FIFA World Cup UK World Cup Bid - Not a soccer fan but England shoulda got it.

SIX PACK

We know FIFA are currupt but thats what happens when they have No one to answer to.
& they have the cheek to use the motto "fair play" Makes me sick

CDfm

You don't expect them to be the Red Cross but to be the UN of football.

It ain't.

Whether or not you think the English should have won the bid - the process was a sham and what other corruption goes with it.

Johnny Utah

Yeah, totally agree with the OP. I am a soccer fan and Fifa's corruption is so blatant at this stage, it's comical. Russia isn't exactly the friendliest place to go and will be expensive in terms of getting there. And what about Visas? Is it a case that only ticket holders are entitled to a Visa? A lot of people travel to the World Cup without a ticket simply to enjoy the atmosphere of the host cities...

As for Qatar, an even more absurd decision. A country with a population of 1 million people and smaller in size than Connacht. Qatar simply cannot justify building 12/14 world class stadiums. Imagine Castlebar building an 80,000 state-of-the-art soccer stadium and then building another one a few miles down the road. Farcical. This is what it's going to be like in Qatar.

Afaik, most of the in Qatar stadiums are going to be demolished after the World Cup. What a waste? At least give the tournament to a country who may have a use for these huge stadiums.



Aside from that, you have to question whether the authorities in Qatar and Russia will be able to deal with a huge influx foreign cultures. Is alcohol allowed in public in Qatar, for example? They may be in for some shock!

Raze_them_all

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Yeah, totally agree with the OP. I am a soccer fan and Fifa's corruption is so blatant at this stage, it's comical. Russia isn't exactly the friendliest place to go and will be expensive in terms of getting there. And what about Visas? Is it a case that only ticket holders are entitled to a Visa? A lot of people travel to the World Cup without a ticket simply to enjoy the atmosphere of the host cities...

As for Qatar, an even more absurd decision. A country with a population of 1 million people and smaller in size than Connacht. Qatar simply cannot justify building 12/14 world class stadiums. Imagine Castlebar building an 80,000 state-of-the-art soccer stadium and then building another one a few miles down the road. Farcical. This is what it's going to be like in Qatar.

Afaik, most of the in Qatar stadiums are going to be demolished after the World Cup. What a waste? At least give the tournament to a country who may have a use for these huge stadiums.



Aside from that, you have to question whether the authorities in Qatar and Russia will be able to deal with a huge influx foreign cultures. Is alcohol allowed in public in Qatar, for example? They may be in for some shock!

Ah here, go read the thread at least.

CDfm

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Ah here, go read the thread at least.

Its about telling us that we should enjoy a World Cup in Qatar or Russia.

As an Irish guy going to England there is no shortage of places to stay , cousins all over the place, so yes its self interest & affordability and an excuse.

( I have an uncle who used to rent out his house near Wimbleton for huge money back in the Day)

Did we even have a vote at FIFA. ??

So its not like even one of our own got bribed or their kids got scholarships or anything.

parker kent

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Afaik, most of the in Qatar stadiums are going to be demolished after the World Cup. What a waste? At least give the tournament to a country who may have a use for these huge stadiums.

You do know the stadiums are being rebuilt elsewhere after the tournament? They are not just being demolished never to be seen again. Part of their legacy agreement is that the stadiums will be given to Third World countries. For CDfm, I imagine this is what Raze_them_all meant when he said "read the thread."

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Aside from that, you have to question whether the authorities in Qatar and Russia will be able to deal with a huge influx foreign cultures. Is alcohol allowed in public in Qatar, for example? They may be in for some shock!

Again, read the thread or anything at all about Qatar before posting incorrect and/or uninformed information.

Also, why exactly do you think Russia could not cope with an influx of people? It is Russia FFS! They have held the Summer Olympics, are hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics, hosted a Champions League final and well, it is RUSSIA! You know, one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. Of course they can handle an influx of people.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Yeah, totally agree with the OP. I am a soccer fan and Fifa's corruption is so blatant at this stage, it's comical. Russia isn't exactly the friendliest place to go and will be expensive in terms of getting there. And what about Visas? Is it a case that only ticket holders are entitled to a Visa? A lot of people travel to the World Cup without a ticket simply to enjoy the atmosphere of the host cities...

All indications are that Russia are scrapping the need to have Visas for the World Cup. This was a key element for FIFA. Putin and various others have made public comments about the Visa issue.

CDfm

parker kent wrote: »

You do know the stadiums are being rebuilt elsewhere after the tournament? They are not just being demolished never to be seen again. Part of their legacy agreement is that the stadiums will be given to Third World countries. For CDfm, I imagine this is what Raze_them_all meant when he said "read the thread." .

So all this largesse will come at the expense of people who are football supporters and can't get to see a world cup otherwise.

What happened to the working man's game.

They should hand FIFA over to the guy McMahon that runs WWE and I will bet it would be accessable .

It is not being kept accessable to the people who buy the shirts and attend the home and away games when their teams are loosing. This is soo out of touch with reality.

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

So all this largesse will come at the expense of people who are football supporters and can't get to see a world cup otherwise.

What happened to the working man's game.

They should hand FIFA over to the guy McMahon that runs WWE and I will bet it would be accessable .

It is not being kept accessable to the people who buy the shirts and attend the home and away games when their teams are loosing. This is soo out of touch with reality.

I think your post is the one out of touch with reality.

Also, what exactly did that have to do with anything I wrote? How exactly is giving stadiums to third world countries "at the expense of the little guy".

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

So all this largesse will come at the expense of people who are football supporters and can't get to see a world cup otherwise.

What happened to the working man's game.

They should hand FIFA over to the guy McMahon that runs WWE and I will bet it would be accessable .

It is not being kept accessable to the people who buy the shirts and attend the home and away games when their teams are loosing. This is soo out of touch with reality.

CDfm, did you say earlier that you are not really a football fan ? I think you are just having a wind up. pity though as it could have been an interesting discussion.

parker kent

marienbad wrote: »

CDfm, did you say earlier that you are not really a football fan ? I think you are just having a wind up. pity though as it could have been an interesting discussion.

I have thought as much for a while.

There could be a very interesting discussion about the various nations involved. But there is not one happening here.

CDfm

I am not a dedicated and commited football fan- but I do watch it and follow it.

It was something I would have liked to do was the World Cup in England. I am sure lots of other Irish people would want to do it as a road trip -father/son thing etc . Don't you.

And, I do think England deserve to host it - a lot more than most.

So no this is not a wind up-no matter how much you would like it to be..

Its a bit more than soccer here and I don't like raising it but some people would think that because it is an English bid -it wasn't deserving of our support and I hope we have moved past that as a nation.

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

Its a bit more than soccer here and I don't like raising it but some people would think that because it is an English bid -it wasn't deserving of our support and I hope we have moved past that as a nation.

That has nothing to do with it and it is a cheap card to play.

Tchaikovsky

Perhaps England's historical deference towards FIFA and all thing's foreign has come back to bite them on the arse?
It took the English FA 20 years to enter the World Cup, having declined invitations to the first 3 tournaments, as they did to the European Cup.
This insular, aloof attitude lives on I think.. you can't have your cake and eat it.

parker kent

Time Vickery, a renowned football writer, wrote an excellent article about FIFA and England last week. It is pretty difficult to suggest anything other than the English being at odds with the current FIFA hierarchy.

Nobody can doubt the corruption within FIFA, but it is difficult to listen to countries that were complicit in the procedure complain because they lost a vote, when if they had won they would have been lauding the great FIFA decision.

A couple of weeks ago I was doing the translating when Dan Roan interviewed former Fifa president Joao Havelange at the Soccerex conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Still entirely lucid well into his 90s, the Brazilian was asked what needed to change in Fifa. "Nothing," he replied. "It's perfect. It's not because of one fact in 50 years [a reference to the recent corruption scandals] that we have to change."

It is impossible to agree.

The facts would appear to be not one but many. Hiding behind its status as a not-for-profit organisation, Fifa's lack of transparency is surely unsustainable.

But Havelange added something else which is hard to refute. "Football today is a power that has to be applauded," he said. Indeed, there has been an extraordinary global expansion of the game since he replaced England's Stanley Rous as Fifa president in 1974. Football has conquered new territories. Havelange's plan to globalise the game, given continuity by his successor Sepp Blatter, has been an undeniable success.

Nowadays, football generates rivers of money from sponsors and television rights - and it is alleged that some of this money has been finding its way into private bank accounts. The corruption is an unwelcome spin-off from the success of the game.

Some may disagree but I am in favour of the investigative work carried out by elements of the British media. One of the most noble tasks of journalism is to make those in power uncomfortable. No-one is obliged to become a sports administrator. Of course they must account for their actions. The investigative work of the free press must continue.

But I also believe that some of this investigative work suffers from a lack of context. The corruption is attacked without any sense of its relationship to the success of the game. There seems to be an underlying belief that everything was rosy in the garden while the English were in charge.

In comparison with the shenanigans of the Havelange/Blatter years, the time in which Fifa was presided over by Rous is held up as a kind of paradise lost. Yet the record books do not make quite such impressive reading.

Under Rous, Europe dominated Fifa. Of the 32 games at the 1966 World Cup, 25 had European referees, who gave Pele no protection as he was kicked out of the tournament and made a hash of the quarter-finals, thereby alienating the South Americans.

Relations with Africa were strained for two reasons. Firstly, because Rous was reluctant to give them automatic World Cup qualification, using the argument that their standard of play was not high enough. But how could they improve without the chance to learn at the top level? Then there was Rous's position in favour of apartheid South Africa. His judgement looked poor at the time but appears disastrous in hindsight.

Further nations were alienated by one of the darkest chapters in Fifa's history: the decision to authorise the World Cup play-off match between Chile and the Soviet Union in Santiago's National Stadium in November 1973.

General Augusto Pinochet had launched his coup in Chile on 11 September and had used the National Stadium as a concentration camp for his political opponents. Hundreds were murdered there and thousands were tortured. Two weeks before the game was due to take place, the remaining prisoners were either released or moved to other institutions and the bloodstains were hurriedly removed.

The Soviet Union quite correctly refused to play in such a venue. Staging the match in Uruguay would have been an acceptable compromise but Fifa ordered the game to go ahead and Chile eventually took the field with no opposition.

Making such a monumental humanitarian blunder would seem to indicate that Rous was some way out of his depth on the global stage. But while the British investigative journalists have gone after the Fifa of Havelange and Blatter, they have been less inclined to turn their guns on the reign of Rous, who attempted to hold the moral high ground with his holier-than-thou tone.

Some of England's problems inside Fifa may date from this time - there are some old men on Fifa's executive committee with long memories.

And so with England left on the outside, the Havelange/Blatter project goes on. Fifa's quest to take the World Cup all a round the globe is both laudable and problematic.

The former because the game belongs to the people. The latter because there is always the risk that the people end up paying more than they should for the privilege.

Fifa is so powerful that it is able to bully the host nation. Its own business is low risk - it makes money from the sale of television rights. Meanwhile, it receives all kinds of tax breaks and pressures the government to spend money not only on infrastructure but also on stadiums - some of which become white elephants.

In the developing world, where governments have so many other pressing priorities, this is a cause for concern.

Moreover, all that spending on stadiums and infrastructure inevitably produces opportunities for money to be siphoned off into private pockets. Once again, the corruption in football is connected to the game's global expansion.

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a dedicated and commited football fan- but I do watch it and follow it.

It was something I would have liked to do was the World Cup in England. I am sure lots of other Irish people would want to do it as a road trip -father/son thing etc . Don't you.

And, I do think England deserve to host it - a lot more than most.

So no this is not a wind up-no matter how much you would like it to be..

Its a bit more than soccer here and I don't like raising it but some people would think that because it is an English bid -it wasn't deserving of our support and I hope we have moved past that as a nation.

Ok then, I'll take this at face value and my apologies for thinking otherwise. Now to the points raised..

- the father/son thing . We have had at least 10 opportunities already to do this , of which 2006, 1998 were in the recent past, then we had Italia 90 and Espana 82 in the not too distant past. On top of that we have the Euro's every 4 years and Euro 96 in England.

On a separate but related issue England have the Olympics in 2012 and the RWC in 2015, plenty opportunity past and present for father son bonding. When does the Qatari or Russian father and son get a chance to bond.

You keep saying England deserve to host it more than most but give no reasons. Why do they deserve more that anyone else and please dont give the commercial reasons. If it was on commercial reason alone it would never leave Germany or the USA. So lets have those reasons please.

As for your contention that it is fundamentally anti-English. what is wrong with a little anti- englishness , particularly as it is not directed at the English people per se but at the arrogant F.A / ''the best league in the world'' Premier League/their fellow cheer leaders Sky sports who by the way hate FIFA-Uefa with a vengeance as they are still FTA/ and their hooligans fans. Who would'nt be opposed to that.

To those that say Russia is not part of Europe , I would remind you they won the first tournament in 1960 and were runners-up in 64 and 88, not bad for a country from Asia !

CDfm

Whats wrong with me saying that for my own reasons the English bid winning would probably have suited me for lots of reasons.

Not to mention thousands and thousands of other Irish people-who would not otherwise get the opportunity to attend a world cup -any world cup -ever.

I have about as much interest in the Olympics as I have in cricket. None.

I am not really interested in the Russian or Qatari point of view- with 1 in 8 british people having an Irish parent or grandparent we are kind of related.

Our national team depends on the English Premier League -so what is good for it is good for us.

I do find a lot of the English approach very amusing, especially the sheer optimism of their International soccer coverage and passion and support of the game & which we directly benefit from and is the next best thing to Ireland hosting a world cup.

So being anti the english bid for us comes with karma attatched because what is good for the english game is good for the Irish National Team.

So, it is in our interest to support it .

parker kent

But you don't just leave it at that, I posted a while back that personal preference is allowed. But then you reverted to the usual posts saying that Russia and Qatar were awful places, that not giving it to England was ignoring the "real" fans (because you have to in England to be a real fan seemingly) and many other spurious, random wind-up posts.

You basically always had to find a fault with any post that said that another country merited the WC more than England. You also displayed a complete lack of knowledge about football. You say you preferred it in England. Why can't you just say that without adding all the incorrect information afterwards? I have already said I would have liked it in Spain. But they have already hosted one so in reality it is only fair to bring it to a new country.

This really is a deja vous post.

marienbad

CDfm wrote: »

Whats wrong with me saying that for my own reasons the English bid winning would probably have suited me for lots of reasons.

Not to mention thousands and thousands of other Irish people-who would not otherwise get the opportunity to attend a world cup -any world cup -ever.

I have about as much interest in the Olympics as I have in cricket. None.

I am not really interested in the Russian or Qatari point of view- with 1 in 8 british people having an Irish parent or grandparent we are kind of related.

Our national team depends on the English Premier League -so what is good for it is good for us.

I do find a lot of the English approach very amusing, especially the sheer optimism of their International soccer coverage and passion and support of the game & which we directly benefit from and is the next best thing to Ireland hosting a world cup.

So being anti the english bid for us comes with karma attatched because what is good for the english game is good for the Irish National Team.

So, it is in our interest to support it .

Now I know it is a wind up and there I was in thinking it was an objective discussion on the merits of staging a world cup .

Memo to Blatter -'I am so disappointed it is not in England as so many Irish dads needed this opportunity to bond with their sons''

Signed Gutted Dad from Ballygobackwards

CDfm

Maybe its a bit shallow and simple, but, its reality.I cant see a better reason to have it in England than my convenience.

But what surprises me is that you guys claim to be fans but want the World Cup to be in the least accessable places for you and your families and friends.

Its like getting free VIP tickets to see U2 but they are playing in Australia.

FIFA is very corrupt and you see nothing wrong with it

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe its a bit shallow and simple, but, its reality.I cant see a better reason to have it in England than my convenience.

But what surprises me is that you guys claim to be fans but want the World Cup to be in the least accessable places for you and your families and friends.

Its like getting free VIP tickets to see U2 but they are playing in Australia.

FIFA is very corrupt and you see nothing wrong with it

I went to it in Germany. Now it is somebody else's turn. They watched it on TV every other time, so now it is their turn to have it nearby.

They have planes to Russia and Qatar too, you know!

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

FIFA is very corrupt and you see nothing wrong with it

Can you read or are you just ignoring the articles I posted about FIFA corruption?

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe its a bit shallow and simple, but, its reality.I cant see a better reason to have it in England than my convenience.

But what surprises me is that you guys claim to be fans but want the World Cup to be in the least accessable places for you and your families and friends.

Its like getting free VIP tickets to see U2 but they are playing in Australia.

FIFA is very corrupt and you see nothing wrong with it

I think a lot of people on both sides have mentioned that FIFA is corrupt, but picking Russia over England is still the right choice.

If the WC was on in Ireland I'd still watch the games on TV. Russia is not the least accessable place for a WC. Irish fans went to the USA, Korea and Japan. If they want to go, they'll go. There's no guarantee Ireland will qualify.

Finally, we get it. You love England and English culture, but that's not a good enough reason for having the WC next door. There are a few billion other opinions to consider.

I'm delighted. Maybe things will improve in the intervening years and the gf will bring me over for a game or two. Meanwhile, I'll brush up on my Chekov, learn some more Russian, and dust off my classical collection.

CDfm

parker kent wrote: »

I went to it in Germany. Now it is somebody else's turn. They watched it on TV every other time, so now it is their turn to have it nearby.

They have planes to Russia and Qatar too, you know!

I lolled , that you are not going yourself.

Just think , if it was in England , you could

parker kent wrote: »

Can you read or are you just ignoring the articles I posted about FIFA corruption?

I suppose I am taken back a bit at how it somehow is deemed acceptable.

@Pherekydes -et tu Brute

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

I lolled , that you are not going yourself.

Just think , if it was in England , you could




I suppose I am taken back a bit at how it somehow is deemed acceptable.

A) How exactly am I supposed to know either 8 or 12 years in advance if I am going? If I don't go, of course I'll watch it on TV. Or should I have my plans in place already? Maybe fruit salad for breakfast on June 21st 2022 :rolleyes:

It is not seen as acceptable and if you read anything at all that I posted about it you would know that.

StupidLikeAFox

Jesus christ CDfm will you quit banging on about it not being accessible? They are giving you 12 years notice, if you really REALLY want to see a world cup, save a tenner a week, by the time it comes around you will have €6,240 saved (plus interest) which is more than enough to see the world cup. Who knows, you might even get to experience a whole new culture?

And you cannot understand why England hasnt been chosen, but yet you say its only a selfish notion that you want it in England. Well maybe the selection committee has other reasons, maybe that the facilities will be better, reaching new markets etc.

And lastly, with people commenting on the size of the country. The country is stinking rich and will see this as an opportunity to show off to the world. They are going to leave no stone unturned to pull this off. I guarantee you this will be a very successful competition.

CDfm

You have to agree that Dubai is a tourist location similar to Qatar and they have similar values -so who knows what will happen.

Printable version Jailed Dubai kissing pair lose appeal over conviction


Ayman Najafi has 30 days in which to appeal against his sentence

A British man and woman jailed in Dubai for kissing in public have lost their appeal against their conviction.
Ayman Najafi, 24, and Charlotte Adams, 25, were sentenced to a month in prison with subsequent deportation and fined about £200 for drinking alcohol.
The pair were arrested in November after a local woman accused them of breaking the country's decency laws by kissing on the mouth in a restaurant.
Najafi said he was "very disappointed". The pair plan to make a second appeal.
The initial complaint against them was made by a 38-year-old woman who said she was offended by their behaviour at the Jumeirah Beach Residence, where she was dining with her daughter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8602449.stm

Which brings us to the topic at hand. There was already talk, of course, about Dubai's massive debts, and the specter of financial collapse. The emirate is estimated to owe roughly $101 Bn, with an annual GDP before the credit crisis of $37 Bn- in other words, Dubai's debt is almost 300% of GDP, or more than four times the proportion of the United States.


http://www.examiner.com/independent-conservative-in-washington-dc/dubai-totally-dependent-on-western-tourism-decides-to-jail-british-couple-for-kissing

Qatar itself is an absolute monarchy and the current Emir came to power by overthrowing his father.

So countries in the Middle East -no matter how stable - are susceptable to religious pressure.

I was in Bahrain in the mid 90's and it was the last place in the world that we expected religious riots -yet they happened.

Thats the difference.

I feel it is high risk and dangerous,and, as a gombeen I am asking "why put your head where you wouldnt put a hurley". .

So there are several reasons why I would not be hugely enthusiastic about having a football tournament in Qatar.

So a corrupt organisation , putting on a tournament (with 2 million visitors) in the Middle East is a great idea.:rolleyes:

Otis Driftwood

I think this thread has run its course and we are just going round in circles at this stage so Im going to lock it.The soccer forum is also probably the better option for discussion on this matter.Thread closed.