QATAR

parker kent

FatherTed wrote: »

So if I'm a Jewish Lesbian, can I walk down Main Street in Doha tomorrow in a bikini, drinking my bottle of buckfast while holding my girlfriend's hand?

You couldn't walk down Grafton Street drinking buckfast either.

The English moaning is pretty predictable. Apart from the obvious advantages that Russia had (a new host, massive funding, 10 World Cups already in Western Europe, none in Eastern Europe etc), I am sure the memories of empty stadiums at Euro 96 played a role. Legacy is also very important in these things. FIFA love bringing the tournament to somewhere new/different.

As for Qatar, their bid is pretty awesome if you actually read it. The relocation of the stadiums after the tournament is a fantastic idea. And being able to watch 3 matches a day due to the closeness of the stadiums is great for fans.

bonerm

parker kent wrote: »

You couldn't walk down Grafton Street drinking buckfast either.

The English moaning is pretty predictable. Apart from the obvious advantages that Russia had (a new host, massive funding, 10 World Cups already in Western Europe, none in Eastern Europe etc), I am sure the memories of empty stadiums at Euro 96 played a role. Legacy is also very important in these things. FIFA love bringing the tournament to somewhere new/different.

As for Qatar, their bid is pretty awesome if you actually read it. The relocation of the stadiums after the tournament is a fantastic idea. And being able to watch 3 matches a day due to the closeness of the stadiums is great for fans.

In fairness attendances at Euro 96 weren't too bad. There was some games where attendances weren't all they could have (invariably games involving Eastern European teams). I imagine this is because these countries were almost entirely made of unknown players and had smaller travelling fanbases. It also didn't help that nearly half the teams (6 of 16) at Euro96 were of this description.

Generally games which had countries and players that the locals were familiar with were sellouts/near sellouts.

parker kent

bonerm wrote: »

In fairness attendances at Euro 96 weren't too bad. There was some games where attendances weren't all they could have (invariably games involving Eastern European teams). I imagine this is because these countries were almost entirely made of unknown players and had smaller travelling fanbases. It also didn't help that nearly half the teams (6 of 16) at Euro96 were of this description.

Generally games which had countries and players that the locals were familiar with were sellouts/near sellouts.

That is exactly my point, English fans rarely turn out to see teams/games with such teams. There will be lots of those teams at any World Cup. That doesn't happen with World Cups in other countries.

ClutchIt

Qatar; A Q not followed by a U = crap place for world cup.

Morlar

FFIFA

mossyc123

parker kent wrote: »

That is exactly my point, English fans rarely turn out to see teams/games with such teams. There will be lots of those teams at any World Cup. That doesn't happen with World Cups in other countries.

Balls to that in fairness. Here's from Wikipedia's Euro '96 page:

"Although not all the games were sold out, the tournament had the highest aggregate attendance in championship history (1,276,000) and the highest average per game of 41,158 for the revised 16 team format with 31 games."

Your trying to peddle the myth that that the English football public are insular and only interested in how ingerland are getting on.

Check out WC '66 attendances here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_FIFA_World_Cup

Pal

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the lager louts though.

Probably chop their bellies off :eek:

parker kent

mossyc123 wrote: »

Balls to that in fairness. Here's from Wikipedia's Euro '96 page:

"Although not all the games were sold out, the tournament had the highest aggregate attendance in championship history (1,276,000) and the highest average per game of 41,158 for the revised 16 team format with 31 games."

Your trying to peddle the myth that that the English football public are insular and only interested in how ingerland are getting on.

Check out WC '66 attendances here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_FIFA_World_Cup

World Cup 66 attendances have little to do with 2010. English football in general has little connection with 1966 anymore. There is a lot of water (and trolls:pac:) under the bridge since then. There are 1001 reasons to discount 1966.

The average attendance in skewed by having 80,000 at Wembley for all of England's games. No other European Championships has had the host nation with a stadium like the Old Wembley. Empty seats at Old Trafford for Italy v Germany was pretty shocking.

The 16 team format has been held in England, Holland/Belgium, Portugal and Austria/Switzerland. England have vastly bigger stadiums than any of those countries so it is not comparing like with like.

Of course I know that England could host a World Cup. But just because they could, does not mean that they have a right to host. That is what is particularly annoying. They are speaking with righteous indignation about the process. Russia is a perfectly valid place to hold a World Cup. Russia and Eastern Europe deserve a World Cup. Western Europe has had 10, including 2 in France and Germany in the very recent past. The Russians bid was pretty good. Red herrings are being thrown out about it such as the time zone issue, ignoring that all the host cities are within the same timezone.

mossyc123

parker kent wrote: »

World Cup 66 attendances have little to do with 2010. English football in general has little connection with 1966 anymore. There is a lot of water (and trolls:pac:) under the bridge since then. There are 1001 reasons to discount 1966.

The average attendance in skewed by having 80,000 at Wembley for all of England's games. No other European Championships has had the host nation with a stadium like the Old Wembley. Empty seats at Old Trafford for Italy v Germany was pretty shocking.

The 16 team format has been held in England, Holland/Belgium, Portugal and Austria/Switzerland. England have vastly bigger stadiums than any of those countries so it is not comparing like with like.

Of course I know that England could host a World Cup. But just because they could, does not mean that they have a right to host. That is what is particularly annoying. They are speaking with righteous indignation about the process. Russia is a perfectly valid place to hold a World Cup. Russia and Eastern Europe deserve a World Cup. Western Europe has had 10, including 2 in France and Germany in the very recent past.

There was 53,740 at Italy v Germany. Thats a near capacity Old Trafford back then.
Sure, plenty of World Cups have went to Western Europe but only 1 to England. Reinforces the view that the continentals just don't like to see England succeed with anything. Why wouldn't they be pissed off about the selection process...everyone should be, it's a ridiculous system!
Russia does not consider itself part of Eastern Europe.
This decision is not a victory for Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, etc just purely for Russia...not many from the states it oppressed for many years will enjoy the trip there.

parker kent

mossyc123 wrote: »

There was 53,740 at Italy v Germany. Thats a near capacity Old Trafford back then.
Sure, plenty of World Cups have went to Western Europe but only 1 to England. Reinforces the view that the continentals just don't like to see England succeed with anything. Why wouldn't they be pissed off about the selection process...everyone should be, it's a ridiculous system!
Russia does not consider itself part of Eastern Europe.
This decision is not a victory for Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, etc just purely for Russia...not many from the states it oppressed for many years will enjoy the trip there.

I still view 3,000 empty seats for a game between the two most successful teams in Europe as unusual. That should have been a sell-out. Other games with less illustrious teams had much worse attendances.

There were more than "continentals" making the decision too. The debate as to whether Russia is Eastern Europe or not is pedantic for this discussion, basically I mean that there is an entire land mass which is east of Europe that has not hosted the World Cup. There were World Cups in France and Germany in the past 12 years, only a Western Europe centric person would argue that there should be another. Especially when vast sections of the world have not had one yet. Russia had a pretty decent audition with the Champions League Final in 2008. Qatar have been hosting sporting events for years, they are both well equipped to host the tournament.

Just because England want to complete their "decade of sport" does not mean that an entire section of the world should be ignored. Same applies to the Middle East. It is their turn to have a World Cup. I can understand Australia's frustration with the result.

And before anybody says otherwise, I am fully aware of the deep rooted corruption withing FIFA.

Aldito

There are hooligans from many countries at the world cup, no matter how small a contingent they may be. Hosting a world cup in a single city is just asking for trouble.

biko

Guys/girls
This has now become a general soccer discussion and therefore I suggest you continue in Soccer forum.
Apply for access now ahead of the crowd.