This whole World Cup 2018 talk is getting me all excited...

[SafHossain03]

No I haven't got the logo up yet, but I want to know what everyone else thinks of potentially hosting the biggest sporting event since Rumble in the Jungle on our great shores?

Also, what would be the venues? I think a single country needs about 10, I've thought of the following so far...

Wembley, obviously


Old Trafford


New Anfield/ Stanley Park stadium (2011)


Emirates


St. James' Park, though maybe with some upgrades


Eastlands


Pompey's new Stadium (2011)


Those are all somewhate obvious answers I suppose, and obviously there'll be brand new stadiums built for 2018. Have I overlooked any? Each stadium has to occupy at least 40,000 spectators to meet FIFA's regulations.

Discuss?

[Dipanjan]

nice compilation mate!!!!!

[ShearerM4]

That specific Portsmouth stadium plan has officially been scrapped by the way. They've gone for a new location.

[1966+2006]

The Stadium Of Light and Villa Park deserve to be mentioned as well.

[Thelonious]

I wonder if they could use Cardiff, do Chelsea have any plans for a stadium?

[newbie original]

Stamford Bridge not on the list? IF not, then what about White Hart Lane?

[easyeasyeasy]

Originally Posted by Thelonious

I wonder if they could use Cardiff

No they can't. Cardiff is not in England, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the FAW :junior:

An on another note, if the government go ahead with this pie-in-the-sky idea that EVERYONE in the UK should subsidise taxes for this World Cup bid then I'm gonna write to my MP. Why should us lot from the three other countries in the union help fund an event that we might not take part in and also not benefit us? (:/)

[SafHossain03]

Originally Posted by easyeasyeasy

No they can't. Cardiff is not in England, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the FAW :junior:

An on another note, if the government go ahead with this pie-in-the-sky idea that EVERYONE in the UK should subsidise taxes for this World Cup bid then I'm gonna write to my MP. Why should us lot from the three other countries in the union help fund an event that we might not take part in and also not benefit us? (:/)

Hmm, is this a case for English votes for English laws? BTW, only one city's allowed to have more than one venue, and two is the maximum in one city. So it's basically a toss up between the Emirates and Eastlands, in my opinion, unless Chelsea dazzle us with a brand new stadium that they can obviously afford.

Also, I only thought of Villa Park after I posted, good stadium with plans to expand to 50,000 and I didnt mention Sunderland because I didn't realise it was over 40,000. RE Pompey, the stadium design will be the same though, wont it?

[Eagle Winged]

Originally Posted by newbie original

Stamford Bridge not on the list? IF not, then what about White Hart Lane?

Stamford Bridge probably isn't good enough. Compared to the stadiums mentioned already, it's a ****hole. Same goes for White Hart Lane.

[thetrooper37]

Originally Posted by newbie original

Stamford Bridge not on the list? IF not, then what about White Hart Lane?

Isn't white hart lane only 30-something-thousand?



Anyway, that Pompey stadium looks badass...what's the capacity gonna be?

[Bobby]

You can't have more than 2 stadiums in each city and Wembley and Arsenal are better than Chelsea, that's why it's not there.

England won't win anyway, USA or Mexico will.

[El Diablo Rojo]

So if only one city is allowed to have 2 stadiums probably i'd ditch Eastlands off. They could use:

-Wembley
-Emirates
-New Anfield
-Old Trafford
-Stadium of Light
-Villa Park
-St. James Park
-Elland Road
-New Notthingham Forest Stadium
-Walkers Stadium(after expansion)
-Pride Park Stadium(after expansion)

I don't know what's the minimun of stadiums they need to host a World Cup. What is it 9 or 10? So if they wanted they could well avoid to have to use 2 stadiums in London. So yeah i think England can host anyday, i think they'll be getting it in 2018.

[SafHossain03]

Originally Posted by El Diablo Rojo

So if only one city is allowed to have 2 stadiums probably i'd ditch Eastlands off. They could use:

-Wembley
-Emirates
-New Anfield
-Old Trafford
-Stadium of Light
-Villa Park
-St. James Park
-Elland Road
-New Notthingham Forest Stadium
-Walkers Stadium(after expansion)
-Pride Park Stadium(after expansion)

I don't know what's the minimun of stadiums they need to host a World Cup. What is it 9 or 10? So if they wanted they could well avoid to have to use 2 stadiums in London. So yeah i think England can host anyday, i think they'll be getting it in 2018.

A lot of those venues are around the same part of England. I really think there needs to be some sort of equality. For example, I'd definitely have Pompey's new stadium for the south, and, as an example, Ipswich Town's Portman Road Stadium (albeit with a lot of redevelopment) for the east of England.

[El Diablo Rojo]

Yes, probably you are right on the location issue, that list is based on existing stadiums and future projects. But it is possible that from here to a couple of years stadium projects(let them be brand new or expansions) appear for those areas and just like i said in my previous post they may not need to use 2 stadiums in London.

[Parra Power]

It'll be good having a World Cup in Australia.... about time.