UK and ROI Euro 2028 | Official - it's coming home (except to Northern Ireland)

SilentWitness said:
I think it makes sense in terms of Anfield dropping out when we will have our shiny new stadium by then to replace it.
Click to expand...

It's the same with us and City. OT has the capacity but the Etihad has the newness which makes more sense for an international tournament. Plus location as it's more central.

I imagine Villa Park and Hampden would require some upgrades, which I think would be good for football generally.

Edit - Also your new stadium looks swish as heck.
 
Last edited:
Vidyoyo said:
It's the same with us and City. OT has the capacity but the Etihad has the newness which makes more sense for an international tournament. Plus location as it's more central.

I imagine Villa Park and Hampden would require some upgrades, which I think would be good for football generally.
Click to expand...

There are planned Hampden upgrades if succesful.
 
It shows how far City have come and they are now the Premier club in Manchester. When people say Manchester they think sky blue, seats and baldness
 
Pexbo said:
The word gets thrown around a bit much on here but this is genuinely embarrassing for us.
Click to expand...
Why?

Is it embarrassing for Arsenal? Liverpool?

They've taken the newest most modern options from each segment (ie, North west, North east etc).
Actually a decent decision by the footballing authorities.
 
It's a little surprising actually how they've gone with Villa instead of Leicester given the planned upgrades for their stadium. I suppose it had to be one or the other for Midlands representation and Birmingham is the bigger city.
 
Champ said:
Why?

Is it embarrassing for Arsenal? Liverpool?

They've taken the newest most modern options from each segment (ie, North west, North east etc).
Actually a decent decision by the footballing authorities.
Click to expand...

I guess it's embarrassing that our stadium is not deemed good enough to stage a game at a major tournament, and City's is.

Probably didn't choose Liverpool because it's in a shite area of the city
 
Genuinely embarrassing. Old Trafford hasn't been a great stadium for years so here we are.
 
Champ said:
Why?

Is it embarrassing for Arsenal? Liverpool?

They've taken the newest most modern options from each segment (ie, North west, North east etc).
Actually a decent decision by the footballing authorities.
Click to expand...
Yes.

We’re the biggest club in England by a country mile. Old Trafford is a state, if the Glazers had invested in the stadium like they should it would be us and not City representing the North West. It’s a state of irrelevance we should never accept.
 
It’s totally ridiculous that it wouldn’t be included even if you buy into the bullshit narrative that it’s falling apart at the foundations.
 
Pexbo said:
Yes.

We’re the biggest club in England by a country mile. Old Trafford is a state, if the Glazers had invested in the stadium like they should it would be us and not City representing the North West. It’s a state of irrelevance we should never accept.
Click to expand...
Liverpool are a bigger club than Everton, yet there's wasn't included either.

It's not embarrassing, it's just the FA wanting to put forward the shiniest option available.
 
No surprise the CoM Stadium has been included. It has better public transport links into and out of the City. Old Trafford on match day is a nightmare to get to and out of on public transport as is the case of many older, traditional stadiums.
 
Champ said:
Liverpool are a bigger club than Everton, yet there's wasn't included either.

It's not embarrassing, it's just the FA wanting to put forward the shiniest option available.
Click to expand...
And I said yes it’s embarrassing for Liverpool too. Which it is.

United should have invested massively in the stadium over the last two decades and we should by this point have a world class stadium which is first on this sort of list. It’s embarrassing that we are not even mentioned.
 
devil99 said:
I read an article mentioning club withdrew expecting redevelopment or renovations possibly clashing with the dates
Click to expand...
Indeed:

"However, during follow-up discussions with the FA, it became clear that we were unable to provide the necessary certainty around the availability of Old Trafford due to potential redevelopment of the stadium."


2855691/euro-2028-uk-and-ireland-submit-final-bid-for-european-championship-and-reveal-10-shortlisted-host-stadiums#:~:text=Old Trafford, which has the,following talks with the FA.
 
Pexbo said:
And I said yes it’s embarrassing for Liverpool too. Which it is.

United should have invested massively in the stadium over the last two decades and we should by this point have a world class stadium which is first on this sort of list. It’s embarrassing that we are not even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Even with an upgrade Old Trafford probably wouldn't have been in contention for a lot of other reasons.
A bigger ground needs more tickets to sell which might not happen, City's ground is far easier to get too, it's newer which means it's generally easier to police, etc

If you want to find embarrassment in that feel free, but it's really just the correct decision for the FA.
 
Champ said:
Even with an upgrade Old Trafford probably wouldn't have been in contention for a lot of other reasons.
A bigger ground needs more tickets to sell which might not happen, City's ground is far easier to get too, it's newer which means it's generally easier to police, etc

If you want to find embarrassment in that feel free, but it's really just the correct decision for the FA.
Click to expand...

1. You think they’re going to struggle to find matches which would fill a 76k seater stadium at the Euros?

2. United fill a 76k stadium twice a week. It’s not exactly on the Shetland Islands.

3. It’s newer? That’s the entire bloody point that is being made to you. The Etihad is 21 years old now, it’s hardly state of the art. If we had invested like we should over the last 20 years the Etihad wouldn’t hold a candle to Old Trafford or whatever was in its place.
 
Champ said:
Why?

Is it embarrassing for Arsenal? Liverpool?

They've taken the newest most modern options from each segment (ie, North west, North east etc).
Actually a decent decision by the footballing authorities.
Click to expand...
Interestingly they took the least modern option in Scotland with Hampden.

I know one stadium for Scotland is a fair pro rata population based share (if not geography or football support), but it just feels tokenistic and underwhelming. Either be properly involved or not at all.
 
I would have thought that a bid would have been stronger with iconic names like Old Trafford and Anfield but then again I couldnt have told you the name of one stadium in Qatar.

No doubt there will big some back hander dealing involved in whoever they chose.
 
Vidyoyo said:
It's the same with us and City. OT has the capacity but the Etihad has the newness which makes more sense for an international tournament. Plus location as it's more central.

I imagine Villa Park and Hampden would require some upgrades, which I think would be good for football generally.

Edit - Also your new stadium looks swish as heck.
Click to expand...
In fairness they had to choose the Etihad for the newness. I'm pretty sure a lot of those seats have never been sat on. :lol:
 
Vidyoyo said:
It's a little surprising actually how they've gone with Villa instead of Leicester given the planned upgrades for their stadium. I suppose it had to be one or the other for Midlands representation and Birmingham is the bigger city.
Click to expand...

We're rebuilding the North Stand behind the goal in next 12 months so that will take around two years and get capacity up to 52k as listed in the bid document.

I'm surprised Leicester didn't expand after their title win. I assume they'll just stick another tier on behind one of the goals so it won't be much over 40k.

I was actually surprised London got a chance to have two venues given Glasgow is just going with Hampden. Interesting if England just stay at Wembley or move around in this tournament.
 
Pexbo said:
1. You think they’re going to struggle to find matches which would fill a 76k seater stadium at the Euros?

2. United fill a 76k stadium twice a week. It’s not exactly on the Shetland Islands.

3. It’s newer? That’s the entire bloody point that is being made to you. The Etihad is 21 years old now, it’s hardly state of the art. If we had invested like we should over the last 20 years the Etihad wouldn’t hold a candle to Old Trafford or whatever was in its place.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Personally I don’t get the decision at all. The Etihad is hardly astounding and similarly Anfield has just been renovated. Personally I don’t understand why the Tottenham stadium is getting a chance when Wembley is so close. It should be given to a stadium in the South West to even things up.
 
old trafford wasn’t named as it’ll be renamed the mcnugget bowl and moved to coventry by our new owners by 2028.
 
Grrrrr bet we won't even get picked as a training base.
Albania choosing Stockport County's base will be the last straw.
 
IIRC it's due to our media zone and dressing rooms being too small. I remember reading a while back that Old Trafford, in its current form, will not be in contention to host a Champions League final again because of this.

I'm sure it also said Anfield's field dimensions are too small. It's 2 or 3m too short from byline to byline.
 
Gio said:
Interestingly they took the least modern option in Scotland with Hampden.

I know one stadium for Scotland is a fair pro rata population based share (if not geography or football support), but it just feels tokenistic and underwhelming. Either be properly involved or not at all.
Click to expand...
I just wonder where else in Scotland you could choose other than building a completely new stadium somewhere other than Glasgow? Ibrox and Celtic Park must go out of the window purely because they're already close to Hampden and you'd imagine that the traffic would be impossible to manage because of it. The only other realistic stadium is the 67k Murrayfield but good luck getting Scottish Rugby to let some filthy footballers dirty up their paradise.
 
Josep Dowling said:
Personally I don’t get the decision at all. The Etihad is hardly astounding and similarly Anfield has just been renovated. Personally I don’t understand why the Tottenham stadium is getting a chance when Wembley is so close. It should be given to a stadium in the South West to even things up.
Click to expand...

Spurs need the money ?
 
No OT or Anfield? Have at least one group game at each of those stadiums.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I just wonder where else in Scotland you could choose other than building a completely new stadium somewhere other than Glasgow? Ibrox and Celtic Park must go out of the window purely because they're already close to Hampden and you'd imagine that the traffic would be impossible to manage because of it. The only other realistic stadium is the 67k Murrayfield but good luck getting Scottish Rugby to let some filthy footballers dirty up their paradise.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s got to be Murrayfield. The shackles are off and the SRU have deigned to do a few games in recent years. For a tournament attracting international fans, it’s a miss not including Edinburgh. Then it would allow one of the groups to be based in the north, perhaps with St James Park, which fulfills one of their aims of minimising travel. It would promote the idea that this is a partnership of nations and cover off both halves of Scotland, securing buy-in from more of the country.

As it is, it would have been better for England to go alone - takes up fewer automatic qualifying spots and allows them to better cover off their own regions.
 
711 said:
Indeed:

"However, during follow-up discussions with the FA, it became clear that we were unable to provide the necessary certainty around the availability of Old Trafford due to potential redevelopment of the stadium."


2855691/euro-2028-uk-and-ireland-submit-final-bid-for-european-championship-and-reveal-10-shortlisted-host-stadiums#:~:text=Old Trafford, which has the,following talks with the FA.
Click to expand...

Can we just have this be an auto reply to everyone calling it a travesty.
 
Get all the comments about “newness” but OT and Anfield for example are as famous as it gets when it comes to stadiums. I get that they aren’t as new and shiny as others, but honestly I think fans around Europe would genuinely be more inclined to actually come and watch a game if they knew they were going to get a chance to go to Old Trafford.
 
horsechoker said:
It shows how far City have come and they are now the Premier club in Manchester. When people say Manchester they think sky blue, seats and baldness
Click to expand...

Don't forget slapping down United fans in restaurants to rapturous applause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.