Not worthy of a thread - 2018 FIFA World Cup edition

[madras]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are.  It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group.

What have Qatar done to host a World Cup?  You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless.  Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar.

 

same as russia...made some people rich.

[Mick]

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5453/seppblatterfifapres.jpg

 

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are.  It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group.

 

What have Qatar done to host a World Cup?  You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless.  Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar.

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

[madras]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are.  It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group.

 

What have Qatar done to host a World Cup?  You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless.  Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar.

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

every bid offered that, what made those two more worthy ?

[Ridman]

http://www.studs-up.com/comics/2010-12-01.jpg

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I haven't the slightest clue madras. I am not a heavily informed FIFA delegate to be frank with you. At the end of things, it is a vote. Whichever bid is preferred by the voters will win. It is the same as any election. You may personally feel that one person was more qualified than the other, but this does not mean the populace will vote for him.

[Mick]

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

 

Not hosting since 1966 should bear some importance if the two countries have similar backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses.  I only mentioned that date as its 44 years since we’ve hosted so we should have more of a claim to hosting than Spain who hosted 16 years later.  Obviously, Russia have never hosted so 1966 isn’t relevant in that case.  How can Russia guarantee a safe World Cup?  How can Qatar for that matter considering where it is in the world?  No nation can guarantee an entertaining World Cup, the last one is proof of that if proof is needed.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

 

Not hosting since 1966 should bear some importance if the two countries have similar backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses. I only mentioned that date as its 44 years since we’ve hosted so we should have more of a claim to hosting than Spain who hosted 16 years later. Obviously, Russia have never hosted so 1966 isn’t relevant in that case. How can Russia guarantee a safe World Cup? How can Qatar for that matter considering where it is in the world? No nation can guarantee an entertaining World Cup, the last one is proof of that if proof is needed.

I found the last one to be a rather entertaining affair, tbh. Much better than 2006. I certainly had a nice time watching on the tele in the broom closet at work or at home friends. Also, my people who attended have told me that the atmosphere around the event was fantastic, which is all that the host country can control. Can Britain guarantee a safe World Cup? Has Qatar experienced any attack on the scale of 7/7 in the last 20 years? Nowhere is safe in the world, man. However, if Qatar prove that they will use all means necessary to prevent violence, FIFA should find this acceptable. Obviously, Russia have a history of violence, but if they can convince those in power that they will keep everyone safe in the areas in and around the stadia for one month, I don't see why they should be prevented. SA is probably more violent than any of the nations being discussed and they kept everyone involved with the tourney safe for a month. This is all that matters in FIFA's eyes.

[Village Idiot]

Our press has pretty much dropped the issue after moaning the day after. You have to think it's the 3rd time in a row we are passed over a major sports event (Olympics twice and now the WC), while you at least got the London Olympics. Also the 2004 EC but that was earlier.

 

I'm not that fussed mind, would have been a great chance to rebuild the Camp Nou but well... I'm mostly pissed of having what's probably going to be an awful WC in Qatar (I suppose Russia will pull it off).

[Mick]

I found the last one to be a rather entertaining affair, tbh. Much better than 2006. I certainly had a nice time watching on the tele in the broom closet at work or at home friends. Also, my people who attended have told me that the atmosphere around the event was fantastic, which is all that the host country can control. Can Britain guarantee a safe World Cup? Has Qatar experienced any attack on the scale of 7/7 in the last 20 years? Nowhere is safe in the world, man. However, if Qatar prove that they will use all means necessary to prevent violence, FIFA should find this acceptable. Obviously, Russia have a history of violence, but if they can convince those in power that they will keep everyone safe in the areas in and around the stadia for one month, I don't see why they should be prevented. SA is probably more violent than any of the nations being discussed and they kept everyone involved with the tourney safe for a month. This is all that matters in FIFA's eyes.

 

The quality of football at the last world cup was bordering on sleep inducing.  Can England guarantee a safe World Cup?  I would say that we'd be on a par with USA in being safer than most of the other bidding nations.  As for Qatar not having a 7/7 in the last 20 years, does that have any bearing on what will happen in the future?  Do you not think that it might just be a target for terrorism if the world is in the same state as it is now?

 

As for a safe Russia, that will never be guaranteed, they have too many enemies from within the former USSR, I’m sure one or two Chechens have marked a few dates on calendars already.  7/7 doesn't even come close to what has happened in Russia when a theatre and school were attacked and almost 500 were killed by terrorists.

 

[OzzieMandias]

Highlights from the last three months as Sepp set about shaping his legacy ("I'm working to make football a school of life, bringing hope, bringing emotions!"):

 

• Best individual performance: Executive Committee member Amos Adamu – caught in the bribery sting four months after telling colleagues facing separate fraud charges how they should behave. "The public sees every football administrator as corrupt, and I cannot explain why it is so. We must always be transparent to prove them wrong!"

 

• Runner-up: Former ExCo member Ismael Bhamjee – caught in the same sting, four years after his first one: exposed in 2006 for touting World Cup tickets at three times face value to supplement his £270 daily Fifa expenses. "I got myself in a mess," Bhamjee said at the time. "This was out of character."

 

• Best award: Former ExCo member Viacheslav Koloskov – travelling to Asunción in October to lobby current ExCo member Nicolás Léoz for Russia's bid. Léoz (accused by Panorama of taking £450k in bribes) honoured Koloskov (who received an unauthorised £65k payment from Sepp in 2002) with an award for "services to football and its principles".

 

• Best analysis: also from Koloskov – greeting the publication of the bids' expensive technical reports in November: "I know from my own experience that ExCo members work with little information. The inspection reports are enormous, so no one reads them."

 

• Best timing: October – Russia's sports minister Vitaly Mutko attacks the British press for "obsessive" analysis of Russia's racism record. Also that month: Russian football agent Vladimir Abramov gives an interview to Sport.ru about how Nigerians ruin Russian cities with "their drugs, and ultimately, their Aids". Abramov: "Teams shouldn't have more than one dark-skinned footballer. When there's more than one they are aggressive"; plus: "I am very respectful towards blacks, but Russia isn't ready for them." FIfa's view: "Racism will not be taken into account in the bidding process … It is not an operation matter".

• Best outrage: Mutko again, on why attention from the English press left him exasperated. "No matter what we say we are portrayed by them as a hotbed of corruption. It is not true." Later that week: Russian authorities launch a criminal investigation into alleged fraud at Mutko's ministry, including Mutko's own expenses claim for 97 breakfasts eaten during a 20-day trip to Vancouver.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/05/fifa

[Pandamninator]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are.  It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group.

 

What have Qatar done to host a World Cup?  You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless.  Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar.

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

 

This is a joke post right? Some troll attempt?

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup? Seriously, read over that nonsense again.  You should prove your bid is better then the rest, Qatar haven't done so, FIFA even savaged their bid in their own reports calling it high risk.  Are you seriously niave enough to think that Qatar the World Cup was based on anything other then some oil monies ending up in the pockets of Blatter, Warner and friends?

 

And Qatar is an established nation on the World Stage? GTFO.  It is a population of 1.6 million, of which only 200,000 are actually from the place, the other 1.4 million are ex-pats there for a quick buck and slaves who are there for no buck.  It was nothing 20 years ago, in 20 years ago it will be nothing again.  It has no stadiums, no facilities other then a couple of silly youtube videos, no proven experience at hosting any thing bigger then a couple of poxy tennis tournaments and B-Team Football Friendlies.

 

13000

9000

12000

 

Those are the crowd numbers of Qatars qualifying games in the last World Cup.  What a joke of a nation, what a joke of a bid, what a joke of a world cup it will be. The Wellington Phoenix in the A-League get bigger crowds then that on a weekly basis.  And were a shitty club team from New Zealand where Soccer probably ranks at best as the 5th most popular sport

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

You don't have to prove your bid is "better than the rest". As long as you can convince all involved that you can successfully host the tournament, it is a matter of preference between the voters. If the "best bid" won, they would just award the Cup to the nation that scored the highest on the inspections. This is not how the process works.  If you want to say that this preference was aided by corruption (as every single political decision in every single country in the world is), then that is a different matter and different to what I was saying. England don't "deserve" the tournament more than anyone else.

 

I was referring to Russia, btw. As people were talking about England's bid.

[johnnypd]

You don't have to prove your bid is "better than the rest". As long as you can convince all involved that you can successfully host the tournament, it is a matter of preference between the voters. If the "best bid" won, they would just award the Cup to the nation that scored the highest on the inspections. This is not how the process works.  If you want to say that this preference was aided by corruption (as every single political decision in every single country in the world is), then that is a different matter and different to what I was saying. England don't "deserve" the tournament more than anyone else.

 

I was referring to Russia, btw. As people were talking about England's bid.

 

well that's the exact problem - you should absolutely have to prove that your bid is better. the award of a world cup host shouldn't be based on an arbitrary, subjective preference on the part of a handful of voters whose reasons and justifications and eventual vote are all secret. it's a recipe not only for corruption but, as we have seen, for not delivering the best actual results.

 

england (and spain/portugal or netherlands/belgium) missing out against russia i can live with, though the way the vote panned out, with tactical voting, is a clear sign that some reform is needed.

 

but Qatar winning out against bids that were in every conceivable way far better exposes the entire process to be a shambles. in order to award the tournament to qatar goes against the guidelines and best practices fifa have establshed over the years - which simply underlines the fact that those guidelines and best practices were from the off nothing more than a smokescreen to legitimise an arbitrary, capricious process. why go through the rigmorale of an exhausting review of the fine details of every single bid if you're going to disregard those findings and choose what, in review, was seen to be the weakest and riskiest bid by far?

[Guest dover]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are.  It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group.

 

What have Qatar done to host a World Cup?  You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless.  Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar.

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

 

This is a joke post right? Some troll attempt?

 

You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup? Seriously, read over that nonsense again.  You should prove your bid is better then the rest, Qatar haven't done so, FIFA even savaged their bid in their own reports calling it high risk.  Are you seriously niave enough to think that Qatar the World Cup was based on anything other then some oil monies ending up in the pockets of Blatter, Warner and friends?

 

And Qatar is an established nation on the World Stage? GTFO.  It is a population of 1.6 million, of which only 200,000 are actually from the place, the other 1.4 million are ex-pats there for a quick buck and slaves who are there for no buck.  It was nothing 20 years ago, in 20 years ago it will be nothing again.  It has no stadiums, no facilities other then a couple of silly youtube videos, no proven experience at hosting any thing bigger then a couple of poxy tennis tournaments and B-Team Football Friendlies.

 

13000

9000

12000

 

Those are the crowd numbers of Qatars qualifying games in the last World Cup.  What a joke of a nation, what a joke of a bid, what a joke of a world cup it will be. The Wellington Phoenix in the A-League get bigger crowds then that on a weekly basis.  And were a shitty club team from New Zealand where Soccer probably ranks at best as the 5th most popular sport

 

How about England vs Brazil last year , Khalifa stadium 14th November, match attendance 50,000.?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/3095739

 

 

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

You don't have to prove your bid is "better than the rest". As long as you can convince all involved that you can successfully host the tournament, it is a matter of preference between the voters. If the "best bid" won, they would just award the Cup to the nation that scored the highest on the inspections. This is not how the process works.  If you want to say that this preference was aided by corruption (as every single political decision in every single country in the world is), then that is a different matter and different to what I was saying. England don't "deserve" the tournament more than anyone else.

 

I was referring to Russia, btw. As people were talking about England's bid.

 

well that's the exact problem - you should absolutely have to prove that your bid is better. the award of a world cup host shouldn't be based on an arbitrary, subjective preference on the part of a handful of voters whose reasons and justifications and eventual vote are all secret. it's a recipe not only for corruption but, as we have seen, for not delivering the best actual results.

 

england (and spain/portugal or netherlands/belgium) missing out against russia i can live with, though the way the vote panned out, with tactical voting, is a clear sign that some reform is needed.

 

but Qatar winning out against bids that were in every conceivable way far better exposes the entire process to be a shambles. in order to award the tournament to qatar goes against the guidelines and best practices fifa have establshed over the years - which simply underlines the fact that those guidelines and best practices were from the off nothing more than a smokescreen to legitimise an arbitrary, capricious process. why go through the rigmorale of an exhausting review of the fine details of every single bid if you're going to disregard those findings and choose what, in review, was seen to be the weakest and riskiest bid by far?

See, I completely disagree with what you are saying here. In my opinion, the entire goal of that process is to present the voters with as much information as possible, and to quickly destroy any bids which are deemed unacceptable upon review. The idea of the "best results" is subjective as you're talking from a white European perspective. Can you see into the future? How do you know Qatar will not be a success? you are projecting your personal opinions onto what will happen in the future. You can ridicule this statement when I am 32 years old, but for now you cannot prove anything. You make sure every bid fits the parameters, you attempt to give the delegates perfect information, you distribute the votes in a fair way, and go from there. FIFA do need to work to limit corruption, but this is an impossibility in my opinion.

[Taylor Swift]

They should let everyone vote. This Executive Committee thing just reeks of corruption. Set a few more rules regarding the rotation, the maximum risk etc., and then let people vote for the best bid. You could even have a committee 'recommend' a bid, but the final decision should still be a vote from all the members of FIFA, which would make it very hard for a country to bribe their way to victory.

[Filflop1]

I think every FA in the world should get a vote then it would be fair agree the SA world cup was the worse ive ever seen

[Rob W]

I f everyone gets a vote it won't improve our chances - it will be like the UN - and they'll certainly insist on rotation - probably 100 countries would liek to host a world cup so that means we're on for 2410

[James]

Yeah, certain regions would benefit for example African nations are likely to team up whereas European countries would be going against each other.

[Offshore]

As the world cup is supposed to be on a rotational basis how about only those countries within that area deciding on who gets to host it in their region.

 

Europe and South America are two easy areas to define, you could have Africa and the Middle East together and put Asia with Oceania, or North and Central America in with Oceania - i'll leave the planet long division to others.

 

So when its Europe's turn, only those federations within Europe would vote, same when its the other areas.

 

 

 

 

[Thespence]

Up to 5 FIFA exec members have contact the FA to say they were the "1 vote".

[Spider Jerusalem]

I am getting slightly embarrassed by the amount of whining going on since england lost the bid, I do wonder if anyone is aware of the quality of the Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium bids and if they are moaning as much as we are.

Does this sense of entitlement come from a touch of arrogance in out attitude ?

And if so this attitude isn't likely to make us very popular.

 

 

Personally, I'd say that having what was apparently the best bid in every way, being blatantly lied to by 'allied' countries and eventually ending up with two votes is proof enough that we're not very popular.

[Beren]

I wouldn't say that the FA is corrupt but the extent to which it is influenced by the media over retrospective trial-by-MOTD-footage makes me think that there is some karma to this.

 

That's right! Single out NUFC players and let Cahill, Jara, Cattermole etc etc walk and pay the consequences of my snug and snide potshots from an internet forum!

[oldtype]

They should let everyone vote. This Executive Committee thing just reeks of corruption. Set a few more rules regarding the rotation, the maximum risk etc., and then let people vote for the best bid. You could even have a committee 'recommend' a bid, but the final decision should still be a vote from all the members of FIFA, which would make it very hard for a country to bribe their way to victory.

 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and smells like a duck...