How would Southampton measure up in Cup bid? (From Daily Echo)

I think Souyhampton as a City and Football team should signal their intentions of putting our city on the map once and for all.
We have been promised new Landmark attractions or statues for years but still haven't got one.
The city is in need of a feel good factor and iconic landmark etc to attract people to the city.
St Marys could be extended over the next 5 years as the club progresses through the leagues using both council and football club money.
Once the stadium is finished the council could use the stadium in conjunction with Southampton FC to stage larger concerts etc as a 50'000 seat stadium could attract some of the best bands etc in the world.
This would also generate more income and encourage more people to visit the city as would the world cup.
Let's give this city the recognition it has yearned for a long time and lets actually do something positive sooner rather than later or not at all, as is normally the case

In theory, great! In practice, improbable.

The City Council, in its wisdom, did not permit Saints to build a stadium in a location that would permit better access by both private and public transport.
St Marys is located in one of the most run-down, deprived areas of the City which, on world-wide TV coverage, would hardly be an advert that would have tourists flocking to visit once the football was over.

Would the City Council find the necessary deposit that is required? With the way they have cut back on funding care for the most vulnerable in the community, I somehow have my doubts. If they did, I could see a very big back-lash from those wishing to make political capital from it.

Despite what football fans think, there are more City Council Tax payers who are not interested in football, than those that are. Remember, there are many that attend that come from outside the City.

Do not build up your hopes.

I would love to see this happen, yes the area where SM is a little run down but it is part of the docks and thiis is Southampton fame we are the gate way to England it would cost the city money but in the the long term it would good for Southampton and with te rail line just in St Denies they could even put in a station so yes come onSouthampton lets go for it

Southampton boy wrote:
I would love to see this happen, yes the area where SM is a little run down but it is part of the docks and thiis is Southampton fame we are the gate way to England it would cost the city money but in the the long term it would good for Southampton and with te rail line just in St Denies they could even put in a station so yes come onSouthampton lets go for it

You must be joking!
Southampton may be famous for its docks, but what the world sees is the Ocean Terminal, not this area of derelection with rotting hulks in the river!
How much would it cost to clean that up?
A damned sight more than the City Council would be prepared to spend, and ABP are hardly likely to be interested in doing it unless they made a few bob from it!

A nice dream, but it is far from reality!

It is possible but don't underestimate just how much is involved, and what could be the benefits of any of the development involved? There are eight years to get it right, but I suspect NIMBY protests at every step of the way would prevent every attempt to plan anything in this area.
It is a good positive thought, but I cannot see it ever happening, we are too introverted around here.

If you want it here put a positive comment put one on this site;

http://www.2018engla
nd.co.uk/southam...-
city-bid.html

joenice wrote:
If you want it here put a positive comment put one on this site;

http://www.2018engla

nd.co.uk/southam...-

city-bid.html

you need to be realistic about this, first all there be 16 grounds pick for the world cup, and not citys. places like manchester have 2 grounds 1 that qualify all ready, the other is very close, and falls short by only just under 3,000, southampton is 18th on the list of largest grounds and even if saint marys carried out the work to take more people it will still fall just short of the requirements.
then if you look at nottingham forest, blackburn rovers, leicester city grounds who are below southampton, on the list, those have plans to push up there capacity above 50,000. blackburn was going for 40,000 but have said they would make it 52,000 if they qualify. pushing southampton down the list.
then you look at the problems off southampton. the rail service is close to its maximum capacity thats why work is being carried out on the tunnel on the east bound line. oh you may say but southampton dont get that many trains in though southampton, whitch is true when compare with other places. but its not southampton where the problem is, the problem is at the rail junction like clapham and sailsbury where the train traffic merge and other junctions. then look at the roads coming into southampton its a bottle neck, due to the v shape and where every thing is piled into the bottom of that v, then theres the air port that might be a international air port but its only a minor one, and would need major work to be done to be able to take the extra traffic,
the world cup is well out side our reach, but its a nice dream to have.

You are wrong.

Firstly the size of the football stadiums is irrelivant, except for the minimum required capaciy. Other factors are considered such as the standards of facilities at the stadium and geographical location. St Marys easily fits the requirement providing the capacity is increased.

Your comments about the transport problems are way off the mark too. The rail works are being completes to widen the tunnel to allow the larger modern containers to travel through it. This has bugger all to do with capacity. And what the heck has freight got to do with passenger number anyway? I don't see many freight containers watching football matches!

Your comments about the airport are completely unfounded. It's perfectly we'll placed in terms of road transport links and is more than capable of handling more flights. The airport is looking to grow and increase it's capacity anyway. Hosting a world cup won't have any bearing on that other than to perhaps do it sooner rather than later.

I agree that there are some road transport issues locally but the main arterial roads to the city ( eg m3 & m27) are excellent. To say our local traffic problems would scupper the bid is rubbish as all cities have local traffic problems. If this was the case then London stadiums, including wembley won't be used as London traffic problems are by far worse then souhamptons!

Linesman wrote:

Southampton boy wrote: I would love to see this happen, yes the area where SM is a little run down but it is part of the docks and thiis is Southampton fame we are the gate way to England it would cost the city money but in the the long term it would good for Southampton and with te rail line just in St Denies they could even put in a station so yes come onSouthampton lets go for it

You must be joking! Southampton may be famous for its docks, but what the world sees is the Ocean Terminal, not this area of derelection with rotting hulks in the river! How much would it cost to clean that up? A damned sight more than the City Council would be prepared to spend, and ABP are hardly likely to be interested in doing it unless they made a few bob from it! A nice dream, but it is far from reality!

Linesman, just a thought but how much would it have cost to clean up the disirable area known as Fratton? the place is a bomb site! Even if they could have cleaned it up it would take decades to get rid of the stench of rotten fish!

you need to think again. one off the reason for doing the tunnel work for containers is becuase the rail traffic heading out on the romsey line is at it max capacity all ready, its not in southampton where the problem is. its at the junctions where rail traffic joins up with with other rail traffic. like at the sailsbury junction, what if bristol gets pick to host part of the world cup. wales millenium stadium is a deffently on the cards. there's added extra rail traffic all ready, they are not going to stop rail freight just for the world cup now are they and the normal service will still be running. world cup trains will be added traffic to the rail lines. and just running normal rail traffic at the moment trains run late.
southampton ground will need to push it's capacity above 50,000 whitch it cant, the grounds that will get pick will be the top 16 grounds in capacity.
Wembley Stadium 90,000
Old Trafford 76,212
Emirates Stadium 60,355
St James' Park 52,387
Stadium of Light 49,000 has planning permission to take it to 55,500
City of Manchester Stadium 47,726 also has planning for extention for the world cup
Anfield 45,522 Proposed move to 60,000 seater Stanley Park Stadium
Villa Park 42,573 work in progress when completed, the capacity of Villa Park will be increased to around 51,000
Stamford Bridge 42,055 the club plan to increase capacity to 55,000 or seek a new ground.
Elland Road 40,242 plans to expand to 50,000
Goodison Park 40,158 Everton are looking at moving to a new 55,000-capacity ground and for the world cup.
Hillsborough Stadium 39,814 plans to increase capacity to 44,825 by 2013.50,000 if england wins the right to host the world cup.
White Hart Lane 36,310 plans are in place to build a new 58,000 stadium
The Boleyn Ground (Upton Park) 35,303 current plans are expansion of the east stand, and wings, to a capacity of around 55,000
Riverside Stadium 34,988 The club have the council's permission to extend the capacity by another 7,000 or if england win the race to hoast the world cup perrmission will be granted for a 50,000, has long the ground become multi-sports ground.
Pride Park Stadium 33,597 no fix plans has yet, have put in a bid for the world cup, before appling for plans to extend to 50,000.
and there are your top 16 capacity grounds.
then you got in the wings bramall lane, walkers stadium, ewood park, city ground all going to extend there grounds to 50,000 plus.
the air port is a international airport but its only operated europe, people will be coming in from all round the world and not just europe.

so southampton could spend all this money in a pipe dream and still not get a look in.
and you find royston smith knows this and is only saying what he is saying to try and gain votes for the general election, its a pr stunt.

kev63 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Southampton boy wrote: I would love to see this happen, yes the area where SM is a little run down but it is part of the docks and thiis is Southampton fame we are the gate way to England it would cost the city money but in the the long term it would good for Southampton and with te rail line just in St Denies they could even put in a station so yes come onSouthampton lets go for it

You must be joking! Southampton may be famous for its docks, but what the world sees is the Ocean Terminal, not this area of derelection with rotting hulks in the river! How much would it cost to clean that up? A damned sight more than the City Council would be prepared to spend, and ABP are hardly likely to be interested in doing it unless they made a few bob from it! A nice dream, but it is far from reality!

Linesman, just a thought but how much would it have cost to clean up the disirable area known as Fratton? the place is a bomb site! Even if they could have cleaned it up it would take decades to get rid of the stench of rotten fish!

Well said Kev!
Why is it that when adults wish to hold an intelligent discussion on a topic of interest, some lame-brain has to introduce the childish comments and bring the topic down to schoolboy level?
If, as you say, that was 'just a thought', I rather fancy that it shows that your thought process is under-used.

Alot of those Stadiums are not even close to here, the work cup is about gettin the whole country and def not 2 stadiums in one city, Southampton should be included.

joenice wrote:
Alot of those Stadiums are not even close to here, the work cup is about gettin the whole country and def not 2 stadiums in one city, Southampton should be included.

yes they will pick 2 stadiums in one city, it has been done in the pass, and to be honest a better place local would be the rose bowl this place has room for expansion even lo it can only take at the moment 20,000 max, if you look at an aerial view there is good possibility for expanding the capacity to the ground well over the 50.000 mark, and added thing its on the out skirts of the city and would be a more easy to get to, by road. there would be an added bonus to this to, like when the world rugby come to the uk, and any other major sports that need high capacity in spectators

southy wrote:
you need to think again. one off the reason for doing the tunnel work for containers is becuase the rail traffic heading out on the romsey line is at it max capacity all ready, its not in southampton where the problem is. its at the junctions where rail traffic joins up with with other rail traffic. like at the sailsbury junction, what if bristol gets pick to host part of the world cup. wales millenium stadium is a deffently on the cards. there's added extra rail traffic all ready, they are not going to stop rail freight just for the world cup now are they and the normal service will still be running. world cup trains will be added traffic to the rail lines. and just running normal rail traffic at the moment trains run late. southampton ground will need to push it's capacity above 50,000 whitch it cant, the grounds that will get pick will be the top 16 grounds in capacity. Wembley Stadium 90,000 Old Trafford 76,212 Emirates Stadium 60,355 St James' Park 52,387 Stadium of Light 49,000 has planning permission to take it to 55,500 City of Manchester Stadium 47,726 also has planning for extention for the world cup Anfield 45,522 Proposed move to 60,000 seater Stanley Park Stadium Villa Park 42,573 work in progress when completed, the capacity of Villa Park will be increased to around 51,000 Stamford Bridge 42,055 the club plan to increase capacity to 55,000 or seek a new ground. Elland Road 40,242 plans to expand to 50,000 Goodison Park 40,158 Everton are looking at moving to a new 55,000-capacity ground and for the world cup. Hillsborough Stadium 39,814 plans to increase capacity to 44,825 by 2013.50,000 if england wins the right to host the world cup. White Hart Lane 36,310 plans are in place to build a new 58,000 stadium The Boleyn Ground (Upton Park) 35,303 current plans are expansion of the east stand, and wings, to a capacity of around 55,000 Riverside Stadium 34,988 The club have the council's permission to extend the capacity by another 7,000 or if england win the race to hoast the world cup perrmission will be granted for a 50,000, has long the ground become multi-sports ground. Pride Park Stadium 33,597 no fix plans has yet, have put in a bid for the world cup, before appling for plans to extend to 50,000. and there are your top 16 capacity grounds. then you got in the wings bramall lane, walkers stadium, ewood park, city ground all going to extend there grounds to 50,000 plus. the air port is a international airport but its only operated europe, people will be coming in from all round the world and not just europe.

You are utterly wrong. If the games were just given to the largest 16 stadiums then they wouldn't "invite" bids. They would simply choose the largest 16, end of. And if that was the case then surely twickenham would be chosen in that 16!

Also your airport point is irrelivent. World wide visitors will enter the country through the main airports before the competition starts and use the smaller airports, like Southampton, for domestic travel accross the country. Southampton airport has excellent road and rail transport links.

You are wrong about the rail works. The bridge is being widened to accomodate larger freight that won't currently go through the tunnel. You don't widen a tunnel to increase capacity. Instead you would put in another line. You widen it to increase the diversity of it's cargo.

southy wrote:

joenice wrote: Alot of those Stadiums are not even close to here, the work cup is about gettin the whole country and def not 2 stadiums in one city, Southampton should be included.

yes they will pick 2 stadiums in one city, it has been done in the pass, and to be honest a better place local would be the rose bowl this place has room for expansion even lo it can only take at the moment 20,000 max, if you look at an aerial view there is good possibility for expanding the capacity to the ground well over the 50.000 mark, and added thing its on the out skirts of the city and would be a more easy to get to, by road. there would be an added bonus to this to, like when the world rugby come to the uk, and any other major sports that need high capacity in spectators

It is not the stadiums that are the problem. Fratton Park could be rotated 90 degrees and extended to comply, and Portsmouth City Council were advised that this would happen.
St Marys was built in such a way that extending it would present no problem, and the Reading ground and the Brighton one, now under construction could also expand.
There are other factors involved, and the one that caused the Portsmouth bid to fail was the Council's willingness to put up the £20m deposit.
Bearing in mind Southampton City Council's recent economies, that has seen the closing of care homes for the elderly and vulnerable, could it then turn round at put up £20m for the possibility of hosting a couple of World Cup matches?
Another thing needed would be four separate, top-class training facilities, within easy reach of the stadium. Stapelwood, Reading and where?
Separate top class hotels for the International teams and their entourage, near to the stadium and the training facilities!
All that before you cater to visitors from England and abroad who also want accommodation!
Once in the area, being certain that there is adequate public transport available and also car parking!
It is considerably more than a case of 'is the stadium big enough'!

yes i know it can be extended linesman, but it still will fall short off 50,000. and with all those cars and coaches coming where are they going to park up, next to the ground.
and any extending should be paid for by the club and not the council.
but if they look at the rose bowl, they could use st marys has the training ground, or marchwood training ground or even look at totton football ground for training. test playing fields there are a number off options for training.

Reading is a far better option to replace Portsmouth.

southy wrote:
yes i know it can be extended linesman, but it still will fall short off 50,000. and with all those cars and coaches coming where are they going to park up, next to the ground. and any extending should be paid for by the club and not the council. but if they look at the rose bowl, they could use st marys has the training ground, or marchwood training ground or even look at totton football ground for training. test playing fields there are a number off options for training.

I'm pretty certain that the capacity has to be a minimum of 40,000 not 50,000 but you are right to have concerns about the access for coaches and cars etc.
Who would pay for the extra parking would, I imagine, be up for negotiation. If it is to continue to be used by the club, then I expect the club would be expected to pay, if not, it would be up to the City Council to provide and then redevelop afterwards or sell/lease to NCR.
The Rose Bowl would be a non-starter in my opinion. The World Cup would be played in the Summer, which is when cricket is played, and after all the money spent on the ground, I can't see them digging up the cricket squares! They take years to settle! Also, they hope to hold Test Matches there!
Marchwood would be fine as a training ground, but Totton! You are providing facilities for International teams! Do you think that Totton would be suitable for Brazil, Argentina etc etc? I have never seen them, but my guess is that they would not measure up! Do you know what facilities they have?

i think your right about the 40,000 linesman, but when you look at what other clubs are doing and planning, then southampton ground would need to equal that just to stand a slim chance any thing less would put them out of the running.
totton ground would qualify to be in the bottom div in the league it ideal for a training ground, they had to do the same alterations when those laws came in back in the 80's, it would be very unlikely that top international team would be base at southampton, probley get the lower rated teams.
there are other grounds that hampshire cricket can be played at, and have done in the past. they got test match there next year i belive at the rose bowl or the year after

swissowned yes twickinham do qualifty to, even celtic ground will be included any ground in england wales and scotland that is large enough in capacity can put in a bid and its not just football ground in will included any sports ground regardless what type off sport is played on it, has long a football pitch can be fitted on it with room to spare, the same has it was back in 1966.
even if south africa gets the bid to host the world cup in 2018 rugby pitches will be included, it is not a world cup rule that they must use football grounds only. the requirements is only a min fix capacity stadium where football can be played.
now do you see what competition there would be to get to host one international team to base here.

southy wrote:
i think your right about the 40,000 linesman, but when you look at what other clubs are doing and planning, then southampton ground would need to equal that just to stand a slim chance any thing less would put them out of the running. totton ground would qualify to be in the bottom div in the league it ideal for a training ground, they had to do the same alterations when those laws came in back in the 80's, it would be very unlikely that top international team would be base at southampton, probley get the lower rated teams. there are other grounds that hampshire cricket can be played at, and have done in the past. they got test match there next year i belive at the rose bowl or the year after

I am pretty certain that it is not just a football pitch that is required but things like an indoor pitch and an all-weather pitch as well. Then there would need to be a fully equiped gymnasium, possibly with hydrotherapy facilities, all up to Premier League standard.
As said, I have no knowledge of Totton's facilities, but I really do have doubts that they would pass the test. I understand that another requirement is that there should be public access to see the respective teams train, and know that Staplewood fits the bill and Totton would also be OK on that front!
Anyway, it is all speculation at present, and I somehow doubt that Southampton City Council will cough up the cash!
Like Portsmouth City Council - All Talk and No Do!

getting carried away in all the excitement there's still the small
matter of england being awarded the world cup

ah linesman there no in door pitch, but they do use one or did before the ground got sold for flats.

agree with you on the no action part. and i still think its just a pr ploy by royston smith to gain more votes in the next general election. just like moulton he been losing votes to ukip in the area he tend to stand.

derek james yes we do know that and it has been said all ready a few times.

southy wrote:
ah linesman there no in door pitch, but they do use one or did before the ground got sold for flats. agree with you on the no action part. and i still think its just a pr ploy by royston smith to gain more votes in the next general election. just like moulton he been losing votes to ukip in the area he tend to stand. derek james yes we do know that and it has been said all ready a few times.

Hush your mouth southy!
How could you ever think that a fine, upstanding local politician would ever do such a thing! Attempt to gain popularity with football fans in an attempt to gain their votes and their trust! Unthinkable!
Next you will be saying that politicians are rather devious!
Perish the thought!

Linesman wrote:

southy wrote:
ah linesman there no in door pitch, but they do use one or did before the ground got sold for flats. agree with you on the no action part. and i still think its just a pr ploy by royston smith to gain more votes in the next general election. just like moulton he been losing votes to ukip in the area he tend to stand. derek james yes we do know that and it has been said all ready a few times.

Hush your mouth southy!
How could you ever think that a fine, upstanding local politician would ever do such a thing! Attempt to gain popularity with football fans in an attempt to gain their votes and their trust! Unthinkable!
Next you will be saying that politicians are rather devious!
Perish the thought!

lol well you cant trust the top 4 partys. they will use any thing that could gain them votes. and hide thing that dont or decorate them up. parks in southampton are next to be sold off if the torys stay in power at the next local election.

Ah well this topic continued for some time before it ran off course to politics.
As usual in an attempt to keep things factual may I correct Southys inaccuracies.. His comments about stadia capacity requirements were put to bed earlier on (it is 40,000 minimum) as were his comments about inadequate rail and air services (indeed these links to Southampton are far better than many rival bids and there is, of course, two large ferry ports close by to deal with European fans. )
btw it would probably cost £15m to achieve the 40,000 minimum and £30m to get to 50,000 at St Marys as retro engineering is much more expensive than newbuild which cost around an average of 1,000 a seat when St Marys was built.
Southy also said that the Millenium Stadium and Celtic Park are in contention. Strange that as the 2018 bid is from the English FA and the Sots and Welsh FA are not included!!! As ridiculous a comment as suggesting the Rose Bowl as a possible venue.
Southy also says that Blackburn are in contention. This is incorrect.
Also note thatthe city of Liverpool may actually miss out. Anfield can make the minimum 40,000 criteria but Everton can't. Liverpool are struggling to finance their proposed 60,000 stadium at Stanley Park and Everton have just had their planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium at Kirkby turned down (by John Denham no less)
Southy should be aware that South Africa is not bidding for 2018 as they actually host next years World Cup!!!
Finally it would be great to have Southampton host a World Cup game (I was fortunate to see 2 games live in 1966, including the Final, and it was a great experience) but there is about as much chance of this as Southy voting Tory

Ben Doone wrote:
Ah well this topic continued for some time before it ran off course to politics. As usual in an attempt to keep things factual may I correct Southys inaccuracies.. His comments about stadia capacity requirements were put to bed earlier on (it is 40,000 minimum) as were his comments about inadequate rail and air services (indeed these links to Southampton are far better than many rival bids and there is, of course, two large ferry ports close by to deal with European fans. ) btw it would probably cost £15m to achieve the 40,000 minimum and £30m to get to 50,000 at St Marys as retro engineering is much more expensive than newbuild which cost around an average of 1,000 a seat when St Marys was built. Southy also said that the Millenium Stadium and Celtic Park are in contention. Strange that as the 2018 bid is from the English FA and the Sots and Welsh FA are not included!!! As ridiculous a comment as suggesting the Rose Bowl as a possible venue. Southy also says that Blackburn are in contention. This is incorrect. Also note thatthe city of Liverpool may actually miss out. Anfield can make the minimum 40,000 criteria but Everton can't. Liverpool are struggling to finance their proposed 60,000 stadium at Stanley Park and Everton have just had their planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium at Kirkby turned down (by John Denham no less) Southy should be aware that South Africa is not bidding for 2018 as they actually host next years World Cup!!! Finally it would be great to have Southampton host a World Cup game (I was fortunate to see 2 games live in 1966, including the Final, and it was a great experience) but there is about as much chance of this as Southy voting Tory

Well i think that well and truely told Southy!

SaintHarry wrote:

Ben Doone wrote: Ah well this topic continued for some time before it ran off course to politics. As usual in an attempt to keep things factual may I correct Southys inaccuracies.. His comments about stadia capacity requirements were put to bed earlier on (it is 40,000 minimum) as were his comments about inadequate rail and air services (indeed these links to Southampton are far better than many rival bids and there is, of course, two large ferry ports close by to deal with European fans. ) btw it would probably cost £15m to achieve the 40,000 minimum and £30m to get to 50,000 at St Marys as retro engineering is much more expensive than newbuild which cost around an average of 1,000 a seat when St Marys was built. Southy also said that the Millenium Stadium and Celtic Park are in contention. Strange that as the 2018 bid is from the English FA and the Sots and Welsh FA are not included!!! As ridiculous a comment as suggesting the Rose Bowl as a possible venue. Southy also says that Blackburn are in contention. This is incorrect. Also note thatthe city of Liverpool may actually miss out. Anfield can make the minimum 40,000 criteria but Everton can't. Liverpool are struggling to finance their proposed 60,000 stadium at Stanley Park and Everton have just had their planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium at Kirkby turned down (by John Denham no less) Southy should be aware that South Africa is not bidding for 2018 as they actually host next years World Cup!!! Finally it would be great to have Southampton host a World Cup game (I was fortunate to see 2 games live in 1966, including the Final, and it was a great experience) but there is about as much chance of this as Southy voting Tory

Well i think that well and truely told Southy!

When southy started some of his sentences with the words, 'I think' I thought it meant that he was uncertain and stood to be corrected!
He appeared to accept the 40,000 minimum that I stated, without any qualms!
I guess the truth of the matter is that we have all picked up snippets of information, from various sources, that we accept and comment on without checking the source and accuracy.
That's the trouble when you rely on memory! It often lets you down!

Now where the hell did I put my glasses!!!!

Linesman wrote:

SaintHarry wrote:

Ben Doone wrote: Ah well this topic continued for some time before it ran off course to politics. As usual in an attempt to keep things factual may I correct Southys inaccuracies.. His comments about stadia capacity requirements were put to bed earlier on (it is 40,000 minimum) as were his comments about inadequate rail and air services (indeed these links to Southampton are far better than many rival bids and there is, of course, two large ferry ports close by to deal with European fans. ) btw it would probably cost £15m to achieve the 40,000 minimum and £30m to get to 50,000 at St Marys as retro engineering is much more expensive than newbuild which cost around an average of 1,000 a seat when St Marys was built. Southy also said that the Millenium Stadium and Celtic Park are in contention. Strange that as the 2018 bid is from the English FA and the Sots and Welsh FA are not included!!! As ridiculous a comment as suggesting the Rose Bowl as a possible venue. Southy also says that Blackburn are in contention. This is incorrect. Also note thatthe city of Liverpool may actually miss out. Anfield can make the minimum 40,000 criteria but Everton can't. Liverpool are struggling to finance their proposed 60,000 stadium at Stanley Park and Everton have just had their planning application for a 50,000 seater stadium at Kirkby turned down (by John Denham no less) Southy should be aware that South Africa is not bidding for 2018 as they actually host next years World Cup!!! Finally it would be great to have Southampton host a World Cup game (I was fortunate to see 2 games live in 1966, including the Final, and it was a great experience) but there is about as much chance of this as Southy voting Tory

Well i think that well and truely told Southy!

When southy started some of his sentences with the words, 'I think' I thought it meant that he was uncertain and stood to be corrected!
He appeared to accept the 40,000 minimum that I stated, without any qualms!
I guess the truth of the matter is that we have all picked up snippets of information, from various sources, that we accept and comment on without checking the source and accuracy.
That's the trouble when you rely on memory! It often lets you down!

Now where the hell did I put my glasses!!!!

here use mine lol
actuary ben and saint you might be right or you might be wrong, the 40,000 capacity figure,s are for this world cup and not the 2018 world cup, and will be increased to a higher number after this world cup, or was capacity for the 2014 world cup.
and i am right about the rail to, they are near max running capacity and by the time 2018 comes a long they will be needing more track lines to coupe with passenger and rail freight, thats why there all this planning to try and get more minor container ports a round the country so they can take some of the strain of the roads and rail.
also right about the roads and air. look in the future and not the present, common error by short term thinkers.
oh ben small error on your part, it this world cup that is in south africa not the next, the next is in brazil, the world cup has all ready started and the first part is nearly over, so we both made an error there

Southy
No error on my part about the 2010 World Cup Finals
I was correcting your post (see 1.11am today) in which you say...'even if South Africa gets the bid to host the World Cup in 2018'...!!!

Ben Doone wrote:
Southy
No error on my part about the 2010 World Cup Finals
I was correcting your post (see 1.11am today) in which you say...'even if South Africa gets the bid to host the World Cup in 2018'...!!!

well they can still bid for the 2018 world cup finals, the one that they are not allowed to bid for is the 2014 world cup finals. at the time when it was bidding for, because they had won the bid for 2010 world cup finals.
do that make better sense to you now.

Southy
Once again you have not checked your facts.
Formal bids to host the 2018 World Cup Finals had to be submitted to FIFA by February 2009.
Unless you are working off a different calendar to me that date has passed.