The pitch looks a belter from here, even I wouldn't mind a bat. 2 for 3 now... 
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.
Why should that have any baring on who can host the best WC though?
Though I agree it may have harmed us, logistically it should have no baring, and any it does proves more self interest on FIFA's part than ours.
Though I agree it may have harmed us, logistically it should have no baring, and any it does proves more self interest on FIFA's part than ours.
Find me a tabloid press in the world thats exemplary.
So England have more wickets in 15 mins than they picked up World Cup votes...
I dont agree that the choice of Qatar proves what you think it proves.
The bit in bold is not true at all either. What do you even know about all the bids for the last 6 WCs? You are just making it up to suit your argument now.
2006 Germany
2014 Brazil
How can you argue that these are not worthy? And do you really think it was a bad decision to go with Japan/Korea and South Africa?
If you think our lot are bad, wait until you read the Spanish.
Take your pick of anywhere that isn't the states.
I mean these are supposed 'journalists' openly describing Russia as a 'mafia state' and Qatar as a 'medieval kingdom'. What other great piece of impartial news they going to give us - Colombia a 'giant crack den' or maybe Australia a 'rapists paradise'?
The sensationalist media is quite frankly absurdly embarrassing, we like to laugh at the Fox News comedy at the states, but in truth it's hardly any better in these shores.
What did you expect from them.
Don't worry, this will backfire on FIFA. (With last little piece of comfort to you all I'm off to bed)
and your point is?
The media are only leading on a theme which many of us suspect to be the case and they likely have some degree of evidence for.
On the technical reports Germany came second as were Japan/Korea previous. Brazil were the only real contenders for the 2014 bid after Argentina never placed a bid. South Africa were way behind many countries in the Fifa criteria.
Or Italian, Portugese, French, Greek, Russian, American, Turkish, and any leading South American country.
My point is I didn't concede that Russia had a strong bid.
I wouldn't class Fox news as Tabloid press.
Anyway I'm off to bed, congrats Russia and Qatar.
What's the point in all those FIFA fecks travelling to all the countries to inspect and make risk assessments? And what's the point in the countries spending zillions on their bids? It was all totally pointless. I have no problem with Russia winning but Qatar!? wtf!
Anyhow, I loathe Internationals. All they do is fk up the league and all the hype around them for years, on a daily basis, is nauseating.
FIFA have shown once again what a debauched entity it is and the FA should be glad it doesn't have to suck up to it for the next 20 years or so.
Anyhow, I loathe Internationals. All they do is fk up the league and all the hype around them for years, on a daily basis, is nauseating.
FIFA have shown once again what a debauched entity it is and the FA should be glad it doesn't have to suck up to it for the next 20 years or so.
Germany is the one that was the best host IMO. Though the politics and bribing of that proces is well know.
Brazil's bid was unapposed ..but was fraught with technical, logistical and social problems..It's merits were "it's Brazil"...and erm..Yeah that's it. Little different to England's "arrogant" we're the home of football shit that we never actually used.
South Africa's bid was also fraught with all these problems and met few critera and risk assesments., and they were up against Morocco, a country with more recent and historical footballing history and one which had bid in three of the previous four bids.
Japan/South Korea was initially two single bids which joined to edge out Mexico. Another heavy footballing country with existing infrastructure.
All of these incidentally I think were valid decisions..Because I think 3 out of the 6 is a vaild number to use to spread the game....with German in between and France recently before..My problem is that it has continued this ethos and with Russia and especially Qatar, despite much better technical bids.
Politics > football.
There was only Japan and Korea in the running for 2002! So who do you think they came 2nd to?
You not seriously questioning the choice of Germany are you?
and who were South Africa behind? They were far away and the best bid for 2010 (only Morocco and Egypt were in contention for that)
As you Brazil were the only contenders so how can anyone claim that the best bid didnt win?
I am very unsure of what point you are making.
I am not even that surprised with the winners, under Blatter he just seems to be spreading it about to countries and continents that haven't had the world cup, regardless if they are the best nations to host it.
Not a fan of the English national team, but I felt sorry for the 3 Lions.
FIFA don't even bother to hide that they are bought.
FIFA don't even bother to hide that they are bought.
I have no problem with Russia as such, but the other 3 bids were much better and had more to offer for football.
No there wasn't. There was Mexico, who they only beat cos they joined.
So far and away they only won by a few votes over Morocco - who were clearly so sht they bid in 3 previous bids - by 3 or 4 votes.
The point is the majority of fans and players of the teams likely to be competing lose out for 20 or so years because FIFA want to pass it around a bit. I have and had no problem with SA/Jap/Kor or Brazil. They're just 3 countries who add up to a list of 5 that show FIFA's agenda is skewed away from what's best for the game as a game and the fans that acutaly will go.
It should take into account the actual needs of football more than their need to be political. The fact it had been in so many disparate places should've been in the thinking of FIFA this time. It wasn't.
Sorry you have totally lost me - you were talking about how the choice of Qatar proved that the English press didnt have any bearing on the voting. I could not see how you reached this conclusion seeing as one was for 2018 and one for 2022.
The tabloids are a joke. Instead of congratulating two nations who will be hosting the cup for the first time and who are more than able to put on a great show, The tabloids focus on nothing but cover ups and public rage to sell newspapers!!
Wait a minute - why are even discussing past bids when you acknowledge that they were valid decisions (as they quite clearly were)?
You also accepted that Russia had a valid case - so really you only have an issue with Qatar? If you had said that in the first place then we could have saved a lot of time!
I was saying that England didn't necessarily lose to Russia because of the media because the likes of the US lost to Qatar who didn't do anything to upset FIFA which was an even more bizarre decision.
What I said then is that such a statement doesn't mean I think Russia had a strong bid, just a less bad one than Qatar.
No because it adds up. Hence why one of my earliest replies to you was "it was the straw that broke the camels back" ...It shows that FIFA are not interested in what would be the best thing for football as a game and the fans that go, but more interested in their commercial expansion and Blatter's peace prize.....
I've said all along it should be taken far afield and to places who aren't ready for it...but Qatar (and to a lesser extent Russia) both outbid places that were better suited, which after 3 previous similar "new or risky ventures"...makes it less of a worthy experiment, and more part of a larger agenda.
It has no baring on the earlier bids/hosts,, but it makes the Qatari and Russian wins more difficult to digest and more of a bad decision than they would be isolated from the previous ones. Do you understand?
Well I suppose that is where we differ then because Russia quite clearly had a very strong bid as far as I am concerned.
I agree the Qatari choice was more of a suprise but if you look at the details of the bids then makes more sense than it might intially seem.
From a footballing perspective, the Qatar bid makes absolutely no sense.
Russia has to build stadiums, it has to build roads and has to build airports. Their footballing culture and current infrastructure is indifferent. Their visa restrictions and travel is indifferent, they have a terrible reputation for overpriced and inadequate hotel rooms, their police are far from welcoming, their civic rights leave much to be desired, they have a terrible tolerance problem and their cities apart from St Petersburg and parts of Moscow are second world.
Not a good bid as far as I'm concerned. The fact that two of the wealthiest men from the former USSR and the captain of the Russian national side are all intrinsically tied to football in London should say something.
Yes but the haven't had it yet...which is Rood's main criteria for what a good WC host should have to do apparently...or something.
Again, what is good for the actual teams and fans isn't as important as whether the country is in line, or worthy...which isn't what World Cup hosting is about IMO.
I'm going to bed now feck it.
Again, what is good for the actual teams and fans isn't as important as whether the country is in line, or worthy...which isn't what World Cup hosting is about IMO.
I'm going to bed now feck it.
I kind of understand the point you are making but, as you even seem to agree, when you look deeper at each individual decision then I think you can make very good arguments for each one.
It really seem to me that you and others are trying to make a connection between England's strong technical bid being rejected and then making a jump to the suprise decison to give 2022 to Qatar (admittedly very weak for a technical perspective) - but the reality is that they are unconnected and werent in competition with each other.
I think it is fair to say that FIFA's criteria for what makes a good WC is not the same as yours (nor mine either for that matter) but then you are looking at the situation as a fan, whereas the people who vote are looking from a different perspective.
Dont resort to the straw man Mockney - you are better than that!
Blatter was asked who his favourite Qatar player was.
He answered, "Eric Clapton"
He answered, "Eric Clapton"
WTF are you talking about?
If you look at any of my posts in earlier threads before the SA WC I've said many times that FIFA needs to start hosting not just WCs, but also Champions League finals in sensible places for fans and players again because it's been getting political with it's choices for too long to the detriment of those actually involved...that it's been courting away from home a bit too much and it's wife is getting a bit annoyed.
The very fact I'm concentrating mainly on Qatar and not Russia should prove this...Because I could rip Russia's bid to pieces. It was a bid even their own delegation seemed to struggle with and which relied heavily on "why we not have it?"...That isn't a criteria for a good host. But 'because' of their history I don't really begrudge it too much.
However the Qatari one was by far the more unjust because it didn't even have the history to back that argument up....So yes I am concentrating mainly on that because it's the most flagrant example of this thus yet...It's little to do with England...but it does have a bit to do with the fact I go to and love World Cups.
Anyway, i've written an article on my thoughts, I'll post it tomorrow...Peas blud.