news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 414235.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 414235.stm

Shock horror.



Picking Plymouth is an odd call, leaving Hull out is definitely the right one though.

Its a fcking disgrace that both Newcastle AND Sunderland get it and I thought you couldn't have 2 stadia's in 1 city having games? (apart from London)

No , It's three stadia in 1 city.

Ignore the last bit then

Manchester?

Fact - no way would FA have 3 cities in Yorks only 60 miles apart !

However Bristol , Plymouth and Nottingham all need MILLIONS and I have a very good feeling one of those will not get it and Hull will get first refusal. There is a credit crunch and if Dubai cannot build an hotel how will Plymouth get £40million for a stadia and hotels and training grounds ?

Plymouth have the stadium dont they?

London: Emirates, Wembley and New White Hart Lane/Olympic Stadium
Plymouth: Home Park
Bristol: New Ashton Gate.
Nottingham: New Forest Stadium
Milton Keynes: Stadium:MK
Leeds: Elland Road
Sheffield: Hillsborough
Liverpool: Anfield/New Anfield
Manchester: City of Manchester and Old Trafford
Newcastle/Gateshead: St James' Park
Sunderland: Stadium of Light
Birmingham: Villa Park

Holds about 15k iirc

Plymouth need to add 25,000 seats , how much does that cost ?

1 city will not get the funding and Hull can get in there

"And rightly so"

No it can't, the 12 host cities announced today are final.

Ain't gonna happen it's over.

Plymouth? Bristol? Nottingham?

Bizarre. I'm disappointed. Elland Road is a filthy dump, and will need large money spending on it. Villa I understand. Liverpool's new ground isn't a dead cert yet. Forest/County both have elderly grounds. Milton Keynes deserves nothing because of the way they treat their fans at Wimbledon.

I'm pretty confident that the World Cup isn't heading to England in 2018, if that's the standard of our application.

Makes no difference as we wont get the World Cup anyway but I am quite surprised with some of the choices.

I guess ultimately Hull is a RL City and the fact is, apart from MK Dons (Who shouldn't be there as they are everything wrong with football), the rest of the Cities are rich in footballing tradition.

Plymouth, Bristol, Nottingham are all much nicer cities than Hull. Come to Hull and see the worst bit of England, yes that would look good on our application.

accoring to maps.police.uk both bristol and nottingham has worse crime rates than hull

ok cheers





the fa wont have 3 venues in yorkshire imo.

Crime rates is just a part of it. The facts are Hull is located badly, has a small football ground, has no footballing tradition at all and is regarded as one of the worst cities in the UK.

Plymouth is also located badly isn't it? as for no football tradition neither does milton keynes.

also consider the fact that city are playing in the most watched league in the world and that is constantly promoting the city worldwide. Fitzgibbon even watched city home games to remind him of the kc.

Yes but I'm guessing Plymouth and MK had other things to their advantage. So? So are Burnley, Wigan, Stoke... very poor teams who, as a club size, don't deserve to be there but are there on merit. The fact is Hull has so many things to its disadvantage and I'm still to see one to its advantage apart from the ground been new however it has no culture it's just a soul less generic stadium like DW, Ricoh, Plymouth's, Doncasters.

TBH couldn't really care a less they have failed in there bid, and glad Kc staying as it is, but hell coming into Hull on a train is a disgrace you only have to look at the graffitti, state of the houses, etc to see it was never going to come off imo

Youve obviously never been to plymouth, im ex rn and have spent some time there and can honestly say its a right dump and as for footballing history they havnt got any.