Thetownend.com

Selected as a host city for the world cup bid

Sunderland
London
Brum
Manchester
Nottingham
Leeds
Sheffield
Newcastle
Bristol
Liverpool
Plymouth
Cowshit ville

Its not even a fucking City!

Bristol being selected could be good for us, we can be used as a tranining base - but seriously how did franchise get selected, a L1 team with L1 facilities in a tin pot town that has only been in existence for a short period

Derby,Hull and Leicester had their applications rejected.

Franchise Keynes as a WC venue?!?  Good grief.  A town with no footballing pedigree beats Leicester and Derby in the race.

Where do yo start?  They'll be wetting themselves in Moscow & St Petersburg.

How ever much they disgust me they have damn sight better facilities than the fucking Slave Traders

Slave traders are getting a new stadium aint they?

Nottingham, Plymouth, Bristol, MK and one of the London grounds are all going to be new or improved. You need a minimum 44,000 capacity for World Cup matches don't you - 40,000 plus another 4,000 for press/officials/freebies?

They're not all guaranteed to host matches either are they, think the final decision is with FIFA.

The submission was bashed on Trashton Gate, and like I said, although I hate them the facilities at MK rival some Prem grounds

The only problem with MK is the lack of pubs in the neighbouring area

The Bristol submission was for the new ground at Ashton Vale, not Ashton Gate.

sauce ?

That...and the place being an unmitigated shithole of banality, plastic, concrete and general soullessness.

http://www.bristol2018.net/

I hope it goes contractually tits up and doesnt get built in time then


muggy cunts

What could they mean by that...

Probably unlikely, the Bristol council are all over it like a rash and planning permission was granted a month ago and they've already done a deal to sell Ashton Gate to Sainsbury's. Pretty certain they've approved a decent looking fan plaza for the World Cup as well, with big screens and all that shit.

Didnt you know the Inn on the Green is going to be the main boozer?!

Now Wankyman has to build it to 44k like he wanted... Nevermind, the location is a good one, so i can see why they chose that souless hole. God, can you imagine flying over from some nice city to watch your country and being holed up in MK? Sheeeeesh, ceratinly removes the romance from the WC.

Even though it's Franchise, I think Stadium MK is brilliant ground.

It's very good in some ways. But I have no idea how they would expect 40,000 people to access the ground, park their cars and amuse themselves before and after the game, given that there is ONE pub nearby, and its crap.

By giving this to Franchise, the FA are legitimising Wankleman's plan. He's got Asda to build them a new stadium, and now he'll be entitled to lottery money, to extend their plastic soulless ground for the WC.

I bet Derby and Leicester fans cannot believe they've lost out to them.

If my Grandpa was here, he'd be blaming it all on the Freemasons.

Totally agree with this.

Although having recently had dealings with the FA regarding their thought processes around awarding funding I'm not at all surprised !

 We wont get the WC anyway....

If you want the world cup to be the party, why choose a ground where the facilities are an Ikea and an Asda. It really is a fucking joke how the FA are up the arses of Franchise.

Having a venue at Plymouth will make a white elephant stadium down there. They'll be shooting down the leagues soon.

i blame it on the french and jamaicans

Stadium:mk - A plastic stadium for a plastic town.

The FA legitimised the decision the day they let him move the club.

All they care about is how shiny the ground is. Not interested in the slightest about football heritage in this country.

StadiumMK has absolutely nothing to offer the football world apart from shiny seats. Imagine being a visiting fan from another country, and your team got drawn to play 2 group games at Stadium MK, when you were dreaming of Old Trafford, Anfield and Wembley? Its a disgrace.

Leicester isnt that far from MK and would have been a better choice. The investment there would actually be useful as well, instead of somewhere like MK or Plymouth, where it will be absolutely useless in a few years.

I know people are going about MK being chosen etc which is fair enough but why the fuck was Plymouth selected? For a start why give Bristol and Plymouth games? It just seems daft. Plymouth is a crappy naval city in the middle of nowhere. They actually have to double their capacity to enable it. For a club like Plymouth (although a big catchment area) that's going to be a killer if they're in the lower league come post 2018. They won't even get that stadium half full. It's further for fans to travel, it's not a major city in this country. Just makes no sense.

One of either Bristol or Plymouth will definately loose out.

I'm very cynical as alot of those selected depend on new/extending/re-developing their grounds.

If other teams trying to get planning permission is anything like ours has been over the years they wont even get built.

I cant see Plymouth finding the cash or the need to double their capacity.

Don't forget that in a lot of countries that have recently hosted the World Cup, a lot of new stadium or re-development has been necessary - pretty much all the SA stadium are new aren't they?

If Plymouth and Bristol get their arses in gear I reckon they've both got a real chance of hosting games. Plymouth is probably the dodgy one, but if they can show they've got everything in place I reckon they'd get it ahead of existing stadium. FIFA love the whole legacy thing, which will count in their favour.

none of this matters, im with reg!

Forget the Franchise, think of the football just up the road from us! Mk, Bristol and London.

Thats got to be good surely? For fans and the town in general?

The FA and NK deserve each other - two bunches of cunts having a love in. MK should have been told to FRO as should the egg chasers of Hull. Leicester or Derby should have been picked before MK. The Slave Traders have a much better argument than Plymouth and the thought of them getting 10k in a 40k stadium is quite appealing as they drop down the league. 

True dat. The man speaks right

Rivalries aside the city of Bristol will be great for World Cup football.

Plymouth? It's good for that neck of the woods to get a game or two but I'm not sure that I'd have selected Devon.

Milton Keynes is a disappointing... They let them have a football club and now they're going to make people actually fill that stadium with the honour of World Cup football. That's rubbish.

What is a 'process'? I keep hearing it. Is it what people say when they can't think of another word - like thingymejig?

Google up Football Foundation, apply for a grant and speak to the FA and you will see what they mean by 'processes'.
Clearly they suit the crappy MK Doughnuts !

Fuck Milton Keynes and fuck the World Cup bid.  It's bad enough that proper football cities like Leicester (where I live, to declare the interest) and Derby lose out, but to Milton Keynes?  Fucking plastic twats.  And what's more, Nottingam represents the East Midlands again...using a stadium that hasn't even got a site yet as it's bid.  Twats.

I'm not sure many would be dreaming of "the Walkers Stadium" either. 

I may be in the minority here, but I don't really see the problem.  If we are worried about the heart, passion and soul (I like clichés) being lost from the top end of our national game - too late.  That went years ago.  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.

Oxford came up through the ranks, properly, and so deserve their place in the league. MK don't, MK's position should be held by AFC wimbledon or failing that another club who have earned their position.

And to say that stadiums like walkers and pride park have no history is simply wrong. They are new stadiums built on the basis that the club that they are a home for had homes that where very old, MK never had a stadium before because they were never a club before.

Would you say that the new Wembley has no history and therefore is a plastic stadium?

No I wouldn't - but I think a lot of this argument comes from an idea that things should stay the same just because that's the way it's always been, and that's just not realistic. - the demise of Wimbledon was very sad, and I as much as anyone was disappointed in the way it ended.  However, although they have all the history and tradition, in a different way do Old Trafford and Anfield not represent the same "plastic" era of football?  What ideal are we trying to put forward with the WC bid?  If its history and tradition, then the owners at Old Trafford and Anfield hardly fit in.  If its progress, then they do - as does Stadium:MK.

Completely missing the point - MK are NOT just plastics, they're cheats and thieves who stole another club's place in the League. It's not about boosting plastics it's about the FA/FL compounding the disgraceful decision they made when they allowed the rape of Wimbledon in the first place by then putting the cunts forward to represent us as a nation to the rest of the world. Utter fucking wankers

The fact that there is a colon between 'Stadium' and 'MK' merits serious arson in my book.

I agree, none of this playing with matches nonsense, chuck a few dozen petrol bombs in and be done with it.

I'm prefer to torch the colon who built it

I too doubt this will matter in the end

I enjoyed that.

I think the same thing. Especially after we fuck the olympics up next year.

Probably. Not due to start until 2012.......

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.

The last match I saw before departing England was when town beat Franchise at home just before Denis Wise resigned.  I love beating them and have to say that I absolutely loathe that club, they are a non entity in my opinion and the franchising of football clubs should never be allowed to happen.  They may have a wonderful stadium and be pushing for promotion to the higher echelons of English football but I for one would rather Oxford United win the champions league than see Franchise reach the premier league or have any success.

On another note I think I read somewhere that City are having problems getting planning permission for one of the main access roads to the site of the new stadium.  Will be interesting to see if the whole project gets the go ahead and how this could affect town.

Its been an issue for some time. Problem being is said access road comes under the jurisdiction of North Somerset Council (rather the Bristol City Council), given the site is at Long Ashton. NS are not well known for being cooperative/smart/helpful with anything......They make SBC look godly and efficient......

actually, i've been to the new Wembley stadium, and i'd say yes to the above. The name Wembley has a lot of history associated with it, but the new stadium is a souless, corporate jizz fest, with very little atmosphere. I actually got asked to stop chanting at an England game (although the lyrics were a little coarse, likening Steve McClaren to parts of a lady that gentlemen shouldn't mention, but you can't say my sentiment wasn't shared by many)