Noodles34 Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 source from Zurich that England bid failed because wives etc didn't want to go to plymouth and Milton Keynes, another source quoting West Quay as the missing link. Beckham, Cameron, Wales! but West Quay would have won it for Ingerland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Apparently, when the bid was first put together, the FIFA delagates all sat round and googled each city on each bid. When they googled this; It was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Apparently, when the bid was first put together, the FIFA delagates all sat round and googled each city on each bid. When they googled this; It was over. Not so sure about that Scott, they were looking for somewhere where money could easily disappear, FP would have ticked that box. More likely that it was cos the Queen snubbed them as she did the Commonwelath games. Not that I care but they should have sent Queenie, Alan Sugar amd Cliff Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Not so sure about that Scott, they were looking for somewhere where money could easily disappear, FP would have ticked that box. More likely that it was cos the Queen snubbed them as she did the Commonwelath games. Not that I care but they should have sent Queenie, Alan Sugar amd Cliff Richard. More chance if FIFA had recruited Cowell,Walsh,Minogue,to the selection panel,supported by the cockney geezer,and one of the arse bandits from Strictly to make the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 More chance if FIFA had recruited Cowell,Walsh,Minogue,to the selection panel,supported by the cockney geezer,and one of the arse bandits from Strictly to make the decision. One of the what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 No, the England team should have put more into their 'bung budget'. Then they would have won. However, I have to agree. Obviously i'm biased as a Saints fan, but SMS has a higher capacity than Home Park and the city is better connected to the rest of England. Also, MILTON F*CKING KEYNES!? If they wanted somewhere not too far from London, why not Norwich or Ipswich? It's a bit farther but not too far, and both are bigger and better supported clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Apparently, when the bid was first put together, the FIFA delagates all sat round and googled each city on each bid. When they googled this; It was over. Agreed They were afraid that there were people more experienced than them at bungs, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintscottofthenortham Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Not so sure about that Scott, they were looking for somewhere where money could easily disappear, FP would have ticked that box. More likely that it was cos the Queen snubbed them as she did the Commonwelath games. Not that I care but they should have sent Queenie, Alan Sugar amd Cliff Richard. Putin didn't go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 (edited) No, the England team should have put more into their 'bung budget'. Then they would have won. However, I have to agree. Obviously i'm biased as a Saints fan, but SMS has a higher capacity than Home Park and the city is better connected to the rest of England. Also, MILTON F*CKING KEYNES!? If they wanted somewhere not too far from London, why not Norwich or Ipswich? It's a bit farther but not too far, and both are bigger and better supported clubs. In a way the FA can't whine about "we didn't have a chance because FIFA clearly wanted to go to new places". That was exactly the same thinking that took them to Stadium MK for their bid. Milton Keynes is the Qatar of England. "Won't it be jolly different if we went there rather than proper football cities like Derby or Leicester with their decades of historical football support and teams with heritage and history". In the midlands section of the selection process, Derby (League winners, huge fanbase, real football city) and Leicester (multiple trophy winners, Banks, Shilton and Lineker, England's only real three-sport city) were rejected in favour of Milton Keynes (Stadium handily near IKEA). You started it FA and you fuc ked up. Edited 3 December, 2010 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 In a way the FA can't whine about "we didn't have a chance because FIFA clearly wanted to go to new places". That was exactly the same thinking that took them to Stadium MK for their bid. Milton Keynes is the Qatar of England. "Won't it be jolly different if we went there rather than proper football cities like Derby or Leicester with their decades of historical football support and teams with heritage and history". In the midlands section of the selection process, Derby (League winners, huge fanbase, real football city) and Leicester (multiple trophy winners, Banks, Shilton and Lineker, England's only real three-sport city) were rejected in favour of Milton Keynes (Stadium handily near IKEA). You started it FA and you fuc ked up. That's a very good point actually (although we all know the vote was a stitch up in any case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 (edited) On a serious note... obviously the stadium choice was not the 'main reason' our bid was rejected. But selecting Milton Keynes, Bristol and Plymouth was very stupid considering all the places in the country with bigger stadiums and bigger fan bases. Beckham talked about passion. Average attendances of 8000, 14000 and 7000 are hardly signals of passionate support in those cities. Edited 3 December, 2010 by SaintNeil90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 On a serious note... obviously the stadium chose was not the 'main reason' our bid was rejected. But selecting Milton Keynes, Bristol and Plymouth was very stupid considering all the places in the country with bigger stadiums and bigger fan bases. Beckham talked about passion. Average attendances of 8000, 14000 and 7000 are hardly signals of passionate support in those cities. what the hell has club average attendance got to so with a world cup bid..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_bert Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 (edited) In a way the FA can't whine about "we didn't have a chance because FIFA clearly wanted to go to new places". That was exactly the same thinking that took them to Stadium MK for their bid. Milton Keynes is the Qatar of England. "Won't it be jolly different if we went there rather than proper football cities like Derby or Leicester with their decades of historical football support and teams with heritage and history". In the midlands section of the selection process, Derby (League winners, huge fanbase, real football city) and Leicester (multiple trophy winners, Banks, Shilton and Lineker, England's only real three-sport city) were rejected in favour of Milton Keynes (Stadium handily near IKEA). You started it FA and you fuc ked up. Has this been said?. And if it has, their clearly way off the mark if they think thats the reason we were not chosen. Edited 3 December, 2010 by saint_bert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 what the hell has club average attendance got to so with a world cup bid..? Because Plymouth and Milton Keynes would have been left with white elephants after 2018, if England were successful. Plymouth had 4,900 for their last league game and wanted to build a 46k stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Because Plymouth and Milton Keynes would have been left with white elephants after 2018, if England were successful. so..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 so..? Not heard of the phrase unsustainable development? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Not heard of the phrase unsustainable development? so...plymouth get an extra 25k seats..and mk dons get an extra 15k seats or so.. not really huge is it.... plymouth especially has massive potential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 so...plymouth get an extra 25k seats..and mk dons get an extra 15k seats or so.. not really huge is it.... plymouth especially has massive potential... Plymouth had 4,900 for their last league game and wanted to build a 46,000 stadium. Where is this potential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 what the hell has club average attendance got to so with a world cup bid..? What looks better... small stadiums with small attendances or big stadiums with big attendances? We have some of the best stadiums in the world and we chose MK Dons, Bristol and Plymouth! Why did we not chose the bigger stadium from clubs with better support and more history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Plymouth had 4,900 for their last league game and wanted to build a 46,000 stadium. Where is this potential? so what.. in the grand scheme of world cup bids...adding 25k to a stadium in a city of over a quarter of a million is small potatos in the process of world cup bidding soccer city will probably be closed most of the time....did that stop the bid..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 What looks better... small stadiums with small attendances or big stadiums with big attendances? We have some of the best stadiums in the world and we chose MK Dons, Bristol and Plymouth! Why did we not chose the bigger stadium from clubs with better support and more history. who cares what looks better.....means nothing to you or me if plymouth dont sell out does it..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 What looks better... small stadiums with small attendances or big stadiums with big attendances? We have some of the best stadiums in the world and we chose MK Dons, Bristol and Plymouth! Why did we not chose the bigger stadium from clubs with better support and more history. Geographical spread around the country was what they tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Geographical spread around the country was what they tried to do. I know that but I think they could have made better choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 so what.. in the grand scheme of world cup bids...adding 25k to a stadium in a city of over a quarter of a million is small potatos in the process of world cup bidding soccer city will probably be closed most of the time....did that stop the bid..? You are the one that said Plymouth had potential. Saints vs Dagenham & Redbridge, midweek, winter, small away following, 3rd tier game = over 20,000 turn up Plymouth vs Dagenham & Redbridge, midweek, winter, small away following, 3rd tier game = under 5,000 turn up If Plymouth have the potential for 46k, then how big should Cortese make St Mary's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I know that but I think they could have made better choices. Like where? It is very limited in the south of England if you want a spread of games. Neither Saints or Pompey were in a position to bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 who cares what looks better.....means nothing to you or me if plymouth dont sell out does it..? When you present something it definitely looks better if you show proof of the ability to sell out stadiums with big support and atmosphere than coming up with the idea of a soccer city IN MY OPINION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Like where? It is very limited in the south of England if you want a spread of games. Neither Saints or Pompey were in a position to bid. Switch MK Dons with Ipswich or Norwich. Bristol with Southampton (We offered sms when Cortese/ Liebherr took over but FA turned us down) Switch Plymouth with Cardiff (in my opinion even though its wales it should have been included) Millenium stadium that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Switch MK Dons with Ipswich or Norwich. Bristol with Southampton (We offered sms when Cortese/ Liebherr took over but FA turned us down) Switch Plymouth with Cardiff (in my opinion even though its wales it should have been included) Millenium stadium that is. It required the city council to bid along with the club. Ipswich/Norwich didn't bid, Saints weren't in a position to meet the deadline, never going to include the Millennium stadium in an English bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Never mind. We'll host the Rugby World Cup in SMS. Because nobody much watches top rugby down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 so...plymouth get an extra 25k seats..and mk dons get an extra 15k seats or so.. not really huge is it.... plymouth especially has massive potential... And you claim that I'm insane... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Switch MK Dons with Ipswich or Norwich. Bristol with Southampton (We offered sms when Cortese/ Liebherr took over but FA turned us down) Switch Plymouth with Cardiff (in my opinion even though its wales it should have been included) Millenium stadium that is. The whole point of a geographic spread is that it covered the whole country, you have just removed all the venues from the South West of England, the largest region in England with 5 million people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Not heard of the phrase unsustainable development? What's unsustainable about a a stadium that is too large after the world cup, its mainly capital spend which would have been a grant. Sheffield Wednesday has a ground with a capacity of 39000 and average attendance of 18000. As Dell Days says it's small beer in the scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Bristol is a city suited for international football - it's just the stadia that needed developing as both are cowsheds. Plymouth and Milton Keynes are not, even though they do have better stadia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaside Saint 2 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 What people are forgetting is that Plymouth, Bristol, and Milton Keynes were all part of the 17 venue bid which would have been whittled down to 12 if we had won. I don't think its unrealistic to believe that these three would have been part of the 5 venues that would be dumped, not least because two of them haven't been built yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 Putin didn't go... Of course he didn't go. Nor was he in London when Litvinenko was poisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 To be fair, if Plymouth got to the Prem they would have 35,000 every week. They are starved of success down there and the Cornish would be over the border in their thousands. Anyway, I'm in Oz now so can get to Qatar easily enough. Hope they put on the stonings at half time as I won't be able to get a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Uwe Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 To be fair, if Plymouth got to the Prem they would have 35,000 every week. They are starved of success down there and the Cornish would be over the border in their thousands. Anyway, I'm in Oz now so can get to Qatar easily enough. Hope they put on the stonings at half time as I won't be able to get a beer. Indeed. In my opinion Plymouth was also selected due to being right in the middle of a tourist hotspot (my wife comes from Salcombe so, like you, she knows exactly what that means in the summer...), it would have offered something a bit different anyway. But never mind, don't matter now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 Plymouth were going to get a new stadium if england had got the world cup and it would not havecost them a penny also why wasnt Peter Storrie and redkrapp not involved with the english Bid allegedly they would have been at home with the fifa bandits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 Plymouth were going to get a new stadium if england had got the world cup and it would not havecost them a penny also why wasnt Peter Storrie and redkrapp not involved with the english Bid allegedly they would have been at home with the fifa bandits And Terry Venables. If nothing else at least El Spiv would have kept his mates in the press onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 To be fair, if Plymouth got to the Prem they would have 35,000 every week. They are starved of success down there and the Cornish would be over the border in their thousands. Anyway, I'm in Oz now so can get to Qatar easily enough. Hope they put on the stonings at half time as I won't be able to get a beer. There is no evidence to suggest this at all, people say this about Bristol City as well. But there is a pretty much a fixed % uplift between championship attendance and premiership attendance and 35000 is miles outside the range. Plymouth also have one of the highest ex pat set of fans and driving back to Plymouth every week is a big call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 (edited) so what.. in the grand scheme of world cup bids...adding 25k to a stadium in a city of over a quarter of a million is small potatos in the process of world cup bidding soccer city will probably be closed most of the time....did that stop the bid..? like you TDD... I can look back over several decades and note that venues need to be "attractive "..not for the colour of the wall paper but the accessability, the facilities, local amenities, airport, attractive shopping, clubs, hotels etc, We have that at SMS. I visited Plymouth many years ago..and although the people were very friendly; I rather got the impression that Francis Drake was still on the HT break in the bowls game!. Bristol and MK look like what they are.... L1 grounds ...SMS was built when we were a Prem side and it is still in better nick than some of todays Prem clubs have. If we follow NCs 5 year plan we'll be back in the Prem. by 2018, and that's what should be considered. It's a no-brainer to build a 40,000 + stadium for a team that has a gate record of only 20,000 and isn't even all seater. Considering where those clubs are now, one or both might be bankrupt before 2018. What their present gates are is somewhat immaterial, but neither place is a good advert for the World Cup, and after they 've had their 2-3 games in the Qualifying rounds the big stadiums will take over and they will be left with the running costs for a 40K arena . Maybe someone might have thought about that before they submitted our bid. Edited 4 December, 2010 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 but..the grounds would not have been built/re developed for the clubs..it would have been done for the world cup and in the name of spreading the competition around the country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 but..the grounds would not have been built/re developed for the clubs..it would have been done for the world cup and in the name of spreading the competition around the country... yes I know, but an arena that size has to be maintained afterwards and the rates and running costs would be greater than their wage bill. It would also be an embarrassment to be one of 5,000 " regular " fans in a 40K stadium. There aren't even so many local facilities that could help fund costs on an arena that size. ..year after year after year .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 yes I know, but an arena that size has to be maintained afterwards and the rates and running costs would be greater than their wage bill. It would also be an embarrassment to be one of 5,000 " regular " fans in a 40K stadium. There aren't even so many local facilities that could help fund costs on an arena that size. ..year after year after year .. hey..it matters not now plymouth have a massive potential should they ever get into the top flight....but that will never happen lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 To be fair, if Plymouth got to the Prem they would have 35,000 every week. No chance. Only 10 teams in England currently do that. To think a team that had under 5k for their last 3rd tier game against Dagenham & Redbridge would get 35k average in the top flight is bizarre. Saints had over 20k for the a comparable 3rd tier game against Dagenham & Redbridge (also in mid week). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 No chance. Only 10 teams in England currently do that. To think a team that had under 5k for their last 3rd tier game against Dagenham & Redbridge would get 35k average in the top flight is bizarre. Saints had over 20k for the a comparable 3rd tier game against Dagenham & Redbridge (also in mid week). sorry..how on earth can you say no chance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 sorry..how on earth can you say no chance.... Because nothing in their history suggests they will get anywhere near 35k. As a mid table Championship side they averaged 13k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 Because nothing in their history suggests they will get anywhere near 35k. As a mid table Championship side they averaged 13k. plymouth has a population of 250k...then the surrounding areas (more so cornwall) and has the massive base of plastic man u/liverpool/arsenal/chelsea fans.. hell..I would even go if they ever got to the prem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 (edited) plymouth has a population of 250k...then the surrounding areas (more so cornwall) and has the massive base of plastic man u/liverpool/arsenal/chelsea fans.. hell..I would even go if they ever got to the prem If the fanbase was "there", signs of it would show despite a drop into the lower Leagues. Plymouth shows none of these signs... West Ham and Aston Villa currently average 35k but if they dropped into the 3rd tier they would certainly average alot more than the 6,000 that Plymouth currently do! Saints fanbase still shows over the 20k mark in the 3rd tier, so a jump to 35k isn't that much once the plastics come back to see the Premier League football on offer and a large increase in the number of away fans. So how big should Cortese make St Mary's if Plymouth need 35k? Edited 4 December, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 December, 2010 Share Posted 4 December, 2010 I guess the reason Milton Keynes, Bristol and Plymouth were included was because FIFA obviously like shiny new stadiums and put alot of value on the "legacy". The bid team would have wanted some flash architects plans to show. FIFA also seem to like white elephants - Russia's top league has an average attendance of about 12,500, there no demand there at all for twelve 40,000 seater stadiums. As for Qatar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now