What's new

WC2030 England bid

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
But would the powers that be go for two stadia in London? I don't think they would. It would be as spread out as possible.
No reason why they wouldn't with the number of fixtures they'll be. Would Wembley definitely get matches if the FA sold the stadium?

If you wanted every stadium from a different city, you'd need five new or much-expanded grounds.
 

LSUY

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2005
24,010
66,826
Going by 2026 plans, the tournament will be spread across 16 stadiums each with at least 40,000 seats. Going by the talk of a British bid and the plans they had for 2018, might be something like the following:

Wembley, London
Hampden Park, Glasgow
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
Millenium Stadium, Cardiff
Old Trafford, Manchester
Anfield, Liverpool
St James' Park, Newcastle
Stadium of Light, Sunderland
Villa Park, Birmingham
Hillsbrough, Sheffield
Elland Road, Leeds
New ground in Nottingham
New ground in Bristol
New ground/massively expanded Home Park, Plymouth
Etihad Stadium, Manchester
New White Hart Lane, London

That would mean all the country's best venues being used, along with it being spread pretty well across different parts of Britain. And if we didn't want to rely on new/expanded grounds (e.g. imagine a 48-team World Cup needs a last-minute host and the UK is chosen) you'd have loads spare to sub in - namely Everton's new ground/Goodison, Ibrox and Celtic Park in Glasgow, and the Olympic or the Emirates in London,

If it's a joint bid then Northern Ireland has to host at least one match.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
If it's a joint bid then Northern Ireland has to host at least one match.
The talk is that they'll just potentially host a couple of team's training basis but potentially nothing at all. There's just a myriad of issues. You need a new stadium, presumably in Belfast, which'll need public funding - that means a can of worms over making sure it's in a location which is deemed accessible to both communities, not to mention the question of why Catholics should fund a ground that after the tournament would presumably be used by the NI national team and their predominantly Protestant fan base. Then you have the question of automatic qualification - UEFA looks as though they may draw the line at three teams, meaning if NI were included there'd be a debate about who missed out and then the embarrassment for them of hosting a tournament they don't qualify for. You'd got the increased security resources needed there, especially since the tournament will likely be ongoing during the Glorious Twelfth. You've got the travel element of every team needing to fly in and out of there, and more often also needing hotels etc rather than going straight back to their training base. You've got the fact that Northern Ireland may or may not even still be part of the UK by 2030 (a couple of recent polls showed a reunification referendum would be very tight, with Brexit having a large impact), potentially making this whole exercise at best pointless and at worse even more contentious (if the two Irish FA's merged then the FAI would suddenly become a joint host after the bid had already been awarded). I'd love to see it there but even the SFA chief suggested it's unlikely and I can't see them touching it with a bargepole.
 

nferno

Waiting for England to finally win the Euros-2024?
Jan 7, 2007
7,014
10,012
No need, it’s already coming home lads.
 

LSUY

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2005
24,010
66,826
The talk is that they'll just potentially host a couple of team's training basis but potentially nothing at all. There's just a myriad of issues. You need a new stadium, presumably in Belfast, which'll need public funding - that means a can of worms over making sure it's in a location which is deemed accessible to both communities, not to mention the question of why Catholics should fund a ground that after the tournament would presumably be used by the NI national team and their predominantly Protestant fan base. Then you have the question of automatic qualification - UEFA looks as though they may draw the line at three teams, meaning if NI were included there'd be a debate about who missed out and then the embarrassment for them of hosting a tournament they don't qualify for. You'd got the increased security resources needed there, especially since the tournament will likely be ongoing during the Glorious Twelfth. You've got the travel element of every team needing to fly in and out of there, and more often also needing hotels etc rather than going straight back to their training base. You've got the fact that Northern Ireland may or may not even still be part of the UK by 2030 (a couple of recent polls showed a reunification referendum would be very tight, with Brexit having a large impact), potentially making this whole exercise at best pointless and at worse even more contentious (if the two Irish FA's merged then the FAI would suddenly become a joint host after the bid had already been awarded). I'd love to see it there but even the SFA chief suggested it's unlikely and I can't see them touching it with a bargepole.

So there isn't much point in including N. Ireland in the bid?
 

wirE

I'm a well-known member
Sep 27, 2005
4,676
5,582
But would the powers that be go for two stadia in London? I don't think they would. It would be as spread out as possible.

Yeah for sure. Back in 96 you had Elland Road, City Ground, Hillsborough, Villa Park but as for modern standard and capacity, they can't compete so I reckon maybe Wembley, Old Trafford, Anfield, St. James Park are amongst some of the venues that will be chosen. But then again, You'd have Ethiad, Emirates, Tottenham Stadium and maybe Everton and Chelsea's new venue. Hard to overlook them..
 

tototoner

Staying Alert
Mar 21, 2004
29,387
34,059
seems Morocco now want a joint bid with Spain and Portugal, I guess that's one way to secure the African and Latin vote

 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
But would the powers that be go for two stadia in London? I don't think they would. It would be as spread out as possible.

I don't see why not given that the City is so big and if you did e.g. Wembley and given that it'd be Wembley + one of Twickenham, OS, NWHL. or the Emirates they're not right next to each other so it would still work.

Besides, the entire Qatar WC is taking place in one city, and that's much smaller than London
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
If you wanted every stadium from a different city, you'd need five new or much-expanded grounds.

Not necessarily if it was a joint British bid.

Russia had 12 stadiums so assuming that's the required number you need, we could have:

Shoe-ins would be
  1. Wembley, London, 90k
  2. OId Trafford, Manchester, 75k
  3. Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, 74k
  4. Murrayfield, Edinburgh, 67k
  5. Celtic Park, Glasgow, 60k
  6. Anfield, Liverpool, 54k
  7. St James Park, Newcastle, 52k
  8. Stadium of Light, Sunderland, 49k
  9. Villa Park, Birmingham, 42k
  10. Elland Road, Leeds, 37k
Then you would just have any 2 of e.g. he Riverside, King Power, Molineux, St Mary's etc. which are all just over 30k. Would just depend on how you wanted to split it up i.e. you probably wouldn't have the riverside cos there's already Newcastle + Sunderland up there, and you probably wouldn't have Hillsborough because it's old and crap and has shit corporate facilities.

You may scoff at e.g. the King Power, but when you look at it, most of the stadiums in Russia were 45k capacity and some were even less than 30k so with this arrangement we would have miles more overall capacity than they had at Russia. If anything it would potentially be too much so if you didn't want to include rugby stadiums you could switch those ones to smaller football grounds e.g. switch the Millenium Stadium to either Cardiff City Stadium or the Liberty in Swansea, and likewise Murrayfield you could switch to Tynecastle/Easter Road (potentially with a temporary extension if possible.

The only trouble with this is that Northern Ireland isn't represented which would definitely be a rtequirement in a joint British bid, but the solution there would be to temporarily extend Windsor Park or Ravenhill I suppose.

Long story short, it's definitely possible to do it without having 2 stadiums in the same city and still have a bigger capacity than most WCs
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
Not necessarily if it was a joint British bid.

Russia had 12 stadiums so assuming that's the required number you need, we could have:

Shoe-ins would be
  1. Wembley, London, 90k
  2. OId Trafford, Manchester, 75k
  3. Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, 74k
  4. Murrayfield, Edinburgh, 67k
  5. Celtic Park, Glasgow, 60k
  6. Anfield, Liverpool, 54k
  7. St James Park, Newcastle, 52k
  8. Stadium of Light, Sunderland, 49k
  9. Villa Park, Birmingham, 42k
  10. Elland Road, Leeds, 37k
Then you would just have any 2 of e.g. he Riverside, King Power, Molineux, St Mary's etc. which are all just over 30k. Would just depend on how you wanted to split it up i.e. you probably wouldn't have the riverside cos there's already Newcastle + Sunderland up there, and you probably wouldn't have Hillsborough because it's old and crap and has shit corporate facilities.

You may scoff at e.g. the King Power, but when you look at it, most of the stadiums in Russia were 45k capacity and some were even less than 30k so with this arrangement we would have miles more overall capacity than they had at Russia. If anything it would potentially be too much so if you didn't want to include rugby stadiums you could switch those ones to smaller football grounds e.g. switch the Millenium Stadium to either Cardiff City Stadium or the Liberty in Swansea, and likewise Murrayfield you could switch to Tynecastle/Easter Road (potentially with a temporary extension if possible.

The only trouble with this is that Northern Ireland isn't represented which would definitely be a rtequirement in a joint British bid, but the solution there would be to temporarily extend Windsor Park or Ravenhill I suppose.

Long story short, it's definitely possible to do it without having 2 stadiums in the same city and still have a bigger capacity than most WCs
Problem is that it's expanded to 48 teams so you likely need more grounds (the North America 2026 tournament is using 16 which seems about right), and there's now a minimum capacity of 40k.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Problem is that it's expanded to 48 teams so you likely need more grounds (the North America 2026 tournament is using 16 which seems about right), and there's now a minimum capacity of 40k.

Ah shit I forgot they were expanding it. You're probably right. If you didn't mind having more than 1 stadium in each city (which I don't think FIFA would) then you'd have 2 in Manchester, theoretically 2 in Liverpool if Everton's new ground is finished, 2 in Glasgow (Hampden Park and Celtic Park, plus potentially Ibrox I suppose), and then definitely Wembley and Twickenham in London, with scope to have NWHL, the OS, or the Emirates etc. potentially too if need be.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
I’m not normally one for conspiracy, but I reckon we could bid for 50 fucking years and still not get it.
 

SpaggyBoy

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2003
1,303
3,782
A World Cup in Post-No Deal Brexit Britain?

I'm not entirely sure that FIFA are going to allow it to be held in a post-industrial wasteland. By 2030 the stadiums will be in disrepair and occupied by Mad Max style gangs. Entry will be cheap as it will only cost a litre of petrol or some fresh food. The designated fan parks will actually be holding pens with gladiatorial combat to determine who gets the last of the alcohol supply. The England football team's fitness training will be hunting stray dogs and rats for their sustenance.

Still, never mind, it's coming home... apparently...
 

DiscoD1882

SC Supporter
Mar 27, 2006
6,934
14,669
So IF (and its probably pointless in doing so) and win the bid. I will be 55 years old by the time i get to see a world cup on home soil. The only tournament i have ever seen is Euro 96. from a country that has given so much to the game. this is nothing short of scandalous.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
So IF (and its probably pointless in doing so) and win the bid. I will be 55 years old by the time i get to see a world cup on home soil. The only tournament i have ever seen is Euro 96. from a country that has given so much to the game. this is nothing short of scandalous.

Partly because of FIFA's bias (although I think we'll be helped by the fact it's now voted on by the countries rather than totally corrupt FIFA execs), partly also this ridiculous idea of putting it in countries with little to no footballing prominance.

Personally I'd do it completely differently. I'd keep the tournament down to 32 teams so it could reasonably be hosted without huge infrastructure investment or entire continents bidding.. I'd institute a rule saying nobody could host it unless it had been 40 years or more since they last did so. And then I'd award it to the best-performing team from the tournament before last who wasn't ineligible. If they don't have the stadia/infrastructure needed they could nominate an eligible neighbouring country to host at most 50% of the games (you'd probably need something like 12 30k stadia, includng 4 at 50k and 1 at 70k), if that still wasn't enough then it passes on to the next best team.

For 2022 that'd be based on the 2014 World Cup (the delay means smaller but succesful nations would have a fair chance to upgrade stadiums if needed). Winners Germany would be ineligible because they hosted in 2006, so it'd pass to Argentina. For 2026 it'd be based on the 2018 tournament, France would be ineligible so that'd mean Croatia would have a chance, but realistically there's no way they could host it even with help - they only have two stadia above 20k. So it'd pass to third-placed Belgium who could probably manage it with the help of the Netherlands.

(At least assuming Belgium still came third - you can imagine how much more seriously the 3rd-place game would have been taken if it was going to decide the hosts between Belgium/Netherlands and England).
 

LSUY

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2005
24,010
66,826
A World Cup in Post-No Deal Brexit Britain?

I'm not entirely sure that FIFA are going to allow it to be held in a post-industrial wasteland. By 2030 the stadiums will be in disrepair and occupied by Mad Max style gangs. Entry will be cheap as it will only cost a litre of petrol or some fresh food. The designated fan parks will actually be holding pens with gladiatorial combat to determine who gets the last of the alcohol supply. The England football team's fitness training will be hunting stray dogs and rats for their sustenance.

Still, never mind, it's coming home... apparently...

Will still be better than the Qatar World Cup.
 
Top