retired_darom

Christ after reading that back I'm going to apologise for the lack of coherence in my posting tonight, hopefully my point got across.

retired_derek

yeh you got your point across. That kind of argument is more down the lines they should go. Talk up the positives of using more than one stadium in any particular city as opposed talking about the negatives of having to use ianother city that would not really be likely to be able to host it.

If you get what i mean?

retired_nini59

If the WC is played in England, it will not really necessary to regionalize the groups as the distances are pretty short. </BLOCKQUOTE>

still less travelling = less pollution, and our transport systems are quite overloaded and expensive too compared to other countries, so it's quite a strong point, plus it'll save wear and tear on the pitches. The only downside is foreign fans might only get to see one city, but at least they'll get to experience it properly rather than have 1/2 nights here and 1/2 nights there. If we could get 16 stadia ready for 2018, and we probably could tbf, then it'd be great.

trotamundos

Some pretty interesting stuff going on here for a change. Like the idea of regionalised groups. Probably won't happen but would be cool regardless. Ditto for the Millenium idea.

retired_anneduck

Agree with both those points. Even given the small size of our country against say the US or Australia, regionalised groups would be an excellent idea. Would also be nice to see some new stadiums in cities without top teams at the moment instead of just the usual suspects, Bristol being a perfect example. I'd have:

Wembley, London (90,000)
Emirates, London (60,000)
Old Trafford, Manchester (76,000+ by 2018)
New Anfield, Liverpool (76,000 by 2018)
St James' Park, Newcastle (50,000)
Stadium of Light, Sunderland (48,000 with potential of 64,000)
Villa Park, Birmingham (45,000+ by 2018)
Elland Road, Leeds (40,000)
New Portsmouth Stadium (Providing it meets 40,000)
New Bristol Stadium (~40,000)
Pride Park, Derby (40,000)

Plus maybe one more, would give a decent geographical spread.

retired_musiclova31

it really, really isn't. would not be a problem. at all.

by far the biggest hurdle to an australian bid is the fact that the tv times would be commercially horrid in both (most of) europe and the americas. the only way we win a bidding contest is by giving out some seriously fat brown envelopes to those who 'need' them.

fairly well known fact sydney only won the rights to the 2000 games because of tienanmen square. the real push was for beijing to get them, but human rights became an international political issue at just the right time. ioc bit the commercial bullet and told the chinese to come back after athens (which at that point was already an absolute lock in for obvious reasons anyway). as barca had hosted in 92 (with athens in 04 as well) and atlanta having hosted in 96, there really wasn't anywhere else to go BUT sydney.

for the world cup, there won't be anything at all to help us in that regard. even if the bid is too good to ignore, we really don't stand a prayer. england will corner the sentimentality market of any bid, china the lucrative new market. it'll be one of those two...

retired_rkp278

You didn't mention Stadium:mk, which has the potential to be expanded and is rated UEFA 4 stars (capable of staging a UEFA Cup Final).

retired_v_meenucancer

stadium:mk

god forbid

trotamundos

believe I read somewhere that Forest were looking at a new 40k stadium. That would do as an option.

retired_hvporter

Yep, up in Clifton and ready for 2012 iirc. One of the Forest fans linked it here not so long ago. 40,000 seats or so - should be ideal.