The other stadia will be Sunderland's Stadium of Light, Birmingham's Villa Park, the new Nottingham Forest stadium, Elland Road in Leeds, Sheffield's Hillsborough stadium, St James' Park in Newcastle, the new Ashton Vale stadium in Bristol, Plymouth's Home Park, and Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/i...als/8414235.stm

 

and plymouth, capacity 19,500.

 

and bristol city???

 

surley we could offer better stadia?

re liverpool

 

would be better if the just merged and called themselves, ermmm, liverpool

re liverpool

 

would be better if the just merged and called themselves, ermmm, liverpool

 

Often think that about Glasgow too. Single Scotland franchise for an enlarged Premier League

thats it then

 

everton out and a glasgow city into the prem

They said on 5 Live last night that FIFA have the last say on the grounds anyway, so the likes of MK may still be left in the cold.

It was FIFA pushing for geographical spread and future legacy that got the likes of MK and ourselves onto the list.

 

Sunderland on location and Leeds & Liverpool based on commitment to bring the grounds up to scratch are the most vulnerable to FIFA cull.

of no consequence really. englands bid has seriously come off the rails and it needs more than the 11 months left until fifa awards it, to get it back on track. at the moment we are a poor third behind russia and spain. Remember the decision is based purely on football politics.

Would love to see Brazil playing a game in Accrington or Notts County.

 

Glad to see they're looking to spread out the games all over the country but if there going to do that they'll need to build two or three new grounds.

 

Ellen Road is shit, particularly for a city like Leeds. They should knock it down and build another ground in its place, I'm sure there's enough room around there and Leeds could fill it (particularly if they got back up to prem)

 

Anfield and Goodison are awful. They surely couldn't host a World Cup game at either of those two. If Liverpool (as a city) want to be a host city then they should build a combined stadium. Neither team has the money to build a stadium, in the area where both clubs are there is only one place to build a new stadium and they both need a new stadium. I can't think of anything more logical than them pooling together (the governemnt would even give them a shit load of cash if it was part of a World Cup bid). Unfortunately scousers are completely illogical. I've heard some of the arguments against it; "it'll ruin the rivalry" or "we're not sharing with them cvnts", but I would argue that it would be more detremental to the rivalry if Liverpool build Stanley Park and Everton moved out of the city. They could have a magnificent ground, something for the city to be proud of and at the minimun of cost to each club, but that would be just too sensible.

 

A couple of projects like these are what this bit needs. The reason why we got the Olympics is because we argued there would be a legacy and infrastucture would be improved, we should use the same strategy when it come to the World Cup.

 

So by your argument then, it would be 'logical' for us to share with Wigan (reduced costs blah blah blah). We have no culture of ground-sharing in this country, where it happens abroad the grounds are usually owned by the local councils and leased to the clubs. It annoys me that loads of people are keen to tell Scousers that it is illogical and sentimental to be against a joint stadium, but it would cause feckin uproar on here if it was happening to us.

re liverpool

 

would be better if the just merged and called themselves, ermmm, liverpool

 

Why not name the new joint club after the senior club in the city?

 

How about

 

Everton - The Liverpool Football Club

Why not name the new joint club after the senior club in the city?

 

How about

 

Everton - The Liverpool Football Club

 

Everpool

Nickname: The Grievers.

Nickname: The Grievers.

 

with a club anthem written by these guys

So by your argument then, it would be 'logical' for us to share with Wigan (reduced costs blah blah blah). We have no culture of ground-sharing in this country, where it happens abroad the grounds are usually owned by the local councils and leased to the clubs. It annoys me that loads of people are keen to tell Scousers that it is illogical and sentimental to be against a joint stadium, but it would cause feckin uproar on here if it was happening to us.

 

Not really. Neither us or Wigan need a new ground, both those teams do and they have the oportunity to put their rivalry aside for the good of the city.

Not really. Neither us or Wigan need a new ground, both those teams do and they have the oportunity to put their rivalry aside for the good of the city.

 

Also, we are completely seperate towns.

Just.

 

Although our ground is closer to Wigan town centre than Bolton town centre.

Just.

 

Although our ground is closer to Wigan town centre than Bolton town centre.

town hall to ground

 

Bolton is closer (only just mind you about 500m) as the crow flies and by road (about 0.7 miles)

Just.

 

But you can get to Wigan's quicker.

Just.

 

But you can get to Wigan's quicker.

 

 

I can't agree with that. Getting into Wigan centre is a fucker! Like anybody would want to.

Just.

 

But you can get to Wigan's quicker.

 

according to google they both take 17 minutes.

I need fresh bait, this isn't really working.

 

Perhaps the lodge is frozen over.