Not worthy of a thread - 2018 FIFA World Cup edition

[Ameritoon]

[cubaricho]

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/index.html

 

You can watch it there.

[cubaricho]

"Two 24/7 Football only channels" cue cut to ESPN who barely finds time for football.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Nice to see so many people in this country willimg to turn a blind eye to corruption so long as we get to see some s**** like Togo versus Ukraine at St James' Park

 

That's right keep on convincing yourself that the BBC program will end of corruption in FIFA and those criticizing it are just turning a blind eye to corruption.

 

Have a look at BBC's statement

 

"Delay until after the bid was not an option once it became clear that the winning nations might have been chosen by officials with a proven track record of corruption. The programme has uncovered new evidence linking current, long-serving members of the FIFA executive committee with systemic corruption."

 

So what did they seek to achieve by screening it before the vote? Were they really expecting that somehow FIFA would suspend voting because of BBC's allegation? Don't be naive man. There would not have been an material difference (in terms of stopping corruption) had BBC screened the show after the vote. The only thing achieved by screening before the vote was to damage England's chances and get some cheap sensationalism for BBC, nothing else.

 

I happen to believe that exposing the corrupt is not only worthwhile but essential, especially for an institution such as the BBC. I doubt it will end corruption but does that make the show any less newsworthy.

 

Screening the show after the vote would've been pathetic, a total cop out.

[oldtype]

Bill Clinton looks about as disinterested as I've ever seen him making a speech

[EthiGeordie]

It would be sad if England loses out this time around...

[oldtype]

Have to say Blatter looked blatantly sympathetic towards the Korea bid.

 

Sigh, dare I hope.

[Kaizero]

USA! USA! USA! USA!

[cubaricho]

The USA is one of the handful of countries that could literally put a World Cup on tomorrow if need be.  Hopefully that works in our favor tomorrow when the vote goes down.

 

I really like the points that Clinton was just making.

[cubaricho]

Don Garber almost touching the WC trophy.

[Thespence]

If Becks pulls this off on top of the Olympics he is deffo going to become Sir David Beckham.

[oldtype]

It's such a huge disadvantage for us in these presentations that we don't speak English as a first language. We had a decent presentation, but all the stuttering was just painful to listen to.

 

I would also like to shoot the buffoon who translated the dubs for the videos. This sort of thing just grates on me even more now that I'm a professional interpretor.

[David28]

If Becks pulls this off on top of the Olympics he is deffo going to become Sir David Beckham.

 

And rightly so tbh.

[oldtype]

The USA is one of the handful of countries that could literally put a World Cup on tomorrow if need be.  Hopefully that works in our favor tomorrow when the vote goes down.

 

I really like the points that Clinton was just making.

 

If we're going by infrastructure (footballing + transportation + lodging) South Korea and Japan are so far ahead of the rest of the pack it's not even funny.

 

America is obviously going to make the final vote almost by default because you're America and you're alone in a bunch of Asian countries. The key is going to be which Asian country comes through and how many of the other Asian country's votes they'll be able to pull together to go against the USA. IMO, you want to go up against the Aussies because they have almost no pull within AFC and therefore would be very soft in the final vote up against the USA.

[timeEd32]

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

[Kaizero]

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

 

Not really as they're not in the same bid group, so it's a bit redundant claiming it'd be a joke if they got it when they're not up against the same competition.

[cubaricho]

The USA is one of the handful of countries that could literally put a World Cup on tomorrow if need be.  Hopefully that works in our favor tomorrow when the vote goes down.

 

I really like the points that Clinton was just making.

 

If we're going by infrastructure (footballing + transportation + lodging) South Korea and Japan are so far ahead of the rest of the pack it's not even funny.

 

America is obviously going to make the final vote almost by default because you're America and you're alone in a bunch of Asian countries. The key is going to be which Asian country comes through and how many of the other Asian country's votes they'll be able to pull together to go against the USA. IMO, you want to go up against the Aussies because they have almost no pull within AFC and therefore would be very soft in the final vote up against the USA.

 

I wouldn't be so sure.  Transportation you would probably have us (smaller, better rail networks), but on the others I highly doubt it.  But it's about more than just infrastructure.

[oldtype]

The USA is one of the handful of countries that could literally put a World Cup on tomorrow if need be.  Hopefully that works in our favor tomorrow when the vote goes down.

 

I really like the points that Clinton was just making.

 

If we're going by infrastructure (footballing + transportation + lodging) South Korea and Japan are so far ahead of the rest of the pack it's not even funny.

 

America is obviously going to make the final vote almost by default because you're America and you're alone in a bunch of Asian countries. The key is going to be which Asian country comes through and how many of the other Asian country's votes they'll be able to pull together to go against the USA. IMO, you want to go up against the Aussies because they have almost no pull within AFC and therefore would be very soft in the final vote up against the USA.

 

I wouldn't be so sure.  Transportation you would probably have us (smaller, better rail networks), but on the others I highly doubt it.  But it's about more than just infrastructure.

 

We have more, better, and newer stadia. Not sure about lodging to be honest.

 

I don't disagree that it's not about infrastructure though. In the end, you can always build new stuff. It's the political considerations that count the most.

[timeEd32]

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

 

Not really as they're not in the same bid group, so it's a bit redundant claiming it'd be a joke if they got it when they're not up against the same competition.

 

I'm aware they're not bidding against one another. Not sure how it's "redundant" either.

 

Just commenting in general - England '66, USA '94, and Korea/Japan '02. Which of those three should get its next turn first?

[oldtype]

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

 

Not really as they're not in the same bid group, so it's a bit redundant claiming it'd be a joke if they got it when they're not up against the same competition.

 

I'm aware they're not bidding against one another. Not sure how it's "redundant" either.

 

Just commenting in general - England '66, USA '94, and Korea/Japan '02. Which of those three should get its next turn first?

 

It's not about "turns." By that logic we should be awarding this to Russia and Qatar by default.

[Ameritoon]

No telling where I'll be by 2022, definitely not in Michigan, possibly not in America, but I'd still really like to see the US win the vote. Would really like to come back to Michigan and see a game in Ann Arbor, but they didn't get on the list.

[timeEd32]

I'm not talking about countries that haven't had it before. I never said England deserves it ahead of Russia, Qatar, Australia, or any country that hasn't had it before. I do think there should be some logic in an order for countries that have had it (assuming they can handle hosting it again). For example, I think it would be ridiculous if France or Germany hosted again before England or Spain.

 

 

 

[cubaricho]

The USA is one of the handful of countries that could literally put a World Cup on tomorrow if need be.  Hopefully that works in our favor tomorrow when the vote goes down.

 

I really like the points that Clinton was just making.

 

If we're going by infrastructure (footballing + transportation + lodging) South Korea and Japan are so far ahead of the rest of the pack it's not even funny.

 

America is obviously going to make the final vote almost by default because you're America and you're alone in a bunch of Asian countries. The key is going to be which Asian country comes through and how many of the other Asian country's votes they'll be able to pull together to go against the USA. IMO, you want to go up against the Aussies because they have almost no pull within AFC and therefore would be very soft in the final vote up against the USA.

 

I wouldn't be so sure.  Transportation you would probably have us (smaller, better rail networks), but on the others I highly doubt it.  But it's about more than just infrastructure.

 

We have more, better, and newer stadia. Not sure about lodging to be honest.

 

I don't disagree that it's not about infrastructure though. In the end, you can always build new stuff. It's the political considerations that count the most.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't be too sure about this.  Newer, possibly, because you just had a WC, but our bid doesn't include our soccer-specific stadiums, it includes mostly places where NFL teams play that hold 70k+ and the back-up cities are even cities with huge stadiums.  Orlando for instance doesn't have a NFL team but we have a stadium (that has hosted a WC match) that can hold almost 75k people, and a lot of other cities will have the same type of scenario.  This is also not even bringing in the college towns that have stadiums that hold 90k+ that are scattered across the country because they are only going for bigger cities in the bid (cities like NY, Chicago, LA, Seattle, etc).  We also will have wonderful cities/facilities for training/base camps as well.

 

But like I said before, it's about much more than just infrastructure.  Things like political stability have to come into play along with audiences in the host nation.  We could probably sell out a WC in 72 hours on our own (especially if it were being hosted on US soil) and have the stadiums, transportation, and hotels to support that as well.

[Guest ObiChrisKenobi]

Just like the World Cup this.

 

Press all pessimistic for months, then the closer we get to the World Cup the more optimistic they become.

[Kaizero]

Hope the USA wins in 2022 since there would be games 30 minutes from my house, but it's a bit of a joke if the US or Korea/Japan get another World Cup before England does.

 

Not really as they're not in the same bid group, so it's a bit redundant claiming it'd be a joke if they got it when they're not up against the same competition.

 

I'm aware they're not bidding against one another. Not sure how it's "redundant" either.

 

Just commenting in general - England '66, USA '94, and Korea/Japan '02. Which of those three should get its next turn first?

 

England - '66

Portugal & Spain - Spain '82, Portugal - Never

Russia - Never

Belgium & Netherlands - Never

 

Do you not see how your "argument" is redundant? Two and a half of the other bids have never had a WC, shouldn't they get their turn first according to your logic?