World Cup 2018 & 2022 bids

FFS man you make it sound like nobody comes to the middle east during the summer for a holiday! Dubai is booming during the summer and it's fecking hot! Of course they aren't expected to stay in the stadia the whole time, there will be plenty of things for them to do to have a good time.

I honestly do not know anyone who travels to the middle east in the summer unless they have to.
 
There's going be some shit being leaked about the FIFA WC voting over the coming weeks... anyway, watch NewsNight on BBC2 right now!
 
So you accept that the conditions could be suitable for football? Because that was your issue before and now you are talking about a different issue - that of the fans.

They will get to and from the stadia in air conditioned buses and trains - they will hang out in a/c fan zones, stay in a/c hotels and eat in a/c restaurants - get the picture?

All your concerns have already been answered - you just need to read the details of the bid.

Right, so they're supposed to stay in hotels and travel to and from the stadium on these a/c transportation. I wonder what they'll do the other 20 hours of the day when there is no football on.

The World Cup is a great reason for many people to visit a country and most of those people may just like to go see what the country has to offer, rather than stay indoors all day. But that's just me, I guess...
 
£15 million spent on getting TWO votes....one of them Englands.
You have to wonder about all the optimism over the last few days. The intention clearly to humiliate England and FIFA succeeded wonderfully.

So who is to blame?.
Well obviously the default position of little Englanders is to blame Johnny Foreigner. Not to be trusted as the Pub Landlord might say.
or "the English are never beaten fairly" as George Bernard Shaw might say.

But I see the 2018 bid in the context of the 2012 Olympics. England (or London) won that bid. And its a disaster of spirally costs which will of course make a few people rich.
If Football is reallya world game, then Russia deserves it. Fair play to them.
Not so sure about Qatar.

But the thing that gets me is the money spent.
When money is spent it just does not disappear.
Nor did it all disappear into the back pockets of delegates.

But where did it go.
Who is £15 million better off......who are the PR companies etc?
An itemised account would be interesting and for two votes......VERY interesting.
 
Good financial result for FIFA but poor if unsurprising choices for 2018 and 2022. Who can't enter the bidding for the next 2?

No bid from Uefa or AFC for 2026, no bid from AFC for 2030 as the rules stand.

But I'm sure those rules can be changed if China suddenly fill Blatter's coffers with enough RMB, or the AFC can just breakup into 2.
 
All the expats leave Dubai in the summer. Who would choose 50 degree heat especially when there is nothing else to do as is the case in Qatar?

Well obviously the people living here leave for a holiday, but there's plenty of tourism during the summer.
 
Well obviously the people living here leave for a holiday, but there's plenty of tourism during the summer.

I wonder if the tourism includes hanging by the sea in very little clothing?
 
Haiti 2026 will run them close!

Actually, i have just found a little island somewhere in the arctic circle and am founding the fine nation of Walrusville.

Now as you can imagine, with my new nation, the economy and infrastructure isnt quite "there" yet and i could do with something like a world cup to give it the boost it needs. Obviously as national leader i would get a small slice of the pie, but thats to be expected right?

There you are then lads, Walrusville 2026.
 
The World Cup is a great reason for many people to visit a country and most of those people may just like to go see what the country has to offer, rather than stay indoors all day. But that's just me, I guess...

Exactly. I went to South Africa and wouldn't have gone if it was in Qatar. I went because of the football and because it seemed like a great country to visit. The football only happens once in a while but you are there checking the country out the rest of the time

As far as the weather, I and a few hundred other people still have nightmares of freezing as we had to walk across a tiny pedestrian bridge after the final. Absolute fecking nightmare, so let's not pretend like all will go well with the AC dream
 
Actually, i have just found a little island somewhere in the arctic circle and am founding the fine nation of Walrusville.

Now as you can imagine, with my new nation, the economy and infrastructure isnt quite "there" yet and i could do with something like a world cup to give it the boost it needs. Obviously as national leader i would get a small slice of the pie, but thats to be expected right?

There you are then lads, Walrusville 2026.

Oi, I posted about 20 pages ago that I'm planning to front Antarctica'd bid for 2026 - the final frontier.

Surely if 50C is acceptable, so is -50C.
 
FFS man you make it sound like nobody comes to the middle east during the summer for a holiday! Dubai is booming during the summer and it's fecking hot! Of course they aren't expected to stay in the stadia the whole time, there will be plenty of things for them to do to have a good time.
....and then there's this....

During the 1990 gulf war conflict, i had serve all over Saudi, Bahrain and Kuwait. Qatar is not for off and is like double the size of the isle of man. The thing is, the temperature is bleedin crazy. I had to drink water ever 30 minutes by the gallon and keep in the shade and cover most of the time. Even midnight is warm. Any sport during the day was strictly off limits. They surely must have to play the games at 10pm or something.

Take it this way, the heat killed me then. I certainly dont fancy going back to a place like that again in my life.
Knowing what the temps are like in the ME I'll go with T2000's view of the weather out there.
 
Watching newsnight - not sure of his name but a guy was suggesting englands problem is fifa still see them as an outsider and they dont 'network' enough. It speaks volumes - balls to how impressive your bid is you haven't sucked my cock long enough or tickled my balls with enough tenderness so no world cup for you. Blatter is such a cnut. As is jack warner. The fact those two men hold as much power as they do says everything.
 
Right, so they're supposed to stay in hotels and travel to and from the stadium on these a/c transportation. I wonder what they'll do the other 20 hours of the day when there is no football on.

The World Cup is a great reason for many people to visit a country and most of those people may just like to go see what the country has to offer, rather than stay indoors all day. But that's just me, I guess...

Well there will be 2/3 matches a day for a start so it often doesnt leave that much free time for those who are just there for the footy.

These Gulf countries are all gearing up for tourism heat. It is all about fine dining, shopping malls, art galleries, indoor theme parks etc - it is not really my kettle of fish to be honest but plenty of people are lapping it up in Dubai etc.

I went to Japan with a bunch of people in 2002 - some of the lads we met did not see anything of Japan apart from stadiums and bars where they showed footy. Personally, I did spend time travelling the country but there are all types out there.
 
I am all for football developing countries be given the chance to host a WC. I do think however that they should prove their worth in either at some time qualifying for a WC or by their FIFA rankings.
Yes, I know people will say that how can countries develop football if they don't have the right to stage the WC. My argument there is , develop and show the world you are capable of fielding a World Class Team, qualify for a final at some stage and then ask to stage a WC.
The World Cup is about the best teams in the world playing for the trophy, countries that have helped develop the game in one way or the other. It is not a tournament, IMO, that can be bandied about the world to minor nations that will offer no more to the football world than some nice new stadiums and will more than likely do more damage than good for the game.
There HAS to be some "football" criteria imposed before any country can bid for the WC.
I am of course talking about Qatar.
 
Issey from the African confederation. England supported his bid for the presidency of FIFA, and he returned the favour.

Ah, that makes sense. England might have out strategic voted themselves. :lol: Clearly the Russian supporters were doing the same.
 
Well there will be 2/3 matches a day for a start so it often doesnt leave that much free time for those who are just there for the footy.

These Gulf countries are all gearing up for tourism heat. It is all about fine dining, shopping malls, art galleries, indoor theme parks etc - it is not really my kettle of fish to be honest but plenty of people are lapping it up in Dubai etc.

I went to Japan with a bunch of people in 2002 - some of the lads we met did not see anything of Japan apart from stadiums and bars where they showed footy. Personally, I did spend time travelling the country but there are all types out there.

Well, I went to both France 98 and Japan 02 and spent most of the time travelling the countries in between games and had a great time. Guess you're right regarding different people liking different things...

I'm certainly not going even if I get free tickets again...
 
I am all for football developing countries be given the chance to host a WC. I do think however that they should prove their worth in either at some time qualifying for a WC or by their FIFA rankings.
Yes, I know people will say that how can countries develop football if they don't have the right to stage the WC. My argument there is , develop and show the world you are capable of fielding a World Class Team, qualify for a final at some stage and then ask to stage a WC.
The World Cup is about the best teams in the world playing for the trophy, countries that have helped develop the game in one way or the other. It is not a tournament, IMO, that can be bandied about the world to minor nations that will offer no more to the football world than some nice new stadiums and will more than likely do more damage than good for the game.
There HAS to be some "football" criteria imposed before any country can bid for the WC.
I am of course talking about Qatar.

This, I think a Fifa ranking within 50 is just about fair.

Qatar are ranked 113, plain ludicrous.
 
Watching newsnight - not sure of his name but a guy was suggesting englands problem is fifa still see them as an outsider and they dont 'network' enough. It speaks volumes - balls to how impressive your bid is you haven't sucked my cock long enough or tickled my balls with enough tenderness so no world cup for you. Blatter is such a cnut. As is jack warner. The fact those two men hold as much power as they do says everything.
The WC hosts are supposed to be chosen by objective assessments...if FIFA can't objectively assess then they shouldn't be doing the judging.

We need a footballing body who can judge without needing their arses kissed.
 
The WC hosts are supposed to be chosen by objective assessments...if FIFA can't objectively assess then they shouldn't be doing the judging.

Well, they've given the 2 WCs to the 2 bids that have the highest risks according to their own report.

ffa.png


The message is loud and clear - RISK IS GOOD

Anyway, good night everyone...
 
if I were Dutch, i'd be gutted right now, they have qualified for 3 finals, any never hosted a World Cup, that doesn't seem fair to me!
 
The WC hosts are supposed to be chosen by objective assessments...if FIFA can't objectively assess then they shouldn't be doing the judging.

We need a footballing body who can judge without needing their arses kissed.

You'd think wouldnt you? The fact they make host nations alter laws during the duration of the tournaments shows how unaccountable they are to anybody who works with them.
 
There's going be some shit being leaked about the FIFA WC voting over the coming weeks... anyway, watch NewsNight on BBC2 right now!

Interesting piece actually - some good questions asked about how FA is set up and how they managed to get it completely wrong in how the bid was set up.

A good point was made about how the one English member of FIFA Exec Commitee (Geoff Thompson?) wasnt involved in the presentation at all - there were apparently issues between him and the bid team all along.
Bridges were clearly burnt a long time back with the Triesmann scandal and all the other media bollocks - sending in Cameron, Prince Will and Beckham was a complete waste of time as it was too little, too late - quite an embarassment for us really.

Not to mention £15m pissed down the drain by the FA - when you add in the huge overspend on Wembley and a couple of massive severance packages for Sven and McClaren - is it not hard to see why there is talk of financial issues at the FA.
 
Interesting piece actually - some good questions asked about how FA is set up and how they managed to get it completely wrong in how the bid was set up.

.

Yes. Then again, the FA has got a long history of feck ups. And Mihar Bose talked sense, we need to be more involved in FIFA.
 
Can I say I don't begrudge Qatar at all, nor do I doubt their ability to host what will more than likely be a good tournament. What I have a problem with is Fifa's system in all of this and their decisions in it all.
 
Yes. Then again, the FA has got a long history of feck ups. And Mihar Bose talked sense, we need to be more involved in FIFA.

Yes - that much is clear.
FA do not have a good relationship with UEFA or FIFA - if we want the WC then that will have to change.

We have the choice; play the game FIFA's way or tell them to go and feck themselves and that we dont want anything to do with their version of the game. Gaging the general feeling in this thread, I would say that many people would go for the later!
 
Yes - that much is clear.
FA do not have a good relationship with UEFA or FIFA - if we want the WC then that will have to change.

We have the choice; play the game FIFA's way or tell them to go and feck themselves and that we dont want anything to do with their version of the game. Gaging the general feeling in this thread, I would say that many people would go for the later!

We've got 17 years before we can go again, I say let the press loose on them fully unitl 2020, then get on their side.
 
The fact is that Russia and Qatar were technically the weakest bids yet both got it. Football isn't that popular in Russia. There will be empty stadiums, and very little magic. The other 3 bids were all much stronger. We all know corrupt how the Russian government and FIFA are.
As for Qatar... feckin Qatar ffs!

Coming back to England, yes the FA are pretty useless to a certain extent. However, A WC in England would have just been what the WC needed. That's the irony.
The thing is, I think it's a good thing England didnt get it (though I never imagined they would) as I think that the guarantees demanded by FIFA are toally unaccpetable. They can find some other sucker as far as I am concerned.
 
Interesting piece actually - some good questions asked about how FA is set up and how they managed to get it completely wrong in how the bid was set up.

A good point was made about how the one English member of FIFA Exec Commitee (Geoff Thompson?) wasnt involved in the presentation at all - there were apparently issues between him and the bid team all along.
Bridges were clearly burnt a long time back with the Triesmann scandal and all the other media bollocks - sending in Cameron, Prince Will and Beckham was a complete waste of time as it was too little, too late - quite an embarassment for us really.

Not to mention £15m pissed down the drain by the FA - when you add in the huge overspend on Wembley and a couple of massive severance packages for Sven and McClaren - is it not hard to see why there is talk of financial issues at the FA.

Every round of the Fa Cup, for every club, at Wembley next year then
 
I think that the guarantees demanded by FIFA are toally unaccpetable. They can find some other sucker as far as I am concerned.

I totally agree, complete exemption from taxation and a visa waiver for anyone entering the country is not what I call hosting. Look at it in the context of the new cap in Non-EU Migrants we set recently, we will be letting in around 30,000 people a year from outside the EEA (EU + Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) and all of a sudden for a four week period in 2018, for the first time in our history we would allow absolutely anybody to come through passport control irrespective of circumstances - from that perspective it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
 
Well there will be 2/3 matches a day for a start so it often doesnt leave that much free time for those who are just there for the footy.

These Gulf countries are all gearing up for tourism heat. It is all about fine dining, shopping malls, art galleries, indoor theme parks etc - it is not really my kettle of fish to be honest but plenty of people are lapping it up in Dubai etc.

I went to Japan with a bunch of people in 2002 - some of the lads we met did not see anything of Japan apart from stadiums and bars where they showed footy. Personally, I did spend time travelling the country but there are all types out there.

How much is there really to do in Qatar? Whether or not you are going there for the football or not, you will want to see other aspects of the country. South Africa, France, Korea/Japan. All had more than just the football to see. Not saying that Qatar doesn't have anything, but there is a reason tourism isn't exactly the most successful industry there.

Then it comes down to cultural aspects as well. Women journalists and supporters. Would they have to walk around in burkhas all day, in that heat?

Let's not forget the sights of those empty seats at the world cup in South Africa in the group stages, for nearly every game that didn't have South Africa playing. Will it be any different at Qatar 2022?

I read an interesting article this morning in the NY Times. (Pardon the use of the word soccer)

Soccer is, after all, the world’s game. It belongs to the 203 nations that play the sport, from Spain all the way to Papua New Guinea, neither of which will be hosting the 2018 or the 2022 World Cup.

Instead, Russia and Qatar will stage those two events, if the world holds together long enough.

I heard enough natural-gas-and-oil jokes at a soccer gathering in Midtown Manhattan on Thursday. Supply your own. What happens if the world goes green next week? It won’t.

Russia and Qatar will build the stadiums and the people will come, and the rising tide of American footie fans will watch in pubs, and travel to those games, and have a great old time as a growing soccer nation in its own right, consumers and participants.

What the United States needs to do right now, rather than sulk and mutter about being cheated, is continue developing soccer the way it has in the last generation. Holding the World Cup is not a birthright, not a prize for having a lot of hotels near a lot of stadiums. It’s a big world out there.

There is no point saying the United States “deserved” the 2022 World Cup merely because it could hold the event next week, as soon as it erased those goofy stripes across perfectly good fields.

The United States delivered a superb bid plan, with every detail depicting a nation ready to hold the 2022 World Cup. So what? FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, had somewhat different priorities.

True, two of FIFA’s 24 executive committee members were suspended for appearing willing to take bribes in a sting by an English newspaper, and also true, FIFA has a deserved reputation for graft and favoritism and opacity.

But FIFA also has a stated policy of growing the sport around the world. The hopeful group of 150 people from Major League Soccer and its sponsors that clustered in New York on Thursday watched on television as FIFA delivered the old one-two punch it had been telegraphing for days, weeks, months, years. You say bribes. They say vision. Split the difference.

England held an unforgettable World Cup in 1966 — just yesterday. The United States held a hugely successful World Cup in 1994 — a blink of an eye.

FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter, has been lusting after a Nobel Peace Prize — for what, for being a sports entrepreneur? Part of his M.O. is to connect the dots on the globe. On Thursday he talked about the lessons of soccer — winning and losing — in less convincing fashion than anybody’s youth-league soccer coach.

However it was done, whether by following Blatter’s master plan or by horse trading by 22 committee members, Blatter did preside over moving the greatest sports event on the planet into two untapped regions: Mother Russia and the Muslim world. Oligarchs and sheiks instead of American hedge-fund operators and rogue bankers. Take your pick.

The mood was clearly despondent in New York, where the cadre from Major League Soccer had been hoping to run a great event in 12 years.

“That being said, soccer continues to be a mainstream sport here,” said Mark Abbott, the M.L.S. president.

Also in the room was John Harkes, once the captain of the United States national team and one of the first Yanks to succeed in English soccer. Now a commentator for ESPN, Harkes was sad for both England and the United States.

“My heart sank; it’s a huge disappointment,” said Harkes, who once scored a goal at Wembley, the home turf of the world sport. But he added diplomatically, “FIFA has done its best to see where soccer is going to grow next.”

Speaking from Zurich later, Sunil Gulati, the president of the United States Socer Federation, sounded boggled by FIFA’s awarding two World Cups at the same time, which inevitably led to FIFA-like machinations.

“That’s not how things are done in our country,” Gulati said.

An economist who understands the interconnectedness of the world, Gulati told how he had come to realize in recent months that Qatar would be a contender, with its plans to build nine new stadiums within 25 miles and air-condition them and then dismantle them and give them to poor nations (a dubious gift, to be sure).

“I said, ‘That’s not a fantasy, it’s a dream, and dreams come true,’ ” Gulati said.

It’s hard to judge what a Qatar World Cup will be like. Will the rich beer sponsors be able to vend and promote their product? Will female journalists and female tourists be able to visit in full equality? Will Qatar upgrade its own national team, currently ranked 113th in the world, to avoid embarrassment in 2022?

But I can address a Russian World Cup. In 1986 I had the distinct pleasure of covering the first and best Goodwill Games in Moscow, beautiful midsummer Moscow. This was the time of Gorbachev and glasnost, and the oligarchs had not yet made their bundles — at least not ostentatiously in public — and the core of the city was poor. But people shared their hearts and their bread, and the games were run with skill and passion.

I would love to cover a World Cup in Russia. I wouldn’t want to see Sepp Blatter get any prizes for moving a sports tournament around, under mysterious circumstances. But it’s a big world.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/sports/soccer/03vecsey.html?_r=1&ref=sports

I'm not too fussed about Russia though. Moscow mmmm..
 
We've got 17 years before we can go again, I say let the press loose on them fully unitl 2020, then get on their side.

Yes now would be a good time to send in the dogs (the press) to go and dig around for some real dirt on the FIFA Execs - like you say we dont need anything from them for a while now!
 
Two vote's for England! Doesn't it say you something?

The people who vote's are not neutral. Why should they? They will protect their interest and they know that every vote is valuable. If you want their vote then you have to give them something. Apparently some offered more then the others. This election is not about who is best. It's political and if you don't play that game you will loose.
 
Has anyone seen advance pages of tomorrows newspapers yet?
 
Two vote's for England! Doesn't it say you something?

The people who vote's are not neutral. Why should they? They will protect their interest and they know that every vote is valuable. If you want their vote then you have to give them something. Apparently some offered more then the others. This election is not about who is best. It's political and if you don't play that game you will loose.

I think the fact that certain votes were cast for Holland/belgium, then changed to Russia after England were knocked out in the first round even though Holland were still in it speaks volumes.
 
The fact you seem determined to blame the press for EVERYTHING is hugely disingenuous Rood. I agree about the Panorama programme, but our press cannot possibly account for the fact that the best technical bid, with the best risk assesment got 1 vote from uninvolved parties....it simply can't. It's an argument by diversion! And if it does, then that hardly says a lot about FIFA's noble motives to deliver the best WC for football and it's fans. Which ever way you look at it, they can't shoulder the main of the blame.
 
Yes - that much is clear.
FA do not have a good relationship with UEFA or FIFA - if we want the WC then that will have to change.

We have the choice; play the game FIFA's way or tell them to go and feck themselves and that we dont want anything to do with their version of the game. Gaging the general feeling in this thread, I would say that many people would go for the later!

Or simply be more involved...which can bring on a change - if that's what the FA want. But they can't expect things to change by looking in from the periphery, which is what they've historically done. I was as gutted as anyone, I was looking forward to seeing topless Brazilian women dance through Market Street in a carnival like atmosphere but heh topless fat Geordie blokes are just as good. So I'm not complaining.