- This topic has 12 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
The logic does not make much sense. Fifa graded Russia’s bid as ‘Generally Suitable’, whereas England’s initially as ‘Technically Excellent’. The presentation of both parties were a stark contrast. England accentuating their positives. The most watched league in the world, and the most diverse league, with the highest average attendance. The infrastructure was already in place, excellent stadia, transport links, policing. So why? Why opt for a country with a ‘medium-risk’, and with little experience of hosting major events, and with little stadia, infrastructure and facilities. An explanation would be appreciated.
The whole charade stinks. How can we come last in the first round of voting ffs. Maybe things will be different in 2030 if we try then.
If they always went for countries like England with infrastructure in place etc etc no other parts of the world would stand a chance.
Personally I prefer to see the World Cup being played in ‘new’ places & I’m really pleased for Qatar in 2022.
I’m sure Russia will do just fine.If they always went for countries like England with infrastructure in place etc etc no other parts of the world would stand a chance.
Personally I prefer to see the World Cup being played in ‘new’ places & I’m really pleased for Qatar in 2022.
I’m sure Russia will do just fine.Average high for Qatar in June/July is 106F. Mean is 93F. Don’t back Norway.
Mike
Quixallcrosset is right, Russia is a good choice from that point of view.
However, one suspects that the decision not to give it to England was as much to do with the FIFA gravy-train snout-fillers’ wanting to get one back on the English for having the temerity to expose their corruption as much as for the advancement of soccer in previously ignored outposts.Dont forget that Russia has a massive collection of natural resources such as Natural Gas and Qatar is a very oil rich nation which will no doubt use the same kind of labour that Dubai did to build Meydan Racecourse.
Cant think why these two were picked!!
Will Qatar grant Israeli players a visa if they qualify? No doubt they will avail of cheap labour from neighbouring countries to build their super stadiums.
JohnJ
Very disappointed for England, its absolutely made for the World Cup and thoroughly deserves to host it again.
The Qatari’s will deliver on infrastructure, but I suspect they’ve paid only lip service to the logistics of handling up-to half a million beer drinking football fans in a relatively small area at 50 degrees Celsius. It literally is boiling in June and July, you just cant go outside. Looking forward to seeing how they handle the media intrusion into their country, they can and like to display only what suits them. Suspect those days are at an end if the comments about Jews, flogging, homosexuality, oppression of women, slavery etc… already appearing in the media are anything to go by. They might be wondering why they bothered by the time its all over.
So the two bids with the biggest budgets and the lowest technical evaluations win the day. Says it all about "Bellend" Blatter and his rancid organisation.
How many times has England hosted the World Cup?
How many times have Russia and Qatar? That’s the main reason they get it.
Too bad Bill Clinton’s magic mojo that led the USMNT to their recent success failed to work on the FIFA folks. Just when Americans were actually starting to care about soccer outside of the World Cup. DC United and other clubs are seeing record attendance, more and more games are being televised, people actually know the names of some of the players…However big the potential audience in the UK, Russia, and Qatar, it pales in comparison to the United States.
I’m quite disappointed Qatar wants to utilise technology to reduce the heat for 2022. I was looking forward to Football becoming an extreme sport – I thought it had potential. 4-4 with the players staggering around on the verge of collapsing by half-time, water breaks for every 2 minutes of play in an attempt to compensate for that, allowing for more TV adverts then ever before.
Blatter is awful, but I can‘t help but laugh at him and enjoy the comedy he offers. From his typically creepy introduction of Yelena Isinbeyeva, right the way through to presenting each bid with a participation certificate. He’s unbelievable.
The voting is farcical, but what is more so is that England entered. Sucking up to Sepp Blatter and 19 other Fifa executive committee members at a huge cost, both financially and morally.
Those that thought the presentation mattered in a Fifa process were completely wrong. If Aston Villa Vs Birmingham couldn’t affect the outcome, why could Dave, a Royal and a celebrity footballer? That process is just for Blatter to lap up the attention.
In 12 years in charge Blatter has changed Extra Time back and forward a little bit. He still hasn’t got that right. Apart from that, and most significantly, he’s found a way to stay for 12 years.
Was the day Sky became involved and the Premier League was invented thanks to Mr Noel White and Mr David Dein
The whole FIFA/UEFA set up is corrupt no question about it….has been for a lot of years
Was the day Sky became involved and the Premier League was invented thanks to Mr Noel White and Mr David Dein
You forget Sir Alan Sugar who, as Spurs owner, voted against Spurs interests to suit Amstrad instead who were contracted to produce dishes for Sky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.