Stukulele 0 Posted June 14, 2010 Been looking up the England 2018 bid, and I knew Norwich wasn''t in the bid as a host city, but does anyone know if they even applied? If Bristol and Plymouth can make it and get their stadiums boosted to 40,000+, why couldn''t Norwich? I know getting to Norwich isn''t easy for most people, but it''s surely better than Plymouth? Maybe we''d also finally get some dual carriageways. Plus Norwich has a great reputation for a positive, friendly atmosphere and would fill every game. Any ideas if they applied, and if not, why not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamteam 0 Posted June 14, 2010 Cardiff,I think yopu have answered your own question.Stadiums have to be 40000 min Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
city till i die 0 Posted June 14, 2010 what th hell does youpu or even yopu mean lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted June 14, 2010 This has been discussed before when the host city candidates were announced and yes Norwich didn''t apply. I know you need a 40,000 plus stadium be eligible to host a world cup game but surely their could have been some sort of possible root for Norwich to meeting Fifa''s requirements with a lot of help from the FA. It feels like an oppertunity missed when you look at clubs like Plymouth and MK Dons who could have 40,000 plus stadiums in place should England''s 2018 bid be successful, they could really do with the extra seats at club level... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DDD In The Fine City 1 Posted June 14, 2010 [quote user="CardiffCanary"]Been looking up the England 2018 bid, and I knew Norwich wasn''t in the bid as a host city, but does anyone know if they even applied? If Bristol and Plymouth can make it and get their stadiums boosted to 40,000+, why couldn''t Norwich? I know getting to Norwich isn''t easy for most people, but it''s surely better than Plymouth? Maybe we''d also finally get some dual carriageways. Plus Norwich has a great reputation for a positive, friendly atmosphere and would fill every game. Any ideas if they applied, and if not, why not?[/quote]How? having a motorway practicaly all the way there or getting stuck for an hour in the bottle neck near Thetford, which would you choose? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stukulele 0 Posted June 14, 2010 Ok, i understand there isn''t a motorway, but Plymouth is a long way from nearly everywhere...And I meant if it''s plausible for MK Dons, Bristol and Plymouth to get the money to expand to 40,000 with virtually no chance of ever filling it, why not Norwich? The board say we''d be self-financing at 35,000 in the premiership, I would have hoped they would have considered the idea of getting a massive chunk of money from the FA and FIFA to make it happen and put Norwich on the map. I think it''s a big opportunity missed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Davie Ross 0 Posted June 14, 2010 Just because there''s a motorway most of the way to Plymouth doesn''t mean the journey is a joy - there are usually 30 mile tailbacks in the summer! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
batesout MOT 0 Posted June 14, 2010 2018 needs to offer some footballing history/stature. The right decisions were made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 5,246 Posted June 14, 2010 [quote user="batesout MOT"]2018 needs to offer some footballing history/stature. The right decisions were made.[/quote]ATTENTION ALL POSTERS PLEASE DO NOT DIGNIFY THIS NUMPTY WITH A RESPONSE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Walking Man 13 Posted June 15, 2010 It does get me worked up how clubs can like Plymouth, MK Dons, Bristol City, and to lesser extents Forrest, Leeds, and Sheffield Wednesday can all justify getting huge new stadia or expanding their existing ones even though they get nowhere near selling out every week. Plymouth averaged 10,316 at 52.9% full, Bristol City 14,592 at 67.9% full and the mighty MK Dons 10,290 filling a massive 46.7% of their souless stadium. Blatter is all about creating legacies, and if we win the bid in 2018 the legacy for these clubs will be huge stadiums that will lucky to be even a quarter full. Absolute farce. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="The Walking Man "]It does get me worked up how clubs can like Plymouth, MK Dons, Bristol City, and to lesser extents Forrest, Leeds, and Sheffield Wednesday can all justify getting huge new stadia or expanding their existing ones even though they get nowhere near selling out every week. Plymouth averaged 10,316 at 52.9% full, Bristol City 14,592 at 67.9% full and the mighty MK Dons 10,290 filling a massive 46.7% of their souless stadium. Blatter is all about creating legacies, and if we win the bid in 2018 the legacy for these clubs will be huge stadiums that will lucky to be even a quarter full. Absolute farce.[/quote]Lol,I just started typing something and realised you had already said exactly what I was going to say.[Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Shuck 291 Posted June 15, 2010 It''s up to them though, isn''t it?If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not.Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us.We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included.The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc.2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lordyfan 0 Posted June 15, 2010 also, the financial cost of putting the club forward as a possible ''host'' city. i think plymouth''s council spent quarter of a million on it. Have passed the olympic stadium in tunis which is hardly used from their failed olympic bid. Would you like either the club or the city council stumping up cash for something that may or may not happen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="Old Shuck"]It''s up to them though, isn''t it?If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not.Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us.We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included.The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc.2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone?[/quote]2022 will be australia... purely because its the only continent yet to have held a world cup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City penguin 0 Posted June 15, 2010 the isolated argument does not really cut the mustard im afraid. Yes we are isolated yes travel is piss poor, however plans to get the train time to london liverpool street down to an hour an a half. Look at this years world cup the two furthest stadiums apart are 1000 miles. In any other country being 1 and half hours from the capital is almost being part of it. Eg USA, Russia, south africa.We were not really in a position to submit to the bid because of our piss poor team and management that put uncertainty to our future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="Old Shuck"]It''s up to them though, isn''t it?If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not.Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us.We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included.The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc.2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone?[/quote]If we don''t get 2018 it would be the biggest slap in the face for English football since Maradona''s "hand of god". We all know 2018 is going to be in Europe and out of the list of candidates only Spain and Portugal''s bid can match our passion and history for the game as well as great Stadia to back up their argument, but they are a joint bid and therefore should only be deemed worthy hosts should no other candidates from Europe meet Fifa''s expectations. Don''t get me wrong no one has the divine right to host a World Cup but were the next closest thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted June 15, 2010 2018 is in all likelihood going to Russia. Why ? Because they have the most backing from Fifa representatives, and they are the blokes what vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaun Tilly Lace 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="CardiffCanary"]Been looking up the England 2018 bid, and I knew Norwich wasn''t in the bid as a host city, but does anyone know if they even applied? If Bristol and Plymouth can make it and get their stadiums boosted to 40,000+, why couldn''t Norwich? I know getting to Norwich isn''t easy for most people, but it''s surely better than Plymouth? Maybe we''d also finally get some dual carriageways. Plus Norwich has a great reputation for a positive, friendly atmosphere and would fill every game. Any ideas if they applied, and if not, why not?[/quote] It begs the question - what the hell are Plymouth going to do with a 40,000 seater stadium once the World Cup has finished. 10,000 fans will look just a tiny bit silly surrounded by 30,000 empty seats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boyo 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="Old Shuck"]It''s up to them though, isn''t it? If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not. Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us. We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included. The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc. 2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone?[/quote]2022 will be australia... purely because its the only continent yet to have held a world cup.[/quote]Great! That means waking up in the early hours to watch England! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Shuck 291 Posted June 15, 2010 ...yep, early starts in Oz-IF we qualify!Conor Wickham-all the press will be saying "...at 27, its Conor Wickham''s best chance of World cup glory, the England side captained by veteran Ashley Young..." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Walking Man 13 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="Old Shuck"]It''s up to them though, isn''t it? If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not. Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us. We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included. The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc. 2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone?[/quote]2022 will be australia... purely because its the only continent yet to have held a world cup.[/quote]I wouldn''t discount Qatar just yet. If Sepp Blatter wanted to make a statement, giving the World Cup to Qatar would certainly be one! The plans and technology for their stadia are so far advanced its amazing!http://www.qatar2022bid.com/qatars-bid/stadiums Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,955 Posted June 15, 2010 Whilst acknowledging that 40,000 and good transport links might have been a criteria, I still think it would have been worth a punt to have entered, because some of the decisions made over the shortlist don''t accord with the sensible view. The FA have tried to spread the venues, hence MK Dons getting the "East Anglian" vote., but its hardly appealing to someone living in Cromer to travel to MK for a match. The problem with the critiria is that it has not been objectively applied, just politically applied. This is evident given the row that is brewing in Sheffield over the decision to pick Hillsborough over Bramall Lane. True Hillsborough has the bigger capacity at present, but that is below 40,000 and the ground has had no significant money spent on it in the past 10 years, whilst Bramall Lane has been completely updated recently. Both clubs put in planning applications to take the stadia above 40,000 but only United have the finance to achieve this at present. Bramall Lane is closer to the City Centre, would be close to the Fan Zone parks, and is closer to tranport links. Hillsborough is now a 3rd division ground to cap it all as well! Yet still the FA cut them out and went for Hilsborough - nothing to do with the fact the FA has ex-Owls chairman on their board of course. Still will be interesting to see what the legal case that United have started will reveal. It''s who you know not what you have.You could argue that Norwich has an airport and is also close to Felixtowe so it has an advantage over Sheffield and some of these other venues, because they do not have an airport and all suffer from road access problems. If the right facilities were built in and around Norwich the issue of people getting to and from the City would have been subsidiary anyway, so I don''t think that is an issue. The lack of a bid has to be put down to the City Council, who obviously were put off by the likely investment required to meet the "hidden" criteria of the bid. If the City had more balls I''m sure Carrow Road could have been a great venue and the City could have provided a great time for visitors from overseas - albeit from Seerbia / Cameroon or wherever. I''m sure Delia would have won over the FA too! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grantroederdisaster 0 Posted June 15, 2010 An opportunity missed!We need a bigger capacity which the FA would have helped pay for and Norwich with its history and big support for football would have made a great World cup venue City. The A11 will eventually get fully dualled before then and if they organised the trains better then transport wouldn''t be a problem.MK Dons should never be a World cup venue cause of their complete lack of history, local interest in football and the City is just an overgrown, souless retail park/industrial estate with countless numbers of roundabouts.Plymouth was picked because of the need to spread the games out but they have never been a well supported club despite being in a City the best part of twice the size of Norwich.Neither of them 2 would ever get anywhere near filling 44,000 capacity grounds but we would fill most of that figure if we were doing well in the Premiership!Another example of the little old Norwich syndrome holding the club back. I do feel with the current ambitious board that if we got back in the premiership and stayed there or became a West Brom like yo-yo club, then we''ll see Carrow Road being expanding and holding 36,000+ but we''ll spend a fortune getting to that capacity figure - Like I said an opportunity lost! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,610 Posted June 15, 2010 It was an opportunity missed and i asked McNally about this towards the end of last season. Basically there were a multitude of factors but chief amongst them was the fact that the bids and submissions had to be in before Mcnally and Bowkett joined the board and at that time looking at ways of expanding the ground was not top of the priority list. I am sure that if the opportunity arose again we might not be so slow on the uptake! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boyo 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="The Walking Man "][quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="Old Shuck"]It''s up to them though, isn''t it? If Forest, MK Dons, Bristol City et al want to expand their grounds, else build new ones with high capacities, thats their decision to make, justifiable or not. Look at Darlington, they have an enormous, spanking new stadium now, it is, and probably never was, sufficient for their needs-too big, too expensive, too corporate. If other teams want to build themselves 30''000/40''000 seater grounds when, historically, they have never had that sort of support, let them get on with it, lets just worry about us. We wouldn''t get a World Cup ground, no matter what we did-the transport links are poor, and I, for one, don''t want a motorway raping its way through Norfolk, to Norwich, just for the sake of a World Cup opportunity Hell, the county isn''t much on the map for the Olympics either, football included. The fact is, when the vote for 2018 comes, we won''t get it anyway. Are the FIFA Federations really going to vote for England? Of course they aren''t. We had little chance before the Treisman affair, we have even less now. We have the tradition and the infrastructure, all good reasons to hold it, but thats not what its all about, its about who scratches whose back/greases palm etc. 2014 is Brazil, 2018 will be Russia, 2022 will either be Dubai or the USA, with 2026 going to whoever didn''t get it of those two in 2022. 2030 anyone?[/quote]2022 will be australia... purely because its the only continent yet to have held a world cup.[/quote]I wouldn''t discount Qatar just yet. If Sepp Blatter wanted to make a statement, giving the World Cup to Qatar would certainly be one! The plans and technology for their stadia are so far advanced its amazing!http://www.qatar2022bid.com/qatars-bid/stadiums[/quote]Wow! The Qatar stadiums look great! And that would be one hell of a World Cup to go to just for them! Although I''m sure the prices would be outrageous! Anyway, surely they need more than five stadiums to host it? And aren''t we in for 2022 aswell, if we don''t get 2018? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stukulele 0 Posted June 15, 2010 [quote user="Jim Smith"]It was an opportunity missed and i asked McNally about this towards the end of last season. Basically there were a multitude of factors but chief amongst them was the fact that the bids and submissions had to be in before Mcnally and Bowkett joined the board and at that time looking at ways of expanding the ground was not top of the priority list. I am sure that if the opportunity arose again we might not be so slow on the uptake![/quote]I wondered if this was the case. I thought back and thought the bidding process may have been in the takeover period and so dropped down the priority list. Plymouth and MK Dons have only got it because they have to spread it around country. What a shame it won''t be in Norwich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted June 15, 2010 We are candidates for both 2018 and 20022 although in reality our only chance is 2018 as that''s the one that is almost certain to go to Europe as Fifa wont allow 3 back to back world cups outside Europe, 2022 is likely to go to either Australia or the USA (hopefully Australia). England are favorites to get 2018 ahead of Russia and Spain/Portugal, but with Fifa you never know for sure as they''ll look for any excuse to not give us a world cup it seems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacko 0 Posted June 16, 2010 [quote user="The Walking Man "]It does get me worked up how clubs can like Plymouth, MK Dons, Bristol City, and to lesser extents Forrest, Leeds, and Sheffield Wednesday can all justify getting huge new stadia or expanding their existing ones even though they get nowhere near selling out every week. Plymouth averaged 10,316 at 52.9% full, Bristol City 14,592 at 67.9% full and the mighty MK Dons 10,290 filling a massive 46.7% of their souless stadium. Blatter is all about creating legacies, and if we win the bid in 2018 the legacy for these clubs will be huge stadiums that will lucky to be even a quarter full. Absolute farce.[/quote]Exactly my thoughts. Obviously a balance has to be struck between leaving a legacy and having the best tournament experience possible. This means stadiums such as New Wembley, Old Trafford and The Emirates have to be get first priority. These are the venues that players will dream of playing when a World Cup comes to England. However after that surely it would be better to target grounds which are crying out for potential expansion. Grounds such as Molinuex, Carrow Road, Upton Park seem to sell out every week with many supporters unable to get tickets. Surely the best legacy a world cup could leave is if more people were able to support their local team and follow up their interest in football. For that reason I think building a 40,000 stadium in Plymouth would be a joke because it would be more likely to hinder Plymouth than to help them. It will interesting to see what becomes of all these stadiums in South Africa once the world cup has finished. Many of them will be unfit for purpose after the tournament finishes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites