Why Derby, Leicester and Hull fans are right to feel aggrieved
Written by: Darren Holden
I’m still seething over the fact that the FA have preferred Milton Keynes and Plymouth over Derby, Hull and Leicester in their selection of possible World Cup Stadia for 2018.
Why? Because its a massive kick in the teeth to the areas involved.
Pride Park: A perfectly good venue
I’m sorry Plymouth fans but even with the first phase of the expansion of Home park to 27,000 is a lot of seats for you to fill. Seen a Middlesbrough game lately? That’ll be you lot rattling about in a stadium built for a couple of games in a far-off tournament, but far worse. I know our position isn’t great, but Plymouth are more likely to drop a division than they are to reach the Premiership.
Derby, even in the lower reaches of the Championship have attendances that most Premiership football sides would like to have. Pride Park, The KC Stadium and the Walkers stadium are all fine football stadiums in their own right and have all proven they can host international games.
With respect to Plymouth, are they going to be in the top flight in 2018? I know a lot happens in football, but I can’t really see Argyle in the Premiership getting 40,000 fans into the new Home Park. I think 40,000 fans would be a stretch even for a well supported club like the Rams.
Recent statistics so far this season show that Derby this season average 28,893 fans per game (thats better than Premiership sides Wigan, Bolton, Birmingham, Wolves, Blackburn, Burnley, Portsmouth, Fulham, Hull, Stoke and the preferred East Midlands choice Forest) Plymouth average 10,726. Leicester average 23773 and Hull City pull in 24,030, the MK dons pull in 10326 fans into their stadium.
KC Stadium: Missed out to Newcastle and Sunderland
What kind of message does this send to the football fans of Hull, Leicester and Derby who turn up week in and week out. Its disrespect by the FA for loyal football fans of those areas and rewarding areas where the interest in football seems minimal.
Of course the FA will argue their choices were more based on the regional spread by having Plymouth and MK, and Plymouth directly benefitted when Portsmouth withdrew their bid whilst Derby, Leicester and Nottingham were in a three-way tussle. Hull seems to have lost out as Sunderland and Newcastle were both picked, which seems a little unfair to me.
The argument is that Plymouth will pull people in from all over the South-West, however in doing this the FA have just blatantly ignored the actual footballing make-up, culture and tradition of the host cities themselves, that was totally stripped from the equation and they reduced it to a game of pulling in people from surrounding areas.
What have the rejected bids for World Cup Stadia from Hull, Leicester and Derby got in common?
Leicester missed out despite the backing of Gary Lineker
Brian Mahwinney said
“We have chosen cities which present the lowest possible risk to FIFA and it’s FIFA who will make the final decision.
So in that case they should have picked the established stadia, not ones that currently exist in the minds of architects, attendances that might ‘appear’ and transport infrastructures that have yet to be built, especially as we are in a midst of recession.
If they had picked Derby, Leicester or Hull they will know from experience that the football community is there, the stadiums are there and the transport infrastucture is there. (A common theme on Hull forums tonight is their proximity to the North Sea Ferries)
There is the argument that they want to use the World Cup (if it comes) as a regeneration issue for these newly built stadiums, but to me it seems risky picking so many maybes.
Nottingham's bid was a success
(Now I don’t mind Derby and Leicester losing to Nottingham. Although people from the region are still aggreived at Nottingham’s constant attempts to hijack the airport in Leicestershire, and it rankles with East Midlanders when you have to explain to American tourists that Derby is ’somewhere’ near Nottingham, you know Robin Hood….but thats beside the point)
Now anyway, the proposed new Forest ground in Gamston splits Forest supporters right down the middle, for them it’s a marmite decision they either love the idea going or would rather stay put and see the City Ground redeveloped.
The locals around Gamston aren’t too keen on the greenfield site being developed neither. It also ran into trouble earlier this year when the city and county councils fell out, but the Nottingham bid pulled together at the last minute.
Hardly an ideal start is it?
So in this case, wouldn’t it have made more sense to plump for Derby or Leicester who have already established stadiums, also Derby had an eminently sensible plan to temporarily raise their stadium capacity so the stadium doesn’t turn into a spectacular white elephant.
Now the builds at Home Park, Ashton Vale and Gamston have the potential to backfire spectacularly if Plymouth, Bristol City and Forest can’t maintain their position or dive into the lower divisions how are they going to sustain them?
I imagine Liverpool and Tottenham will easily be able to maintain their new stadiums, but they are you would imagine pretty much assured of being on the Premiership gravy train. Plymouth, Bristol and Forest? I’m not so sure, are Bristol and Forest going to pull in 40k attendances bearing in mind they are two club cities? or will they ground share with their less fortunate neighbours Rovers and County ? Yet more uncertainty.
If not, have the FA skewed the footballing culture in these cities so that Notts County and Rovers might be permanently relegated to second-class sides in their cities?
Call it sour grapes if you like, but I find it funny how the rejected stadia were all in the midlands and north and Plymouth and MK were picked, and lets remember this could even all be pie in the sky as England might not even get picked to host the World Cup.
I’d still travel to Nottingham to watch whichever game they get, but at the same time it’s worrying how much the host cities will have to do.
Still the FA can be infuriating, and if just one of the clubs involved in building a new stadium gets a little bit carried away, it could prove to be their ruin.
I suppose one consolation for the cities that have missed out is that now also miss out on the planning and upsets that may come to the other cities and the dissapointment if the England bid doesn’t come off, but of course, they might also miss on on the potential benefits if we strike lucky.
You are not bitter at all are you??
You managed to miss a critical factor – that Nottingham Forest FC did not win the bid, Nottingham, the city did.
Nottingham, although not without its problems, is THE city in the East Midlands, end of. It attracts far more tourists, it has better shopping facilities, has a much more vibrant night-life and is culturally richer.
As far as the stadiums are concerned, you have not considered the possiblity that Nottingham and Plymouth were included specifically because they are proposing new stadiums in those cities.
Every World Cup includes staduims newly constructed specifically for the event – look at South Korea, Germany and South Africa – it goes with the terretory. If Hull and Derby had been chosen, there would be only 2 new stadiums (liverpool & Spurs) included in the bid and both of those have substitutes lined up in case they do not go ahead (Anfield and The Olympic stadium). The England bid committee, righty or wrongly, may have decided that the bid needs its smattering of new stadiums to add that bit of glamour bid teams think is neccessary?
I am a plymouth fan, and if i am honest I wasnt sure that we would get for many of the reasons that you have gone through. Such as us not filling the stadium week in week out.
However I do think that your blog post overlooks some points that England need to point out to to FIFA if they want the bid. The major one being to be able to spread the games around the country. How much futher apart can you get Plymouth to Newcastle? Would England’s 2018 bid spread the game around if it chose four Midlands clubs and three clubs in the North East.
Plymouth’s new stadium gives them a venue for Athletics as well as the ability to host more concerts then they already do. Home Park has so far has had Elton Jon, George Micheal, and Rod Stewart…hardly small timeas well as acts like Westlife.
Apart from holding British Championships of several forms they also hold international events such as the Transat so are not short of experience in this matter.
Plymouth didnt get his bid because their plan was better than those that didnt…Plymouth got it because it meets the biggest obstical that England have, spreading the event all over the country.
Just want to point out that when Germany hosted the WC they had a stadium at Leipzig, a team in their third tier of football.
Thanks for the comments guys.
Jon I would argue that the bid team said that they were looking at the lowest risk for FIFA. Surely that would mean not building several new stadiums? The lowest risk to them was surely the stadia that have already been built?
and yes, I get your points, but if Nottingham always gets the big events in the East Midlands this means that Derby and Leicester will never grow. it’s a vicious circle in my opinion. Nottingham gets all the big events, and all the funding and therefore wins the next big events that comes around.
Neil, congratulations on the successful bid, Plymouth did well to win a slot but I hope that after the World Cup has come and gone that Argyle could fill out the ground. I have my doubts though.
The Plymouth bid was massive. The FA though weren’t only considering the stadium venues when deciding on the host cities.
The Devon & Cornwall (It wasn’t just Plymouth) bid book had 20 chapters and only ONE chapter concerned the stadium at Home Park.
The D&C bid included Fringe festes at Exeter, Torquay, Truro, Newquay, Woolacombe and Landsend. Also a primary Fan Feste at the Eden Project as well as a primary feste venue on Plymouth Hoe. It is a proposal that will make the World Cup a festival of football across both counties, not just on the match days when games are played at Home Park but every day throughout the tournament. You should bare in mind that Exeter and Landsend are about 100 miles apart but were both included within the bid proposals whereas Derby, Leicester and Nottingham were all competing against each other but are all within 40 miles of each other.
The fan Feste on Plymouth Hoe will have a capacity of over 50,000 people with giant screens, corperate entertainment and VIP areas, catering villages, a merchandise village, live entertainment stages and two grandstands all overlooking the historic setting of Plymouth Sound. I know where I would want to be when England are playing their World Cup matches at Wembley and I cant get a ticket. In the sunshine on The Hoe rather than at home in front of the box or in some pub somewhere.
At the end of the day, Devon and Cornwall had to sell itself to the FA and did so very impressively whereas Derby and Leicester seemed content to rely on the fact that their established stadia were all that were required and I’m afraid to say, the Stadiums were just a small part of what the commitee were looking at.
There south-west’s contribution to England’s bid to FIFA will be a bigger factor than many believe in bringing the competition to this country.
Let’s face it, Nottingham IS the Queen of the East Midlands and has already proved it’s up for the big shout by hosting Euro 96. The city, the people, the fans all had a fantastic time and I think the FA have remembered this. It was well organised and embraced by all.
The bizarre thing about all of this is that new stadia or not, it’s only going to be for three games !!
I am surprised at the reaction of Derby County supporters. To be disappointed is understandable, but the level of venom and vitriol scattered like confetti at anyone and everyone related to anything to do with the World Cup bid is frankly embarrassing.
AEG one of the worlds largets entertainment companies gor behind Argyles bid. Apparently they will host lots of events at the stadium in the close footballing seasons, should Enlgand go on to win the bid and we build the stadium.
Take a look at the work that has gone in to the different bids. I think that you can see quite quickly that Derby were on a back foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL2dmIAp4A4 Derbys supporting Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTwR-r8CDiA Plymouths supporting Video
I’ll give you that Neil, Derby’s video was pretty weak. They could have done so much more with the countryside we have up here. They chose to ignore it completely.
It helps to have a pretty celebrity too!
Especially poor considering how much more time they had to make their bid than Plymouth did.
Leave your response!
Advertisement
This is Football Mobile
Polls
This is Football on Facebook
Lasting tribute
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Most Viewed