Some stats to point out from yesterday...

[Puzzy magnet 0]

8k at Plymouth. That 47,000-seater is going to come in handy...

9k at MK Dons. That 44,000-seater is going to come in handy.

12k at QPR despite it being £1 for under-16s. Who says cheap tickets = big crowds?

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I''ve got nothing against Plymouth, indeed I think its a nice place but Argyle need a 47,000 stadium about as much as I need Julian Clary laying naked in my bed telling me - "I want you!"

 

As for MK franchisers - Its sickening they will have a world cup game just cause they aren''t far from Birmingham and London. Like Plymouth they are never going to need a 47,000 capacity!

 

QPR have never been that well supported.

 

Yes part of the reason for our big crowds is cause the admission prices are reasonable but remember we still aren''t the cheapest, indeed Wigan and Blackburn are cheaper, buying an adult ticket on the day is still mostly over £20 and if a kid wants a season ticket in the Jarold theirs no concession!

 

I think Norwich with its interesting City, soon to be improved transport links and well supported football club would of been a much apropriate world cup venue than both Plymouth and Milton Keynes!

[Legend Iwan 30]

Difference is we didn''t want it and understandably. Norwich don''t have the 40,000 stadium required and no plans in the next 4-5 years to build one.

As nice as it would be to host World Cup matches why do it at the clubs financial risk?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Plymouth really is an odd one! Who else down there could have been picked tho? Not really much about down there.

[......and Smith must score. 1,331]

The thing that does for Norwich is it''s poor location with rubbish transport links.

That said how the hell does Plymouth come into the equation as it''s even more off the beaten track ?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Begins with M and the number 70 springs to mind

[Quagmire 0]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

Difference is we didn''t want it and understandably. Norwich don''t have the 40,000 stadium required and no plans in the next 4-5 years to build one.

As nice as it would be to host World Cup matches why do it at the clubs financial risk?

[/quote]

I thought it was 30,000 although that is probably irrelevant as all the existing or new stadia being built will be over 40,000. Given all the criteria a bid by us would have been a wasted effort.

[John 0]

Whose financing these stadium improvements? If it''s the clubs owners, how are Plymouth managing such an improvement? Bar the prospect of hosting one competition, how on earth are they going to keep a level footing with trying to sustain a stadium like that with crowds that will rarely exceed 10,000? i.e. Why the **** would they want it if it''s going to drain the club of it''s finances for some truly otherwise useless assets?With Milton Keynes so close to clubs with far more attractive facilities at hand, of which are far more successful, pull in far more bigger crowds, and with a future that currently seems far more prosperous, how on earth did the FA come to the conclusion that Milton Keynes was the amongst the most viable of contenders?Our slogan is along the lines of trying to bring football back home. How are we going to convey that particular message to the world with ****ing Milton bloody Keynes of all places hosting the bloody thing? Are the FA ''trying'' to shoot themselves in the foot with this one?I reckon i could go on, but i''m struggling to see one ounce of sense in this. It defies belief, and to be honest, with such abysmal decisions being made, i scarcely want thing anymore.

[Legend Iwan 30]

[quote user="Quagmire"][quote user="Legend Iwan"]

Difference is we didn''t want it and understandably. Norwich don''t have the 40,000 stadium required and no plans in the next 4-5 years to build one.

As nice as it would be to host World Cup matches why do it at the clubs financial risk?

[/quote]

I thought it was 30,000 although that is probably irrelevant as all the existing or new stadia being built will be over 40,000. Given all the criteria a bid by us would have been a wasted effort.

[/quote]

I''m pretty sure it is 40,000 as even we would contend with adding an extra 4,000 seats to host world cup games - As well as Ipswich already having a 30,000 stadia and not even putting their name forwards.

[missing in action? 0]

plymouth are owned by a rich japanese consortium. they therefore will get finance. The ground is un-necessary though.

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="missing in action?"]plymouth are owned by a rich japanese consortium. they therefore will get finance. The ground is un-necessary though.

If anything I think 30.000 is and would be plenty big enought for us

[Howson is now! 0]

MK Dons is only a temporary extension I believe. That''s what they said on the news the other day. Can''t find anything online that says that though. We''re part of the MK bid so we''ll make money from teams using our training ground so we make some money without having to spend anything. Happy days.

[Brendo 0]

Anyone know the Temp from yesterday?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="missing in action"]plymouth are owned by a rich japanese consortium. they therefore will get finance. The ground is un-necessary though.[/quote]They aren''t that rich, and there have been allegations that the money isn''t entirely clean, allegedly. Isn''t it the case that if England actually get the World Cup FIFA or the FA can then remove some of the venues, I think MK and Plymouth are in there to show how "determined the England bid is to spread the games out". If England due get 2018 (which is pretty unlikely the way they are running the bid), then MK and Plymouth will soon be left by the wayside--this early on it is all politics.

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="missing in action"]plymouth are owned by a rich japanese consortium. they therefore will get finance. The ground is un-necessary though.[/quote]They aren''t that rich, and there have been allegations that the money isn''t entirely clean, allegedly. Isn''t it the case that if England actually get the World Cup FIFA or the FA can then remove some of the venues, I think MK and Plymouth are in there to show how "determined the England bid is to spread the games out". If England due get 2018 (which is pretty unlikely the way they are running the bid), then MK and Plymouth will soon be left by the wayside--this early on it is all politics[/quote]was unaware of that, would be quite a big issue if plymouth were selected, not that i think it will happen (as you say, some teams are dropped out)

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="missing in action"]plymouth are owned by a rich japanese consortium. they therefore will get finance. The ground is un-necessary though.[/quote]They aren''t that rich, and there have been allegations that the money isn''t entirely clean, allegedly. Isn''t it the case that if England actually get the World Cup FIFA or the FA can then remove some of the venues, I think MK and Plymouth are in there to show how "determined the England bid is to spread the games out". If England due get 2018 (which is pretty unlikely the way they are running the bid), then MK and Plymouth will soon be left by the wayside--this early on it is all politics.[/quote]Unless the situation has changed very recently the Japanese company (which may or may not be rich) doesn''t own Plymouth outright; it is part of a consortium that owns the club. What is definitely true is that at the moment Plymouth is under a transfer embargo because of unpaid bills.It may be that the Japanese company does eventually take over the club, and it MAY have pots of money. But recent football history shows that the promise of  "rich foreign company" does not always turn into reality.

[Northamptonncfc 0]

Milton Keynes is a shocking choice. Good stadium even though it''s partially a building site, the parking is terrible and only thing nearby is a giant ASDA supermarket great if you want to do your weekly shopping but not for a pre match pint. It wouldn''t suprise me if all the land near the ground is owned by Inter MK who that knob end Pete Winkelman owns too, so he stands to become a rich man after the World Cup with all the redevelopments including most probably a hundred Starbucks, McDonalds and EuroDisney MK or whatever they decide to build. Just like anything which involves FIFA it''s commercialised, corperate trash it wouldn''t surpise me if only 10% of the tickets go to real football fans anyway.

Milton Keyens is not a good representation of an English city if you want to shop, go to Ikea, stare at concrete cows or snowboard indoors then you''ll enjoy it. There is nothing cultural or historic about the place, I''d be quite dissapointed if I was visiting supporter staying in the city to watch my country play.