I copied the following from, sporting_life.com
Could footballs biggest and oldest rivals unite to host the 2006 WC?
ps: Happy 100th Parkhead!


Celtic chief executive Allan MacDonald has called on England and Scotland to unite in an attempt to host the 2006 World Cup.

MacDonald wants the English Football Association to expand their bid to include the three major stadiums in Glasgow.

Old Firm grounds Parkhead and Ibrox - which celebrates its 100th birthday on Wednesday night when Rangers entertain Hearts - both have capacities in excess of 50,000, a figure currently exceeded in England only by Wembley and Old Trafford.

The revamped Hampden Park has already been selected as host venue for the 2002 Champions League final and would also figure if England decided to mount a joint bid.

"When sense prevails, hopefully the English FA will recognise the potential of Glasgow," said MacDonald.

"The option could exist for them to make our city, horrible as it sounds, a temporary extension of England," he told Celtic View magazine.

Sorry, but I think it's all bull.
We'd end up with all the 2nd rate games and England would hog all the biggies.
Where would the final be held? England, that's where.

Yeah true, but surley we`d get the Scotland games, there the only ones that matter, oh and i like watching Holland, we`d ay least get one dutch game. Plus it`s the only way we`d be able to host a world cup, even if it is co-hosting with the poms.

I know what you're saying but I still reckon England will commandeer the show.
The event would be known as "World Cup England & Scotland 2006" which would then be shortened to England 2006 cos half the planet thinks the UK is England anyway.
Nah still don't like the idea.

I'm an Aussie so this hasn't anything to bug me. I think the final in Wembley and a semi in old trafford.the other semi and the third place in scotland.
bye troy
man u

I realise that england would be the leading force, and that the world is ignorant to what Britian concists of.
How many Stadiums took part in France 98 i think there was 16?
So if we were to do the same then the stadium ratio would be 13:3.
And they Couldn`t deny Parkhead big games, few stadiums in the world seat 60,000 people a week.

What are you complaining about? We will give you three or more games and you don't have to do anything, you want more, make your own bid. Our Sporting council and Football Association has spent nearly 700 million on the bid already and Scotland has spent nothing, so if you want more than three or four games, 350 million to Lancaster Gate, London and then you can complain with three games.

More attitude from the man who thinks Heisel was a laugh.

My opionion is they should do it, and while they are at it why not a game or two in Dublin? Make it the British Isles WC...

Gooner- you mean IF Scotland qualifies...

I don't like co-hosting, becuase then there are less qualifying spots available. I hope Euro 2000 and WC 2002 will be the last co-hosting events. And I think England has more than enough appropriate stadiums to host a World Cup, Scotland is not needed. Germany is not uniting with anyone, they even hosted it as just West Germany in WC 74 and Euro 88.

Unfortunately there is one flaw in this whole scenario. The flaw is that FIFA via Sepp Blatter want all confederations to have hosted the world cup by the year 2010. As much as I would love to see England host the 2006 world cup and my vote is with them, my money will be on South Africa winning it. South Africa hosted a succesful 1995 rugby world cup that drew sell out crowds and they have the facilities to host the world cup. Some of those rugby stadiums are simply awesome. Fifa keep making noises about how they want it held there. I dont see England getting a real chance till 2010 and if Fifa were to stick to their stated hopes then Oceania would get it for 2010, Australia and New Zealand co hosting

If Scotland does co-host then I do think they should automatically qualify. I dislike the automatic qualifications though. France, Japan, and South Korea are already qualified for 2002. They get to walk right in when if they had to qualify they would probably have some trouble.

[This message has been edited by DirkDiggler (edited 12-23-1999).]

Firstly, Belfast strange username for a pom. Scotland would qualify automatically if we co-hosted it which i don`t think the footballing world would mind because England and us are regulars in the WC finals. But for Japan and korea to get auto-qualification sucks, they didn`t get a point between them in 98`s finals did they?

For Scots it`s the only way we could host a competition such as this, we just don`t have the facilities. As for Oceana 2010 Australia has the worst Football grounds in the world because they are RL fields and australia just doesn`t take enough interest in Football

gooner- that is just your wish that Scotland would qualify automatically, not fact right? From what I read Scotland would only get a few games in Glasgow and no automatic qualification.

By the way Im definitely for co-hosting in the future, simply said this is the only way some countries/cities could ever hope of holding a world cup game or two. For example why not a joint Scandinavian bid someday so countries like Norway, Denmark, etc. could hold a few games, or same thing for central and eastern Europe countries which alone are too small to host such event? Of course this would mean no more automatic qualification for home country.