2018 World Cup

in the running:

England
Spain & Portugal
Holland & Belgium
Russia
Australia
USA
Mexico
Qatar
Indonesia
Japan
South Korea

the last two haven't got a hope in hell. would be immense if qatar got it over england.

I hope England get it. At least that way they'll qualify.

England
Spain & Portugal
Holland & Belgium

any of those three please.Afternoon and Evening kick offs.

if they're going on quality of stadia and security then we should piss that.

No other country on that list can even compare to us.

But's it's fifa so it'll go to whoever gives them the biggest brown envelope.

The likes of portugal, holland and belgium have all recently hosted the euros anyway, so they should have to wait a bit.

the likes of £#%&!ing australia, usa, russia, qatar, indonesia shouldn't be in with a hope.

I think Blatter's already said that if there are satisfactory bids from single nations, joint bids won't even get considered, cos you can discount Holland/Belgium and Spain/Portugal.

Japan or South Korea don't stand a chance, either. Australia might, but 1) do they have the minimum 10 cities large enough to build big enough, sustainable stadiums and 2) will FIFA really do three consecutive WCs in the southern hemisphere?

Realistically, it'll be a return to Europe, so it's either England or Russia. They're building some decent grounds in Russia, too.

Originally Posted by taff

in the running:

England
Spain & Portugal recently had euros
Holland & Belgium recently had euros
Russia £#%&!ing hellhole
Australia £#%&! off. think of the kick off times.
USA are they serious? no for so many reasons
Mexico had it twice. bloody chancers
Qatar worst team on fifa 94. nuff said
Indonesia do they even play football?
Japan again? really?!
South Korea really really?!

Should be England. We invented the game ffs and have still only hosted one world cup (more than fifty years before this one will be played). Does that count for nothing?

i wouldnt understand any top reds not wanting the world cup in england, think of the good it would do the economy.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

if they're going on quality of stadia and security then we should piss that.

No other country on that list can even compare to us.

USA does, easily. We've got about two dozen stadiums the quality of Wembley and Emirates. '94 World Cup was a huge success, full stadiums almost every game, very few crowd problems.*

Having said that, I don't like the World Cup being played in extreme hot weather, which it would be in the US. Of course, Germany turned out to be roasting hot last time, so who knows how to predict these things.






* Helped that England didn't qualify.

Originally Posted by Grimson

USA does, easily. We've got about two dozen stadiums the quality of Wembley and Emirates. '94 World Cup was a huge success, full stadiums almost every game, very few crowd problems.*
Having said that, I don't like the World Cup being played in extreme hot weather, which it would be in the US. Of course, Germany turned out to be roasting hot last time, so who knows how to predict these things.






* Helped that England didn't qualify.

You've had the world cup in the last 15 years. We had it FIFTY years ago. It's our turn, stop being greedy.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

You've had the world cup in the last 15 years. We had it FIFTY years ago. It's our turn, stop being greedy.

42 ffs.

(I was born a month after England won the World Cup)

Originally Posted by Grimson

42 ffs.

(I was born a month after England won the World Cup)

sorry i was going by the date of the actual tournament.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

sorry i was going by the date of the actual tournament.

Oh yeah.

Quick, look over there!


*exits thread*

Originally Posted by MrBishi

Australia might, but

1) do they have the minimum 10 cities large enough to build big enough, sustainable stadiums and

2) will FIFA really do three consecutive WCs in the southern hemisphere?

1) Australia doesn't have 10 major cities. In reality it has 6-ish. Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. I don't know how hard and fast the rule is for having to have 10 host cities?

As for the stadia, there are some seriously quality stadia in this country already. Sydney alone has the ANZ(83,500) and SFS(45,000), and Melbourne has the MCG(100,000) & Telstra Dome (57,000).

The heat wouldn't be an issue because it'd be played during the Australian Winter.. sometimes as warm as a UK Summer....

2) I dont think the Hemisphere the event is played in makes much of a difference, and won't go too far in determining the hosts.

The biggest threat to the competition being held in Oz is the fact that the Aussie FA have recently re-aligned with the Asian Football Federation, taking them out of Oceania. The argument there being that the AFF had it in 2002 whereas Oceania have never hosted. Sort of shot themselves in the foot with that one.

Say what you like about the Australians, they know how to put on a tournament. Sydney 2000 Olympics were one of the best in history.

england will get it

Originally Posted by Smurf

1) Australia doesn't have 10 major cities. In reality it has 6-ish. Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. I don't know how hard and fast the rule is for having to have 10 host cities?

As for the stadia, there are some seriously quality stadia in this country already. Sydney alone has the ANZ(83,500) and SFS(45,000), and Melbourne has the MCG(100,000) & Telstra Dome (57,000).

You need a minimum 12 venues to host a World Cup. I think the rule is that at most, you can only have two in a city, and only two cities having more than one venue.

The reasons for that being that you get lots of games played in a very short space of time, with fans & press from all over the world, travel & accomadation will be at a premium, so you want it spread out as much as possible. (That's why you wouldn't get away with having London, Manchester and Liverpool each having two venues by saying "But Old Trafford's not in the same city as Eastlands", it's still the same conurbation.)

I don't doubt that Australia can be good hosts of international events. So have we, though.

What stadiums would we use then going by the above rules? If you need 10?

Wembley
Old Trafford
(new) Anfield
St James Park
Stadium of Light
Emirates
New Spurs ground?
Villa Park
Reebok
COMS?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

What stadiums would we use then going by the above rules? If you need 10?

Wembley
Old Trafford
(new) Anfield
St James Park
Stadium of Light
Emirates
New Spurs ground?
Villa Park
Reebok
COMS?

What about Cardiff ? Don't know if they'd allow it with us having seperate football associations but i don't see why not. Especially as its been used for English league competitions so why not?

Originally Posted by TravellingRed81

What about Cardiff ? Don't know if they'd allow it with us having seperate football associations but i don't see why not. Especially as its been used for English league competitions so why not?

I thought about the millennium, but i don't know what fifa's stance is on that. given that cardiff play in our league who knows.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

What stadiums would we use then going by the above rules? If you need 10?

Wembley
Old Trafford
(new) Anfield
St James Park
Stadium of Light
Emirates
New Spurs ground?
Villa Park
Reebok
COMS?

You can have up to 2 cities with multiple venues but I think our bid would most likely only have London doing that.

You've got clubs like Bristol City and Sheff Utd saying they'll expand their grounds to over 40,000 should England get the World Cup, Forest are planning a 45,000 seater stadium, and places like Southampton, Leicester were designed to be expanded to over 40,000 too.

As I say, they'll look to spread the venues around the country as much as possible (look at Germany 2006) so I think it'd be summat like -

Wembley
Old Trafford
(New) Anfield
St James Park
Emirates
Villa Park/new Birmingham City Stadium
Stadium of Light

Then five from...
New Nottingham stadium
New Bristol stadium
Sheffield (Bramall Lane/Hillsborough)
South coast (Southampton/Portsmouth)
Elland Road
Hull (expanded)
Leicester (expanded)
Coventry (expanded)

Originally Posted by Grimson

USA does, easily. We've got about two dozen stadiums the quality of Wembley and Emirates. '94 World Cup was a huge success, full stadiums almost every game, very few crowd problems.*

Having said that, I don't like the World Cup being played in extreme hot weather, which it would be in the US. Of course, Germany turned out to be roasting hot last time, so who knows how to predict these things.






* Helped that England didn't qualify.

the world cup should be allowed no where near £#%&!ing america for so many £#%&!ing reasons.

didnt you lot try introducing 'quarters' last time you had it there?

'damn...its too hot man, y'all need quarters in soccer'