World Cup Hosts 2018

Tummy said:
Who reports all this "we had the best bid" English media.

We can't of had the "best bid" as we recieve one single vote, which is embarassing.

I agree that that might of being down to the media reporting ect ect, but even without that I don't think we'd have won this.
Click to expand...

We received two votes and the technical reports published in November suggested that aside from Spain, we had the lowest risk bid (with Russia being the highest by quite a margin).
 
I'm looking forward to getting over to Russia to see some of the Football to be honest :)

I think I'd melt in Qatar :(
 
Tummy said:
We can't of had the "best bid" as we recieve one single vote, which is embarassing.
.
Click to expand...

No no

We didn't have the best bid as we didn't back hand any money to the various voters.

The team who pays the biggest back hander has the best bid.
 
Tummy said:
Epic butthurt from the English.

Things like this embarass me.

Look, we didn't win, no FIFA isn't the best organisation in the World, they're no better / worse then some other big names.

Russia got it, and Quatar they both had real quality bids and those countries will benefit more from the World Cup then some of the other nations.

Spreading football across the world, it doesn't need spreading here.
Click to expand...

Thats not how it works.
You would have to be spectacularly niave to believe that the world cup is given anywhere on "merit".

How can Quatar benefit from having the world cup?
Do you know anything about Quatar?

Some intersting facts about Quatar.
It has a population similar to Birmingham.
Homosexuality is a crime.
Its half the size of wales.
They dont recognise the state of Isreal.
They sit on one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world and have the highest GDP per capita in the world.
They have been ruled by the same family for over 50 years.

So, what is giving the world cup to Quatar going to do?
Give them the much needed investement they DONT need?
Spread the love of the game to all 1 million of them?

ITs like giving the World Cup to Lincolnshire, we need the money more, and currently have more Football stadiums and infrastructure in place than Quatar.
 
We have 50 stadiums above 20k capacity in England alone, how many do Russia have? 16. Outside of the 2 stadiums in Moscow, the next highest capacity ground is 532 miles away, after that the next one is 933 miles away from Moscow, how anyone can kid themselves into thinking that Russia had a better technical bid than us is beyond me. And yes I know they're going to build more stadiums, but just going off what it is now, would you rather travel 200 miles from Wembley to Manchester on any number of different transport networks, or 532 miles from Moscow to Samara over dubious terrain.
 
Tummy said:
Yup, gotta' love Keano.
Click to expand...

lol, roy keane is a clown.

He should really think before he speaks.

He's a crap manager and will never be a fergie.

People using the word butthurt are just trolls.

Everyone is complaining that both Russia and Catahrr bids are bad for football, and the decision was not made for footballing reasons. It was all about the bribes.

THATS the problem. Whats the point in going through a sham of a bidding process, when it was already decided months ago when the money was transferred to the executive commitee?

The entire process is a farce, I cant wait for Slack Bladder to pop his clogs.
 
Last edited:

Have to say after watching the england world cup video bid we desreved to lose. This is suppose to be a bid to hold the world cup in England yet it's full of Africans? I really hope the media elite that come up with this type of ******** wake up see there anti british multicultural propaganda is only good for the rubbish heap.
 
magick said:
Have to say after watching the england world cup video bid we desreved to lose. This is suppose to be a bid to hold the world cup in England yet it's full of Africans? I really hope the media elite that come up with this type of ******** wake up see there anti british multicultural propaganda is only good for the rubbish heap.
Click to expand...

Bull****, did you see the Russian video? It's a practically frigging Aryan nation and their video was like a United Colors of Benetton advert!
 
One More Solo said:
Bull****, did you see the Russian video? It's a practically frigging Aryan nation and their video was like a United Colors of Benetton advert!
Click to expand...

Yes i've seen it and it's much better. Lots of hot blonde chicks and the reason there's so many white people in it is because russia is predominantly white.

 
Last edited:
Tummy said:
Whats wrong with them getting it?

I think they benefit from it more then we do.



Don't criticize what you don't understand :p

I think we didn't have as much of a chance as Russia from the off, Quatar took me a little by surprise.

I wouldn't be too shocked to see China or India get it soon after. FIFA seem to be set on taking the World Cup to countries that need the boost and it will help develope football in that part of the World.
Click to expand...

How do they benefit from it though?

Despite what the media and people like to claim the World Cup, much like the Olympics leaves no legacy, except for a lot of very expensive and in footballing backwaters empty stadiums.

In SA Soccer city has been full once or twice at most since the WC but is the only one likely to get anything plus it costs £250,000 a month to run, in Rand that is an enormous amount of money. Most of the other stadiums will simply not be used, you'd get more people at an Aldershot game than you will at most SA club games, except for Kaiser chiefs, even the Rugby teams, which is probably more popular in SA than football are turning the stadiums down, and they are too small for cricket which would have more chance of filling them.

Brazil will be very similar, where 3 of the stadiums are being built the cities do not have a football club in the top 3 tiers of Brazilian football, how in the name of christ are they going to find a use for 3 40,000 minimum capacity stadiums for teams that are comparable to Steins town in size and fan base ?

The legacy of the world cup even in larger footballing nations in questionable, Juventus have decreased their stadium capacity over recent years as they simply could fill the 70,000 odd ground that they had built for the WC, and they are one of the footballing powerhouses of Europe.

The legacy in Russia will be highly questionable, was listening to a russian Journalist on the radio yesterday, the anticipated costs of the WC to Russia should be about 50 odd billion, with all the infrastructure improvements they are planning, however most within Russia are expecting this to go up into the hundreds of billions when all the inevitable embezzlement, that comes with particularly the construction industry in Russia is taken into account, how is a massive black hole in a countries finances a legacy that FIFA can be proud of? The fallacy that a world cup makes money for anyone bar FIFA is quite funny really.

The main consideration when awarding a world cup should be football, I can even see a case for Russia to get it for footballing reasons as their clubs are becoming more and more influential in European football, however they are all basically Man City, they don't make much money on their own, playing in a league which is about as popular as league 1 football (maybe league 1 should bid in 2030, as it seems that if you get crap attendances you are more likely to get the world cup) but in footballing terms really it should have been largely a race between us and Spain (who are equally as angry as we are) with Holland/Belgium being an alternative choice. If football is not popular enough to get more than 12,500 average attendance at your top level i can't quite see how hosting a world cup that costs a bomb is going to make football suddenly popular to the level required to make the stadiums viable. Most will end up being as big a waste of time as Darlingtons 20,000 stadium currently gracing the conference.


Qatar is quite simply a joke, i admire that ambition of the bid and in a political sense it makes a lot of sense to let them have it as it's yet another way for the west to encourage the oil rich nations of the middle east to **** a huge amount of money away on completely irrelevant things so when the oil runs out nobody will give a toss when we just tell them to sod off as they have spent the huge amounts of money that they have on pointless things like race tracks, rather than spending it on their country to make them of use to the west for anything other than the finite amount of oil they have.

If the legacy thing was anything other than a load of drivel then i could accept both decisions, as it is i can accept the choice of russia to an extent but Qatar is nothing short of comical.
 
Qatar, lol, so much for the anti-homophobia, and anti-sexism campaigns many footballing associations have set up, they going on hiatus for the 2022 world cup?

Nice to see how the womans world cup pans out over there.
 
"England players Rio Ferdinand and Jack Wilshere have declared on Twitter they won't be following Fifa president Sepp Blatter on the social networking site. So there."

That's harsh.
 
Spud21 said:
How do they benefit from it though?

Despite what the media and people like to claim the World Cup, much like the Olympics leaves no legacy, except for a lot of very expensive and in footballing backwaters empty stadiums.

In SA Soccer city has been full once or twice at most since the WC but is the only one likely to get anything plus it costs £250,000 a month to run, in Rand that is an enormous amount of money. Most of the other stadiums will simply not be used, you'd get more people at an Aldershot game than you will at most SA club games, except for Kaiser chiefs, even the Rugby teams, which is probably more popular in SA than football are turning the stadiums down, and they are too small for cricket which would have more chance of filling them.

Brazil will be very similar, where 3 of the stadiums are being built the cities do not have a football club in the top 3 tiers of Brazilian football, how in the name of christ are they going to find a use for 3 40,000 minimum capacity stadiums for teams that are comparable to Steins town in size and fan base ?

The legacy of the world cup even in larger footballing nations in questionable, Juventus have decreased their stadium capacity over recent years as they simply could fill the 70,000 odd ground that they had built for the WC, and they are one of the footballing powerhouses of Europe.

The legacy in Russia will be highly questionable, was listening to a russian Journalist on the radio yesterday, the anticipated costs of the WC to Russia should be about 50 odd billion, with all the infrastructure improvements they are planning, however most within Russia are expecting this to go up into the hundreds of billions when all the inevitable embezzlement, that comes with particularly the construction industry in Russia is taken into account, how is a massive black hole in a countries finances a legacy that FIFA can be proud of? The fallacy that a world cup makes money for anyone bar FIFA is quite funny really.

The main consideration when awarding a world cup should be football, I can even see a case for Russia to get it for footballing reasons as their clubs are becoming more and more influential in European football, however they are all basically Man City, they don't make much money on their own, playing in a league which is about as popular as league 1 football (maybe league 1 should bid in 2030, as it seems that if you get crap attendances you are more likely to get the world cup) but in footballing terms really it should have been largely a race between us and Spain (who are equally as angry as we are) with Holland/Belgium being an alternative choice. If football is not popular enough to get more than 12,500 average attendance at your top level i can't quite see how hosting a world cup that costs a bomb is going to make football suddenly popular to the level required to make the stadiums viable. Most will end up being as big a waste of time as Darlingtons 20,000 stadium currently gracing the conference.


Qatar is quite simply a joke, i admire that ambition of the bid and in a political sense it makes a lot of sense to let them have it as it's yet another way for the west to encourage the oil rich nations of the middle east to **** a huge amount of money away on completely irrelevant things so when the oil runs out nobody will give a toss when we just tell them to sod off as they have spent the huge amounts of money that they have on pointless things like race tracks, rather than spending it on their country to make them of use to the west for anything other than the finite amount of oil they have.

If the legacy thing was anything other than a load of drivel then i could accept both decisions, as it is i can accept the choice of russia to an extent but Qatar is nothing short of comical.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I pretty much agree with every single word of this.

Its a fallacy that a football world cup leaves some sort of 'legacy'. The reality is so much different.

What real impact is a damn great stadium going to make to the poor towns of Brazil? Christ, the maintenance cost alone would be better spent on helping out the local poor.

The whole thing stinks, and if FIFA genuinely think that they are doing the world a favour by striving for this legacy nonsense, then they are absolutely delusional in the extreme, and they deserve to be disbanded. As it is, hosting the WC is these rubbish countries is devaluing the competition so much its unreal.

The Champions League is really where the power is headed now, and if they continue to host the WC in such stupid places, interest will wane considerably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom