"Portsmouth have officially pulled out of the running to be a possible host city for the England 2018 & 2022 World Cup bid. "
Hopefully we won't be far behind them in dropping out. This is kind of a blow for folks who want to keep the City Ground and those stop green belt building, it lowers the odds for Nottingham a little.
I don't see how it has any consequence for Nottingham's bid. Please enlighten me.Originally Posted by earthworm
Kay Cutts is shagging Linvoy Primus?Originally Posted by garrilla
I think the gist of the thread is 'Pompey have pulled out of the WC bid. Forest should too. Discuss'Originally Posted by garrilla
I thought I'd read Portsmouth was a rival city for Nottingham ...Originally Posted by Alvar Hanso
I read it as "Portsmouth pull out, this leaves fewer competing citis, thus making it more likely that Nottingham will "succeed" "
"This statement is false."
26Mil to add 10K more seats What are they made of eh? Diamonds?Originally Posted by Alex
Don't let us start another stay/go argument about the City Ground.
That's how i read it but that implication would be wrong imho.Originally Posted by 'Sir' Flagman.
There are 15 cities (nee 16) and 12 venues. Its not a straight 1/15 odds down from 1/16, there will be some attempt to regionalise the distribution.
Pompey would have been competing with Plymouth & Bristol.
Nottingham's bid is effectively competing with Derby, Leics & (maybe) Sheffield.
Does that mean Arsenal and Chelsea are competing with Wembley? Somehow I doubt it. Are Man City even bothering?
Obv. the capital will have central venues and surrounding camps but Liverpool, man u/city north east will have their own bids as will brum and east mids. Its down to the city to make its choice and then sell it.Originally Posted by Alex
The FIFA rules say that no more than 2 stadiums from any one cityy. So Wembly will be the final and London will have one other stadium. I'm not sure that the Emirates has been put forward (EDIT: they joined at the last moment).Originally Posted by Alex
Milton Keyens have put their bid in on their proximity to London but being outside.
I expect that ManU and Man City may feature. But Everton are not in Where as Liverpool are.
I think Bristol are nailed on certs now for the final 12 with Portsmouth dropping out.
Don't think Nottingham is in competition with Sheffield either, as we'll be going for the midlands spot against Derby and Leicester, whereas they're in the north category against Leeds I think.
Still think you're looking at:
London (Wembley and The Emirates - although the latter will need a name change)
Manchester (Old Trafford and City of Manchester)
Newcastle (St James Park)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Bristol (Ashton Gate)
Sunderland (Stadium of Light)
Leeds (Elland Road)
Nottingham/Derby/Leicester (No idea from our region who's going to get it)
It says on the BBC website that 'about 10 cities will be chosen', so I assume that to mean two cities will get two stadiums as there are normally 12 host stadiums.
I see Everton's new stadium was rejected by the Goverment, without wishing to re-ignite the debate I forsee the Gamston plans will go the same way. My understanding from people I know at the City is that they have now accepted that Leicester is the the front-runner mainly due to it having the least amount of obstacles to overcome to meet the requirements set out by FIFA
Decent read from the BBC
South Africa only has ten, so I guess my estimate of 12 could be wrong.
why the hell isn't historic Lincoln in the world cup bid?
Why would Manc-land justify having two?
Originally Posted by Winnits
Maybe because they have two excellent stadiums in a large city?
Sod 'em, make 'em choose one lol
Nottingham will fuck up their bid anyway, it's been a clusterfuck from start to finish so far.
Nottingham is the most attractive city in the Midlands with regards to facilities etc but Leicester will probably host games!
I think Manchester should get two stadiums, just the same as London.
Obviously the big smoke is a big city with loads of clubs based there, but why should it get more than two just because it's the capital?
It shouldn't get any, that'd piss 'em right off.
Let's be right, of us, Derby and Les-dar we're the only city in the East Midlands.
The other two are glorified towns.
Well in theory Salford could have put in a bid basing Old Trafford as their's, which would then leave Eastlands to Manchester City Council itself.Originally Posted by Winnits
Hmm, so we could bid as Rushcliffe and then Nottingham could bid with Notts County's new megadromeOriginally Posted by westyorksnffc