London ( Wembley, Arsenal, Spurs/Stratford
Newcastle
Sunderland
Leeds
Sheffield (Hillsbrough)
Milton Keynes
Plymouth
Bristol (new City ground)
Nottingham (New Forest)
Liverpool (old or new Anfield)
Manchester (CIty and United)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Derby, Hull Leicester miss out
0
Comments
Ridiculous
Stunning decision, going to turn some people off the bid, and harsh on Leicester and Derby, two cities with footballing histories
Not really. Big population in the centre of the country. Site has potential to expand capacity.
As with Plymouth and Bristol expanding or building new stadium outside conventional "football" areas.
Hillsborough seems a politically hot potato.
Why two grounds in Manchester?
But Tottenham and Liverpool are going to impress them!!
Forget MK Dons, as a city it makes sense.
Not every game in South Africa is in a big city.
One of them might be Edgeley Park .... ?
;o)
I'd have thought that Southampton would be a better choice than one of Plymouth or Bristol, especially as neither have yet built their new stadium, while the Saints have.
Two cities in the west to spread the games around the country.
Gives more fans a chance to see a game locally and spreads the economic benefit as well so stopping the "why are we paying for this, none of the games are near me" attitude.
So am I the only one who think Hillsborough is a bit iffy given its history?
;o)
Living in Manchester I'm biased but it has 2 well developed stadiums that are ready. Dense North West population 2hrs to London, major airport, National Football Museum, BBC Sports centre with media city etc. I think they are a few reasons why it has 2.
Are you saying northerners are a bit thick? : - )
Good points on Manchester. Just wondered why needed two there plus in Liverpool. Two is enough for a group of 4 teams
Unique as ever ; - )
I agree with you about Hillsborough, but not because of its history but because Sheffield is a hole.
It has always been a favourite with foreign football fans and tourists, More so with and following the Capital of Culture events last year. Airport also has flghts to and from plenty of overseas destinations as well. Perfect location I'd say. Certainly better than Manchester.
Tottenham I'll agree with you about but not Liverpool!
I think that there is enough people around the north west to justify 3. I don't know the stats but looking at a map it's full of urban sprawls so I guess there must be quite fair percentage of the country in the North West? Football people as well. You've got Liverpool/Everton/Bolton/Blackburn/Burnley/Wigan/ManU/Man City from the Prem alone.
Sheffield has good rail/road connections, good infrastructure in terms of hotels, traditionally a sporting city.
Hillsborough is a different ground to the place that it was at the time of the disaster.
I'm sure the bit of Liverpool where you live is fine but I've never been impressed by the offy's with all the bars up around Anfield and Goodison.
Personally always prefered Manchester for football and generally but won't claim to know either well.
Was really just making the point that MK isn't as bad as some of the other venues.
.........
No sporting or football heritage, a little over an hour north of London and so not that far from the north London stadia that are being used, I'd have thought that Leicester or Derby would have a better shout as it gives the East Midlands some representation.
Forest's new ground does that. It was either have Leicester/Derby or have Stratford/Spurs, and the London option will provide FIFA more money...
Not even for North Korea v Mozambique?
: - )
Do the FA pay for the ground to be built up to capacity?
Henry, the Lepping Lane end will be redeveloped, but sadly it will still contain THAT tunnel.
lol..so you agree with all the choices...but not really Plymouth. ;-)
Bet Scally is fuming!
yep! see dense statement earlier.
I think I meant agree in terms of geographic location for locals but the practical element of Plymouth being quite removed from everywhere else for teams/supporters, and the stadium will need to be 40,000.