So a load of white elephant stadia is legacy is it? Joke!
World Cup 2018 & 2022 bids
- Thread starter Cal?
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So a load of white elephant stadia is legacy is it? Joke!
Is it true that in Fifa's recent report both Russia and Qatar ranked as two of the worst technical bids, despite all of the cash being pledged? Just been claimed as such on the radio.
England and Australia get three votes between them, unbelievable.
England and Australia get three votes between them, unbelievable.
Yes on the face of it. They may as well hand out WCs without a bidding process. I agree with that much. Then again, perhaps we could've done more... maybe something like the London Olympic bid committee and its regeneration angle. I don't know but it's possible we got it completely wrong...although in all fairness, I'm not sure we could've done anything more. England's already a high developed footballing nation....it simply didn't stir FIFA's juices. But yeah, I guess we really wasted our time bidding when in reality we had next to no chance.
He probably had to call up Lalas and Wynalda just to find out the basics of the sport before speaking on the bid and final comment on the result.
Fair enough correction there TBGB, it's still about twice the population of Qatar.
How would speaking with Lalas and Wynalda increase one's knowledge of football?
It's a shame FIFA aren't NASA because we'd probably have been to Andromeda now. Even though Andromeda is notoriously racist towards Earthlings, has terrible infrastructure and doesn't even play football (most Andromedians are born without feet, those who are face a lifetime of torment. 'Look at that swarmy two-footed Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime' they quip.) Did I mention it has blistering heat and doesn't like football?
I agree! As a British citizen and resident of England, I would have loved it to be here, I enjoyed every day of Euro 96 and can only dream about what it would be like to actually attend a world cup in my country.
But I also am able to detach from my national jingoism and see this objectively. People in the UK have missed out, but they will continue to love the game and enjoy it. It may be tragic for us but it wont change my relationship with football.
But for the world of football, FIFAs decision is a great one as in 10 years time, we will have more fans of the game than we did before. And I don't think that would have happened if the WC was just awarded to countries who already had existing infrastructures and heritage.
What did Germany do differently to win the rights to 06? It was still the same corrupt FIFA back then...who did they impress enough to overcome all of that.
Qatar? I think 90% of the stadia will be partially disbanded and reconstructed elsewhere.
I agree 100%. When Portland and Vancouver join the league it's going to be fantastic. It's a shame that enthusiasm doesn't seem to make it to San Jose, CA.
Tell me, are you a supporter of "game 39"?
Exactly - it is all well and good to say we have the stadia and infrastructure now, but the fact is that by 2018 it will all be a bit outdated compared to the brand spanking new show that Russia will put on.
I guess the plan of new stadia in Plymouth and Milton Keynes wasnt enough to sway FIFA - I cant think why ...
England went for the history and tradition angle when it looks like FIFA were looking for the complete opposite.
I don't think that would be in England's best interests, no. The FIFA World Cup carries a certain legitimacy, which the FA craves.
There wasn't the silly oil money flooding football back in the late 90s. So Germany probably secured the bid with a few designer handbags, the same as England tried this time.
We missed the boat, I guess. But since the Germany WC there's clearly been a rethink with SA, Brazil, Russia and Qatar winning the hosting rights.
That's possibly true, but screwed up. How can the FA (note that's "The FA", not "The EFA") possibly be so insecure and discredited as to have to crave legitimacy?!
They are the original FA, who first codified the game... to have pissed away their reputation to that extent is a joke.
It's funny... you accuse others of imperialism, but you seem obsessed with football taking over the world.
Why do you particularly care if we will have more fans of the game than we did before? Who is "we" anyway?
Did you see the fire in the MK Stadium late this afternoon? It looked as if a dozen flares tied together had been set off in one of the stands.
Many already recognised Germany 2006 as top notch before this, how wistful shall we be three WCs from now i wonder.
This is the single most damming thing. Nobody can look at this and say FIFA don't need to change the system.
At the very least they should stop wasting time and money carrying out technical reports!
At the very least they should stop wasting time and money carrying out technical reports!
Understand that cultural belief systems apply only to the societies that respect them. My problem with you and others who take this stance is tat you believe that your way is the only way and that you are right and others are wrong. No, people have different beliefs and each is as correct as the other. Period.
Yes, the middle east has different customs - thats just the way it is. Perhaps this tournament can be an opportunity for those who believe that their own customs should be allowed in other cultures to challenge the status quo?
Thankyou. Angling for that drink already I see..
The fact that it will have a communal impact on the ME is the redeeming feature of it yes. Certainly. The one point I agree with you on Re:it's similarity to SA is the comparison of it being a continental tournament.
That's a hell of alot of ifs. And I'm not sure your utopian vision is quite as accurate as we'd all like it to be, or any different to what could be said for hosting it in any other developing area/unsuitable place. By that token any impoverished nation should bid for the next one and get it by virtue of it being "worthy"..regardless of it's suitability or merits. Again, this isn't a charity drive..This is the most prestigious tournament in sort and people with long histories of following it and playing in it shouldn't have to be relegated in worth just because a new and emerging place has suddenly taken an interest and has lots of money. Plus Africa didn't really see an upsurge in quality when SA got it. In fact you could quite legitimately claim the African teams were worse in the last World Cup than in earlier ones. The long term lasting impacts have yet to be seen.
I'm not hugely bothered by England's failure. I'd obviously like to see it here, but I'm not devestated by it. In fact if I had my way every European World Cup would be in Germany. There's something nice about travelling to a WC anyway. It's more the fact that 5 of the last 6 WC hosts have been non footballing countries and/or places with no existing infrastructure. The World Cup should not be a charity drive. Not solely at least It is now almost completely one, at the expense of quality often. No one can tell me it's preferable to play in such heat for example. Plus the fact that Australia had the lowest risk, and Qatar the highest risk and yet that's completely ignored. That's not on. It's wreckless if anything.
And I agree with that. But EVERY World Cup being awarded to such places is not on. FIFA has a duty to everyone else in football too. As I said, 3 in 6 is fair on all. Plus the idea that countries should not use the WC as a fast track to sorting out their infrastructure after the fact.
And the slightly holier than thou attitude that anyone annoyed that we've now had 5 of the last 6 WCs in initially unsuitable countries should be labeled jingoistic and elitis is not fair.
Always a pleasure sam
So basically this risk assessment says Qatar had the overall highest risk factors, with all of theirs falling into "high or medium" whilst USA had the lowest with all of theirs falling into "low" except for 1 "medium".... so whats the point of doing a risk assessment at all, it seems to have no bearing on the outcome?
I've also just realized the only 2 countries to NOT have a "low risk" assessment are Russia and Qatar, I can see why a few are getting their knickers in a twist over this
It's interesting, isn't it? But I think it comes down to England having won only the one World Cup.
No problem, I think it is ridiculous because we and every other nation have always been under the illusion that you can have more than one stadium in only one city - and now a city smaller than Birmingham will have six stadiums - astonishing.
Just thought how about if they has done this:
2018 - Has to be all bids that are no lower than medium risk, Previous hosts from the last 20 years can enter but know it is unlikely.
2022 - Winning Host will have never hosted the WC before and it will be aimed that they will get 10 or so new stadiums out of it.
2018 - Has to be all bids that are no lower than medium risk, Previous hosts from the last 20 years can enter but know it is unlikely.
2022 - Winning Host will have never hosted the WC before and it will be aimed that they will get 10 or so new stadiums out of it.
Wow. Qatar did not register as a low risk in any catagory? Why even bother with a risk assessment?
Because it gives FIFA an open door to very powerful institutions in very powerful countries around the world - would Sepp Blatter get through the front door of 10 Downing Street otherwise?
Russia... terrible infratsructure, dubious political climate, massive problem with racism on the terraces, need to build 14 new stadiums, even need to build whole new airports.
Qatar... 40-50c in June/July, tiny country, no football herritage.
Yeah sure, the FIFA members made their decision based upon the quality of the bids.
The message people missed from BBC's decision to broadcast the Panaroma report 2 days before the vote: England never stood a chance. The deal to host Russia & Qatar was done a long time ago. I'm sure a few good members are a lot richer.
As for Blatter.. what a joke. How old is he? 74? Must be the last time he was in charge when a WC was appointed eh? Probably the last time he could have milked it out. One last big pay day.
As for England's bid... just be glad we didn't get it. Would have cost a fortune to the tax payers. And to think that the government would have had to guarantee a total tax exemption to FIFA and it's members. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.
I would love to see England (or even Holland) organise the WC, but not with this FIFA organisation as it now stands.
So, I for one am very happy with it, but then again I knew it would happen.
Qatar... 40-50c in June/July, tiny country, no football herritage.
Yeah sure, the FIFA members made their decision based upon the quality of the bids.
The message people missed from BBC's decision to broadcast the Panaroma report 2 days before the vote: England never stood a chance. The deal to host Russia & Qatar was done a long time ago. I'm sure a few good members are a lot richer.
As for Blatter.. what a joke. How old is he? 74? Must be the last time he was in charge when a WC was appointed eh? Probably the last time he could have milked it out. One last big pay day.
As for England's bid... just be glad we didn't get it. Would have cost a fortune to the tax payers. And to think that the government would have had to guarantee a total tax exemption to FIFA and it's members. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.
I would love to see England (or even Holland) organise the WC, but not with this FIFA organisation as it now stands.
So, I for one am very happy with it, but then again I knew it would happen.
FIFA's stated mission is to 'Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future'. Yes, it has an 'imperialist' nature, but its is just like any other global organisation.
by 'we', I mean the footballing fraternity of the world, those with an interest of the game of football.
I think its good for football (and good for the world) to have more people understand and enjoy football as much as we all do. Its a wonderful game and makes lives more fulfilling by participating in some way.
If thats a crime, shoot me for it.
Hey, give them their dues. They are damn good on 'competition-related events'.
What's the point in any of it? FIFA will just choose who they want rather than who actually deserves it. They should really take into account the team that will qualify as a result of hosting. What the feck will Qatar do? feck all, they havent even ever qualified for a world cup before, it's a joke in my opinion.
So having a joke team "compete" without deserving to will lessen the quality of the competition... It's about football first and foremost surely?
I personally wanted Spain and Portugal from purely selfish reasons for europe. It would get rid of two definite qualifiers from the European qualifiers from the qualifying campaign.
So having a joke team "compete" without deserving to will lessen the quality of the competition... It's about football first and foremost surely?
I personally wanted Spain and Portugal from purely selfish reasons for europe. It would get rid of two definite qualifiers from the European qualifiers from the qualifying campaign.
They're anti-Democratic.
Democracies work by the people voting for a Government, who then takes money from the people in taxes before standing for re-election.
FIFA gives money to those who then vote for its members.
Que the status quo, stagnation and corruption.
How has there been a rethink? Brazil have already hosted the WC once. (1950)
I think its good for football (and good for the world) to have more people understand and enjoy football as much as we all do. Its a wonderful game and makes lives more fulfilling by participating in some way.
If thats a crime, shoot me for it.
To the detriment of those who are it's lifeblood and made it what it is?
Brazil was high risk. Or should I say is high risk.