Babylon Posted 17 December 2009 Posted 17 December 2009 Do you get out much you could say the above about almost every major city in the uk. Yes... but we're worse.
Chrysalis Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Didn't think I'd ever say it but I agree now - I also hope England don't win the bid.Their bid has been a right load of old crap from the beginning anyway, and this choice of host cities just sums it up. Relying on stadiums that haven't even got planning permission? Increasing the stadium sizes to over 40,000 of clubs whose attendances will never top 20k? Hopefully Jack Warner and the rest of those FIFA cockshafts will get their way and host it somewhere truly ridiculous like Russia. The FA can go fook themselves (as I'm sure they enjoy doing on a regular basis anyway). I am not suprised one bit we werent chosen. Nottingham no matter how shambolic their bid was I knew would get picked, all the old cronies at the FA picked them because of their history. What did surpise me was the 3 stadiums in london AND the 2 in manchester, fifa state only one city can have 2 stadiums and for the rest it is one per city. But the good old british love to throw investment at the already best areas and stick with tradition. Liverpool both clubs tiny chance of new stadium, nottingham in war with council, london and manchester breaking fifa guidelines and to top it off plymouth a joke of a choice. I would be surprised if we won the bid now and I think the poor choosing of stadiums we deserve to lose the bid, clearly the bid team are not aware of the new standards required by fifa for world cup venues.
Chrysalis Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Totally agree. We're all agreed that Leicester is far from perfect as a city but I moved away in 2000 and returned in 2008. In those eight years, Leicester went from being a city in Nottingham's shadow to, at the very least, matching it in most respects. we have serious transport issues, pedestranised too many places in the city centre and still have no trams. our city is a dump but not getting the WC explains why, if we were a WC venue then the council and others would have invested to improve the city, improving transport and spending money to make it look less of a dump, money would have came into the city. The reason we are a bit of a dump is because Leics is a poor place it has very little investment. Whilst London a rich city has 3 WC venues so if england win the WC then London is going to have cash puring into it left right and centre as it has the olympics also.
Craig Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Disappointing that we didn't get it, but at least we won't have another 15k empty seats sapping any remaining atmosphere out of the ground.
Guest Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 pedestranised too many places in the city centre Disagree. Pedestrianisation is long overdue, and makes the city centre much nicer to wander about.
Chrysalis Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Forget the world cup, i'm not bothered about that. I would just like a city with a bit of thought and imagination running through it. ironically winning the WC would likely have got that kind of investment. I agree with much of what you said regarding the city.
Chrysalis Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Disagree. Pedestrianisation is long overdue, and makes the city centre much nicer to wander about. right so we have buses going down a tight churchgate, and a empty pedestranised high street, that is good? what if you dont like wondering, carrying heavy shopping bags or have mobility problems. Sorry but if you going to pedestranise then build trams at the same time, pedestranising a city without trams is silly.
Guest Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 right so we have buses going down a tight churchgate, and a empty pedestranised high street, that is good?what if you dont like wondering, carrying heavy shopping bags or have mobility problems. Sorry but if you going to pedestranise then build trams at the same time, pedestranising a city without trams is silly. If you have mobility problems, then having the ability to walk about the streets without having to worry about cars and buses would surely be a plus. No dangerous roads to cross and all that. As for Churchgate, I would pedestrianise that as well. Have the buses go around the periphery and make the whole centre traffic free. We do need better bus services, at the very least. One thing Nottingham has that we should look at is a free bus from the Broadmarsh to the Victoria shopping centres, with limited stops in between. It's run in conjunction with the Council. Instead of building a new bus station, after spending god knows how much on doing up St Maggies, why can't we have a bus running from the train station, up Charles Street, stop at the Haymarket, then at St Maggies, and finally the Highcross and back again. It's a no brainer.
Chrysalis Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 you miss the point, how can you have a better public transport system if it hasn't the capability to drop you off right in the middle of the city center, you may be happy walking but its not a selling point for the city. I had no problems walking around the city before they started restricting all the roads. if there was trams that go down gallowtree gate, clock tower etc. then I wouldn't be objecting but there is no trams so as it is with our city. These big pedestranised areas are generally very empty for the majority of the week and the year, its not like the city is regurly crowded.
Guest Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 you miss the point, how can you have a better public transport system if it hasn't the capability to drop you off right in the middle of the city center, you may be happy walking but its not a selling point for the city.I had no problems walking around the city before they started restricting all the roads. if there was trams that go down gallowtree gate, clock tower etc. then I wouldn't be objecting but there is no trams so as it is with our city. These big pedestranised areas are generally very empty for the majority of the week and the year, its not like the city is regurly crowded. No, you miss the point. I know people with mobility problems, and being able to move at your own pace without the fear of being run over is very welcoming. As is the ability to have your wheelchair pushed about more easily, or riding your mobility truck, for example. Your argument is that you can't park in the centre of town any more, and you don't like it. Like all your arguments, it's about what you can't do, and not really philanthropic at all.
davieG Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 you miss the point, how can you have a better public transport system if it hasn't the capability to drop you off right in the middle of the city center, you may be happy walking but its not a selling point for the city.I had no problems walking around the city before they started restricting all the roads. if there was trams that go down gallowtree gate, clock tower etc. then I wouldn't be objecting but there is no trams so as it is with our city. These big pedestranised areas are generally very empty for the majority of the week and the year, its not like the city is regurly crowded. You cant have a tram going down every artery to the clock tower having one down Gallowtree gate will make little discernible difference and would be an absolute nightmare if it ran there from Oadby. If the pedestrianised areas are empty so would the trams be.
Jimmy Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 I am not suprised one bit we werent chosen.Nottingham no matter how shambolic their bid was I knew would get picked, all the old cronies at the FA picked them because of their history. What did surpise me was the 3 stadiums in london AND the 2 in manchester, fifa state only one city can have 2 stadiums and for the rest it is one per city. But the good old british love to throw investment at the already best areas and stick with tradition. Liverpool both clubs tiny chance of new stadium, nottingham in war with council, london and manchester breaking fifa guidelines and to top it off plymouth a joke of a choice. I would be surprised if we won the bid now and I think the poor choosing of stadiums we deserve to lose the bid, clearly the bid team are not aware of the new standards required by fifa for world cup venues. FIFA have the final say on Grounds, London will have 2 and CoM will miss out for Old Trafford
Fosse Boy Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 I am not suprised one bit we werent chosen.Nottingham no matter how shambolic their bid was I knew would get picked, all the old cronies at the FA picked them because of their history. What did surpise me was the 3 stadiums in london AND the 2 in manchester, fifa state only one city can have 2 stadiums and for the rest it is one per city. But the good old british love to throw investment at the already best areas and stick with tradition. Liverpool both clubs tiny chance of new stadium, nottingham in war with council, london and manchester breaking fifa guidelines and to top it off plymouth a joke of a choice. I would be surprised if we won the bid now and I think the poor choosing of stadiums we deserve to lose the bid, clearly the bid team are not aware of the new standards required by fifa for world cup venues. The same old cronies who also picked Milton Keynes, that hotbed of English football history.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 The same old cronies who also picked Milton Keynes, that hotbed of English football history. Mk Dons are Wimbledon you stupid man, they just moved the club their. They have won the F.A Cup and we beat them in the 1997 coca cup semi final. No history PMSL
lou Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Mk Dons are Wimbledon you stupid man, they just moved the club their. They have won the F.A Cup and we beat them in the 1997 coca cup semi final.No history PMSL oh dear
Fosse Boy Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 oh dear This. Oh, and I was just on about the town itself in that post, not MK ****** per se.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 This.Oh, and I was just on about the town itself in that post, not MK ****** per se. I'm sorry i just knew you would react and i thought it was gonna better then this. I'm not a fan of the MK ****** either and them being chosen, is a good enough reason of not having the world cup in this country.
Daggers Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Mk Dons are Wimbledon you stupid man, they just moved the club their. They have won the F.A Cup and we beat them in the 1997 coca cup semi final.No history PMSL Brilliant - Classic Ash17nobwank. DB11 has a champion...maddog has a champion...Ash17analwarts has a little bus shelter and a tin of lead-based paint.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Brilliant - Classic Ash17nobwank.DB11 has a champion...maddog has a champion...Ash17analwarts has a little bus shelter and a tin of lead-based paint. THANK YOU DAGGERS! YOU HAVE BEEN AMAZING
eleven points Posted 18 December 2009 Posted 18 December 2009 Mk Dons are Wimbledon you stupid man, they just moved the club their. They have won the F.A Cup and we beat them in the 1997 coca cup semi final.No history PMSL Mk dons aren't Wimbledon you stupid man, MK dons had to hand over all of the old Wimbledon trophies and memorabilia to AFC Wimbledon in 2007.
Plymouth Pete Posted 19 December 2009 Posted 19 December 2009 I am not suprised one bit we werent chosen. plymouth a joke of a choice. Plymouth is well used to hosting international events, and has direct ferry links to France and Spain. Phase one of the new Home Park is completed and phase two is going to be built anyway, planning permission all granted. The only difference is that there will now be a phase 3, taking the capacity from a planned 27,000 to 42,000. All we want now is a decent football team that can regularly bring in 25,000 plus.
BlueSi13 Posted 19 December 2009 Posted 19 December 2009 In a way im delighted Leicester wasn't chosen, as someone who lives in Munich i came back for Christmas and truly realised that along with Luton, Leicester is the foulest looking place in the UK, i said it before in this thread, one look around for anybody not living in the City would rather see the World Cup on the Falklands rather than Leicester, its a horrific place. Just a lot of bitterness in this thread, people need to take of their blue tinted spectacles and accept the facts. We are from a poor POOR shithole, we are a big city with precious little importance very much like Bradford and live in the shadow of the bigger and MUCH prettier boys on that list, we always will be. Plymouth is in a very beautiful area and Milton Keynes has more potential in its little finger than we do as a city. The rest of the cities chosen just take a steamy great shit all over us. The Highcross just isnt good enough im afraid. Our bid being based on the fact that we have fewer "White British" citizens percentage wise than the rest of the UK was just desperate and lets be honest, sadly not everybody listening to that message when the council was making its presentation was going to see that as a good thing. I still support the bid 100% lets get behind it instead of throwing our toys out of the pram!
BlueSi13 Posted 19 December 2009 Posted 19 December 2009 When you put it like that! Having said that though, most of what you've described can be attributed to several cities that were actually accepted. Most English cities just aren't as attractive as cities in other European countries. Barcelona or Birmingham? Manchester or Munich? Or maybe familiarity breeds contempt. Actually i always compare those two, Manchester is a stunning place just like Munich, they compare very well!
BoneDog Posted 19 December 2009 Posted 19 December 2009 I'm sure alot of folk will love it if we get the World Cup in England, but if I was going to the World Cup as a fan I'd much rather travel abroad to somewhere I've never been to watch it. It just wouldn't feel like a World Cup to me if I was travelling to a match on the train to MK or London. It would be a lot cheaper though so there are some benefits I suppose
Frenzied Posted 19 December 2009 Posted 19 December 2009 In a way im delighted Leicester wasn't chosen, as someone who lives in Munich i came back for Christmas and truly realised that along with Luton, Leicester is the foulest looking place in the UK, i said it before in this thread, one look around for anybody not living in the City would rather see the World Cup on the Falklands rather than Leicester, its a horrific place.Just a lot of bitterness in this thread, people need to take of their blue tinted spectacles and accept the facts. We are from a poor POOR shithole, we are a big city with precious little importance very much like Bradford and live in the shadow of the bigger and MUCH prettier boys on that list, we always will be. Plymouth is in a very beautiful area and Milton Keynes has more potential in its little finger than we do as a city. The rest of the cities chosen just take a steamy great shit all over us. The Highcross just isnt good enough im afraid. Our bid being based on the fact that we have fewer "White British" citizens percentage wise than the rest of the UK was just desperate and lets be honest, sadly not everybody listening to that message when the council was making its presentation was going to see that as a good thing. I still support the bid 100% lets get behind it instead of throwing our toys out of the pram! You are a cretin of the highest proportions. Apart from you comments about the birthplace of most of the people that post on here being highly offensive, they are wrong for a whole host of reasons.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.