England host cities named for 2018 bid

Could we qualify for a travel friendly WC (or any tournament as things stand) for the first time since 1990 or 1994 (depending on your definition of travel friendly)?

England have announced the venues for their 2018 bid:

1. Bristol - new Ashton Vale stadium
2. Birmingham - Villa Park
3. Leeds - Elland Road
4. Liverpool - Anfield or new Anfield
5. London - Emirates Stadium
6. London - new White Hart Lane or Olympic Stadium
7. London - Wembley Stadium
8. Manchester - City of Manchester Stadium
9. Manchester - Old Trafford
10. Milton Keynes - Stadium MK
11. Newcastle/Gateshead - St James' Park
12. Nottingham - new Nottingham Forest stadium
13. Plymouth - Home Park
14. Sheffield - Hillsborough
15. Sunderland - Stadium of Light

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soc...260807768.html

Travel friendly? Don't understand.

Who cares as long as they don't win it. Or get it, if there's somewhere new, eg. Australia that's yet to have a go.....

By Travel Friendly I presume he means close by and easily accessible. We didn't qualify for France and Germany both of which fit the bill.

Italy (out on the islands), USA (long flight and up and down the east coast) and Korea/Japan weren't the easiest to get to.

However maybe it was better that way to give as many of the real fans a chance to see us in a world cup.

i hope they get it. very good stadiums and easy to get around the country

Some odd choices
MK - Soulless hole in the ground, pointless stadium, pointless fake club
Bristol & Plymouth - Will be white elephants after the wc, average attendances are circa 15 & 10k respecitvely unless they make the promised land of the EPL
Forest - New ground being built? Not sure why as the City ground is adequate I would have thought Leicester was a better ground although Nottingham is a much nicer city.

My guess is they chose Bristol and Plymouth so they could spread it around the country.

Also, I think Leicester and Coventry both have better, newer stadiums. Hull's isn't too bad either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endabob1

Some odd choices
MK - Soulless hole in the ground, pointless stadium, pointless fake club
Bristol & Plymouth - Will be white elephants after the wc, average attendances are circa 15 & 10k respecitvely unless they make the promised land of the EPL
Forest - New ground being built? Not sure why as the City ground is adequate I would have thought Leicester was a better ground although Nottingham is a much nicer city.

---

new stadium planned but the two local councils (City and County Council's) have fallen out. It doesn't help that they hope to build the new ground on green belt land.

Rumours that Liverpool nearly missed the cut which is madness if you ask me.

Newcastle and Sunderland? Only need one in the North East if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finbarrk

Travel friendly? Don't understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

By Travel Friendly I presume he means close by and easily accessible. We didn't qualify for France and Germany both of which fit the bill.

Italy (out on the islands), USA (long flight and up and down the east coast) and Korea/Japan weren't the easiest to get to.

However maybe it was better that way to give as many of the real fans a chance to see us in a world cup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbyrne

i hope they get it. very good stadiums and easy to get around the country

---

By travel friendly I do indeed mean close by and easily accessible which I think is always a good thing (don't agree that far away, expensive & awkward to get to is a good thing for 'real fans' however you define them and not getting into that again).

I hope they get it too (and we qualify obviously) as it's the closest we'll ever get to a home championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

new stadium planned but the two local councils (City and County Council's) have fallen out. It doesn't help that they hope to build the new ground on green belt land.

---

I would have liked to see Pride Park get it instead. It's already a top class stadium and obviously they were willing to increase the capacity. Also post-WC18 the stadium would still have decent crowds, not sure you could say the same for Forest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eaststand85

By travel friendly I do indeed mean close by and easily accessible which I think is always a good thing (don't agree that far away, expensive & awkward to get to is a good thing for 'real fans' however you define them and not getting into that again).

I hope they get it too (and we qualify obviously) as it's the closest we'll ever get to a home championships.

---

The closer and more accessible the venue the more that would go thus making it harder for the fans who go anyway to get tickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

The closer and more accessible the venue the more that would go thus making it harder for the fans who go anyway to get tickets.

---

I understand your point but am of the more the merrier persuasion myself (as well as preferring cheaper and easier travel)!

if we qualified and it was in England then all the event junkies and scum element would be far more likely to travel. tickets would be harder to come by and non-official tickets would be astronomically priced - just think of the whole country and ex-pats in britain all wanting to buy tickets for games!! therefore the saving on travel would be canceled out by lack/expense of tickets.

also the closer to home the games the more likely that day trippers go to the games. you can't beat the all-in experience of 3/4 weeks away at a tournament. it'd hard to justify going to england for a month!

weighing up the pro's and cons a far away world cup is better - that said i would have had reservations of going to SA from a security/comfort/accommodation point of view (still would have gone tho - having saved up my holidays this year to take the month off now i don't know what to do!!).

I was gutted when Ireland didn't qualify for France 98', now I hope England gets it. Both close countries and hopefully we make it this time.

Just a quick question, What other countries are in the running to host WC 2018?

The bidding process is for 2018 and 2022. One bid will get the 2018 one and a different one will get the 2022 one. Whatever continent gets the 2018 tournament, the countries from that continent will not be considered for the 2022 tournament. African countries cannot bid for the 2018 tournament because the 2010 one will be there. South American countries can't bid for either of the tournaments because of Brazil hosting the 2014 one.

The bids at the moment are: Australia, Belgium & Holland, England, Indonesia (2022 only), Portugal & Spain, Qatar (2022 only), Russia, South Korea (2022 only), US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

The bidding process is for 2018 and 2022. One bid will get the 2018 one and a different one will get the 2022 one. Whatever continent gets the 2018 tournament, the countries from that continent will not be considered for the 2022 tournament. African countries cannot bid for the 2018 tournament because the 2010 one will be there. South American countries can't bid for either of the tournaments because of Brazil hosting the 2014 one.

The bids at the moment are: Australia, Belgium & Holland, England, Indonesia (2022 only), Portugal & Spain, Qatar (2022 only), Russia, South Korea (2022 only), US.

---

I didnt know we are going for it






tee he he

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

The bids at the moment are: Australia, Belgium & Holland, England, Indonesia (2022 only), Portugal & Spain, Qatar (2022 only), Russia, South Korea (2022 only), US.

---

Presumably there'll be one in Europe and one somewhere else. I can't imagine Qatar would be big enough to host it alone and South Korea had it relatively recently so Australia, USA and maybe Indonesia (I've no idea about the infrastructure or interest there) look like the possible destinations.

Lot of oil money in Qatar, don't forget. They've tended to go and get what they want lately (champion athletes, top footballers and what have you). I'd say they'd be more likely to win than Indonesia, tbh, although obviously there's a difference between signing Batistuta and hosting a World Cup. But Australia would probably be the best option out of those four.

Fussballtempel gives info on grounds in Qatar and Indonesia.

It's its small area that makes Qatar look unlikely to me. It's smaller than Cork and Kerry together and mostly desert.