[cite]Posted By: Northern_Monkey[/cite]I agree with all the choices, I think that the Midlands is a bit short with just Villa and Forest. Though being in the middle they have the easiest job of visiting the lot. I like the idea of Bristol, not sure about the MK choice but I think it's just to give the South/Midlands another option from their primary venues. I really don't agree with Plymouth.
lol..so you agree withallthe choices...but not really Plymouth. ;-)
yep! see dense statement earlier.
I think I meant agree in terms of geographic location but the practical element of Plymouth being quite removed from everywhere else and the stadium will need to be 40,000.
I agree with you about Plymouth. Can understand the fa wanting to spread the games across England, but lets not worry about the SW. If their biggest club is Plymouth then football cant be much of an attraction down there. Let them stick to rolling cheese down hills or whatever it is they do.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]I'm always intrigued though what happens if/when in 2018 (IF we get the bid) say Plymouth/Bristol/MK are all in the 3rd or 4th tier which is very possible is it not?
Do the FA pay for the ground to be built up to capacity?
[quote][cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]I'm always intrigued though what happens if/when in 2018 (IF we get the bid) say Plymouth/Bristol/MK are all in the 3rd or 4th tier which is very possible is it not?
Do the FA pay for the ground to be built up to capacity?[/quote][/quote] Doesn't matter what league the teams are in.
Your second question is something I was wondering about too.
[cite]Posted By: ValleyGary[/cite]if they are football stadiums, then yes.
How do you define a "football stadium"?
A sports ground where football has been played? That would include the Oval, Twickenham.
Twickenham is the fifth-largest capacity stadium in Europe. Englandis a passionate football country. I'd like to see big, full stadiums. (Not like last time, seeing matches played in half-empty, crappy stadiums like Goodison and Hillsborough)
Chizz, i can see your stance but like Henry said, the RFU didnt wanna know the FA when the FA Cup didnt have a home, so why should they gatecrash 2018 and reap any rewards from the FA's moment of glory?
[cite]Posted By: davy[/cite]I can't believe they would choose MK over Leicester, Derby and even Hull. I would put Scunthorpe before MK!
why midlands already got 2 teams picked in nottingham and Birmingham.
MK rants on here are based around personal opinions on their club and nothing else i personally am glad they got it time for people to move on and get over the whole wimbledon thing.
I've accepted that MK are here to stay, but I think the powers that be have got it spectacularly wrong in associating themselves with the Asda Stadium (they paid for it). There is still a hell of a lot of ill-feeling towards MK and what happened to Wimbledon across England. The bid is supposed to unite people behind it, instead it will split opinion. It proves that the FA have no idea of how real football fans feel.
Better to play in a city that is famous for it's football, than a city more famous for it's concrete cows.
[cite]Posted By: davy[/cite]I can't believe they would choose MK over Leicester, Derby and even Hull. I would put Scunthorpe before MK!
why midlands already got 2 teams picked in nottingham and Birmingham.
MK rants on here are based around personal opinions on their club and nothing else i personally am glad they got it time for people to move on and get over the whole wimbledon thing.
Spot on. (Although I suspect there will continue to be some anti-MK flat Earthers).
[cite]Posted By: BDL[/cite]I've accepted that MK are here to stay, but I think the powers that be have got it spectacularly wrong in associating themselves with the Asda Stadium (they paid for it). There is still a hell of a lot of ill-feeling towards MK and what happened to Wimbledon across England. The bid is supposed to unite people behind it, instead it will split opinion. It proves that the FA have no idea of how real football fans feel.
Better to play in a city that is famous for it's football, than a city more famous for it's concrete cows.
i accept that BDL i really do but they are here to stay and they have a right to start building a history, not contiualy reffered to as without one.
If you're going to give it to MKD why not to Luton? The reason would be that MKD are ambitious and have more money. Fine, that's OK if they're willing to build a new spanking big stadium themselves but I don't agree if the FA give them money. Bollocks to that.
I think it should go to clubs that have already been bothered to build nice new stadiums e.g. Leicester, Derby
If it does 'have to' go to anyone else e.g. Bristol City, Plymouth, then it should be funded by those clubs themselves not the FA. Talk about giving some clubs an unfair advantage!
I would've picked Derby and Leicester instead of Nottingham and MK. Whatever about MK's football history, it's not a nice city to visit and is the type of place you get a bus to the ground and another bus out, never wanting to hang around. Nottingham has fantastic football history, but Forest do not need a bigger ground, and I'm not sure where they're going to put it.
To be honest, though, I would've strongly considered a second Birmingham ground (if BCFC are as ambitious as they say they are) and another Liverpool ground (Everton are building a new ground anyway, aren't they?). I also would've used Cardiff and would've encouraged Norwich to put together a decent bid. I've never been there, but I'm sure it's an experience. Southampton too. The midlands has great history, but its present is so-so. Same goes for Sheffield. The southwest has great potential, but I'm not so sure.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]I think it should go to clubs that have already been bothered to build nice new stadiums e.g. Leicester, Derby
Heard on the radio that Leicester had their ground built then went into admin thus not actually paying for it and left some bitter builders around the area!
Sadly as with Euro 96 if there are less fashionable games in provincial towns the rabid football supporting public will sit on their arses watching coronation street. Newcastle particularly was poor. I'm guessing that the likes of Plymouth, MK, and Nottingham will be worse. I guess ticket pricing won't help - they were starting from £35 then, so I can see them being north of £60 next time out. Still all speculation at the moment...
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite] I also would've used Cardiff
Cardiff is not in England
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite] would've encouraged Norwich to put together a decent bid. I've never been there, but I'm sure it's an experience. Southampton too.
What an odd thing to say. If you've never been there how can you be so sure that it's an experience. If you were talking about New York, Bangkok or Mt Everest I could understand it - but Norwich and Southampton?!
Give us all a laugh and tell us what you've heard about these places.
Comments
I agree with you about Plymouth. Can understand the fa wanting to spread the games across England, but lets not worry about the SW. If their biggest club is Plymouth then football cant be much of an attraction down there. Let them stick to rolling cheese down hills or whatever it is they do.
Dead right too.
Told the FA to FA off when Wembley was being rebuilt as didn't want football types at their ground.
Why give money to the RFU when it can go to football?
What Gary said.
Do the FA pay for the ground to be built up to capacity?[/quote][/quote]
Doesn't matter what league the teams are in.
Your second question is something I was wondering about too.
A sports ground where football has been played? That would include the Oval, Twickenham.
Twickenham is the fifth-largest capacity stadium in Europe. Englandis a passionate football country. I'd like to see big, full stadiums. (Not like last time, seeing matches played in half-empty, crappy stadiums like Goodison and Hillsborough)
The big London matches will be at Wembley ie England so the other grounds will get the group matches so be less attractive.
How many Association Football games have been played at Twickers? I thought they banned it in the days of shamateurism
why midlands already got 2 teams picked in nottingham and Birmingham.
MK rants on here are based around personal opinions on their club and nothing else i personally am glad they got it time for people to move on and get over the whole wimbledon thing.
Better to play in a city that is famous for it's football, than a city more famous for it's concrete cows.
i accept that BDL i really do but they are here to stay and they have a right to start building a history, not contiualy reffered to as without one.
time is supposed to be a healer
If you're going to give it to MKD why not to Luton? The reason would be that MKD are ambitious and have more money. Fine, that's OK if they're willing to build a new spanking big stadium themselves but I don't agree if the FA give them money. Bollocks to that.
I think it should go to clubs that have already been bothered to build nice new stadiums e.g. Leicester, Derby
If it does 'have to' go to anyone else e.g. Bristol City, Plymouth, then it should be funded by those clubs themselves not the FA. Talk about giving some clubs an unfair advantage!
2018, will I be a millionaire by then, will I be able to take a month off......
I think the answer to both of those is yes...
Sorted, Im coming
To be honest, though, I would've strongly considered a second Birmingham ground (if BCFC are as ambitious as they say they are) and another Liverpool ground (Everton are building a new ground anyway, aren't they?). I also would've used Cardiff and would've encouraged Norwich to put together a decent bid. I've never been there, but I'm sure it's an experience. Southampton too. The midlands has great history, but its present is so-so. Same goes for Sheffield. The southwest has great potential, but I'm not so sure.
Heard on the radio that Leicester had their ground built then went into admin thus not actually paying for it and left some bitter builders around the area!
Cardiff is not in England
What an odd thing to say. If you've never been there how can you be so sure that it's an experience. If you were talking about New York, Bangkok or Mt Everest I could understand it - but Norwich and Southampton?!
Give us all a laugh and tell us what you've heard about these places.