A lot of grounds mentioned have little more history than Stadium:MK - Walkers, Pride Park, yet-to-be-built Ashton Vale, - and as the bid is about grounds, not clubs, I don't really see the difference.
It all smacks a bit, if I may say so, of a knee jerk reaction to change.
Remember, Oxford United didn't exist until the 60s - we don't dismiss them as a club. We (rightly) hate them. The point is clubs die, clubs are created - the game of football continues.
All in all, I think the venue selection is reasonable.
For me the Franchise is a stain on our national game. Football franchisement in England to me is authorised cheating. It's made a mockery of what football stood for and I think its helped turn a lot of people off club football. If FIFA said tommorow that they were allowing football transfers between international teams for me that would be the same level of mockery for international football that the FA inflicted on English football in allowing the Franchise.
They should be ashamed of themselves, and ashamed of the Franchise, but theyre not. They are prepared to have them showcased in the world cup.
You said about 'the game continues', yes it does. At the moment Franchise are the black sheep of English football, and I think we are all hoping that sooner or later the money will run out and they will falter. Im not sure I could stomach another English football franchisement, because once youve got two then it becomes open season on all clubs. You cant isolate it then, it is part of what English football has become.
I dont know why youve tried to use the example of Old Trafford and Anfield, because they are two of the most atmospheric and prestigious grounds in the UK. If you had said the Emirates then fair enough, I think we can all agree that does represent modern premiership football. But I think the northern clubs and northern fans have kept their feet on the ground more. More proper fans and more English culture than the south.
