyard in Western Europe, where nuclear submarines are refitted. There are also Yacht and Trawler building yards.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Who do you think built the ships that fought the Spanish Armada, Plymouth has been shipbuilding since the start of recorded history and has the largest dockyard in Western Europe, where nuclear submarines are refitted. There are also Yacht and Trawler building yards. We've never built a submarine in Leicester. I'll give you that
Guest Bilo Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 I think you're winging this argument mate. I don't see how you can say they'll go for somewhere that's already got all the stadia in place. Japan & South Korea had only one of the 10 stadiums used built when they made their bid for 2002. Germany put in a bid with 6 stadiums not built yet for 2006 and won. Even if they did want a bid with everything in place, I don't see how that nails on Australia?! I swear I read their bid included a considerable amount of building as well. What I mean is that FIFA like to take the WC to 'new markets'. Constantly switching between European and South American nations in terms of hosts, as they did before the 1990s, wasn't helping with that. They decided it needed to go to Asia at some point, so Japan & South Korea got the nod. They decided that Africa was an untapped market, so South Africa will be hosts next year. Australia is the only major area of the world yet to host one as North, Central & South America have, Asia have and as of next year, Africa will have done. FIFA may well feel it's Australia's 'turn' and I would be amazed if they didn't host 2018 or 2022, leaving the other one to go a nation with grounds already in place or properly planned (i.e. Spain/Portugal) Bids that rely on a lot of new stadium building will probably need to be checked in terms of viability too. Germany and Japan/South Korea worked out. Their plans were well laid out, properly funded and organised. Lots of shiny new grounds was the promise and they delivered. Then came the flipside. South Africa had FIFA sweating like Gary Glitter at a Brownies meeting over building delays and Ukraine are doing the same to UEFA over their hosting of Euro 2012. They may well look at England and think us unreliable, given the almighty balls-up that was Wembley would you trust us to build FIVE new grounds on budget and on time? I sure as shit wouldn't. You know at least one of the grounds will encounter delays, local council disputes, funding problems and some other problem. Plymouth - Will struggle to find money and justification for such a ground. Where will they be in 2018? Poorly supported by fans of the club. Mlton Keynes - As above but with no football pedigree. Nottingham - Long-running dispute between club and council will at best delay the building of the new ground, at worst kill it off altogether. Liverpool - Financial problems and disputes between co-owners mean we don't even have a date for start of work. Those are four potential crises from the top of my head, and two of those are existing stadia that just need expanding. The bid is screwed. No doubt about it.
Daggers Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Once again, the FA have let this country down big-time.No amount of hype or spin can save England's bid - it now lies dead in the water. *I was going to post stuff but...*
ozleicester Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 To be honest, i think its for the best, the cost to the city would be enormous and the benefits much less. The traffic and disruption would have been huge, and then youre left with a stadium that will almost NEVER be filled. How far is Notts?.. surely its about an hours drive? so if you want to see a game (and can get tickets) it wont really put you out. Anyway...dont worry folks, Australia is going to win the bid to host, and keep this in mind. The host cities will probably be Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Perth so the SHORTEST drive between cities is about 7-8 hours... Syd - Melb 850 Klms 8 hours Syd - Perth 4000 klms 50 hours syd - bris 900 klms 9 hours
tartanowl Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe's reaction: Once again, the FA have let this country down big-time.Gut-wrenching though today's decision was, at least we now know how the rest of the bid venues are going to feel next year when England gets overlooked - and deservedly so. There is no credible justification whatsoever for favouring Franchise over us, Derby, Sheffield United or Everton. The four clubs have over 500 years of history between us - Franchise has just SIX. With five of the stadia selected not even built, the bid no longer has sufficient international credibility. Spain and Portugal already have both the stadia and the infrastructure in place, as does the USA. It's only a matter of time before the likes of Mawhinney, Winkelmann and Ken Bates discover they'll be way out of their depth at international level. No amount of hype or spin can save England's bid - it now lies dead in the water. There could only be one ground accepted from the cities of Liverpool and Sheffield. So those 2 were non starters. I agree with MK being a strange choice. I also think Plymouth is very odd.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 I think you're winging this argument mate. I don't see how you can say they'll go for somewhere that's already got all the stadia in place. Japan & South Korea had only one of the 10 stadiums used built when they made their bid for 2002. Germany put in a bid with 6 stadiums not built yet for 2006 and won. Even if they did want a bid with everything in place, I don't see how that nails on Australia?! I swear I read their bid included a considerable amount of building as well. Quite a few stadiums will need to be built or expanded. There is also issues with ground tennacies that have agreements with AFL and NRL who hold leases to these grounds. But by all reports we are a very big chance to host 2022.
Radovan's Caravan Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Interesting to see the English parochial mind at work here - completely absorbed by trivia ('no footballing heritage') irrelevancies ('empty stadium after 2018') and petty local rivalry. Some of this would be forgiveable if you also chose to look at the seven ton bull elephant crapping all over your front room. How many of you are aware that your 2018 bid finance of £15 million + will probably not be raised (and that your own government is dragging its heels on loaning it an awesome £2.5 million)? How many of you are aware that there is no public money OF ANY DESCRIPTION on the table for any of the stadium refurbishments (or newbuilds) and that many proprietors of the earmarked stadia have never committed resources to their improvement (do you really think that a hoodlum like Ken Bates - and lets be quite clear that is EXACTLY what he is - would fund the conversion of the Elland Road scrapyard into a modern football stadium for a World Cup?)? How many of you are aware that the proposed newbuilds in Bristol and Tottenham are unlikely to go ahead even if by some miracle England won the 2018 bid? How many of you are aware that the listing of the Olympic Stadium violates FIFA's rule about venue capacity (it will be reduced to 25,000 after 2012 due to pressure from, amongst others, the FA itself)? How many of you are aware that many of your A List celebrities and sportsmen have been told their promotional services will not be required for the 2018 bid (eg David Beckham) even if they are offered 'pro bono'? Sometimes its the very small insignificant details that give the truest insight into what is really going on. A little Reuters birdie told me a few minutes ago that the midnight Sky Sports News (UK) bulletin devoted barely four minutes to the second most important announcement in the 2018/22 bidding process and that this feature came half way through the programme after items on the managerial departures from QPR and Reading. Now, what does all that tell you em? Not only does it tell you that your bid is dead in the water it also tells you what I have been banging on about for far too long - your powers that be don't want 2018, 2022 or any other four figure cup. Now quit dreaming and wipe all that elephant shit off your stupid gullible faces...
ACF Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Quite a few stadiums will need to be built or expanded. There is also issues with ground tennacies that have agreements with AFL and NRL who hold leases to these grounds. But by all reports we are a very big chance to host 2022. But Sydney willget the final. Oh and the new stadium they're building in Melbourne for Victory, Hearts, Storm etc, cant be expanded. So it wont be able to host anything.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 But Sydney willget the final.Oh and the new stadium they're building in Melbourne for Victory, Hearts, Storm etc, cant be expanded. So it wont be able to host anything. It can be expanded but only to about 40,000 not the required 45,000. Only 2 venues in Melbourne. Ethihad and the G (which will host the final)
ACF Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 It can be expanded but only to about 40,000 not the required 45,000. Only 2 venues in Melbourne. Ethihad and the G (which will host the final) Nah, Sydney has got it, I read it somewhere... maybe it was a facebook group started up about it.....
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Nah, Sydney has got it, I read it somewhere... maybe it was a facebook group started up about it..... Nothing has been finalized we havn't even confirmed all the venues or got the bid and facebook is hardly the site for confimation
Fosse Boy Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 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 Please get yourself elected on to the FIFA board.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Someones already made a group about Derby's failed bid. Few thousand people joined.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.