# FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bids



## Gherkin

This thread is for news/ pictures to do with the 2018/2022 World Cups. The official bidding nations for 2018 are Australia, Belgium & The Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Space & Portugal, USA. Qatar and South Korea intend to only bid for the 2022 tournament.

I have only included stadia from each bidding nation(s) that meet the 40,000+ FIFA regulations. *These are only suggested venues* - The official bid stadiums will be added when we know of them:


In alphabetical order:



*Australia*

Existing Venues:

Melbourne Cricket Ground (Melbourne)
Cap. 100,000









ANZ Stadium (Sydney)
Cap. 83,500









Etihad Stadium (Melbourne)
Cap. 56,400









Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
Cap. 52,500









Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney)
Cap. 42,000










Potential/future Venues:

Perth stadium (Perth)
Cap: ~60,000











*Belgium/The Netherlands:* 


Amsterdam Arena (Amsterdam)
Cap. 55,000









Stadion Feijenoord (Rotterdam)
Cap. 51,000









Koning Boudewijn Stadion (Brussels)
Cap. 50,000













*England:* 

(potential venues listed - currently only 2 London stadia are allowed)


Wembley (London) 
Cap. 90,000 









Twickenham (London)
Cap. 82,000









Old Trafford (Manchester)
Cap. 76,000









Emirates Stadium (London)
Cap. 60,000









St. James Park (Newcastle)
Cap. 52,000+ (may be expanded for the tournament)









City of Manchester Stadium (Manchester)
Cap. 48,500 (May be expanded to 60,000)









Stadium of Light (Sunderland)
Cap. 48,000











Potential/future Stadia:


New Anfield (Liverpool)
Cap. 60,000~75,000









New White Hart Lane stadium (London)
Cap. 58,000









City of Birmingham Stadium
Cap. ~55,000









New Everton Stadium (Liverpool)
Cap. 50,000+













*Indonesia*

Bung Karno Stadium (Jakarta)
Cap. 100,000









Palaran Stadium (Samarinda)
Cap. 60,000









Jaka Baring Stadium (Palembang)
Cap. 55,000









Jalak Harupat Soreang Stadium (Bandung)
Cap. 40,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/indonesia/bandung_soreang.jpg



*Japan*

Yokohoma Stadium (Yokohoma)
Cap. 70,000

















Saitama Stadium (Saitama)
Cap. 63,700









Tokyo Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)
Cap. 57,000









Shizuoka Stadium
Cap. 51,000









Nagai Stadium (Osaka)
Cap. 50,000









Sapporo Dome (Sapporo)
Cap. 42,000














*Mexico*

Estadio Azteca (Mexico City
Cap. 105,000









Estadio Olimpico Universitario
Cap. 72,400


Estadio La Corregidora
Cap. 50,000









Estadio Jalisco (Guadalajara)
Cap. 63,000









Estadio Chivas (Guadalajara)
Cap. 45,000









Unviersity Stadium (Monterrey)
Cap. 45,000










Potential/future Stadiums:

Arena Indios (Ciudad Juárez)
Cap. ~40,000













*Russia*

Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion (Moscow)
Cap. 83,000










Potential/future stadiums:


Zenit Stadium (St. Petersberg)
Cap. 62,000










Stadion Spartak (Moscow)
Cap. 42,000











*Spain/Portugal*

Camp Nou (Barcelona)
Cap. 108,000









Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
Cap. 80,400









New Mestella (Valencia)
Cap. 75,000









Estadio da Luz (Lisbon)
Cap. 65,000









Estadio Vicente Calderón (Madrid)
Cap. 57,000









Barcelona Olympic Stadium (Barcelona)
Cap. 56,000









Estadio Alvalade (Lisbon)
Cap. 50,000









Estádio do Dragão (Porto)
Cap. 50,000










Potential/future stadia:


New Estadio Manuel (Seville)
Cap. 64,000









San Mames (Bilbao)
Cap: 56000














*USA* (hundreds of potential venues, just a sample)

Giants Stadium (New York)
Cap: 80,000









Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Cap: 72,000









University of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix) 
Cap: 63,400 










Qwest Field (Seattle)
Cap: 67,000 









Dallas Stadium (Dallas)
Cap: 80,000 (Completed 2009)










Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)
Cap: 68,000 









Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cap: 61,000









Fedex Field (Washington D.C)
Cap: 91,000









Invesco Field (Denver)
Cap : 76,000









L.A Memorial Coliseum (Los Angeles)
Cap: 92,000









Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte) 
Cap: 73,000










Pictures from www.worldstadiums.com, www.stadiumguide.com and www.photobucket.com

Feel free to list any additions!


----------



## BobDaBuilder

----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the World Cup of Football next to be held in Germany, Europe. Then South Africa in 2010 and South America looks like it will get it in 2014 more than likely Brazil. Australia is going for 2018 "officially" it seems with the local FA and various governments all keen to have a crack at it. (Might be our only way of qualifying)

The problems with Australia hosting the event are not financial or even infrastructure. More problems with rival footballing codes of the AFL and NRL who control the largest and finest stadia in the land when the World Cup usually is held. Ideally FIFA would yield and let us stage the even in October/November and everybody would be happy. Well here is 13 years notice.

As it stands right now if Germany goes bust and cannot host the event next year, then OZ could step up and hold the event without too many issues.

Stadia:

Melbourne: MCG cap. 100,000, Docklands 55,000
Sydney: Homebush 82,000, The SFS 42,000
Newcastle: 30,000 (easily expanded)
Brisbane: 52,000
Adelaide: Football Park: 50,000, Hindmarsh 18,000(easily expanded)
Perth: Subiaco: 44,000


----------



## Drunkill

Not many people down our way are intrested in soccer, but it could happen, only bad thing is that the country is so large, and spread out that it would be hard to keep it all together, and overseas fans would be travling form one city to another to follow their team through the events.


----------



## MoreOrLess

The chances of a world cup in october are about as close to zero as possible, maybe in dec/jan if a Europe wide mid season break came about but thats still very unlikely IMHO. The fact is that any bid that has soccer playing second fiddle to another sport just isnt going to interest FIFA.

I'd say the main factors agenst it would be that if Brazil gets 2014 Europe is likely to push hard for 2018 and the fact that your most likely going to be tossed in with the asian countries as far as rotation goes which means competing with China.


----------



## Giorgio

They have said if Oz gets this, it could be the death certificate to the AFL


----------



## sakor1

.::Giorgos::. said:


> They have said if Oz gets this, it could be the death certificate to the AFL


That'll never happen. They were saying the same thing about the Rugby WC in 2003, lo and behold AFL is stronger than ever. It has too much of a stranglehold on the populace (at least in the 4 stronghold states: VIC, TAS, WA, SA).

It would certainly strengthen Soccer in Australia though which can only be a good thing. However, it is unrealistic that Australia could host it with the majority of current venues. Most of them are configured for oval sports like AFL and cricket... really the only really suitable venues (rectangle pitch and decent capacity) are Suncorp in Brissy, and SFS in Sydney.

So to host it, there would be quite a few new venues required... as good as the MCG, GABBA, Subi, Telstra Stadium and Dome are... they are just not ideal to watch sports played on a rectangle pitch.

Stu


----------



## MoreOrLess

From that pic I wouldnt say the MCG is that much worse than your average ground with a running track (such as the one which is going to be hosting the WC final next year) plus it does have a steep seating incline which helps IMHO. Any possibilty they could temporaly extend the stands on either side onto the pitch a little more?


----------



## mikeyraw

They would certainly not use subiaco in perth. By 2010, MES will hold 35,000. It could be upgraded to above 40,000 by 2018.


----------



## zachary24

bobdabuilder: brisbane has two potential sites not 1
Suncorp (52,000) and the Gabba (45,000) 
And Suncorp i hear is one of the best stadiums in the country 
with every seat being very close to the action


----------



## Giorgio

sakor1 said:


> That'll never happen. They were saying the same thing about the Rugby WC in 2003, lo and behold AFL is stronger than ever. It has too much of a stranglehold on the populace (at least in the 4 stronghold states: VIC, TAS, WA, SA).
> 
> It would certainly strengthen Soccer in Australia though which can only be a good thing. However, it is unrealistic that Australia could host it with the majority of current venues. Most of them are configured for oval sports like AFL and cricket... really the only really suitable venues (rectangle pitch and decent capacity) are Suncorp in Brissy, and SFS in Sydney.
> 
> So to host it, there would be quite a few new venues required... as good as the MCG, GABBA, Subi, Telstra Stadium and Dome are... they are just not ideal to watch sports played on a rectangle pitch.
> 
> Stu


In many countries they play games in an Olympic Sized stadium with tracks and all. Its awfull atmosphere but im sure they will make temporary seating esp at the mcg were there in melbourne, There are many Europeans that would go to watch easily Filling capacity. the thing is, We live so far from the rest of the world, Many people would go to the World cup regardless of who is playing simply because its a ''once in a lifetime'' opputunity.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

On ovals being used as venues. Maybe they should just put a running track in to make it look more like a European stadium. That would make it more acceptable to the soccer people. 

In all seriousness I've been to Stadio Olimpico in Roma and seen games it is actually a fair bit farther from the action than you will get at the MCG. The MCG is not too bad for soccer actually when there is more than 70,000 there. The new extensions will make it excellent. You are a similar distance from the pitch to what the old Wembley was like. 

The main issue I can see is the dates of potentially staging the event. FIFA wants June/July. But it is AFL/NRL time and they hold the leases and control the stadia. It would have to be between Oct and March for it to ever happen so they can also take maximum press coverage which would be limited if they ran head-to-head against the local games. 

As a death certificate for AFL. Won't happen. The game is older than soccer, and AFL just disapearing is about as likely as Catholics converting en-masse to Islam. The only possible way it could happen is if FIFA adopted Aussie Rules as the new laws of their sport. Then it could happen.

All up, if it is to happen the new pro league here has to become a success and get average crowds up towards 20,000 a match as well as the Socceroos performing well and making World Cups not to mention FIFA doing Oz a huge favour in coming out here.


----------



## aussiescraperman

i'd say they should only play Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, and Brisbane. That is about the same size of germany, and they would just have to divide the games up that every team plays in every city, if that is possible. I think it would be awesome to have them. If we could pull off something as good as the Sydney Olympics, think about the potentials....


----------



## MoreOrLess

BobDaBuilder said:


> The main issue I can see is the dates of potentially staging the event. FIFA wants June/July. But it is AFL/NRL time and they hold the leases and control the stadia. It would have to be between Oct and March for it to ever happen so they can also take maximum press coverage which would be limited if they ran head-to-head against the local games.


I don't think you'd stand any chance what so ever with a bid that had soccer playing second fiddle to another sport. With all the money a World Cup brings in I'd guess AFL/NRL pride rather than cash would be the main problem.

As far as stadiums go I think you'd be able to use the MCG and maybe the Telstra Dome but elsewhere you'd probabley need a few more extended/new rubgy/soccer style stadiums.

As I said I think the main problems for an aussie 2018 would not be your ability to host it so much as your rivals. With Australia moving into the asian qualifing group I think your going to have a very hard time convincing people you should have a seperate rotation from Asia as hosts with means potentially competing with China. Also if Brazil hosts in 2014 I'd guess it could well be on the condiction that europe hosts in 2018 with England and Spain as obvious candidates.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

If a backroom deal gets done for Europe to stage again in 2018, then we go for 2022. No biggee there, whats 4 more years?

Telstra Dome would be ideal for soccer as you can drag the ground floor seats around the pitch to make the field almost rectangular. I have no idea why they have not been using the facility already for rugby and soccer matches. I heard somewhere that they never installed the motors so you can push the seats in. But you can actually see the joins for the sections that move about if you take a look at the ground floor section, so it is technically possible.

I personally cannot see an issue in playing right across the continent, including Perth, afterall they did it for USA 94 and continental America is roughly of similar size to Oz. It turned out to be the most successfully staged and profitable World Cup of all time. Easily the most tickets sold and they did not have to spend any money on building venues as they were already built, like we have down here. With airline ticket prices as they are now, the geographical size is irrelevant, you can just hop on a place and fly around pretty cheaply. Also it is well documented that Perth will be looking to build a new 60,000 seat stadium to house AFL and rectangular sports in the not too distant future. Subiaco is too small for projected growth for demand for sports tickets.

In a decade or so you would assume that Adelaide would be taking the wrecking ball to Footy Park and rebuilding their stadium as it is beginning to look past it even now. Plus the amount of cash the Crows and Power bring in with average gates of 35,000-40,000 a week means that it would not be wasting that much dosh.

Who knows what will be happening in places like Townsville and Gold Coast in the next 20 years also. They might build themselves decent rectangular stadiums as well for RL and possibly A-League.

One day, I am certain of it the World Cup of Football will come to Australia. FIFA wants to do it, and we want to do it. That is already on the record. We just need to get around the political side of it which is the big stumbling block the rest is all in place as of today.


----------



## Mr. T

Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?


----------



## hngcm

Only way Oz will qualify.


----------



## mikeyraw

Id like to see the US Qualify in any other confederation than the one they have been 'given' by FIFA.


----------



## Drunkill

Mr. T said:


> Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?



No, very diffrent, rugby is only strong in two states, Queensland and New South Wales, the rest of Aus does not take too much intrest in Rugby, they like AFL more, but everystate (exept Tas and NT and ACT) has an AFL team, with Victoria being the birthplace, having the most.


----------



## MoreOrLess

mikeyraw said:


> Id like to see the US Qualify in any other confederation than the one they have been 'given' by FIFA.


I think they'd stand a decent chance elsewhere but the couple of "bonus" spots they have right now just incase they can't get past Costa Rica are rather insulting to any major european/south american team that fails to qualify.


----------



## sakor1

Mr. T said:


> Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?


Yeah, *totally* different sports. For starters, AFL is played on an oval pitch that has no set dimensions (the ground size varies from stadium to stadium, from the wide MCG to the narrow Kardinia Park), as compared to Rugby and Rugby League (RL) which are played on a rectangular pitch. Futher, there is no 'Touchdown' type zone like in Gridiron, or for Tries in Rugby and RL, but rather you kick the ball between goals. 

The game style is completely different too... with the main gameplay element being kicking from player-to-player and 'marking' (catching) the ball, as opposed to passing the ball as in Rugby and RL. It is very fast and engaging to watch, very confusing if you are uninitiated... whereas Rugby and RL tend to be more stop-start-stop-start.

Well, that is the basic differences any, hope it makes sense 

Stu


----------



## Wezza

^ I'd go as far as saying AFL is more stop start than rugby union or rugby league. As soon as a player is tackled in an AFL match and cannot release the ball, the umpire has to run in and bounce the ball!! It can become very messy at times. Not to mention when a player marks the ball and takes his time to decide where he is going to take his next kick.

Anyway, back on topic, it could only be a good thing for soccer in Australia to host the WC, but i really don't know if it will happen. I would tend to think there isn't a big enough market for a game which, in reality isn't all that popular here.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Food for thought:

#Who would have thought 20 years ago that rugby union games would have sold out in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Launceston for a rugby world cup?

#18,000 turned up for 1/4 final of the first rugger world cup in 1987 in Sydney. The Final of the 2003 world drew a sell out 84,000, the highest tv ratings in Oz TV history for anything.

#highest tv ratings on Oz tv in 2002 were the soccer World Cup.

#Oz has hosted 2 World Youth soccer championships. The last time in 1993.

With money, promotion and the right political will it can happen. Just as it has for rugby union. I get the feeling that soccer has finally got its act together. Who knows the soccer people might even be able to buy out AFL and NRL anyhow and tell 'em to take a siesta on them!

The word is the 2011 Asian Nations is coming down under. Confed Cup and World Club Champs are earmarked as well.

Maybe not in 2018 as I have a feeling China or America might get it. But after that why the heck not? 

Where there is a will there is a way.


----------



## empersouf

The Dutch Footbal Comisarry wants to bring the WC in 2018 to the Netherlands.....


----------



## MoreOrLess

Soufian said:


> The Dutch Footbal Comisarry wants to bring the WC in 2018 to the Netherlands.....


Unless they go back on there being no more co hosted events wouldnt stadiums be a bit of a problem? You've only got two 40k plus stadiums right now afterall.


----------



## ExSydney

Australian Stadiums for a possible WC

MCG,Melbourne (100,000)

















Telstra Dome,Melbourne (55,000)









Telstra Stadium,Sydney (83,500)

















Sydney Football Stadium,Sydney (43,000)

















Suncorp Stadium,Brisbane (53,000)

















Canberra Stadium,Canberra (27,000-Upgrade to 40,000)

















Energy Australia Stadium,Newcastle (30,000-Upgrade to 40,000)


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Bewdiful.

In the normal world. We should get the World Cup. That is of course if FIFA is supposedly 'good for the game'.

They will build new 50,000 plus stadiums in Adelaide and Perth in the next 10 or so years also.

I think FIFA has rules stipulate that you need 10 40,000 seat stadiums minimum. That rules out most of our potential competition.


----------



## ncik

Drunkill said:


> Not many people down our way are intrested in soccer...


Not true. Soccer is the Most popular sport for boys, whilst netball for girls. Overall Soccer is the second most popular sport for children after swimming. (source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/57e1c764bfa85942ca256f7200832fbc?OpenDocument  )

These children would be old enough by the time the World Cup comes to us (2018), and hopefully they will qualify for it!


----------



## satit28

australian stadiums are superb..............


----------



## waustralia

Subiaco. (capacity: 42 922)









Members Equity Stadium (Perth) is a soccer stadium. Its capacity is currently around 18,000 but there are plans to eventually upgrade it to 35,000+.


----------



## MoreOrLess

BobDaBuilder said:


> Bewdiful.
> 
> In the normal world. We should get the World Cup. That is of course if FIFA is supposedly 'good for the game'.
> 
> They will build new 50,000 plus stadiums in Adelaide and Perth in the next 10 or so years also.
> 
> I think FIFA has rules stipulate that you need 10 40,000 seat stadiums minimum. That rules out most of our potential competition.


Except as I stated England, Brazil, Spain and China. WC's being "for the good of the game" also doesnt mean they should only be used as an excuse to rebuild stadia and promote soccer in countrys where its not a major sport but also to re energize the game where it is already popular. Look at Euro 96 in the England for example which played a big part in the current mega popularity of soccer here.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

MoreOrLess, what you say is true and I am sure we all agree 100 percent that those nations should host the tournament from time to time. But surely one day even if it is not 2018, 2022 or 2042... it would be beneficial for the sport of football to come down under.

At least in Australia, unlike a Japan we can actually get the stadiums to make profits every year to pay for them so it won't be just money down the pan with us. And the sport would get a little nudge along too.


----------



## Giorgio

ncik said:


> Not true. Soccer is the Most popular sport for boys, whilst netball for girls. Overall Soccer is the second most popular sport for children after swimming. (source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/57e1c764bfa85942ca256f7200832fbc?OpenDocument  )
> 
> These children would be old enough by the time the World Cup comes to us (2018), and hopefully they will qualify for it!


True. i read in paper once the AFL is scraed because more than 50% of young sports players play soccer as opposed to aussie rules. 
This is why they have sent out AFL players to schools to get kids intrested in AFL.


----------



## koskaar

I'm not sure how well the MCG would be suited for a soccer match. It seems like the distance between stands and the pitch would be huge. Still, with a few upgrades Australia has the capacity to host a World Cup. Perhaps New Zealand could host a few games?


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The MCG is actually excellent for soccer. The ultimate multi-purpose stadium really.

On the ground level it is not as far from the action as a lot of European stadiums with running tracks, or even River Plate stadium in Buenos Aires. To enable the MCG to fit in a running track for next years Commonwealth games, they have had to 'cut out' a section of grandstand to allow for the track.

On the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th tiers it is very steep and quite elevated above the action so you get excellent sightlines. 

I have seen 3 internationals(Oz v. Iran: 97, Oz v. Brazil: 99, Oz v. Italy: 2000 Olympics) held there and it was fantastic, right up there with San Siro for atmosphere plus attendances are generally 20,000 greater than anywhere you get in Europe. So the noise generated is deafening especially when Oz have scored.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd imagine their would be a rather hot debate over who got the final if Oz did host a World Cup, the MCG or the Telstra stadium? The Telstra is more suited to soccer but they have already had the Oylimpics and the Rugby World Cup final.


----------



## Giorgio

MoreOrLess said:


> I'd imagine their would be a rather hot debate over who got the final if Oz did host a World Cup, the MCG or the Telstra stadium? The Telstra is more suited to soccer but they have already had the Oylimpics and the Rugby World Cup final.


MCG no doubt. Largest Stadium. Melbourne has largest Ethnic population and thus they will probarbly get a better attendence.


----------



## ExSydney

Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.


----------



## MoreOrLess

ExSydney said:


> Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.


They wouldnt be very good seats if it was in the same configuration as the oylimpics though plus they wouldnt be covered. Coudlnt the MCG be reworked aswell(either temporary or permanently) by pushing forward the stands in the same way as the Telstra dome to give a rectangular pitch aswell? The stands seem steep enough to do that plus I'd expect it would give around a 110-20k capacity.


----------



## ExSydney

MoreOrLess said:


> They wouldnt be very good seats if it was in the same configuration as the oylimpics though plus they wouldnt be covered. .


I agree..they wont be great seats..Thats why they were always temp seats at the Olympics and were always going to be removed.
The MCG has this problem currently for any rectangular sports event.









As I said,it will come down to who the most desperate state is and whos willing to fork out the most $$$$ for it.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Just for the record, Telstra Stadium got the nod for the big World Cup qualifier in November over Melbourne and Brisbane simply because the MCG did not want the match. The MCG will resemble a quarry at that time due to works for next years Commie Games and preparations for the Boxing day test match. The sightlines of Homebush v. MCG are debatable as to which is better. Generally speaking the vast majority of Melbourne's spectators ie. 2nd deck and up are above the action. While at Homebush they are on the ground floor. Personal preference really. If you like to sit above the field, its Melb, if you like to be relatively level and close to the action, Syd.

If a final was going to be played anywhere it would be the MCG, no argument at all. It holds 20,000 more people and is smack bang in the middle of Melbourne, while Homebush is out in the boondocks of outer Sydney. You need a passport to go that far west. You get a stronger concentration of 'football' fans in Melbourne that can pick up and go to a match easily. In Sydney you need to plan your day out. A lot of this simply comes down to historical planning of the relative cities as well which is not the fault of the Homebush setup at all.

Arguably, they should have demolished the SCG and built that as the Olympic Stadium and it would have been a better situation and been far more useful as a venue to Sydney folk. Melbourne had a 'Homebush scenario' with VFL Park in Mulgrave 25 kms SE of the city in suburbia. Suffice to say, 30 years after it was built, it is now a new subdivision for housing. It didn't really work.


----------



## Arunava

ExSydney said:


> Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.


Highly unlikely unless someone provides approx 50 mil to demolish the roof over the ends of the ground, construct temp seating, and reconstruct the roof.


----------



## ncik

BobDaBuilder said:


> Just for the record, Telstra Stadium got the nod for the big World Cup qualifier in November over Melbourne and Brisbane simply because the MCG did not want the match. The MCG will resemble a quarry at that time due to works for next years Commie Games and preparations for the Boxing day test match. The sightlines of Homebush v. MCG are debatable as to which is better. Generally speaking the vast majority of Melbourne's spectators ie. 2nd deck and up are above the action. While at Homebush they are on the ground floor. Personal preference really. If you like to sit above the field, its Melb, if you like to be relatively level and close to the action, Syd.
> 
> If a final was going to be played anywhere it would be the MCG, no argument at all. It holds 20,000 more people and is smack bang in the middle of Melbourne,  *while Homebush is out in the boondocks of outer Sydney. You need a passport to go that far west*. You get a stronger concentration of 'football' fans in Melbourne that can pick up and go to a match easily. In Sydney you need to plan your day out. A lot of this simply comes down to historical planning of the relative cities as well which is not the fault of the Homebush setup at all.
> *Arguably, they should have demolished the SCG and built that as the Olympic Stadium and it would have been a better situation and been far more useful as a venue to Sydney folk*. Melbourne had a 'Homebush scenario' with VFL Park in Mulgrave 25 kms SE of the city in suburbia. Suffice to say, 30 years after it was built, it is now a new subdivision for housing. It didn't really work.


err.. Homebush is smack bang in the heart of the Sydney Metro.

The SCG has no public transport access besides buses. The location isn't very ideal to the whole Sydney Metro, only to the inner city areas and eastern suburbs. That oppose to the Homebush Olympic Park where a high proportion of the population either live closer or have better access to.




Arunava said:


> Highly unlikely unless someone provides approx 50 mil to demolish the roof over the ends of the ground, construct temp seating, and reconstruct the roof.


i reckon they will. Looking at how excited Bob Carr is getting. The Govt. would rather invest in these things rather than public transport, and other logical options.


----------



## ExSydney

Waverleyoor public transport..No public transport service
Waverleyoor design,lack of roof cover,rainbelt region of Melbourne

Thats why Waverley failed...and the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne are robbed of top level AFL.

ncik summed it up perfectly .Homebush is perfectly located for Sydney and smack bang in the centre of the sprawl.

Building an Olympic Stadium at Moore Park wouldve been a transport catastrophe.


----------



## Perth4life14

Wezza said:


> ^ I'd go as far as saying AFL is more stop start than rugby union or rugby league. As soon as a player is tackled in an AFL match and cannot release the ball, the umpire has to run in and bounce the ball!! It can become very messy at times. Not to mention when a player marks the ball and takes his time to decide where he is going to take his next kick.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic, it could only be a good thing for soccer in Australia to host the WC, but i really don't know if it will happen. I would tend to think there isn't a big enough market for a game which, in reality isn't all that popular here.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


lol but its a higher scoring game.

in relation to perth getting a 60,000 venue i dont think it will happen in the next 10 even 20 years because they are expanding members equity stadium to over 30,000 for the new Super 14 rugby team being held here and the soccer aswell, although subi could be a bit bigger for derbies.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

With Subiaco, they should take a look at what they did in Geelong at Kardinia Park and build a multi tier grandstand on the outer wing with a comparable amount of space.

They could increase capacity by 5,000. Rebuilding the grandstand on the old members side could also increase the cap. to over 50,000.

For mine, Subiaco is too long and should lose 10 metres at either end.


----------



## Perth4life14

no they cant build a new grandstand on the members wing, check out how close it is to the road










btw they sort of had plans

heres the render of it










dont know whats happening with it though.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

You could bring up Subiaco to some acceptable level but it will always be limited by space.

Presently it is easily the lousiest main ground used in the AFL. Perthlings will put up with it because a lot of them have not been to the stadiums on the east coast. :fiddle: 

There is so much land in Perth, I would be inclined in a decade to pull up stumps and build a new ground elsewhere.

Something that you could stage big soccer and rugby clashes as well as AFL. So you would need some kind of retractable seating arrangement ala Homebush.

The demand might very well go up in the next 10 years if the AFL decides to move to a 30 match home and away season. :


----------



## Perth4life14

yer but you see to us footy followers, subi is the best, but to the people who don't go to subi they don't like it, okay it may be not that well maintained or whatever, but i love it anyway, the walk to the train station after the dockers have won is awesome (when they win) and when they lose its pretty fun two, its right in subiaco which has heeps of bars and clubs and extremely good public transport and close to the city and fremantle, works both ways, i wouldnt wont it anywhere else.


----------



## mikeyraw

I know alot of footy followers who think it isnt up to scratch, in terms of facilites. Your being sentimental, which goes against development, if everyone was like you nothing would get built.

I think if a new perth stadium is to be built, hopefully it uses the Stadium Australia and Docklands approach, meaning it can be converted to a rectangle. I dont think it will, the Afl has too much influence. Most world cups involve the construction of 50 percent completely new football stadiums, the same would happen in Australia.


----------



## Perth4life14

thats probably because all your footy follower friends are stuck up c-nts like you are.


----------



## mikeyraw

Or maybe they are over the age of 14, with a mental age of +10. What does a football world cup in Australia have to do with you, its such a low scoring sport and all.


----------



## hngcm

But a much more exciting one.


----------



## mikeyraw

Exactly.. I was being sarcastic, thats a common argument from football bashers in Australia.


----------



## Giorgio

Are u refering to aussie rules or Soccer?


----------



## mikeyraw

"Soccer".


----------



## Guest

mikeyraw said:


> "Soccer".


For me it's a great idea. Every other continent had or will have WC, but no Oceania  Africa in 2010 'n' Sth America in 2014 so why don't organise the next one in Austaralia or Australia-New Zeland. I don't think that any other county will be able to make a serious bid. Imagine for e.g. Fiji-Salomon Isl WC 2012 . Australia and New Zeland are well developed countries with good stadiums and infrastructure. 

BTW Idea of moving Australia from OFC to AFA sucks. If Australia is placed in Oceania why should play as an asian country. There is no other thing like that in whole world except Israel and central Asia countries but Israel hasbeen moved because of !!safety!!, not to makie it easier way to WC. Central asian countries like Kazakhstan etc should be in AFA, but they play in UEFA because of they had been a fart of Soviet Union which has been an european country. I think Australia should stay in OFC.


----------



## hngcm

I say they stick OZ in Asia's rotation, since there aren't many Asian countries that can stage a WC.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

From Jan 1. we are in the Asian rotation. It will be between Korea, China, Japan and Oz out of the nations that could potentially host it.

If you are a supporter Oz would be the best location because you could actually have half a shot of getting to see games for a reasonable price. 

Gotta be staged in Nov/Dec however.


----------



## Mac

Perth4life14 said:


> thats probably because all your footy follower friends are stuck up c-nts like you are.



Your that prick thats been banned numerous times for being a troll....keep it up and you will be gone again.


----------



## samsonyuen

Doesn't seem like a bad idea. The US hosted the World Cup, and it's not the #1 sport (4th or 5th nationwide, maybe 2nd in some markets with lots of Latinos), and there were games all over the country, which is about the same size as Australia. I don't think Japan or Korea are soccer-mad either, come to think of it. 

Why is rugby so popular in Queensland and NSW, while AFL more popular elsewhere?


----------



## birminghamculture

Would be good, but I cant see England losing the 2018 world cup.


----------



## Cabman

Why would Australia have to co-host any bid? The attendances at the recent Rugby World Cup were phenomenol. I am pretty sure that with ex pat communities for several competing nations of the finals, would swell many venues.


----------



## Mephisto

Yeah, Australia doesn't need NZ for a world cup bid.

I think a 2018 World Cup would be awesome, Australian football is on the up. The A-league has had a successful opening season and Australia making Germany 06 is just the start of the boom.

Infrastructure and stadia wise the country is almost ready as is. Ofcourse there will be 2 or 3 stadiums built and a couple of others upgraded... all of which is no problem for Australia.

Potential Venues
Telstra Stadium 85,000 (Sydney)
Aussie Stadium 42,000 (Sydney) - easily upgraded to 55,000 if need be
MCG 100,000 (Melbourne)
Telstra Dome 55,000 (Melbourne)
Suncorp Stadium 53,000 (Brisbane)
Robina Stadium 40,000 (Gold Coast - upgraded)
Canberra Stadium 35,000 (Canberra - upgraded)
EA Stadium 35,000 (Newcastle - upgrade already in progress)
Perth Stadium 50,000 (Perth - new stadium)
Adelaide Stadium 45,000 (Adelaide - new stadium)

That's 10 venues, with only 2 new stadiums needed to be built for the World Cup. In fact, if Members Equity in Perth and Hindmarsh Stadium in Adelaide can be upgraded to over 40,000 each, then those new stadiums needn't be built.


----------



## easysurfer

No it wouldn't be good for 2018, that's too early. Australia had had it's fair share of major sporting events over the years - Olympics, Rugby world cup, Commonwealth games etc and football is not their major sport so wouldn't generate as much passion. A lot of the stadia there at the moment are not true football stadiums so that would need improvement. I think it is about time England hosted the world cup, considering we created the sport and have only hosted the event once. Our stadia would be ideal for the world cup un 2018 especially with the new wembley, emirates etc. I think Australia might have a chance in something like 2026, when they might have had more success in the tournament and entused their nation about the game. Plus it is awful for Europe when the time zone is so far ahead of GMT.


----------



## cmc

I would support this bid for 2018, and plus FIFA wants new countries to host, I think Australia/New Zealand would be favorites.


----------



## 2005

In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.


----------



## JimB

2005 said:


> In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.


Are you sure about that? I thought World Cup stadia now had to have a minimum capacity of 40,000. If I recall correctly, it is only the European Championships which require a minimum capacity of 30,000.

On the subject of 2018, I doubt that Australia (with or without New Zealand) would be favourites. Given that the big TV revenues for the World Cup (and almost half the competing teams) come from Europe, it is unlikely that FIFA would keep the World Cup away from Europe for sixteen years.

I think the favourites will be England, followed by Spain, with Australia or an Asian country as third favourites.


----------



## cmc

Come on who would think South Africa would host a world cup so soon, I would've thought like in 15 or more years.........


----------



## JimB

cmc said:


> Come on who would think South Africa would host a world cup so soon, I would've thought like in 15 or more years.........


I'm pleased that SA did get the 2010 World Cup. They'll do a great job, I'm sure. But the decision was an inevitable consequence of Sepp Blatter's promise to bring the World Cup to Africa. His election as FIFA president in 1998 depended, in no small part, on the votes of African members of FIFA, so he had to deliver on his promise (especially after the shock victory of Germany in the 2006 vote).

Blatter has no similar obligation to Australian football.

So while there is a chance that Australia could be chosen as the hosts of the 2018 World Cup, I don't think that they will be favourites (for reasons already mentioned).


----------



## johnz88

That would be prettty cool to have a world cup down under, but I think that England will get it in 2018, Brazil 2014 and in 2022 idn then maybe Australia.


----------



## mikeyraw

No need for New Zealand to be involved.


----------



## eomer

johnz88 said:


> That would be prettty cool to have a world cup down under, but I think that England will get it in 2018, Brazil 2014 and in 2022 idn then maybe Australia.


I agree: 
- 2014 is in south america and Brazil is the one only bid...so, let's go to Brazil.
- 2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.
- 2022 could be a good date for Australia.

One question:
How many countries in the world are able to host alone a world cup with 32 (or even 40) teams ? I think it's less than 20 for the moment.

Europe: 5 (Spain, Italy, France, Germany, England or UK)
South America: 2 (Brazil and Argentina)
North America: 3 (USA, Canada, Mexico)
Asia: 4 (Japan, Corea, India, China)
Africa: 1 (South Africa)
Oceania: 1 (Australia)

Maybe in the futur, some countries like Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, New Zealand, Morocco, Nigeria, Egypt... would be able to host World Cup too.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^

FIFA has said recently that an AFC nation(Oz) cannot host the World Cup with an Oceania nation(NZ) and they were not having duel bids again.

Why the hell would you want to share the World Cup with them anyhow? To take advantage of their ramshackle stadia? Oz should have a crack at hosting the World Cup for 2018.

England will no doubt have Europe backing it, so we need to lobby like buggery the South and North Americans, I'm sure Asia will back us and try and get Africa on side.

It will take lots of behind the scene deals and plenty of false promises and the odd bribe but we should be able to get it.


----------



## renell

eomer said:


> - 2014 is in south america and Brazil is the one only bid...so, let's go to Brazil.
> - 2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.


well with all the infrastructure at the moment and redevelopments happening around England I don't see why, like Australia, they can't host numerous large sporting events within a span of 2-3 years. 

in reply to the main topic of the thread, bugger New Zealand they already got the Rugby World Cup in 2011 anyways. If Australia can handle the Olympics and the RWC then why not the World Cup. Sydney plus Wollongong and Newcastle alone has a couple of 20,000 stadiums. Brisbane has arguably the best football stadium in the country. FFA will definately aim high after World Cup qualification, transfer to the Asian region in football etc.


----------



## JimB

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> FIFA has said recently that an AFC nation(Oz) cannot host the World Cup with an Oceania nation(NZ) and they were not having duel bids again.
> 
> Why the hell would you want to share the World Cup with them anyhow? To take advantage of their ramshackle stadia? Oz should have a crack at hosting the World Cup for 2018.
> 
> England will no doubt have Europe backing it, so we need to lobby like buggery the South and North Americans, I'm sure Asia will back us and try and get Africa on side.
> 
> It will take lots of behind the scene deals and plenty of false promises and the odd bribe but we should be able to get it.


Anything's possible, of course, as the surprising decision to award London the 2012 Olympics proved. But I think England will still be favourites. FIFA will be unwilling to take the tournament away from Europe (FIFA's big paymasters) for 16 years. And of the big European countries, it is England's turn.


----------



## JimB

eomer said:


> 2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.


I don't see why not. There is no overlap between the IOC, FIFA and the IRB. What one organisation does is not necessarily relevant to what another does. The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.


----------



## mikeyraw

Rotation is being scrapped post 2014, and even so, Australia will have the backing of the asian confed. I expect it to go down the wire between England and Australia. Bids shouldnt start being confirmed till 2012-ish, So its wierd that both federations are talking about it already.


----------



## Loopy70

how many stadia are needed for a World Cup? i'm guessing 8?

ps. i think Australia should go it alone too. Having 2 countries from the Oceania region automatically qualify (i know Australia will be in the Asian zone but my point is it...) just wouldnt cut it politically with FIFA and its members.

The ready to go stadiums are:
Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
Telstra Stadium (Sydney)
Aussie Stadium (Sydney)
Telstra Dome (Melbourne)

I'm not so sure about the MCG, not really the right shape for this type of football at this level.

I know there's talk of construction of a multipurpose stadium in Perth. We'll see whether this happens or not, but i would be surprised if Perth doesnt have a new major stadium by 2018.

I would suggest another 3 new stadiums in addition should be built for this purpose of this event. Perhaps on the Goldcoast and Melbourne (unless the MCG could somehow be modified, like digging a deeper rectangular shaped hole and putting seating on the banks!) would be the the most likely.
Adelaide is the other possible venue although i'm not sure how they would finance such a venture for a new 40000+ stadium.


----------



## JimB

mikeyraw said:


> Rotation is being scrapped post 2014, and even so, Australia will have the backing of the asian confed. I expect it to go down the wire between England and Australia. Bids shouldnt start being confirmed till 2012-ish, So its wierd that both federations are talking about it already.


I think bids will be confirmed in 2009. The vote will be in 2012.


----------



## JimB

Loopy70 said:


> how many stadia are needed for a World Cup? i'm guessing 8?


I think 10 is the minimum requirement. Erm...or is it 12?

Definitely not 8, though!


----------



## eomer

JimB said:


> I think 10 is the minimum requirement. Erm...or is it 12?
> 
> Definitely not 8, though!


10 is the minimum
But it's better to have 2 more stadium on a "hidden list".

And of course, you need lot of training stadiums.


----------



## eomer

JimB said:


> . The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.


Yes, of course, but...
Maybe England should let RWC 2015 to Ireland or to Scotland.


----------



## MoreOrLess

JimB said:


> I don't see why not. There is no overlap between the IOC, FIFA and the IRB. What one organisation does is not necessarily relevant to what another does. The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.


As has been prooven by the same country staging the Olympics 2 years before/after the WC 3 times in the last 40 years. There would be even less overlap in England as the same stadia would most likely not be used for all three of those events and the WC itself would need very little in the way of new infrastructure.

If Australia are grouped in with the Asian nations then the big contest for the next WC in that area is going to be between them and China. I'd say China's advanatges would be its potently much larger market for football and the fact its likely to have the votes of most of east Asia bar Japan. Australia's strong points would IMHO be your sporting legacy and as an alternative to China for the likes of UEFA members. If the latter was the case then I'd say you might actually be better off waiting until 2022 and supporting a european bid for 2018 in exchange for our future support.


----------



## JimB

eomer said:


> Yes, of course, but...
> Maybe England should let RWC 2015 to Ireland or to Scotland.


I think it's quite possible that that will happen.

It might be rather like 1999 when, although the final was held in Cardiff, Wales didn't have enough big stadia to be able to hold the event exclusively and so some games were played in England, France, Scotland and Ireland.

I'm not sure that Scotland or Ireland could stage the entire tournament either, so the IRB may come to a similar arrangement.


----------



## Loopy70

eomer said:


> 10 is the minimum
> But it's better to have 2 more stadium on a "hidden list".
> 
> And of course, you need lot of training stadiums.


hmmm i think Australia may struggle to support 10 stadia of 40000+ capacity for Soccer. Remember it is only a nation of 20 million which may be ~25 million by then.

at a pinch maybe 2 for Brisbane/Goldcoast, 3 for Sydney, 3 for Melbourne, 1 for Perth, 1 for Adelaide. 
Training stadiums shouldnt be an issue, there are plenty of ~15000 seat stadiums used for rugby league and A-league soccer around the country.


----------



## goldcoaster12

About the whole New Zealand thing I dont really care if Australia hosts it on its own, i just thought we would have a better chance with New Zealand as it would promote football in Oceania, the region where it needs promoting the best. And i dont think New Zealand could ever hosts it on its own with a population of only 4 million people. 
On the whole Australia doesnt have passion for football thing, where were you last week.
I also dont think it matters if australia is sucessful at world cups or not, look at South Africa, they didnt qualify for this world cup, but their hosting the next one. Australians will go to any sporting event, no matter what, every game would be sold out, and it would be 12 years since we last hosted a major sports event, unless we get something in between, which I highly doubt.
Unless the Ice Age comes again and our desert turns into snowfields, then I would back a bid for the winter olympics in alice springs.


----------



## Loopy70

i seriously think a joint bid with NZ would jeopardize rather than improve Australias chances of hosting the WC, due to reasons i mentioned earlier. (ie Aus and NZ auto qualifying, meaning one less spot for a team with more cred)

furthermore, FIFA is not interested in promoting the sport in Aus and NZ. It never has been and it never will be. But thats not to say staging the event in Aus is completely out of the question as it will be in the Asian zone and would probably stage a decent well run event. But the advantage is probably more with the common time zone and proximity with much of Asia.


----------



## Paulo2004

Sorry, but it will take place in Portugal, if we don't hold it in 2014.


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> Sorry, but it will take place in Portugal, if we don't hold it in 2014.


Portugal definitely won't get 2014.

Brazil are virtually nailed on certainties as hosts for that World Cup.

And I very much doubt that Portugal would win the vote for 2018 either. If it goes to a European country (and I think it will), it will most likely be England, with Spain second favourites.

Portugal has great stadia for a European Championship but not enough really big stadia for a World Cup. At least, not enough ever to have as good a technical bid as England or Spain.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> Portugal definitely won't get 2014.
> 
> Brazil are virtually nailed on certainties as hosts for that World Cup.
> 
> And I very much doubt that Portugal would win the vote for 2018 either. If it goes to a European country (and I think it will), it will most likely be England, with Spain second favourites.
> 
> Portugal has great stadia for a European Championship but not enough really big stadia for a World Cup. At least, not enough ever to have as good a technical bid as England or Spain.


You'll be surprised at what Portugal may and will achieve. Don't underestimate us.


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> You'll be surprised at what Portugal may and will achieve. Don't underestimate us.


I'm not underestimating Portugal at all.

But the simple truth is that its stadia - other than those of Benfica, Sporting and Porto - are not big enough to stage a World Cup.

Now you can say, of course, that they will build bigger stadia. But what would be the point of that? Here's an analysis of this season's and last season's average attendances for the best supported clubs in Portugal's top league (figures rounded down to the nearest 1000):

Benfica - capacity 65,000; average attendance 2004-5: 35,000; average attendance 2005-6: 30,000.

Porto - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 36,000; 2005-6: 41,000.

Sporting - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 29,000; 2005-06: 33,000.

So, at best, Portugal's top three clubs are operating at only 80% of capacity. At worst, they are operating at less than 50% of capacity.

And the picture is even bleaker for the smaller clubs.

Next best supported club over the past two years has been Guimares. I don't know what their capacity is (30,000?) but they have averaged 15,000 and 14,000 last season and this. Then Braga - 11,000 and 10,000; Coimbra - 9,000 and 10,000; and Boavista - 9,000 and 5,000.

No other club in Portugal has managed to maintain an average attendance over the past two years of over 5,000. So I ask you (without any antipathy to Portugal at all - it's a great country!), why on earth would Portugal want a minimum of ten stadia with a capacity of more than 40,000? There simply isn't the requirement. Even the three biggest clubs can rarely average more than 40,000 and the rest are nowhere near EVER needing that sort of capacity.

The World Cup is a great and prestigious event. But it should never become a reason for countries (and cities and football clubs) to build costly white elephants that will never be used once the World Cup month has been and gone.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Is 40,000 the offical minium size Jim? If it is then it must be a relatively new rule as I remember a number of stadiums for France 98 being smaller than that.

Portugals only chance of getting the WC is I'd guess as part of a joint bid with Spain which itself seems rather unlikely considering how many stadia they have or are planning.


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> Is 40,000 the offical minium size Jim? If it is then it must be a relatively new rule as I remember a number of stadiums for France 98 being smaller than that.
> 
> Portugals only chance of getting the WC is I'd guess as part of a joint bid with Spain which itself seems rather unlikely considering how many stadia they have or are planning.


I'm not 100% sure. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that FIFA had changed their requirements, meaning that 40,000 was now the minimum capacity - but I can't guarantee that what I read was accurate or official. Suffice to say that, of the 2002 World Cup stadia, Sapporo Dome, at 40,000, had the smallest capacity of any of the stadia. And the stadia for Germany 2006 will be even bigger.

To be honest, I think that 40,000 should be the absolute minimum capacity, especially for a World Cup in Europe, where fans travel in larger numbers. England alone will have more than 100,000 fans in Germany next summer, meaning that there is not a single World Cup stadium that could accomodate them all, even if no locals, no neutrals and no opposition fans attended.

Specifically regarding a potential bid from Portugal, even if the minimum capacity was 30,000, FIFA would still not award the World Cup to a country where all but three of the stadia have a capacity of just 30,000. It's simply not going to happen. Especially not when the competition will come from Spain and England (which will, by 2018, probably have at least 10 stadia with a capacity of 50,000 or more, including one and maybe two with a capacity of 90,000).


----------



## Mac

Now you can all just piss off.....2018 belongs to England, so none of you should get any funny ideas about it being anywhere else..

Wembley, with a bit of luck, should be finished by 2017.. and UEFA will not be able to resist having the greatest Football Final in the Greatest Football Stadium in this corner of the galaxy.


----------



## MoreOrLess

JimB said:


> I'm not 100% sure. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that FIFA had changed their requirements, meaning that 40,000 was now the minimum capacity - but I can't guarantee that what I read was accurate or official. Suffice to say that, of the 2002 World Cup stadia, Sapporo Dome, at 40,000, had the smallest capacity of any of the stadia. And the stadia for Germany 2006 will be even bigger.
> 
> To be honest, I think that 40,000 should be the absolute minimum capacity, especially for a World Cup in Europe, where fans travel in larger numbers. England alone will have more than 100,000 fans in Germany next summer, meaning that there is not a single World Cup stadium that could accomodate them all, even if no locals, no neutrals and no opposition fans attended.
> 
> Specifically regarding a potential bid from Portugal, even if the minimum capacity was 30,000, FIFA would still not award the World Cup to a country where all but three of the stadia have a capacity of just 30,000. It's simply not going to happen. Especially not when the competition will come from Spain and England (which will, by 2018, probably have at least 10 stadia with a capacity of 50,000 or more, including one and maybe two with a capacity of 90,000).


These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC. If a joint bid with Spain did happen on the other hand they could probabley get away with using one or two of them although on that scale I'd guess boosting the capacity of one or two wouldnt be out of the question(extending the stands behind the goals at the Estádio Algarve seems the most obvious).


----------



## Mephisto

easysurfer said:


> No it wouldn't be good for 2018, that's too early. Australia had had it's fair share of major sporting events over the years - Olympics, Rugby world cup, Commonwealth games etc and football is not their major sport so wouldn't generate as much passion. A lot of the stadia there at the moment are not true football stadiums so that would need improvement. I think it is about time England hosted the world cup, considering we created the sport and have only hosted the event once. Our stadia would be ideal for the world cup un 2018 especially with the new wembley, emirates etc. I think Australia might have a chance in something like 2026, when they might have had more success in the tournament and entused their nation about the game. Plus it is awful for Europe when the time zone is so far ahead of GMT.


Yes maybe 2022 would be better. However 2018 would still be good because Australia wouldn't have had any major events for a while and by that time Football should have a very solid base. I think a World Cup in Australia would generate enormous passion even if held as early as 2010 hypothetically speaking. Australians know how big football is and they will come out to support it, especially with the WC being such a big event. Theres many nationalities also so it will provide a great atmosphere.

In regards to the stadia not being true football grounds... out of the ones I have listed in my previous post, only the MCG is a circular stadium. The rest are or can be configured to be rectangular grounds. So thats 8 stadiums ready to go with upgrades on a couple of them with 2 new rectangular stadiums built. Stadium wise Australia has no problem.



2005 said:


> In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.


Australia can get 10 high quality stadiums over 40,000 without much hassle. Theres already 6 quality stadiums over 40,000.

I do think that England will get the cup in 2018, but Australia will be a definate for 2022, with Brazil in 2014.


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC. If a joint bid with Spain did happen on the other hand they could probabley get away with using one or two of them although on that scale I'd guess boosting the capacity of one or two wouldnt be out of the question(extending the stands behind the goals at the Estádio Algarve seems the most obvious).


I can't see either FIFA or the Spanish being keen on a joint bid with Portugal. FIFA would rather not have any joint hosts, if at all possible. And Spain are quite capable of hosting a World Cup (as they already have, in 1982) without the help of any other country.

And as regards increasing capacity at any of Portugal's 30,000 seat stadia, as I said before, there would really be no point. The extra capacity would only be required for the five weeks of a World Cup, with perhaps as few as three games at some stadia. Furthermore, even if Portugal did upgrade each of its 30,000 seat stadia to 40,000, they would still not be remotely able to compete in terms of stadium capacity with England and Spain.

Anything's possible, of course, but I simply can't imagine that a Portuguese bid for the World Cup in 2018 would be successful.


----------



## eomer

MoreOrLess said:


> These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC.


You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
- 80 000 for opening match and final
- 60 000 for each semi-finals
- 50 000 for each 1/4 final

So, I don't think Portugal will be able to host WC 2018.
Spain allready hosted WC in 1982, Italy en 1990, France in 1998, Germany en 2006 (and 1974) but England did not hosted WC since 1966: this is the turn of England...

A other reason to say that WC 2018 will be in Europe and not in Australia is that WC 2010 and 2014 will took place in southern hemisphere.
So, the best thing for everybody, IMHO:
- 2006: Germany
- 2010: South Africa
- 2014: Brazil
- 2018: England (or UK)
- 2022: Australia
- 2026: North America
- 2030: Europe
- 2034: China


----------



## JimB

eomer said:


> You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
> - 80 000 for opening match and final
> - 60 000 for each semi-finals
> - 50 000 for each 1/4 final


Thanks for the clarification, eomer. Is this info from the FIFA website?


----------



## eomer

JimB said:


> Thanks for the clarification, eomer. Is this info from the FIFA website?


No: from a book about France 98.


----------



## JimB

eomer said:


> No: from a book about France 98.


Presumably a book about France 98 which says that further increases in capacity would be required at two or three stadia if a future French bid was to meet the new guidelines?


----------



## MoreOrLess

JimB said:


> I can't see either FIFA or the Spanish being keen on a joint bid with Portugal. FIFA would rather not have any joint hosts, if at all possible. And Spain are quite capable of hosting a World Cup (as they already have, in 1982) without the help of any other country.
> 
> And as regards increasing capacity at any of Portugal's 30,000 seat stadia, as I said before, there would really be no point. The extra capacity would only be required for the five weeks of a World Cup, with perhaps as few as three games at some stadia. Furthermore, even if Portugal did upgrade each of its 30,000 seat stadia to 40,000, they would still not be remotely able to compete in terms of stadium capacity with England and Spain.
> 
> Anything's possible, of course, but I simply can't imagine that a Portuguese bid for the World Cup in 2018 would be successful.


Indeed it is hard to see Spain needing Portugal's stadiums so badly(although obviously the number and standard needed has increased since 1982) they'd risk the disadvantage of a joint bid and its harder still to see either bid beating England if we go for 2018. Spain are IMHO much more likely to get the european championships before they see the world cup again and such a bid would obviously not inclue Portugal.

There would I agree be no long term reason to increase the capacity of the 30 k stadia but if only one or two needed to be increased rather than half a dozen in order to secure a joint bid it wouldnt be an unreasonable cost. As I said something like the Algarve could easily have telstra style temp seats added.



> You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
> - 80 000 for opening match and final
> - 60 000 for each semi-finals
> - 50 000 for each 1/4 final


They havent stuck to those guidelines very well then as neither Korea/Japan nore Germany have an 80 k stadium for the opening match/final.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> I'm not underestimating Portugal at all.
> 
> But the simple truth is that its stadia - other than those of Benfica, Sporting and Porto - are not big enough to stage a World Cup.
> 
> Now you can say, of course, that they will build bigger stadia. But what would be the point of that? Here's an analysis of this season's and last season's average attendances for the best supported clubs in Portugal's top league (figures rounded down to the nearest 1000):
> 
> Benfica - capacity 65,000; average attendance 2004-5: 35,000; average attendance 2005-6: 30,000.
> 
> Porto - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 36,000; 2005-6: 41,000.
> 
> Sporting - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 29,000; 2005-06: 33,000.
> 
> So, at best, Portugal's top three clubs are operating at only 80% of capacity. At worst, they are operating at less than 50% of capacity.
> 
> And the picture is even bleaker for the smaller clubs.
> 
> Next best supported club over the past two years has been Guimares. I don't know what their capacity is (30,000?) but they have averaged 15,000 and 14,000 last season and this. Then Braga - 11,000 and 10,000; Coimbra - 9,000 and 10,000; and Boavista - 9,000 and 5,000.
> 
> No other club in Portugal has managed to maintain an average attendance over the past two years of over 5,000. So I ask you (without any antipathy to Portugal at all - it's a great country!), why on earth would Portugal want a minimum of ten stadia with a capacity of more than 40,000? There simply isn't the requirement. Even the three biggest clubs can rarely average more than 40,000 and the rest are nowhere near EVER needing that sort of capacity.
> 
> The World Cup is a great and prestigious event. But it should never become a reason for countries (and cities and football clubs) to build costly white elephants that will never be used once the World Cup month has been and gone.


No, you've got it all wrong. We're not going to build any more stadiums - we've had enough of them already. The idea is to upgrade them by 2014/2018. They can easily accomodate 40.000.
All new stadiums have a capacity of more than 35.000 and I'm not sure about that rule regarding capacity requirements. 

Besides that, FIFA authorities have always refered that Portugal can easily hold a world cup, especially taking into account two main demands (since stadiums are not a problem): security (which Portugal offers) and organization merit, which we gained with Euro2004. Our method of organising this event was studied and will be introduced in Euro2008 mainly due to its outstanding results and obviously the big profits it made.


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> No, you've got it all wrong. We're not going to build any more stadiums - we've had enough of them already. The idea is to upgrade them by 2014/2018. They can easily accomodate 40.000.
> *All new stadiums have a capacity of more than 35.000* and I'm not sure about that rule regarding capacity requirements.


According to the following two websites, only the big three stadia have a capacity of more than 30,000. The other seven are, to the nearest thousand, just above or just below 30,000.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/tournaments/euro2004.shtml

http://www.stadiumguide.com/euro2004.htm 



> Besides that, FIFA authorities have always refered that Portugal can easily hold a world cup, especially taking into account two main demands (since stadiums are not a problem): security (which Portugal offers) and organization merit, which we gained with Euro2004. Our method of organising this event was studied and will be introduced in Euro2008 mainly due to its outstanding results and obviously the big profits it made.


That may well be true - and Portugal did a great job for Euro 2004 - but the problem will be that Portugal simply cannot begin to compete with England and Spain for the size of their stadia and, therefore, the potential profit for FIFA. By 2018, England will have:

1. Wembley, London (90,000)

2. Old Trafford, Manchester (at least 75,000 but maybe as much as 90,000+ by 2018)

3. The Emirates stadium, London (60,000)

4. Liverpool's new stadium (60,000)

5. St James' Park, Newcastle (now 52,000 but sure to be increased to over 60,000 by 2018)

6. City of Manchester stadium (48,000)

7. Stadium of Light, Sunderland (48,000 but, again, might well have increased by 2018)

8. Villa Park, Birmingham (currently 43,000 but there are plans to increase to 50,000)

9. Stamford Bridge, London (42,000 but Chelsea will either increase capacity to 50,000+ or build a new 50,000+ stadium long before 2018)

10. Elland Road, Leeds (currently 40,000 but, with Ken Bates as Leeds chairman, sure to redevelop and increase capacity once they return to the Premiership and sound financial footing)

In addition, it is probable that Tottenham and Everton will finally have done something with their stadia by 2018, with a 50,000+ capacity likely for both.

And Birmingham City are currently working on a new proposal for a new 50,000 seat stadium. And the likes of Southampton, Middlesbrough, Derby and Leicester could all redevelop their stadia to over 40,000 with relative ease. Sheffield Wednesday also have a 40,000 seat stadium, though it would require significant upgrading.

Finally, it is also possible (though unlikely), that rugby's Twickenham stadium (capacity 82,000) could be used for the World Cup.

It's hard to see how Portugal could beat that lot. But stranger things have happened, I suppose.


----------



## eomer

JimB said:


> Finally, it is also possible (though unlikely), that rugby's Twickenham stadium (capacity 82,000) could be used for the World Cup.


Oh Shoking !!!


----------



## Loopy70

Mephisto said:


> In regards to the stadia not being true football grounds... out of the ones I have listed in my previous post, only the MCG is a circular stadium. The rest are or can be configured to be rectangular grounds. So thats 8 stadiums ready to go with upgrades on a couple of them with 2 new rectangular stadiums built. Stadium wise Australia has no problem.
> 
> Australia can get 10 high quality stadiums over 40,000 without much hassle. Theres already 6 quality stadiums over 40,000.


i dont see it. we dont have 8 ready to go now over 40000. converting a 15000 seat stadium to 40000 is not an upgrade, its a rebuild.
this also assumes Perth and Adelaide will build complete new stadiums by this time. a 40000 seat stadium these days costs around $400 million. Who'll pay for these?


----------



## bubomb

This stadium cost £59 million. Capacity is 53466 for German league games and 45600 for internationals.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

You never know by 2018 there could be a 'smoky' going for the hosting of the World Cup.

Russia, Ukraine, Poland or even places like Turkey could have a crack. It is a long way off.

Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.


----------



## Iain1974

BobDaBuilder said:


> Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.


I think you're worrying needlessly. The IOC seemed satisfied with London for the Olympics.

Since Sepp Blatter siad it would be great for England to bid for 2018 I think it'd be fair to say it'll come to Europe and since our facilites are so far ahead of the competition I personally think we're pretty much home and hosed.


----------



## gothicform

i believe sepp blatter actually invited england to create a bid... basically his way of saying "we'd like to host the world cup in your nice stadiums in 2018 please". given the massive gulf in quality between english stadiums and other countries hosting the world cup wouldnt be a problem, infact london could host it by itself.


----------



## Iain1974

Thats right gothic.

One of the things FIFA will like the most are the English ticket prices. parhaps 3million tickets at £100 a pop!


----------



## JimB

BobDaBuilder said:


> Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.


Whoah! Steady on with the stereotypes, there, you cork hat wearing convict. 

But seriously, British hotels are not what they once were, when Fawlty Towers was made. I'm not saying that they're all great but they're no worse than most other places you'll go to in the western world. As to expense, well Japan is hardly a bargain basement country. If Japan isn't too expensive for FIFA, then neither is England.

And, without becoming complacent, English hooliganism is much more under control now than it was even five years ago. England travelled in far higher numbers than other countries to both Japan in 2002 (where we had over 20,000) and Portugal (where we had up to 100,000) and there was hardly any trouble at all. Besides, English hooliganism was always more of a problem when England travelled abroad. It never happened on anything like the same scale in England.

And, just for the record, the English are no more xenophobic than any other nation.


----------



## easysurfer

JimB said:


> Whoah! Steady on with the stereotypes, there, you cork hat wearing convict.
> 
> But seriously, British hotels are not what they once were, when Fawlty Towers was made. I'm not saying that they're all great but they're no worse than most other places you'll go to in the western world. As to expense, well Japan is hardly a bargain basement country. If Japan isn't too expensive for FIFA, then neither is England.
> 
> And, without becoming complacent, English hooliganism is much more under control now than it was even five years ago. England travelled in far higher numbers than other countries to both Japan in 2002 (where we had over 20,000) and Portugal (where we had up to 100,000) and there was hardly any trouble at all. Besides, English hooliganism was always more of a problem when England travelled abroad. It never happened on anything like the same scale in England.
> 
> And, just for the record, the English are no more xenophobic than any other nation.


I would go so far as saying we are one of the least xenophobic nations in Europe, even though there are still problems. Britain is a far more tolerant country when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers than Australia has ever been. The only surprise to me is that it's been so long since we last hosted the world cup. However, i do think in 2018 we will be far more ready and prepared than we would have been in 2006 so maybe it could be a blessing.


----------



## Iain1974

easysurfer said:


> However, i do think in 2018 we will be far more ready and prepared than we would have been in 2006 so maybe it could be a blessing.


Rooney could still be playing in 2018


----------



## Mephisto

Loopy70 said:


> i dont see it. we dont have 8 ready to go now over 40000. converting a 15000 seat stadium to 40000 is not an upgrade, its a rebuild.
> this also assumes Perth and Adelaide will build complete new stadiums by this time. a 40000 seat stadium these days costs around $400 million. Who'll pay for these?


Well, we don't have 8 ready to go with over 40,000.. but we do have 5. Telstra 85k, MCG 100k, Dome 55k, Suncorp 55k, Aussie 43k. That's half the stadiums needed right there. Should Australia win the World Cup bid, you can bet your ass that Aussie will be increased to 55k, as there were plans a couple of years ago to increase the capacity to attract bigger events but for some reason they were put on hold. So they are all the big stadiums which will be used for the finals too so thats a bonus.

Throw in the new Gold Coast stadium which is going to be a 25,000 stadium, however plans allow it to add a second tier and be increased to 40,000 should the need arise. 

Canberra Stadium holds 26,000, and Newcastle's newly renovated stadium will hold 30,000. Both these can be upgraded to 40,000. So they're not small 15,000 stadiums which need to be rebuilt.

Thats 8 stadiums.

Now it's been often mentioned that Perth want to build a new multipurpse rectangular stadium. With Perth Glory, the new Force rugby team and in the next 10 years probably a new Perth rugby league team, you can see why they would want to build a big one which can also be used for other events.
50,000 would be the ideal capacity of such a stadium.

Only Adelaide will have a bit of a problem regarding a stadium. If Hindmarsh (18,000) can be upgraded to 35,000, then that would be fine. 

Also a stadium neednt cost that much to build. $200 million would be enough to build a high quality 50,000 stadium. Melbourne and Gold Coast are building 25,000 stadiums for less than $100 million that are going to be state of the art.

So really, I don't think stadia would be holding back Australias bid at all. 5 stadiums ready, with 4 upgrades (10,000-15,000 additional seats per stadium) and 1 new stadium in Perth (which is already on the cards regardless of a world cup bid).

Training stadia are a non issue as there are plenty of good 20,000 seat stadiums with good facilities across the country, particularly in Sydney which has about 7.


----------



## Dasher39

This has been discussed on a number of forums that I visit. One excellent point was made, 2018 is 13 years away. Go back 13 years (1992) and look at the stadia that was around in Australia then:

MCG - Was just being redeveloped to add the Southern Stand
Telstra Stadium - Was not even thought of
Telstra Dome - Not even thought of
Suncorp - Was still the old Lang Park
Hindmarsh Stadium - Was a small stadium in Adelaide
MES - Was Perth Oval hosting WAFL matches
Gold Coast Stadium - Not even thought of

If you look at that, who knows what stadia may be developed in 13 years time. The ones we know of are the Gold Coast Stadium, a new Olympic Park Stadium in Melbourne, which by 2018 will probably be around 35-40k stadium giving Melbourne 3 stadiums if need be.

Perth will have a new stadium that will seat around 50-60,000, Aussie Stadium will be upgraded.

I certainly dont think the stadia is an issue. Canberra Stadium can easily be upgraded as well, so there is no shortage of stadiums! Enter FIFA politics...


----------



## Giorgio

This is my dream of the World cup in Australia to finally finish off the inferior Aussie Rules. I disagree with Adelaide getting a new stadium. It would be a total white elephant at 45k. An upgrade of a second tier at hindmarsh would be plausable.


----------



## goldcoaster12

Worst case scenario for adelaide is that there always is AAMI stadium
which at the moment seats 50,000








If they can somehow temporarily make it more rectangular it would be good.
No doubt Perth will have a stadium built by 2018.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^

They are looking at building a 60,000 multi-purpose stadium in Perth replacing the WACA and Subiaco as we speak....

You already have today:

MCG 100,000 
Homebush 84,000
Docklands 55,000 (with retractable seating)
Lang Park 55,000
The SFS 44,000
Newcastle 30,000 (2 10,000 seat grandstands at either end could up the capacity)
Canberra 30,000 (as above)
Gosford 25,000 (as above)
Gold Coast @Robina 30,000 ???? may be too small
Adelaide has Footy Park 55,000. In 10 years they will upgrade that to hold 65,000 you would think. Too much money to be made.
Perth 65,000 to be built for AFL, S14 and international soccer.

You could easily add Wollongong, Northern Queensland, and Geelong if push came to shove.

Plus we have accomodation for tourists that is of world class standards, and flights to Oz are not too bad nowadays and getting cheaper. Not to mention flights within Oz are almost cheaper than driving.

England won't be Oz's biggest threat for the 2018 World Cup finals, it will be China. FIFA wants it there, that is where the super big money will be in 10-15 years time. 

Only time will tell.

First we gotta host the Asian Nations, probably 2011 by the sounds of the words coming out of John O'Neills office.


----------



## dynamoultraclean

Another thing, why is it that stadiums that are rectangular have preference to host? Look at many stadiums in Asia and South America etc, who have running tracks around the pitch etc. Hell, the game played in Uruguay even had enough room for a track between the pitch and the stands.


----------



## Noostairz

BobDaBuilder said:


> Oz should do a deal with England at the very least. We let you guys have 2018 as long as you guys let us have 2022.
> 
> :cheers:


deal! kay:


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Now we only have to convince the other 200 FIFA members....

NZ would be up for it, so there is one at least.


----------



## hngcm

Hmmm, I had to stay up all night long to watch the games in 2002, so it be the same for a WC in Oz.......


----------



## Loopy70

hngcm said:


> Hmmm, I had to stay up all night long to watch the games in 2002, so it be the same for a WC in Oz.......



poor you. we in OZ have to do that for nearly every major sporting event.

on another topic, ie back to my point earlier, i seriously think Oz will have an issue with stadia. New stadiums will not be built if they cannot be sustained after the WC. Its just not economic. Telstra stadium (beautiful as it is and probably the best in the country) is already a white elephant. 10 WC quality stadia is a big ask for OZ when you compare to the numerous great purpose built stadia in a place like England. Im not convinced the MCG and AAMI will be suitable venues either.

I still think we'll be about 2 to 4 short of what is required.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Australia 'will host' World Cup
November 28, 2005

LIVERPOOL legend Craig Johnston opened his heart today to end a quarter century of despair and predict a soccer World Cup future for Australia.

In accepting his induction into the Australian Football Federation Hall Of Fame, the 45-year-old said Australia would host the World Cup and possibly also be a winner.

"I've been forgotten, ignored, snubbed and not had any proper recognition until now. I thought it was time to make amends and get involved," Johnston said.

"The world body FIFA loves Australians and its administrators. I told FIFA when Australia was bidding for the 2000 Olympics that we would put on the best Olympics ever.

Politically, it will be very hard but FIFA knows from the past experience of the Olympics and two World Youth finals that if Australia stages the Cup here it will be the best World Cup ever."

"The way we handle sports here is better than anywhere else and I am very confident."

Johnston, who flew to Sydney from the United States to watch the return match against Uruguay, said the skill level of the Australian team was 30 per cent higher than the side he had seen last year.

"It could be the effect of new coach Guus Hiddink who is rated by many as a football genius. But whatever we're doing now is not enough, although the move into Asia will make us better."

"Playing nations like Tonga, The Cook Islands and West Samoa was a drawback but Japan, China and Korea is a step forward."

"Australia had suffered from geographic isolation and rugby league, union and the AFL had captured the minds of the kids. But now with the Socceroos and the A-League we have given them something."

"In previous years there was always a smirk and a giggle when Australian soccer was mentioned but when Terry Venables took over, people don't smirk anymore because they see Australia as a big threat," he said.

Johnston, who described his time at Liverpool as "the worst player in the world's best team" won 13 trophies during his seven years with the English Premier Club.

He also made the shock revelation that he had been approached to manage the Australian team but told the national officials that he preferred a business or advisory role.

"I said no to the offer but also said that I would get them a manager and Terry Venables was the result. That was a big contribution to Australian football."

"My desire is not to manage grown-ups but to mould kids into a better community and better footballers. I'm a passionate and proud Australian living overseas and I've always had this strong wish to give something back to Australia and soccer."

Johnston revealed his Supaskills program now operating in the United States and England had been endorsed by FIFA and leading English authorities.

He said the introduction of the program in England in big cities like London, Birmingham and Glasgow had taken youngsters off the street, reduced crime and obesity and improved discipline.

"My dream is to have more Australian kids playing soccer," he said.

"It's my mission and the future looks very promising but we must work hard. The Socceroos, if they want to win the World Cup, have to remember there's a poorer nation who wants it more."


----------



## ExSydney

A great venue for a World Cup!

Sydney's Telstra Stadium packed with 84,000 people during last weeks Australia vs Uruguay.


----------



## NavyBlue

^^Great place for the opening ceremony...lol^^

The final at the G :cheers:


----------



## ExSydney

arghh..The Final!..Sydney or Melbourne
now that will be a contest in itself!


----------



## Dean

lol. i love all the british sooks complaining that a WC wont be any good here coz we are so far ahead of GMT. 

the simple fact is that if you want a major event done right, on time and budget, perfectly run, in safe and ultra modern cities then you'd pick Australia everyday of the week and twice on sundays.

any WC staged in Australia will be an improvement on anything ever held previously. and you can take that to the bank.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^

Have to agree 100%.

In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.

The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.

Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.

FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer. 

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.


----------



## JimB

Dean said:


> lol. i love all the british sooks complaining that a WC wont be any good here coz we are so far ahead of GMT.
> 
> the simple fact is that if you want a major event done right, on time and budget, perfectly run, in safe and ultra modern cities then you'd pick Australia everyday of the week and twice on sundays.
> 
> any WC staged in Australia will be an improvement on anything ever held previously. and you can take that to the bank.


Duh!

There has only been one person who brought up the issue of the time zone and that person is in San Diego.

Who are all these mythical "British sooks" to whom you refer, ya daft ****?

And I don't think that anyone doubts that the aussies would put on a good show. The only problem, as even many aussies concede, is the lack of suitable stadiums.


----------



## JimB

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Have to agree 100%.
> 
> In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.
> 
> The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.
> 
> Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.
> 
> FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.
> 
> The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.


Almost 100% wrong!

1. While England is a relatively small country with a relatively large population, we are not unfamiliar with tourism. We count our tourists in the many tens of millions. I think we can probably find room to squeeze in a couple of hundred thousand football fans. And while England may be expensive, it is no more expensive than Japan and, if Japan is considered suitable for the World Cup, then England must be also.

2. The stadiums are bigger and more suited to football than anything that Australia could offer. In fact, of all the countries in the world, probably only Germany, the US and Spain can compete for dedicated football stadia.

3. You may rather have your stadia in some suburban wasteland surrounded by acres of concreted car parks. I prefer stadia that are surrounded by pubs and restaurants and city life. 90% of visiting fans won't have cars with them anyway and those that don't can travel by public transport. After all, we English manage to get to our football matches (in greater numbers than any other country on earth, as it happens) every week for nine months of the year, without our stadia being "blessed" by huge car parks.

4. For all England's previous problems with hooliganism abroad, there have been no such problems within England over the past twenty years. English stadia are far ahead of those of almost every other country because of well organised ticketing policies meaning proper segregation, extensive CCTV at every ground, well trained stewards, and a police force that knows better than any other how to operate at football matches. Besides, you may have missed the World Cup of 2002 when, other than Japanese and South Koreans, there were far more English present than fans from any other nation. We had over 20,000 there. Most other countries took only a couple of thousand. And there was no trouble. Same story in Portugal for Euro 2004. Far more English than any other visiting fans. We had over 70,000 there and again, no trouble, even on the night that we outnumbered the Portuguese in their own stadium (rather like the final of the rugby world cup in Sydney!). If hooliganism is your concern, then Brazil or Argentina or Italy would never get a World Cup these days. And Brazil will get the World Cup in 2014.

Australia would make a fine host of the World Cup. In one or two ways, it could be better than England. In others, though, it is lacking by comparison to England. The main reason, however, why I suspect that England will be favourites for 2018 is that FIFA will be reluctant to take the World Cup away from Europe for sixteen years or more. Europe is its biggest paymaster and has by far the most competing teams. And of the European nations that could hold the tournament, it is England's turn.


----------



## Martuh

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Have to agree 100%.
> 
> In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.
> 
> The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.
> 
> Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.
> 
> FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.
> 
> The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.


Gimme ten stadiums that could host WC games in Oz. And I don't mean the Aussie Rules or cricket stadiums where you're ten miles away from the action needing goggles to look. England has at least fifteen WC-able stadiums, in Oz you'd need to build new and improve old stadiums.

Wembley
Old Trafford
Stanley Park
Emirates
Twickenham
St. James Park
Stadium of Light
Stamford Bridge
Villa Park
City of Manchester
Anfield Road
Goodison Park
Elland Road
Hillsborough
Highbury
White Hart Lane
etc


----------



## Noostairz

JimB said:


> Duh!
> 
> There has only been one person who brought up the issue of the time zone and that person is in San Diego.
> 
> Who are all these mythical "British sooks" to whom you refer, ya daft ****?
> 
> And I don't think that anyone doubts that the aussies would put on a good show. The only problem, as even many aussies concede, is the lack of suitable stadiums.


just what i was going to say.

not enough stadiums of an adequate size or purpose-built design. 

and seen as the aussie rules seasons runs from march - september (??), there remains real question marks as to whether some of the stadiums will actually be available for a june - july world cup.

it also remains to be seen whether there'd actually be enough public enthusiasm to fill the grounds.


----------



## MoreOrLess

BobDaBuilder said:


> The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.


How would the costs in Oz be lower? as has been stated you would need to build a number of new stadiums in order to host a WC were as by 2014-18 England will most likely not have to build any espeically for the WC. Unless there are massive changes by 2018 then the biggest TV market for football will remain europe aswell.


----------



## Madman

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Have to agree 100%.
> 
> In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.
> 
> The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.
> 
> Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.
> 
> FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.
> 
> The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.


1) Have you been to many British top-tier stadiums? They are as modern as any in Europe and probably Australia as well

2) We use public transport in Britain to go to major events, acres of carparks filled for a few days a year is hardly sustainable and ecologically quite reckless

3) Our fans are no worse than many other countries, in fact in recent tournaments we have turned out to be some of the best for the size of the travelling fans. Media attention made sure we had top sort that problem out. Besides if you were right wouldnt it be better to have it in England we have very little problems of hooliganism in our leagues (unlike other major countries)

4) We are perfectly situated for the main football markets, tv rights would be far easier to sell from Britain than Australia to the major broadcasters.


----------



## cianobuckley

The one in Brisbane is the most suitable. The main problem with all these stadia is that they are all mainly used for other sports rugby and cricket etc. Not that FIFA has a problem with that but they generally like to award the world cup to a country that can develop their football infrastructure like in Japan/Korea as opposed to this bid which would be very similar to USA '94.


----------



## invincible

Madman said:


> 2) We use public transport in Britain to go to major events, acres of carparks filled for a few days a year is hardly sustainable and ecologically quite reckless


Most places here do have a rail line running next to them and there isn't much car parking now that Waverley Park (the mother of all carparks) has been torn down. The MCG's carpark (keep in mind the MCG existed long before cars were conceived and the first railways had just been built) is just a huge chunk of parkland - although half of Melbourne's suburban network travels past the MCG so there's not much of an excuse to drive. The Telstra Dome is right across the road from Spencer St station which is the main terminus for regional trains, as well as all suburban services travelling that way.

In the case of the Commonwealth Games coming to Melbourne in a few months, a ticket entitles you to free public transport so surely they'd do it for the World Cup too.

I can't say that much for other cities, but many of the stadiums were built well before the advent of car travel, so they do have a decent public transport service.


Generally speaking - New South Wales and Queensland have decent rectangular stadiums since rugby is the dominant code of football there (although Brisbane and Sydney have won a 4 AFL premierships between them in the past five years so there's plenty of people jumping on the bandwagon). The rest of the country have stadiums that are anything from perfectly round (MCG) to an elongated oval - due to the lack of a standard size for an Aussie Rules field. Soccer is emerging in these states and in many cases are ahead of rugby, hence Melbourne's proposal which the government seems to be eager to ensure a speedy approval for.

But soccer is breaking new ground in Australia. The whole national body was dismantled and we've got our inaugural season of the new A-League with new clubs and we've seen that places like Melbourne's Olympic Park are simply insufficient.

It's 3am, pardon my incoherence


----------



## Loopy70

No trouble filling the stadiums in Australia for the WC. There would be huge enthusiasm as Soccer is a big sport here.

At the Rugby WC stadiums were filled to capacity in Perth and Adelaide, and they're not even Rugby states. (Perth will be, but there's no tradition there).

The problem still remains the stadia themselves. There arent 10 suitable now, and i challenge anyone to tell me where the shortfall will be made up.


----------



## ExSydney

Australia have currently 9 stadia that technically would be up to FIFA standard(modern all seater 40,000++)

Telstra Stadium-83,500
Aussie Stadium-42,000
Sydney Cricket Ground-44,000
Melbourne Cricket Ground-100,000
Telstra Dome-55,000
Suncorp Stadium-53,000
GABBA-42,000
AAMI Stadium-50,000
Subiaco Oval-42,000

BUT in all truth,I think only 5 would probably be considered as certainties...

Telstra Stadium
Aussie Stadium
Melbourne Cricket Ground
Telstra Dome
Suncorp

The other venue would come from 
Canberra-Canberra Stadium is currently 30,000.It has plenty of expansion room for an extra 10,000 Temporary seating even

Newcastle Stadium-Again 30,000 currently.Newcastle could permanantly sustain 40,000.

Townsville-In one of the fastest growing areas of Australia,the current venue seats around 25,000.Massive redevelopment would be required

Gold Coast-Similar to Townsville..A new stadium of around 25,000 is to be built,with possibilities of a second tier in the design.40,000 quite possible although long term economics of 40,000 may be difficult.

Perth-There is talk of a 60,000 Stadium for Perth to replace Subiaco.If a World Cup was awarded to Australia,there would be no doubt this would be built.

Adelaide-Unlike Perth,no real demand for a Stadium to replace AAMI.I dont think AAMI is suitable.Maybe upgrade Hindmarsh and use temporary seating to increase to the 40,000.I cant though see Adelaide missing out if we got the nod.

Most countries that are awarded World Cup do go on massive stadium spending sprees to upgrade and build new venues.Australia would be no different.
Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??

USA
Australia
Spain(is the Neu Camp considered modern?)
Italy
UK in the near future
??? who else?


----------



## pompeyfan

there is eight already in existence


----------



## pompeyfan

sydney_lad said:


> Yeah, that's what i meant.
> 
> Problem with Australia is, alot of our big stadiums are bloody ovals.


That means nothing


----------



## gaucho

Blatter is an idiot, hes trying to take the 2014 World Cup out of Brazil or even South America.

If South Africa for example can do it, why we cant? Brazil is bigger, has more cities, football is way more popular and the country is richer aswell. Argentina, Chile and Mexico are pratically on the same level of Brazil and those countries populations are smaller and they dont have as many cities as Brazil has to host the matchs.

What Blatter wants? Maybe he wants us to start building everything before we know if we are really gonna host it...


----------



## Noostairz

invincible said:


> We don't even have cities (or civilisation for that matter) spread out across the country, let alone stadiums.


correct. there are very few countries who haven't had it recently who could host it at such short notice: england (last had it in 66), italia (90), espana (82)... even those countries would have to rush the odd expansion here and there.


----------



## Noostairz

Rexfan2 said:


> That means nothing


it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!? 

watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!

the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.


----------



## sydney_lad

edennewstairs said:


> it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?
> 
> watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!
> 
> the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.


Don't worry. He doesnt know what he's talking about.


----------



## Noostairz

sydney_lad said:


> Don't worry. He doesnt know what he's talking about.


----------



## pompeyfan

edennewstairs said:


> it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?
> 
> watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!
> 
> the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.


You have never seen football played at these stadiums, have you? It is no further away from the sideline than the average soccer ground.


----------



## Noostairz

Rexfan2 said:


> You have never seen football played at these stadiums, have you? It is no further away from the sideline than the average soccer ground.


are you seriously trying to tell me that watching a football match at the MCG would be like watching a football match at, say, st james' park?


----------



## pompeyfan

having been to a soccer match between Australia and Uruguay at TS I was not very disappointed with the view from the back row.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne. The Southern Stand at the "G" is the same size of St. James to put it into perspective. 

The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.

When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible. 

The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan. 

The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!


----------



## Noostairz

BobDaBuilder said:


> The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne.
> 
> The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.
> 
> When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible.
> 
> The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan.
> 
> The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!


number one: the comparison was about the stands' proximity to the pitch rather than their capacity.

number two: english crowds are pretty quiet compared to aussie crowds!?

:hahaha:


----------



## victory

edennewstairs said:


> it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?
> 
> watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!
> 
> the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.



Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.


MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval 
Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval

Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.

There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.

Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval


There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).

With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.

If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.

I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.

A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

You couldn't afford to sit near the pitch anyway!


----------



## pompeyfan

BobDaBuilder said:


> The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne.
> 
> The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.
> 
> When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible.
> 
> The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan.
> 
> The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!


English crowds are passionate, but not as much as AFL crowds


----------



## pompeyfan

victory said:


> Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.
> 
> 
> MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval
> Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
> Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
> Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
> AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
> Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval
> 
> Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.
> 
> There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.
> 
> Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
> Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
> Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
> Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
> Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
> WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
> Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
> Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval
> 
> 
> There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).
> 
> With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.
> 
> If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.
> 
> I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.
> 
> A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.


Then there is the two new stadiums to be built which could expand


----------



## Noostairz

victory said:


> Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.
> 
> 
> MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval
> Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
> Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
> Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
> AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
> Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval
> 
> Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.
> 
> There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.
> 
> Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
> Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
> Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
> Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
> Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
> WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
> Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
> Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval
> 
> 
> There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).
> 
> With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.
> 
> If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.
> 
> I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.
> 
> A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.


thanks for your intelligent and informative post, victory.  interesting reading. goes to show that australia could potentially host a world cup one day, and a very good world it'd be i'm sure.

are there any problems regarding AFL stadiums and the fact that the world cup would be held during european summer months? would this conflict with the AFL season in oz?


----------



## victory

> English crowds are passionate, but not as much as AFL crowds


You kidding me. AFL crowds suck.

If you want a real atmosphere catch the Melbourne Victory next A-League season.

After just 1 season (and a very bad one on the pitch) the Victory fans are more loud, passionate, and involved than most AFL fans after over 100 years of competition.

Soccer crowds are much more passionate than AFL corwds (in the stadium anyway).

A-League and the FA EPL crowds would fall asleep sitting amongst the fans of a geelong v st kilda football match.


----------



## sydney_lad

If Australia were to put in a bid it would probably be....

*Sydney*

Sydney Football Stadium - 42,000 (soon to be 46,000)
Telstra Stadium - 83,000

*Melbourne*

MCG (Oval) - 110,000
New Rectangular Stadium - 25,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

*Brisbane*

Suncorp Stadium - 52,000

*Adelaide*

AAMI Stadium (Oval) - 51,000

*Perth*

Subiaco Oval - 42,000

They also have a rectangular ground that's around 20,000. Don't know if it could be upgraded or not.

*Newcastle*

Energy Australia Stadium - 26,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

*Canberra*

Canberra Stadium - 24,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

*Townsville*

Dairy Farmers Stadium - 21,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

*Gold Coast*

Getting a new rectangular stadium of around 25,000. I'd hope they'd build it with the option of upgrading it.

*Central Coast*

Central Coast Stadium - 20,000 (Could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

*Wollongong*

WIN Stadium - 20,000 (Could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

So it's not impossible.


----------



## pompeyfan

victory said:


> You kidding me. AFL crowds suck.
> 
> If you want a real atmosphere catch the Melbourne Victory next A-League season.
> 
> After just 1 season (and a very bad one on the pitch) the Victory fans are more loud, passionate, and involved than most AFL fans after over 100 years of competition.
> 
> Soccer crowds are much more passionate than AFL corwds (in the stadium anyway).
> 
> A-League and the FA EPL crowds would fall asleep sitting amongst the fans of a geelong v st kilda football match.


You put Essendon and Carlton together


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Just on the Aussie World Cup bid. Ron Walker, the boss of the Grand Prix in Melbourne and on countless boards in Oz and the UK(including the Oz FFA) said yesterday we WILL be going all out for a World Cup as they would like to stage a Cup down under before himself and Frank Lowy are sitting in wheelchairs.

Now that guy is the "Mr Fix It". If anyone has seen the film of the "Inside Man". Think that Jodie Foster character and that is Ron Walker.


----------



## london lad

The Game Is Up said:


> Ummm...sounds more like politics to me than anything else. I would not react either way. Bladder likes to read himself quoted in the newspapers often.
> 
> Brasil for 2014 is still the plan.



I agree- I think hes just trying to get Brazil to maybe get a move on with their stadiums as some I have been to are very decrepid & need massive rebuilding or renovating


----------



## MoreOrLess

gaucho said:


> Blatter is an idiot, hes trying to take the 2014 World Cup out of Brazil or even South America.
> 
> If South Africa for example can do it, why we cant? Brazil is bigger, has more cities, football is way more popular and the country is richer aswell. Argentina, Chile and Mexico are pratically on the same level of Brazil and those countries populations are smaller and they dont have as many cities as Brazil has to host the matchs.
> 
> What Blatter wants? Maybe he wants us to start building everything before we know if we are really gonna host it...


Its most likely just putting pressure on Brazil, however its often been rumoured that the only reason the rotation system was brought in was to garentee Africa a WC since Blatter was depending on their votes to remain FIFA president. I'm sure Blatter would love to have another world cup in the USA in the hope of building a rich footballing market to rival UEFA(notice no european nations were mentioned as alternative hosts) but I doubt he could get away with it politically. As an England fan I'd be very pissed off if any of those nations other than Australia got a second/third WC post 66 espeically since theres can be no excuse that we couldnt easly host one.

As to the Australian bid I wouldnt be supprized if they were allowed a little leway when it comes to only having two stadiums in one city, Portugal got away with two in Porto and Lisbon afterall(UEFA not FIFA I know).


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Where are these "rules" for how many stadiums you need to stage World Cups? I doubt they even exist. It is more than likely just conventions on how it was done in the past.

A place like England can say that Manchester and Liverpool are separate cities when they are practically one large urban sprawl. By that definition Sydney is roughly the size of half of England so they could have half the stadiums by itself.

Forget that crap about 6, 8 or 10 or more stadiums. It means nothing. There are no such rules from FIFA and if there were they can be easily altered.

I remember the 98 world cup and for some bizarre reason they had games at Parc des Princes rather than St. Denis. They lost 40,000 potential customers just for the sake of have "another" stadium.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I believe the "rules" are....

10+ 40,000 capacity
Two stadiums in only 1 city 
70,000+ capacity for final
Either 50,000+ or 60,000+ for semi's

I agree the number of stadiums per city rule would likely be abandoned as it suited FIFA. Generally the rules come less important if the host is desided within FIFA rather than though bidding aswell.


----------



## Tricky

1) I think Blatter is on drugs - he has his choleric moments where he just spits out abuses without thinking. He did the same during the preparation for this year's World Cup in Germany. Anyhow, for that reason, I don't believe he would really dare to take it away from Brazil. There is still plenty of time for Brazil to get their act together

2) I don't mind the Mexicans getting it again. I think 1986 was a great World Cup. There is a lot more passion for the game there than in the United States. So there is no way that the US would get it so early again after 1994.

3) As much as I'd like the World Cup to be staged here in Australia - I don't believe it will ever happen. How hard is it for all the teams and worldwide fans to come to Australia and criss-cross the continent? I mean, it would be a boon for the Aussie tourism industry, as thousands of fans would descend on the continent to watch their teams (and dare I say that they would spent more money than the average 'Olympic fan' in 2000 - football fans are die-hards that'd do anything to watch their team). 

In terms of marketability Australia has 2 really strong disadvantages:

1) only 20m population (remember: the USA got the 1994 WC mainly because of it's huge market). What would be the financial or promotional benefit for FIFA staging it Down Under?

2) Football (or soccer as they still call it here) is not even in the top 2 footy codes in Australia - AFL (Aussie Rules) and NRL (Rugby) being on top. Football must be ingrained as the passionate number 1 (or close 2nd) sport in Australia before FIFA would seriously consider giving it to Australia.

So, in a nutshell: I think Blatter uses scare-tactics. Brazil will get it for 2014, and Australia can dream of staging a World Cup in 2016 at the earliest.

Cheers.


----------



## victory

> - only 20m population (remember: the USA got the 1994 WC mainly because of it's huge market). What would be the financial or promotional gain for FIFA staging it Down Under?


One advantage would be te TV time slot into Asia. FIFA is looking to increase its support in Asia, and so having another World Cup in an asian convientiant time zone (and another AFC nation) would add to K/J-02 to build upon soccer-football's popularity.




> - Football (or soccer as they still call it here) is not even in the top 2 footy codes in Australia - AFL (Aussie Rules) and NRL (Rugby) being on top.


Yes. But the A-League had a terrifically successful inaugural season, and support is set to increase over the coming years.

And soccer is the #1 grassroots sport in the nation, most participation, once that is converted into commercial support things will develop even faster. And when all the kids who play today are older, they will be big spending fans.

In an ideal world, the AFL would die, and the A-League and NRL would walk over the ashes, but that is not going to happen unless they get support nation wide.


----------



## pompeyfan

Walbanger said:


> I agree with sydney lad. Lions vs anyone? You have no idea. If your a Queenslander, at least mention State of Origin for atmosphere. As for interstate AFL sides, well Subi holds the atmosphere in better than AAMI (too open) so West Coast is probably the loudest.


The State of Origin is quiet compared to a match like Brisbane v Essendon where 40k people scream their heads off when the Lions win.

As for State of Origin, in Queensland you're lucky to get 5000 screaming because the rest are QLD Fans. for those who don't know, QLD hasn't won a series in years.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^

Why did the IOC stage the Summer Games in OZ, why does the FIA hold Grand Prixs in Oz?

The simple reason is OZ is a wealthy nation. You could go and stage a World Cup in China but 90 per cent or more and VERY, VERY poor. They could not afford $100 a ticket. Not on your nelly.

Brazil is also a VERY, VERY poor nation by comparison to Australia.

If FIFA holds a Cup down here they will make a lot of money from sold out stadiums, paying top dollar for a ticket. Not heavily marked down prices you would have to have in places like South Africa, Brazil, China etc.. just so the locals can afford a ticket.

You gotta remember Oz is one of the few very fortunate nations in the World where people are relatively well off. There is only about 30 nations in the world like that.


----------



## pompeyfan

Australia also has the infastructure to host it


----------



## pompeyfan

Tricky said:


> 2) I don't mind the Mexicans getting it again. I think 1986 was a great World Cup. There is a lot more passion for the game there than in the United States. So there is no way that the US would get it so early again after 1994.


Mexico could not host the World Cup, The infastructure is not up to scratch


----------



## BobDaBuilder

It will all come down to lobbying.

What Oz could do to help its cause a heck of a lot is to get the A-League to grow bigger and bigger, host the World Club Cup and Asian Nations Champs.

We have staged World Youth Champs twice to packed houses, Olympics twice to HUGE attendances.

FIFA knows this all too well, especially after the Atlanta shimozzle, and would be keen for Oz to stage the Cup because they know we would do a pretty good job.

Note: The Rugby World Cup in 2003 was the biggest of all time and made incredible profits for the IRB and ARU.


----------



## pompeyfan

it is a matter of time


----------



## NavyBlue

BobDaBuilder said:


> If FIFA holds a Cup down here they will make a lot of money from sold out *stadiums*, paying top dollar for a ticket. Not heavily marked down prices you would have to have in places like South Africa, Brazil, China etc.. just so the locals can afford a ticket.


There lies the problem with a WC in Oz . . . stadiums or should I say the availability of stadiums. I believe the WC would have to be played in the middle of the AFL and Rugby League seasons. Do you expect these comps to just go into hibernation for a couple of months and aid a competitor? There are way too many contractual issues that have these stadiums tied to their respective football codes and I just don't see a way around it, unless we convince FIFA to hold the WC in October  I don't like the chances of that lol.

Apart from that issue, I have no doubt Australia would host a very successful tournament.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Who actually ownes the Telstra Dome and MCG? Unless its actually the AFL then surely it would make sense to shift everything into either of them and let the world cup use the other stadium?

As for smaller stadiums I'd say that Australia's best chance of getting the WC would be to build/expand alot of 40,000+ Soccer/Rugby specific stadiums in cities that don't currently have them(basically everywhere outside Sydney/Brisbane). The legacy for soccer is obviously going to be an important part if any Australian bid and I could see the WC itself boasting soccers popularity far more than it did in the US. I don't think theirs any country in the world that would make more effort into making sure they perform well in any major sporting event they host.

I could see distance being a problem though as you need at least two stadiums in order to host a group in a specific area, are western australia or the northern territories going to be able to come up with that?


----------



## Martuh

Aussie could never hold it. Not spreaded enough and mostly ovals.


----------



## ExSydney

A flyover and inside view!

MCG-100,000


















Telstra Stadium-83,500


















StadiumWA-70,000









Telstra Dome-56,000









Suncorp Stadium-53,000


















Sydney Football Stadium-43,000


----------



## victory

Martuh said:


> Aussie could never hold it. Not spreaded enough and mostly ovals.


Mostly ovals?

Only 3 would be ovals, which is fewer than many WC's have athletics tracks. And one of the ovals is bigger than any stadium in Europe.


----------



## ExSydney

Martuh said:


> Aussie could never hold it. Not spreaded enough and mostly ovals.


Not "speaded" enough???...

Perth-Sydney=4000kms

and more "ovals" in Germany 2006 than what Australia would propose.


----------



## Rev

ExSydney, is that stadiumWA actually going to be built?
What about Subiaco? Thats what, about 50k? AAMI stadium is about 52k.

I dont think stadiums are an issue. Stadiums can always be upgraded, seating reconfigured to bring the fans closer to the pitch, stadiums built. The issue is the world cup clashing with the other codes in my opinion.


----------



## MoreOrLess

NavyBlue said:


> What I don't understand is wtf does it matter what shape the stadiums are when most likely they'll be filled with Aussies anyway and people like yourself (along with billions of others) will be watching the tournament from home. How will a non rectangular stadium affect your TV viewing experience???
> 
> :bash:


As someone mentioned on the german world cup thread I don't think the views are actually that important during the world cup, its such a big event it will attract crowds anyway. Whats important(at least to FIFA) is that the world cup leave some kind of legacy for soccer in Australia, if your just using ovals soccer clubs will most likely not have access to them and even if they do the poor views become much more important when your trying to attract people to league games week in week out.

I wouldnt say that Brazil have done "nothing" as far as planning goes, there have been renders for a few new stadiums but we've heard nothing in the way of capacities of possible number of venues.


----------



## pompeyfan

it's true


----------



## JAKJ

sydney_lad said:


> :hahaha:
> 
> Most of the Aussies posting in this thread have no fucking idea what they're talking about. Don't worry.
> 
> The sheer idiocy of some of the posts is doing my fucking head in :bash:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what part of the country.
> 
> The southern states get pretty bloody cold, around Sydney it's not too bad and as you go up northern NSW and Queensland it's pretty bloody nice.
> 
> I assume Perth would be pretty nice too.



I think that is a relative term, "cold" it wouldn't be called considering most of the European leagues play matches in 0 degree weather at some point in their seasons. In June Adelaide is around 18 max 10 min, and Melbourne isn't that much colder so I think we will be alright


----------



## pompeyfan

JAKJ said:


> I think that is a relative term, "cold" it wouldn't be called considering most of the European leagues play matches in 0 degree weather at some point in their seasons. In June Adelaide is around 18 max 10 min, and Melbourne isn't that much colder so I think we will be alright


You're Lucky. Queensland is lucky to get 18 degrees as a minimum for half of winter.


----------



## MoreOrLess

JAKJ said:


> I think that is a relative term, "cold" it wouldn't be called considering most of the European leagues play matches in 0 degree weather at some point in their seasons. In June Adelaide is around 18 max 10 min, and Melbourne isn't that much colder so I think we will be alright


Indeed, the climate in Australia in June would actually be far more suitable for games than most world cups have been.


----------



## Macca-GC

I think Australia COULD do it. But not in 2014. That's too soon and we don't have the facilities. We really only have five suitable stadiums on hand.

Telstra Stadium(West Sydney)
Aussie Stadium(Sydney)
MCG(Melbourne)
Telstra Dome(Melbourne)
Suncorp Stadium(Brisbane)

Upgradable stadiums would be

Bruce Stadium(Canberra--Having games in the national capital would be good anyway. Also used for the ACT Brumbies(Rugby Union--RU) and the Canberra Raiders(Rugby League--RL))
Dairy Farmers Stadium(Townsville--Big post-World Cup use for the North Queensland Cowboys(RL) and possibly if the Queensland Reds(RU) or Queensland Roar(Soccer) decide to move some of their home games around Qld.)
EnergyAustralia Stadium(Newcastle--Again, big post-World Cup for the Newcastle Knights(RL) and possibly the NSW Waratahs(RU) or Newcastle Jets(Soccer))
Other possibilities include WIN Stadium(Woolongong)--Also used for St. George Illawara Dragons(RL)








*Note Western Stand(Left, red seats) is already planned for reconstruction, and will add another 5000 to the stadium's current capacityand stands on the hill in front of the beach wouldn't be too hard to construct. Upgrade the southern stand to mirror the north, and you've got yourself a good stadium.
Members Equity Stadium(Perth)--Easily Upgradable--Used for the Western Force(RU) and Perth Glory(Soccer)









So that's a total of 10 stadiums



Its AlL gUUd said:


> BTW wots the weather lik in oz during June July.


Well, if you were in Melbourne @ the MCG or Telstra Dome or if you were at and upgraded Bruce Stadium in Canberra, you'd be freezing your ass off. Sydney and Brisbane aren't that bad. Oh, and if you were at an upgraded Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville, Far North Queensland's winter = Europe/USA summer.


----------



## invincible

Hey, be glad that at least the MCG's stands now have a roof instead of being totally out in the open, and the windswept Waverley Park has been demolished.


----------



## MoreOrLess

edennewstairs said:


> it is not necessarily someone elses turn. it is the potential turn of any country that can meet all the necessary prerequisites. if that country is a new host, fantastic, if not, it's irrelevant that they've hosted the thing before. the most important thing is that they can host it to the standards demanded by fifa and the international footballing community (and rightly so).


Ironically the increases in size to let more nationals take part in the WC has also drastically reduced the number of countries able to host it. Most nations can support a big national stadium and a few other large ones for the dominate club sides but very few can come up with 10-12 40,000+ venues.

Its not as if the past history of hostes has no effect on the choices though. The lack of a previous African host clearly lead to SA hosting in 2010 and the fact Brazil havent hosted since 1950 clearly makes them the frontrunners for 2014, even the Germans can claim this is the first time a unified Germany has hosted it. Similarly I don't think the USA hosting twice in 20 years or the Mexicans 3 times in 44 years could get enough support for Blatter to push it though. The only way the former would get 2014 IMHO is if the Brazilians were awarded it then had to pull out a la Columbia in 1986 and even then England or Spain would be more obvious hosts with stadiums ready prepaired.

I still think that in general we might be seeing a shift back to mainly established leagues post 2010. With the USA, Korea/Japan and SA FIFA were clearly trying to open new markets outside of UEFA but IMHO at the cost of the World Cups credability in many fans eyes. As the Champs league and European Championships(which also diverts the smaller european nations away from trying to host the WC) gain on the World Cup in terms of popularity FIFA return to hosts like Brazil and England would do much to remedy that IMHO.


----------



## Martuh

*WC 2014 / 2018?*

Who would it be? 2014 is Brazil / Oz / Canada.

But 2018?
UK & Ireland? Spain & Portugal? Italy?

*UK & Ireland*
Wembley - 90.000
Croke - 83.000
Twickenham - 82.000
Old Trafford - 76.000
Millennium - 75.000
Murray - 67.500
Celtic Park - 60.506
New Arsenal - 60.000
New Anfield - 60.000
St. James - 53.000
Hampden - 51.000
Ibrox - 50.000
Stadium of Light - 49.000
City of Manchester - 48.000
Villa Park - 43.000
Stamford Bridge - 42.000
Goodison - 40.000
Elland Road - 40.000

*Spain & Portugal*
Nou Camp - 98.000
Bernabeu - 80.000
La Cortuja - 72.000
Da Luz - 66.000
Vicente Calderon - 58.000
Ruiz de Lopera - 56.000
Lluís Companys - 56.000
Sánchez Pizjuán - 55.000
Mestalla - 53.000
José Alvalade - 50.000
Do Dragão - 50.000
San Mamés - 40.000

*Italy*
San Siro - 86.000
Olimpico - 82.000
San Paolo - 78.000
Delle Alpi - 71.000
San Nicola - 58.000
Artemio Franchi - 47.000
San Filippo - 43.000
Friuli - 42.000
Luigi Ferraris - 42.000
Marc'Antonio Bentegodi - 42.000
Renato dall'Ara - 40.000
Sant'Elia - 40.000
(most of Italian need fierce renovations though)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Rexfan2 said:


> So you are saying this about THE Olympics too, which have temporary seating as well


I really didn't want to say this but it does sound that u do not know alot about football, This is THE WORLD CUP not the Olympics, probably not ur fault though as Football is not the most popular sport in oz also the lack of qualifying makes it harder for aussies to understand the importance and tradition of the world cup.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Are u insane u cant have 5 football nations hosting the WC: ala UK & Eire.

I would say definately *England*, they would be the most prepared in my opinion, stadium wise. Spain probably the biggest threat, but they need a hell of a lot of work on their stadia, remeber all seats need to be under a roof.


----------



## PapaiNoel

^^ hahahhahaa that's true. Anyway, i guess it's time to England host a WC again. England or Spain.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

*Host for 2018 WC?*

Which european country should host the World Cup in 2018?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

I'll start, deffo England, its about time!!!


----------



## Lostboy

UK and Ireland is a bloody stupid idea. Why should we have to do any kind of a joint bid with any other country? England can host it alone, without the Celtic Menace.


----------



## Martuh

Brazil:

Rio de Janeiro - Jornalista Mário Filho (Maracanã) - 103.000
Belo Horizonte - Estádio Magalhães Pinto - 82.000
São Paolo - Cícero Pompeu de Toledo - 80.000
São Luís - Estádio João Castelo - 75.000
Uberlândia - Estádio João Havelange - 72.000
Fortaleza - Estádio Plácido Castelo - 69.000
Salvador - Estádio Octávio Mangabeira - 66.000
Recife - José do Rego Maciel - 66.000
Teresina - Governador Alberto Silva - 60.000
P. Prudente - Eduardo José Farah - 58.000
Porto Alegre - José Pinheiro Borda - 58.000
Curitiba - Major Antônio Couto Pereira - 57.000
S.J. Rio Preto - Estádio Benedito Teixeira - 55.000
Belém - Olímpico Edgard Proença - 55.000
Goiânia - Estádio Serra Dourada - 54.000
Porto Alegre - Olímpico Monumental - 51.000
Ribeirão Preto - Estádio Santa Cruz - 50.000
Uberaba - Estádio João Guido - 50.000
Varginha - Estádio Dilzon Melo - 50.000
Cuiabá - Governador José Fragelli - 47.000
Recife - Ademar da Costa Carvalho - 46.000
Brasília - Estádio Mané Garrincha - 45.000
Maceió - Estádio Rei Pelé - 45.000
Curitiba - Centro Poliesportivo Pinheiro - 45.000
Londrina - Estádio Jacy Scaff - 45.000
João Pessoa - J. Américo de Almeida Filho - 45.000
Campina Grande - Governador Ernami Satiro - 45.000
Campo Grande - Universitário P. Pedrossian - 45.000
Manaus - Estádio Vivaldo Lima - 43.000
Limeira - José Levy Sobrinho - 40.000

Wow.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ capacity isn't everything. particularly looking at those stadia, this is definately the case!


----------



## persian

Why european?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Fifa's rotation policy?


----------



## Quorn

persian said:


> Why european?


all world cups should be in europe. sharing it around da world iz all nice an' pimp-tight an' fair but da reality iz it makes fo' poor world cups. The last decent wc outside uh europe wuz Mexico 70. dere will never be another one just like mammy.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ Well i dont think that they al should be in Europe but at least every third rotation should be in Europe, fifa should not stay so strictly with this rotation policy as europe deserves more.


----------



## Martuh

I know.

Btw; I don't see when Australia coulnd't host it, why China couldn't. They've got the capacity. All modern stadiums. Politics and sports shouldn't be woven but kept apart.

Beijing - Olympic - 90.000
Guangzhou - Guandong Stadium - 80.000
Shanghai - Shanghai Stadium - 80.000
Beijing - Workers Stadium - 72.000
Shenyang - Wulihe Stadium - 65.000
Wuhan - Wuhan Stadium - 60.000
Guangzhou - Tianhe Stadium - 60.000
Qingdao - Yizhong Center - 60.000
Chonqing - Olympic Sports Centre - 57.000
Dalian - People's Stadium - 55.000
Shenyang - Shenyang Sports Center - 55.000
Changsha - Helong Stadium - 55.000
Xi'an - Jiaodaruisun Stadium - 51.000
Hangzhou - Huanglong Stadium - 48.000
Jinan - Shandong Stadium - 44.000
Qingdao - Hongchen Stadium - 40.000
Chengdu - Sichuan Stadium - 40.000
Shaoguan - Shaoguan City Stadium - 40.000
Beijing - Olympic Sports Centre - 40.000
Kunming - Tuodong Stadium - 40.000
Lanzhou - Qilihe Stadium - 40.000
Chengdu - Chengdu Sports Center - 40.000
Hong Kong - Hong Kong Stadium - 40.000

Yeah, I like lists. Sue me.


----------



## Q-TIP

Quorn said:


> all world cups should be in europe. sharing it around da world iz all nice an' pimp-tight an' fair but da reality iz it makes fo' poor world cups. The last decent wc outside uh europe wuz Mexico 70. dere will never be another one just like mammy.


Please complete school before your next post.


----------



## Martuh

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=338948


----------



## Q-TIP

I am not sure if Europe gets it again until 2022. 

Asia/Oceania - 2002
Europe - 2006
Africa - 2010
Americas - 2014
Asia/Oceania - 2018?
Europe - 2022?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ sorry mate that thread is just ridiculous, at least this one is more realistic and has a poll (directed at Martuh)


----------



## Quorn

but if we's gots it in places like australia or south america or da states we's gots ta put up wiff silly smoke off times not ta mention poor stadiums an' great distances fo' da fans ta travel ta. if da wc wuz every 2 years then sure we's could spread it around uh bit mo' but every 4 years iz not very often so it has ta be done correctly an' dat means playing da games in decent stadiums at decent smoke off times wiff decent distances fo' da fans ta travel --EUROPE!!!!


----------



## Lostboy

Rotation system ends after 2014


----------



## Quorn

Q-TIP said:


> Please complete school before your next post.


car park iz 2 words dohhh!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Q-TIP said:


> I am not sure if Europe gets it again until 2022.
> 
> Asia/Oceania - 2002
> Europe - 2006
> Africa - 2010
> Americas - 2014
> Asia/Oceania - 2018?
> Europe - 2022?



Umm the general consensus is that it should or could be europe more often then other continents as there are alot more footballing nations in europe and are more prepared to host the world cup. also Europe is the Major continent for football, where traditions and cultures of football is kept alive, unlike certain others that i can mention (USA? JapanKorea?)


----------



## Dan1987

Quorn said:


> but if we's gots it in places like australia or south america or da states we's gots ta put up wiff silly smoke off times not ta mention poor stadiums an' great distances fo' da fans ta travel ta. if da wc wuz every 2 years then sure we's could spread it around uh bit mo' but every 4 years iz not very often so it has ta be done correctly an' dat means playing da games in decent stadiums at decent smoke off times wiff decent distances fo' da fans ta travel --EUROPE!!!!


Yu spake inglish veri gud yu kno???


Anyway, I think the 2018 World Cup should be in England, FIFA are ceasing their rotation policy after 2014, because without it Africa would have never got a world cup at all. The current FIFA boss says the 2018 World Cup should be in England as it is 'the home of football'


----------



## ExSydney

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I really didn't want to say this but it does sound that u do not know alot about football, This is THE WORLD CUP not the Olympics, probably not ur fault though as Football is not the most popular sport in oz also the lack of qualifying makes it harder for aussies to understand the importance and tradition of the world cup.


Japan/Korea 2002 used temporary seating for some of their WC Stadia....


----------



## Quorn

Dan1987 said:


> The current FIFA boss says the 2018 World Cup should be in England as it is 'the home of football'


w0rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MoreOrLess

In China's case I'd guess there would be no shortage of funds to build new stadia if needed.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

ExSydney said:


> Japan/Korea 2002 used temporary seating for some of their WC Stadia....


Yeah and wot a legacy that left. NOT! 

the main problem i have is that i think countries that want to host a world cup need to first establish football as a major sport in their country and not use the world cup to do this, cos the tournament then looses its true identity(USA?)

Hopefully Germany will show what the world cup is really about as most european countries have the passion instilled into them.


----------



## ExSydney

MoreOrLess said:


> Indeed, the climate in Australia in June would actually be far more suitable for games than most world cups have been.


True..Brisbane,Sydney and Perth in the middle of "winter"(June/July) would have a similar climate to a German or English Summer.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Dan1987 said:


> Yu spake inglish veri gud yu kno???
> 
> 
> Anyway, I think the 2018 World Cup should be in England, FIFA are ceasing their rotation policy after 2014, because without it Africa would have never got a world cup at all. The current FIFA boss says the 2018 World Cup should be in England as it is 'the home of football'


Ur not talkin bout sepp blatter are u? Then were dooooomed!!


----------



## Q-TIP

Lostboy said:


> Rotation system ends after 2014


Really? In that case my best chances of watching future WC football games will not be in Australia!


----------



## Quorn

ExSydney said:


> True..Brisbane,Sydney and Perth in the middle of "winter"(June/July) would have a similar climate to a German or English Summer.


sydney average temp in july iz 54 degrees

http://www.auinfo.com/sydney-climate.html

london average temp in july iz 72 degrees

http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/UKXX0085

ya iz jivin' out o' yo' ass Ya' dig?


----------



## ExSydney

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Yeah and wot a legacy that left. NOT!
> 
> the main problem i have is that i think countries that want to host a world cup need to first establish football as a major sport in their country and not use the world cup to do this, cos the tournament then looses its true identity(USA?)
> 
> Hopefully Germany will show what the world cup is really about as most european countries have the passion instilled into them.


The average attendance at the Australian A-League is higher than the premier national leagues of
-Portugal
-Belgium
-Russia
-Sweden
-Korea
-Norway
-Denmark
-China
-Romania
-Greece
-Switzerland
and most Euro Leagues except obviously the big ones(England,Spain,Italy,Germany etc)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ i don't know wot that proves

Just have a look at past world cups. most of the european ones were the ones which stand out apart from Mexico probably.


----------



## Lostboy

No, I don't really think Australia has a strong chance of hosting the World Cup for a fair bit yet, maybe when she's bumped her population up a bit.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ i just don't know bout austrailia, it just to me looks like all the international sport events that they host (and host them very well) all end up very similar and there isn't the difference of an X factor in them. I dont want the world cup to be seen as a another 'thing' for the aussies to host.


----------



## ExSydney

Quorn said:


> sydney average temp in july iz 54 degrees
> 
> http://www.auinfo.com/sydney-climate.html
> 
> london average temp in july iz 72 degrees
> 
> http://uk.weather.com/weather/climatology/UKXX0085
> 
> ya iz jivin' out o' yo' ass Ya' dig?


You compared Sydney's AVE temp to Londons AVE MAX temp! ..Londons ave temp is not 72 deg,but 60degF.......its ave MAX temp is 72...Ave max temp in Sydney in winter is around 65degf

London is still warmer in summer than Sydney in winter.....but I was more thinking Brisbane compared to London and Sydney to Manchester......
Not a huge difference!!


----------



## ExSydney

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ i don't know wot that proves
> 
> Just have a look at past world cups. most of the european ones were the ones which stand out apart from Mexico probably.


It probably doesnt prove much,but you keep pointing to a fact that Football is not popular in australia,because it isnt the No1 sport....
Even at no4 in this country,its more popular than many of you think..


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Well, if the question is, could Australia host a world cup in 2014?...yes, I think they could, but they'd still need quite a lot of stadium work done, and the weather might be a bit against them. But, if the quetion is, do you they they will host it in 2014?...then I think no! The point here is that Australia is standing by as a back-up option, if South America fails, and even then they might consider USA over Aussie.

But either way, it makes no difference, they can all fight it out for 2014, as long as 2018 goes to England!!! 

:cheers:


----------



## Noostairz

issues, in my opinion, that australia has to confront before it launches a world cup bid:

- there is a need for more 40,000+ stadiums in alternative locations to the ones currently available.
- there is a perceived over-reliance on cricket grounds, as opposed to purpose-built stadia.
- there is a possible conflict with domestic sports seasons which might affect stadia availability.
- possible domestic disinterest in the event?
- your beer is rubbish.


----------



## Noostairz

Barude said:


> ^^ hahahhahaa that's true. Anyway, i guess it's time to England host a WC again.


well said. you have our support for 2014.


----------



## Noostairz

Lostboy said:


> UK and Ireland is a bloody stupid idea. Why should we have to do any kind of a joint bid with any other country? England can host it alone, without *the Celtic Menace*.


:lol: correct!


----------



## Quorn

edennewstairs said:


> issues, in my opinion, that australia has to confront before it launches a world cup bid:
> 
> - there is a need for more 40,000+ stadiums in alternative locations to the ones currently available.
> - there is a perceived over-reliance on cricket grounds, as opposed to purpose-built stadia.
> - there is a possible conflict with domestic sports seasons which might affect stadia availability.
> - possible domestic disinterest in the event?
> - your beer is rubbish.


da bomb colt 45 in da world iz australian Ya' dig? 


http://www.surf4wine.co.uk/Carlton_Cold.html


----------



## Kampflamm

Shouldn't it be Asia's turn again in 2018?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Why have you put UK and Ireland, and Spain and Portugal together?????? That's just dam crazy! For starters, you'd never ever get a 5 country bid as ure suggesting with the UK and Ireland! The bids would be England, or Spain, cus neither would really need a partner country to co-host the event. England is looking the most likely option, cus they are nearly ready to host a World Cup right now, even without the big build that comes with a World Wup bid.

:cheers:


----------



## Noostairz

Kampflamm said:


> Shouldn't it be Asia's turn again in 2018?


no. next question.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Quorn said:


> da bomb colt 45 in da world iz australian Ya' dig?
> 
> 
> http://www.surf4wine.co.uk/Carlton_Cold.html


k?


----------



## ExSydney

- there is a need for more 40,000+ stadiums in alternative locations to the ones currently available.

No doubt.....Canberra,Newcastle,Townsville would need to upgrade and Perth and Adelaide need to go from scratch.If this was acheived,we would have 19 Stadiums in 8 cities.....Fine!

- there is a perceived over-reliance on cricket grounds, as opposed to purpose-built stadia.

As above....therefore only 1 Cricket venue used...the 100,000 capacity MCG..


- there is a possible conflict with domestic sports seasons which might affect stadia availability.

AFL will get over it..

- possible domestic disinterest in the event?

you are kidding??..No chance of that!!..WC final of 2002 was the highest watch sporting event on Australian TV in 2002.Australia v Uruguay in 2005 WC playoff was attended by 85,000 people watched by )nearly)as many that watch the AFL or NRL Grand Final!



- your beer is rubbish.
ummmmmmm........no comment! LOL


----------



## Kampflamm

edennewstairs said:


> no. next question.


Why? 06 Europe, 10 Africa, 14 South America...18 _____? What's the point in having this rotating system if it's not used?


----------



## Kampflamm

Anyway, it'll probably be England's turn (although they stabbed us in the back for the 06 world cup). Spain hosted it in 82, England in 66 and I'd say England's got better venues to offer.


----------



## 2zanzibar

Kampflamm said:


> Why? 06 Europe, 10 Africa, 14 South America...18 _____? What's the point in having this rotating system if it's not used?


where in Asia do you think?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ Yer, I know what you mean there. Loads of events that Australia host these days are full of people saying 'it just proves we can host an amazing tournament'....and you just think Enough already! There is too much emphasis on it being a sporting 'event' for Australia to host, and trying to show to people how many great 'events' can be held there, instead of just getting on with the thing and and concentrating on the sport itself! But, having said that, I think Australia would host a pretty decent WC, someday in teh future, when there is more enthusiasm for football and the satdium situation has improed a bit more.

2018 has gotta go to England, no doubt! Did you know that these next two World Cups -South Africa and South Ameerica (poss) will be the first time in its history, that the World Cup has ever been held outside Europe twice in a row. So it's gotta go back to Europe in 2018, and especially to England, the home of football! 

:cheers:


----------



## Kampflamm

China. :dunno: The great thing about despotic regimes is that all the venues will be finished in time.


----------



## Boot Wheat

The winning nation should host it. If that means a smaller World Cup one year, then so be it.


----------



## NFLeuropefan

Just wondering what you think of this. How about having a single elimination tournament where the better seeded team hosts the game, but no single country hosts the tournament....... Kind of the like playoffs in the US.... That's a view from a person with very little knowledge of the World Cup.......


----------



## Shumbi

I dont think Australia should host 2018 world cup because as stated by others, it would mean 16 years for WC away from europe. So I say England 2018 but Australia should bid for 2022.
You shouldn't think of Australia as 20 million people because FIFA rightly sees it for all intensive purposes as part of Asia. In TV terms, when Australians are waking up at 3am to watch Germany06, so will the chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian fans. An Australian world cup would be in an ideal timezone to reach the east asian audience that holds so much potential for FIFA.


----------



## Zaki

Shumbi said:


> I dont think Australia should host 2018 world cup because as stated by others, it would mean 16 years for WC away from europe. So I say England 2018 but Australia should bid for 2022.
> You shouldn't think of Australia as 20 million people because FIFA rightly sees it for all intensive purposes as part of Asia. In TV terms, when Australians are waking up at 3am to watch Germany06, so will the chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian fans. An Australian world cup would be in an ideal timezone to reach the east asian audience that holds so much potential for FIFA.


Even though most of the world's population lives closer to Australia's time zone (contrary to what you euros might think) australia just doesn't seem right to me. It might be beacuse the nation itslef only has 20 million people and only a few large cities capable of sustaining 40 000+ stadiums.


----------



## Shumbi

Hears the deal Englanders. We'll support you lot for 2018 if yous promise to talk up Australia over China for 2022. Think of it as a protest if China haven't sorted out human rights abuses by then. Japanese/Koreans/Indians and others would be less reluctant to visit Australia than China which is hostile to Japan.
I think China would host a better World Cup the next time its Asias turn like 2034/2040 or something.
Also, by 2020, i think football will be probably number 2 code in Aust. We would take it seriously and give the game the centre stage it deserves.


----------



## victory

England for 2018!!!

It's been long enough, and they surely have the facilities and interest. The only problem could be England's soccer hoons, but they manage to go to every world cup wherever it is so that cannot be avoided anyway.


----------



## alesmarv

It would be nice if the 2018 world cup would be held in one of the ex eastern block countries, such as Czech republic, Slovakia, Poland, Ukrain, Rusia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria or a combination of two or more of these countries. These countries deserve it and I gurantee you would have a much better world cup than in say Germany or England. By the way I doubt North America will get a world cup anytime soon because part of the deal to get the 94 cup America had to set up a Soccer league(MLS), unfourtunetly this league is not doing so well and has never turned a profit.


----------



## Boot Wheat

alesmarv said:


> It would be nice if the 2018 world cup would be held in one of the ex eastern block countries, such as Czech republic, Slovakia, Poland, Ukrain, Rusia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria or a combination of two or more of these countries. These countries deserve it and I gurantee you would have a much better world cup than in say Germany or England. By the way I doubt North America will get a world cup anytime soon because part of the deal to get the 94 cup America had to set up a Soccer league(MLS), unfourtunetly this league is not doing so well and has never turned a profit.


The World Cup is supposed to be fun for the fans! I think I'd rather go and watch it in Iraq than any of those godforsaken grey and dreary hell holes.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^

At least Iraq has plenty of sun. Those Eastern European nations do have a disproportionate amount of incredibly attractive women, or maybe I had too much of the local brews whilst visiting!


----------



## MoreOrLess

alesmarv said:


> It would be nice if the 2018 world cup would be held in one of the ex eastern block countries, such as *Czech republic, Slovakia, Poland, Ukrain, Rusia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria * or a combination of two or more of these countries. These countries deserve it and I gurantee you would have a much better world cup than in say Germany or England. By the way I doubt North America will get a world cup anytime soon because part of the deal to get the 94 cup America had to set up a Soccer league(MLS), unfourtunetly this league is not doing so well and has never turned a profit.


I doubt we'll see that(well maybe Russia) as those nations can also go for the european championships which are much more inline with their resources when it comes to stadiums.


----------



## Noostairz

Shumbi said:


> Hears the deal Englanders. We'll support you lot for 2018 if yous promise to talk up Australia over China for 2022. Think of it as a protest if China haven't sorted out human rights abuses by then.


you have yourself a deal, my friend. let the former members of the british empire vote in unison to ensure the delivery of this great footballing event throughout our commonwealth. kay:


----------



## Wizard04

Martuh said:


> Greece doesn't have a chance, can't even host a EC. UK would be good, better then England because of more and bigger stadiums.



Greece hosted the Olympic games which is a huge event but as we don't have so many big stadiums and mostly because we don't need them, I'd vote for Spain which is a very nice country with warn and sunny weather and foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre.


----------



## Lostboy

I agree, I can't imagine the World Cup being hosted in Greece - just not got a big enough league and population, besides Basketball is almost as big as Football there, if my understanding is right? You did however host a superb Olympics, I wish it came to Greece more often.


----------



## Boot Wheat

Lostboy said:


> I agree, I can't imagine the World Cup being hosted in Greece - just not got a big enough league and population, besides Basketball is almost as big as Football there, if my understanding is right? You did however host a superb Olympics, I wish it came to Greece more often.


Oh yes let's let the wonderful Greeks hold more Olympics so that these idiots can poison all the strays and send gangs around with iron bars to break their backs leaving these dogs to endure slow, painful deaths. The Greeks should never be allowed to host an Olympics ever again. In fact, they should be banned from competing for the next 50 years as punishment. Scum.



> THOUSANDS of cats and dogs have died agonising deaths from poisoning on the streets and beach fronts of Athens in the run-up to the Summer Olympics


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...gs11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixworld.html

http://www.moggies.co.uk/articles/2003/greek_tragedy.html

http://www.idausa.org/athens/Athens_Dogs_Cats_NE.jpg


----------



## Madman

^right Bubomb....

anyway it better be England for 2018 as we deserve it more than any other European nation and i'll cry if we don't (i dont want to be an old has been when they do finally reach our shore!).


----------



## Lostboy

I think we have a very good chance of getting it, and I know you were only joking, but I think our biggest fallback is the way we automatically think we're entitled to it, just because we invented the game, and its been a while since we've hosted it. We'll need to have a better bid than Spain if we're going to get it. Emotional claims to being the "home of football" (when at the same time we make the boast of it being the "world's sport) really isn't going to do anything for any of the FIFA Delegates voting. 

We've got other excellent reasons for hosting it, better to play on these.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Shumbi said:


> Hears the deal Englanders. We'll support you lot for 2018 if yous promise to talk up Australia over China for 2022. Think of it as a protest if China haven't sorted out human rights abuses by then. Japanese/Koreans/Indians and others would be less reluctant to visit Australia than China which is hostile to Japan.
> I think China would host a better World Cup the next time its Asias turn like 2034/2040 or something.
> Also, by 2020, i think football will be probably number 2 code in Aust. We would take it seriously and give the game the centre stage it deserves.


Thats fine by me


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Wizard04 said:


> I'd vote for Spain which is a very nice country with warn and sunny weather and foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre.


Spain is deffinitely not foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre! England, despite it's very unpredictable climate and weather conditions, is far more suited to holding sporting events then Spain, for lots of deifferent reasons, such as bigger budgets, better organisation, more support, higher number of higher quality stadiums, and a severe lack of racist football supporters when compared to Spain. I don't have anything against Spain here btw, I'm just stating the facts of the matter.

:cheers:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ I wouldn't crticise them soo heavily, i just think their stadia ain't good enough


----------



## Boot Wheat

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Spain is deffinitely not foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre! England, despite it's very unpredictable climate and weather conditions, is far more suited to holding sporting events then Spain, for lots of deifferent reasons, such as bigger budgets, better organisation, more support, higher number of higher quality stadiums, and a severe lack of racist football supporters when compared to Spain. I don't have anything against Spain here btw, I'm just stating the facts of the matter.
> 
> :cheers:


The weather in England is far superior to that of Spain (or anywhere else in the world come to that) with regards football. It's perfect for it.


----------



## AcesHigh

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ capacity isn't everything. particularly looking at those stadia, this is definately the case!


most of them were built 50 years ago, and they were pretty good for the time. its obvious that new stadiums will have to be built for the WC. CBF WANTS new stadiums, and thats exactly why Blatter is already criticizing Brazil a long time before any official proposal is made, so CBF get support from the media and governent to build new stadiums!


----------



## AcesHigh

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Oh, okay a Brazilian politician says that everything is working perfectly.
> 
> Personally I would not even believe an Australian, American or a British politician and they are borderline honest some of the time.



Ricardo Teixeira is not a POLITICIAN. He is the president of the CBF, Brazil´s Football Confederation (Confederação Brasileira de Futebol). 

Brazil has 27 state football federations, and the national confederation. (that happens because Brazil has over 500 PROFESSIONAL football clubs)


----------



## AcesHigh

edennewstairs said:


> have you been to a game in south america recently?


there are no NATION TEAM hooligans in South America. Only club hooligans.


----------



## AcesHigh

Kampflamm said:


> And in Brazil the mothers of famous players are regularly kidnapped. :|


1- they are not REGULARLY kidnapped. There were like 3 cases. 
2- they are not kidnapped by hooligans from another clubs. They are kidnapped by normal criminals who wanted the players MONEY...


----------



## pompeyfan

AcesHigh said:


> yes, and hosting a WC is the perfect excuse to build new ones.
> 
> The only modern stadium in Brazil right now is Arena da Baixada, in Curitiba.


Very True


----------



## The Game Is Up

Interesting points made. 

Assuming that they have a ground-building programme in the works, it would be interesting what the capacities would be. I would think that in the largest cities they can still have a capacity well above 85,000 people, even when considering the insane ticketing policies FIFA likes to institute. This is just a guess but I think we'd see something along the line of...

(Capacity after allocated tickets to the FIFA family and safety in parentheses)
SP - 90,000 (80,000)
Rio - 90,000 (80,000)
Belo - 70,000+ (60,000)
Manaus - 40,000 (32,000)
Curitiba - 40-50,000 (35,000)
Salvador - 40,000 (32,000)
Fortaleza - 50,000 (40,000)
Brasilia - 60,000 (49,000)
PoA - 70,000+ (61,000)

Many of these are going to be smaller to reflect the economic reality of the game.


----------



## Durbsboi

I think Kazakstan should host it. Borrat & the boys should do a great job!


----------



## MoreOrLess

The Game Is Up said:


> Many of these are going to be smaller to reflect the economic reality of the game.


I'd guess thats going to be the problem if there is one, unlike Germany Brazilian clubs are not rich enough to build the stadia themselves and unlike Japan the goverment might not be rich enough to either.


----------



## Danger! 50000 volts

> Originally posted by *Lostboy*
> _Englishman had disgraced our name by going on drunken rampages in the very Flemish Towns that their great-grandfathers had died to protect the safety of._


Couldn't have put it better mate. I don't know why these fucking dickheads exist cos if it wern't for these losers, the English would have such a better reputation abroad. I've had people from Turkey to Thailand quiz me about English football hooliganism whenever they see me in a football strip. Why do these ***** spoil the game for everyone else anyway, can't they just kill each other in one big blood bowl. They are a fuckin disgrace to our nation, and to the beautiful game.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Danger! 50 said:


> Couldn't have put it better mate. I don't know why these fucking dickheads exist cos if it wern't for these losers, the English would have such a better reputation abroad. I've had people from Turkey to Thailand quiz me about English football hooliganism whenever they see me in a football strip. Why do these ***** spoil the game for everyone else anyway, can't they just kill each other in one big blood bowl. They are a fuckin disgrace to our nation, and to the beautiful game.


Totally agree. It's a small minority that give the large majority a bad name! Thankfully though, football hooliganism has died down in recent years in England, but we'll have to wait for the world cup to see what the situation is really like. At least we don't have the racist cretins that make up a part of the Spanish crowd, or the fashist idiots from Italy!


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> No it was because just before the decision had been made, Englishman had disgraced our name by going on drunken rampages in the very Flemish Towns that their great-grandfathers had died to protect the safety of.
> 
> If I'd been a FIFA Delegate I'd have voted for Germany.


That made sure we had no chance but everything I'v heard since seems to point to the German already having much more support even before that. The fact the final is in Berlin and a couple of stadiums in the east(one of which isnt that good and the other a possible white elephant) certainly point to a united Germany hosting being a selling point.


----------



## AcesHigh

2014 - South America (Brazil)
2018 - Europe (England)
2022 - Europe (Spain or Netherlands)


----------



## Quintana

The Dutch and Belgian FA's are currently investigating the possibility to launch a joint bid for 2018. I don't give them a chance in hell right now but we'll see how it developes.


----------



## CharlieP

AcesHigh said:


> 2014 - South America (Brazil)
> 2018 - Europe (England)
> 2022 - Europe (Spain or Netherlands)


Impossible. Even before the recent concept of "rotation", there was already a rule that the same confederation could not host the World Cup twice in a row...


----------



## MoreOrLess

If we get 2018 I'd guess 2022 would be most likely to go to either China, Australia or the US again.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ NO not the USA!!!! AGAIN!!!


----------



## SkyLerm

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ do u want to clarify?


Yes, of course. You always talk as if you were the best country in the world, wich has all the best things, skyscrapers, sports venues, stadiums...and slate everything is outside of England or the UK. You boast about your wonderful stadiums and talk about the "Best Stadium in the World" as you call Wembley, a U/C ground that will be a Non-used Wonder, I mean only few games of the national team and few concerts, what's that, a waste of money for instance? Also you say in Italy are fascists and in Spain racists, but first you have to look to your Great Country and prevent the fucking hooligan jam. That's because I quoted, 'cause your patriotism hurts me.

@Its AlL gUUd: The reason because the other two are so near to Spain is 'cause Spain's a very very underrated country, but they don't know we are beginning to build our new era of stadia, around six between 40,000 and 75,000 spectators 

I'd say the country that will host 2018 WC is England because it hosted WC a long time ago, England deserves it...


----------



## OOOHH Shut that door

'Its AlL gUUd' is the KING of England/London fanboys, you just have to accept it!! He doesn't realise there is a big world outside of England (he was off school the day they taught Geography as he had a bad cold), so it is not really his fault! I have been trying to educate him, but it is proving difficult!

If Wembley consisted of Godzilla doing a big steaming turd, and the insides being scooped out to form a giant jobby stadium, then 'Its AlL gUUd' would still claim it was the 'best stadium in the world'!!! He would also claim Godzilla is in fact English and England is the home of mythical giant lizards!!


----------



## Kampflamm

Good to have you back, Bübömb.


----------



## aCidMinD81

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Spain is deffinitely not foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre! England, despite it's very unpredictable climate and weather conditions, is far more suited to holding sporting events then Spain, for lots of deifferent reasons, such as bigger budgets, better organisation, more support, higher number of higher quality stadiums, and a severe lack of racist football supporters when compared to Spain. I don't have anything against Spain here btw, I'm just stating the facts of the matter.
> 
> :cheers:


Hahahaha. You need to lift your ass from that chair and travel around, chicken little.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

OOOHH Shut that door said:


> 'Its AlL gUUd' is the KING of England/London fanboys, you just have to accept it!! He doesn't realise there is a big world outside of England (he was off school the day they taught Geography as he had a bad cold), so it is not really his fault! I have been trying to educate him, but it is proving difficult!
> 
> If Wembley consisted of Godzilla doing a big steaming turd, and the insides being scooped out to form a giant jobby stadium, then 'Its AlL gUUd' would still claim it was the 'best stadium in the world'!!! He would also claim Godzilla is in fact English and England is the home of mythical giant lizards!!


Bubomb, before u start writing ur b*llsh*it if u actually read the bleeding thread u would realise that he was referring to english people in general and i happen to be the one asking him to clarify his position which he tried to do.

and i never big anything up if it is not good enough so i really don't know what made u want to post up this crap that came out of ur ass.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

SkyLerm said:


> Yes, of course. You always talk as if you were the best country in the world, wich has all the best things, skyscrapers, sports venues, stadiums...and slate everything is outside of England or the UK. You boast about your wonderful stadiums and talk about the "Best Stadium in the World" as you call Wembley, a U/C ground that will be a Non-used Wonder, I mean only few games of the national team and few concerts, what's that, a waste of money for instance? Also you say in Italy are fascists and in Spain racists, but first you have to look to your Great Country and prevent the fucking hooligan jam. That's because I quoted, 'cause your patriotism hurts me.


when ur saying 'YOU' Thats not me ur talking about there are you? i would doubt that as i give credit where its due, i never said things about facists and racists, i think that was someone else.

about the hooligan thing, i thing hooliganism is far worse in countries such as Italy, Turkey, Poland and South America


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

aCidMinD81 said:


> Hahahaha. You need to lift your ass from that chair and travel around, chicken little.


I've been to countries on every continent (except Africa), so....what was your point again?? You could spend your whole life in a concrete dungeon with only a t.v and you'd still be able to relate to what I said in my earlier comment.

What exactly do you find wrong with my comment mate?? Oh, it said Spain wasn't the best at something...oh dear, that was rather bad of me wasn't it...

Lets take a look at what I said:

"Spain is deffinitely not foremost capable of hosting an event of this calibre!"
-true, and even you must acknowledge this. I'm not saying Spain couldn't host the WC, it most certainly can, but it is not FOREMOST capable when compared to countries like England. You only have to take a look at the poll to see who most people think is foremost capable of holding the WC in 2018.

"England, despite it's very unpredictable climate and weather conditions, is far more suited to holding sporting events then Spain, for lots of deifferent reasons, such as bigger budgets"
-Yes

"better organisation"
Deffinitely yes

"more support"
Well, this one might be close, I'm sure most of Spain would give their support for a WC so, who knows...

"higher number of higher quality stadiums"
yes, especially when these new stadiums are built, and there are plenty of plans for new and upgraded stadiums that will be implemented before 2018.

"and a severe lack of racist football supporters when compared to Spain"
When compared to Spain, YES. I'm not saying England doesn't have it's racists, but thanks to large campaigns, government help, lots of effort, and a good atmosphere in England, racism in English football has basically been wiped out, unlike in Spain, where I'm sad to say, it is still quite rampant.

So, what was it you objected to again....??

:cheers:


----------



## SkyLerm

^^What happen with hooliganism?
Also Spain has a lot of projects for new stadia.

"high number of high quality stadiums": Well, if you're talking about the new ones...But England haven't the superb legend stadiums


----------



## Mo Rush

is soccer more popular in melbourne or sydney?


----------



## Landos

In my opinion it would be a mistake to hold a WC in Australia. For one thing, it's in the southern hemisphere which is too far off the beaten track. When 90% of the worlds population lives in the northern hemisphere, why have an event of this much interest down there? Secondly, as we saw in the Sydney Olympics, the time zones are prohibitive for the majority of Television viewers. Again, when the most fervent football viewers are in Europe and north/south America, why have the event televised from a location which is anywhere from 6-13 time zones different?! Doesn't make sense to me.

Most TV viewers in America heard the Sydney Olympic results on the internet before they viewed them on TV. I rest my case.


----------



## Q-TIP

Australia has 3 different time zones, so it would not be a that much of a problem so supposedly 90% of the world. BTW time zones are longitudinal based. So East Asia/Australia have the same time zone. WC in Japan/Korea would be the same time zone as it were in Australia. You are forgetting that FIFA likes to spread the game to Asia, over 50% of the world population, so another WC in the region would likely go to Australia, but not until 2018 I feel, at least.


----------



## la bestia kuit

Brasil has to build & remodel stadiums and its infrastructure if they want to do it, and There is a lot of work to do.
Argentina has the 25% of this population living in buenos aires and the best stadiums are in Buenos Aires, all has to be remodel or improveed to be a world cup host, and a new stadium could be good, in the rest of the country, there is some big stadiums, but also the have to be remodel... a lot... this could cost an incredible amount of money, so I don´t know if Argentina is graet chance.

Argentina and chile??? :jippo:

Mexico, already host the 70 and 86 world cup

Chile alone? they just doesn´t have enouthg stadium and the rest are to little

To mi Australia is the best option, if it´s consider as an option, to the 2014 world cup

but I don´t want to wake up at 2am, to see the matchs again ¬¬


----------



## CharlieP

Q-TIP said:


> Australia has 3 different time zones.


It sometimes has more than that! In the middle of summer:

WA: UTC+8
NT: UTC+9.5
QLD: UTC+10
SA: UTC+10.5
ACT/NSW/TAS/VIC: UTC+11

Great fun when you're travelling interstate!


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Q-TIP said:


> You are forgetting that FIFA likes to spread the game to Asia, over 50% of the world population, so another WC in the region would likely go to Australia, but not until 2018 I feel, at least.


2018 is going to England I'm afraid mate, Australia will just have to wait its turn 

:cheers:


----------



## MoreOrLess

la bestia kuit said:


> Brasil has to build & remodel stadiums and its infrastructure if they want to do it, and There is a lot of work to do.
> Argentina has the 25% of this population living in buenos aires and the best stadiums are in Buenos Aires, all has to be remodel or improveed to be a world cup host, and a new stadium could be good, in the rest of the country, there is some big stadiums, but also the have to be remodel... a lot... this could cost an incredible amount of money, so I don´t know if Argentina is graet chance.
> 
> Argentina and chile??? :jippo:
> 
> Mexico, already host the 70 and 86 world cup
> 
> Chile alone? they just doesn´t have enouthg stadium and the rest are to little
> 
> To mi Australia is the best option, if it´s consider as an option, to the 2014 world cup
> 
> but I don´t want to wake up at 2am, to see the matchs again ¬¬


One option I'm suprpized hasnt been mentioned is a Brazil/Argentina co host although I spose you'd have to play second fiddle somewhat by letting them have the final. Still the memory of a WC is largely defined by what happen on the pitch, I'd guess people remember 2002 more for S.Korea than Japan for example. For both nations to come up with 5-6 new/revamped stadiums doesnt seem nearly as much of a problem and I doubt the other south american teams would mind losing a qualifing spot if they didnt have to get past either of you.


----------



## Golan Trevize

*Iberian World Cup - 2018*

Imagine a world cup staged in the Iberian Peninsula, in 2018 there will be a new airport in Lisbon, Barajas Airport expansion in Madrid will be also completed as is Porto's Airport. The TGV train linking the two countries will also be completed.

I think the host cities and stadiums should be:

Luz Stadium - Lisbon - Opening cerimonies and opening game - 65 000









Alvalade Stadium - Lisbon - 3rd and 4th place game - 50 000









Dragon Stadium - Porto - Semi-final - 50 000









Braga's Municipal Stadium - Braga - 40 000 (Temporary)









Cidade de Coimbra Stadium - Coimbra - 40 000 (Temporary)









Algarve's Stadium - Faro/Olhão - 40 000 (Temporary)









Santiago Bernabeu - Madrid - 80 000 - Final
[IMGhttp://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/madrid/madrid_santiago_bernabeu1.jpg[/IMG]

Nou Camp - Barcelona - 98 000 - Semi-Final









New Valencia's Stadium - Valencia - 72 000

Nueva Romareda - Zaragoza - 42 500









La Cartuja Stadium - Sevilla - 57 000









Gipuzkoarena - San Sebastian - 42 000


----------



## Aka

A World Cup in my country with the final being held in Madrid? No, thank you. In 1999 we asked Spain if they wanted to make a joint bid for the Euro 2004. They refused because they thought they would win it easily by themselves. You know what happened...


----------



## Golan Trevize

Yeah, but a world cup is something somewhat different from a Euro


----------



## MBV

AKA, SEGURO QUE NO FUE ASÍ..LO RARO ES QUE UN PAIS COMO EL TUYO LLEGUE AORGANIZAR ALGO MÁS ALLÁ DE UN CAMPEONATO DE MUS.., EN FIN, ESTOS PORTUGUESES....


----------



## Aka

Golan Trevize said:


> Yeah, but a world cup is something somewhat different from a Euro


Yeah? Why?


----------



## Aka

MBV said:


> AKA, SEGURO QUE NO FUE ASÍ..LO RARO ES QUE UN PAIS COMO EL TUYO LLEGUE AORGANIZAR ALGO MÁS ALLÁ DE UN CAMPEONATO DE MUS.., EN FIN, ESTOS PORTUGUESES....


Yes, it was.

If that's so, why were you unable to beat us?


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd guess that hosting 2018 will likely be a showdown between the English/UK and the Spainish/Iberians. With the number of stadiums being built in Spain right now though I'd question if they would need those in Portugal considering a joint would likely be a handicap. A UK bid would IMHO be more likely as there would be political forces pushing for the cash to be spread around the entire country.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Bernbau is 80,354
how do you want to expand to 90,000?
and why is th final in Bernabeu?
Nou Camp is bigger

BTW
Olímpico (La Cartuja) is 57,619


----------



## hngcm

MBV said:


> AKA, SEGURO QUE NO FUE ASÍ..LO RARO ES QUE UN PAIS COMO EL TUYO LLEGUE AORGANIZAR ALGO MÁS ALLÁ DE UN CAMPEONATO DE MUS.., EN FIN, ESTOS PORTUGUESES....


España no necesita a Portugal para organizar la copa del mundo.


----------



## skaP187

Aka said:


> Yes, it was.
> 
> If that's so, why were you unable to beat us?


Politics, everybody knows it was politics... Portugal did a magniffecent job, but no way the bid was better then the Spanish one.
I liked that it went to Portugal don't get me wrong but Spain has more to offer and more potencial then Portugal for sure. A combined WC would be a very good idea. Only I think that there should be only three stadiums in Portugal and you can fill in which ones. :cheers:


----------



## Petronius

^^^ :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Petronius

Spain wouln't win the bid. 

Portugal probably would.

I can explain you my reasons

btw, we also don't need Spain to organise a WOrld Cup .


----------



## Arpels

organize a world cup together its a revolutionary ideia and I support one think like that in the Peninsula but unfortunly Spain and Portugal dont have the same open mentality as Denmark, Norway or Sweden to organize something together us you can see in this coments


----------



## mdet04

Spain alone can celebrate a World Cup without problems, like in 1982!!

And here, we have too much interesting and prepared cities to celebrate it: Madrid, Sevilla, Barcelona, Valencia, Alicante, Bilbao, Palma de Mallorca, Salamanca... for to go with Portugal too!!


----------



## Kika

Aka said:


> A World Cup in my country with the final being held in Madrid? No, thank you. In 1999 we asked Spain if they wanted to make a joint bid for the Euro 2004. They refused because they thought they would win it easily by themselves. You know what happened...


Aka your poor comments just remind us a certain Pedrowhatever and reflect how narrow minded you are... 

I personally think that Portugal did a great job in the Euro 2004 and I was very happy for the excellent organisation and image that your country gave to the rest of the world. Although I think, it would be an excellent idea to organise some kind of Iberian event on which we could even include Andorra (yes, why not!) I still think that Spain alone could easily organise a world cup as well as Portugal being your country big enough for that.

Don’t be blind, Portugal and Spain have much more things in common than what differentiates them…

:cheers:


----------



## skaP187

guys guys relax! Spain and Portugal can organise a fantastic world cup with the most beuatifull stadiums a worldcup has ever seen! go for it!
Opening in Portugal, Final in Spain, easy like that.


----------



## skaP187

Andorra? there is not a proper stadium there, only money.


----------



## Nikom

skaP187 said:


> guys guys relax! Spain and Portugal can organise a fantastic world cup with the most beuatifull stadiums a worldcup has ever seen! go for it!
> Opening in Portugal, Final in Spain, easy like that.


I agree :yes:


----------



## Kika

skaP187 said:


> Andorra? there is not a proper stadium there, only money.



I said "Iberian event" that doesn't necessarily mean a world cup...


----------



## skaP187

yeah right! I thought we were talking about an Iberian WC smartass!


----------



## WeasteDevil

I cannot see FIFA giving the Cup to two countries of that size. Why would they need to bid together? England is most probably the most likely country in Europe to get it next time anyway.


----------



## mauritius gunner

If there is a UEFA rotation policy, then you will know full well that it will be England's turn next time the tournament returns to europe.


----------



## Paulo2004

No thank-you, Portugal can do it on its own IF WE DECIDE TO.


----------



## Aka

Kika said:


> Aka your poor comments just remind us a certain Pedrowhatever and reflect how narrow minded you are...
> 
> I personally think that Portugal did a great job in the Euro 2004 and I was very happy for the excellent organisation and image that your country gave to the rest of the world. Although I think, it would be an excellent idea to organise some kind of Iberian event on which we could even include Andorra (yes, why not!) I still think that Spain alone could easily organise a world cup as well as Portugal being your country big enough for that.
> 
> Don’t be blind, Portugal and Spain have much more things in common than what differentiates them…
> 
> :cheers:


My poor comments remind me that Spain and Portugal can do it alone. So why should I have a World Cup in my country with the most important match being held in another one? Worst, around the World they would say "The World Cup in Spain"... and, to be honest, I dislike that; it happened in Euro 2000 with Belgium.
I don't know why doing a World Cup is that different from doing an Euro. Stadiums could be redeveloped to have 40.000 and we could even make 2 new ones in Madeira and Azores. But hey, if South Africa will have 10 and we already have 10... I can't see the big difference...

I really have nothing against Spain, I just mencioned what happened in 1999 to show how we can make it by ourselves without Spain. Gosh, why would Spain need us if they have a lot of venues? Why would we need them if we have them too?

The only problem would be our bid to win. Why? FIFA is a lot more "political" than UEFA, and other countries would have more power to win if Portugal won't get strong allies. Probably if Madrid goes for the Olympics and we support them...


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Hmmm, interesting discussion, an Iberian World Cup would face serious (SERIOUS) difficulties, political disputes, country disputes, fan disputes, FIFA disputes etc etc etc....I think most Portugese and most Spainish would argue that they could host a WC all on their own without the need of a co-host, and I bet neitehr would back down or co-operate in this kind of situation so.....not likely.

Besides, this thread is pointless, 2018 is going to England! 

:cheers:


----------



## Aka

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Besides, this thread is pointless, 2018 is going to England!
> 
> :cheers:


C'mon, you had the Euro 96, you'll have the Olympics in 2012... Let us have something, pleeeeeeeeease!


----------



## WeasteDevil

Aka said:


> My poor comments remind me that Spain and Portugal can do it alone. So why should I have a World Cup in my country with the most important match being held in another one? Worst, around the World they would say "The World Cup in Spain"... and, to be honest, I dislike that; it happened in Euro 2000 with Belgium.
> I don't know why doing a World Cup is that different from doing an Euro. Stadiums could be redeveloped to have 40.000 and we could even make 2 new ones in Madeira and Azores. But hey, if South Africa will have 10 and we already have 10... I can't see the big difference...
> 
> I really have nothing against Spain, I just mencioned what happened in 1999 to show how we can make it by ourselves without Spain. Gosh, why would Spain need us if they have a lot of venues? Why would we need them if we have them too?
> 
> The only problem would be our bid to win. Why? FIFA is a lot more "political" than UEFA, and other countries would have more power to win if Portugal won't get strong allies. Probably if Madrid goes for the Olympics and we support them...



I actually do not think that Spain at the moment could hold a world cup finals. There are simply not enough quality stadia. That could change, but apart from maybe 4, they have a seriously long way to go.


----------



## WeasteDevil

Aka said:


> C'mon, you had the Euro 96, you'll have the Olympics in 2012... Let us have something, pleeeeeeeeease!


You just had Euro 2004!


----------



## Aka

WeasteDevil said:


> I actually do not think that Spain at the moment could hold a world cup finals. There are simply not enough quality stadia. That could change, but apart from maybe 4, they have a seriously long way to go.


But that's not a problem. Portugal had... 0 before 1999.


----------



## Aka

WeasteDevil said:


> You just had Euro 2004!


2016-2004 = 12
2016-2012 = 4

England: 1966 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 96, 1948 & 2012 Olympic Games, Wimbledon, World Snooker Championship...

Portugal: UEFA Euro 2004, ATP Masters Cup 2000, 2003 Handball World Cup, some youth championships...

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!!!


----------



## WeasteDevil

You cannot include Wimbledon, Snooker, etc. They are yearly tournaments, and nobody else really plays snooker. 

We have not hosted the World Cup since 1966, I think we deserve to do it one last time, and we almost have the stadia to do it without spending too much money. 

What am I talking about with the "we", I don't even live there anymore!


----------



## Aka

WeasteDevil said:


> Wimbledon, Snooker, etc. They are yearly tournaments, and nobody else really plays snooker.


I was joking. But I do like Snooker.



WeasteDevil said:


> We have not hosted the World Cup since 1966


We never had one...


----------



## renell

Either Spain or Portugal could easily host it. But IMO, it's one or the other, bids are for one country. I think there's more gloss on it if it's World Cup Germany, World Cup Spain, World Cup Portugal. 

The cricket world cup in 2011 is India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka. How hard to say all of that.


----------



## Aka

renell said:


> Either Spain or Portugal could easily host it. But IMO, it's one or the other, bids are for one country. I think there's more gloss on it if it's World Cup Germany, World Cup Spain, World Cup Portugal.
> 
> The cricket world cup in 2011 is India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka. How hard to say all of that.


Almost half of the countries who play it

Joking!! xD ............. or not :|


----------



## skaP187

mauritius gunner said:


> If there is a UEFA rotation policy, then you will know full well that it will be England's turn next time the tournament returns to europe.


Why would it be Englands turn? the best man/country wins, it is simple like that. It is not like England has a 'right' to hold WC. If by that time they have the best stadiums, so be it, if not? better luck next time. You should have learned this by now! :bash:


----------



## Mo Rush

is portugal large enough to host a world cup by themselves?..im sure they have stadia but after euro are all those stadia needed? it is a very small country..or what do the portuguese forumers have to say ?


----------



## Aka

Mo Rush said:


> is portugal large enough to host a world cup by themselves?..im sure they have stadia but after euro are all those stadia needed? it is a very small country..or what do the portuguese forumers have to say ?


Why? Are you afraid people have to sleep in the middle of the sea? Jeez...


----------



## Aka

I just can't understand what the size of a country have to do with the capacity of hosting a World Cup. What really matters, the country size or the number of beds and quality of venues? If the World Cup was co-hosted by the Netherlands and Belgium would you ask if they were able to do it? Because the last time I saw, Portugal was bigger than both together.


----------



## Mo Rush

Aka said:


> Why? Are you afraid people have to sleep in the middle of the sea? Jeez...


no basically im asking because i have a friend who has lived in lisboa and portugal..and whenever i mentioned a fifa world cup or a possible olympic bid by lisbon he just argued that it was too small..i understand this is the view of one person...however ive never been to portugal although i do intend on visiting it next year...i do still think the size of a country and its capacity to run such large events is an important factor..however if u believe portugal has the accommodation, capacity etc. then i suppose it does...


----------



## Aka

Everybody says Portugal is too small for a lot of centuries...


----------



## Paulo2004

Aka said:


> Everybody says Portugal is too small for a lot of centuries...


True, and we discovered more than half of the world!!!


----------



## Paulo2004

Aka said:


> I just can't understand what the size of a country have to do with the capacity of hosting a World Cup. What really matters, the country size or the number of beds and quality of venues? If the World Cup was co-hosted by the Netherlands and Belgium would you ask if they were able to do it? Because the last time I saw, Portugal was bigger than both together.


Very true. I just wished people would stop undersestimating Portugal. SIZE DOESN'T MATTER!!


----------



## Kika

Paulo2004 said:


> Very true. I just wished people would stop undersestimating Portugal. SIZE DOESN'T MATTER!!



I think if Portugal is underestimated is more likely to be because of its low economy power than for its size… As you can see on this link http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/po...STRIND_ECOBAC&root=STRIND_ECOBAC/ecobac/eb011 Portugal has unfortunately already been surpassed by some Eastern European countries…


----------



## stadiumfuture

As Spain and Portugal have the world cup, than is one think to heapen. Camp Nou must be expand on the Tribuna side. Than the tournament one of the modern world cups ever .


----------



## Kika

stadiumfuture said:


> As Spain and Portugal have the world cup, than is one think to heapen. Camp Nou must be expand on the Tribuna side. Than the tournament one of the modern world cups ever .



"have the world cup"? Since when?


----------



## Giorgio

Portugal can host it on there own.


----------



## SkyLerm

Would be a great idea this bid, but both countries can host it on their own, Spanish new generation stadia is in developement, few years and we'll see the results


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

ENGLAND should host the world cup in 2018, its been too long besides Spain had 82' and Portugal had 2004. Plus England is the most ready and is still updating stadiums.

Vote England 2018!!


----------



## skaP187

Think big! think Portugal and Spain!


----------



## Aka

Portugal and Spain.
We found the World,
It's time for the World to find us.


----------



## SkyLerm

^^Very very good slogan, I like it so much :yes:


----------



## traveler

I see problems already with the word Iberian" The Portuguese are Lusitanians and not Iberians;Portugal is part of Iberia penisula but is called Lusitania. Hosting the World Cup together is not a good idea politically for Portugal and Spain. The Spanish would be orrogant about having the last games in Spain.The Portuguese stadiums are state-of-the art in comparison with Spanish stadiums. I believe that Portugal would do fine hosting the Cup by themselves.


----------



## Aquarius

^^Lusitania is not alone Portugal. Also regions of Spain formed Lusitania, and for a worldcup you need 12 stadiums over 40.000 spectators


----------



## Aka

Aquarius said:


> and for a worldcup you need 12 stadiums over 40.000 spectators


Wrong, South Africa will have 10.

And that's the most easy part.


----------



## Mo Rush

Aquarius said:


> ^^Lusitania is not alone Portugal. Also regions of Spain formed Lusitania, and for a worldcup you need 12 stadiums over 40.000 spectators


a world cup requires 8 stadia.


----------



## Mo Rush

Paulo2004 said:


> Very true. I just wished people would stop undersestimating Portugal. SIZE DOESN'T MATTER!!


hehe...suuuuuure..









*Stadium: Estádio da Luz
Location: Lisbon (Portugal)
Capacity: 65 647 seats*









*Stadium: Estádio José Alvalade
Location: Lisbon (Portugal)
Capacity: 50 300 seats
*









*Stadium: Estádio do Dragão
Location: Porto (Portugal)
Capacity: 50 106 seats
*









*
Stadium: Municipal de Aveiro
Location: Aveiro (Portugal)
Capacity: 30 678 seats*









*Stadium: Cidade de Coimbra
Location: Coimbra (Portugal)
Capacity: 30 616 seats*









*Stadium: Estádio Algarve
Location: Faro (Portugal)
Capacity: 30 305 seats*









*Stadium: Municipal de Braga
Location: Braga (Portugal)
Capacity: 30 154 seats*









*Stadium: Dr. Magalhães Pessoa
Location: Leiria (Portugal)
Capacity: 29 771 seats*









*Stadium: Dom Afonso Henriques
Location: Guimarães (Portugal)
Capacity: 29 643 seats*









*Stadium: Estádio do Bessa XXI
Location: Porto (Portugal)
Capacity: 28 263 seats
*

Which stadia can be upgraded? How will the capacity of the larger stadia be increased?


----------



## traveler

Aquarius said:


> ^^Lusitania is not alone Portugal. Also regions of Spain formed Lusitania, and for a worldcup you need 12 stadiums over 40.000 spectators


Sorry, man. Lusitanians are Portuguese from Portugal. Iberians are Spaniards from Spain. Again, Portugal could host the World Cup by itself. That litle country can accomplish a lot for itself. I believe they have the best designed stadiums in Europe. And they have more room to build for the World Cup. 


Mo Rush said:


> a world cup requires 8 stadia.


 You are right.


----------



## willo

traveler said:


> Sorry, man. Lusitanians are Portuguese from Portugal. Iberians are Spaniards from Spain. Again, Portugal could host the World Cup by itself. That litle country can accomplish a lot for itself. I believe they have the best designed stadiums in Europe. And they have more room to build for the World Cup.
> You are right.


did you know that spain and portugal didn't exist in iberian and lusitanian era?¿?¿ :weirdo: 

BTW not all portugal were lusitanian and not all spain were iberian. some regions of spain were lusitaniasn too and the north of portugal were celt, the same as the north, north-west of Spain. the north and the middle of Spain were celtiberian and the south was iberian.

furthermore, lusitanians were a celtiberian tribe like the vettons, carpetanos and others. here's a map


BTW i don't if those portuguese stadia can be upgraded but i'm sure that both countries can host the world cup and do a great work


----------



## Aka

Mo Rush said:


> Which stadia can be upgraded? How will the capacity of the larger stadia be increased?


Lowering the field level building new seats. That will be easy in Coimbra, Leiria and Aveiro. In Algarve they could make the tops higher. In Braga they could... I don't know, put the stands higher also. And we could also build new stadiums.


----------



## traveler

willo said:


> did you know that spain and portugal didn't exist in iberian and lusitanian era?¿?¿ :weirdo:
> Historically, Tras os Montes and the douro region in nothern Portugal are where the Lusitanians come from. It is true that the Lusitanians are a mixture of former Iberian and Celtic tribes. the Lusitanians started traveling throughout northern Portugal all the way to Galicia. But the Romans named that part of Portugal Lusitania; it contained the fiercest tribes they ever encountered. Scientist discovered the Portuguese blood type is totally different from the rest of Iberia; that the closest blood type to the Lusitanians is from Belgium and not from Spain. Again, Lusitanians are from Portugal. and Iberians are from Spain. Thank's for your information.... Portugal would do fine hosting the Cup by themselves.


----------



## bobo_greek

*GREECE/TURKEY WORLD CUP 2018*

Do think it is possible?


----------



## Efes

how awesome that would be. An opening in Athens, closing in Istanbul or vice versa


----------



## ÜberMaromas

Sound cool, but real, i don´t know


----------



## bobo_greek

6 stadiums in each country. thats all thats needed.


----------



## Giorgio

Yes, Its possible.


----------



## Selcuk

It´s possible, but FIFA is against Two-Countries-Bids!


----------



## Harkeb

Nope, won't happen.


----------



## hngcm

Umm, no.

England/Spain would murder such a bid.


----------



## Durbsboi

Oh a greece & Turkey thread, not Greece vs Turkey? wow, sounds good to me, but wont happen, sorry put 2bob & try again.


----------



## DrasQue

Sounds cool


----------



## www.sercan.de

as Selcuk already said
FIFA is against Two-Countries-Bids! 
and 2018 will be in England to 90% 

Turkey and Greece should bid (alone) for the EURO first.


----------



## neorion

Don't think it'll happen. Better to have it in Australia.


----------



## Simon-maly

*ISTAMBUL 80 000 Places*

























*ISTAMBUL FENERBAHE 52 000 Places*


















*ATENY 75 000 Places*

















*PIREUS 34 000 Places*


----------



## www.sercan.de

you can expand the ATatürk Olimpiyat to 90,000 (2nd tier at the stand behind the goals9
you can make it also 115,000  by adding a new 1st tier and make it closer to pitch


----------



## DrasQue

^^ yes Istanbul Ataturk can be over 100.000


----------



## Wezza

Pireus @ 34,000 seats?? Doubt FIFA would want a stadium that small? Might have to be extended.


----------



## bobo_greek

they will have the stadiums by then!!!

GREECE
Athens Olympic Stadium 'Spyros Louis'
















Votanikos Arena








AEL Arena
















Kaftanzoglio Stadium 
















lowered pitch to add seats and make it a football stadium only. also a new roof to cover the whole stadium.
Panpeloponnesian Stadium








lowered pitch to add seats and make it a football stadium only. also a new roof to cover the whole stadium.
Pankritio Stadium 








lowered pitch to add seats and make it a football stadium only. also a new roof to cover the whole stadium.

TURKEY
Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi
















Fenerbahçe Sükrü Saracoglu Stadi
















Kayseri Stadion








19 Mayis Stadyumu 
NEW STADIUM








IZMIR UPGRADED STADIUM








Kamil Ocak Stadi







UPGRADED


----------



## DrasQue

Btw,It's not Istanbul&Athens
For example

Izmir Ataturk *65,000*



















And If you count + 35,000-40,000 stadiums,
Kayseri will build a *40,000 * stadium 



















And Galatarasay is gonna build a* 55,000 * stadium in Istanbul(Seyrantepe)


Turkey is ready with 4 +55,000 stadiums
6 +40,000 stadiums


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes, Emre, Atatürk Olimpiyat can be 115,000
but it would be vey expensive 

Kayseri will be 33,000

new Ali Sami yen will be 52.000 (roff can be closed)

Izmir is 58.008
But IMO they would built a new stadium
for EURO 2012 BID a 51.000 football stadium was planned

for Worldcup capacity has to be +40,000
and it is not about stadiums
infrastructure is more important


----------



## Mo Rush

is it possible to remodel those stadia to remove the athletics tracks?


----------



## skaP187

No atletic tracks please, but the idea is nice. Only think it will not happen (that soon)


----------



## bobo_greek

skaP187 said:


> No atletic tracks please, but the idea is nice. Only think it will not happen (that soon)


dropping the pitch will get rid of the tracks and then u could add seats. but probably will not be done to athens olympic stadium and ataturk istanbul.


----------



## Guest

No chance, 2018 is more or less guranteed to be Englands. 2030 perhaps.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

sorry, no more joint bids pplzzz


----------



## Giorgio

Wezza said:


> Pireus @ 34,000 seats?? Doubt FIFA would want a stadium that small? Might have to be extended.


Yep, The stadium would add a second tier (as has been mentioned by the officals before)


----------



## neorion

SimLim said:


> No chance, 2018 is more or less guranteed to be Englands. 2030 perhaps.


 No chance, too many security issues I heard.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

neorion said:


> No chance, too many security issues I heard.


vote England 2018!


----------



## IkPirdhu

No i doubt it, Europe has plenty of countries with huge stadiums. Look at Germany and how many stadiums they have, Turkey has a few big stadiums Greece only has one. It's just not enough. 

Other countries like Italy, Germany, England, France etc are better qualified than these countries. I don't even think the Balkans alltogether can manage a world cup better that these countries.


----------



## bobo_greek

mate if u drop the pitch on any of the two stadiums with tracks in greece they will become 40000+ seaters. what else do u want.


----------



## bobo_greek

plus you have panathainikos stadium which will be 40000seats anyway.


----------



## www.sercan.de

BTW
i thought 2018 would be asia or Australia?

1998 Europe
2002 Asia
2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 America
2018 Asia/Australia
2022 Europe??


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

neorion said:


> No chance, too many security issues I heard.


 :weirdo: What the hell are you talking about man?? 'No chance'...first of all, a World Cup 2018 in England has a much much greater chance of success then any other bid you could care to mention, and secondly what the heck are you on about 'security issues'....? Every country has security issues when it comes to holding a major event, and England has one of the best records for holding major tournaments in the world and takes security more seriously then probably any other country in Europe (a little too far sometimes)...we got cctv cameras coming out of our....well, you get the idea.

By 2018, England won't have hosted the World Cup for 52 years!! All the other major European countries- France, Italy, Germany, Spain- have hosted the World Cup more recently then England, and England is already in the process of developing a whole new generation of high quality, high capacity stadiums with many more plans to come through in the near future....and this is even before a potential World Cup bid is to be made! Plus, the time zone is better suited then somehwere like Australia, where people round the world would be stuck watching games at 2am!

I think Greece and Turkey should concentrate on trying to hold a Euro Cup before tackling the big stuff...like trying to drive a car before you can even walk!  I think both countries have the stadiums and the resources to pull off a very successful Euro bid, but I think a World Cup is just out of their league at the moment, especially when there are other countries that are far more deserving, and better prepared, to host one!

:cheers:


----------



## Giorgio

2022 sounds good...

We would have PAO, AEK And Olympiakos with Individual stadiums plus OAKA and even maybe another...then turkeys...great.


----------



## bobo_greek

hosting a world cup in greece and turkey would be a great for the two countries as it will help grow the relaitionship betwwen both of them. and will also help both leagues aswell.


----------



## bobo_greek

[Gioяgos] said:


> 2022 sounds good...
> 
> We would have PAO, AEK And Olympiakos with Individual stadiums plus OAKA and even maybe another...then turkeys...great.


probobly a new toumba (if paok still exist)


----------



## Giorgio

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> I think Greece and Turkey should concentrate on trying to hold a Euro Cup before tackling the big stuff...like trying to drive a car before you can even walk!  I think both countries have the stadiums and the resources to pull off a very successful Euro bid, but I think a World Cup is just out of their league at the moment, especially when there are other countries that are far more deserving, and better prepared, to host one!


I agree but I dont know about deserving it....sure, Greece is an attention seeking spotlight ***** but on the other hand, Turkey would really like a WC. Together, the two nations would become even more politically close and it woud benefit both nations a lot.


----------



## www.sercan.de

BTW
are there any rumours in Greece?

Turkey will bid for UEFA EURO 2016 as i know 
EURO 2016 Turkey
WC 2018 Greece/Turkey  looooll


----------



## bobo_greek

i heard it on a greeksoccer tv program a few months ago. how the epo would like to host a major soccer event. they said they can host the euro on their own but to host a world cup they need another country to help them out. firstly they said italy but both countries r far away from each other then they said turkey and they said it could be a possibility.


----------



## MoreOrLess

www.sercan.de said:


> BTW
> i thought 2018 would be asia or Australia?
> 
> 1998 Europe
> 2002 Asia
> 2006 Europe
> 2010 Africa
> 2014 America
> 2018 Asia/Australia
> 2022 Europe??


Fifa themselves have said the rotation is very unlikely to carry on beyond 2014, it was really just an excuse to make sure Africa got 2010 since Blatter depends on African support to remain president.


----------



## neorion

Nevermind


----------



## Zorba

Mo Rush said:


> is it possible to remodel those stadia to remove the athletics tracks?


Yes, if you just lower the pitch, and add more seats.

btw, the bid would never work.


----------



## bobo_greek

why not?


----------



## neorion

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> :weirdo: What the hell are you talking about man??


 Do you remember what happened in London the day they were awarded the Games?

Security issues? Hell yeah.


----------



## dANIEL2004

Agree. London is a target for the terrorists more than any other European city.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

australia 2018 or 2022


----------



## Newcastle Guy

neorion said:


> Do you remember what happened in London the day they were awarded the Games?
> 
> Security issues? Hell yeah.


yes, and London dealt with it better than any country could have, Americans have said it themselves England dealt better with 7/7 than the Americans dealt with 9/11. Obviously it was ona very different scale, but you get the picture. The day after the attack everyone was back to work, the British public isnt scared of terrorists, they are scum. England may be the biigest target for an attack, but we are VERY well prepared to deal with it.

ENGLAND 2018!


----------



## Mo Rush

what a joke..london is a world city..people moving in and out of it constantly...one attack isnt going to stop the worlds old and young from attending the 2012 games neither will it affect a possible england world cup bid..london a target? suuure..im sure its a "target" but who isnt? madrid is just as big a target...


----------



## Giorgio

This has nothing to do with London.
Stop that discussion please.


----------



## skaP187

SimLim said:


> No chance, 2018 is more or less guranteed to be Englands. 2030 perhaps.


in your dreams! :rofl: 
May the best country winn, good chance England winns it, but if Spain and Portugal unite you won't get it that easely because they can match or better the bid from England maybe


----------



## panamaboy9016

*Exactly!*



macon4ever said:


> I think the Americas deserve it for 2018 or 2014 (if it is not decided). I would like a World cup in USA/Canada, Argentina/Paraguay, Brazil, or Mexico. We haven't had a World Cup in years.


The 2014 world cup is this continents World Cup. When do the biddings start?


----------



## Prometheus

Greece-Bulgaria Euro 2016

Forget about any World Cup.


----------



## JimB

bobo_greek said:


> why would italy be going for euro 2012 if they could host a worldcup on their own?


Because they know that it is not their turn for the World Cup. They last hosted the World Cup as recently as 1990 and are unlikely to be chosen to host it again for another thirty years, at least.


----------



## JimB

neorion said:


> Perhaps, but definitely complimentary. It's a good idea. A big country co-hosting with a smaller one, especially one that ties into it's culture, history and mentality. The larger has to share and the smaller gets an opporunity = spreading out the benefits of a major event.
> 
> I reckon a joint Britain/Ireland bid would be cool.


The problem with shared World Cups, as far as FIFA is concerned, is that two World Cup places, rather than one, are automatically taken up by the hosts.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I very much doubt you'll see any european nation outside England/Germany/Italy/Spain/France host a WC again when they have the option of bidding for the european championships instead that bring in almost as much prestige/money yet cost a great deal less in stadium devolpment.


----------



## dANIEL2004

Greece could host it alone, but for the moment there is no reason to do so. Greece is one of the few small countries that can host the biggest events as well as the big countries.


----------



## Giorgio

Prometheus said:


> Greece-Bulgaria Euro 2016
> 
> Forget about any World Cup.


Greece dosnt need to joint for Euro.

I think we could pull it off with ease.

Some people may think of it as a matter of promoting football in Greece which isnt actually the Number One sport.


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

[Gioяgos] said:


> Some people may think of it as a matter of promoting football in Greece which isnt actually the Number One sport.



Giorgos, football is the number one sport in Greece, by FAR.

Basketball is very popular and Greece has an excellent domestic league. In the mid to late 1990's basketball soared in popularity but it never surpassed football.

Let's be real here.


----------



## Giorgio

Really? The Impression I get from my cousins is really quit diffrent (granted, they dont live in Athens or Thessaloniki).


----------



## bobo_greek

the new super league is going to save greek football. fifa is helping them making this new league. its going to be the league for the balkans.


----------



## Neda Say

hey just a reminder there should not be any new joint bid for euros after 
Austria-Switzerland so I think you can forget about Greece-Bulgaria. I agree with anyone saying Greece can do this one on its own. 

A world cup in greece... They got a few stadium for the olympics but would need another 4 to welcome it properly... I don't see Italy willing to share nor Turkey. 

I think Russia might try to bid for it as ludicrous as it might seem. 

They're will not be a shared world cup in North America, Mexico doesn't need it neither the US and Canada already as 6 stadiums fully able to take it... They would just need one 36000 seater in Ottawa and another one in Quebec to go and bid... Canada's problem is not size it's rather population and accessibility. FIFA is reluctant to have world cup spread on these kind of huge countries. Brazil should get it easily 2014... Argentina is not ready for such an investment. 

England can bid and welcome it pretty much when they want they have the gratest championship, amazing stadiums. It would a pretty compact worldcup which is great for everyone and off course easy to get there. They also gave us the game THEY DESERVE IT... But it would be a pricey one, that's the only down point to it. Guys would you please just accept to switch to euros for the time of the world and go back to the pound right after it. Please !!!


----------



## The Concerned Potato

i think a Russia-Portugal bid would be more feasible! :lol:


----------



## Prometheus

dANIEL2004 said:


> Greece could host it alone, but for the moment there is no reason to do so. Greece is one of the few small countries that can host the biggest events as well as the big countries.


A WC? No way in hell.

Max 2 stadia in Athens, let's say another 2 in Thessaloniki. 

Then what? Will PAS Giannena play in a 40,000 seater? Or Panaxaiki? 

Fact is a Euro, yes. 2 in Athens, 2 in Thessaloniki, 1 in Ioannina, 1 in Larissa, 1 on Crete, and either/or Patra-Volos.

Sure.


----------



## Arpels

lol Potato  whay not Iceland/Portugal? another WORLD CUP for 2 countrys? :?


----------



## MoreOrLess

The Concerned Potato said:


> i think a Russia-Portugal bid would be more feasible! :lol:


Its not going to happen but the distance between Korea and Japan was greater than that between Greece and Italy.


----------



## Arpels

yup could be a good iniciative but I dont beleve in that for now


----------



## Arpels

the south of Korea is very close to Honsu island in Japan :sly:


----------



## IkPirdhu

i dont think any country in geographically eastern europe should hold the world cup. There are several reasons for this, first of all, the stadiums are not where they should be although in 12 years they could be 

Second of all, some countries will be willing to host the world cup just to be in the world cup. Italy is always in the world cup, therefore, they deserve to host it since they've shown consistency. However, Greece has only been in the world cup once, and i believe had the worst performance.

So what i'm saying is that countries like italy, germany, england, france, brazil, argentina etc you get the point, countries that always participate in the world cup should be given more of a chance since them hosting the world cup wont seem as though they're just trying to be in the world cup (since host nations are in no matter what, they dont have to qualify) 

Turkey was good 4 years ago, but they have not yet shown consitency neither. 

South Africa which is the next host nation, showed consistency before, but i dont know if they should have gotten the 2010 bid...It doesn't seem fair (but an African country had to eventually get it, and South Africa would probably be economically ready and thats why they prob got it)


----------



## MrCopy

Tambien existe la posibilidad de hacerlo entre los 5 paises que fueron libertados por El Libertador Simon Bolivar, los cuales son (COLOMBIA, PERU, BOLIVIA, VENEZUELA Y ECUADOR).

Saludos.


----------



## MrCopy

Tambien existe la posibilidad de hacerlo entre los 5 paises que fueron libertado por El Libertador Simon Bolivar, los cuales son (COLOMBIA, PERU, BOLIVIA, VENEZUELA Y ECUADOR).

Saludos.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> 1. Twelve years from now is not the issue. You need to be thinking more about six years from now - because that is when the decision for 2018 will be made.
> 
> 2. I understood you perfectly. But it seems that you haven't understood me. Let me repeat: there is no demand in Portugal for the stadiums that you have to be made any bigger. All but three Portugese stadiums are too small and, currently, most Portugese stadiums are not even operating at 50% of capacity for domestic games. So why on earth is there a need to make the stadiums bigger, with the costs that would entail, just to meet FIFA World Cup criteria for a period of five weeks?
> 
> Sheer madness and waste.


Ok, but the stadiums you refer to can easily reach the 40.000 mark with upgrades like I said. Noboby is defending rebuilding the current stadiums. And yes Lisbon does need an all porpose sports stadium, which it does not have. This one will be new and much needed. Besides, national demand during club competitions have nothing to do with a world bid. More, the portuguese soccer authorities defend what I've just stated, so I'm not speaking out of the blue.....


----------



## conquest

THE FIFA owes colombia a world cup, they said they were gonna make the 86 world cup in colombia but ended up in mexico!!!

2014 should have colombia and venezuela as hosts.


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> Ok, but the stadiums you refer to can easily reach the 40.000 mark with upgrades like I said. Noboby is defending rebuilding the current stadiums. And yes Lisbon does need an all porpose sports stadium, which it does not have. This one will be new and much needed. Besides, national demand during club competitions have nothing to do with a world bid. More, the portuguese soccer authorities defend what I've just stated, so I'm not speaking out of the blue.....


I don't doubt that the stadiums concerned could be redeveloped to accomodate 40,000. But what I'm asking is why, when only the big three clubs (Porto, Benfica and Sporting) need a capacity of anything like 40,000? Most of the rest of them barely even need a capacity of 10,000. So to spend yet more millions of Euros on expanding stadium capacity around Portugal purely so each could host, at most, three or four World Cup games, would seem to be a monumental folie de grandeur.

But okay, let's assume, for a moment, that Portugal decides to upgrade and enlarge their stadiums in order to meet World Cup criteria. I still can't see them getting far against an inevitable bid by England.


----------



## JimB

conquest said:


> THE FIFA owes colombia a world cup, they said they were gonna make the 86 world cup in colombia but ended up in mexico!!!
> 
> 2014 should have colombia and venezuela as hosts.


I don't think FIFA owes Colombia anything. They awarded Colombia the 1986 World Cup but, because Colombia couldn't make good the promises it had made about stadium improvements, FIFA were forced to call on Mexico as a late substitute.

Brazil are in a similar situation for 2014. FIFA has already said that 2014 will be in South America and the CONMEBOL members have already unanimously chosen Brazil as the hosts.

The only doubt is whether Brazil can improve their stadiums and infrastructure on time. If not, 2014 will be taken away from them and awarded to a South American country that does meet the requirements.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

AndyKane said:


> 2014 - Personally don't know. Even Sepp Blatter, FIFA President, says most of Brazil's stadia are sub-World Cup standard.
> 2018 - China
> 2022 - England (unfortunately!)
> 2026 - *Canada* or Mexico
> 2030 - Australia
> 2034 - Spain, Italy or Russia
> 2038 - Argentina
> 2042 - Egypt


YEAH CANADA!!! Sorry i just had a sudden urge.


----------



## nitzomoe

^i second that motion, especially if its in Toronto.


----------



## Mo Rush

*"Portugal should hold it in 2018. We've got state-of-the-art football stadiums, some of which will need to be upgraded by 2018. A new modern stadium with a capacity for 50.000 people for all kind of sports is needed in Lisbon, so that will be a new one to be added to the big 10. - "*


Portugal should definitely put a bid forward. Experience of hosting Euro along with some great modern stadia is a very good foundation. The Portuguese culture and good infrastructure could help in producing an excellent world cup. Lisbon in addition to its current stadium would be the city that could build a second stadium as FIFA stipulates only one city may host matches in two stadia. Upgrading the athletic facility to a modern olympic sized stadium could be the venue for the final. Its not too nearby to the existing stadium which is a positive. Im not sure though what transport infrastructure leads to this stadium. 

*"Besides that, our infra-structure is quiclky becoming one of the best in Europe. The new TVG railway lines will have been completed by then, together with the new Lisbon Airport and Beja's new airport, probably for low-cost flights. "*

Lisbon has made giant leaps in providing world class and efficient public transport systems, that are both modern and aesthetically pleasing. I'm not so sure what needs to be done though in smaller cities with regards to transport.

*"This will only happen, if Lisbon doesn't qualify for the 2020 Olympics. Portugal's aim is to hold them too in the next two decades." *

If Cape Town makes the 2020 shortlist which is highly likely, I am sure that Lisbon would too as well. Constructing a world cup stadium could act as an Olympic Stadium in Lisbon for 2020 or even 2024 if 2020 is seen as too soon.
The current athletics facility some distance from the city centre could transform into an Olympic Park or a new stadium could be built near the Lisbo Expo site, adjacent to the bridge...

(just to illustrate the location ) ?











[/QUOTE]


----------



## Mekky II

Blatter said that after 2014, the rotation system will return like before, he said it was the only solution to see an african country to host.

2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 China
2026 Spain

...


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd guess a stadium big enough the finale wouldnt be Portugals problem, Da Luz could probabley russle up enough seats to get to near 70,000 and they'd obviously want to use the Jose Alvalade stadium in Lisbon aswell. The problem would be getting 7 more stadiums with a 40,000+ capacity than they have now with most of the 30,000 capacity euro 2004 stadiums already prooving too large for local needs.


----------



## 3tmk

I wonder who will FIFA pick for 2030 for the 100th birthday of the cup?
I doubt Uruguay can do it all alone, so they might have to do it with Argentina together


----------



## daniel322

MoreOrLess said:


> I'd guess a stadium big enough the finale wouldnt be Portugals problem, Da Luz could probabley russle up enough seats to get to near 70,000 and they'd obviously want to use the Jose Alvalade stadium in Lisbon aswell. The problem would be getting 7 more stadiums with a 40,000+ capacity than they have now with most of the 30,000 capacity euro 2004 stadiums already prooving too large for local needs.


Portugak will not be an candidate for the world cup in the next years.. For the olympics probably with the Lisbon candidature but the country has recently organised the Euro 2004 and the country has now fine stadiums but they would need expansion for an world cup and the authorities dont want to spend money on stadiums again so soon


----------



## De Snor

A large football nation like Brazil never hosted the WC venues , its about time they did in 2014


----------



## daniel322

never?


----------



## Mo Rush

3tmk said:


> I wonder who will FIFA pick for 2030 for the 100th birthday of the cup?
> I doubt Uruguay can do it all alone, so they might have to do it with Argentina together


well based on continental rotation its africa's turn..perhaps morrocco or egypt would be ready...i do think however perhaps some place significant in terms of football history should host...i doubt uruguay would


----------



## Filipe_Golias

De Snor said:


> A large football nation like Brazil never hosted the WC venues , its about time they did in 2014


Yes, they did, in 1950. They lost the final for Uruguay.


----------



## JohnnyMass

JimB said:


> But okay, let's assume, for a moment, that Portugal decides to upgrade and enlarge their stadiums in order to meet World Cup criteria. *I still can't see them getting far against an inevitable bid by England.*


Give me a good reason why? or are you gonna tell me England is better than Portugal?:|


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

England deserves the world cup more then any other nation


----------



## Mo Rush

JohnnyMass said:


> Give me a good reason why? or are you gonna tell me England is better than Portugal?:|


I dont think he means it in a bad way. Lets face reality while the idea of a Portugal World Cup sounds nice, England is far better prepared and would probably be better hosts. However this does not mean Portugal cant bid. England are really going to push for 2018 and based on current support for its 2018 bid which is very far away it seems as if england has it in the bag. However nothing can be said for certain, What can be said is that an England bid will be very tough to beat.


----------



## daniel322

Its AlL gUUd said:


> England deserves the world cup more then any other nation


and why is that? 


Mo Rush said:


> I dont think he means it in a bad way. Lets face reality while the idea of a Portugal World Cup sounds nice, *England is far better prepared and would probably be better hosts*. However this does not mean Portugal cant bid. England are really going to push for 2018 and based on current support for its 2018 bid which is very far away it seems as if england has it in the bag. However nothing can be said for certain, What can be said is that an England bid will be very tough to beat.


so did Spain. they had better stadiums and better conditions to receive the teams and they lost the euro2004 organisation to Portugal.. And we have made a excellent tournament..

anyway, i don´t thing portugal will apply to any world cup organisation in the next years..


----------



## Filipe_Golias

I have to agree with Mo. In 2018 it'll be about time that England - football's birth cradle - hosts another major international event. By that time, the recent high-quality stadia will add to the usual heavy history and fan support.

But this doesn't mean any other bid is less than worthy to fight for that right


----------



## JimB

mithology77 said:


> 2010 - South Africa
> 2014 - Brazil
> 2018 - China
> 2022 - Spain
> 2026 - USA
> 2030 - Uruguay (100º aniversary)
> 2034 - ???


No way will the World Cup go to USA followed by Uruguay. The Americas will not host consecutive World Cups.

And I can't see Spain hosting the World Cup before England. Spain was host as recently as 1982.


----------



## stardust

2014 BRAZIL!!!! :rock: :cheer:
2018 :dunno: 

:runaway:


----------



## JimB

ncvegas said:


> South Africa is the official host for 2010. But isn't Brazil now the official host for 2014? And what about England for 2018? Is that official or did they just bid and not get it (yet)?


FIFA has said that the 2014 World Cup will go to South America (it's long overdue there) and CONMEBOL (the South American football confederation) has decided that Brazil will be the host nation. The only doubt is over Brazil's ability to make the necessary improvements to stadiums and infrastructure.

England are not the official choice for 2018 yet. Not by a long shot. It's quite possible that the 2018 World Cup could go to China or Australia.

The only thing I am reasonably confident of is that the next World Cup held in Europe will be in England. That may be 2018 or it may be 2022.


----------



## mithology77

Uruguay is South America and USA is North America is diferent. Spain have 40 years diferent since 1982 / 2022. Spain perfectly prepared to have the world 1982, It can return it to do in 2022.
Has many stadiums of maxima capacity and quality, And has one of the better leagues of soccer of the world.For that reason they can be granted it if asks it.


----------



## JimB

mithology77 said:


> Uruguay is South America and USA is North America is diferent. Spain have 40 years diferent since 1982 / 2022. Spain perfectly prepared to have the world 1982, It can return it to do in 2022.
> Has many stadiums of maxima capacity and quality, And has one of the better leagues of soccer of the world.For that reason they can be granted it if asks it.


Yes, I know that Uruguay and USA are in different continents, thanks very much!

But they are in the same time zones (Eastern standard in the US). FIFA's two biggest TV markets (by a huge margin) are Europe and Asia and the American time zone is convenient for neither. Therefore, I am certain that FIFA will not stage consecutive World Cups in the Americas.

As to Spain, of course it is a great football country with great stadiums. Of course it could stage a wonderful World Cup. But it is not Spain's turn to be the next European venue. It is England's turn.


----------



## CharlieP

Rexfan2 said:


> As much as i would love to see this, it is not feasible.
> 
> 1. FIFA won't allow joint bids.
> 2. The population of these islands together is smaller than 1 million.
> 3. These people know very little about football. They got thumped by New Zealand 10-0 in the WC qualifyers.
> 4. They can't afford it.
> 5. Where are they to put the stadiums.


 :hahaha: :hahaha:

I can't believe for a minute you thought he was being serious...!


----------



## CharlieP

Mr. Maciek said:


> ^^ Australia should be able to handle a world cup on their own. its good to see many people feel the aussies should host after the next few world cups, would be really good for the developement of the game, now that australia is under asia, we have a good chance of snatching the asian cup in the near future.
> 
> in all seems very promising for australian football.


The problem Australia has is venues. Not stadia, but venues. The minimum requirements are for 10 stadia with a capacity of 40,000, and FIFA will allow *one* city to use two stadia, meaning you need a minimum of nine host cities.

Australia's demographics means that a lot of people are concentrated in major (>1 million) cities, but there aren't that many large centres outside of these.

After

Sydney
Melbourne
Brisbane
Perth
Adelaide

you're starting to struggle. Townsville, Canberra and Newcastle would probably come in next, though these are hardly on the scale of Hannover, Leipzig, Kaiserslautern etc., and what's the ninth city going to be? Hobart? Geelong? Cairns?


----------



## JimB

CharlieP said:


> The problem Australia has is venues. Not stadia, but venues. The minimum requirements are for 10 stadia with a capacity of 40,000, and FIFA will allow *one* city to use two stadia, meaning you need a minimum of nine host cities.
> 
> Australia's demographics means that a lot of people are concentrated in major (>1 million) cities, but there aren't that many large centres outside of these.
> 
> After
> 
> Sydney
> Melbourne
> Brisbane
> Perth
> Adelaide
> 
> you're starting to struggle. Townsville, Canberra and Newcastle would probably come in next, though these are hardly on the scale of Hannover, Leipzig, Kaiserslautern etc., and what's the ninth city going to be? Hobart? Geelong? Cairns?


I think that, in the case of a country like Australia, FIFA would relax the rules, so long as the stadiums were up to scratch.

The purpose of spreading the World Cup venues around the host nation is so that all citizens of host nations will have the chance to see a World Cup game or two within easy travelling distance. If, in a country like Australia, 90% of the population lives in and around a small number of cities, then that purpose will still be served if all the games are staged in those cities.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> I don't doubt that the stadiums concerned could be redeveloped to accomodate 40,000. But what I'm asking is why, when only the big three clubs (Porto, Benfica and Sporting) need a capacity of anything like 40,000? Most of the rest of them barely even need a capacity of 10,000. So to spend yet more millions of Euros on expanding stadium capacity around Portugal purely so each could host, at most, three or four World Cup games, would seem to be a monumental folie de grandeur.
> 
> But okay, let's assume, for a moment, that Portugal decides to upgrade and enlarge their stadiums in order to meet World Cup criteria. I still can't see them getting far against an inevitable bid by England.


Like I said national demand has nothing to do with it. We'll get far against anyone!! Never underestimate Portugal's will.


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> Like I said national demand has nothing to do with it. We'll get far against anyone!! Never underestimate Portugal's will.


I'm not underestimating Portugal at all. I'm simply pointing out the reality.

And the reality is that FIFA does not want to be the cause of countries building white elephants purely so that they can stage the World Cup. And clearly, without the World Cup, there is no need for any Portuguese stadiums to be expanded.

As your fellow countryman, Daniel, has said, I doubt whether Portugal will bid for 2018 or 2022. But even if you do, it would take a hell of an effort to match the capability of England - which has far more and far bigger stadiums.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> I'm not underestimating Portugal at all. I'm simply pointing out the reality.
> 
> And the reality is that FIFA does not want to be the cause of countries building white elephants purely so that they can stage the World Cup. And clearly, without the World Cup, there is no need for any Portuguese stadiums to be expanded.
> 
> As your fellow countryman, Daniel, has said, I doubt whether Portugal will bid for 2018 or 2022. But even if you do, it would take a hell of an effort to match the capability of England - which has far more and far bigger stadiums.


I'm not defending my countrymen's opinions but my own. 

Since when is a soccer competition bid reduced to size?! What about security, hooliganism and so on. Thought about that, or is it just the size and amount of stadiums that count? What about quality? :lol:


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> I'm not defending my countrymen's opinions but my own.
> 
> Since when is a soccer competition bid reduced to size?! What about security, hooliganism and so on. Thought about that, or is it just the size and amount of stadiums that count? What about quality? :lol:


Hooliganism?

What's the relevance of that?

Firstly, England fans have generally behaved well in recent times, despite travelling in enormous numbers. Secondly, when English fans have behaved badly in the past, it has generally been when abroad.

Security?

Britain's police force is among the most experienced in the world at providing security for big events.

As to stadiums, quality isn't a factor since the stadiums that would be used in an England World Cup are at least a match for Portugese stadiums in terms of quality. But size is very much a factor. You're very naive if you don't believe that it is. Let's see....would FIFA rather stage a World Cup where the average stadium capacity is a little over 40,000 or where the average capacity is much more than 50,000? Would they rather stage a World Cup final in a 65,000 capacity stadium or a 90,000 capacity stadium? Hmm........tough questions........


----------



## samsonyuen

2014 Brazil
2018 England or Canada
2022 Australia or New Zealand


----------



## eomer

CharlieP said:


> After
> 
> Sydney
> Melbourne
> Brisbane
> Perth
> Adelaide
> 
> you're starting to struggle. Townsville, Canberra and Newcastle would probably come in next, though these are hardly on the scale of Hannover, Leipzig, Kaiserslautern etc., and what's the ninth city going to be? Hobart? Geelong? Cairns?


Cairn: definitly not. It's in north coast weather is too hot.
But it is possible to use 2 stadia in Sydney and 2 stadia in Melbourne. In 1998, there were 2 stadia in Paris. In 1982, 2 venues in Madrid and 2 other in Barcelona.


----------



## AndyKane

China will host a World Cup before England. If I have worked it out correctly, there will be 9 stadia with capacity of over 60000, including the new Beijing Olympic, 2 more with over 50000 and one of over 40000. Of the 9 of over 60000 capacity, 4 can hold over 70000. In a country as enthusiastic about football as China, these grounds could be packed to capacity for probably every game. The stadia I've based this on are;
Olympic Stadium, Beijing (91000)
Guangzhou Stadium, Guangzhou (80012)
Shanghai Stadium, Shanghai (80000)
Workers Stadium, Beijing (72000)
Wulihe Stadium, Shenyang (65000)
Olympic Sports Center, Nanjing (60000)
Wuhan Stadium, Wuhan (60000)
Tianhe Stadium, Guangzhou (60000)
Yizhong Stadium, Qingdao (60000)
Olympic Sports Center, Chonqing (58680)
People's Stadium, Dalian (55000)
Shandong Stadium, Jinan (43700)

P.S. - I am Scottish, and just wanted an excuse for anyone but England to host the World Cup.


----------



## zee

2014 England (big boost for the our economy with london 2012 also)
2018 Argentina (only if they get the olympics 2016)
2022 Spain/ Australia


----------



## JimB

AndyKane said:


> China will host a World Cup before England. If I have worked it out correctly, there will be 9 stadia with capacity of over 60000, including the new Beijing Olympic, 2 more with over 50000 and one of over 40000. Of the 9 of over 60000 capacity, 4 can hold over 70000. In a country as enthusiastic about football as China, these grounds could be packed to capacity for probably every game. The stadia I've based this on are;
> Olympic Stadium, Beijing (91000)
> Guangzhou Stadium, Guangzhou (80012)
> Shanghai Stadium, Shanghai (80000)
> Workers Stadium, Beijing (72000)
> Wulihe Stadium, Shenyang (65000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Nanjing (60000)
> Wuhan Stadium, Wuhan (60000)
> Tianhe Stadium, Guangzhou (60000)
> Yizhong Stadium, Qingdao (60000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Chonqing (58680)
> People's Stadium, Dalian (55000)
> Shandong Stadium, Jinan (43700)
> 
> P.S. - I am Scottish, and just wanted an excuse for anyone but England to host the World Cup.


Very possible.

I'm not sure in what order but, if I was a betting man, I would have money on China and England to host 2018 and 2022. Only threat to China could be Australia.


----------



## Kampflamm

eomer said:


> - 2018: United Kingdom (and not England alone). I hope to have matchs played in Cardiff, Edimburg, Glasgow...WC should return to europe at this date.


UK doesn't make a lot of sense. If games were played in Cardiff and Glasgow, Scotland and Wales would also want to be automatically qualified.


----------



## samsonyuen

^Right, and FIFA has said that it doesn't want joint bids anymore. So the UK would mean four automatically qualifying teams (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales).

Actually, I think China should also host one sometime soon.


----------



## alfista159

Soon or Later we will see China hosting a WC.

Other possibilities: England, Russia, Brazil and Spain.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> Hooliganism?
> 
> What's the relevance of that?
> 
> Firstly, England fans have generally behaved well in recent times, despite travelling in enormous numbers. Secondly, when English fans have behaved badly in the past, it has generally been when abroad.
> 
> Security?
> 
> Britain's police force is among the most experienced in the world at providing security for big events.QUOTE]
> 
> British police or any for that matter cannot prevent terrorist atacks and unfortunately Britain will always be a target. Hooliganism exists in England, more evident overseas because England hasn't held any football tournament for the past years. And english fans have proved in this world cup to be bad loosers.
> This is more important than stadiums- we're talking security for all fans here!!!! As for quality, I wasn't obviously refering to the stadiums but to quality of life - with a possible terrorist attack on England always being a possibility, this leaves everyone stressed up.


----------



## Quintana

Portugal should host the World Diving Championships


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Quintana said:


> Portugal should host the World Diving Championships


 :hahaha: :rofl: :hilarious 


but seriously, Portugal's stadiums don't even get filled regularly at present with the "relatively" big stadiums they built for euro2004. i just cant see portugal handling any bigger stadiums in their country which will surely be white elephants.


----------



## rantanamo

Don't most soccer games not get filled presently?

USA 2014 or 2022. Don't sleep.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Canada needs to start qualifying for World Cups in the ridiculously easy North American zone.
> 
> With 3.5 slots it is not exactly difficult in comparison to most other zones.


So? Australia has only qualified twice and Canada once and hopefully again, but 
even if you qualify and win all you wantt, it doesn't mean your gunna host a WC.


----------



## malek

Quintana said:


> Portugal should host the World Diving Championships



hahahahahahaahahhaah


Anyways, its intresting that no heard that the 2014 was awarded to South America in 2003, and that unanimously the South American Federation voted Brazil to host it.

from wikipedia:


> The 2014 FIFA World Cup will provisionally take place in Brazil. On March 7, 2003 FIFA announced that the cup would be held in South America for the first time since Argentina hosted the 1978 FIFA World Cup, in line with its policy of rotating the right to host the World Cup amongst different confederations.
> 
> On June 3, 2003 the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) announced that Argentina, Brazil and Colombia wanted to host the 2014 World Cup finals.[1] The final decision as to hosting will be made sometime in 2008. If Brazil is deemed not to be a viable candidate in accordance with FIFA regulations, the competition may be held in North America or Asia. Other possible bids include a joint Argentina/Chile bid or one from Australia.


so its gonna be:

2010: South Africa
2014: Brazil
2018: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup


----------



## MoreOrLess

Portugals only chance is IMHO with a joint bid with Spain which itself seems rather unlikely. The Spainish will likely have the stadiums to host it themselves and joint bids are obviously not favoured, the only plus for them I could think of would be that an Iberian WC could covince FIFA to give them a second one before England(as you could argue a united Germany did for 06).


----------



## AcesHigh

rantanamo said:


> There are 4 continents playing soccer.


and only two that win anything at soccer


----------



## martien

what about Mexico 2014?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Paulo2004 said:


> British police or any for that matter cannot prevent terrorist atacks and unfortunately Britain will always be a target. Hooliganism exists in England, more evident overseas because England hasn't held any football tournament for the past years. And english fans have proved in this world cup to be bad loosers.
> we're talking security for all fans here!!!! As for quality, I wasn't obviously refering to the stadiums but to quality of life - with a possible terrorist attack on England always being a possibility, this leaves everyone stressed up.


Ok, for one thing, there have been thousands of arrests at this world cup, and about 350 of those have been English, mainly just a few drunken idiots throwing chairs and whatnot...so don't preach some stereotypical bullshit about England fans being the only ones who cause trouble.

And, please, lets not forget (I'll remind you if you've forgotten), England is one of the few countries that doesn't have to have huge fences up in thier football stadiums to keep out the fans from invading the pitch! Spain and in particular Italy have waaaaaaayyyyyyy more incidents of fan violence and disruption in their league matches then the Premiership does, which is why it is one of the most respected leagues in the world! It might have slipped your notice mate, but when was the last time you heard reports of mass racism in English football (as there is in Spain) or reports of fashism and corrption (as there is in Italy)...?? English football has made massive progress over the years thanks to campaigns by the FA and some media groups, and it is now a lot safer and fairer playing in England then in any other European nation!

And as JimB has already pointed out, security is also taken more seriously then just about any other nation you could care to mention, and there are a great deal of highly trianed poilcemen in England and many other forces which you don't even see which keep the fans and the rest of the nation safe and under controll...so this bollox about security issues is...well...bollox!



Paulo2004 said:


> As for quality, I wasn't obviously refering to the stadiums but to quality of life - with a possible terrorist attack on England always being a possibility, this leaves everyone stressed up.


I really do hate it when people spout this kind of crap; I have already had to explain this to someone on another World Cup host thread. A possible terrorsit attack.......??? Of course it is _possible_ that a terrorist attack could happen in England...but so what??? Should that stop everyone from visting the country?? Should that stop all future events and tournaments being held there??? Terrorists _could_ attack anywhere in the world, there were many concerns that this world cup in Germany was going to be a target, but did that stop them??? No, and you know why?? Cus not everyone thinks the way you do! If everyone kept thinking about whether a country was a possible target for terrorism, we'd never get anywhere! That would be letting the terrorists win! 

And thankfully, FIFA will not be thinking like you when the decision for the bid is made! Sure, security is always a factor, and England is certainly better in this area then Portugal, so that will be an advantage for the English bid, so if you're relying on FIFA handing the WC over to another country then England because they 'might' be attacked, I'm afraid that's pretty pathetic! FIFA will hand the WC to the best bid-stadiums, infastructure, cities, transport, security etc etc etc...they will not hand the WC over because the other country in the bid was a 'possible' threat for terrorism.....if that was the case, no-one would be able to bid! And remember, we're talking about 2018 here, 12 years away!!

I think it will go

2014: Brazil
2018: England
2022: Australia
2026: Canada (or USA if Canada isn't ready)
2030: Carribbean/Costa Rica, or Africa, or Uruguay 
2034: Spain or Portugal (possibly Russia)
2038: China
2042: Argentina

But who knows really. FIFA change the rotation system and rules all the time and countries change every year, so do not assume that all of the rules for a WC bid two decades from now will be the same as they are today!

For instance, they may relax the 'one stadium per city with the exception of one city' rule for the likes of Australia. I mean there is no point building a stadium in the middle of the desert just so that the location is geographically spread out from other venues. FIFA may be corrupt and idiotic on many occassions, but they are not That stupid!

:cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Ok, for one thing, there have been thousands of arrests at this world cup, and about 350 of those have been English, mainly just a few drunken idiots throwing chairs and whatnot...so don't preach some stereotypical bullshit about England fans being the only ones who cause trouble.
> 
> And, please, lets not forget (I'll remind you if you've forgotten), England is one of the few countries that doesn't have to have huge fences up in thier football stadiums to keep out the fans from invading the pitch! Spain and in particular Italy have waaaaaaayyyyyyy more incidents of fan violence and disruption in their league matches then the Premiership does, which is why it is one of the most respected leagues in the world! It might have slipped your notice mate, but when was the last time you heard reports of mass racism in English football (as there is in Spain) or reports of fashism and corrption (as there is in Italy)...?? English football has made massive progress over the years thanks to campaigns by the FA and some media groups, and it is now a lot safer and fairer playing in England then in any other European nation!
> 
> And as JimB has already pointed out, security is also taken more seriously then just about any other nation you could care to mention, and there are a great deal of highly trianed poilcemen in England and many other forces which you don't even see which keep the fans and the rest of the nation safe and under controll...so this bollox about security issues is...well...bollox!
> 
> 
> I really do hate it when people spout this kind of crap; I have already had to explain this to someone on another World Cup host thread. A possible terrorsit attack.......??? Of course it is _possible_ that a terrorist attack could happen in England...but so what??? Should that stop everyone from visting the country?? Should that stop all future events and tournaments being held there??? Terrorists _could_ attack anywhere in the world, there were many concerns that this world cup in Germany was going to be a target, but did that stop them??? No, and you know why?? Cus not everyone thinks the way you do! If everyone kept thinking about whether a country was a possible target for terrorism, we'd never get anywhere! That would be letting the terrorists win!
> 
> And thankfully, FIFA will not be thinking like you when the decision for the bid is made! Sure, security is always a factor, and England is certainly better in this area then Portugal, so that will be an advantage for the English bid, so if you're relying on FIFA handing the WC over to another country then England because they 'might' be attacked, I'm afraid that's pretty pathetic! FIFA will hand the WC to the best bid-stadiums, infastructure, cities, transport, security etc etc etc...they will not hand the WC over because the other country in the bid was a 'possible' threat for terrorism.....if that was the case, no-one would be able to bid! And remember, we're talking about 2018 here, 12 years away!!
> 
> I think it will go
> 
> 2014: Brazil
> 2018: England
> 2022: Australia
> 2026: Canada (or USA if Canada isn't ready)
> 2030: Carribbean/Costa Rica, or Africa, or Uruguay
> 2034: Spain or Portugal (possibly Russia)
> 2038: China
> 2042: Argentina
> 
> But who knows really. FIFA change the rotation system and rules all the time and countries change every year, so do not assume that all of the rules for a WC bid two decades from now will be the same as they are today!
> 
> For instance, they may relax the 'one stadium per city with the exception of one city' rule for the likes of Australia. I mean there is no point building a stadium in the middle of the desert just so that the location is geographically spread out from other venues. FIFA may be corrupt and idiotic on many occassions, but they are not That stupid!
> 
> :cheers:


people afraid of terrorist attacks ? u gotta be kidding..people travel in and out of london and the UK on a daily basis..if anything its one of the worlds most open cities...the UK draws a global market...it has its hooligans...but thats not going to stop the world from flocking to the home of the sport.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Mo Rush said:


> people afraid of terrorist attacks ? u gotta be kidding..people travel in and out of london and the UK on a daily basis..if anything its one of the worlds most open cities...the UK draws a global market...it has its hooligans...but thats not going to stop the world from flocking to the home of the sport.


Lol mate, that was kinda my point excacly!


----------



## Sen

I hope China gets to host it soon so we can get into World Cup without having to qualify for it haha...

according to the chairman of China Footbal Federation (also the vice chairman of FIFA) 2014 will be a contest between China and Australia, infrastructure wise two countries are about the same but the performence of Australian team at this world cup seems to favour the australian bid.


----------



## XCRunner

JimB said:


> I think that, in the case of a country like Australia, FIFA would relax the rules, so long as the stadiums were up to scratch.
> 
> The purpose of spreading the World Cup venues around the host nation is so that all citizens of host nations will have the chance to see a World Cup game or two within easy travelling distance. If, in a country like Australia, 90% of the population lives in and around a small number of cities, then that purpose will still be served if all the games are staged in those cities.


This is why a joint bid with New Zealand would help also. Auckland, Wellington, etc. are all suitable cities.

As for the issue of having the stadia in unusually small cities, I don't think there needs to be any worry of selling out the games (how could there be in the biggest event in the history of the world), but where would all these fans eat, sleep, drink, party, etc? Look at the MASSIVE fan fests in Germany. It would be difficult to organize things like that without proper public spaces and lots of public transportation. And how economically feasible is it to build 40,000-60,000 seat stadiums in cities that barely have that population?

That being said, I do think Australia/New Zealand are more than capable of hosting a great world cup one day. (Hopefully the development of the A-League will help.)


----------



## XCRunner

AndyKane said:


> China will host a World Cup before England. If I have worked it out correctly, there will be 9 stadia with capacity of over 60000, including the new Beijing Olympic, 2 more with over 50000 and one of over 40000. Of the 9 of over 60000 capacity, 4 can hold over 70000. In a country as enthusiastic about football as China, these grounds could be packed to capacity for probably every game. The stadia I've based this on are;
> Olympic Stadium, Beijing (91000)
> Guangzhou Stadium, Guangzhou (80012)
> Shanghai Stadium, Shanghai (80000)
> Workers Stadium, Beijing (72000)
> Wulihe Stadium, Shenyang (65000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Nanjing (60000)
> Wuhan Stadium, Wuhan (60000)
> Tianhe Stadium, Guangzhou (60000)
> Yizhong Stadium, Qingdao (60000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Chonqing (58680)
> People's Stadium, Dalian (55000)
> Shandong Stadium, Jinan (43700)
> 
> P.S. - I am Scottish, and just wanted an excuse for anyone but England to host the World Cup.


I don't really know a lot about stadiums in the far east, but this really opens things up. Knowing China has all there large (and presumably modern) stadia greatly increases my support for a Chinese bid. I don't think they'll get it before England, but you never know. It would be nice if Glasgow could get some group games in an English WC, but I doubt that would ever happen.


----------



## Lostboy

_P.S. - I am Scottish, and just wanted an excuse for anyone but England to host the World Cup_

Irrelevant for our loser neighbours to the North, because your not going to qualify for anything whether its in England or China. But god help you if you dare to attack seven year olds. Anyway England will host the World Cup, before you even attempt another piss poor attempt at hosting the European Championships.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

my opinion would be

2010 - South Africa (confirmed)
2014 - Brasil
2018 - England
2022 - China or Australia (would be difficult to hold them back to back due to same quallifying region)
2026 - back to Europe

although if Australia stayed in oceana then my prediction would look tottally different.

which brings me to my next point, what will happen to oceana?... 0.5 world cup spots, its hard to see any oceana teams quallifying for a world cup.. 

im hoping to see FIFA review their quallifying system, i feel its redicoulos having 3.5 out of 6 places for concacaf (north & central america). In my opinion they should'nt get more than 1.5, too many quallity sides are missing out on the finals particularly from South America and Europe. even though oceana dont have any great footballing nations, its unfair they only get 0.5 of a spot - which doesnt even count as a spot because its more than likely they will loose in a play off to a south america team.


----------



## cardboard

JimB said:


> Hooliganism?
> 
> What's the relevance of that?
> 
> Firstly, England fans have generally behaved well in recent times, despite travelling in enormous numbers. Secondly, when English fans have behaved badly in the past, it has generally been when abroad.


i myself dont think a country who have serious hooliganism problems should be given a chance to host the cup.
*even if* they behave discipline at home. they created trouble to the host country abroad, thats the worst things soccer fans can do to spoil the host's event.


----------



## Dreamlıneя

I want Brazil to host the 2014 World cup because it's next to Venezuela and I'd travel to Brazil to watch the games...
I don't Know but it's possible that the 2014 World cup may be held by Chile and Argentina..


----------



## MoreOrLess

XCRunner said:


> I don't really know a lot about stadiums in the far east, but this really opens things up. Knowing China has all there large (and presumably modern) stadia greatly increases my support for a Chinese bid. I don't think they'll get it before England, but you never know. It would be nice if Glasgow could get some group games in an English WC, but I doubt that would ever happen.


The only disadvantage I see is that almost all those stadiums have running tracks although knowing China I doubt more than a few(maybe Bejing, Nanjing, Guangzhou?) would be used in favour of new construction.


----------



## Lostboy

_i myself dont think a country who have serious hooliganism problems should be given a chance to host the cup.
even if they behave discipline at home. they created trouble to the host country abroad, thats the worst things soccer fans can do to spoil the host's event_

I'd agree, unless as I suspect that is, the last comment is directed at England only, because hooliganism across the world appears to be dying down, and certainly has amongst England fans abroad.


----------



## JimB

cardboard said:


> i myself dont think a country who have serious hooliganism problems should be given a chance to host the cup.
> *even if* they behave discipline at home. they created trouble to the host country abroad, thats the worst things soccer fans can do to spoil the host's event.


Well, in that case, let's rule out Italy (which has a far worse domestic hooligan problem than England now) and Argentina (ditto) and Poland (ditto) and Russia (ditto) and Turkey (ditto) and Brazil (where guns at games are not unheard of) and Spain (where racism in football is rife).

While we're at it, let's keep the World Cup away from China (because of human rights issues) and South Africa (because of crime) and Mexico (because of stifling pollution in Mexico City) and the USA (for not signing up to Kyoto and other crucial environmental treaties) and France (because they eat too much garlic) and............you get the picture.

The fact is that hooliganism is now a very minor issue in England. Our fans travel to international tournaments in vast numbers (far greater than any other country - an average of over 70,000 England fans stayed in the host cities for each of England's five games) and yet there have been only a handful of minor incidents involving England fans in the past six years. We've got our act together. That's no excuse to become complacent. But we should at least recognize how far we have come. FIFA and UEFA have even gone on record over the past few tournaments, praising England's fans for their vast following, the good atmosphere they generate at games and their general good behaviour.


----------



## Genç

If things are decided as late as 2009, would that give Brazil enough time to prepare and upgrade everything?

I say they should start now.


----------



## andysimo123

AndyKane said:


> China will host a World Cup before England. If I have worked it out correctly, there will be 9 stadia with capacity of over 60000, including the new Beijing Olympic, 2 more with over 50000 and one of over 40000. Of the 9 of over 60000 capacity, 4 can hold over 70000. In a country as enthusiastic about football as China, these grounds could be packed to capacity for probably every game. The stadia I've based this on are;
> Olympic Stadium, Beijing (91000)
> Guangzhou Stadium, Guangzhou (80012)
> Shanghai Stadium, Shanghai (80000)
> Workers Stadium, Beijing (72000)
> Wulihe Stadium, Shenyang (65000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Nanjing (60000)
> Wuhan Stadium, Wuhan (60000)
> Tianhe Stadium, Guangzhou (60000)
> Yizhong Stadium, Qingdao (60000)
> Olympic Sports Center, Chonqing (58680)
> People's Stadium, Dalian (55000)
> Shandong Stadium, Jinan (43700)
> 
> P.S. - I am Scottish, and just wanted an excuse for anyone but England to host the World Cup.


So what? You can have big grounds but are they all suitable for the world cup. Some might be a total joke.


----------



## AndyKane

Lostboy said:


> [/I]
> 
> Irrelevant for our loser neighbours to the North, because your not going to qualify for anything whether its in England or China. But god help you if you dare to attack seven year olds. Anyway England will host the World Cup, before you even attempt another piss poor attempt at hosting the European Championships.


Got 3 things to say to you.

1 - Scotland are getting better, and we have so much promising youth that we will qualify for another major tournament after Euro 2008.

2 - China have a bigger population, so FIFA would probably choose them due to the potential for bigger income.

3 - There is only a tiny element of Scots who are Anglophobic. You are stereotyping Scots, but if you ask people from France, Italy or anywhere else, you will find that they think that Tartan Army fans are brilliantly behaved and very friendly.


----------



## letsgo

Ladies and gentlemen: World Cup 2014 goes to.............
China.


----------



## malek

letsgo said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: World Cup 2014 goes to.............
> China.



read the damn manual, its already been awarded to southern america... Brazil it is unless they **** up big time.


----------



## Nikom

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> I think it will go
> 
> 2014: Brazil
> 2018: England
> 2022: Australia
> 2026: Canada (or USA if Canada isn't ready)
> 2030: Carribbean/Costa Rica, or Africa, or Uruguay
> 2034: Spain or Portugal (possibly Russia)
> 2038: China
> 2042: Argentina


All big competitions will be in England

You already have London Olympic Games 2012

and for the future:

Winter Games 2016
Euro 2016
World Cup 2018

:bash: :bash:


----------



## MoreOrLess

Nikom said:


> All big competitions will be in England
> 
> You already have London Olympic Games 2012
> 
> and for the future:
> 
> Winter Games 2016
> Euro 2016
> World Cup 2018
> 
> :bash: :bash:


Now theres an idea.


----------



## JimB

Nikom said:


> All big competitions will be in England
> 
> You already have London Olympic Games 2012
> 
> and for the future:
> 
> Winter Games 2016
> Euro 2016
> World Cup 2018
> 
> :bash: :bash:


Now, now.

No need to throw your toys out of the pram.

Try debating by using facts and logic instead of sarcasm (the lowest form of wit).


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> *British police or any for that matter cannot prevent terrorist atacks and unfortunately Britain will always be a target*. Hooliganism exists in England, more evident overseas because England hasn't held any football tournament for the past years. And english fans have proved in this world cup to be bad loosers.
> This is more important than stadiums- we're talking security for all fans here!!!! As for quality, I wasn't obviously refering to the stadiums but to quality of life - *with a possible terrorist attack on England always being a possibility, this leaves everyone stressed up*.


Come to England, mate. I'm sure you'll find that we're not the least bit "stressed up" about terrorist attacks. We've been living with them for more than thirty years now. We just get on with our lives. Que sera, sera.

And you fail to grasp the essential truth about terrorism and the World Cup. The truth is that the World Cup has a massively high media profile around the world, *wherever it is held*. And that, rather than an individual country, is what terrorists will target. Terrorists need, above all, the oxygen of publicity. And they would get that just as much by bombing a World Cup in Portugal as they would by bombing a World Cup in England.


----------



## DiggerD21

The 2018 world cup will go to Samoa. All games will be held at the "Toleafoa J.S.Blatter Football Fields" (capacity 4.000). :scouserd:


----------



## LuckyLuke

Digger is drunk again :lol:


----------



## DiggerD21

Huh? Again? :sly:


----------



## Kampflamm

DiggerD21 said:


> The 2018 world cup will go to Samoa. All games will be held at the "Toleafoa J.S.Blatter Football Fields" (capacity 4.000). :scouserd:


At least people won't be complaining about shadows on the field.


----------



## DiggerD21

:lol: Yeah, right!
And the people will watch the games on TV anyway. Nobody's going to games with overpriced entrance fees.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

DiggerD21 said:


> The 2018 world cup will go to Samoa. All games will be held at the "Toleafoa J.S.Blatter Football Fields" (capacity 4.000). :scouserd:


4,000 capacity...?? Forget that, have you seen the amount of open space round that pitch?? You could get over 100,000 people all seated (in plastic portable seats) round that field....viewing the game might be a bit difficult, but I'm sure the area's nightlife would make up for that...  

:dance: 

:cheers:


----------



## DiggerD21

How about a Zeppelin above the pitch with big screens attached to it. The audience will sit in their deck chairs and look onto the screens while enjoying their cocktails. :cheers:


----------



## MrCopy

2014: Brazil
2018: Australia
2022: Canada 
2026: China
2030: España
2034: Egipto.
2038: Argentina
2042: Nueva Zelanda
2046: Mexico
2050: Taiwan
2054: Portugal
2058: Nigeria


----------



## Filipe_Golias

Antisocial said:


> 2052: Portugal


Man, i'll be 68 by then :no:


----------



## Mr. Fusion

*URUGUAY 2030*

It's not a request, it must be done for the spirit of the Tournament. :yes:

:grouphug:


----------



## cmc

Here are my strongest nations to host a World Cup in random order....
MOST LIKELY: Brazil/2014 & Australia/2018

Oceania- Australia

Europe- England

Asia- China

Africa- South Africa (2010)

America- Brazil


----------



## Mo Rush

cmc said:


> Here are my strongest nations to host a World Cup in random order....
> MOST LIKELY: Brazil/2014 & Australia/2018
> 
> Oceania- Australia
> 
> Europe- England
> 
> Asia- China
> 
> Africa- South Africa (2010)
> 
> America- Brazil


most likely 2018-england


----------



## Krazy

Australia deserves it.. they have the resources.. and staging the world cup there would greatly boost the game in that region


----------



## Giorgio

Precisely.


----------



## Krazy

Mr. Fusion said:


> *URUGUAY 2030*
> 
> It's not a request, it must be done for the spirit of the Tournament. :yes:
> 
> :grouphug:



Completely agree... it would be a shame if it was held anywhere else


----------



## Krazy

cmc said:


> Here are my strongest nations to host a World Cup in random order....
> 
> Asia- China


The far east already got a world cup.. why not give another region in asia a chance... perhaps Saudi Arabia?


----------



## KiwiBrit

> Originally Posted by *cmc*
> Here are my strongest nations to host a World Cup in random order....
> MOST LIKELY: Brazil/2014 & Australia/2018
> 
> Oceania- Australia
> 
> Europe- England
> 
> Asia- China
> 
> Africa- South Africa (2010)
> 
> America- Brazil


I think you'll find Australia has now joined the Asia Confederation. So you'll have to choose either China or Aussie, not both.


----------



## eomer

Krazy said:


> The far east already got a world cup.. why not give another region in asia a chance... perhaps Saudi Arabia?


Good idea...and female supporters will have to wear a Burka.


----------



## renell

Mr. Fusion said:


> *URUGUAY 2030*
> 
> It's not a request, it must be done for the spirit of the Tournament. :yes:
> 
> :grouphug:


Do they have the capacity and ability to host it? They have the Centenario, don't know about other stadiums, but 2030 is far away I guess they have time to renovate and build new facilities


----------



## Mr. Fusion

renell said:


> Do they have the capacity and ability to host it? They have the Centenario, don't know about other stadiums, but 2030 is far away I guess they have time to renovate and build new facilities


It would certainly take a lot more to host it than it did with the 10 team, 3 stadia World Cup in which all three stadia were in Montevideo:

- Estadio Pocitos
- Parque Central
- Centenario

Assuming they would need 12 stadia minimum, it would take a lot of effort to figure it out, but I would hope that if they couldn't do it all themselves that FIFA would help out somehow. At the least, you would think they will renovate the Centenario into *the Bicentenario* I'm sure that's not a real name... 

:grouphug:


----------



## Quintana

Uruguay with its 3 million inhabitants, half of which live in Montevideo, will never host a World Cup again.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd guess the most likely thing to happen will be for Argentina or Argentina/Chile to host in 2030 but for Centenario to host the opening ceremony/game.


----------



## JimB

Antisocial said:


> 2014: Brazil
> 2018: Australia
> 2022: Canada
> 2026: China
> 2028: España
> 2032: Egipto.
> 2036: Argentina
> 2040: Nueva Zelanda
> 2044: Mexico
> 2048: Taiwan
> 2052: Portugal
> 2056: Nigeria


Apart from the fact that you lost two years after China (and all the dates thereafter are wrong!), that list appears to be based on a strict policy of rotation.

Won't happen. FIFA have discarded rotation as unworkable. They only introduced it to ensure that South Africa won the vote for 2010.

The World Cup will definitely return to Europe in either 2018 or 2022.

Both Australia and China now belong to the Asian Confederation. No way will they both host the World Cup with only one World Cup in Canada separating them.

Based on your list, England are not due to host the World Cup within the next fifty years. That would mean 100 years or more since England last hosted the World Cup - during which period (according to you) Mexico would have hosted it three times. Again, that is not going to happen.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

^^ well they didnt go back to athens for the olympics in 1996 for its 100 year aniversary... who says the world cup will go to uruguay in 2030?


----------



## Paulo2004

Lostboy said:


> _i myself dont think a country who have serious hooliganism problems should be given a chance to host the cup.
> even if they behave discipline at home. they created trouble to the host country abroad, thats the worst things soccer fans can do to spoil the host's event_
> 
> I'd agree, unless as I suspect that is, the last comment is directed at England only, because hooliganism across the world appears to be dying down, and certainly has amongst England fans abroad.


Totally agree with you. Some people just refuse to see what is evident. Then it's those same people that keep quiet and whistle away when things go terribly wrong - like the innocent brasilian shot dead because he was a "terrorist".


----------



## Kampflamm

Mr. Fusion said:


> *URUGUAY 2030*
> 
> It's not a request, it must be done for the spirit of the Tournament. :yes:
> 
> :grouphug:


Yeah, all games can be staged in 2 stadiums. Sorry, but the tournament's too big for Uruguay now.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Paulo2004 said:


> Totally agree with you. Some people just refuse to see what is evident. Then it's those same people that keep quiet and whistle away when things go terribly wrong - like the innocent brasilian shot dead because he was a "terrorist".


Stop posting nationalastic BS before you get your long overdue ban.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Antisocial said:


> 2014: Brazil
> 2018: Australia
> 2022: Canada
> *2026: China
> 2028: España*
> 2032: Egipto.
> 2036: Argentina
> 2040: Nueva Zelanda
> 2044: Mexico
> 2048: Taiwan
> 2052: Portugal
> 2056: Nigeria



^^You kinda made a mistake there.^^


----------



## Walbanger

I have no doubt that Australia is capable on putting on a great World Cup but one thing the puzzles me is that with the relatively small population and the the dominance of other football codes, when do you play the Cup. One would assume the European summer while Australia is in it's mild winter. 

Problem is most cities stadiums are taken up by the other codes during this time and FIFA requests that venues are not played on for a month before the Cup so the fields can be in their best shape. Soccer isn't big enough in Australia (I doubt by 2018 aswell) to warrant 40 000 plus stadiums for its exclusive use.
How would the Australian Football League and the National Rugby League be willing to pause their seasons for 2 months so that soccer can use them?

One thing going for Australia is its time zones shared with asia.
With Perth being so isolated on the West Coast, it would make sense for Perth to host a group exclusivly. Being +8 hours to London, Perth shares the same time period as the whole of China and is the closed city to European time. Night games for Perth would start at morning tea time for most Europeans. The American (north & south) would most likely be based on the east coast.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Paulo2004 said:


> Totally agree with you. Some people just refuse to see what is evident. Then it's those same people that keep quiet and whistle away when things go terribly wrong - like the innocent brasilian shot dead because he was a "terrorist".


You are on the way for a banning mate! The amount of bullshit you spout on here is starting to stink! I could respond to this comment with reasons explaining how stupid your last point is, but that would divert this thread from its focus. Stay on topic you diot!



Krazy said:


> Australia deserves it.. they have the resources.. and staging the world cup there would greatly boost the game in that region


Not sure how this really makes sense. Australia deserves it...why? They have the resources...so do many many other countries round the world. A world cup would boost the game in the region...yes, that is one advantageous point, but you could go down the opposite route and say that other countries are more passionate about football then Australia and therfore would relish hosting a WC more! Just playing devil's advocate here btw, don't take offense 



Antisocial said:


> 2014: Brazil
> 2018: Australia
> 2022: Canada
> 2026: China
> 2028: España
> 2032: Egipto.
> 2036: Argentina
> 2040: Nueva Zelanda
> 2044: Mexico
> 2048: Taiwan
> 2052: Portugal
> 2056: Nigeria


Apart from the obvious point that other people have pointed out about the mess up in years, that list is realllllly unlikely...in fact impossible!
For one thing, Australia is in the Asian confederation...this will have some advatges for Australian football, but it might also backfire in terms of hosting a WC, because they are the only country that could host one in Oceania, but in Asia they could quite likely lose to China....
For another thing, the WC will not skip Europe for 4 rotations...in fact 2010 and 2014 will be the first time ever that the WC has been away from Europe for two consecutive times!
Thirdly, Egypt, Taiwan and New Zealand will probably never host a WC, unless some serious economic and cultural changes happen in those countries.
Forthly, England is nowhere to be seen on that list, and that is just plain impossible! That would mean about 100 years will pass before the country that is best suited to hosting a WC and that gave the world the game will host the WC.....and Portugal and Spain will host it before England........ :scouserd: 



Kampflamm said:


> Yeah, all games can be staged in 2 stadiums. Sorry, but the tournament's too big for Uruguay now.


Yer, I have to agree with you here, I don't see Uruguay being able to host another WC, it's just not feasable for a country with such a low population, with so few stadiums and need for stadiums to host the biggest event in all of sports.

Unfortunately the criteria for hosting a WC is becoming more and more demanding with every year that passes. France for instance would struggle to host one these days, even though they did so back in 98, cus the rules have changed. Capacities have to be 40,000 minimum, and that could well increase in a couple of decades. Pretty much all the seats have to be under cover, you have to have a minimum of 9 or 10 high capacity stadiums situatied in different cities (with two allowed in one).

How many nations in the future will be able to host a tournament of this magitude....Only England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, SA, Brazil, USA, Canda, China and Australia can really host one on their own. I know FIFA doesn't like joint bids, but I think they are going to have to accept them in years to come, else none of the smaller nations around the world will see the WC coming to them ever again!!!!

Btw, Wikipedia has updated its page on the 2018 WC, check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_world_cup

:cheers:


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> Totally agree with you. Some people just refuse to see what is evident. Then it's those same people that keep quiet and whistle away when things go terribly wrong - like the innocent brasilian shot dead because he was a "terrorist".


The relevance of this is...................................what, exactly?

And are you trying to tell us that the Portuguese police has never, ever made a tragic mistake that resulted in a fatality?

Well?

Are you?


----------



## Castle_Bravo

I think that in 2014 it will be Argentina or Brazil and in 2018 Australia. In 2022 a country in Asia and in 2026 a country in Europe (maybe England??).
It can also be that a country in middle east will host the world cup, but I could becouse the political situation in some countries is not good (like in Iran).


----------



## al74

Unfortunately Uruguay is a small country for hosting a world cup, but surely could host a Fifa Confederations cup. We will have to renovate Centenario and build one or two new stadia; maybe in Paysandú, and Maldonado, or upgrading Domingo Burgueño stadium in Maldonado.

2014 - Brazil it´s time for South America and why not for the second Maracanazo
2018 - England

I don´t believe Australia deserves to host a wc; for qualifying to a world cup they only won a match, against Uruguay and after penalties, I don´t consider Papua New Guinea, or Solomon Islands, or Tuvalu a contender, .........it´s like playing against an under 12 team............ridiculous........

Centroamerican teams, asian teams and Oceania teams, they don´t exist for me, they are in the world cup only to reach de number of 32 teams........the world cup should be played by

6 South American teams
18 European teams
4 African teams
wc winner
host
2 Rest of the world teams


----------



## JimB

Castle_Bravo said:


> I think that in 2014 it will be Argentina or Brazil and in 2018 Australia. In 2022 a country in Asia and in 2026 a country in Europe (maybe England??).


If the 2018 World Cup is held in Australia, then the 2022 World Cup could not possibly be held in Asia.

Australia is now, as far as football is concerned, an Asian country. It is a member of the Asian Football Confederation. FIFA will not stage two consecutive World Cups on the same continent.

Asia will host either 2018 or 2022. And it will go to either China or Australia.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Wait, you need 10 stadiums +40 000 seating, that have covered stands right? So that would mean like...Whoa!! 6 new stadiums if Canada were to host!


----------



## JimB

Canadian Chocho said:


> Wait, you need 10 stadiums +40 000 seating, that have covered stands right? So that would mean like...Whoa!! 6 new stadiums if Canada were to host!


Probably not.

I think FIFA would relax their rules on covered stands.

After all, most U.S. stadia used in World Cup 1994 didn't have rooves. And Marseilles' Stade Velodrome, used in 1998, only has a roof on one side.


----------



## KiwiBrit

I'm not sure if this has been said before, but I'm saying it now. What makes people think Australia is going to get a WC in the next 20 years? and for that matter deserves one. It seems to me there are too many question marks before they could be even close. Here are some of my doubts.

The obvious ones, it's going to played smack in the middle of the Aussie Winter. I don't care what anyone says, Melbourne and Sydney can have some pretty shitty weather this time of year. Plus games on the East coast will have poor kick off times for the Europeans. I know that shouldn't matter, but I bet it does.

Most of the grounds proposed, are used during this time for the beloved AFL, Rugby League and Union. FIFA request no sports to be played at WC venues for at least a month before a tournament for the pitches to be in perfect condition. Are the Aussies willing to postpone AFL, RL and possibly super 14 for a season? (affecting South Africa and NZ as well) I doubt it!

Now the Aussies have joined the Asia Confederation, I'd be amazed if they were given the opportunity by the Confederation to stage a WC before China. Surely they would have had a better chance by staying with Oceania.

What is the basis for an Aussie bid, the fact they they qualified for the finals for the first time in 32 years?. Does this mean if they hadn't qualified for Germany, then no bid would be expected. I can understand why the WC has been to Japan, the US and possibly China in the future. Population sizes, the growth of the game and of course money are the key factors. I'm not too sure Australia are in two of those categories.

I don't want to sound negative, I now live in this corner of the World and would love nothing more then to see the WC played 'down under'. I'm just curious what makes a lot of people think Australia deserves one more then other countries.


----------



## MrCopy

Mi lista se basa en la rotacion entre continente, seria justo para cada continente, no creen, es mas America merece ser organizador de mas copa por las 9 copas que poseen, que hasta ayer fue igualada por Europa con la copa alcanzada por Italia.


My list is based on the rotation between continent, serious right for each continent, do not create, is but America deserves to be organizing of but glass by the 9 glasses that they have, that until was even yesterday by Europe with the glass reached about Italy.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

2018 should go to California! we have plenty of stadiums, more people than most countries, by that time pushing 50 million people, and many many soccer fans from all over the world. Los Angeles would have the Colosieum (90,000), the Rose Bowl (90,000), Home Depot Center (27,000), but by that time it could be expanded to accomodate more fans so we can get to 40,000, San Diego has the Chargers Stadium (65,000+), San francisco has a few Stadia as well, with Stanford and Cal both having decent sized Stadia. Also, if need be, we can use Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Petco Park, SBC, and the Oakland Colosieum. By that time, the California High Speed rail will be completed linking, LA, SF, SD, Orange County etc, and fans would have a pretty easy time seeing all games!

im half joking, but i would seriously love to see this. in 94, if your team was playing a round one game in LA, it would be way to expensive to follow them to Chicago or NJ or wherever else they went. they need to regionalize in a big country like America.


----------



## godblessbotox

sounds like a good idea to me


----------



## Walbanger

> Most of the grounds proposed, are used during this time for the beloved AFL, Rugby League and Union. FIFA request no sports to be played at WC venues for at least a month before a tournament for the pitches to be in perfect condition. Are the Aussies willing to postpone AFL, RL and possibly super 14 for a season? (affecting South Africa and NZ as well) I doubt it!


I've already said this.


> I don't want to sound negative, I now live in this corner of the World and would love nothing more then to see the WC played 'down under'. I'm just curious what makes a lot of people think Australia deserves one more then other countries.


No aussie's are saying we deserve the world cup. We just believe that we are capable of putting a bloody good cup together because we are a wealthy and stable country in region where soccer is number one (bear it not at home).


----------



## KiwiBrit

> We just believe that we are capable of putting a bloody good cup together because we are a wealthy and stable country in region where soccer is number one (bear it not at home).


I agree Australia is capable of hosting a WC. but how would you get over the hurdle of ground sharing with at least 3 other sporting codes?

Also, what do you mean "a region where soccer is number one"? I would say as a region (Oceania) could argue many sports as it's number one.


----------



## Walbanger

> Also, what do you mean "a region where soccer is number one"? I would say as a region (Oceania) could argue many sports as it's number one.


Ah, Well I'm from Perth so my regional focus is towards South East Asia rather than the Pacific but your right that many (east coast) Australians may consider the region of oceania but do remember that Australia is now part of the AFC so in soccere terms, the region is South East Asia.


----------



## JimB

Antisocial said:


> Mi lista se basa en la rotacion entre continente, seria justo para cada continente, no creen, es mas America merece ser organizador de mas copa por las 9 copas que poseen, que hasta ayer fue igualada por Europa con la copa alcanzada por Italia.
> 
> 
> My list is based on the rotation between continent, serious right for each continent, do not create, is but America deserves to be organizing of but glass by the 9 glasses that they have, that until was even yesterday by Europe with the glass reached about Italy.


Nice online translation!

I see what you're saying but World Cup venues are no longer chosen on the basis of which continents are the most successful. That always used to be the case because, until USA 1994, no World Cup had ever been held outside of Europe or Latin America. Asia only staged its first World Cup four years ago. Africa won't stage its first World Cup until 2010.

A strict policy of rotation (or one favouring South America, as you suggest) is unworkable for the simple reason that there are not enough South American countries capable of staging the World Cup. There are even doubts about Brazil's current ability to stage a World Cup, given the poor state of stadiums and inadequate infrastructure.


----------



## Paulo2004

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> You are on the way for a banning mate! The amount of bullshit you spout on here is starting to stink! I could respond to this comment with reasons explaining how stupid your last point is, but that would divert this thread from its focus. Stay on topic you diot!


Listen here, what I did was give my true opinion on why Portugal can hold a world cup. I was also obviously refering to the security issue which in my opinion should count heavily on the minds of FIFA. What I did was give an example of how security in England is lacking and the results are known. Nowhere did I call names or insult anyone. So don't come here insulting me just because my opinion is presumably different from yours. Call me names again and I'll make sure you get banned- but with a reason.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Paulo2004 said:


> Listen here, what I did was give my true opinion on why Portugal can hold a world cup. I was also obviously refering to the security issue which in my opinion should count heavily on the minds of FIFA. What I did was give an example of how security in England is lacking and the results are known. Nowhere did I call names or insult anyone. So don't come here insulting me just because my opinion is presumably different from yours. Call me names again and I'll make sure you get banned- but with a reason.


You used an extremely poor example that has very little to do with security for a WC then went into a xenophobic conspiriacy theory.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61669.htm

"c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 
Treatment or Punishment 


The law prohibits such practices; however, there were credible reports of disproportionate use of force by police and of mistreatment and other forms of abuse by prison guards against detainees. 


During the year the IGAI investigated new reports of mistreatment and abuse by police and prison guards (see section 1.d.). 


An internal prison inquiry into the beating of Albino Libânio in 2003 found that he had sustained multiple injuries from an assault that may have amounted to torture. A criminal investigation into the matter was pending, and disciplinary proceedings against several prison officers were ongoing."

I guess Portugal isnt fit to host a WC either?


----------



## JimB

Paulo2004 said:


> Listen here, what I did was give my true opinion on why Portugal can hold a world cup. I was also obviously refering to the security issue which in my opinion should count heavily on the minds of FIFA. What I did was give an example of how security in England is lacking and the results are known. Nowhere did I call names or insult anyone. So don't come here insulting me just because my opinion is presumably different from yours. Call me names again and I'll make sure you get banned- but with a reason.


Rubbish. Your reference to the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was entirely gratuitous.

Listen, if you want to point fingers and cherry pick incidents which show the British police in a bad light, then I'm quite sure that Brits could respond in kind.

However, that would be a very immature response and we don't want to stoop to your level. This thread is about possible venues for the World Cup and we mustn't allow you to derail it by starting a slanging match.

On the subject of security, I'll repeat what I wrote in an earlier post. Terrorists desire and need, above all, the oxygen of publicity. The World Cup enjoys an enormous, worldwide media profile. A bomb explosion at a World Cup in Portugal would receive every bit as much worldwide publicity as a bomb explosion at a World Cup in England. Or U.S.A. Or Brazil. Or China. Or South Africa. Or anywhere esle in the world.

So if terrorists ever decide that the World Cup would be a worthwhile target, then a World Cup in Portugal would be no more secure than one in England.

So enough of your nonsense. Let's talk about stadiums and how much emotional support England or Portugal would have, because those are the criteria that matter.


----------



## Paulo2004

JimB said:


> Rubbish. Your reference to the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was entirely gratuitous.
> 
> Listen, if you want to point fingers and cherry pick incidents which show the British police in a bad light, then I'm quite sure that Brits could respond in kind.
> 
> However, that would be a very immature response and we don't want to stoop to your level. This thread is about possible venues for the World Cup and we mustn't allow you to derail it by starting a slanging match.
> 
> On the subject of security, I'll repeat what I wrote in an earlier post. Terrorists desire and need, above all, the oxygen of publicity. The World Cup enjoys an enormous, worldwide media profile. A bomb explosion at a World Cup in Portugal would receive every bit as much worldwide publicity as a bomb explosion at a World Cup in England. Or U.S.A. Or Brazil. Or China. Or South Africa. Or anywhere esle in the world.
> 
> So if terrorists ever decide that the World Cup would be a worthwhile target, then a World Cup in Portugal would be no more secure than one in England.
> 
> So enough of your nonsense. Let's talk about stadiums and how much emotional support England or Portugal would have, because those are the criteria that matter.


It was an example that occured at the moment. I obviously disagree with you. Security is and always will be a criteria. To me it should have much more importance than emotional support. I mean, who are you to say that stadiums and emotional support, as you put it, are the only criterea to be taken into account? They are important obviously, but countries that have high level of crime, hooliganism or are a political target should (and I'm not saying England has all three!!) should be penalised in some way when voting begins to decide the best bid. My inner thoughts tell me you are simply making a big issue out of the example I gave (which like it or not, it has to do with security) in order to reflect one's attention on what I initially began discussing and that was security as an IMPORTANT criteria when hosting the world cup. I will accept that the example probably was far-fetched but I will stick to my initial opinion and that is Portugal has better chances of hosting the world cup 2018 than England if security is taken seriously into account.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Paulo2004 said:


> It was an example that occured at the moment. I obviously disagree with you. Security is and always will be a criteria. To me it should have much more importance than emotional support. I mean, who are you to say that stadiums and emotional support, as you put it, are the only criterea to be taken into account? They are important obviously, but countries that have high level of crime, hooliganism or are a political target should (and I'm not saying England has all three!!) should be penalised in some way when voting begins to decide the best bid. My inner thoughts tell me you are simply making a big issue out of the example I gave (which like it or not, it has to do with security) in order to reflect one's attention on what I initially began discussing and that was security as an IMPORTANT criteria when hosting the world cup. I will accept that the example probably was far-fetched but I will stick to my initial opinion and that is Portugal has better chances of hosting the world cup 2018 than England if security is taken seriously into account.


That one example was a very poor one though and didnt represent the overall arguement at all. As my example shows you can dig up isolated incidents for any country pretty easily but that doesnt mean they reflect a nation as a whole or its suitability to host a major sporting event.

The fact that FIFA seem willing to let SA host 2010 and Brazil host 2014 dispite both nations having much higher violent crime levels than most devolped countries suggests to me it isnt a massive factor.


----------



## hngcm

Cricket grounds....


----------



## JimB

Did we really need yet another thread on World Cup 2018??


----------



## RSG

JimB said:


> Did we really need yet another thread on World Cup 2018??


It is more about the quality of Australian stadiums for world class events.

Not to sound rude, but if you do not like the thread, please do not post here.

I know the new Robina stadium for the Gold Coast Titans will be of very high quality, but I do not know the seating capacity.














Weebie said:


> Personally i;m not so keen on havign it in Australia i would rather Travel to a new country to experience the world cup its so much better and Worth the Money.


Think of all of the other fans around the world that could come and experience Australia


----------



## JimB

RSG said:


> It is more about the quality of Australian stadiums for world class events.
> 
> Not to sound rude, but if you do not like the thread, please do not post here.


Not to sound rude but, if this thread is "more about the quality of Australian stadiums for world class events", why give it the totally midleading title "FIFA World Cup 2018"?


----------



## matherto

Its AlL gUUd said:


> funny how they called the whole of England as LONDON
> 
> i suppose London can host it if it really wanted 2


but then the rest of the country would nick the military and attack...London always gets everything, why not the North West.......


----------



## HT

mrtocsin said:


> 2010 South Africa
> 2014 Brazil
> 2018 England
> 2022 Australia
> 2026 USA
> 2030 Italy
> 2034 China
> 2038 Argentina
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sepp Blatter.



2030 Italy? It would be Italys 3. time so I dont think so. 

i bet China will made it earlier, even I dont hope so


----------



## MoreOrLess

Italy will probabley get a 3rd WC before anyone else but you'd expect the Spanish to get a 2nd one first.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

yeah I don't see Italy getting a 3rd WC before all the other big European nations have hosted it twice, so England and Spain will host before they do I should imagine, and possibly Portugal or Russia.....

:cheers:


----------



## RSG

JimB said:


> Not to sound rude but, if this thread is "more about the quality of Australian stadiums for world class events", why give it the totally midleading title "FIFA World Cup 2018"?


Different sporting events require different sorts of fields. As Australia has gripped soccer fever and are looking to bid for the World Cup in 2018, I wish to discuss our stadiums and their suitability for soccer.


and there is no option to change a thread name.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

We should get it ahead of England thats for sure.

They have already hosted it and just HOW many times do we have to have a World Cup in Europe? 

Time for FIFA to start hosting the Cup in new countries and not just the SAME old faces.

That is before you start talking about the outrageously over-priced Euro nations.

An Oz World Cup is the best fit for the World and not just these northern Euro nations.


----------



## Eureka!

Except for the fact many soccer pplaying nations are in Europe and for Europeans to travel to Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Hobart and all of southern Australia (even northern Australia) it's quite a long flight therefore more expensive. I do agree it would be good though. Melbourne's getting a new stadium but that can only seat 25,000. A new soccer field in Oz that could seat 80,000 would be cool. But only for the world cup. We can't really build too many new stadiums for soccer because we won't be able to fill them after the cup. (maybe NSW and QLD with rugby) We would definatley be able to fill them at the world cup. Since we got 96,000 for the practice match against Greece. Australia would be good for tourists as it's much cheaper. I like the idea. I mean it's not like you can just walk over to London any day you want. Sure it may be cool going overseas but it's not cheap!!!


----------



## Eureka!

Here's my list of stadiums. 

Suncorp
MCG
Telstra Stadium
Telstra Dome
For Perth Subiaco
For Adelaide AAMI
The new GC stadium and other new stadiums. Some of those stadiums are way out of date and need major renovations and plus most of them aren't rectangle. Where would the final be hosted???? Telstra Stadium, The Dome, Suncorp, or the "G"????....
Oops I forgot the SCG. And princes park is hardly suitable for the world cup. And did you mention Geelong FC's home ground avalon or whatever. Princes park could be alright if it was bulldozed and remade.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

would be nice to see some unlikely European countries to host a world cup in the future instead of always the usual's, its abit unfair when theres talk of nations expecting a 2nd or 3rd wc.

countries such as poland,czech rep,Ukrain and other eastern European countries should be considered in the future.


----------



## Eureka!

In that picture of the MCG is it renovated yet??? doesn't look like it.


----------



## Weebie

Remember that Stadiums must take away 10000 seats for all the Media set-ups that are required. Also the all WOrld Cup stadiums must be over 40 000


----------



## Weebie

Remember that Stadiums must take away 10000 seats for all the Media set-ups that are required. Also the all World Cup stadiums must be over 40 000


----------



## MoreOrLess

The only UEFA nations I can see being able to host a WC solo sometime in the future that havent already are Turkey and Russia. The European Championships are a much more realstic option for most of these nations considering the smaller size and the fact joint hosts are more likely.


----------



## CharlieP

Mr. Maciek said:


> would be nice to see some unlikely European countries to host a world cup in the future instead of always the usual's, its abit unfair when theres talk of nations expecting a 2nd or 3rd wc.
> 
> countries such as poland,czech rep,Ukrain and other eastern European countries should be considered in the future.


I think the most important consideration is that the World Cup should go to a country, or pair of neighbouring countries, that have the facilities (stadia, hotels, transport infrastructure) to do it justice, rather than being awarded simply because "it would be nice if one of those little countries had a go"...


----------



## victory

Weebie said:


> Remember that Stadiums must take away 10000 seats for all the Media set-ups that are required. Also the all World Cup stadiums must be over 40 000


10,000? or 1,000?


----------



## Eureka!

Yeah I agree. I mean Londons going for what. It's 4th Olympics. thats more than Athens!!! Surely other nations should have a chance. Manchester recently hosted the commonwealth games. I would love to see Oz get it while im alive. It will. Canada I wouldn't mind. China's getting the olympics already. But I agree with whats above. Of course FIFA wants money and it has to have good stadiums and infrustructure but what about Switzerland or something. Belgium???


----------



## The Game Is Up

At this point, nobody truly "deserves" a World Cup hosting. Each country comes with its strengths and many weaknesses. We can go over what those are but that's for another time.

Right now, the only reasons why 2010 and 2014 are pencilled in is because of FIFA politics. The real competition, if you want to look at it that way and if we're to be right, is for 2018. 

One thing people overlook is the pragmatism of FIFA political decisions. I think some at the higher ups realise that many developing countries would bankrupt themselves if choosing to participate in an open competition. So, the thinking goes, FIFA and its member confederations would "lend a hand" to ensure that at least some finals would still go to developing countries in the 21st Century. Then, they'll allow themselves (unofficially) alternatives in order to keep the pressure on them to make sure certain upgrades, like grounds, training facilities, etc., are implemented. The goal of this is to show to the vast majority of the FA's that they have at least an equal chance at competing at the highest levels, even when results don't bear that out in reality. FIFA can't afford to have FA's from the developing world leave and form their own organisations, lest they result in some delegitimisation of the "World" Cup, making it more like the "World" Series. :lol: Also, it keeps the goal of diversifying the hostings at different points of the globe and avoids the possibility of limiting them to just the most developed nations. 

2018 is expected to go back to the developed world and, thus, open competition is the better option. What better to keep England, Australia, U.S., Spain, etc. honest and make sure that fiascos like the New Wembley don't happen.


----------



## Mo Rush

like it? dont like it?..


----------



## Canadian Chocho

nope...


----------



## Mo Rush

double post


----------



## Mo Rush

Canadian Chocho said:


> nope...


canada 2018 2022 2026?.....nope...just kidding.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

I just mean I wouldn't prefer Australia getting it in 2018. They probably are gunna get it before Canada, of course if we ever get it.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

haha nice work mo rush  

2018 and australia look so good together hehe


----------



## Eureka!

Yeah I agreem lol. It will happen one day whether it's 2018 or 2022 or 2026 or 6000 it will happen. Hopefully sooner rather than later though. 
Where did you get that picture from Mo Rush??? FDid you make it??? I like it. mmmmm


----------



## Eureka!

Well Australia's qualified twice. I don't see why Hobart and Darwin can't host some. All those people missing out people from Geelong, Townsville excetra can go to the nearest capital city. They're the same size of some of Germany's cities.


----------



## RSG

samsonyuen said:


> I don't think you need to be in the top 32 in rankings to host. I'm certain South Africa isn't, and I doubt South Korea and Japan were either.


In 2002, South Korea was ranked 22nd and Japan was ranked 24th.

At the moment, SA is ranked 72nd so I guess I was wrong. I guess FIFA wanted to have an African world cup.


----------



## Mo Rush

Eureka! said:


> Yeah I agreem lol. It will happen one day whether it's 2018 or 2022 or 2026 or 6000 it will happen. Hopefully sooner rather than later though.
> Where did you get that picture from Mo Rush??? FDid you make it??? I like it. mmmmm


i conjured it up myself.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

The Game Is Up said:


> 2018 is expected to go back to the developed world and, thus, open competition is the better option. What better to keep *England, Australia, U.S., Spain, etc.* honest and make sure that fiascos like the New Wembley don't happen.


umm the USA and Spain have hosted recently, so they shouldnt get it b4 England and maybe Austrailia


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Mo Rush said:


> like it? dont like it?..


ARE YOU HONESTLY SAYIN THAT EUROPE SHOULD WAIT ANOTHER *16 YEARS* BEFORE HOSTING THE WORLD CUP?! :scouserd:


----------



## themongrel

australia has some good stadiums but alot are for cricket. the fans need to be closer to the pitch, i don't even like running tracks around them. i think watching football at a cricket pitch would suck, yeah if the rugby, aussie rules, and olympic stadiums were to be improved it would be good, but i think england for 2018 would be better. (i am slightly biased though)


----------



## Avens

SA has regularly been in the top thirty, so may well have been twenty-something when the decision was made. I can't remember though to be honest.

We should have the 2018 World Cup here in England though.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

^^ :yes: ^^


----------



## al74

they should organiza a rugby cup, a cricket one, or a Kangaroo race but not a football world cup............I DONT´WANT ANOTHER USA 94...........


----------



## Noostairz

2018 world cup in australia? - unlikely.

1) too few sufficiently large, football-specific stadiums in too few cities, stadiums that could well be unavailable anyway due to domestic sporting demands (aussie rules).
2) europe's footballing importance is likely sway the 2018 tournament in its favour, given that the continent probably won't have hosted the world cup in 12yrs by then
3) australia sits in an unsuitable time-zone for the traditionally largest tv viewerships of europe and south america.

i'd guess that australia will be competing to host the 2022 world cup with china:

2010: south africa
2014: brazil / south america
2018: england
2022: china / australia


----------



## 40Acres

al74 said:


> they should organiza a rugby cup, a cricket one, or a Kangaroo race but not a football world cup............I DONT´WANT ANOTHER USA 94...........


what, you mean the most successful, highly attended world cup in history, which brought about the re-birth of attacking football and even hosted 8 less teams (and thus less matches) than France 1998? Face it, the WC is coming back to the USA as soon as FIFA can possibly get it here without hearing too much whining and bitching from the miserable footy population around the world. Football has exploded in the United States, and the WC final viewership between ITA-FRA even outdrew the NBA finals and was 100,000 short of beating the MLB (baseball) championship series.

The USA has about 30-35 football-ready stadium/cities/transportation infrastructure to host a WC next week:

Los Angeles - Rose Bowl Stadium - 92,000
Los Angeles - Los Angeles Coliseum - 92,000
Washington, D.C. - Fed Ex Field - 91,665
New York - Giants Stadium - 80,242
Kansas City - Arrowhead Stadium - 79,451
Jacksonville - Alltel Stadium - 76,877
Denver - Invesco Field - 76,125
Buffalo - Ralph Wilson Stadium - 73,967
Miami - Dolphins Stadium - 71,149
Charlotte - Bank of America Stadium - 73,246 
Cleveland - Browns Stadium - 73,200
San Diego - Qualcomm Stadium - 71,294
Atlanta - Georgia Dome - 71,149
Houston - Reliant Stadium - 71,054
Orlando - Citrus Bowl - 70,188
Phoenix - Cardinals Stadium - 70,000
Baltimore - M&T Bank Stadium - 69,084
Nashville - The Coliseum - 68,932
Boston - Gillette Stadium - 68,756
Philidelphia - Lincoln Financial Field - 68,532
New Orleans - Louisiana Superdome - 68,395
Dallas - Cotton Bowl - 68,252
Seattle - Qwest Field - 67,000
St. Louis - Edward Jones Dome - 66,000
Dallas - Texas Stadium - 65,846	
Tampa - Raymond James Stadium - 65,647
Cincinnati - Paul Brown Stadium -65,352
San Antonio - Alamodome - 65,000
Detroit - Ford Field - 64,500	
Pittsburgh - Heinz Field - 64,450
Minneapolis - Metrodome - 64,121
Oakland - McAfee Coliseum - 63,026
Chicago - Soldier Field - 61,500
Washington - RFK Memorial Stadium - 56,454
Indianapolis - RCA Dome - 56,127


Keep in mind that this list does not include the larger College Football stadiums (not all-seaters), future stadium sites like Jerryworld in Dallas, (90,000+), Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana (65,000 +), Future New York Stadium (90,000+), and any future stadiums for NFL cities like St. Louis, San Francisco Los Angeles, and New Orleans that would surely be built by 2014, much less 2018.

It also does not include any stadium in the US that isn't above 55,000.

So, suck it.


----------



## MoreOrLess

edennewstairs said:


> 2018 world cup in australia? - unlikely.
> 
> 1) too few sufficiently large, football-specific stadiums in too few cities, stadiums that could well be unavailable anyway due to domestic sporting demands (aussie rules).
> 2) europe's footballing importance is likely sway the 2018 tournament in its favour, given that the continent probably won't have hosted the world cup in 12yrs by then
> 3) australia sits in an unsuitable time-zone for the traditionally largest tv viewerships of europe and south america.
> 
> i'd guess that australia will be competing to host the 2022 world cup with china:
> 
> 2010: south africa
> 2014: brazil / south america
> 2018: england
> 2022: china / australia


Even though FIFA has stated there going to stop the rotation system after 2014 I personally don't think we'll ever see a return to open bidding. Deals will be done behind closed doors to see which federation gets each WC then a host will be desided on by them IMHO. That helps Australia in one way considering the Asian zone has much more political clout than Oceania but as you say it also potentially puts them into direct competision with China.


----------



## HUSKER

XCRunner said:


> 2014 seems destined for Brazil, and 2018 for England, but not quite as certain as 2014 is. FIFA has already said that 2030 will belong to Uruguay to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Cup, but I doubt they could do it alone... I see a joint host with Argentina.
> 
> What countries do I think should get it?
> 
> China- (not the biggest sport there, but believe me, they'd get up for the greatest event in the world
> 
> Nigeria- Lost narrowly to South Africa
> 
> Australia- Need more stadiums, but I'd like to see it there at some point.
> 
> USA- Who wouldn't want the Copa Mundial to come to their home nation??


For starters Nigeria didn't lost the bid to South Africa for 2010., LYBERIA, MOROCCO AND TUNISIA lost the bid, being Morocco the closest., Australia has stadiums and has the potential of building new ones (and has the turist appeal)., In 10 years China will have the largest under 20 fan base in the world and finally, Mexico has the right, the desire, the fan base and economic potential to do the 2022 world cup in front of the US.


----------



## Mo Rush

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ARE YOU HONESTLY SAYIN THAT EUROPE SHOULD WAIT ANOTHER *16 YEARS* BEFORE HOSTING THE WORLD CUP?! :scouserd:


its just a dam logo..lol..im an england 2018 supporter...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Mo Rush said:


> its just a dam logo..lol..im an england 2018 supporter...


i know mo :jk:


----------



## gothicform

if urugay host the 2030 world cup surely england are due it in 2072 too  200th anniversary of the first ever cup competition.


----------



## ReddAlert

Milwaukee should host the World Cup.


----------



## elgoyo

Looking for a country in the americas???

Mexico is the way to go!!!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

K, I've made up my mind! 2018 ENGLAND ALL THE WAY!!! (doing the robot Crouch style)


----------



## Weebie

edennewstairs said:


> 2018 world cup in australia? - unlikely.
> 
> 1) too few sufficiently large, football-specific stadiums in too few cities, stadiums that could well be unavailable anyway due to domestic sporting demands (aussie rules).
> 2) europe's footballing importance is likely sway the 2018 tournament in its favour, given that the continent probably won't have hosted the world cup in 12yrs by then
> 3) australia sits in an unsuitable time-zone for the traditionally largest tv viewerships of europe and south america.
> 
> i'd guess that australia will be competing to host the 2022 world cup with china:
> 
> 2010: south africa
> 2014: brazil / south america
> 2018: england
> 2022: china / australia


South American Countries has stated it doesn't want to build new for the World Cup. No chance they will get it then.


----------



## The Game Is Up

This has gotten a bit more interesting:

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,3033_1346694,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/5187170.stm
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...682_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-WORLD-COLOMBIA.XML

Meanwhile, there are still some doubts as to whether Brazil is capable of hosting: 
http://sport.monstersandcritics.com...razil_over_possible_hosting_of_2014_World_Cup

I still think it's Brazil for 2014. However, if this lights a fire underneath their respective bottoms than it would be worth the trouble, especially if another more credible bid comes in.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

The Game Is Up said:


> This has gotten a bit more interesting:
> 
> http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,3033_1346694,00.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/5187170.stm
> http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...682_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-WORLD-COLOMBIA.XML
> 
> Meanwhile, there are still some doubts as to whether Brazil is capable of hosting:
> http://sport.monstersandcritics.com...razil_over_possible_hosting_of_2014_World_Cup
> 
> I still think it's Brazil for 2014. However, if this lights a fire underneath their respective bottoms than it would be worth the trouble, especially if another more credible bid comes in.


Some interesting articles there man, especially that last one. I didn't know Brazil was quite this unprepared for hosting the 2014 WC.

I was particularly surprised by this bit of the article:

_'Investments will have to be heavy as Teixeira and FIFA boss Joseph Blatter acknowledge that *Brazil has to build 10 or 12 new stadiums * for the World Cup, given the state of the current arenas.' _

....... 10 or 12 new stadiums...that is just unbelievable! So basically they don't even have a decent stadium lineup to start with, they are just gonna build everything from scratch...that doesn't seem right somehow. For one thing it is gonna cost them a huuuuggggeeeee amount of money, for another there will be major issues over demand for such stadiums after the WC, and there will no doubt be the usual issues of corruption, money scams, construction problems etc etc associated with such a massive undertaking, especially in Brazil!

Whatever the situation, they had better start building some stadiums real quick, cus 12 stadiums in about 7 years is gonna be difficult!

:cheers:


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Weebie said:


> South American Countries has stated it doesn't want to build new for the World Cup. No chance they will get it then.


Well it is going to a South American country/countries in 2014, no matter what happens, the only issue is which country/countries in south america is gonna get it.

But, as you rightly say, there are currently some major problems with the potentials bidders at the moment, especially the main candidate Brazil (just see the other thread in this section entited 'Your prefered FIFA World Cup hosts 2014 & 2018').

:cheers:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

so looks like Brazil wont get it then


----------



## fatkid1

ReddAlert said:


> Milwaukee should host the World Cup.


Whats that?


----------



## canarywondergod

milwaukee is a city in the north USA










it has one of my favourite stadiums in the world (despite its problems)










but back to the point, its not a big enough city to hold the world cup and would need to build copious amounts of football stadiums. personally the sooner england get it the better as its been far too long since we've held it, especially now as the germans have held it twice after 66 the stadiums are here, the infrastructure is here (sort of) so just let us have it!(although given the apparent rotation system it probably wont be untill 2018 but as long as when its a choice out of european countries its england thats fine).


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Some interesting articles there man, especially that last one. I didn't know Brazil was quite this unprepared for hosting the 2014 WC.
> 
> I was particularly surprised by this bit of the article:
> 
> _'Investments will have to be heavy as Teixeira and FIFA boss Joseph Blatter acknowledge that *Brazil has to build 10 or 12 new stadiums * for the World Cup, given the state of the current arenas.' _
> 
> ....... 10 or 12 new stadiums...that is just unbelievable! So basically they don't even have a decent stadium lineup to start with, they are just gonna build everything from scratch...that doesn't seem right somehow. For one thing it is gonna cost them a huuuuggggeeeee amount of money, for another there will be major issues over demand for such stadiums after the WC, and there will no doubt be the usual issues of corruption, money scams, construction problems etc etc associated with such a massive undertaking, especially in Brazil!
> 
> Whatever the situation, they had better start building some stadiums real quick, cus 12 stadiums in about 7 years is gonna be difficult!
> 
> :cheers:


Not very supprizing when you consider almost all of the big Brazilian stadiums were built in he 50's and have had very little done to them since. These three proposals/UC are all I'v seen so far and one of them isnt large enough...

http://www.stadiumguide.com/arenamultiuso.htm
http://www.stadiumguide.com/joaohavelange.htm
http://www.stadiumguide.com/beirarionew.htm


----------



## The Game Is Up

Look, I'm not saying Brazil won't have it. What I was arguing was that it's possible that they have to have some actual competition in order to help erase any doubts about their ability to host. I don't know if Colombia can take it away from them at this point, unless they make a deal to get access to Chavez' oil money, which would then make things very interesting. 

However, if the pessimism in Brazil still persists, then another country can still win it, as amazing as that sounds.


----------



## RSG

Definately Australia for 2018. The Federal and State governments look serious about putting a bid together. When is the 2018 location announced?


----------



## RSG

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ARE YOU HONESTLY SAYIN THAT EUROPE SHOULD WAIT ANOTHER *16 YEARS* BEFORE HOSTING THE WORLD CUP?! :scouserd:


I am. Europe should wait as they have just hosted the WORLD cup. Now, Africa will host it, then South America will host it, Shouldn't Australasia host before going back to Europe? After all it is the world game.


----------



## Durbsboi

Tazmainia :crazy2:


----------



## RSG

Durbsboi said:


> Tazmainia :crazy2:


Do you meanTasmania ???


----------



## Mo Rush

ExSydney said:


> Im sure the Final venue is determined by the local organising committee(as per guidelines set out by FIFA(70,000++ etc etc) or am I wrong?


i think for austrlia its a toss up between melbourne and sydney..i think the MCG will get some preference in terms of its history..


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Yer, I don't think the stadium for the WC final is decided soley on its capacity, this has deffinietly nopt been the case in some previous WC's, you also have to consider the quality of the stadium, its suitability for the event, and in a lot of cases, just whether or not it is in the capital. For instance, if England get the 2018 WC, Old Trafford may have been expanded to over 90,000+ capacity by then, more then Wembley, but I really can't see them letting any other city outside London host the final.

But anyway, everyone (including myself) has been mainly focussed on debating who will host the 2018 WC, but over the last few days I have become increasingly interested in the saga that is the 2014 WC, which is rapidly becoming something of a mystery, and could turn onto the biggest farse in recent WC history.

Here is the situation as I see it at the moment:

-Back in 2003, Sep Blatter announced that the 2014 WC would be held in South America.

-Within 10 days of this announcement, all 10 countries of the South American federation got together and unanimously agreed and announced that Brazil was their only candidate. 

-And now that there are 32 countries in the WC, you need a lot of high quality, high capacity stadiums and infastructure in at least 9 or 10 different cities, and most SA countries do not have this, so Brazil would seem the only obvious choice, no problem you would think....

-But, more recently, Blatter made it clear that he was not impressed with the stadium situation in Brazil, and that they would probably need to build 10-12 new stadiums in order to be up to present WC standards; and he has also suggested that perhaps Argentina and Chile should consider a joint bid for the WC...this after Blatter had already previously stated that he and FIFA didn't want any more co-hosted WCs! And in case anyone was unaware, the stadium situation in Argentina and Chile is, if anything, worse then it is in Brazil!

-Then last Sunday, Columbia's president announced that Columbia want to host in 2014, in apparent ignorance, it seems, that 3 years ago, the Columbian FA had already given their support to Brazil. Yesterday, I believe, the head of the South American federation met with the vice-president of Columbia to remonstrate about how Brazil are SA's only candidate.

-The decison about who hosts the WC is made in 2008, which leaves whoever gets it only 6 years to build up the stadiums and infastructure, or more accurately 5 years, because (I think), any new stadium has to have been in use for at least a year before the WC. 

........................


In conclusion, I have to wonder, why wasn't this decison made as far back as 2003 when Blatter said SA would host the WC and the SA federation said Brazil is their only candidate, why wasn't the official decsion made then, which would give them 11 years to prepare???

Now I'm starting to have vague suspicions about FIFA's plans and motives. Are FIFA playing a game here? It seems to be a very similar situation with what happened in 1986 when Columbia were scheduled to host the WC, but with time running out, they pulled out-under pressure-and FIFA glady handed it to Mexico. Is it just possible that FIFA are having hopes of maybe handing the 2014 WC over to a more lucrative market, like say....China, or USA or Canada....??

Columbia actually have some of the best stadiums in South America at the moment, so there is every possiblility that they could be in with a shot, but whatever happens, it is getting more and more of a farse as the days go on, cus 5 years to build about 10 stadiums and all the infastructure seems a tall order for Brazil!


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Yer, I don't think the stadium for the WC final is decided soley on its capacity, this has deffinietly nopt been the case in some previous WC's, you also have to consider the quality of the stadium, its suitability for the event, and in a lot of cases, just whether or not it is in the capital. For instance, if England get the 2018 WC, Old Trafford may have been expanded to over 90,000+ capacity by then, more then Wembley, but I really can't see them letting any other city outside London host the final.


I'd say thats a very different situation to an Australia WC though, London is the capital and by far the largest city in the UK plus of course Wembley is the English national stadium. Neither Sydney nore Melbourne are the capital of Australia and there isnt a vast difference in size between them. 

From what I'v heard on here theres alot of competision between the two cities so I wouldnt be at all supprized to see them enter a stadium arms race to get the final if Oz ever hosted. The MCG could drop the pitch temporarily and maybe even redevolp the great south stand inline with the north one while the Telstra could rebuild the Olympic stands.


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Yer, I don't think the stadium for the WC final is decided soley on its capacity, this has deffinietly nopt been the case in some previous WC's, you also have to consider the quality of the stadium, its suitability for the event, and in a lot of cases, just whether or not it is in the capital. For instance, if England get the 2018 WC, Old Trafford may have been expanded to over 90,000+ capacity by then, more then Wembley, but I really can't see them letting any other city outside London host the final.
> 
> But anyway, everyone (including myself) has been mainly focussed on debating who will host the 2018 WC, but over the last few days I have become increasingly interested in the saga that is the 2014 WC, which is rapidly becoming something of a mystery, and could turn onto the biggest farse in recent WC history.
> 
> Here is the situation as I see it at the moment:
> 
> -Back in 2003, Sep Blatter announced that the 2014 WC would be held in South America.
> 
> -Within 10 days of this announcement, all 10 countries of the South American federation got together and unanimously agreed and announced that Brazil was their only candidate.
> 
> -And now that there are 32 countries in the WC, you need a lot of high quality, high capacity stadiums and infastructure in at least 9 or 10 different cities, and most SA countries do not have this, so Brazil would seem the only obvious choice, no problem you would think....
> 
> -But, more recently, Blatter made it clear that he was not impressed with the stadium situation in Brazil, and that they would probably need to build 10-12 new stadiums in order to be up to present WC standards; and he has also suggested that perhaps Argentina and Chile should consider a joint bid for the WC...this after Blatter had already previously stated that he and FIFA didn't want any more co-hosted WCs! And in case anyone was unaware, the stadium situation in Argentina and Chile is, if anything, worse then it is in Brazil!
> 
> -Then last Sunday, Columbia's president announced that Columbia want to host in 2014, in apparent ignorance, it seems, that 3 years ago, the Columbian FA had already given their support to Brazil. Yesterday, I believe, the head of the South American federation met with the vice-president of Columbia to remonstrate about how Brazil are SA's only candidate.
> 
> -The decison about who hosts the WC is made in 2008, which leaves whoever gets it only 6 years to build up the stadiums and infastructure, or more accurately 5 years, because (I think), any new stadium has to have been in use for at least a year before the WC.
> 
> ........................
> 
> 
> In conclusion, I have to wonder, why wasn't this decison made as far back as 2003 when Blatter said SA would host the WC and the SA federation said Brazil is their only candidate, why wasn't the official decsion made then, which would give them 11 years to prepare???
> 
> Now I'm starting to have vague suspicions about FIFA's plans and motives. Are FIFA playing a game here? It seems to be a very similar situation with what happened in 1986 when Columbia were scheduled to host the WC, but with time running out, they pulled out-under pressure-and FIFA glady handed it to Mexico. Is it just possible that FIFA are having hopes of maybe handing the 2014 WC over to a more lucrative market, like say....China, or USA or Canada....??
> 
> Columbia actually have some of the best stadiums in South America at the moment, so there is every possiblility that they could be in with a shot, but whatever happens, it is getting more and more of a farse as the days go on, cus 5 years to build about 10 stadiums and all the infastructure seems a tall order for Brazil!


a few excellent points...its colombia not columbia right? or am i wrong.
I think sepp blatters remarks regarding the state of brazilian stadia could also be seen as a warning or threat to brazil..urging them to get their act together and upgrade stadia or plan to make major upgrades soon...


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Its Colombia.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Yer, it's Colombia, soz, spelling was never my strong point!

:cheers:


----------



## ReddAlert

canarywondergod said:


> milwaukee is a city in the north USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has one of my favourite stadiums in the world (despite its problems)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but back to the point, its not a big enough city to hold the world cup and would need to build copious amounts of football stadiums. personally the sooner england get it the better as its been far too long since we've held it, especially now as the germans have held it twice after 66 the stadiums are here, the infrastructure is here (sort of) so just let us have it!(although given the apparent rotation system it probably wont be untill 2018 but as long as when its a choice out of european countries its england thats fine).


thanks for educating that fool lol. Yeah, just joking about the soccer thing...considering we dont have a soccer stadium. They are thinking about building one, but it probally wouldnt be enough.


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Yer, it's Colombia, soz, spelling was never my strong point!
> 
> :cheers:


yeah well at least u have a brain...


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Unlike somebody...


----------



## jason poon

I hope China can host it at 2014 or 2018.
It may really help the growth of football in Mainland China.

In case, touch wood, South Africa cann't host the 2010,
China is able to take it over.


----------



## victory

ExSydney said:


> umm no...In 1982(Spain) and 1990(Italy) the final did NOT go to the largest stadiums.And even in 1994(USA) and 2002(KOREA),there were bigger stadiums available in these countries and were not even used for any games.


1982 - difference of only 3-4000, with Spanish/Catalonia politics determining the final would not go to Barcelona. And it went to the capital city.

1990 - Shocking pitch at the San Siro. And again on around 3,000 difference, as opposed to 17,000 between Sydney and Melbourne. Again, in 1990 the final was held in the capital, we can all agree an Australian final would NEVER be held in Canberra.

4,000 as opposed to 17,000
Catalan politics as opposed to nothing
shocking pitch as opposed to equal quality
Capital as opposed to both not capitals (though Melbourne was for 26 years)



1994 - It was the largest at the time, it wasn't the best or most modern but the Rose Bowls sheer size got it the final. And had those other large venues ever been used for soccer football?

2002 - Korea didn't even host the final. And again the big matches in SK went to stadiums based on capacity, not modern-ness or rectanglness.


----------



## panamaboy9016

*True..*

Well on the 2006 World Cup the Berlin Stadium in Germany is the biggest stadium in the nation.


----------



## Mo Rush

jason poon said:


> I hope China can host it at 2014 or 2018.
> It may really help the growth of football in Mainland China.
> 
> In case, touch wood, South Africa cann't host the 2010,
> China is able to take it over.


china won;t be the one taking over if there is any taking over to take place. that wouldbe germany


----------



## The Game Is Up

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> But anyway, everyone (including myself) has been mainly focussed on debating who will host the 2018 WC, but over the last few days I have become increasingly interested in the saga that is the 2014 WC, which is rapidly becoming something of a mystery, and could turn onto the biggest farse in recent WC history.
> 
> Here is the situation as I see it at the moment:
> 
> -Back in 2003, Sep Blatter announced that the 2014 WC would be held in South America.
> 
> -Within 10 days of this announcement, all 10 countries of the South American federation got together and unanimously agreed and announced that Brazil was their only candidate.
> 
> -And now that there are 32 countries in the WC, you need a lot of high quality, high capacity stadiums and infastructure in at least 9 or 10 different cities, and most SA countries do not have this, so Brazil would seem the only obvious choice, no problem you would think....
> 
> -But, more recently, Blatter made it clear that he was not impressed with the stadium situation in Brazil, and that they would probably need to build 10-12 new stadiums in order to be up to present WC standards; and he has also suggested that perhaps Argentina and Chile should consider a joint bid for the WC...this after Blatter had already previously stated that he and FIFA didn't want any more co-hosted WCs! And in case anyone was unaware, the stadium situation in Argentina and Chile is, if anything, worse then it is in Brazil!
> 
> -Then last Sunday, Columbia's president announced that Columbia want to host in 2014, in apparent ignorance, it seems, that 3 years ago, the Columbian FA had already given their support to Brazil. Yesterday, I believe, the head of the South American federation met with the vice-president of Columbia to remonstrate about how Brazil are SA's only candidate.
> 
> -The decison about who hosts the WC is made in 2008, which leaves whoever gets it only 6 years to build up the stadiums and infastructure, or more accurately 5 years, because (I think), any new stadium has to have been in use for at least a year before the WC.
> 
> ........................
> 
> 
> In conclusion, I have to wonder, why wasn't this decison made as far back as 2003 when Blatter said SA would host the WC and the SA federation said Brazil is their only candidate, why wasn't the official decsion made then, which would give them 11 years to prepare???
> 
> Now I'm starting to have vague suspicions about FIFA's plans and motives. Are FIFA playing a game here? It seems to be a very similar situation with what happened in 1986 when Columbia were scheduled to host the WC, but with time running out, they pulled out-under pressure-and FIFA glady handed it to Mexico. Is it just possible that FIFA are having hopes of maybe handing the 2014 WC over to a more lucrative market, like say....China, or USA or Canada....??
> 
> Columbia actually have some of the best stadiums in South America at the moment, so there is every possiblility that they could be in with a shot, but whatever happens, it is getting more and more of a farse as the days go on, cus 5 years to build about 10 stadiums and all the infastructure seems a tall order for Brazil!


I think they have about 3 decent grounds: in Barranquilla, Medellin and Manizales. The one in Manizales is below the minimum capacity by a few hundred seats. The one in Bogota is about as close to a shambles (from reading at the Latinscrapers section) as possible. Cali is getting a new ground soon or may have opened by now. So, yeah, it's quite possible given a new injection of funds and competent organisation.

Otherwise, you're spot on with respect to your analysis.

I still think Brazil gets it. They just need to get on the ball, sort to speak. Why, oh why are FIFA giving them a tight deadline. hno:


----------



## MoreOrLess

The Game Is Up said:


> I think they have about 3 decent grounds: in Barranquilla, Medellin and Manizales. The one in Manizales is below the minimum capacity by a few hundred seats. The one in Bogota is about as close to a shambles (from reading at the Latinscrapers section) as possible. Cali is getting a new ground soon or may have opened by now. So, yeah, it's quite possible given a new injection of funds and competent organisation.
> 
> Otherwise, you're spot on with respect to your analysis.
> 
> I still think Brazil gets it. They just need to get on the ball, sort to speak. Why, oh why are FIFA giving them a tight deadline. hno:


Didnt Los Millonarios there plans to build Estadio Azul along roughly the same lines as the new Cali one?


----------



## Motul

2014 world cup: Colombia


----------



## Mo Rush

Motul said:


> 2014 world cup: Colombia


mmm..id prefer argentina


----------



## fortcali

Colombia 2014
possible seats

-Bogota 6'200.000 
el campin 48.000
-Medellin 3'500.00
Atanasio girardot 53.000
-Cali 3'200.000
Dep. Cali 55.000 (2006)
-Barranquilla 2'000.000
Metropolitano 60.000
-Bucaramanga 900.000
Alfonso Lopez 25.000
-Cartagena 1.000.000
Pedro de Heredia 24.000
-Manizales 400.000
Palogrande 40.000
-Pereira 500.000
Hernan Ramirez 38.000
-Armenia 350.000
centenario 35.000
-Cucuta
42.000 2007


----------



## The Game Is Up

MoreOrLess said:


> Didnt Los Millonarios there plans to build Estadio Azul along roughly the same lines as the new Cali one?


I don't think that's likely to happen, as Millonarios recently came under financial troubles. Bogota is going to need a new, bigger ground if they have any sliver of a chance, anyway. They just don't know how it is going to come about or whether that could happen at all. One thing Colombia does have over Brazil, I would admit, is that the distances between cities are much less. There would not be the long trips that would happen in a larger country like Brazil. Brazil, more importantly, has the greater footballing pedigree by far.

Nonetheless, the Colombian president made his announcement a bit late into the process. If he thought there was a good chance of getting it then they should have entered a bid three years earlier. Now they look like they're going back on their word of supporting the one candidacy for South America.


----------



## kaunaz

I don't like that WC 2010 will host RSA, so if it would be my choice I'll pick Brazil 2010. 
2014 it would be England, and maybe Australia 2018. Again Europe(Russia) 2022, and only 2026 in Africa.


----------



## hngcm

Till 2018.

Nobody really stand a chance against England.


----------



## Daniel_Portugal

2014 Portugal
2018 Portugal Again 

:hilarious kidding


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

IMO England should be given the 2014 WC and this will give South American countries more time to get ready to host the 2018 WC. Makes sense


----------



## Benjuk

*WC2014/18/22 - Why Australia won't get it*

Football suitable stadiums...

Telstra Stadium, Sydney (Sydney Olympic Stadium) - 83,500 seats









Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane - 52,579 seats









Aussie Stadium, Sydney - 41,159 seats









Cricket/AFL/Athletics venues (poor views for real football)

MCG, Melbourne - 100,000 seats









Telstra Dome, Melbourne - 56,347 seats









AAMI Stadium, Adelaide - 51,515 seats









The Queensland Center, Brisbane - 48,400 seats









SCG, Sydney - 44,000 seats









Subiaco Oval, Perth - 42,922 seats









The Gabba, Brisbane - 42,000 seats









Clutching at straws - cricket/AFL venues which could step in in emergency...

Princes Park/Optus Oval, Melbourne - 35,000 seats









Adelaide Oval, Adelaide - 33,597 seats (can't get the link to work, but you get the idea)









If Australia made a joint bid with New Zealand you could add another 5 cricket venues (with capacities ranging from 35k to 45k) - and facilities ranging from excellent to 'oh dear'.


----------



## Weebie

Yes but we would only use maybe 3 of those venues. We don't consider redevelopmetn as an option we would build 9 new stadiums and we wouldn't do it with NZ.

I know your taking it personally because you are in denial about South Africa not 100% hosting the cup yet becasue your country has done f**k all in preparation for the event. Our Status of the Best Olympics, Rugby and Cricket World cups speak for themselves.


----------



## Weebie

Australia won't get the World Cup although the money is there the obsticles in the way are huge walls such as distances from Perth and Darwin to eastern states which many people would classify as international flights. Australia has 5 big Cities but then many smaller regional centres its up against it. Also it is winter during World Cup and unforuetly AUstralia Rules Football is in Full swing but as much as i hate it They hate Soccer even more so they will do everything legally to stop it.


----------



## Benjuk

First of all, I'm not in denial... I live in Australia, and I'm English, I've got no association at all with South Africa.

Second, I can't see Australia building more than a couple of 40k seater football venues as there would be no use for them after the finals - attendances for rugby and football just aren't big enough to justify building 40k seaters.

Where would you build them? Sydney already has the facilities, I reckon Melbourne is the only other city that could support a football stadium (so long as interest in the A league doesn't wane), but what would be the point in investing $100m in building a 40k seater in Perth or Adelaide, or Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong or Geelong? It would be a joke to build anything on that scale in Darwin, Launceston, etc.

Just can't see it happening.

Scale plays no part - they had no problem hosting a finals in the USA.


----------



## Weebie

Unfornuetly to prove your point further you need 50k seater stadiums because you have to allow 10 000 for Media committments.


----------



## 67868

but melbourne is getting a new football ground so that is one less required


----------



## Eureka!

Melbourne's new football stadium is a measly 20k and is already outgrown before it's built. Plus FIFA says that there should only be one stadium per city being used but that rule is expected to be bent a bit. But three stadiums being used in Melbourne??? I doubt it. The new Melbourne stadium should be being built 50k. It is after all, the sporting capital of Australia, which 90% of people agree on that claim.

MCG (MEL), Telstra Stadium (SYD), Telstra Dome (MEL), Suncorp (BRIS) are the main stadiums. Suncorp is a rectangular stadium and Telstra Dome is convertible. MCG has 100,000 capacity and Telstra Stadium has around 83,000. These are Australia's best stadiums. Melbourne and Sydney have most of Oz's biggest stadiums but only one per city. In Aussie forums it is expected (if we get the world cup) that there will be two used in Melbourne.

PS. Melbourne could cater for a new rectangular 50k stadium quite easily. Dunno about other cities (ask their locals) but the 20k one is way too small.


----------



## Eureka!

Oh and princess park would never ever ever ever be used for a world cup. Vomiting at the thought!!!

Australia will one day host a world cup it's just smaller cities can't support massive new stadiums yet. And I know Adelaide would be using the AAMI stadium. Well I'm quite sure that was said by the SA premier.


----------



## Weebie

Cities i have

Melbourne: MCG
Sydney: Stadium Australia
Brisbane: Suncorp
Perth: New Stadium
Adelaide: New Stadium
Gold Coast: Upgraded new venue they have
Newcastle: New Stadium
Central Coast: New Stadium

It looks quite hard to work me thinks?


----------



## SA BOY

weebie, just cos someone says oz cant do something you automatically attack them as South African and then get personel , man you need to grow up


----------



## Eureka!

Weebie said:


> Cities i have
> 
> Melbourne: MCG
> Sydney: Stadium Australia
> Brisbane: Suncorp
> Perth: New Stadium
> Adelaide: New Stadium
> Gold Coast: Upgraded new venue they have
> Newcastle: New Stadium
> Central Coast: New Stadium
> 
> It looks quite hard to work me thinks?


Weebie there are two (possibly more) problems. 
1. Canberra (or elsewhere) would possibly host some events instead of central coast as there are three places in NSW you've listed. Or if you meant QLD central coast then there are three in QLD.
2. Melbourne (most likely or Sydney) would probably have two stadiums each hosting games.
3. There is no friggen way that 4 new stadiums would be built and one upgraded. Even though that would be good and should happen. The good thing is isn't Perth getting a new stadium. But not enough capacity. hmmmm


----------



## Giorgio

Weebie said:


> Cities i have
> 
> Melbourne: MCG
> Sydney: Stadium Australia
> Brisbane: Suncorp
> Perth: New Stadium
> Adelaide: New Stadium
> Gold Coast: Upgraded new venue they have
> Newcastle: New Stadium
> Central Coast: New Stadium
> 
> It looks quite hard to work me thinks?


Adelaide? A new stadium? 
Gosh your a dreamer. 
It has already been made clear that Adelaide will not be getting a new stadium under any circumstance.


----------



## Bullswool

Eureka! said:


> Weebie there are two (possibly more) problems.
> 1. Canberra (or elsewhere) would possibly host some events instead of central coast as there are three places in NSW you've listed. Or if you meant QLD central coast then there are three in QLD.
> 2. Melbourne (most likely or Sydney) would probably have two stadiums each hosting games.
> 3. There is no friggen way that 4 new stadiums would be built and one upgraded. Even though that would be good and should happen. The good thing is isn't Perth getting a new stadium. But not enough capacity. hmmmm


How big does the stadiums have to be? Perth's new stadium is meant to be 60k/65k I think. Maybe that is too small when I think about it lol.


----------



## Benjuk

At the end of the day, the thing that Australia won't be able to get around is that even if they do build a few new grounds, the country is still going to be dominated by cricket/AFC ovals. Pitchside viewing of world cup matches would be a nightmare at MCG, SCG, Gabba, AAMI, etc. At the recent Melbourne vs Sydney match at TelstraDome, anyone at pitchside had an awful views, and the pitch their is considered small.


----------



## Macca-GC

For an Australian World Cup:

MCG(Melb)
Telstra Stadium (Syd)
Telstra Dome (Melb)
Suncorp Stadium(Bris)
Rebuilt AAMI Stadium (Adel)
Rebuilt Subiaco Stadium (Perth)
Upgraded EnergyAustralia Stadium(Newcastle)
Upgraded Gold Coast Stadium (Gold Coast)

There's the minimum of 8 stadiums

Other options include: Upgrade to Bruce Stadium (Canberra) or Upgrade to Dairy Farmers Stadium (Townsville). Upgrades to Gosford or WIN Stadiums won't be able to get the capacity.

So say if the new AAMI and Subiaco Stadiums were will movable seats ect. like Telstra Stadium and Telstra Dome, Then the only stadium which can't be configured into a rectangular shape is the MCG, but its pitch is small enough to be able to compensate for that.


----------



## Locke

What a negative attitude and what a negative thread. 

Obviously we are incapable of staging a major sporting event it seems.

Hello!? Who is better at hosting stuff than us! It's what we do and we sure as heck can do the World Cup.

Big whoop, we'll build a few stadiums, last time I looked that's what cities do when they bid for the World Cup.

Man it's 2006 and people are dismissing us for 2022, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Benjuk

Locke said:


> What a negative attitude and what a negative thread.
> 
> Obviously we are incapable of staging a major sporting event it seems.
> 
> Hello!? Who is better at hosting stuff than us! It's what we do and we sure as heck can do the World Cup.
> 
> Big whoop, we'll build a few stadiums, last time I looked that's what cities do when they bid for the World Cup.
> 
> Man it's 2006 and people are dismissing us for 2022, it's ridiculous.


Aye, but when one spends $150-$200 million building a new stadium, one expects to get good use from it. If one builds a stadium suitable for football in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, etc., how often is it going to be used after the World Cup? Maybe for a Rugby world cup, but other than that..?

Oz is fantastic at hosting stuff - the Olympics, the Rugby World Cup, last year's Commonwealth Games, etc. Faultless. However, you simply can't stage a world cup at AFL/Cricket venues - views would be awful and people demand more these days. I should also point out, by the way, that the organisation of the Germany 2006 finals was equally faultless - the best I've ever been to by a long way.

Maybe I should have titled the thread 'Why Australia won't be an emergency stand-in' as has previously been suggested - because we're not ready yet by a long shot.


----------



## Shumway

Telstra Dome is nothing like Stadium Australia. It was never built out of the need of a one off event, it was built out of the need of a city.


----------



## Wezza

Eureka! said:


> Oh and Melbourne????
> Your point? Melbourne could easily host it most likely using the MCG which has a higher capacity than any other Oz stadium or any of the German stadiums used. It's a oval but it is possible for either modificatios or to keep it how it is. We've used it for a practise match verse Greece. Why not the world cup.
> 
> And why will Telstra Dome be a white elephant??? It's used every week for AFL plus numerous concerts and events. Plus a bit of soccer and rugby. What are you talking about???


Dude, it was not a stab at Melbourne or the MCG, i forgot about the Telstra Dome and wrote that in at the end of my comment. MCG is not suitable for football, sorry thats the truth. It's a round field, not oval either. It is however, a great stadium.


----------



## Wezza

Calvin W said:


> Actually were they not just moved in recently for a game or two?


No the didn't move them in after all.


----------



## pompeyfan

Weebie said:


> By the time 2018 and 2022 come along Telstra Dome, Suncorp and Stadium Australia will be old White elephants.


Most english stadiums are 100 years old


----------



## Noostairz

Rexfan2 said:


> Most english stadiums are 100 years old


you say that like it's a bad thing - historic purpose built football venues, modern purpose built football stadia - beat that, skippy!


----------



## Wezza

edennewstairs said:


> you say that like it's a bad thing - historic purpose built football venues, modern purpose built football stadia - beat that, skippy!


I don't think he was trying to say that as a bad thing mate. There is nothing wrong with older venues, as long as they're up to scratch!


----------



## Mo Rush

Wezza said:


> Ummm, you do realise that the Berlin Olympiastadion in the 2006 WC was from the 1936 Berlin Olympics? Sheesh, how long do you think stadiums last for? 5 minutes?
> 
> Yes, but they currently don't use the feature.


well, they are actually are about to use this feature for the first time since 2001, so if need be telstra dome is able to convert into football mode.


----------



## pompeyfan

Wezza said:


> I don't think he was trying to say that as a bad thing mate. There is nothing wrong with older venues, as long as they're up to scratch!


You're right. I like stadiums that have some heritage as long as they are up to scratch as far as facilities go.


----------



## Valeroso

I think it would be arrogant to dismiss the chance of Australia hosting a World Cup. If it doesn't happen in 2018, then it will happen in 2022. If not in 2022, then 2026. If not 2026, then 2030. Either way, I'm certain (and pretty optimistic) that Australia will host the World Cup in the future and do a great job of it! 

If South Africa can host it in 2010, then who's to say Australia can't? I don't seem to recall South Africa having a giant football culture either, but I'm sure they have one! And the USA has hosted one before in the past also and I'd say football culture lacks even more there, but I guess that decision was made because of economic reasons. (Big population, money, etc).

In Australia, the football culture is growing (due to the World Cup, the A-League, and so on) and it's in the top 3 sports played by young boys in this country. (Along with Cricket, and I think Basketball?). This week I walked past a park near my house and they were playing, (surprise surprise), football (soccer)! So it's fairly present in this country!  

If Australia put up a bid, I think they'd be constructing more stadiums as a result, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of excitement here anyway. So I don't think that is our main obstacle, but I do think (as someone else pointed out), the obstacle is probably more from other more influential countries. Internally, the problems here can be mended, but externally, it's completely out of our hands.


----------



## Valeroso

andypandy said:


> The point, lostboy, was that Australian history goes further back than colonisation. Yes, literacy and the English language came with colonisation but to dismiss tens of thousand of years of aboriginal civilisation, their thousands of dialects, their traditions and ability to live in this hostile land because there was no literacy is a tad arrogant. In fact its the kind of arrogance towards indigenous Australians that led to their dispicable treatment at the hands of the colonisers. The ideals of nationhood, institutions and government are western concepts, to argue that Australian history does not pre-date colonialisation because of a lack of these concepts is pure arrogance.
> 
> I have lived for many years in Europe and I love Paris, Prague, Amsterdam etc. But for you to say that Australia is bland clearly demonstrates that you have never been here. Australia is consistantly voted as a favoured destination for immigrants and tourists alike. It has an amazing diversity of cultures and, while its not perfect, it has clean, safe cities.
> 
> Are you just pissed that the Ashes will soon be won back by Australia? (Thats just friendly banter by the way, not anti-English sentiment)


Very nicely stated and I agree with everything you've said! I think it's fairly ignorant to have a "These people are superior, and these people are inferior" sort of stance on things, so his comments should be taken lightly.


----------



## pompeyfan

Valeroso said:


> I think it would be arrogant to dismiss the chance of Australia hosting a World Cup. If it doesn't happen in 2018, then it will happen in 2022. If not in 2022, then 2026. If not 2026, then 2030. Either way, I'm certain (and pretty optimistic) that Australia will host the World Cup in the future and do a great job of it!
> 
> If South Africa can host it in 2010, then who's to say Australia can't? I don't seem to recall South Africa having a giant football culture either, but I'm sure they have one! And the USA has hosted one before in the past also and I'd say football culture lacks even more there, but I guess that decision was made because of economic reasons. (Big population, money, etc).
> 
> In Australia, the football culture is growing (due to the World Cup, the A-League, and so on) and it's in the top 3 sports played by young boys in this country. (Along with Cricket, and I think Basketball?). This week I walked past a park near my house and they were playing, (surprise surprise), football (soccer)! So it's fairly present in this country!
> 
> If Australia put up a bid, I think they'd be constructing more stadiums as a result, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of excitement here anyway. So I don't think that is our main obstacle, but I do think (as someone else pointed out), the obstacle is probably more from other more influential countries. Internally, the problems here can be mended, but externally, it's completely out of our hands.


you make a good point. I look across the road and i see a football match go on. Many teams in the a-league are getting 25000+ attendances, and with some more big-names like Romario and many World Cup players coming to Australia, things look good for the sport here. 2018 is 13 years away, so attendances in the a-league could well reach 50000 consistently by then, which would be awesome. If this happens than Australia would have no problems permanently expanding their stadiums.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

The topic should have read:

"In what year will Australia host the World Cup?" For that is a given!


----------



## pompeyfan

you are right BobDaBuilder


----------



## Mo Rush

Valeroso said:


> I think it would be arrogant to dismiss the chance of Australia hosting a World Cup. If it doesn't happen in 2018, then it will happen in 2022. If not in 2022, then 2026. If not 2026, then 2030. Either way, I'm certain (and pretty optimistic) that Australia will host the World Cup in the future and do a great job of it!
> 
> If South Africa can host it in 2010, then who's to say Australia can't? I don't seem to recall South Africa having a giant football culture either, but I'm sure they have one! And the USA has hosted one before in the past also and I'd say football culture lacks even more there, but I guess that decision was made because of economic reasons. (Big population, money, etc).
> 
> In Australia, the football culture is growing (due to the World Cup, the A-League, and so on) and it's in the top 3 sports played by young boys in this country. (Along with Cricket, and I think Basketball?). This week I walked past a park near my house and they were playing, (surprise surprise), football (soccer)! So it's fairly present in this country!
> 
> If Australia put up a bid, I think they'd be constructing more stadiums as a result, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of excitement here anyway. So I don't think that is our main obstacle, but I do think (as someone else pointed out), the obstacle is probably more from other more influential countries. Internally, the problems here can be mended, but externally, it's completely out of our hands.


football is south africa's most popular sport although it doesnt always appear to be so in terms of crown numbers


----------



## Giorgio

Valeroso said:


> it's in the top 3 sports played by young boys in this country. (Along with Cricket, and I think Basketball?).


Actually is number one with almost double the players compared to Aussie Rules.


----------



## Lostboy

_The point, lostboy, was that Australian history goes further back than colonisation. _

History by its very definition is recorded and therefore requires a literate society. 

_Yes, literacy and the English language came with colonisation but to dismiss tens of thousand of years of aboriginal civilisation, their thousands of dialects, *their traditions and ability to live in this hostile land because there was no literacy is a tad arrogant*. _

I have nothing but pure respect for the Aboriginal People, and dismay at the way they hjave been handled by white people throughout the contact period. If everyone lived like Aborigines we would not be in the environmental mess that we are currently in, thanks to our greed. A pity that both New World nations of Australia and America have ignored the Kyoto agreement, which itself was far below the minimum of what we need to do to divert global climate change.

That said, Aboriginal People of Australia did not have a civilisation (there were no urban areas) despite whatever rich cultural traditions they may have had. We simply don't know how far back their traditions go without a literate tradition, we don't know of major important dates in their past, or anything about them, except what their modern (post-European arrival) descendants have told us. Like most hunter-gathering peoples they leave little archaeological trace. As far as is practical, whatever great past and Aboriginal Reasoning which may have occured is as good as dead to us.

In addition, the Aboriginal People both through so thinly populating Australia, and through European (White Australian) Intrusion have had little chance to pass on their heritage to Australia. Whatever too little, too late, token stances the Australian Government might be making, they have had little impact on modern Australia, they have always lived in tandem, not as a mix in Australia with the colonisers (as opposed to Perú or Mexico and even to a far lesser extent your more progressive neighbours the New Zealanders) and for all intents and purposes, Australian's are culturally New World Europeans. There is no continuous Australian History that links whatever known tens and thousand of years of history to you at all. 

Your argument is intellectually stunted. Your White Australian attempt at trying to turn me into some kind of pseudo-racist is beyond low. I have nothing but respect for the Aboriginal People of Australia, but I live in a reality not a White Australio-Centric view of the world, which whitewashes the past and present, Aboriginal Culture simply plays no part in modern Australia. 

_In fact its the kind of arrogance towards indigenous Australians that led to their dispicable treatment at the hands of the colonisers. The ideals of nationhood, institutions and government are western concepts, to argue that Australian history does not pre-date colonialisation because of a lack of these concepts is pure arrogance._

The idea of history is also a fairly Western Concept (or at least Eurasian one) if you are going to make that argument (not unfairly) then be consistent - instead of arguing the tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal History (which of course doesn't exist otherwise we would know about it). Of course the ideas of nationhood, government and institutions in the form we know them today, are mostly (whilst not entirely) Western Ideas and Concepts, but unfortunately or otherwise that is the deck that we are dealing with today, and that is what organisations such as FIFA are composed as.

_I have lived for many years in Europe and I love Paris, Prague, Amsterdam etc. But for you to say that Australia is bland clearly demonstrates that you have never been here. Australia is consistantly voted as a favoured destination for immigrants and tourists alike. It has an amazing diversity of cultures and, while its not perfect, it has clean, safe cities._

I'm sure Australia, with good weather, relatively good prices, English-Speaking people would offer the pasty white Englishman who wishes to do little more than get a tan, and avoid anything where he might actually learn something about another people (as opposed to transplanted English Speaking Europeans) and another culture. To me an English Speaking Country with no cultural tradition of its own is bland. Give it time, and you'll probably not be. 

_Are you just pissed that the Ashes will soon be won back by Australia? (Thats just friendly banter by the way, not anti-English sentiment) _ 

Well thats good. And I'd like to think there is nothing Anti-Australian in what I have said. It's not Australia's fault that they are lacking in their own culture or traditions or heritage, it's an accident of fate, and in time it will change, but for the present century, Australia won't have a rich, vibrant or unique culture which can compensate for it's lack of suitable venues for the world cup, it's passionless indifference to the world game, it's very small population (find me another country with just 20 million that has hosted the World Cup anytime in the last forty years, since the World Cup has been anything near the size, in terms of both the number of teams and facilities as well as viewership that it has now) and relatively few suitable venues (I'm sorry but you have some of the greatest stadia for cricket, they would however be poor venues for football).

Try your hand at something else. It's hardly as if Australia hasn't hosted many other competitions, or doesn't have a rich sporting tradition in every sport save Association Football and Athletics.


----------



## eomer

Valeroso said:


> I think it would be arrogant to dismiss the chance of Australia hosting a World Cup. If it doesn't happen in 2018, then it will happen in 2022. If not in 2022, then 2026. If not 2026, then 2030. Either way, I'm certain (and pretty optimistic) that Australia will host the World Cup in the future and do a great job of it!


If we are logical, Australia should get it in 2022.
- *2010* will take place in *South Africa*
- *2014* in South America: *Brazil* is the only SA country that could host alone a WC with 32 teams. I think that Brazil will do everything to achieve it (and to win the WC again but that's another story).
- *2018* in Europe because Europe can let 3 WC outside. *England (or UK)* will be the front runner.
- So, a WC in *Australia* in *2022* could be great.
- *2026*: I hope a WC in *Canada* but USA and Mexico will try to get it too.
- *2030*: Uruguay for the 100th or a big country in Asia (China, India...) or a European country (Spain ?, Portugal ?, Russia ?, Turkey ?, European Union ?)


----------



## Wezza

Mo Rush said:


> well, they are actually are about to use this feature for the first time since 2001, so if need be telstra dome is able to convert into football mode.


There was talk of them moving the stands in for the rest of the a-league season, but they haven't done it yet. I can't imagine it happening, because they will have to keep moving them in and out so the grass underneath can be watered & get some light on it. It will end up being too costly for them.


----------



## Benjuk

BobDaBuilder said:


> The topic should have read:
> 
> "In what year will Australia host the World Cup?" For that is a given!


Nothing like it.

The suggestion seems to be that Australia are good at hosting sporting events, and have/can develope the stadiums/infrastructure to deal with hosting a world cup...

Here's a list of nations with higher populations and greater footballing traditions (in terms of participation and national interest) than Australia, none of which have hosted a world cup finals tournament... 

Europe:
Russia (148 million)
Turkey (62 million)
Ukraine (52 million)
Poland (39 million)
Romania (24 million)
(all of whom will struggle to get a finals in the face of bids from England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.)

Americas:
Colombia (35 million)
Canada (29 million)
Peru (23 million)
(all of whom will struggle to get a finals in the face of bids from Argentina, the USA, Mexico and Brazil (by the time the others have had a shot it'll be another 50 years since 2014!)

The Rest (those Australia would be bidding against):
China (1.2 billion) - huge population and interest in football
Indonesia (160 million) - huge population and interest in football
Philippines (70 million) - huge population and interest in football
Iran (63 million) - huge country, regular competitors in WC finals, good timing for Euro tv
Egypt (60 million) - huge country, good timing for Euro tv
Morocco (27 million) - lost out narrowly to S.A. for 2010, good timing for Euro tv
Iraq (19 million) - rebuilt and waving the US flag for democrasy, good timing for Euro tv
Plus other '3rd world' nations which in 50 years time may have gone some way to sorting out their finances (Nigeria, India, Pakistan)
(plus the probable future bid by Japan to rehost the tournament alone, and the possibilty of an 'insider' bid by the Emirates)


----------



## andypandy

Lostboy, someone had posted a warning a few pages back not to respond to your posts, I should have listened....


_History by its very definition is recorded and therefore requires a literate society. _

Your post on page 3 links history to culture, culture does not require a literate society, hence my argument that Australian history pre-dates colonialisation.

_I have nothing but pure respect for the Aboriginal People, and dismay at the way they hjave been handled by white people throughout the contact period. If everyone lived like Aborigines we would not be in the environmental mess that we are currently in, thanks to our greed. A pity that both New World nations of Australia and America have ignored the Kyoto agreement, which itself was far below the minimum of what we need to do to divert global climate change._

Agree 100%

_Your argument is intellectually stunted. Your White Australian attempt at trying to turn me into some kind of pseudo-racist is beyond low. _

I have not attempted to make anyone out to be a pseudo-racist. It is your view on what constitutes history that discounts the aboriginal experience. 

_I have nothing but respect for the Aboriginal People of Australia, but I live in a reality not a White Australio-Centric view of the world, which whitewashes the past and present, Aboriginal Culture simply plays no part in modern Australia_

Once again the arrogance is astounding! Your 'reality' is somehow a more realistic view on the world than mine! And then you call me intellectually stunted. Get a grip. I am not going to explain my background/areas of expertise but they range far beyond a 'White Aistralio-Centric view of the world'.


_The idea of history is also a fairly Western Concept (or at least Eurasian one) if you are going to make that argument (not unfairly) then be consistent - instead of arguing the tens of thousands of years of Aboriginal History (which of course doesn't exist otherwise we would know about it). _

So you are essentially still denying the existance of Aboriginal history, not only whether it can be defined as a history but whether their culture existed? 


_Of course the ideas of nationhood, government and institutions in the form we know them today, are mostly (whilst not entirely) Western Ideas and Concepts, but unfortunately or otherwise that is the deck that we are dealing with today, and that is what organisations such as FIFA are composed as._ 

My argument was against your statements of Australia having no history and being a bland mono-culture, no criticism of FIFA.


_I'm sure Australia, with good weather, relatively good prices, English-Speaking people would offer the pasty white Englishman who wishes to do little more than get a tan, and avoid anything where he might actually learn something about another people (as opposed to transplanted English Speaking Europeans) and another culture. To me an English Speaking Country with no cultural tradition of its own is bland. Give it time, and you'll probably not be. _

You need to learn some tact my man. You are essentially dismissing the entire country as a void where one cannot learn anything about other cultures. 



_Well thats good. And I'd like to think there is nothing Anti-Australian in what I have said. It's not Australia's fault that they are lacking in their own culture or traditions or heritage, it's an accident of fate, and in time it will change, _

Once again you dismiss all of Australia's culture through generalisations. You clearly know very little about the subject and your flippant generalisations over the last few posts have demonstrated your intellectual incapacity.


----------



## Wezza

Benjuk said:


> The Rest (those Australia would be bidding against):
> China (1.2 billion) - huge population and interest in football
> Indonesia (160 million) - huge population and interest in football
> Philippines (70 million) - huge population and interest in football
> Iran (63 million) - huge country, regular competitors in WC finals, good timing for Euro tv
> Egypt (60 million) - huge country, good timing for Euro tv
> Morocco (27 million) - lost out narrowly to S.A. for 2010, good timing for Euro tv
> Iraq (19 million) - rebuilt and waving the US flag for democrasy, good timing for Euro tv
> Plus other '3rd world' nations which in 50 years time may have gone some way to sorting out their finances (Nigeria, India, Pakistan)
> (plus the probable future bid by Japan to rehost the tournament alone, and the possibilty of an 'insider' bid by the Emirates)


So are you trying to say that Australia would have nearly no chance against any of these countries? Thats laughable.


----------



## Dean

Benjuk said:


> Nothing like it.
> 
> The suggestion seems to be that Australia are good at hosting sporting events, and have/can develope the stadiums/infrastructure to deal with hosting a world cup...
> 
> Here's a list of nations with higher populations and greater footballing traditions (in terms of participation and national interest) than Australia, none of which have hosted a world cup finals tournament...
> 
> Europe:
> Russia (148 million)
> Turkey (62 million)
> Ukraine (52 million)
> Poland (39 million)
> Romania (24 million)
> (all of whom will struggle to get a finals in the face of bids from England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.)
> 
> Americas:
> Colombia (35 million)
> Canada (29 million)
> Peru (23 million)
> (all of whom will struggle to get a finals in the face of bids from Argentina, the USA, Mexico and Brazil (by the time the others have had a shot it'll be another 50 years since 2014!)
> 
> The Rest (those Australia would be bidding against):
> China (1.2 billion) - huge population and interest in football
> Indonesia (160 million) - huge population and interest in football
> Philippines (70 million) - huge population and interest in football
> Iran (63 million) - huge country, regular competitors in WC finals, good timing for Euro tv
> Egypt (60 million) - huge country, good timing for Euro tv
> Morocco (27 million) - lost out narrowly to S.A. for 2010, good timing for Euro tv
> Iraq (19 million) - rebuilt and waving the US flag for democrasy, good timing for Euro tv
> Plus other '3rd world' nations which in 50 years time may have gone some way to sorting out their finances (Nigeria, India, Pakistan)
> (plus the probable future bid by Japan to rehost the tournament alone, and the possibilty of an 'insider' bid by the Emirates)


Honestly do u ever shut up... you sound like charlie browns freakin teacher... wonk wonk wonk. 

You're about as pessimistic as they come. im pissed that you live in my city. you belong in sydney with all the other tossers. 

"The suggestion seems to be that Australia are good at hosting sporting events"

and that suggestion would be correct. if you want a major event done right, on budget, on time and without a single mishap. hold it in Australia everyday of the week and twice on sunday.

most of the places you mentioned...FFS, poland, romania, peru, iraq... lol

come off it mate, none of these place have a chance in hell.


----------



## neorion

Dean said:


> "The suggestion seems to be that Australia are good at hosting sporting events"
> 
> and that suggestion would be correct. if you want a major event done right, on budget, on time and without a single mishap. hold it in Australia everyday of the week and twice on sunday.


 That's a bit rich. Do you remember the ticketing scandal before the Sydney Olympics and just when the games started a bus full of Korean athletes on its way to a venue, was hijacked by an escaped convict. Without a single mishap? No, there were many hick-ups, however over all it was an excellent games, probably the best ever.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

i think one the main reason's that Australia would eventually get the WC is that FIFA are keen to expand the game into the four corners of the world..if they see a market where they think there is room for expansion..they will go for it.FIFA are probably hoping that football takes on Aussies rules and NRL and wins...the only fly in the ointment is that by the time the Aussies finally get to host the finals..football and the A League may have already taken off...and your main reason for having the WC,the fact you are a new market right for exploiting,may have gone...replaced by perhaps another new and emerging country.
it remains to be seen if footballs honeymoon period on Oz remains...i think it will


----------



## Benjuk

Dean said:


> Honestly do u ever shut up... you sound like charlie browns freakin teacher... wonk wonk wonk.
> 
> You're about as pessimistic as they come. im pissed that you live in my city. you belong in sydney with all the other tossers.
> 
> "The suggestion seems to be that Australia are good at hosting sporting events"
> 
> and that suggestion would be correct. if you want a major event done right, on budget, on time and without a single mishap. hold it in Australia everyday of the week and twice on sunday.
> 
> most of the places you mentioned...FFS, poland, romania, peru, iraq... lol
> 
> come off it mate, none of these place have a chance in hell.


First up, if you want to be funny - don't nick lines from 'Ford Fairlane', try to come up with something original.

Secondly, my point is simply that for people to be saying "it's a matter of WHEN rather than IF" about Australia hosting a world cup finals when there are so many other countries which have larger populations or are better located in terms of FIFA's chief mandate which is "to expand the game" is blind optimism.

Third, being able to host a major event without any glitches is the only thing Australia has going for it... It doesn't have the stadiums, but more importantly it doesn't need the stadiums (other than if it makes a bid). How often would a 40k stadium be any more than half full in Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Newcastle, etc.?

I don't for a second believe that most of the countries listed would get a finals - but I'm sure there will be some misguided souls in those countries who will be sitting thinking, "Why not?"

Finally, it's not pessimism, it's realism. I'd love Australia to get the finals, but FIFA will give 2022 to China, 2034 would be the next chance for Australia - but FIFA will probably go back to Africa for that one, which takes us to 2046 - politically and economically the world is likely to be very different by then, you may find that the Middle East will provide a bidder with far more power than Australia (Iran, Iraq, Emirates, Saudi - all sound preposterous now, but in 40 years?)


----------



## Benjuk

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> i think one the main reason's that Australia would eventually get the WC is that FIFA are keen to expand the game into the four corners of the world..if they see a market where they think there is room for expansion..they will go for it.FIFA are probably hoping that football takes on Aussies rules and NRL and wins...the only fly in the ointment is that by the time the Aussies finally get to host the finals..football and the A League may have already taken off...and your main reason for having the WC,the fact you are a new market right for exploiting,may have gone...replaced by perhaps another new and emerging country.
> it remains to be seen if footballs honeymoon period on Oz remains...i think it will


Population of 20 million not likely to interest FIFA. They're keener to get their fingers into Africa, Asia and the Middle East - with the 'Holy Grail' still being getting a bigger slice of the North American $.


----------



## kwigibo

I think the issue of stadia needs further examination. I started a thread on this in Ozscrapers a few months ago, and did some pretty expansive research.

Australia has 10 stadia of 40 000+ capacity. Unfortunately, Brisbane and Sydney are home to 3 each and 2 more are in Melbourne. Only 4 of those grounds are rectangles and one of those is not of a terribly high standard. The six remaining are cricket/afl ovals, with their already discussed short-comings in this context.

Compare that with England. Without the rest of the UK, there are 11 stadia of 40 000+ capacity. 3 are in the greater London area, 2 are in Manchester, and 2 in Liverpool, so we have the same problem with multiples. And while all these are rectangular stadia, not all might be said to be WC quality. There are a number of not quite large enough stadia that can be replaced or upgraded, but all in all, a similar amount of construction might be expected if the one per city rule is enforced. It is certainly worth taking into account that any new stadia here would probably be put to more use post WC than their Australian counterparts.

China has ample stadia of necessary capacity, but almost without exception they have athletics tracks, and hence suffer the same viewing issues as Australian ovals. I have a hard time imagining the Chinese construction industry having any difficulty remedying this issue through new stadia or renovation were they named host. Also distribution between cities will not be a problem here.

Australia can compete in this regard, I believe. Suncorp, Telstra Stadium, and Telstra Dome (with retractable seating utilised) I think could host games tomorrow without issue. Aussie Stadium also, if Sydney has two venues. Foregoing that, the MCG I think should host games in spite of viewing issues (The Berlin olympic stadium is an oval, let's not forget, and there will undoubtedly be ovals used by most potential hosts), there are very few comparable arenas in the world.

That gives us at least 4 of the necessary venues. We need six more. Perth is proposing a 70 000 seat oval stadium. This stadium's design could I think without great difficulty incorporate measures to allow temporary seating to make it more suitable for world cup games. That gives us 5.

Now, regional NSW and QLD. I think the centers of Wollongong, Newcastle, Gold Coast City, and Townsville are the next 4 logical locations, as all have NRL franchises, and a market for rectangular stadia. Townsville and GCC both have or will have 25 000 seaters, Dairy Farmers and Skilled. Dairy Farmers I can see being permanently upgraded to a world-class 40 000 seater, their crowd support is not exceeded in this country when accounting for their low density up there, 25 000 to 40 000 is not a huge leap, upkeep wise. I don't see this becoming a white elephant at that capacity a decade or two from now. Skilled's design I've never been happy with, because I think it could have allowed for easier expansion for this very issue, and I think GC can easily support a 40 000 seater, with the current growth rate that may be too small by the time there's likely to be a cup here.

Energy Australia stadium in Newcastle seats 26 000 after a recent upgrade. If they do to the rest of the ground what they did to the eastern stand, they'll be pushing Suncorp level quality. Newcastle's NRL fanbase is similar to North Queensland's in dediication, I think they can support 40 000. WIN Stadium in Wollongong is the biggest stretch as I see it. It's an unorthodox ground of questionable standard, in a location that would be great for a nicer stadium (right on the ocean) but may not permit any substantial expansion. But it is an NRL centre with a decent population so it's the next logical place along with maybe the Hunter/Gosford area and Central Coast stadium. Central Coast stadium is probably more expandable, it comes down to which of the Central Coast Mariners and St. George Illawarra Dragons can make better use of a 40 000 seater. I'm not sure either can support one now, but in a decade or two, who knows?

If all that is workable, we have 9 stadia in 8 cities. We need a tenth. Adelaide seems obvious, but although AAMI has the capacity and then some, it's pushing the limits of suitable oval stadia in its current state. Future state governments there might be more conducive to renovation options. Beyond that, the other option is to have two grounds in both Melbourne and Sydney, which even if there were more than ample grounds, I think is something that should happen. If needs be, maybe some gerrymandering of the local government areas to separate grounds by council jurisdiction and get in on technicality.

I still don't believe it will happen, few of these necessary steps are likely to be undertaken any time soon, and even then I don't necessarily think they should be.


----------



## Wezza

^^
Good post!!


----------



## Eureka!

Benjuk said:


> Third, being able to host a major event without any glitches is the only thing Australia has going for it... It doesn't have the stadiums, but more importantly it doesn't need the stadiums (other than if it makes a bid). How often would a 40k stadium be any more than half full in Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Newcastle, etc.?


I think Perth could often get up to 30,000 for an AFL match. Even more!

Great post (Cannot remember name. Something like kwigpeg lol) I don't think seperating the councils would quite work lol. I'm sure FIFA could make small exceptions. If only a few new stadiums could be built. And in 15 years some cities like Adelaide might be able to support bigger stadiums. I think the MCG and Telstra Dome could be used and the Telstra Stadium and the other Syd one I can't remember lol.

Australia will host it one day I'm quite sure. If soccer keeps growing here at the rate it has been then bigger staidums could be built. A practise match against Greece got a full capacity crowd of 100,000 in Melbourne pre world cup. i think that's enough of a fan base. Just coz our cities may be smaller doesn't mean we can't all get involved in such a major event.

Just look at the sport events Australia has hosted. Most recently melbourne hosted the Commonwealth Games. Great turnout. Then Sydney Olympics. Fantastic. Melbourne Olympics. Brisbane, Sydney, Perth Commonwealth games. In 2008 the world swimming championships in Melbourne. Annually in Mel, the Aussie open. One of the 4 grand slams. We have several car racing events,: the Indy, Bathurst and the Formula one grand prix. Horse racing etc I think the world cup could be a great sucess in Oz.

Rant over.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

eomer said:


> If we are logical, Australia should get it in 2022.
> - *2010* will take place in *South Africa*


Yes, I'm sure SA will host in 2010...some rumours circulating that they won't be ready, but I have faith that it will all be complete in time!



eomer said:


> - *2014* in South America: *Brazil* is the only SA country that could host alone a WC with 32 teams. I think that Brazil will do everything to achieve it (and to win the WC again but that's another story).


This isn't neccessarily true. Brazil, although they have finally realised that they need to do something about the state of the stadiums and infastructure pretty quick, are still not deffinite hosts for 2014. They are still way behind on preparing for the WC, especially with regards to the stadiums required! There are quite a few other candidates in and outside of South America, that are claiming to have an interest in it. Just recently, Venezuela have spoken up that they are looking to be a back-up candidate if Brazil isn't ready. And, for those of you who don't know, Venezuela are investing heavily in their stadiums and from the reports I've heard of officials who have been there to check them out, the stadiums are pretty much up to European standards!



eomer said:


> - *2018* in Europe because Europe can let 3 WC outside. *England (or UK)* will be the front runner.


Although I think and I hope that 2018 will go to England, it is far from being a certainty, especially if China shows a real interest in it, as the profit-hungry FIFA will see them as an emerging gold mine!



eomer said:


> - So, a WC in *Australia* in *2022* could be great.
> - *2026*: I hope a WC in *Canada* but USA and Mexico will try to get it too.


You're still forgetting China here!! If China gets 2018, Austraia will have to wait till 2026 at the very earliest. If England gets 2018, China will also likely be in contension for 2022 with Australia...so nothing is certain!! Hate to be negative against Australia here, but I'm just stating the facts. 



eomer said:


> - *2030*: Uruguay for the 100th or a big country in Asia (China, India...) or a European country (Spain ?, Portugal ?, Russia ?, Turkey ?, European Union ?)


Ok, I have really got to FULLY dismiss the first option there that you've 
mentioned: Uruguay......I can pretty much 100% guarantee that Uruguay will never be hosting the WC ever again. The state of football in Uruguay is so so sooooo far away from being what it once was when they won the 1930 and 1950 World Cups. The country is no longer large enough to host a modern WC alone, its stadiums are....poor to say the least....so 2030, although symbolic, would not be given to Uruguay!!

Btw Kwigibo, that was an excellent post, it's refreshing to see a factual, concise comment that discusses the points relevant to the thread!

:cheers:


----------



## Wezza

Uruguay won't host the WC, people are saying how can Australia host it with only 20 million people, Uruguay has only got roughly 3.5 million.


----------



## pompeyfan

Wezza said:


> Uruguay won't host the WC, people are saying how can Australia host it with only 20 million people, Uruguay has only got roughly 3.5 million.


And the economy is poor as with the infastructure


----------



## Benjuk

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Although I think and I hope that 2018 will go to England, it is far from being a certainty, especially if China shows a real interest in it, as the profit-hungry FIFA will see them as an emerging gold mine!
> 
> You're still forgetting China here!! If China gets 2018, Austraia will have to wait till 2026 at the very earliest. If England gets 2018, China will also likely be in contension for 2022 with Australia...so nothing is certain!! Hate to be negative against Australia here, but I'm just stating the facts.


Every third finals tournament (2018, 2030, 2042, etc.) will be in Europe, FIFA has pretty much stated this. The finals in 2014, 2026, 2038, etc., will be in the Americas (Brazil, USA, Mexico, Argentina & Colombia are all good bets). That leaves 2010 (South Africa), then open bids between Asia, Africa and Oceania for the remaining finals in 2022, 2036, 2050, etc. As previously stated, Australia would be up against China, the oil rich Middle East and Africa in any bids. 

Let's not forget that the world is changing both politically and economically, and we have no idea what things will be like in 25 years... I mean, 25 years ago who would have thought the World Cup Finals would be played in South Africa.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

Benjuk said:


> Population of 20 million not likely to interest FIFA. They're keener to get their fingers into Africa, Asia and the Middle East - with the 'Holy Grail' still being getting a bigger slice of the North American $.



and the population of South Africa is?


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

North America is fools gold for FIFA. It won't happen. The sport is an oddity and perceived as Eurotrash, just like Formula 1 is.

The USA looks at itself as "The World" and everything outside as darkness and barbarian lands.


----------



## Wezza

South Africa's population is roughly 44 million.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants

Wezza said:


> South Africa's population is roughly 44 million.




Wezza,thanks for the info......

can i just as...i have a rough idea who Steve Irwin was...but can you tell me who Peter Brock is/was?


----------



## Benjuk

BaronVonChickenpants said:


> Wezza,thanks for the info......
> 
> can i just as...i have a rough idea who Steve Irwin was...but can you tell me who Peter Brock is/was?


Peter Brock - race car driver and inside Australia he was as big an icon as Steve Irwin. In a career spanning over 30 years he won the premier endurance race here 9 times. Not only a great driver but a truly great bloke as well. Died in a car crash during testing less than a week after Irwin.


----------



## NavyBlue

Wezza said:


> There was talk of them moving the stands in for the rest of the a-league season, but they haven't done it yet. I can't imagine it happening, because they will have to keep moving them in and out so the grass underneath can be watered & get some light on it. It will end up being too costly for them.


Won't happen for the A-League but is for the Rugby League tri-nations.

http://http://www.austadiums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2236&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105


----------



## bobo_greek

not as good as homebush.


----------



## Martuh

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> There is no doubt that a British bid (England, Wales and Scotland) would provide easily the best WC ever seen, or every likely to be seen. The cities would be there, the pure football stadiums (or rugby which is the same deal), the unrivaled fan support etc etc....but such a bid is very unlikely to go through, as FIFA is really not keen on joint bids, especially 3 countries, even though a British bid is soooooo different from another typical joint bid due to it being on one island which is smaller then Germany or France and basically lives as one nation anyway, with the same language, traditions, similar culture etc etc. Any of the problems that FIFA are worried about in joint bids would not be the case with Britain, unfortunately it will probably never be seen that way. The only big issue is allowing all three countries automatic entry...that is a bit much...they could let England have automatic entry as they are the main hosts, then the other two would have to get through on their own!


FYI; UK is 1 country, but 3 (or 4) nations.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ I was wondering if someone would pick up on the semantics of that....then I thought, nah, no-one would be that pedantic..... 

Out of all that I had to say in that post you comment on the political wording I used in one or two sentances.....thanx for that...

:cheers:


----------



## Verbal Kint

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> ^^ I was wondering if someone would pick up on the semantics of that....then I thought, nah, no-one would be that pedantic.....
> 
> Out of all that I had to say in that post you comment on the political wording I used in one or two sentances.....thanx for that...
> 
> :cheers:


 Don't feel too bad because you were wrong. People make mistakes, dont beat yourself up over it.


----------



## Verbal Kint

Martuh said:


> FYI; UK is 1 country, but 3 (or 4) nations.


And FYI, the UK is comprised of 4 kingdoms (nations), not 3. Though technically (being a real pedant here) you could also argue that it was 2 nations: Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So the answer you are after is 2 or 4.


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Yer, we can't all have a World Cup gift wrapped for us like FIFA did with SA,  for the rest of us we've got to fight it out to prove we are the best country to host the tounrmant, so you're right, it is still far too early to be certain or even confident about anything with regards to 2018 at this stage.
> 
> However, I don't think it is too early too be discussing it, since 2010 is SA, and 2014 is going to a South American country, 2018 is the first WC in the future which is open for real speculation, and now is as good a time as any to start thinking about it, as the bids have to be subitted in the next few years.
> 
> :cheers:


hehe....do note we did beat out england in the 2006 bid...and lost by one vote to germany...so the gift wrapping wasnt that great now was it?


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ Touché my friend, touché!!  To be honest with you I don't think anybody (particularly in England) took the England 2006 bid seriously, I don't think we really wanted it enough, and it seemed like a bid that had been thrown together at the last minute, so I'm not surprised it did not win. 

I for one am very glad it didn't, because a) Germany were much more prepared for it in 2006 and they hosted an excellent tournament, and b) because I don't think the English stadiums would have been ready for 2006 and it would have been embarrassing, and c) because by 2018, whether or not we have even got the WC, England will have vastly improved its stadiums by then, so I think 2018 would showcase a much better WC, possibly the BEST WC, then it would have done in 2006!!

Even you must admitt though, FIFA's rotation system, as has already been said by a Mr Blatter, was just to ensure that South Africa got it. I mean lets face it, it was only ever gonna be SA out of the African continent!! Not that this is a bad thing, I am very much looking forward to going there myself in 2010!!

:cheers:


----------



## Martuh

Verbal Kint said:


> And FYI, the UK is comprised of 4 kingdoms (nations), not 3. Though technically (being a real pedant here) you could also argue that it was 2 nations: Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
> 
> So the answer you are after is 2 or 4.


Central government is still in London, isn't it? It's ONE country, multiple nations, but UK is 1 country and though could participate as 1 country instead of 3 which should increase their chances as a WC hoster since the stadiums are bigger, including the Scottish stadiums & Millennium.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

@ Martuh Sorry ur not thinking straight if u think that England, Scotland, Wales and NI would participate as 1 country at the WC!!!!!!???


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Yer, you reallly are out of your mind if you think for one split second that England, Scotland and Wales should, would or could play as one nation in a World Cup.....I can't even begin to explain what is wrong with that, so I'm not gonna even try.

I don't think we should delve any further down the road of how you define the UK...nations, kingdoms, countries etc etc...whatever.....

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread, there is a news report by BBC today about the likelyhood of the WC returning to Europe in 2018:

*Government to back World Cup bid *

The government is willing to back an English bid for the 2018 World Cup, says Sports Minister Richard Caborn. 
Caborn revealed Chancellor Gordon Brown, who met Uefa president Lennart Johansson on Wednesday, was "very, very keen" on the idea. 

Asked whether the government would support a bid, Caborn told BBC Radio 4: "Absolutely. I have no doubt." 

The Football Association is still weighing up its options but chairman Brian Barwick said: "We would like it." 

The 2010 World Cup is being held in South Africa, with the 2014 tournament set to go to a South American country. 

*From 2010, every third World Cup is expected to be awarded to a European country.* 

Barwick added: "If that is the year when it comes back to Europe, we're going to go for it. We don't have to decide now how we go about it, we have to learn the lessons of when we didn't get these things and learn the lessons of when we did - like the Olympics. I think (bid leader) Lord Coe was very clever, a brilliant guy and a really huge contributory factor, as was the playing of the major officials at the right time." 

Coe has already indicated he would be willing to assist the FA in its bid. 

England's hopes have also been boosted by the support of Uefa president Lennart Johansson. 

"We would certainly support such a project," he said. 

Fifa will make its decision in 2010.

....................................................

From what I heard of some of the reports from the radio, it sounded increasingly likely that 2018 is going to be in Europe....and if that is the case, I can't see any bid beating out England. There was also more positive talk of England, Wales and Scotland hosting it together....or maybe just England and Wales....

:cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> ^^ Touché my friend, touché!!  To be honest with you I don't think anybody (particularly in England) took the England 2006 bid seriously, I don't think we really wanted it enough, and it seemed like a bid that had been thrown together at the last minute, so I'm not surprised it did not win.
> 
> I for one am very glad it didn't, because a) Germany were much more prepared for it in 2006 and they hosted an excellent tournament, and b) because I don't think the English stadiums would have been ready for 2006 and it would have been embarrassing, and c) because by 2018, whether or not we have even got the WC, England will have vastly improved its stadiums by then, so I think 2018 would showcase a much better WC, possibly the BEST WC, then it would have done in 2006!!
> 
> Even you must admitt though, FIFA's rotation system, as has already been said by a Mr Blatter, was just to ensure that South Africa got it. I mean lets face it, it was only ever gonna be SA out of the African continent!! Not that this is a bad thing, I am very much looking forward to going there myself in 2010!!
> 
> :cheers:


most definitely..the rotation system did rotate in our favour but at the end of the day, when south africa went up against the england and german superpowers in the 2006 bid race it certainly did exceedingly well..


----------



## Benjuk

We (England) need to be very careful with our bid. We probably have the best set up (currently) for a bid, but after the way we tried to stitch up Germany for the 2006 finals (agreeing to back their bid, then launching our own), we are lacking friends in UEFA and FIFA alike.

I'm starting another thread regarding the best bets (currently) for an England bid) - maybe kill of the negativity (which I started, in a fit of ill-temper) of this thread.


----------



## Martuh

Its AlL gUUd said:


> @ Martuh Sorry ur not thinking straight if u think that England, Scotland, Wales and NI would participate as 1 country at the WC!!!!!!???


Not about participating but hosting WC as 1 country.


----------



## skaP187

Benjuk said:


> We (England) need to be very careful with our bid. We probably have the best set up (currently) for a bid, but after the way we tried to stitch up Germany for the 2006 finals (agreeing to back their bid, then launching our own), we are lacking friends in UEFA and FIFA alike.
> 
> I'm starting another thread regarding the best bets (currently) for an England bid) - maybe kill of the negativity (which I started, in a fit of ill-temper) of this thread.


The only serious competition you can get at this moment is from Spain at this moment. But as they had a WC in 1982 or something, England has the best papers I think


----------



## Benjuk

Talk of a Benelux bid now. Not sure how FIFA will feel about three nations bidding as one though - people seem to think they'd frown on an England bid if it included Scottish and/or Welsh cities.


----------



## pompeyfan

Martuh said:


> Central government is still in London, isn't it? It's ONE country, multiple nations, but UK is 1 country and though could participate as 1 country instead of 3 which should increase their chances as a WC hoster since the stadiums are bigger, including the Scottish stadiums & Millennium.


Then England, Scotland and Wales national teams would have to participate as one country, not 3.


----------



## RSG

I find it funny that it is called the world game but Europe has to have it every third round. If it was really a world game, FIFA should not allow the same continent to hold it twice in three rounds.


----------



## pompeyfan

damn straight


----------



## Noostairz

^ hang on a sec, the world cup's been held in south america, north america, europe, asia, and now africa. the only two continents that haven't hosted the thing are oceania and antarctica, and you're telling me that it's not a world game!?

i don't know what you're complaining about anyway. australia's very own home confederation, the asian football confederation, hosted the thing four years ago! :banana:

and while we're on that topic, now that fifa's bent the rules and allowed australia to join a completely alien continent (presumably so you have a better chance of qualification), can england join the oceania football confederation? - because i tell you what, we'd rather play qualifiers against the solomon islands than, i dunno, holland! how about scotland, can they join the confederation of north, central american and caribbean association football? - i bet the tartan army would love an away leg in barbados!


----------



## Benjuk

RSG said:


> I find it funny that it is called the world game but Europe has to have it every third round. If it was really a world game, FIFA should not allow the same continent to hold it twice in three rounds.


No nation outside of Europe or South America has ever won the world cup. In fact, none have even reached a final.

Anyone from outside the historical homes of football ever shows some genuine quality - then maybe they can start complaining...


----------



## Benjuk

edennewstairs said:


> now that fifa's bent the rules and allowed australia to join a completely alien continent (presumably so you have a better chance of qualification), can england join the oceania football confederation? - because i tell you what, we'd rather play qualifiers against the solomon islands...


To be fair, Australia re-joined the Asian Confederation in order that they could play against decent opposition rather than the likes of Fiji, Vanuatu and American Samoa. The Aussie's found these games a total waste of time - and they did the national team no good what-so-ever. They proved last year that they can get past the 5th best South American side to get to the finals now, so the argument about trying to ease qualification is out of the window.


----------



## Noostairz

Benjuk said:


> To be fair, Australia re-joined the Asian Confederation in order that they could play against decent opposition rather than the likes of Fiji, Vanuatu and American Samoa. The Aussie's found these games a total waste of time - and they did the national team no good what-so-ever. They proved last year that they can get past the 5th best South American side to get to the finals now, so the argument about trying to ease qualification is out of the window.


fair enough, but it's still an absolute scandal that countries are actually allowed to leave their own continental confederation just because they don't like who they share it with, whether that's because the opposition on offer is far too poor or far too good.

if that reason is permissible then where does it end? - scotland haven't qualified for the world cup since 1998. if i were them i'd use australia as a precedent and apply to join the confederation of north, central american and caribbean association football, afterall scotland v canada's a far more attractive fixture than scotland v italy.


----------



## Morjo

Why can't Australia and New Zealand host a world cup together and call it the Australasia World Cup?

Surely that way we can get a couple more stadiums that are suited for Soccer, as they have rugby stadiums?

Having the MCG as a Soccer ground just does not feel right, the ground is to big.


----------



## Wezza

edennewstairs said:


> fair enough, but it's still an absolute scandal that countries are actually allowed to leave their own continental confederation just because they don't like who they share it with, whether that's because the opposition on offer is far too poor or far too good.


It was in the best interest of the game that Australia was moved into the asian confederation. It's not Australia's fault that all the opposition in oceania aren't up to scratch. Maybe they should scrap the oceania confederation altogether & make an australasian confederation?


----------



## pompeyfan

edennewstairs said:


> ^ hang on a sec, the world cup's been held in south america, north america, europe, asia, and now africa. the only two continents that haven't hosted the thing are oceania and antarctica, and you're telling me that it's not a world game!?
> 
> i don't know what you're complaining about anyway. australia's very own home confederation, the asian football confederation, hosted the thing four years ago! :banana:
> 
> and while we're on that topic, now that fifa's bent the rules and allowed australia to join a completely alien continent (presumably so you have a better chance of qualification), can england join the oceania football confederation? - because i tell you what, we'd rather play qualifiers against the solomon islands than, i dunno, holland! how about scotland, can they join the confederation of north, central american and caribbean association football? - i bet the tartan army would love an away leg in barbados!



Making it 16 years Since the last one. We're talking about an event in 14 years, not tomorrow


----------



## NavyBlue

edennewstairs said:


> fair enough, but it's still an absolute scandal that countries are actually allowed to leave their own continental confederation just because they don't like who they share it with, whether that's because the opposition on offer is far too poor or far too good.


The joke of a conference that's Oceania should be scrapped immediatley and all teams to join the Asian conference. Australia holds the world record for goals scored in an international . . . something like 32-0 against one of the Islands which should be enough reason. 

The only qualifier that has any real substance is the play-off against the No.5 South American team which almost always see's us playing with an underdone squad due to the lack of time spent together. European teams are reluctant to release our guys to play against Soloman Islands etc. 

In saying that, qualification through Asia will be harder but will allow the team structure to benefit from playing better opposition more often.

If FIFA don't scrap Oceania then the final qualifier should be against Concacaf (another weak @rse group). Why they have 2.5 WC spots is beyond belief.


----------



## Benjuk

edennewstairs said:


> fair enough, but it's still an absolute scandal that countries are actually allowed to leave their own continental confederation just because they don't like who they share it with, whether that's because the opposition on offer is far too poor or far too good.
> 
> if that reason is permissible then where does it end? - scotland haven't qualified for the world cup since 1998. if i were them i'd use australia as a precedent and apply to join the confederation of north, central american and caribbean association football, afterall scotland v canada's a far more attractive fixture than scotland v italy.


The key difference is that Scotland has always been a part of the European confederation, never part of the North American set-up... Australia was for a long time affiliated with Asia, only opting out when Oceana set up their own federation, the 'experiment' didn't work and so Australia have returned to the Asian confederation.


----------



## Noostairz

all fair points. makes a bit more sense now.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

For all those saying Europe shouldn't have the WC as often as every third tournament, half the teams in the WC are European, majority of the best players play in Europe, Europe has the best leagues, Europe has the better Football stadia etc etc


----------



## Benjuk

NavyBlue said:


> If FIFA don't scrap Oceania then the final qualifier should be against Concacaf (another weak @rse group). Why they have 2.5 WC spots is beyond belief.


Probably the best thing Frank Farina did during his tenure as manager of the Aussie team was when he suggested that the four non-European 'play-off' teams (Cancacaf, Asia, Oceania, South America) should go to one location and play a league, three games each, over 8 or 9 days, with the top two sides going to the world cup - that way even the losers get to go to a mini-tournament. Surprising that FIFA didn't run with the idea 'cos it could be a nice little money spinner. Maybe they should throw a couple of the Euro play-off sides in there as well.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

It would be in Asia's and therefore Australia's best interest if Oceania remains the lame duck it is presently. We ideally want to have Asia's 5th, 6th or 7th play off against Oceania because it could well be Oz.

We need to get selfish now we are out of the Oceania sinkhole.


----------



## Mephisto

Australia will bid for 2018 and lose out to England.
Australia will again bid for 2022 and win


----------



## Guest

England has the 2018 world cup 99.9% in the bag. If I was Asutralia I would save money and make sure thier 2022 bid is twice as good as anyone elses.


----------



## Benjuk

Mephisto said:


> Australia will bid for 2018 and lose out to England.
> Australia will again bid for 2022 and win


Because an Australian bid would be so much stronger than a Chinese one?


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> Because an Australian bid would be so much stronger than a Chinese one?


I'd be very confident if they're our only competition. 2022 is too far away but as things stand now, a Chinese bid faces a lot more obstacles than an Australian bid.

btw...I havn't given up on 2018 yet :nuts:


----------



## Benjuk

NavyBlue said:


> I'd be very confident if they're our only competition. 2022 is too far away but as things stand now, a Chinese bid faces a lot more obstacles than an Australian bid.
> 
> btw...I havn't given up on 2018 yet :nuts:


2018 will be in Europe, FIFA has more-or-less stated that. So unless the FFA manages to get out of Asia and into Europe it would appear that an Aussie bid would be wasted. It'll be England or Spain.

2022 - China already has the required number of football specific stadiums (see separate thread) and has a population and footballing market potential that will make FIFA drool. Which obstacles does it face that won't be a problem for Australia?


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> 2018 will be in Europe, FIFA has more-or-less stated that. So unless the FFA manages to get out of Asia and into Europe it would appear that an Aussie bid would be wasted. It'll be England or Spain.


FIFA seem to change their minds on a daily basis . . . rotation/non rotation etc. so I wouldn't treat anything they say as gospel, but I do agree that 2018 will most likely go to Europe. I hope that if we're serious about hosting the WC, we should place a bid for 2018 just to test the water and let FIFA know that we're genuinely committed.



> 2022 - China already has the required number of football specific stadiums (see separate thread) and has a population and footballing market potential that will make FIFA drool. Which obstacles does it face that won't be a problem for Australia?


All I see is many venues with athletic tracks and as I stated in the other thread, if FIFA are serious in pushing the rectangular or football friendly stadium policy that I hear a lot about on this forum, then many stadiums would need to be built from scratch. Will China's economy still be booming by then? Is football big enough to require so many large football stadiums as so they don't become white elephants after wards? I watched the BBC "Tank Man" documentary the other day where it was stated that over 1 billion Chinese live below the poverty line . . . will there be enough local support for the tournament?

Time will tell I guess but the Chinese ain't without their own obstacles.


----------



## Benjuk

There's always a dark horse as well. I've still got the nagging feel (based on a few rumours that I've heard) that the Emirates (who are worming their way into FIFA's money grabbing black heart) will pull a rabbit from the hat and construct a dozen state of the art stadiums along their coast line as part of their tourism drive. Sports City could be just the start!

Again, I'd love Australia to get it - but I can't see it happening in my lifetime.


----------



## RSG

I would be worried if Australia's bid was up against that of the Chinese. I believe that with the Olympics, they will show that the country can host any world event (just like Sydney did). The difference with this will be China's much larger economy will be able to host another world event and be able to build new or renovate their stadiums as needed. 

What they should do instead is start bridging the gap between their middle class and the 700 million that live below the poverty line in their country and let Australia host the cup on behalf of Asia.


----------



## mauritius gunner

Its AlL gUUd said:


> For all those saying Europe shouldn't have the WC as often as every third tournament, half the teams in the WC are European, majority of the best players play in Europe, Europe has the best leagues, Europe has the better Football stadia etc etc


........and all four semi-finalists in this years world cup were European

Even if Australia had knocked out Italy in the 2nd round, they would have been whalloped by Ukraine in the Q-finals.


----------



## Kulin Nation

Ben, I think its best if we end this thread. The whole city V City thing was banned for a reason. Individuals like Lost Boy take things too far. 

Thanks................


----------



## Pelha

It would be positive for Portugal. Everyone had doubts when Portugal bid for Euro 2004 but the country showed all its qualities and capabilities and ensured the event was a success, Earlier this week the president of the Portuguese Football Federation, Gilberto Madail, said Portugal should consider making a bid to host the football finals in 2018 using the stadiums put in place for the Euro 2004 tournament which it hosted.


----------



## Gherkin

Portugals stadiums are excellent, but the country would need to build another 60,000+ seater stadium, and six new 40,000+ seater stadia to host a World Cup. FIFA will take into consideration that most of the Euro 2004 stadiums have never been filled since the tournament, and that stadiums in Spain and England would almost certainly be filled week in week out.


----------



## The Concerned Potato

if England doesnt come up with plans for new stadiums, i would choose Spain at this moment in time (if i was working at FIFA)

the City of Birmingham stadium was a 55,000 seater stadium (with retractable roof, pitch and seats) that was going to be used for football, athletics, cricket and rugby. but was put on hold because the council didnt forward the bid in the race for a supercasino license (idiots) and forwarded some other bid that met no criteria which ultimately failed.

it could be brought back to life for the World Cup/Commonwealth games/future casino license applications

you can view it in the England 2018 bid thread


----------



## Martuh

There are no official bids yet, so


> Portugal haven't made an official bid yet.


 is a useless argument. Better show all the other countries as well, for the total image.


----------



## Calvin W

In that case there has been rumblings of the USA maybe throwing a bid in. The would obviously have more than enough stadiums. But they have hosted it in the recent past.


----------



## pompeyfan

we all know what a great WC that was


----------



## Gherkin

Martuh said:


> There are no official bids yet, so is a useless argument. Better show all the other countries as well, for the total image.


Official bids are put forward to FIFA in 2009.

The list above has the 4 strongest possible bids. I did not include the Canadian or the Belgium/Netherlands bid because the stadia are lightyears behind the other bidding countries.

I think it will be between Spain and England right to the line, but bearing in mind England will have other stadiums in London that cannot legally be used under FIFA regulations (aka Olympic stadium (70,000+ seats), Twickenham (82,000 seats) and a redeveloped Stamford Bridge (60,000+ seats) I think England can match the Spanish competition.


----------



## MoreOrLess

The Concerned Potato said:


> if England doesnt come up with plans for new stadiums, i would choose Spain at this moment in time (if i was working at FIFA)
> 
> the City of Birmingham stadium was a 55,000 seater stadium (with retractable roof, pitch and seats) that was going to be used for football, athletics, cricket and rugby. but was put on hold because the council didnt forward the bid in the race for a supercasino license (idiots) and forwarded some other bid that met no criteria which ultimately failed.
> 
> it could be brought back to life for the World Cup/Commonwealth games/future casino license applications
> 
> you can view it in the England 2018 bid thread


I dont think that would actually be that big a factor considering Villa Park looks likely to be redevolped into a 50,000+ seater. Indeed that might actually be the better stadium to use since part of the appeal of an English/UK bid would be the famous stadiums.

I suspect that the Spainish may ultimately do a deal with the English FA in which they support us for 2018 if we support them for Euro 2016.


----------



## Calvin W

Gherkin007 said:


> Official bids are put forward to FIFA in 2009.
> 
> The list above has the 4 strongest possible bids. I did not include the Canadian or the Belgium/Netherlands bid because the stadia are lightyears behind the other bidding countries.


Who said anything about Canada? No offense but this is the last thing Canada would ever bid for. Not enough people follow soccer over here. But the USA has the money and power to probably buy themselves another tourney when they choose to. Whether this is 2018 or later who knows.


----------



## The Concerned Potato

MoreOrLess said:


> I dont think that would actually be that big a factor considering Villa Park looks likely to be redevolped into a 50,000+ seater. Indeed that might actually be the better stadium to use since part of the appeal of an English/UK bid would be the famous stadiums.


is this a joke? :nuts:


----------



## MoreOrLess

The Concerned Potato said:


> is this a joke? :nuts:


Perhaps you can build the stadium with the 30 peices of silver Bruce got for leaving Palace?


----------



## BeestonLad

lets face it theres no way on earth birmingham city would get a 55,000 seat stadium they could barely half fill it, expanding villa is the safer bet


----------



## kinggeorge

what people have to realise is we are in 2006 and 2018 is 12 years away and in 12 years there will be many new stadiums..if mexico were to bid they would have to build all new stadiums or repair those stadiums posted above. as for england they would need some new stadiums but their league is in good shape and i think new stadiums will be built..for wc 2018 i would like to see spain win..i think their stadiums will be incredible for the wc..is there any news if a greek-turkish bid will go through?


----------



## Gherkin

^^ All the official bids have to be in by 2009, so watch this space (for 3 years)


----------



## The Concerned Potato

BeestonLad said:


> lets face it theres no way on earth birmingham city would get a 55,000 seat stadium they could barely half fill it, expanding villa is the safer bet


well i disagree (slightly), last season, Villa's average attendance was 34,000 and Birmingham's was 28,000. so the gap in attendances weren't significantly big (even though we had a nightmare of a season)

i know we are in the Championship now and naturally, our attendance has fallen but, even when they have arguably the best manager in their history and a new billionnaire owner their attendaces have stagnated

i know what you're trying to say though, if it was built now we wouldnt fill a 55,000 seater stadium, but who knows in 10 years time we could be one of the big guns :nuts: 

a new stadium brings in new interest (in just seeing the stadium) my brother who's an Arsenal fan hadnt been to an Arsenal game since 2001, and now he comes to me saying, "i've gotta see this new stadium! (the Emirates) have you seen it? it's incredible!"

stadium extensions don't excite anyone. new people wont come in for a few more blocks of seating

we've had attendances of 69,000 before in our history, and even managed to bring 50,000 fans to watch Blues play in the the Leyland DAF cup final. this club has BIG potential and the biggest net available to draw new local fans. i guess we will see where we are in a few years time.

probably in legaue 2.....(it IS Birmingham after all)

the city itself though DOES need the Birmingham Sports Village complex (and again the stadium isnt just for football, but for athletics, cricket, rugby and concerts too)


----------



## Canadian Chocho

It would be nice seeing Canada in that group but our ugly venues would ruine the collection.


----------



## MelboyPete

IMO Australia has the capacity and motivation to stage a fantastic and memorable World Cup in 2018 but I don't think the rest of the world would 'allow' that to happen.....something about being too far 'downunder' and the time difference...but I truly hope these aren't held against Australia's bid.


----------



## Gherkin

Australia would host a fantastic World Cup, but 2018 is a European World Cup year... Oz would be the strongest contender for 2022. Canada might have a strong football team by then but it's stadia are a tad uglier than those down under.


----------



## Evoluon

Gherkin007 said:


> Official bids are put forward to FIFA in 2009.
> 
> The list above has the 4 strongest possible bids. I did not include the Canadian or the Belgium/Netherlands bid because the stadia are lightyears behind the other bidding countries.
> 
> I think it will be between Spain and England right to the line, but bearing in mind England will have other stadiums in London that cannot legally be used under FIFA regulations (aka Olympic stadium (70,000+ seats), Twickenham (82,000 seats) and a redeveloped Stamford Bridge (60,000+ seats) I think England can match the Spanish competition.


The Netherlands is full of decent stadiums, it's just that they're a bit on the small side. But Rotterdam is planning a new stadium and so are Antwerp and Brussels. Others are planning upgrading to around 40.000. I would love it if Belgium and the Netherlands got it, but my money would be on Spain. Considering that Madrid lost out to London for the Olympics, the favour will go the other way round (if Spain's bid is not better anyway).


----------



## MoreOrLess

Kwakzalver said:


> The Netherlands is full of decent stadiums, it's just that they're a bit on the small side. But Rotterdam is planning a new stadium and so are Antwerp and Brussels. Others are planning upgrading to around 40.000. I would love it if Belgium and the Netherlands got it, but my money would be on Spain. Considering that Madrid lost out to London for the Olympics, the favour will go the other way round (if Spain's bid is not better anyway).


Actually if anything I'd say it could be the reverse, London winning 2012 and the experience/infrastructure it will create could help with a world cup bid. Mexico, West Germany and the USA all hosted the Olympics and WC within two years of each other.

As much as we like to talk about stadiums the two key factors for choosing a host for the WC are IMHO FIFA politics plus the hosts level of organisation, infrastructure and expereince with hosting big sporting events.


----------



## Wezza

I don't think thats what Benjuk meant. I think he meant if supporters from foreign countries come to Australia to watch their team who might play in Brisbane one day, then a few days later they might play in Perth & then another in Melbourne. Large bands of supporters following their team around could become a logistical nightmare & not to mention extremely expensive.


----------



## KJBrissy

You'd do something along the lines of having all the group matches in similar areas, and then all of the finals along the East Coast between Brisbane and Melbourne. That shouldn't be too hard, and the travel wouldn't be extreem.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ look at previous posts, europe deserves it


----------



## MelboyPete

Its AlL gUUd said:


> ^^ look at previous posts, european deserves it


Do me a favour and clarify why you think "european deserves it" ?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

sorry typo, but europe deserves to host it more often then not


----------



## Guest

KJBrissy said:


> ^^We'd still have sell outs no matter what our population. We also have a diverse range of residents here that would fill in the numbers. I would guarentee a sell out for almost every game if it were in Australia!



I would gurantee a *SELL OUT FOR EVERY GAME *if it were in England. Not only is it the best option for 2018. But FIFA really need to reward the army of English/Irish fans that make the journey in thier hundreds of thousands to support the national team during major tournaments.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

England take the most fans to nearly every tournament, even in euro 2004 match between england and portugal there were nearly as many english fans as there were portugese(the hosts) in the stadium.


----------



## Martuh

Its AlL gUUd said:


> England take the most fans to nearly every tournament, even in euro 2004 match between england and portugal there were nearly as many english fans as there were portugese(the hosts) in the stadium.


I feel insulted.


----------



## veronika

*2 horse race*

The 2018 world cup will be hosted by a European country if there are no major wars, atrocities, terrorism acts or natural catastrophes in the lead up.
The same can be said for 2014 which will go to the Americas at this point South America, but as it is quite likely one of the above will happen USA and Canada can be on standby and have tha ability to host the wc within a few months notice.
It is simple the decision is based firstly on rotation between the two major continental super powers of football,i.e Europe and South America. Secondly on commericial and tv factors. It is not a major factor regarding stadia believe me! Of course its also politics and gets complicated but believe me the decision as to which continent will host the wc is already made for the next 16 years.

Take the wc from the advent of tv

62 s.america
66 europe
70 s/middle america
74 europe
78 s.america
82 europe
86 s./middle america 
90 europe
94 n. america
98 europe
02 asia
06 europe
10 africa
14 americas
18 europe
22 austrialasia

As to which European host well it won't be (too recent ) Germany, France or Italy as they were the last three European hosts and the two other superpowers of England and Spain would have too much backing. European outsiders in with a slim chance would be Russia, Greece, Turkey and Holland. What makes it interesting is Euro 2016 because with the exception of Holland all of the mentioned Euro countries would also like to bid for that as a fall back to not getting the world cup.
2018 wc ranking imo at the moment would be
1.Eng
2. Spain
3. Russia
4. Greece/Turkey-more likely to win 16 euro champs bid.
5. Holland.


----------



## Monkey

Reddog794 said:


> ^^ ^^ ^^
> Europe again? Come on... talk about killing it's international appeal...
> I think Oz should host 2018. Their facilities are more directed at events of those types of crowds per game. Canada's bid would obviously be stronger if Halifax gets the right to host the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Then it would have a stadium in every region, with each region having over a million each, with stadiums able to host 40 000+ people (after temp extentions). But ya if China puts in a bid... well they're going to get it. My only question is... how many international events can China hold before somebody says, "Hey didn't China already do the Olympics, etc.", because China is the the dragon economy, and will be on the top of the list for alot of events. Will they use that situation too much, and end up handing the games to either Canada/Mexico/Oz.?


I think you've got this the wrong way round. Europe is the centre of the football world. The World Cup is held every four years and there has never been more than an eight year gap between European-hosted world cups. With 2010 in Africa (South Africa) and 2014 in Latin America (probably Brazil) then the World Cup will have already been out of Europe for an unprecedented 12 years. It's almost inconcievable that it will stay outside Europe for a third World Cup in succession. I think it's between Spain and England for 2018. I think FIFA will be interested in a China world cup but my guess is that China's 2018 bid will be a forerunner for a more credible bid for 2022. Places like Canada and Australia haven't got a chance as they have small markets and practically zero football culture/tradition.


----------



## skaP187

I think you are right!!!


----------



## Calvin W

Monkey said:


> I think you've got this the wrong way round. Europe is the centre of the football world. The World Cup is held every four years and there has never been more than an eight year gap between European-hosted world cups. With 2010 in Africa (South Africa) and 2014 in Latin America (probably Brazil) then the World Cup will have already been out of Europe for an unprecedented 12 years. It's almost inconcievable that it will stay outside Europe for a third World Cup in succession. I think it's between Spain and England for 2018. I think FIFA will be interested in a China world cup but my guess is that China's 2018 bid will be a forerunner for a more credible bid for 2022. Places like Canada and Australia haven't got a chance as they have small markets and practically zero football culture/tradition.


Get used to not having it in your own back yard everytime. As soccer grows around the world the World Cup will also. It will eventually come to the point where the majority of teams in the tournament are NOT from Europe. With 200 teams World wide why should the roughly 35 countries of Europe dominate things. I look forward to these times.

Yes you can reply about tradition, how Europe is currently the power region, politics, money, etc. But face it you will eventually lose your grip on your precious World Cup.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Calvin W said:


> Get used to not having it in your own back yard everytime. As soccer grows around the world the World Cup will also. It will eventually come to the point where the majority of teams in the tournament are NOT from Europe. With 200 teams World wide why should the roughly 35 countries of Europe dominate things. I look forward to these times.
> 
> Yes you can reply about tradition, how Europe is currently the power region, politics, money, etc. *But face it you will eventually lose your grip on your precious World Cup*.


Jeeeezus......did that sound bitter....not to mention kinda scary...you sound like one of those ranting Evil villains in a bond movie: 'Face the facts Mr Bond, sooner or later you will lose the girl, your life, and your _prescious_ little World Cup! Muahahahah!! :runaway: 

I am all for more countries getting into the passion of a WC, and I would like to see other less well known countries have a better chance of qualifying....this isn't about Europe wanting to hoard the WC for itself and keep the game in Europe. Part of the success of football is the fact that England, and then other European countries, went out and introduced the sport to the world, and encouraged them to play. But the simple fact is, football was born in Europe, it is where its culture and history lies, where all the big leagues and clubs and players are, where there is the most enthusiasm for it...etc etc etc.

I mean sure, introduce the WC to other areas, and try to get them involved, but there isn't much point giving a WC regularly to countries/continents that don't have that much interest in it.

And if the sport had stemmed from America, and it wasn't very popular in Europe, or stemmed from Asia and wasn't very popular in Europe, you can guarantee they'd have the WC there at least once every two times! I don't think it is too much to ask that once every 12 years a European country gets a WC. And remember, this might not neccessarily be needed for the distant future, because there will be less European countries that will be able to host a WC that have not recently done so, which means the WC could miss Europe for 4 times or more....

Not to mention Europe is the most stable and reliable place for a WC, with the possible exception of the USA....South Africa and Africa havn't in the past had the infastructure, stadiums, money to pull in off, neither have South America. Canada have the money but not really the cities/stadiums/enthusiasm, Asia haven't had the money/cities/stadiums, Australia haven't had the stadiums/enthusiasm..........so you can't really argue with Europe having the large share of the WC hosting rights.

As other countries become available, then yes, the WC should be spread around a bit more....but ultimately, with regards to 2018, I don't care about continents, I think it should just come down to who has the best bid and who wants it more!!

:cheers:


----------



## Macca-GC

I'm happy for England to host the 2018 WC, but I do think Australia can beat China for the 2022 WC.

In Australia's bid, we would have:
MCG, Melbourne(100,000)
Telstra Stadium, Sydney(83,500)
Rebuilt Subiaco Stadium(Currently planning), Perth(65,000)
Telstra Dome, Melbourne(55,000)
Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane(52,500)
Upgraded EnergyAustralia Stadium, Newcastle(47,500)
Upgraded Gold Coast Stadium, Gold Coast(45,000)
Upgraded Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville(40,000)
New Adelaide Rectangular Stadium(40,000+)


----------



## Benjuk

KJBrissy said:


> ^^We'd still have sell outs no matter what our population. We also have a diverse range of residents here that would fill in the numbers. I would guarentee a sell out for almost every game if it were in Australia!


Not so much about selling out the games - more about the number of people to 'buy in' to football. Japan/Korea created massive interest in football in Asia, promoted the sport big time. The same will happen in Africa - interest in the game, a feeling of 'belonging' to FIFA will grow in the people of Africa now that their continent has been accepted into the 'FIFA family'. The feeling of belonging will lead to greater participation... 2022 - given the choice between a billion Chinese, or 20-30 million Aussies, who would you back the money-hungry FIFA big-wigs to go for?


----------



## Wezza

SimLim said:


> I would gurantee a *SELL OUT FOR EVERY GAME *if it were in England. Not only is it the best option for 2018. But FIFA really need to reward the army of English/Irish fans that make the journey in thier hundreds of thousands to support the national team during major tournaments.


Mate, it would be a sell out for every match here in Australia as well, no doubt about it!!


----------



## bruin787

for the 1994 World Cup, the US used 9 host cities. if we bid again for 2018, i think you can guarantee these 6 stadiums would be included based on their location and proximity to large US metro areas...

Rose Bowl – Pasadena, CA (Los Angeles metro) - site of the 1994 World Cup Final
capacity = 91,100+

















FedEx Field – Landover, MD (Washington DC metro)
capacity = 91,000

















Gillette Stadium – Foxboro, MA (Boston metro)
capacity = 68,000

















Solider Field – Chicago, IL
capacity = 67,000

















Lincoln Financial Field – Philadelphia, PA
capacity = 68,500

















New Meadowlands Stadium – East Rutherford, NJ (New York metro) - due to open in 2009
capacity = 80,000 (est.)

















as for the remaining 3 sites, there really are DOZENS of possibilities. i have some ideas if anyone cares to discuss


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> Not so much about selling out the games - more about the number of people to 'buy in' to football. Japan/Korea created massive interest in football in Asia, promoted the sport big time. The same will happen in Africa - interest in the game, a feeling of 'belonging' to FIFA will grow in the people of Africa now that their continent has been accepted into the 'FIFA family'.


Why does FIFA need to promote the game in these regions when Football is already clearly the #1 code? If the relevant authorities can't build on their current popular supporter base, then a WC tournament would only serve as an "event" and apart from new stadia, very little would be gained from hosting it in the long term. (_see USA'94_)



> The feeling of belonging will lead to greater participation... 2022 - given the choice between a billion Chinese, or 20-30 million Aussies, who would you back the money-hungry FIFA big-wigs to go for?


Well Sydney did beat Beijing for the 2000 Olympic Games...

...I'm hoping for a repeat performance :banana:


----------



## Benjuk

NavyBlue said:


> Why does FIFA need to promote the game in these regions when Football is already clearly the #1 code? If the relevant authorities can't build on their current popular supporter base, then a WC tournament would only serve as an "event" and apart from new stadia, very little would be gained from hosting it in the long term. (_see USA'94_)
> 
> 
> Well Sydney did beat Beijing for the 2000 Olympic Games...
> 
> ...I'm hoping for a repeat performance :banana:


Yeah, but the Olympics is about one city versus one city, and the IOC are not trying to promote a 'brand'. Sydney beat Beijing and put on a stunning games - no one will deny that... However, when it comes to FIFA, they are out to promote the game to be the world's no. 1 sport - to destroy the competition, and also to maintain FIFA's role as the governing body for the sport.

With regard to 'promoting' the sport in Europe/Americas, the reasons are varied. 
(1) It's a stimulous toward the building of improved facilities - very few countries world wide have the facilities to host a world cup... You can guarentee that by the next time France or Germany is ready to host the tournament again, FIFA will have raised the standards to (eg) 10 x 50k stadiums, or greater seating comfort, etc.
(2) It's an acknowledgement of the traditional history of football - it would be a hard sell to take the finals away from their traditional homes for 2018 (eg Australia), 2022 (eg China), 2026 (eg Morocco), 2030 (eg USA), etc., and ultimately taking it away from Europe COULD lead to a falling interest for international football in football's largest media market - catastrophic for FIFA (which let's remember has it's HQ in Europe)
(3) It's a benchmark for developing countries - as good as Japan/Korea was, Germany has set the benchmark for the future. It's hard to imagine South Africa being as good simply because there won't be as many travelling fans - and it's the fans that make the finals (this is not a 'diss' to SA - it's simply a statement of fact, Polish, Croats, French, Dutch, etc., will not be able to jump in the car and drive over the border for the day).


----------



## Ari Gold

The USA has perhaps the Best Stadiums in the World. The thing that strikes you most is the sheer size. Each stadium is pretty much bigger than 65K. Its a very, very good chance that each stadium will be filled for each game.

However i doubt weather the Rose Bowl would be used. Unless it goes through some major redevelopments, im sure Arizona and Indianopolis will be better venues. Although you cant question its History and Pride to America.


----------



## Ari Gold

^^ 
Hypothetically if FIFA did change its minimum requirements to 10 x 50K, which countries do you think could sustain the requirements both before and after the WC.

Are you saying England are unable to sustain 10 50K stadiums after the WC? Im talking about in different cities (as London itself has Emirates, Wembley etc already).
Im guessing the US will easily be able to. Who else???
Cheers


----------



## Ari Gold

gaoanyu said:


> It's true that China only has something like three football-only stadiums. But who says those with tracks can not do the job? I remember that Italy90 had a handful stadia with tracks, and they are still using them for Serie'a alright.


How many people that will go to 'x country' 18, were around in Italy 90? Long time ago mate.



> But then, I do agree that the Premier stadia look way better in terms of spectating experience.


Its probable a bare minimum requirement for FIFA. The Worlds best Tornement deserves the Best stadiums. Simple.



> Point was not China doesn't have such stadia, they can build thousands of them if that's what it needs to accommodate the world cup. Point is, China's football team is a shame to play in the WC. A WC with China will degrade the quality of the tournament, and it would be a huge shame. :lol:


Well your only going to have to wait another 3 odd years for an embrassing team in the WC. Imagine if say France (using an example of a good time only) missed out (because they were in a group of death in the qualifiers) and South Africa gets belted by 5 goalds each game. lol.


----------



## gaoanyu

^^I wasn't aware that FIFA requires no-track football stadia for WC..

The thing is, China will be the last in the WC. If the host turned out to be the worst, it would be so embarrassing. That's why I wouldn't vote China for 2018 bid, I may get heart attack, ha ha. Btw, I am Chinese..

Unless, they suddenly discover a couple of geniuses in the coming years, which I highly doubt about.


----------



## Ari Gold

I dont think its a FIFA Requirement. But i have a very good feeling that by the time 2018 comes, you will see Athletics-less Football games.


----------



## Mo Rush

gaoanyu said:


> I disagree.


rephrased.
There is no longer an uncontrollable hooligan problem in England, and in the context of a World Cup, it would pose no significant threat to England's ability to host.


----------



## Mo Rush

CharlieP said:


> FIFA currently only allow one host city to have more than one stadium...


One of the many problems of an Australian WC bid.


----------



## rantanamo

FIFA's requirements are worded like, "If at all possible"................"would further help in selecting"....................."For the comfort of fans and television viewers". In regard to roofs, if you read it with an open mind you'll see that they don't require roofs, but "If at all possible...............they basically want everyone in the stadium to be kept from all of the elements. That doesn't say roof, that says dome. At the same time they'd like a natural pitch with adequate sunlight............If at all possible. Sounds like a retractable roof to me. Regarding the track, it is again an if at all possible. They like an ideal distance from the pitch without a track..............If at all possible. Having seen UT do it, I know its a $3-4 million project that usually requires lowering the pitch and either totally removing the track, having retractable seats or putting in permanent seating. No cheap options.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Maxflax said:


> If England is to host the WC they need to find a solution to the hooligan problem, maybe imprisson them ? But then again there are several thousands of known hooligans in England so......





gaoanyu said:


> I disagree.


Omg....y don't people ever stop to think first and maybe read what has already been written on other similar threads before blurting out crap all over a thread like so much verbal diarrhea???

Because I really can't be bothered to type all the relevant info again, I will just post the comment I made over the same isue in the 'England - potential bid for 2018 WC Finals' thread:



> Because of many schemes put in place back in the dark days of the 20th century, the Premiership (as well as the lowers tiers of English football) is the safest, fairest and most incident-free in Europe (and, I would venture, the world). A fact I love to mention which no-one seams to realise is this idea of putting up fences and protective barriers around the pitches in European stadiums to prevent fan intrusion, objecst being thrown etc etc. This is present in Spanish stadiums, French stadiums, German stadiums, Italian staidums...pretty much throughout Europe and most of the world.
> ....Do we see this in English stadiums??? I think not!! There is no need. That is how far the situations has changed!!
> 
> You want to talk about these issues...how about mentioning the rampant racism in Spanish football, the fashism and corrpution in Italian football....how about the fact that South American football games are constantly abandoned because of fan violence, throwing stones, invading the pitch.
> 
> Do you know that in quite a few South American countries it is a custom for players on the away side to take corners with an escort of riot police to shield them from the crowd...did you know that very recently Argentina has implemented a temporary crisis measure where no away fans are allowed in the stadiums and only home fans that are season ticket holders are permitted!!!
> I bet you didn't know that though.....and yet strangely enough you can remeber some reports of English hooliganism 20/30 years ago...hmmm.
> 
> Did you also know that because of the problems in these South American countries, many are looking at the ENGLISH model as a basis for combatting these issues! You would think more people would be concerned about these points considering a South American country will be hosting the 2014 WC, instead of worrying about a counrty with the safest and cleanest league system possibly getting the 2018 WC....
> 
> Honestly some people really do need to just move on instead of perpetuating a dumb and outdated stereotype. It would be like me worrying about Germany hosting the 2006 WC for fear that they might use it as an excuse to start WW3.
> 
> Of course England is deffinitely not devoid of hooliganism, there will still be the usual drunken council-housed idiot minority who give everyone a bad name, but you would be hard pressed to find a counrty in the world which doesn't have such problems in some form or another!!
> 
> So no, I really don't think this will be an issue with FIFA if England are to bid for 2018, no more so then it would any other country in Europe!!
> 
> ...I think that is like the 3rd or 4th time on this forum that I have had to explain all this.... hno:


Btw, with regards that very last sentance in my quote, I believe this will be the 5th time I have had to repeat all this! I doubt it will be the last! hno:


----------



## wiki

go brazil


----------



## Gherkin

That planned stadium in Perth sure looks good


----------



## 3SPIRES

Benjuk said:


> There is no longer a hooligan problem in England - the problem is only when the tossers travel overseas away from Mummy or Mrs Hooligan.
> 
> The only thing that will stall an England bid, in my opinion, would be if FIFA upped their stadium standards prior to 2018, and insisted on - say - 10 x 50k stadiums. This would cause major problems as most English clubs will have already completed regeneration in the region of 40k seaters and further expansion would be uneconomical. I can't see the FA/government subsidising the construction efforts of certain clubs and therefore disadvantaging others.


England will easily have 10 x 50k stadiums by 2018

Already Built

Manchester - 76,000
London (Wembley) - 90,000
London (Arsenal) - 60,000
Newcastle - 52,000

Planned New ground

Liverpool - 60,000

Planned extensions of present ground

Birmingham (Villa) - 51,000
Sunderland - 65,000

Only 3 more would be needed these would probably be Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol out of all these grounds the only ones that could be seen as possibly unsustainable would be Bristol.


----------



## Mo Rush

Gherkin007 said:


> That planned stadium in Perth sure looks good


whats the news on that stadium? stadium WA or subiaco? any news?


----------



## Dasher39

CharlieP said:


> FIFA currently only allow one host city to have more than one stadium...


True and that is a problem Australia would encounter, however FIFA change their mind every second day so come 2018/2022 they may have altered their criteria and allow Sydney and Melbourne to have 2 stadiums each.



Mo Rush said:


> whats the news on that stadium? stadium WA or subiaco? any news?


Not sure, the WA Govt is still investigating all the pros and cons of the stadiums. The WAFC want to redevelop Subiaco to 60,000 seats.

At the same time, there is a push to redevelop Members Equity Stadium (Perth's rectangular stadium) to 35,000 capacity. If this went ahead, they'd simply do a minor redevelopment to make it 40,000 seats for a WC.


----------



## NavyBlue

CharlieP said:


> FIFA currently only allow one host city to have more than one stadium...


Isn't it funny how this "FIFA rule" only pops up when an Australian bid is discussed? hno:


----------



## hngcm

I went to the 2006 WC and English fans were easily the worst, never in my life had I FEARED for my life more than when I was watching the QF between England and Portugal and being on the Portugal fan's side....


----------



## rantanamo

NavyBlue said:


> Isn't it funny how this "FIFA rule" only pops up when an Australian bid is discussed? hno:


Just Wiki FIFA World Cup and you can maybe find it or not find it. I've never read it looking for that rule, but if its like most of the FIFA requirements it will say "If at all possible"


----------



## Calvin W

3SPIRES said:


> England will easily have 10 x 50k stadiums by 2018
> 
> Already Built
> 
> Manchester - 76,000
> London (Wembley) - 90,000
> London (Arsenal) - 60,000
> Newcastle - 52,000
> 
> Planned New ground
> 
> Liverpool - 60,000
> 
> Planned extensions of present ground
> 
> Birmingham (Villa) - 51,000
> Sunderland - 65,000
> 
> Only 3 more would be needed these would probably be Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol out of all these grounds the only ones that could be seen as possibly unsustainable would be Bristol.



Canada could easily have 12 stadiums 50 000+ by 2018
BC place 60 000
CommonWealth stadium 60 000+
Olympic Stadium 60 000+
Rogers Centre 55 000+
McMahon 50 000+
Taylor Field 50 000+
Canad Inns Stadium 50 000+
Ivor Wyne Stadium 50 000+
Frank Clair Stadium 50 000+
Griffith Stadium 50 000+
TD Waterhouse Stadium 50 000+
Rouge et Orange Stadium 50 000+
Halifax Commonwealth Stadium 50 000+
St John's Memorial Stadium 50 000+

So we could do as good as you!


----------



## Ari Gold

Dasher39 said:


> True and that is a problem Australia would encounter, however FIFA change their mind every second day so come 2018/2022 they may have altered their criteria and allow Sydney and Melbourne to have 2 stadiums each.


It all Depends on how much FIFA wants the WC to go to Australia. Like they were willing to allow a little flexibility so South Africa got it and it looks the same with Brazil.

Melbourne and Sydney have always been bitching against each other to see whose Best. Well we still dont know so FIFA might have to allow them both have 2 stadiums each (mind you they arent the worst stadiums). But you also gotta consider that Brisbane in about 'x' years could be a Major, Major City and Perth with our Resource Boom could do anything.

Alot can change between now and then.



> Not sure, the WA Govt is still investigating all the pros and cons of the stadiums. The WAFC want to redevelop Subiaco to 60,000 seats.
> 
> At the same time, there is a push to redevelop Members Equity Stadium (Perth's rectangular stadium) to 35,000 capacity. If this went ahead, they'd simply do a minor redevelopment to make it 40,000 seats for a WC.


The WA government is waiting on a Report to determine the most feasible option out of 3 (which does include Redevelopment of Subiaco in the exact same way as the MCG). However the WAFC does want to retain Management (or control) of the Ground. The obstacle is that no ground is feasible without Football and hence the building is under review and not already built.

And now you have that Rich kid Packer with hes grand ideas. (See the PErth Board). Where ever its built... I just hope its a Stadium that could rival the Emirates, Wembleys, Phoenix etc in levels of class.


----------



## Benjuk

3SPIRES said:


> England will easily have 10 x 50k stadiums by 2018
> 
> Already Built
> 
> Manchester - 76,000
> London (Wembley) - 90,000
> London (Arsenal) - 60,000
> Newcastle - 52,000
> 
> Planned New ground
> 
> Liverpool - 60,000
> 
> Planned extensions of present ground
> 
> Birmingham (Villa) - 51,000
> Sunderland - 65,000
> 
> Only 3 more would be needed these would probably be Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol out of all these grounds the only ones that could be seen as possibly unsustainable would be Bristol.


My original point was that if FIFA leave their standard as 8 x 40k in 7 cities (or whatever), then England is a hard bid to reject... However, if they up it to 8 x 50k, England will struggle because clubs who have already built their new stadiums will not want to invest further as most would struggle to fill the extra seats after the world cup.

For example, Sunderland (my club) will never need 65k (we struggled to fill the 48k we had when we were 7th in the Prem), Bristol will never need 40k, Leeds won't not need 50k for a loooong time, neither will Sheff Wed. Sheff's Wed and Utd will never groundshare, neither will Villa and Birmingham, and/or Liverpool and Everton.

On the one hand - Wigan, Bolton, Reading, Leicester, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Derby Co., Coventry, and all the other clubs who have recently built stadiums with capacities lower than 40k, have all struggled to fill their grounds - so what hope of filling another 10k seats for any of them?

On the other hand - assuming extra serats could be filled... The Government/FA will not invest in extending (for example) Derby Co's ground, because this would dissadvantage others who are competing with County.


----------



## cementationfurnace

Calvin W said:


> Canada could easily have 12 stadiums 50 000+ by 2018
> BC place 60 000
> CommonWealth stadium 60 000+
> Olympic Stadium 60 000+
> Rogers Centre 55 000+
> McMahon 50 000+
> Taylor Field 50 000+
> Canad Inns Stadium 50 000+
> Ivor Wyne Stadium 50 000+
> Frank Clair Stadium 50 000+
> Griffith Stadium 50 000+
> TD Waterhouse Stadium 50 000+
> Rouge et Orange Stadium 50 000+
> Halifax Commonwealth Stadium 50 000+
> St John's Memorial Stadium 50 000+
> 
> So we could do as good as you!



:lol: 

If a World Cup game is held at a 50 000 + seat TD Waterhouse Stadium (or 3/4 of the other stadia on the list) I will take it as a sign of the apocalypse.


----------



## Wezza

3SPIRES said:


> England will easily have 10 x 50k stadiums by 2018
> 
> Already Built
> 
> Manchester - 76,000
> London (Wembley) - 90,000
> London (Arsenal) - 60,000
> Newcastle - 52,000
> 
> Planned New ground
> 
> Liverpool - 60,000
> 
> Planned extensions of present ground
> 
> Birmingham (Villa) - 51,000
> Sunderland - 65,000
> 
> Only 3 more would be needed these would probably be Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol out of all these grounds the only ones that could be seen as possibly unsustainable would be Bristol.


Would St James Park be used? It's a pretty ugly stadium. I think if England got it in 2018, there would be other stadia with enough capacity by then. Or would it be essential that Newcastle was a host city?


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Calvin W said:


> Canada could easily have 12 stadiums 50 000+ by 2018
> BC place 60 000
> CommonWealth stadium 60 000+
> Olympic Stadium 60 000+
> Rogers Centre 55 000+
> McMahon 50 000+
> Taylor Field 50 000+
> Canad Inns Stadium 50 000+
> Ivor Wyne Stadium 50 000+
> Frank Clair Stadium 50 000+
> Griffith Stadium 50 000+
> TD Waterhouse Stadium 50 000+
> Rouge et Orange Stadium 50 000+
> Halifax Commonwealth Stadium 50 000+
> St John's Memorial Stadium 50 000+
> 
> So we could do as good as you!


:lol: Come on, you surely can't be serious!!


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Wezza said:


> Would St James Park be used? *It's a pretty ugly stadium.* I think if England got it in 2018, there would be other stadia with enough capacity by then. Or would it be essential that Newcastle was a host city?


Thank you!! I like Newcastle and all but SJP is ugly.


----------



## Sparks

Wezza said:


> Would St James Park be used? It's a pretty ugly stadium. I think if England got it in 2018, there would be other stadia with enough capacity by then. Or would it be essential that Newcastle was a host city?


:bash: What are you on about?

How is it ugly and how would that effect whether it would be used or not? It will go on facilities and size. St James' Park is currently the third best in England on both of those aspects. You can be certain that additional improvements will be made before 2018, likely an expansion to around 60,000, and yes it will be essential that Newcastle is a host city.

How many people in the ground or watching a match on TV will see St James' from the air? The only thing that is out of place is the east stand roof and that will be one of the things that gets a facelift in the coming years.

It's uniqueness is something that is attractive both for it's location and it's design. I wouldn't want a country full of identical bowl venues.


----------



## Calvin W

Canadian Chocho said:


> :lol: Come on, you surely can't be serious!!


Why not every other possible bid in this thread is a work of fiction. Why can't Canada have their own dream.

As for the original coment I made. I said COULD, not WILL. After all anything is possible.


----------



## invincible

CharlieP said:


> FIFA currently only allow one host city to have more than one stadium...


That requirement would just lead to a waste of a perfectly good stadium in many cases. The other problem with Australia is that there aren't that many cities and to spread them out would probably make matches less accessible. For example, if Newcastle hosted a match, most of the spectators would be going through Sydney anyway.

It would be silly to miss out on a bid because of a technicality like this rather than being outbid by another country based on merit.


----------



## Gerardogt

IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE ARGENTINA AND CHILE(THE MOST DYNAMIC LATIN AMERICA ECONOMY) HOSTING THE 2014 WORLD CUP!!!!!, IN LATIN AMERICA OUR BLOOD IS FULL OF FOOTBALL PASSION.....


----------



## Mesh22

Juddy said:


> Then we Have a massive problem. There is no way in Hell the AFL, a Billion Dollar Organisation will bring forward its schedule if its players are at risk. Do you seriously expect Athletes to run around in 35+ plus heat for 110 minutes. I think Not.
> 
> Also there is no way in Hell, the AFL is going to put its competition on hold just to suit Soccers needs. If the World Cup is going to be played in May, June, July etc... the AFL will have to play the first half of the year, go on holidays for a month and then come back in the exact same shape and level of skill as when they left. Never gonna Happen. The AFL doesnt take Christmas breaks or whatever as we dont need to.
> 
> Im not saying the AFL is any bigger or more powerful than FIFA. Thats just absurd. But to tell the AFL to do this and that is a bigger problem than u think.



The AFL can be pretty nasty if things dont go their way, they played a big role in smudging Melbourne's bid for the 96 Olympics against Atlanta in the late 80's. 

I think Australia is more than capable, Telstra Dome was at capacity at the last Melbourne Victory game (54,000), which is more than can be said for many AFL games there. :lol:


----------



## hngcm

Gerardogt said:


> IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE ARGENTINA AND CHILE(THE MOST DYNAMIC LATIN AMERICA ECONOMY) HOSTING THE 2014 WORLD CUP!!!!!, IN LATIN AMERICA OUR BLOOD IS FULL OF FOOTBALL PASSION.....


They don't have the stadia needed.


----------



## Martuh

Wezza said:


> Would St James Park be used? It's a pretty ugly stadium. I think if England got it in 2018, there would be other stadia with enough capacity by then. Or would it be essential that Newcastle was a host city?


FU. St. James' is one of the most beautiful ánd unique stadiums in the world.


----------



## Benjuk

Sparks said:


> :bash: What are you on about?
> 
> How is it ugly and how would that effect whether it would be used or not? It will go on facilities and size. St James' Park is currently the third best in England on both of those aspects. You can be certain that additional improvements will be made before 2018, likely an expansion to around 60,000, and yes it will be essential that Newcastle is a host city.
> 
> How many people in the ground or watching a match on TV will see St James' from the air? The only thing that is out of place is the east stand roof and that will be one of the things that gets a facelift in the coming years.
> 
> It's uniqueness is something that is attractive both for it's location and it's design. I wouldn't want a country full of identical bowl venues.


As much as I dislike Newcastle (being from Sunderland myself), I wouldn't think for a second that St James' Park wouldn't (or shouldn't) be used as an important part of the English bid. It's a fantastic stadium, and in terms of 'entertaining' visitting supporters from around the world, Newcastle would be a fantastic location (for one thing, it has a natural area for the 'fanpark' on the town moor).

That said, they can't expand the Milburn Stand due to the listed houses behind it, and expanding the other stand (formerly Gallowgate, no idea what they call it now) would be a bugger as the land behind it is very tight.

Personally I don't see any need for expansion in order for the ground to play a part in the England bid.



CharlieP said:


> FIFA currently only allow one host city to have more than one stadium...


Not true. FIFA's requirements are that a MINIMUM of 8 stadiums over 7 cities. If a bid were made which included 10 over 7 cities - with 3 cities each having 2 stadia and the remaining 4 cities having 1 each, it would not have a negative effect on FIFA's decision. It's all about the spread of fixtures across the nation.

So, there would be no problem with Melbourne and Sydney having 2 stadiums each - so long as Australia could come up with 5 other cities capable of supporting 40k stadia, they'd be okay. (Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth... Struggling here... Woolongong, Newcastle, Canberra, Hobart, etc. - bit of a stretch).


----------



## Gherkin

St. James's Park would certainly be used, it has some of the best fans in the country and Newcastle is a great city. I won't start to cross my fingers for Sunderland's stadium being used though, as what the hell will supporters visiting the city do when they aren't at a football game?


----------



## kenny_in_blue

Im suprised you actually think any other country have a fair chance against China, its the most interesting bid with out a doubt financially and thats what football is all about these days.


----------



## Ari Gold

Mesh22 said:


> The AFL can be pretty nasty if things dont go their way, they played a big role in smudging Melbourne's bid for the 96 Olympics against Atlanta in the late 80's.
> 
> I think Australia is more than capable, Telstra Dome was at capacity at the last Melbourne Victory game (54,000), which is more than can be said for many AFL games there. :lol:


The Thing is, if FIFA really want Australia to get the WC, then they have to scedule it during the Warmer months. Say in Feb-March or at the tail end of September-October. Therefore a deal with the AFL can be organised properly and people will actually come to Australia in gorgious weather.... what Australia (especially Perth and oh we better exclude Melbourne cause somehow im thinking their weather is going to let me down) is known for. Like do you expect tourists to come and enjoy two winters in a row??? Come On...

If Australia ever gets the WC it wont be in the months of May June July.


----------



## Ari Gold

kenny_in_blue said:


> Im suprised you actually think any other country have a fair chance against China, its the most interesting bid with out a doubt financially and thats what football is all about these days.


Maybe China should use some of that financial power on its provery levels and FIFA might warm to it. But yet again somehow u have a valid point.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

> McMahon 50 000+
> Taylor Field 50 000+
> Canad Inns Stadium 50 000+
> Ivor Wyne Stadium 50 000+
> Frank Clair Stadium 50 000+
> Griffith Stadium 50 000+
> TD Waterhouse Stadium 50 000+
> Rouge et Orange Stadium 50 000+
> Halifax Commonwealth Stadium 50 000+
> St John's Memorial Stadium 50 000+


^^ That's where you went wrong. especially the ones in red, these are small uiv stadia that have like 8 000 capacity max.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Wezza said:


> Would St James Park be used? It's a pretty ugly stadium. I think if England got it in 2018, there would be other stadia with enough capacity by then. Or would it be essential that Newcastle was a host city?


I know other people have responded to this comment, but I also would like to vent my feelings! St James Park is one of THE greatest stadiums you could wish to find, and it's bloody beautiful! It has got a spectacularly elegant floating glass roof, amazing tiers that are right in front of the pitch, and such a great history! Its uniqueness and quirky look really do seperate it from your average 'bowl' stadium.

The only people who don't like it are people who only see 'bowl' design stadiums as being great, the people who don't appeciate the history-filled passionate stadiums like SJP that have been built on and added to over the years to create true character, instead of the typical manufactured and replicated jargon pumped out these days for stadiums!!

I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather watch football in this stadium then I would in the countless number of athletics stadums used in just about every previous WC, which may have been bowl designed, but put the fans so far away from the pitch that they could get better views watching it on tv! And, no offense to teh Australian bid here or anything, but I would MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer to watch football in SJP then I would in those cricket stadiums!!


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Calvin W said:


> Canada could easily have 12 stadiums 50 000+ by 2018
> BC place 60 000
> CommonWealth stadium 60 000+
> Olympic Stadium 60 000+
> Rogers Centre 55 000+
> McMahon 50 000+
> Taylor Field 50 000+
> Canad Inns Stadium 50 000+
> Ivor Wyne Stadium 50 000+
> Frank Clair Stadium 50 000+
> Griffith Stadium 50 000+
> TD Waterhouse Stadium 50 000+
> Rouge et Orange Stadium 50 000+
> Halifax Commonwealth Stadium 50 000+
> St John's Memorial Stadium 50 000+
> 
> So we could do as good as you!


As much as I would love t see my fellow countrymen get the chance to host a WC, we just don't have the stadiums at the moment, the capacities you have mentioned there are quite out of whack! And most are ill suited to playing football in and would need much regeneration. Even though the USA has hosted a WC not too long ago, I can see them getting another WC before Canada.


----------



## Mo Rush

Juddy said:


> The Thing is, if FIFA really want Australia to get the WC, then they have to scedule it during the Warmer months. Say in Feb-March or at the tail end of September-October. Therefore a deal with the AFL can be organised properly and people will actually come to Australia in gorgious weather.... what Australia (especially Perth and oh we better exclude Melbourne cause somehow im thinking their weather is going to let me down) is known for. Like do you expect tourists to come and enjoy two winters in a row??? Come On...
> 
> If Australia ever gets the WC it wont be in the months of May June July.


well its june july or nothing. unless the year is 2022 and the european league season has drastically changed its aug-may timetable.


----------



## Calvin W

Canadian Chocho said:


> ^^ That's where you went wrong. especially the ones in red, these are small uiv stadia that have like 8 000 capacity max.


I can dream? no where in World Cup bidding does it say you have to have the facilities in place before you bid. Seriously what else would they use? BMO? not unless you add 30 000 seats. So why can't a stadium in Saskatoon, London, Halifax, St John's, etc be renovated expanded.

No where in my original post did it say these stadiums are currently available. For all of you who have missed it I said *COULD* not would. Big difference.


----------



## Wezza

hngcm said:


> FIFA already scrapped the rotation after 2014, it was just meant to get South Africa and Brazil the WC.
> 
> After that it should be...
> 
> 2018- Europe
> 2022- Rest of World
> 2026- Europe
> *2030- Uruguay*
> 2034- Rest of World
> 2038- Europe
> 2042- Rest of World
> 2046- WW III
> 
> And South Africa is going along fine for 2010.
> 
> If 2014 goes to anybody else, Mexico and the USA will be first in line to host it.


Uruguay??


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ Lol, I understand your surprise. People have only been suggesting Uruguay for 2030 becasue it would be symbolic, to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the competition. But I can assure you that Uruguay will not be hosting in 2030, or for that matter, ever again...unless it is somehow roped into a joint bid (but FIFA are really not gonna tollerate joint bids after too long). Uruguay's hay day has been and gone, it's football stadiums are of a very poor quality, and its team is a far far stretch from the team that won the 1930 and 1950 WC.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> Mate i think were on different pages although i agree with ya. Do we expect FIFA to conduct some behind the scene agreement??? No, thats just plain unethical. But what i was trying to say however is that if FIFA can forge some special relations with the FFA in regards to growing the game here, then why not. However this will all start with how well the A-league goes, as you have pointed out.
> 
> Australia can hold an Outstanding WC, thats no question. The only question is how much FIFA wants the WC to go to Australia in front of countries such as Morroco, China etc.


You need to re-arrange the statement... Not "if FIFA can forge some special relations with the FFA", should be, "if the FFA can forge some special relations with FIFA". The biggest problem being that Australia has nothing that FIFA wants (as demonstrated by the 2006 qualification flip-flop, "you've got a direct path to the finals, oops, no, South America don't like that idea, you've got a half-spot again".

If FIFA wants to grow the game they would surely rather take it to China (population 1.2 billion) than Australia (population 20 million). ALL other nations have the advantage of boosting the profile of the game in their area, whilst an Australian competition only really raises the profile of the game in Australia itself (although the time-zone would help China/Japan, etc.).


----------



## Benjuk

Mo Rush said:


> "major problems"?


Mo, not inferring that your boys will have major problems - I was saying that in order for Australia to have a chance of getting the finals, tournaments in South Africa and Brazil would have to have major problems, thus encouraging FIFA to go for the 'safe option' of a nation known for hosting major events, etc.


----------



## johnz88

No offense but you have to take another look at BMO field. It may look nice and is good enough for Canada, but in reality it is far away from a world class or even good enough to host anything above a junior competition or mls. It is a stell structure that has some brick around the outside. If there would be any idea of haveing the World Cup in NA Canada wouldn't be seen as a real option, at least not at the moment. USA on the other hand could host the world cup if it was to be in 6 months.


----------



## Canadian Chocho

Calvin W said:


> BMO would never be used not with Rogers Centre a mile or two away.Easier to put in a truf field in the stadium instead of adding 30 000 seats.
> 
> As for TD Waterhouse. It has as much potential to expand as BMO, but it at least would serve a different market.
> 
> But like I said we won't have to worry about it in our life time as Canada and the WC are as likely as living on Mars.


Are you talking about the real World Cup or the actual U-20 World Cup next year in which BMO will be home to the opening and final game. Make up your mind.


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> You need to re-arrange the statement... Not "if FIFA can forge some special relations with the FFA", should be, "if the FFA can forge some special relations with FIFA". The biggest problem being that Australia has nothing that FIFA wants (as demonstrated by the 2006 qualification flip-flop, "you've got a direct path to the finals, oops, no, South America don't like that idea, you've got a half-spot again".


I think we've gain alot of Respect from FIFA with our performance both on and off the park in Germany. This will be furthur enforced with the continual growth (as we suspect) of the A- League. However were a million miles away still from being FIFA's love child. So no special agreements, favours, what-ever for the short- term.



> If FIFA wants to grow the game they would surely rather take it to China (population 1.2 billion) than Australia (population 20 million). ALL other nations have the advantage of boosting the profile of the game in their area, whilst an Australian competition only really raises the profile of the game in Australia itself (although the time-zone would help China/Japan, etc.).


True and not to mention their willingness to build stadiums left right and centre through their emerging economy. It might be because im biased or whatever but i just dont see the point in China spending all those money when the most of their population is in the shitter. 

Just wondering mate, with the WC being in a relatively Western Country, do you think FIFA will award it again to another one, in Australia or will it be the likes of China.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> It might be because im biased or whatever but i just dont see the point in China spending all those money when the most of their population is in the shitter.


Same could be said of many other bids - South Africa, Brazil, etc. (ducking down and protecting my head after saying that)



Juddy said:


> Just wondering mate, with the WC being in a relatively Western Country, do you think FIFA will award it again to another one, in Australia or will it be the likes of China.


I'm positive it'll come round this side of the planet again one day - I'd love it to be Oz (and a hell of a bid COULD be put in if the A League keeps growing), but feel it'll be China... And let's not rule out a joint Nauru/Tuvalu bid :nuts:


Oh, with regards to your sig... It's not Juddy that Leigh Matthews was talking about - it's Bec Twigley.


----------



## Guest

I think people are missing the most obvious point here. England are the biggest set of travelling fans to any world/european tournament. All home games would be played at 90,000 Wembley stadium. We would'nt even need 4 50,000+ seater stadiums to host a world cup because only 8% of all tickets go to each countries FA. Last year 13 teams had to send tickets back to FIFA after being unable to sell them.

England has the highest density of major stadiums in the world. A country the same size as the state of iowa in America has dozens of 40,000+ stadia. Wolverhampton a city 8 miles away from Birmingham has plans to increase capacity by 16,500 to well over 45,000. This is on top of Birmingham Citys new complex and a almost guranteed future expansion of both the Hawthorns and Villa Park to 40 and 50k respectively. Manchester United will see thier stadium reach close to 90k within the next 12 years, Bolton could also see a possible upgrade. Stoke have looked into expansion, as have Reading and Bristol City. 

I think people are trying to grasp a reason as to why England should'nt get the 2018 world cup because as most here know, its more or less guranteed. England is more prepared now then Brazil will be in 2013 for the 2014 world cup. 

East and West Midlands could host a European Championship on its own if we just built the City of Birmingham Stadium or Expanded Villa Park to 50k+ which WILL happen with Randy Learner at the helm.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

SimLim said:


> I think people are missing the most obvious point here. England are the biggest set of travelling fans to any world/european tournament. All home games would be played at 90,000 Wembley stadium. We would'nt even need 4 50,000+ seater stadiums to host a world cup because only 8% of all tickets go to each countries FA. Last year 13 teams had to send tickets back to FIFA after being unable to sell them.
> 
> England has the highest density of major stadiums in the world. A country the same size as the state of iowa in America has dozens of 40,000+ stadia. Wolverhampton a city 8 miles away from Birmingham has plans to increase capacity by 16,500 to well over 45,000. This is on top of Birmingham Citys new complex and a almost guranteed future expansion of both the Hawthorns and Villa Park to 40 and 50k respectively. Manchester United will see thier stadium reach close to 90k within the next 12 years, Bolton could also see a possible upgrade. Stoke have looked into expansion, as have Reading and Bristol City.
> 
> I think people are trying to grasp a reason as to why England should'nt get the 2018 world cup because as most here know, its more or less guranteed. England is more prepared now then Brazil will be in 2013 for the 2014 world cup.
> 
> East and West Midlands could host a European Championship on its own if we just built the City of Birmingham Stadium or Expanded Villa Park to 50k+ which WILL happen with Randy Learner at the helm.


Good post! I agree with pretty much all of what you've said there, especially about England being better prepared to host a WC right now then Brazil will be in 6 years time!


----------



## kinggeorge

to anyone who thinks canada can actually host a world cup in 2018 with the stadiums they have now is crazzy i got to school in london so i go to all the football games and td waterhouse is small like 8000 to eexpand it to 40 000 would not be hard you would have to basically start from scratch cause there is only bleachers but london nor the university could support a stadium of anything over 15000


----------



## Mo Rush

SimLim said:


> I think people are trying to grasp a reason as to why England should'nt get the 2018 world cup because as most here know, its more or less guranteed. England is more prepared now then Brazil will be in 2013 for the 2014 world cup.


and more prepared than south africa is for 2010


----------



## Gherkin

From looking at 2010 World Cup websites, and similar threads, South Africa is certainly on the up and I really look forward to the tournament. It could be on par with, say, USA or French World Cups.


----------



## Gherkin

Oh, and this thread better last until 2018  I have a horrible feeling Spain will be the dark horse in this race...


----------



## Benjuk

Gherkin007 said:


> Oh, and this thread better last until 2018  I have a horrible feeling Spain will be the dark horse in this race...



I've had the same feeling myself - but I suspect that Spain having held the finals in 1982, compared to England's 1966, would swing it back in our favour.  That said, I've said for some time that England's preparedness is probably our worst enemy - we are the perfect stand-by in case of problems in South Africa, Brazil, or any other potential host (established national love of the game, European time zone for TV, stadia already in place, etc.), so I sometimes fear that FIFA won't give us the finals in order to always have a desperate and willing fall-back.


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

If St-James was completely like this and not just half it would be twice as impressive !!!!!!


----------



## Gherkin

^^^Unfortunately there are plenty of listed (historically important) buildings right next to the ground. They could expand to around 60,000 by building over a nearby road, but this would prove costly and fans would rather the money be spent on new players. If all the stands were that size, St. James' Park would rival the San Siro in Milan


----------



## Llanfairpwllgwy-ngyllgogerychwy-rndrobwllllanty-si

still it is a sweet stadium, love it


----------



## Gherkin

Rumour mongers speak of a 90,000 capacity of Old Trafford by 2018  and this is entirely feasible - big club, lots of money, plenty of fans, and room for expansion!


----------



## skaP187

Benelux all the way baby!


----------



## *England*

come on avens your thick as poo and your swearing is what, making up for big words you dont know?

you people are all thick if you cant see my point, i didn't even say they couldn't host it, infact i think it will be good anywhere in the world, my main point is their government doesn't care about whats going on in their own country, thats ignorant, not me.

maybe you should all stick to talking about metal structures!


----------



## Mo Rush

Avens said:


> You ignorant wanker. South Africa is a fantastic country and one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. Yes it does have problems, but where in the world doesn't? The problems you've so delicately highlighted are normally found in the inner city ghettos (where every single country in the world suffers similar problems) or the townships.
> 
> I lived there for a year and nothing like that happened to me. Both my parents were born and raised in the country and they've come out of it ok. Neither of them were raped & I'm pretty sure neither were murdered. That's after living there for 20 years. My grandparents still live there and none of that's happened to them either, after being there 50 years. I'll admit there were a couple of robberies (my mother's house was robbed once and the shop she worked at was also robbed once).
> 
> Your comments were a fucking disgrace on a forum which normally encourages people to understand more about the rest of the world and not to make judgements based on stereotypes. The horrible thing is I want the same thing as you do (England 2018), but the way that you've tried to argue our case will not win any votes.


I honestly wonder if he has travelled. Surely his comments/outburst is not consistent with someone who has seen the world, learnt about cultures, been changed by exploring and travelling. It seems things all went horribly wrong at some point. thats not an attack but from where I stand i can't see any other reason to feel the need to rubbish another country to promote the bid of your own country, a bid which im fully in support of.


----------



## Mo Rush

*England* said:


> thats a lot of assuming your doing there, my point is thats a lot of murders rapes and thieving going a day for a country hosting the biggest sporting event in the world, they aint my figures thats what was on news just the other day, and when their government was asked about the 60 murders a day they responded "i dont think we have a problem"
> 
> thats not even mentioning the 100s of people in a taxi caught in traffic that end up with a gun in their face made to hand over their wallets, and guess what the next world cup wont be much better cos it will be in brazil!
> 
> after the world cup goes to these 2 countries football will need the next world cup in England to get its good reputation back, so roll on 2018.
> 
> and as for the rugby and cricket world cups their is just no comparison to the fifa wc, pardon the phrase but its just not cricket!


yes its a lot of assuming, but is that now exactly what you are doing? assuming that stereotypes regarding RSA are true, assuming stadia are crap? which stadia? the proposed world cup stadia? the existing excellent facilities of newlands, kings park, and others not even being used as world cup venues.

which stadia are crap? which cities are crap?
cape town? ranked a top five tourists destination for how many years now? durban? tropical jewel and one of our best kept secrets
joburg? economic powerhouse of africa
bloemfontein?rustenburg, host to tri-nations matches,PE? nelsruit and its kruger national park?

since u feel so strong about how pathetic RSA is, please be more specific.


----------



## Mo Rush

*England* said:


> come on avens your thick as poo and your swearing is what, making up for big words you dont know?
> 
> you people are all thick if you cant see my point, i didn't even say they couldn't host it, infact i think it will be good anywhere in the world, my main point is their government doesn't care about whats going on in their own country, thats ignorant, not me.
> 
> maybe you should all stick to talking about metal structures!


k now ure just ramlbing,not even addressing the points made by avens, well how can you? u've never been to south africa. how can you comment on the massive investment gvt has made in the country over the last ten years?

this is where it ends for me. I thought perhaps you had some reasonable backing behind your outburst, but unfortunately not.

other forumers, feel free to entertain him/her.


----------



## Avens

*England* said:


> come on avens your thick as poo and your swearing is what, making up for big words you dont know?
> 
> you people are all thick if you cant see my point, i didn't even say they couldn't host it, infact i think it will be good anywhere in the world, my main point is their government doesn't care about whats going on in their own country, thats ignorant, not me.
> 
> maybe you should all stick to talking about metal structures!


I'm not the one refering to the 'African Government'. Just in case you're still unsure, Africa is a continent, made up of many countries which each have their own government. 

If you're point was that the South African government doesn't care about what's going on in their own country, then why did you not even hint at that in your original post? All you did was regurgitate some tired old stereotypes that all uneducated British, American or Australian schoolkids have of South Africa. And those are the ones that realise that South Africa is actually a country. I'm surprised you didn't mention anything about mud huts actually, I hear that one a lot.


----------



## *England*

your all banging on about my outburst, its not an outburst im just pointing out it was big news on tv just a week ago, and how it could affect the wc, and if they can get it then Englands 2018 bid should be a walk in the park.


----------



## Mo Rush

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Yes, I can explain that. Paris didn't lose the Olympics (despite what you may have heard) because they had hosted the WC in 98, they lost it because London's bid and especially the presentation of the bid was better the Paris', simple as that.
> 
> As 'ItsAllGood' has already said, lots of countries have hosted olympics and world cups closer together then 2012-2018, so that isn't really a good arguement for London not getting the WC in 2018. Also, the Olympics is a completely different sporting organisation to the football WC, and therefore no bearing will be had on FIFA with regards to England having the 2012 Olympics, because it is a seperate entity.
> 
> It just so happens that England haven't hosted the WC sisnce 1966, and haven't hosted the Olympics since 1948, so it is no real suprise then that the two should come along together in the future, given that both are due a return to Isles!
> 
> 
> This comment is uncalled for man, and grossly out of order. South Africa HAD to be given a chance to host the WC, becasue under the previous rotation system they would never have been included, and they had to outbid other countries in the process as well you know, they weren't just handed it.
> 
> Of cours ethe stadiums arn't go to be in place like in England, that is precisisly why FIFA are keen to have a WC there, to help regenerate the sport in that area and build up the infastructure in the poorer regions. This talk of muderers and rapes and whatnot is an outdated stereotype from what I've heard, much like the hooliganism problem in England. Sure, it's not gonna be free of it, but it shouldn't be a big casue for concern!
> 
> I'm sure Mo and others will speak up for their nation better then I can though!
> 
> :cheers:


south africa came within one vote of germany, has undergone two fifa inspections during both the 2006 and 2010 bids, and the technical results were the same, if not better with the 2010 bid. it even beat england.


----------



## Benjuk

Austraarabian said:


> Australasia isn't an issue...
> If Sydney wanted the world cup 2moro and lobbied for it, i think they would get it. No1 ever says no to Sydney, its the chosen city. When it comes to brand recognition Sydney is number 1 so that shouldnt be a problem.
> 
> Stadiums shouldn't be an issue...
> Sydney's telstra stadium would be upgraded to some "worlds biggest" title, There is the SCG, Aussie Stadium and then you have the rest of Australia's stadiums. And by 20XX there will be more stadiums and interest in the game. It all depends on when the NSW govt. decides to lobby for it... Ill keep you all posted; however I know that China may be the bigger rival, not Europe. NSW Premier Morris Iemma did discuss hosting as early as 2014; however explained an obstacle and said if not 2014 than 2018. I don't think there were any intentions of going 2022, but we'll see.


Sydney can't bid/lobby for the world cup - the finals are awarded to a country not a city. The winning country needs at least 7 cities with suitable stadiums - can you name 7 Australian cities capable of supporting a 40-50k stadium? And remember that FIFA has no need to bend rules to accomodate Straylia, there are numerous nations capable of putting in a great bid - why settle for a country that can't meet the bid specifications when they could have Spain, England, Italy, Holland, USA, China, etc.

I'd LOVE the finals to come to Australia, but thinking that an Aussie bid in 2018 would have a chance against a bid from one of the major European nations is dreaming. 2022 - AFTER Europe have had it, will be a good time to bid. If Straylia do bid for 2018 it will to gain experience rather than with any realistic expectation of winning.


----------



## Benjuk

Avens said:


> You ignorant wanker. South Africa is a fantastic country and one of the most popular holiday destinations in the world. Yes it does have problems, but where in the world doesn't? The problems you've so delicately highlighted are normally found in the inner city ghettos (where every single country in the world suffers similar problems) or the townships.
> 
> I lived there for a year and nothing like that happened to me. Both my parents were born and raised in the country and they've come out of it ok. Neither of them were raped & I'm pretty sure neither were murdered. That's after living there for 20 years. My grandparents still live there and none of that's happened to them either, after being there 50 years. I'll admit there were a couple of robberies (my mother's house was robbed once and the shop she worked at was also robbed once).
> 
> Your comments were a fucking disgrace on a forum which normally encourages people to understand more about the rest of the world and not to make judgements based on stereotypes. The horrible thing is I want the same thing as you do (England 2018), but the way that you've tried to argue our case will not win any votes.


Fantastic post. Puts a bit more reality into things. I know quite a few South Africans and the only bad thing they have to say about the country is that they've had to leave to to 'positive' discrimination. Law and order, etc., not an issue so long as you stay out of the ghetto - much the same as in the US.

The best thing about SA getting the finals is that the world will be able to change it's perceptions about the country - in much the same way as an awful lot of English supporters will have changed their perceptions of Germany in 2006 (I for one, due to a lifetime of stereotypes, never expected the German's to be so welcoming, humorous, friendly, etc., or for their country to be so beautiful). Roll on 2010.


----------



## Ari Gold

marrio415 said:


> i'll give austarilia one thing they didn't do bad for a bunch of convicts i mean inmates sorry i meant criminals err prisioners.


We sure did. But hows your jails going mate? Full sign taken off yet?



> Bow down to to the mother land you aussies we will take the 2018 world cup and we will regain the ashes from you in 2009.Now your best players have gone your days are numbered.


Bow down? You would know about bending over in major sporting events wouldnt you. As for 09.... how about 5-0??


> We proved that in the recent one day finals and your downfall has started.can you tell i'm not a fan of austrailians.


You played well for 5 games. Il give you that. But please come back to me after the WC ok.


> God save the queen and manchester 02 was one of the best commonwealth games in it's history unlike that city in oz that hosted the 2006 games whats that city called err can't think now was it errinsborough no sorry melbourne


Manchester was one of more ordinary Comm games. And thats been widely agreed. Banging of water drums. What the??? And your bagging Melbourne, sorry mate... try again.


> what a stupid time to have the games at three o'clock in the morning,Don't you know us brits get up around eight in the morning inconsiderate gits next time think of the time gifference ok don't make the same mistake again you should cater for your mother land.


Sorry next time we should get Hackett to win hes golds at 3 in the morning for ya ok. Sounds good for ya champ?

In trying to avoid making this thread another ENG vs AUS bitch fight, i will forget that this bloke is a troll and that hes contribution to SSC is non existent. But back on topic. I do believe England will win the rights. Like it just makes sense. But be assure that if us Aussies do bid, were gonna put up a Gallipoli like fight.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> In trying to avoid making this thread another ENG vs AUS bitch fight, i will forget that this bloke is a troll and that hes contribution to SSC is non existent. But back on topic. I do believe England will win the rights. Like it just makes sense. But be assure that if us Aussies do bid, were gonna *put up a Gallipoli like fight*.


Lambs to the slaughter? No disrespect, but whilst the diggers demonstrate enormous bravery and heroism, there's no reason to want your FA to put up a fight comparable to that... How about something a little more effective, like Kokoda? Plucky little guys putting up an against the odds fight and coming out on top...

Aussie should stick to 2022 - take on the Chinese, etc. Give AFL a few more years to continue it's metamorphasis into soccer, and soccer another few years to catch on properly. Just have to get A-League franchises opened up in Canberra, Wollongong, Hobart, etc., so that a couple more stadium sites can be developed.


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> Lambs to the slaughter? No disrespect, but whilst the diggers demonstrate enormous bravery and heroism, there's no reason to want your FA to put up a fight comparable to that... How about something a little more effective, like Kokoda? Plucky little guys putting up an against the odds fight and coming out on top...


Yep i agree. My bad. 



> Aussie should stick to 2022 - take on the Chinese, etc. Give AFL a few more years to continue it's metamorphasis into soccer, and soccer another few years to catch on properly. Just have to get A-League franchises opened up in Canberra, Wollongong, Hobart, etc., so that a couple more stadium sites can be developed.


When you say stick to 22, are you saying that we should bid only for that WC? Like wouldnt it make more sense by bidding for the 18 WC even if weve got little to no chance of winning. Like the way im thinking, if Australia doesnt bid, someone else will and then they can show how wonderful or shithouse their country is.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> When you say stick to 22, are you saying that we should bid only for that WC? Like wouldnt it make more sense by bidding for the 18 WC even if weve got little to no chance of winning. Like the way im thinking, if Australia doesnt bid, someone else will and then they can show how wonderful or shithouse their country is.


I think I said on another thread somewhere that Straylia should maybe bid in 2018 for the experience, but that they should understand that the chances of them winning wouldn't be good.

That said, I'm all for the idea of not entering any fight you don't think you can win.


----------



## lpioe

I hope Spain will host it, but it will probably be in England. I was quite surprised to hear that the last and only WC in England was in 1966. They have already have most of the stadiums, many fans and the distances are very short.
I hope Spain can get the EC 2016 because there probably won't be another WC in Europe until 2030.


----------



## matherto

*England* said:


> your all banging on about my outburst, its not an outburst im just pointing out it was big news on tv just a week ago, and how it could affect the wc, and if they can get it then Englands 2018 bid should be a walk in the park.


of course we're gonna bang on about your outburst because it showed you up as nothing more than an idiotic, ignorant ****. You can't make comments like you did unless you have grounds to do so. If you're saying there's rape, robberies and so on, have you actual first hand proof to show it? And if anything, those comments sound exactly the same as the stereotypical comments about Liverpool (one of our host cities, should we win the right to host 2018).

you honestly shouldnt have 'England' in your name, makes forumers from around the world look down on us.


----------



## Guest

*Brum's 55,000 city stadium still on track*

:banana: 



> *I'll bring world cup to Brum Feb 18 2007*
> 
> By Graham Hill
> 
> 
> DAVID Sullivan has revealed: I want to bring the World Cup to Blues... and beat Villa to it!
> 
> Birmingham City co-owner Sullivan is pushing Blues' claim to stage World Cup matches if England are awarded the tournament in 2018.
> 
> Despite constant speculation that he will sell his share in the club, Sullivan still has huge ambitions for Blues - and that includes the World Cup.
> 
> Sullivan, pictured, insists Blues' proposed 55,000-seater stadium in Saltley will be chosen as a World Cup venue, edging out Villa Park in the process.
> 
> Despite the failure of the Super casino bid for the site, which would have included a new stadium, Blues have remained in talks with the City Council.
> 
> 
> And now Sullivan has claims that a new Birmingham City stadium could form part of England's bid to stage the World Cup 11 years from now.
> 
> 
> "When the World Cup comes to England, hopefully in 2018, there will be matches at the City of Birmingham Stadium," said Sullivan.
> 
> 
> "Villa's stadium may not be big enough or good enough if we get our ground.
> 
> 
> "The City Council have said they are committed to building a new football stadium for the city. I think we'd be looking at five years from now at the earliest. But things are happening and I would imagine something could be announced in the next six months."
> 
> 
> New Villa chairman Randy Lerner only has the capability at the moment to increase his ground's capacity to 50,000. Villa have been mentioned in the FA's outline plans to bring the World Cup to England but Sullivan is confident Blues can muscle in with their new facilities - as long as they get the go-ahead to build.
> 
> 
> Sullivan also believes a new stadium is the answer to the club's pricing policy which has caused so much friction among fans.
> 
> 
> "We want a 55,000-capacity stadium - then we can do deals that would fill it," he said. "We could do so much to help the working-class core support.
> 
> 
> "I hope we'll have lots of £5 games so people will come. It's all a possibility."


----------



## Juanl

All this talk about England's hosting of the 2018 event makes it seem as though it's a foregone conclusion that they've one the bid twelve years before the main event. All they need is a half decent bid from Spain or Italy, ignoring the events of recent weeks, and they'll be out six love. I for one would much rather spend a month in sunny Spain than dull England where the only culture lies in mushy peas!!!

And as for Australia's chances... Can anyone of you imagine watching football on a cricket field. I certainly can't.

I wouldn't doubt South Africa's ability to host a magnificent World Cup nor listen to the comments of our president. South Africa will be more than ready. A world cup, after all, isn't remembered for the stadia it was played in but for the people who played in them!

Football is renowned for being the beautiful game and it is the typical ignorance which regularly accompanies comments from yobs like *England* that makes me question the success of a football tournament held there.


----------



## Guest

Very true. In Britain it rains 30 days a month. The sun is blocked by a thick smog of cannabis smoke and the only food on offer is mushy peas due to bird flu, foot and mouth and mad cow disease.

Spain the country thats give us ... err :dunno:

Seriously, drop the attitude. How bitter do you want to sound? :nuts:


----------



## Guest

As for Australia's chance? well, at least they play football how it should be played ... standing up. 

I suspect they will sell out every game aswell like the English. The likelyhood of Spain or Italy doing the same is very, very slim.


----------



## Benjuk

Were Spain or Italy to bid against England, it would be a very interesting competition. 

Italy, I think, would be out of the picture very soon (reputation has been tarnished by the match fixing scandles and crowd troubles in excess of anything in England over the last decade, plus they had the tournament in 1990)... But Spain vs England would be a good match up (as demonstrated elsewhere on the forums).

As for Australia - they're not ready yet in terms of stadia, but if and when they ever get to host the finals, they'll do a fantastic job. The people here are the kind who love to jump on a bandwagon and boast about seeing the 'soccer' world cup, etc. All they have to do is catch onto the need for 'rectangular' football stadiums, then find another city or two capable of supporting a large stadium, then build them.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Benjuk said:


> Were Spain or Italy to bid against England, it would be a very interesting competition.
> 
> Italy, I think, would be out of the picture very soon (reputation has been tarnished by the match fixing scandles and crowd troubles in excess of anything in England over the last decade, plus they had the tournament in 1990)... But *Spain vs England *would be a good match up (as demonstrated elsewhere on the forums).
> 
> As for Australia - they're not ready yet in terms of stadia, but if and when they ever get to host the finals, they'll do a fantastic job. The people here are the kind who love to jump on a bandwagon and boast about seeing the 'soccer' world cup, etc. All they have to do is catch onto the need for 'rectangular' football stadiums, then find another city or two capable of supporting a large stadium, then build them.


Even if spain got it it would be a traversty, they hosted it in 82 how long should England go without the World Cup?


----------



## gambit06

Juanl said:


> All this talk about England's hosting of the 2018 event makes it seem as though it's a foregone conclusion that they've one the bid twelve years before the main event. All they need is a half decent bid from Spain or Italy, ignoring the events of recent weeks, and they'll be out six love. I for one would much rather spend a month in sunny Spain than dull England where the only culture lies in mushy peas!!!



wow.

You ignorant muppet.


----------



## Gherkin

To cut a long story short, FIFA will only allow London and Manchester to have 2 host venues in thier respective cities IF there are 8 OTHER host cities. FIFA recommend spreading out the tournament to all regions of England, regardless of stadium size. To summarise:

London Area: Wembley (90,000+) and Emirates (60,000+) are pretty sure bets

Midlands: Either a redeveloped Villa Park (45,000+) or a new stadium (55,000)

West England: Bristol is the best bet, but an new 40,000+ stadium would have to be built

South Coast: Plymouth, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton have all been shortlisted, although none particularly stand out as World class host cities with suitable venues. 

Yorkshire Area: Leeds and Sheffield are the big contenders, as they are big sporty cities with stadiums that can easily be redeveloped in time for 2018. I feel the two cities should both be used.

North West: Liverpool's new 61,000 seater stadium, Old Trafford's 75,000+ stadium and Manchester Stadium's (48,000) would exhaust the need for any other stadiums to be built in this area.

North East: A fairly safe bet that Sunderland's large stadium won't be used because of the state of the city, so the bid would go to Newcastle's 52,000 seater stadium. 

Lancashire is a contender (on paper) as Preston is the so-called "home of football in the UK" and Blackpool is apparently still a tourist destination. I personally think that the Liverpool and Manchester venues are not too far away, and the two cities offer so much more than preston or Blackpool.

'Source' - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=11806954#post11806954



SO, my thoughts at the moment (completely regardless of stadium size or football league position) would be:

London: Wembley (90,000)
Emirates (60,000)

Manchester: Old Trafford (75,000)
C.O.M.S (48,000)

Liverpool: New Anfield (61,000)

Birmingham: New Stadium (55,000)

Bristol: New Stadium (40,000)

Sheffield: New Stadium (40,000)

Leeds: Re-developed Elland Road (50,000) 

Newcastle: St. James's Park (52,000)

Portsmouth or Brighton: New Stadium (40,000)

Southampton or Plymouth: Redeveloped stadium (40,000)

Blackpool or Preston: New stadium (40,000)


----------



## gincan

For a spanish bet i guess they would go with:

Madrid 

Bernabeu (80.000) hosting the final even if Barcelona has a larger grund.
possibly Atleticos new ground (60-70.000)

Barcelona
Camp nou (99-115.000) depends if the extension get built.

Valencia 
Nou mestalla (75.000)

Bilbao
New San Mamés (60.000)

Seville
Sánchez pizjuán (55.000) simply for history and location even if Lopera stadium will be bigger (65,000), they might also go with both but thats not likely.

Galicia
Either in La coruña or Vigo, both cities clubs have looked into a new stadium but
yet to materialise. A ( 40.000) ground probably

Zaragoza 
Romareda rebuilt to ( 40.000) 

San sebastian
Anoeta (40.000) very unlikely but if they host the world Cup maybe

Elche
Martinez valero (40.000) has very good infrastructure around and is located in a populous area between Alicante and Murcia.

Palma
Ono stadium (40.000) easily expanded but no real need, would end up like a white elephant.


----------



## Juanl

Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet. And secondly, what makes you think England deserves a wold cup based on merely on the fact that it hasn't gotten it in fourty years? Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals? And by the way, i think it's wrong for a country to indicate its intention so early on in the race. It makes it seem a little too sure of itself. I mean Brazil vs Columbia is as yet undecided. Now that's a foregone conclusion.


----------



## 3SPIRES

^^ We deserve it because we invented the damn game!


----------



## Guest

Juanl said:


> Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet.





juanl said:


> Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals?


Now, I dont know how stupid you really want to look, but after 6 posts I reckon you're up thier with being one of the biggest retards we have had the pleasure of meeting.

3 quarter finals, 1 semi final and 1 16 round is reasonably good. Not great considering we could've won the last two WC's, but certainly not bad. Unfortunately we failed to qualify for USA 94 due to only winning 7-1 in the final game when we needed to win by 7 goals to pip The Netherlands in our qualifying group


----------



## Wezza

Benjuk said:


> As for Australia - they're not ready yet in terms of stadia, but if and when they ever get to host the finals, they'll do a fantastic job. The people here are the kind who love to jump on a bandwagon and boast about seeing the 'soccer' world cup, etc. All they have to do is catch onto the need for 'rectangular' football stadiums, then find another city or two capable of supporting a large stadium, then build them.


By the time our chance comes around to host the WC here in Oz, Townsville could easily cope with a permanent 40,000+ size stadium. Newcastle could cope with a stadium that size already. It's just the matter of having rectangle shaped fields in the AFL cities.


----------



## Benjuk

Gherkin007 said:


> To cut a long story short, FIFA will only allow London and Manchester to have 2 host venues in thier respective cities IF there are 8 OTHER host cities. FIFA recommend spreading out the tournament to all regions of England, regardless of stadium size. To summarise:
> 
> London Area: Wembley (90,000+) and Emirates (60,000+) are pretty sure bets
> 
> Midlands: Either a redeveloped Villa Park (45,000+) or a new stadium (55,000)
> 
> West England: Bristol is the best bet, but an new 40,000+ stadium would have to be built
> 
> South Coast: Plymouth, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton have all been shortlisted, although none particularly stand out as World class host cities with suitable venues.
> 
> Yorkshire Area: Leeds and Sheffield are the big contenders, as they are big sporty cities with stadiums that can easily be redeveloped in time for 2018. I feel the two cities should both be used.
> 
> North West: Liverpool's new 61,000 seater stadium, Old Trafford's 75,000+ stadium and Manchester Stadium's (48,000) would exhaust the need for any other stadiums to be built in this area.
> 
> North East: A fairly safe bet that Sunderland's large stadium won't be used because of the state of the city, so the bid would go to Newcastle's 52,000 seater stadium.
> 
> Lancashire is a contender (on paper) as Preston is the so-called "home of football in the UK" and Blackpool is apparently still a tourist destination. I personally think that the Liverpool and Manchester venues are not too far away, and the two cities offer so much more than preston or Blackpool.


You been reading The Observer? Your post is very similar to the shocking article which stated that the North East could be covered by one stadium in Newcastle, whilst the North West should apparently have 3 (Liverpool, Manchester and either Preston or Blackpool), stated that the South Coast would need a stadium, and/or South West (Bristol or Plymouth), then completely neglected to mention that football is better supported but less resourced in East Anglia (Ipswich/Norwich).

That Newcastle is a better city than Sunderland is not in dispute, that it would represent any kind of a problem to travel to Sunderland for a match (20 minutes from Newcastle by car, or on the Metro rail system, 30 minutes from Newcastle airport), is conveniently ignored.

I'm pretty sure that when the bid goes in, the FA (and FIFA) would prefer to have 12 stadiums rather than 8 - if that's the case then both St James and the Stadium of Light will be used, it's not an either/or.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

SimLim said:


> Now, I dont know how stupid you really want to look, but after 6 posts I reckon you're up thier with being one of the biggest retards we have had the pleasure of meeting.
> 
> 3 quarter finals, 1 semi final and 1 16 round is reasonably good. Not great considering we could've won the last two WC's, but certainly not bad. Unfortunately we failed to qualify for USA 94 due to only winning 7-1 in the final game when we needed to win by 7 goals to pip The Netherlands in our qualifying group


Dude he was talking about the 2006 England world cup BID to host the tournament


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Juanl said:


> Firstly, I am not an ignorant muppet. And secondly, what makes you think England deserves a wold cup based on merely on the fact that it hasn't gotten it in fourty years? Do any of you think there might be a reason why it was knocked out in the first round for the oh six finals? And by the way,* i think it's wrong for a country to indicate its intention so early on in the race. It makes it seem a little too sure of itself.* I mean Brazil vs Columbia is as yet undecided. Now that's a foregone conclusion.


What a ridiculous statement, firstly several other countries have indicated an intention i dont see u slamming them, and secondly the FA hasnt even confirmed they would bid!!! The government just said it would back the bid IF they did want to bid. 

Now, did you get that or should i type slower?


----------



## Benjuk

The argument against AFL/cricket venues being used for football has bugged me for some time (since I originally raised it). The more I think of it, the more I wonder whether I am being bigotted and narrow minded.

First off, I dislike running tracks around pitches as I feel they take supporters too far from the game, however, watching world cup games in Nuremberg, Berlin and Stuttgart, I never felt particularly disconnected from the action.

Can anyone furnish information on the dimensions of the average athletics designed 'area of play', comparable to the below figures for the MCG in Melbourne. I've had a look around but have been unable to find anything definative.

Pitch area of the MCG = 172.9 m long x 147.8 m wide. 
This means that there would be a gap of some 30m from the side of the pitch to the front row of spectators, and of 25m from the end of the pitch to the supporters behind the goals.


----------



## NavyBlue

^^

It's been answered many times before. The MCG stands are closer behind the goals than an athletics stadium (hence the need to remove 8 rows of seaing for the commie games), but it's circular shape means the sidlines are a bit further away depending on what stadium you compare it to. eg the sidelines at Berlin are a lot closer than say Ataturk.


----------



## NavyBlue

Gherkin007 said:


> SO, my thoughts at the moment (completely regardless of stadium size or football league position) would be:
> 
> London: Wembley (90,000)
> Emirates (60,000)
> 
> Manchester: Old Trafford (75,000)
> C.O.M.S (48,000)


I've been told many times (mainly by Englishmen) that FIFA won't allow two stadiums in more than one city (eg. Melbourne & Sydney), but reading this thread it seems as thou the rules are different for England.

Is there any such rule and could someone please provide a link???


----------



## gambit06

THe problem with a Bristol stadium is that Rovers have just got planning permission for rebuilding the memorial ground with Bristol Rugby (wouldn't be expandable to 40k) taking a way the possibility of the shared stadium that has been on the cards for so long.

The only way it would work now is that the government funds a nice new Stadium for City (they certainly can't afford it themselves)


----------



## kinggeorge

Benjuk said:


> Which would suggest that Australia, with it's 20 million population is taking a far greater shine to the game than America with it's 260 million population.


with beckham and toronto fc watch the average attendance rise, soon all the big names will be in the mls, you cannont compete with north american sports, say what you want but everyone knows what will happen, look at canada and their young talent now its ridiculous the players coming out of canada and now the americans are getting serious with their ncaa program and such im on a tangent now but to clear up that point something had to be said


----------



## Wezza

kinggeorge said:


> with beckham and toronto fc watch the average attendance rise, *soon all the big names will be in the mls*, you cannont compete with north american sports, say what you want but everyone knows what will happen, look at canada and their young talent now its ridiculous the players coming out of canada and now the americans are getting serious with their ncaa program and such im on a tangent now but to clear up that point something had to be said


Who are the other big names? I think you might be a tad optimistic there mate. I'm sorry, but all of the big names are in Europe. The only time other leagues get big name players is when they are getting older & go searching for a retirement job.


----------



## Wezza

NavyBlue said:


> I've been told many times (mainly by Englishmen) that FIFA won't allow two stadiums in more than one city (eg. Melbourne & Sydney), *but reading this thread it seems as thou the rules are different for England.*
> 
> Is there any such rule and could someone please provide a link???


I'm thinking exactly the same thing!! It seems kind of unfair in a way.


----------



## nyrmetros

Benjuk said:


> Same could be said of the USA, who've had one and are in line to get another pretty soon.


yes, but everyone loves our $$. Coporate Amerika is beloved by FIFA.


----------



## kinggeorge

Wezza said:


> Who are the other big names? I think you might be a tad optimistic there mate. I'm sorry, but all of the big names are in Europe. The only time other leagues get big name players is when they are getting older & go searching for a retirement job.


optimistic that must be it, go to ebay type in la galaxy beckham, tickets are being sold for over 1000$, go to the bmo field on this forum and look at how many season ticket holders there are..ya im optimistic, business and the running of business is what north americans do best, you will see the best players will come the north america, watch and see, mls within the next 10 years will be in the top 3 leagues in the world, go look at toronto fc's roster there is some quality players there and as the league grows the cap will be higher and higher each year allowing players to make more then more players will come, players go to the money, ie figo, quatar, delgado quatar, batistuta quatar, rivaldo oly, for the most part the players want money and they will get it in the usa, as for a world cup bid could austrailia support 8, 50 000 seat plus stadiums because by 2018 or whatever there will be a bigger increase for bigger stadiums and you know the usa could host a world cup in a few states, soooo


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> I'd say that the 2015 Cricket WC is irrelevent. The FIFA bid should stand on it's own two feet - with rectangular stadiums rather than jerry-rigged ovals. Best of all facilities, etc.


I know its irrelevant. But just saying that the 18 bid is kinda up shit creak isnt it?



> For the same reason, I'd advocate building a new stadium for Geelong rather than messing around with Skilled Stadium.


The cats wont be happy. Didnt they just build a brand new stand for that joint?



> If you love my work, how about this...
> 
> Canberra Stadium (formerly Bruce Stadium)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To... Gwangju Stadium. I think it would work.


Thats awesome. Arent the Brumbies (im assuming they play there), like the second most expanding team in the whole entire comp??


----------



## ||-GOB-||

Juddy said:


> Thats awesome. Arent the Brumbies (im assuming they play there), like the second most expanding team in the whole entire comp??


What?


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> The cats wont be happy. Didnt they just build a brand new stand for that joint?


They can keep Skilled for 'footy', have a rectangular stadium for football. Maybe something like Stade de la Mosson in Montpellier (below), but dismantle the big side once the finals are over to leave them with a 30k seater.












Juddy said:


> Arent the Brumbies (im assuming they play there), like the second most expanding team in the whole entire comp??


Brumbies are expanding fast - and the stadium management is very keen to get an A-League side in a.s.a.p. in order to use the stadium during the summer months.


----------



## eomer

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Blatter is the biggest idiot in FIFA he just wants to get the votes to stay as president, idiot doesn't even know anything about football. UEFA should put their foot down, Europe can't go 16 years without a world cup, thats ridiculous!! especially when considering Europe makes up half the teams in the tournament.


Blatter is stupid: FIFA can't make 3 following WC outside Europe.
North America after South America is absolutly crazy. USA allready hosted WC 1994, Mexico hosted WC 1986 and England never hosted it since 1966. And why Blatter doesn't talk about a Canadian bid instead of USA or Mexico ?
WC 2018 must take place in Europe (England would be the best bid imho) and Blatter should go away.

Did Blatter ever plaid football in his life ? I don't know.
But I know that Blatter is very strong to play with cold and hot balls during draws.


----------



## skaP187

This one looks like the Montpelier stadium in France! wait a minute, let me see...










I think they look alike pretty close no? also the cap of Montpelier is about 
31 000 + something. I like the stadium(s) they are a little different from the normall!

looking at it closer, they are excactly the same, even the corners!!!


----------



## Joop20

I reckon this would be quite a good list, not sure about the 2 stadiums per city rule of the FIFA though:

Name Capacity	City Status
MCG 100,000	Melbourne	Existing
Telstra Stadium 83,500	Sydney Existing
Perth Stadium 60,000	Perth New
Suncorp Stadium 52,500	Brisbane Existing
Rectangular Stadium 50,000	Melbourne	New
Adelaide Stadium 50,000	Adelaide New 
Aussie Stadium 42,000	Sydney Existing
EnergyAustralia Stadium 40,000	Newcastle	Expansion/new
Skilled Park 40,000	Gold Coast	Expansion
Canberra Stadium 40,000	Canberra Expansion

Telstra, Suncorp and Aussie stadium are good venues that could be used pretty much as they are at the moment. 

Canberra stadium could be expanded quite easily i think. Not sure about the expansion possibilities of the Gold Coast and Newcastle stadiums though, Newcastle could sustain a 40,000 seater though i guess? 

Perth are going to build a new stadium, so is Melbourne. Lets hope the Melbourne rectangular stadium is expandable.

That leaves Adelaide and the MCG. Adelaide could surely do with a new venue, which could possibly be downsized after the WC. Not sure about the MCG as a soccer stadium, could be replaced by a smaller stadium in townsville/wollongong/geelong, or the Telstra Dome though.

:cheers:


----------



## Benjuk

eomer said:


> Blatter is stupid: FIFA can't make 3 following WC outside Europe.
> North America after South America is absolutly crazy. USA allready hosted WC 1994, Mexico hosted WC 1986 and England never hosted it since 1966. And why Blatter doesn't talk about a Canadian bid instead of USA or Mexico ?
> WC 2018 must take place in Europe (England would be the best bid imho) and Blatter should go away.
> 
> Did Blatter ever plaid football in his life ? I don't know.
> But I know that Blatter is very strong to play with cold and hot balls during draws.


As I said before, Blatter is only talking up the possibility of a 2018 finals outside Europe in order to keep his gravy train flowing. He knows it'll be in Europe, but if he admits it - with England in prime position - he knows he won't get any kick-backs.


----------



## Benjuk

skaP187 said:


> This one looks like the Montpelier stadium in France! wait a minute, let me see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they look alike pretty close no? also the cap of Montpelier is about
> 31 000 + something. I like the stadium(s) they are a little different from the normall!
> 
> looking at it closer, they are excactly the same, even the corners!!!


As I said...



Benjuk said:


> They can keep Skilled for 'footy', have a rectangular stadium for football. Maybe something like *Stade de la Mosson in Montpellier (below)*, but dismantle the big side once the finals are over to leave them with a 30k seater.


----------



## Benjuk

Joop20 said:


> I reckon this would be quite a good list, not sure about the 2 stadiums per city rule of the FIFA though:
> 
> Name Capacity	City Status
> MCG 100,000	Melbourne	Existing
> Telstra Stadium 83,500	Sydney Existing
> Perth Stadium 60,000	Perth  New
> Suncorp Stadium 52,500	Brisbane Existing
> Rectangular Stadium 50,000	Melbourne	New
> Adelaide Stadium 50,000	Adelaide New
> Aussie Stadium 42,000	Sydney Existing
> EnergyAustralia Stadium 40,000	Newcastle	Expansion/new
> Skilled Park 40,000	Gold Coast	Expansion
> Canberra Stadium 40,000	Canberra Expansion
> 
> Telstra, Suncorp and Aussie stadium are good venues that could be used pretty much as they are at the moment.
> 
> Canberra stadium could be expanded quite easily i think. Not sure about the expansion possibilities of the Gold Coast and Newcastle stadiums though, Newcastle could sustain a 40,000 seater though i guess?
> 
> Perth are going to build a new stadium, so is Melbourne. Lets hope the Melbourne rectangular stadium is expandable.
> 
> That leaves Adelaide and the MCG. Adelaide could surely do with a new venue, which could possibly be downsized after the WC. Not sure about the MCG as a soccer stadium, could be replaced by a smaller stadium in townsville/wollongong/geelong, or the Telstra Dome though.
> 
> :cheers:


Drop the smaller stadium in Sydney, maybe drop the second stadium in Melbourne, upgrade Aussie Stadium in Sydney to it's Olympic mode (with the 'temp' ends rebuilt, add a second stadium in Perth (it's the only way to make things work if only one city can have two stadiums)...

Newcastle, either expand Energy Australia or build something new down by the docks (lots of space there that needs to be regenerated).


----------



## ||-GOB-||

Benjuk said:


> Newcastle, either expand Energy Australia or build something new down by the docks (lots of space there that needs to be regenerated).


The long term plan for EAS is to follow the new eastern stand right around the ground. It'll basically be a 40-45,000 seat red+blue version of Suncorp.


----------



## Ari Gold

If were talking about the Perth stadium being built for the eagles and the other (feral) mob, it wont be 60,000. Already were talking about 65 and in 15 yrs time????

I like Benjuks thinking in having 2 stadiums in Perth. The big one for the big matches and the little one for the minnow contries. Im dead certain all games in Perth would be sold out, so why not??? Although i do have a sneaky feeling that politics will come into this and melbournians and sydney siders will go bonkers at the idea.


----------



## Joop20

I'm not sure Perth would have a 40,000+ and a 60,000+ stadium in 10 years time though? Seems abit too much for a city of that size to me? Sydney has 2 decent venues with Aussie and Telstra, why not use those 2 if only 1 city can have 2 venues.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> If were talking about the Perth stadium being built for the eagles and the other (feral) mob, it wont be 60,000. Already were talking about 65 and in 15 yrs time????
> 
> I like Benjuks thinking in having 2 stadiums in Perth. The big one for the big matches and the little one for the minnow contries. Im dead certain all games in Perth would be sold out, so why not??? Although i do have a sneaky feeling that politics will come into this and melbournians and sydney siders will go bonkers at the idea.


I think Sydney would handle it if there were also venues in Wollongong and Newcastle - that's three for their state. Likewise, Melbournians would probably understand (if it was explained to them very slowly) that as only one city can have two stadiums, it makes sense for it to be Perth in order to give the 'west' two stadiums (allowing a group to be played out there)... Especially if a 40k stadium were built in Geelong as well (to give Victoria 2 venues).



Joop20 said:


> I'm not sure Perth would have a 40,000+ and a 60,000+ stadium in 10 years time though? Seems abit too much for a city of that size to me? Sydney has 2 decent venues with Aussie and Telstra, why not use those 2 if only 1 city can have 2 venues.


Sydney has two large venues, Melbourne has two large venues - select either for the two city venue and the other one goes nuts. Perth, on the other hand, is the only city in the west that could support two stadiums - and I'm pretty sure it could support two. Especially if one was a 32k rectangle (with a temp stand on one side/end to take it up to 40k), and the other was a Telstra Dome style 55/60k oval with a movable lower tier of seats.


----------



## skaP187

Benjuk said:


> As I said...


Eh it was way to early for me and then this is what happens... nice stadium though!


----------



## marrio415

well mr blatter certainly knows how to infuriate us english and thats maybe because he doesn't like us.Why,we don't know.But anyhow to keep the world cup away from europe that long is silly and even the spanish and australians must realise that we should have the 2018 world cup we invented the game and it will be 52 years when we last hosted it.Spain had it in 1982 and a fine world cup it was italia 90 france 98 germany 74, 06 all the major european footballing nations have had it since then except us.and since 66 away from europe mexico 70,86 argentina 78 usa 94 japan/korea 02 south africa 10 and probably a south american country in 2014.The world cup has been shared around the world since then so it's the home of football's turn(YES THE HOME OF FOOTBALL)Come on blatter have sense


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

marrio415 said:


> well mr blatter certainly knows how to infuriate us english and thats maybe because he doesn't like us.Why,we don't know.But anyhow to keep the world cup away from europe that long is silly and even the spanish and australians must realise that we should have the 2018 world cup we invented the game and it will be 52 years when we last hosted it.Spain had it in 1982 and a fine world cup it was italia 90 france 98 germany 74, 06 all the major european footballing nations have had it since then except us.and since 66 away from europe mexico 70,86 argentina 78 usa 94 japan/korea 02 south africa 10 and probably a south american country in 2014.The world cup has been shared around the world since then so it's the home of football's turn(YES THE HOME OF FOOTBALL)*Come on blatter have sense*


Thats like telling a chicken to have balls!


----------



## Benjuk

skaP187 said:


> Eh it was way to early for me and then this is what happens... nice stadium though!


:laugh:

No problemo. No doubt I will post more pictures like this in the future. I'm currently somewhat obsessed with the idea of temporary expansions to stadiums as it seems to be the most likely way for Australia to get the facilities to host a world cup finals.


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> I think Sydney would handle it if there were also venues in Wollongong and Newcastle - that's three for their state. Likewise, Melbournians would probably understand (if it was explained to them very slowly) that as *only one city can have two stadiums*, it makes sense for it to be Perth in order to give the 'west' two stadiums (allowing a group to be played out there)... Especially if a 40k stadium were built in Geelong as well (to give Victoria 2 venues).


:bash: 

There's that rule that only seems to pop up for an Australian bid again. Meanwhile some English bids have 3x London, 2x Manchester, 2x Liverpool etc...


----------



## Martuh

Only real possibilities for WC 2018 are 1) England and 2) Benelux. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair because England hadn't hosted it since 1966 and Benelux never hosted it before. And since England has a way better bid then Benelux the choice is clear.

England:
Wembley - 90.000
Old Trafford - 76.000
New Anfield - 60.000 (newly built)
Emirates - 60.000
St. James - 52.000
Sunderland - 49.000
City of Man. - 48.000
Villa Park 43.000
Elland Road - 40.000
Hillsborough - 40.000

Benelux:
De Kuip 2 - 70.000 (newly built)
A'dam Arena - 65.000 (expanded)
King Boudewijn - 50.000
Antwerpen - 50.000 (expanded)
DSB - 40.000 (expanded)
Arke - 40.000 (expanded)
Brugge - 40.000 (newly built)
Liège - 40.000 (expanded)
Abe Lenstra - 40.000 (expanded)
Philips Stadion - 37.000
And all of these clubs have very, very serious plans of these expansions or newly built stadia, some already building, except for PSV but they are obliged to expand to 40.000 or they would be extremely stupid.

Since England has all of these stadia already built, they have the biggest chance for WC 2018.

Germany: 2006
France: 1998
Itay: 1990
Spain: 1982
England: 1966
Sweden: 1958
Switzerland: 1954
France: 1938
Italy: 1934

For England it's just too long ago. For Benelux would be a good first time but I think England has the best chances.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Martuh said:


> Only real possibilities for WC 2018 are 1) England and 2) Benelux. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair because England hadn't hosted it since 1966 and Benelux never hosted it before. And since England has a way better bid then Benelux the choice is clear.
> 
> England:
> Wembley - 90.000
> Old Trafford - 76.000
> New Anfield - 60.000 (newly built)
> Emirates - 60.000
> St. James - 52.000
> Sunderland - 49.000
> City of Man. - 48.000
> Villa Park 43.000
> Elland Road - 40.000
> Hillsborough - 40.000
> 
> Benelux:
> De Kuip 2 - 70.000 (newly built)
> A'dam Arena - 65.000 (expanded)
> King Boudewijn - 50.000
> Antwerpen - 50.000 (expanded)
> DSB - 40.000 (expanded)
> Arke - 40.000 (expanded)
> Brugge - 40.000 (newly built)
> Liège - 40.000 (expanded)
> Abe Lenstra - 40.000 (expanded)
> Philips Stadion - 37.000
> And all of these clubs have very, very serious plans of these expansions or newly built stadia, some already building, except for PSV but they are obliged to expand to 40.000 or they would be extremely stupid.
> 
> Since England has all of these stadia already built, they have the biggest chance for WC 2018.
> 
> Germany: 2006
> France: 1998
> Itay: 1990
> Spain: 1982
> England: 1966
> Sweden: 1958
> Switzerland: 1954
> France: 1938
> Italy: 1934
> 
> For England it's just too long ago. For Benelux would be a good first time but I think England has the best chances.



You forgot Germany also hosted it in 1974 too.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

jordancda said:


> To say that the 1994 WC had no impact is absurd; and if you think that FIFA doesn't see the profitability in hosting another WC in the USA sooner rather than latter, than that is just foolish thinking. I'm not saying the USA should host one every 15 years, but the impact of hosting another one in the next three would do wonders for the continued growth of the sport and bring *FIFA millions of dollars* because I guarantee you it would put the 1994 Cup (already the best the World has seen) to shame.


Exactly, FIFA do not represent football but just MONEY like the US thats all they care aout, whereas in countries such as England it is more about the actual game, passion, history, FOOTBALL. FIFA and Sepp Blatter are so corrupt with greed, UEFA should show who is boss!!

@jordancda. Your post confirms ppls concerns about the World Cup in the USA, thanks. a World Cup is supposed to engulf the whole of the host country and ppl to be passionate about football, this certainly did not happen in 94.


----------



## Benjuk

BeachRes44 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Might happen about the same time soccer overthrows the NFL in America.
> 
> We've all know about soccer for a long time. Its not a new sport. Why do you think its suddenly going to sweep the world?


3 years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible - but times have changed. Qualification and a good performance in Germany, the promissing start to the A-League, etc.

55000 at Telstra Dome for a soccer match. Never thought that would happen. 50000 just for a league game vs Sydney. The game will continue to grow as players realise that aiming for a pro-career in Oz is a realistic goal. More teams (from 2010) onwards will mean even greater opportunities for local players.

Meanwhile, the AFL will continue to make stupid changes to the rules that rob the game of it's explosive, full contact glory.


----------



## nyrmetros

1994 was a new concept, a nwe idea.... no one knew what to expect. It turned out that WC '94 laid the groundwork for the future of soccer in this country. And yes, soccer does matter in this country now. Ask, Nike, ask Adidas, ask ESPN. Spanish tv in this country scored it's biggest ever rating for a non WC game for any event with the USA - Mexico friendly.... trounced the superbowl ratings ..... MLS is now at 15, 000 average gate, new stadiums are popping up, $$ is rolling in left and right......

The USA hosting the 2014 or 2018 WC would blow the freken roof off soccer in this country. This country is ready to get behind it's national team. Had we showed up to play Ghana and got to the round of 16, you really would have seen it. The kids who followed WC '94 (me) are now a generation older and more wiser. 

I can understand your concerns about FIFA and USA $...... all valid..... and yes England prob does deserve to host the WC more than anyone...... but will England hosting the WC really increase the popularity of the sport over there? If FIFA is serious about growing the game (making $ is a given).... then USA 2018 would be the ultimate. (outside of England's passion of course)..


----------



## jordancda

nyrmetros said:


> 1994 was a new concept, a nwe idea.... no one knew what to expect. *It turned out that WC '94 laid the groundwork for the future of soccer in this country. And yes, soccer does matter in this country now. Ask, Nike, ask Adidas, ask ESPN. Spanish tv in this country scored it's biggest ever rating for a non WC game for any event with the USA - Mexico friendly.... trounced the superbowl ratings ..... MLS is now at 15, 000 average gate, new stadiums are popping up*, $$ is rolling in left and right......
> 
> *The USA hosting the 2014 or 2018 WC would blow the freken roof off soccer in this country. This country is ready to get behind it's national team.* Had we showed up to play Ghana and got to the round of 16, you really would have seen it. The kids who followed WC '94 (me) are now a generation older and more wiser.
> 
> *I can understand your concerns about FIFA and USA $...... all valid..... and yes England prob does deserve to host the WC more than anyone...... but will England hosting the WC really increase the popularity of the sport over there? If FIFA is serious about growing the game (making $ is a given).... then USA 2018 would be the ultimate.* (outside of England's passion of course)..


Thanks for putting it in better words than I. This is not about slighting Europe (specifically England) but the fact is that there has been exponential growth of soccer in the USA since/because of 1994. I know a lot of Europeans are going to have a hard time believing that the evil, hated USA could ever love your sport as much as you do, but it is in fact beginning to happen. Now, of course we have other sports we are passionate about, but remember, if only 1/3 of the population of the USA become rabid soccer fans, that is still more than all of England. Anyway, I digress. The point is, and "nymetros" hit it on the head, if there were another WC in the USA in 2018, it would blow the lid off this market (which would be good for soccer all over the world). Soccer would explode here even more than it has already. Its not a thing against England, I love England: I'm planning on going to university there soon. This is all about FIFA wanting to grow the sport across the globe and specifically in North America. Like nymetros said, it does nothing to grow the sport to have it in England. You guys will get it soon any way this falls. But it be a shame if FIFA failed to capitalize on the momentum soccer has gained here in the USA.


----------



## rconsa

A guatemalan newspaper publicated an articule where blatter said that the 2018 world cup must be in on country of the concacaf, so I think it must be in Canada, because EEUU had ir in 1994, mexico have too many problems and central america and the carribean is too poor to do it.


----------



## cmc

If 2018 for Concacaf....the 3 choices in order..

1) USA- good economy, growing soccer boom, building good NFL and MLS stadiums.

2) Canada- hosting the 2007 U-20 WC, Blatter is known for taking the WC to new host nations (Korea/Japan 2002 & S.Africa 2010).

3) Mexico- (eventhough I'm Mexican and I would like the WC to be in MX)
MX has had it twice (70 & 86), is a big soccer nation, its infrastructure must be renovated and build new too, and economically MX is trying to grow, However the FEMEXFUT would back up the idea 100%.


----------



## Riise

jordancda said:


> The point is, and "nymetros" hit it on the head, if there were another WC in the USA in 2018, it would blow the lid off this market (which would be good for soccer all over the world). Soccer would explode here even more than it has already. Its not a thing against England, I love England: I'm planning on going to university there soon. *This is all about FIFA wanting to grow the sport* across the globe and specifically in North America. Like nymetros said, it does nothing to grow the sport to have it in England. You guys will get it soon any way this falls. * But it be a shame if FIFA failed to capitalize on the momentum soccer has gained here in the USA.*


I'll put it a simply as I can. The World Cup is not about capital gains or growing the game, it's a _global football tournament_. A month where the world comes together to celebrate and play the beautiful game.


----------



## KiwiBrit

jordancda said:


> I know a lot of Europeans are going to have a hard time believing that the evil, hated USA could ever love your sport as much as you do, but it is in fact beginning to happen.


Here we go. It may surprise you, but most Europeans don't hate the Americans. We think you get what you deserve for voting a muppet like Bush in for a second term, but hate...nah. 

How the hell could you claim Americans are beginning to love football as much as we do? Listen mate, our love for the beautiful game is etched into our sole. Through generations of families, the all too familiar defeats, through heartache and pain. We have teams that have won nothing in there 100-odd years of history, yet they still have fans turn up week in, week out. We don't call our teams a 'franchise' that can be upped and moved to a more profitable destination. Ours are known as clubs, maybe you should look up what that means in a dictionary.

To us, it's not all about $$$$$$'s, and although it would be great to see the game grow in the States, to be honest it wouldn't have much effect on us if it didn't. You see football was holding a World Cup as long back as 1930. A time when the USA was still finding it's feet as to which sports to ingrain into it's heritage.

I am glad Americans are beginning to appreciate the beautiful game. And I honestly hope you guys continue to do so, but come back in 50 years time with even more passion and I for one will begin to believe.

So sit back, chill out and have a beer. Your day will come again...just wait your turn! :cheers:


----------



## Ari Gold

If the World Cup was all about spreading the game to all parts of the world, the 2018 WC would therefore go to Australia.

If the World Cup was all about the benjamins, then the WC would go to the US.

If the World Cup was politically-free and just, then the WC would lead to England.


----------



## Benjuk

IF it goes to CONCACEF rather than UEFA then it should be Canada because the US had it in '94 and Mexico have had it twice.

But let's not get carried away, the ONE AND ONLY reason Blatter is talking up North America is that that's where he gets his votes for the presidency - and he's up for re-election prior to the 2018 venue being decided. He has to talk up that chance of the finals being there or he'll lose out to Beckenbauer in the next vote. He's already seen his fat cat buddy Lennart Johansson lose out to Platini in UEFA, he's worried about his job. Pure and simple.

This isn't an attack on any nation - the USA, Canada, Mexico, or any other nation who gets the chance will do a great job hosting the finals - just as all of the recent hosts have.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Juddy said:


> If the World Cup was all about spreading the game to all parts of the world, the 2018 WC would therefore go to Australia.
> 
> If the World Cup was all about the benjamins, then the WC would go to the US.
> 
> *If the World Cup was politically-free and just, then the WC would lead to England.*


:applause: i can't agree with you further. Football is already the most popular sport in the world, the WC should come back to the 'home of football'. its the right thing to do.


----------



## Benjuk

Its AlL gUUd said:


> :applause: i can't agree with you further. Football is already the most popular sport in the world, the WC should come back to the 'home of football'. its the right thing to do.


For me it's nothing to do with England being the 'home of football' - that comes across as being a bit "up our own behinds" (and I'm saying that as an Englishman)

I think it should be England because - 

(1) Europe, the home of the majority of the world's best teams, should host the 2018 Finals as the competition will have been out of Europe in 2010 and 2014.

(2) If it is to be in Europe, the only countries capable of hosting (at the moment) are Germany, France, Spain, Italy and England. No other single European nation can justify building the 8 major stadiums required (as is demonstrated by the fact that no other European nation has even close-to the required number of suitable stadiums). Germany, France, Spain and Italy have all hosted since England last hosted (Germany twice!).

(3) After two finals tournaments which will require major building work, it'll be nice to have a finals in a country which already has it's stadia in place.

(4) The fans. We've waited 41 years already.




One thing occurs to me, that I don't think has been mentioned so far on this thread... The 2014 finals are set for what FIFA refers to as The Americas. NOT SOUTH AMERICA - THE AMERICAS. If the US, Mexico or Canada want to host the finals - why not bid against Brazil, Colombia and co., see how things stack up.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^

Blatter probably won't be president by the time a 2018 vote occurs. So all bets off on who is most stupid.

You will probably get a South America or Asian president by then.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Benjuk said:


> For me it's nothing to do with England being the 'home of football' - that comes across as being a bit "up our own behinds" (and I'm saying that as an Englishman)
> 
> I think it should be England because -
> 
> (1) Europe, the home of the majority of the world's best teams, should host the 2018 Finals as the competition will have been out of Europe in 2010 and 2014.
> 
> (2) If it is to be in Europe, the only countries capable of hosting (at the moment) are Germany, France, Spain, Italy and England. No other single European nation can justify building the 8 major stadiums required (as is demonstrated by the fact that no other European nation has even close-to the required number of suitable stadiums). Germany, France, Spain and Italy have all hosted since England last hosted (Germany twice!).
> 
> (3) After two finals tournaments which will require major building work, it'll be nice to have a finals in a country which already has it's stadia in place.
> 
> (4) The fans. We've waited 41 years already.
> 
> One thing occurs to me, that I don't think has been mentioned so far on this thread... The 2014 finals are set for what FIFA refers to as The Americas. NOT SOUTH AMERICA - THE AMERICAS. If the US, Mexico or Canada want to host the finals - why not bid against Brazil, Colombia and co., see how things stack up.


I know. I agree with these points and even referred to them aswell on several occasions, lets not forget Europe provides half the teams for the World Cup. but the tournament should come back to the 'Home of Football', i dont care how that sounds because 52 years is long enough.


----------



## marrio415

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I know. I agree with these points and even referred to them aswell on several occasions, lets not forget Europe provides half the teams for the World Cup. but the tournament should come back to the 'Home of Football', i dont care how that sounds because 52 years is long enough.


damn right the home of football which ever way you look at it(we even gave the yanks baseball lol)And we deserve it 52 YEARS CMON


----------



## Benjuk

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Blatter probably won't be president by the time a 2018 vote occurs. So all bets off on who is most stupid.
> 
> You will probably get a South America or Asian president by then.


He won't be - but he wants to be, and his best chance is to keep 'his crew' onside as long as possible.

Next president will be Beckenbauer. THe sooner the better.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger

Benjuk said:


> He won't be - but he wants to be, and his best chance is to keep 'his crew' onside as long as possible.
> 
> Next president will be Beckenbauer. THe sooner the better.


I wouldn't bank on it. As i understand it, its a one country one vote system for the presidency. Any candidate who represents or is seen to represent the interests of the powerful european nations will not get in. The smaller nations in asia, africa and the americas will vote in a goldfish before allowing a 'european' candidate to win.


----------



## Benjuk

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> I wouldn't bank on it. As i understand it, its a one country one vote system for the presidency. Any candidate who represents or is seen to represent the interests of the powerful european nations will not get in. The smaller nations in asia, africa and the americas will vote in a goldfish before allowing a 'european' candidate to win.


I can see that happening - but for the good of the game I hope that Beckenbauer gets in. He's proved himself to be the best at everything he's tried so far. A winner as a player, then as a manager, and then as the 'host' organiser he put on the best finals so far in every area other than the gamesmanship on the pitch... And the one area he talked out about during the finals was gamesmanship - he recognised the problem and didn't attempt to ignore it (as Blatter has consistantly), he said that it should be the no. 1 priority of FIFA to stop players cheating.

Frankly, I can't imagine how good football would be if players stopped diving, feigning injury, time-wasting, arguing with referees, etc.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Beckenbauer would be an excellent president, he was recently out in Oz showing off the world cup trophy that we ended up being robbed of.

I wouldn't mind the World Cup being in Blighty in 2018, as the bus goes past my place from Sydney to London nowadays! Mind you it takes about 10 weeks to make it there and 9 grand. Still it beats the heck out of flying. It ain't the destination, but the journey that makes the trip.


----------



## Noostairz

*Blatter a big fan of England 2018 bid*
_Fifa president will back Europe bid and is a fan of the Premier League, he tells Denis Campbell _

Sunday March 4, 2007
The Observer 


Sepp Blatter will support efforts to stage the 2018 World Cup in Europe, a move that will greatly enhance England's chances of hosting the tournament. Football's most powerful man wants the event to be held in Europe rather than North America, China or Australia, senior Fifa sources have told Observer Sport. The Fifa president is ready to support an alliance of key powerbrokers in the game's governing body from outside Europe who will lobby for it to host 2018.

Influential figures such as Mohamed bin Hammam, head of the Asian Football Confederation, and Fifa executive committee members from Africa and South America are also likely to back Europe as the venue, which would probably mean England competing with Russia as the leading contenders.
Blatter triggered a wave of pessimism about England's chances of getting 2018 during his visit to London last week to meet Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and enthusiastic advocate of a Football Association bid for 2018, when he warned that the event might well be held in the United States, Canada or Mexico if Fifa readopted its policy of moving the tournament around the continents.

Fifa will decide in November whether to continue rotating the World Cup through their six continental confederations. If they voted to do so, England could not bid until 2022 or even 2026. If they vote for a new approach - the existing rotation policy expires in 2014, when the World Cup is due to be staged in South America - England would be hot favourites for 2018.

As Europeans already fill eight of the 24 places on Fifa's ruling executive committee, they would need only five supporters from other quarters to win the November vote. 'Blatter would vote for Europe to get 2018,' said a senior Fifa official. 'He knows that it would be good commercially to hold it in Europe and he has no favours to give America.

'There's a good chance the executive committee will go for restarting rotation in Europe in 2018,' he added. 'If 2018 comes, it'll be England versus Russia. It would be silly not to give it to England because it is ready to host a World Cup now, because of its stadiums and because it's been so long since 1966.'

In an exclusive interview with Observer Sport, Blatter lavished praise on English football and said that England 'could stage a World Cup tomorrow' because of its excellent stadiums and impressive security procedures.

'The technical infrastructure of England is perfect,' Blatter said. 'The best, absolutely the best. Because it is so good the league is so attractive. People are happy to go to the game because you are seated, there are no fences, you can touch the players.' He also praised security arrangements and policing in England.

Mike Lee, a key member of London's successful bid for the 2012 Olympics, said: 'This week has shown that mounting a successful World Cup bid is a complex matter and issues about rotation and securing European support are vital for an England bid to move forward.

'Nothing that has been said [during Fifa's visit] should be interpreted as a blow to England's chances,' Lee added. 'This is a chess game and it's important to play it the right way. An England bid clearly has the potential to succeed.'

Blatter also lauded Scotland's stock of excellent grounds. 'There are big stadia, especially in Glasgow. They have exactly the same organisational skills [as in England]. From a catastrophe [at Ibrox in 1971, when 66 fans died] they have learned something and they now have stadia that are absolutely an example for the whole world,' he said. Ibrox, Celtic Park and Hampden Park are all highly rated by Uefa, and the latter will host the Uefa Cup final on 16 May.

Despite that, though, Blatter made clear that if England were awarded the 2018 finals, they could not stage any games in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Blatter said that for as long as he remained Fifa president - he is expected to be re-elected, probably unopposed, for a third term this summer - he would insist on one country hosting all the 32 teams and 64 games in the World Cup.

And Blatter also indicated that if smaller English cities such as Hull, Norwich, Plymouth or Southampton wanted to host games if England did stage 2018, they would have to build grounds big enough. All stadiums must have a minimum capacity of 45,000, he said, adding that, without a big stadium, the most those cities could hope for would be a large outdoor public viewing screen. The World Cup's popularity and the need to provide seats for media and security personnel, as well as the fans, compelled Fifa to insist that the biggest available venues were used, he said. This will be good news for Arsenal, Newcastle and Sunderland in particular - and for Birmingham City, if they go ahead with plans to build a new 55,000-seat stadium.

Blatter welcomed the growing number of Premier League clubs who are deciding to use the forthcoming 60 per cent increase in the league's television revenue either to cut or freeze the price of tickets from next season. But he urged clubs to spend more money on developing young players and on humanitarian projects both in their own cities and in Africa and Asia.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ Good God, Blatter is such a hypocrit!! He's trying to put a foot in every camp there is. Each week we get reports of 'Blatter backs China bid', 'Blatter enthusiastic about USA bid', 'Blatter welcomes Russian bid', 'Blatter thinks England bid would be strong favourite', 'Blatter warns English bid of potential hazzards', 'Blatter confident the rotation system will end in 2014', 'Blatter says rotation system may still be in effect after 2014'.....

OMG...there is so much faffing around within FIFA at the moment it's impossible to know anything for sure. Take, for instance, the 2014 WC in South America: they sould have decided before now who was Deffiniely going to be the host for the WC, that way Brazil could get on with building their stadiums ahead of schedule without worry. Instead FIFA are leaving it very late to actually decide which South American country they are gong to back, which is causing a fiasco.

Then there's this rotation policy. They should have decided that by now as well, they should have agreed upon rules when they came up with the policy, that they would/would not give it up after 2014, insted of keeping everyone guessing and confused....at this point there's gonna be about 10 different countries from every continent thinking they're in with a shot at hosting 2018.



edennewstairs said:


> All stadiums must have a minimum capacity of 45,000, he said, adding that, without a big stadium, the most those cities could hope for would be a large outdoor public viewing screen.


What....??? Since when was it 45,000 minimum capacity??? Last time I checked it was only 40,000??? Is this now official?? If it is I was way off in my estimates. I knew (and have said before now) that teh minimum capacity is gonna increase in the future, as it has done over the years, and that by the 2022 WC it might rise to 45/50,000 minimum. But that appears to already be the case now.....

What the hell is going on with FIFA....why is Blatter the only candidate available.......heading for a third term in office.....???


----------



## Gherkin

^^ If the minimum capacity keeps increasing, then China and the USA are the only countries in the World capable of staging the WC.


----------



## Benjuk

Two faced b*stard will be in the Russian press next week talking them up, the week after he'll be in the US, talking up an American bid, then over the border bigging up Canada, before a trip back down under to assure Australia that it's bid would be considered up there with the very best, etc., etc.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> ^^
> What the hell is going on with FIFA....why is Blatter the only candidate available.......heading for a third term in office.....???


Its simple. FIFA has 205 members. Blatter is never supported in Europe, whose representatives and associations loathe him and ignore him in equal amounts. He gets in, because he makes sure more worldcup money, worldcup places, expenses, travel opportunities and perks go to the small countries in CONCACAF, CAF, OFA, CSF, AFC who make up the majority of the 205 and more accurately to their FIFA representatives who vote for him. Thats why the corrupt toad will be re-elected virtually unopposed next time too.


----------



## Benjuk

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Take, for instance, the 2014 WC in South America: they sould have decided before now who was Deffiniely going to be the host for the WC, that way Brazil could get on with building their stadiums ahead of schedule without worry. Instead FIFA are leaving it very late to actually decide which South American country they are gong to back, which is causing a fiasco.


They usually decide it around 6 years prior to the finals IIRC - it's not so much a case of a delayed decision, it's more a simple matter of 'us' all being far more aware of the process.

Once more, for the record, FIFA have (for the last few years) referred to North/Central/South America as 'The Americas', so the 2014 finals is not automatically going to the South Americans. If the USA really want to bid, they can.


----------



## Plogs

Benjuk said:


> Two faced b*stard will be in the Russian press next week talking them up, the week after he'll be in the US, talking up an American bid, then over the border bigging up Canada, before a trip back down under to assure Australia that it's bid would be considered up there with the very best, etc., etc.



See - Politics.
Or... rock bands.


----------



## GEwinnen

Gherkin007 said:


> ^^ If the minimum capacity keeps increasing, then China and the USA are the only countries in the World capable of staging the WC.



No way, it's not enough to present big stadiums. A host country has to present the spirit of the game (football, not soccer!!)
Are you sure U.S and Cina are able to create emotions like this? (for example)


----------



## Benjuk

Plogs said:


> See - Politics.
> Or... rock bands.


Few politicians get caught contradicting themselves as often as Blatter - most of them, certainly the successful ones who keep getting re-elected, tend to come up with one story (WMD's for example) then stick with them to the death. This tosser continually changes his story - it's almost as if he's unaware of the speed at which news travels these days.

As for rock bands - they say everywhere is great, sure - but they aren't touting around major events worth millions of dollars. Your rock band can play shows in the US, UK, China, Brazil, etc., in the space of a couple of months, your FIFA boss can't arrange for a finals tournament every other month.


----------



## Ari Gold

Why England should get it???
1. They fit more criterias than any other country.
2. They will do a good job, if given the chance.

Done.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> Its simple. FIFA has 205 members. Blatter is never supported in Europe, whose representatives and associations loathe him and ignore him in equal amounts. He gets in, because he makes sure more worldcup money, worldcup places, expenses, travel opportunities and perks go to the small countries in CONCACAF, CAF, OFA, CSF, AFC who make up the majority of the 205 and more accurately to their FIFA representatives who vote for him. Thats why the corrupt toad will be re-elected virtually unopposed next time too.


FIFA is so corrupt, because it seems the other confederations have so much power when compared to Europe which is in actual fact the most important in football terms world wide. politics is detroying football as a sport.

I still can't believe how a CLUELESS IDIOT(Blatter) can be head of world football, why can't Beckenbauer and the other european members carry out a coup and overthrow the greedy a*****le!!


----------



## Benjuk

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I still can't believe how a CLUELESS IDIOT(Blatter) can be head of world football, why can't Beckenbauer and the other european members carry out a coup and overthrow the greedy a*****le!!


Because he's neither clueless nor an idiot - he's self-serving and greedy, he's not interested in football so much as the money that can be made from football, he's ethically challenged (witness various bribes scandals and his involvement with certain CONCACEF members), but he's not clueless and he's very clever.


----------



## Benjuk

I have the feeling that a number of the new venues required for an Aussie bid would rely on 'temp' stands to boost capacity to the required 40k (or is it now 45k, Mr Blatter?).

Can anyone give an indication of the costs of construction for 'temporary' stands (like the two ends of Sydney Olympic Stadium for example).

I've recently read (on the Melbourne forum) of the possibility of a massive 'temp' bank of seating being installed at the MCG should a world cup bid be won by Australia, and I'm very curious as to how much something like this would cost... Especially as they would (realisitically) only have 4 or 5 opportunities to use the seats/stand before it would have to be ripped out to return the venue to oval mode.


----------



## KiwiBrit

||-GOB-|| said:


> The thing is that it has been that way for decades. You would think that the 'sleeping giant of Australian sport' should've woken up by now.


Difference now is you have a professional league which is only going to expand, Aussie players playing in some of the best leagues there are, and a national team to be proud of on the World stage.


----------



## Wezza

^^
Agreed!!


----------



## www.sercan.de

www.sercan.de said:


> After sseing so many new projects in Spain
> Nou Camp 98,000
> Bernabeu 80,000
> Valencia 75,000
> Sevilla 65,000
> Sevilla II 65,000
> Madrid II 57,000
> Bilbao 50,000-55,000
> San.Sebastián 43,000
> Zaragoza 42,000
> Barcelona II 41,000


update:
Bilbao 56,000
nou camp expansion

Nou Camp 110,000
Bernabeu 80,000
Valencia 75,000
Sevilla 65,000
Sevilla II 65,000
Madrid II 57,000
Bilbao 56,000
San.Sebastián 43,000
Zaragoza 42,000
Barcelona II 41,000


----------



## Canadian Chocho

*Blatter discusses 2018 World Cup bid*

*Canadian Press*

2/28/2007 6:26:40 PM

*LONDON (CP) - FIFA may assign the 2018 World Cup to its North and Central American and Caribbean region, raising the possibility that Canada could be in the mix for hosting soccer's showcase event.

Sepp Blatter, the president of soccer's governing body, discussed upcoming World Cups on Wednesday before meeting with Treasury Minister Gordon Brown - the man expected to replace British Prime Minister Tony Blair.*

"We have decided in the FIFA executive committee that rotation will be installed, and we have made rotation until and including 2014. The executive committee must take a decision whether the rotation should include all the confederations, in which case the 2018 World Cup should be in CONCACAF," Blatter said.

Canadian Soccer Association president Colin Linford said the comments caught him by surprise.

"We'd obviously be interested (if) FIFA was looking for someone in North America to host," Linford said.

Canada will host the FIFA Under-20 World Cup this year and will likely put in a bid to host the women's World Cup in 2011. Linford said if a bid is put in for 2018, it would likely be made four or five years from now.



The United States (1994) and Mexico (1970, 1986) are the only members of the Confederation of North and Central American and Caribbean Football who have hosted men's World Cups.

Blatter also said it was possible FIFA's executive committee could assign the 2018 tournament to Asia.

"They could also decide that the Americas should be considered as one, and then rotation would go to Asia," he said, adding that China and Australia had both indicated they might bid.

The U.S. Soccer Federation's board gave the go-ahead Friday to bid for the tournament. The British government has said it would support a campaign to host the World Cup for the first time since 1966, when England won its only title.

The 2002 tournament was played in Japan and South Korea, last year's edition was played in Germany and the 2010 World Cup is scheduled for South Africa. FIFA said the 2014 tournament will be in South America, and Brazil and Colombia have announced plans to bid. The decision will be made in November, and Brazil is the strong favourite - Blatter called Colombia's bid "more a public relations presentation."

Since England last hosted the tournament, the World Cup has been played in the other four major European soccer countries - Germany (1974, 2006), Spain (1982), Italy (1990) and France (1998). England's Premier League is the most successfully marketed of the European leagues, and several new stadiums have opened in recent years.

Following the Hillsborough stadium tragedy in 1989, when 96 people were crushed to death at a FA Cup semifinal between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, English soccer has modernized most of its grounds and created all-seat stadiums that have high-tech security and no fences surrounding fields.

"Because of the big disaster in '89 in Sheffield, the government has taken a decision which is now applied everywhere in sports arenas, especially in football, and this shall be an example to everybody around the world," Blatter said.

"Comfort and security are in stadia where everybody is sitting, and if you have no fences and you don't need 200 policemen because you have stewards. If this example had been applied to all other big stadia and big leagues in Europe, some of the big associations in Europe would not be facing the problems they are facing."

Blatter was impressed by the wealth generated by the English club soccer.

"The way the Premier League is organized and the way it's marketed, it's remarkable," he said. "The money coming into the Premier League is exceptional. English football is shown everywhere in the world. I was in Africa and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and you cannot open a TV channel without watching the Premier League."


----------



## KiwiBrit

^^ ^^ 
Septic Bladder is such a tosser. If he thought it would get him votes to retain his presidency, I'm sure he'd say Fiji or even the Falkland Is. were in with a chance of hosting the 2018 WC. hno:


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

*Blatter backs new bid candidate for 2018*

_BBC News report. 8/3/2007_

Sepp Blatter, known for being one of most generous, sure-footed gentelmen in all of FIFA yesterday announced his enthusiasm for a new bidding candidate for the 2018 WC.

The Falkland Islands desire to host the tournament was greeted with much doubt and speculation, but Blatter immediately gave his full-hearted encouragement for such an undertaking.

"They have some great stadiums, a great footballing passion, and would create a lasting world cup legacy" said Blatter, just hours after hearing the announcement of the bid.

Some within the football community have suggested that Blatter is trying to back too many candidates, and that this is the final straw. Blatter has denied such allegations, and gave a statement today as he was flying back from his inspection of an Uzbekistan bid:

"I am not losing site of the objective here, I am just trying to get as much world-wide scope as possible so that I can meet lots of politicians and get re-elect...I mean so that we can spread the sport to all corners of the globe.

Some FIFA ministers have accused Blatter of only supporting a Falkland Islands bid because he has made a deal with the Prime minister which will ensure he gets a small percentage of the profits from the known oil deposits located in the area. Reports on this matter as are yet unconfirmed.

The Falkland Islands currently have one football stadium in place, with a capacity of 350. But Blatter appears confident the neccessary work can be done in time for 2018.

Rumours of a bid from NASA to host the 2018 World cup on the moon have not been confirmed, and thoughts are that they are just awaiting to hear whether the rotation policy will still be in place after 2014.

......................................................


----------



## Gherkin

^^ 

I'll add the Falkland Islands bid stadiums in later  


:banana: epper: :cucumber: :carrot:


----------



## Gherkin

Just added this possible 55,000 seater Birmingham stadium instead of Villa Park 










If anyone has any other stadium news/photos or updates please post them so I can add them to the summary on the first page


----------



## The Concerned Potato

proposed City of Birmingham stadium/Birmingham Sports Village

features of the stadium 

- retractable roof 
- retractable seats 
- sliding pitch 
- train link located on the exterior of the stadium (you can literally jump off the train and into the stadium) 
- will be built in Saltley about 200 yards away from St. Andrew's 
- will be called the City of Birmingham stadium 
- can be used for football, cricket, rugby, athletics and concerts 

features of the surrounding Birmingham Sports Village 

- indoor arena 
- soccer dome 
- tennis courts 
- basketball 
- olympic-sized swimming pool 
- health and fitness centre 
- hotels 
- retail 
- community footbal facilities 
- entertainment complex/casino (possibly) 


from the official Birmingham City FC website



> Karren Brady said today that plans for a new 55,000 seat stadium for the club are very much alive and she hopes that a final decision on its viability can be made by the summer.
> 
> Blues submitted plans for a stunning new sports village in Saltley last year, which appeared to be dependent on Birmingham being given a licence to build a Super casino.
> 
> Despite the unavailability of casino funds now to support the project, the club has been looking at other ways of financing it.
> 
> "We're still talking to the council about building a new 55,000 capacity stadium for We're still talking to the council about building a new 55,000 capacity stadium for Birmingham and those talks are ongoing," said Managing Director Karren Brady.
> 
> "We hope to have some plans by the summer and at that point we'll know if it's likely to go ahead or not.
> 
> "But the council have shown a real commitment to doing this work.
> 
> "The site remains the same and it's about funding now.
> 
> "A major arm of the funding was due to be the casino and that's obviously gone now, so it's how we fill that hole."
> 
> "We really need to help ourselves by putting together a comprehensive plan for council about how a sports village could be done with investment from the football club, from outside investors and investment from the council themselves.
> 
> "We have a construction partner in place."
> 
> "They are the master planner and are effectively working out what needs to go on that site and what the right mix is to generate enough money from the outside development to build the stadium."
> 
> As well as the stadium, Blues and the council would still look to develop the area around the stadium as a sports village for the use of the general public.
> 
> "It's not just a football stadium plonked in the middle of a field it would be a community centre, a place where young people could work together, play together and be together, focused around the stadium," she added.
> 
> "We're the youngest city in Europe with nothing for young people to do and it would always be a dream to have a sports city."












































































^^not far from St. Andrews (bottom left)

large pic, so i'll just post the link

old Birmingham Mail article

if you can't see the text on these next 2. save them as pictures and zoom in on them

Facilities

Experience


Birmingham co-owner David Sullivan said this last month



> I'll bring world cup to Brum
> Feb 18 2007
> 
> By Graham Hill
> 
> 
> DAVID Sullivan has revealed: I want to bring the World Cup to Blues... and beat Villa to it!
> 
> Birmingham City co-owner Sullivan is pushing Blues' claim to stage World Cup matches if England are awarded the tournament in 2018.
> 
> Despite constant speculation that he will sell his share in the club, Sullivan still has huge ambitions for Blues - and that includes the World Cup.
> 
> Sullivan, pictured, insists Blues' proposed 55,000-seater stadium in Saltley will be chosen as a World Cup venue, edging out Villa Park in the process.
> 
> Despite the failure of the Super casino bid for the site, which would have included a new stadium, Blues have remained in talks with the City Council.
> 
> 
> And now Sullivan has claims that a new Birmingham City stadium could form part of England's bid to stage the World Cup 11 years from now.
> 
> 
> "When the World Cup comes to England, hopefully in 2018, there will be matches at the City of Birmingham Stadium," said Sullivan.
> 
> 
> "Villa's stadium may not be big enough or good enough if we get our ground.
> 
> 
> "The City Council have said they are committed to building a new football stadium for the city. I think we'd be looking at five years from now at the earliest. But things are happening and I would imagine something could be announced in the next six months."
> 
> 
> New Villa chairman Randy Lerner only has the capability at the moment to increase his ground's capacity to 50,000. Villa have been mentioned in the FA's outline plans to bring the World Cup to England but Sullivan is confident Blues can muscle in with their new facilities - as long as they get the go-ahead to build.
> 
> 
> Sullivan also believes a new stadium is the answer to the club's pricing policy which has caused so much friction among fans.
> 
> 
> "We want a 55,000-capacity stadium - then we can do deals that would fill it," he said. "We could do so much to help the working-class core support.
> 
> 
> "I hope we'll have lots of £5 games so people will come. It's all a possibility."



rivalries and pathalogical hatred aside. the 2018 World Cup IS going to need more world class stadium's like this. i'm glad futuristic stadiums like COM, Emirates and Wembley have been built recently.


----------



## panamaboy9016

*My opinions,*

I think either England or Spain should get it, both European countries with amazing soccer, especially them two because they both have the most exclusive and famous soccer leagues in the world, the Spanish League and the English Premiere League, that always compete to be the best soccer leagues in the world. One of them two should take it, but if neither of them two get it, I don't see why not China or Australia, especially China, the developing world power.


----------



## Benjuk

Canadian Chocho said:


> Blatter was *impressed by the wealth *generated by the English club soccer.
> 
> "The way the Premier League is organized and the way it's *marketed*, it's remarkable," he said. "The *money* coming into the Premier League is exceptional. English football is shown everywhere in the world. I was in Africa and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and you cannot open a TV channel without watching the Premier League."


Sums up the way Blatter thinks. Not about the facilities, not about the football itself or the history, not about the players or the supporters... Just the $'s


----------



## KiwiBrit

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> *Blatter backs new bid candidate for 2018*
> 
> _BBC News report. 8/3/2007_
> 
> Sepp Blatter, known for being one of most generous, sure-footed gentelmen in all of FIFA yesterday announced his enthusiasm for a new bidding candidate for the 2018 WC.
> 
> The Falkland Islands desire to host the tournament was greeted with much doubt and speculation, but Blatter immediately gave his full-hearted encouragement for such an undertaking.
> 
> "They have some great stadiums, a great footballing passion, and would create a lasting world cup legacy" said Blatter, just hours after hearing the announcement of the bid.
> 
> Some within the football community have suggested that Blatter is trying to back too many candidates, and that this is the final straw. Blatter has denied such allegations, and gave a statement today as he was flying back from his inspection of an Uzbekistan bid:
> 
> "I am not losing site of the objective here, I am just trying to get as much world-wide scope as possible so that I can meet lots of politicians and get re-elect...I mean so that we can spread the sport to all corners of the globe.
> 
> Some FIFA ministers have accused Blatter of only supporting a Falkland Islands bid because he has made a deal with the Prime minister which will ensure he gets a small percentage of the profits from the known oil deposits located in the area. Reports on this matter as are yet unconfirmed.
> 
> The Falkland Islands currently have one football stadium in place, with a capacity of 350. But Blatter appears confident the neccessary work can be done in time for 2018.
> 
> Rumours of a bid from NASA to host the 2018 World cup on the moon have not been confirmed, and thoughts are that they are just awaiting to hear whether the rotation policy will still be in place after 2014.
> 
> ......................................................


Classic Jack, simply classic :lol:


----------



## Benjuk

The Concerned Potato said:


> proposed City of Birmingham stadium/Birmingham Sports Village
> 
> features of the stadium
> 
> - retractable roof
> *- retractable seats *
> - sliding pitch
> - train link located on the exterior of the stadium (you can literally jump off the train and into the stadium)
> - will be built in Saltley about 200 yards away from St. Andrew's
> - will be called the City of Birmingham stadium
> - can be used for football, cricket, rugby, athletics and concerts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 2018 World Cup IS going to need more world class stadium's like this. i'm glad futuristic stadiums like COM, Emirates and Wembley have been built recently.


A lot like Telstra Dome in Melbourne, those upper tiers are a fair way from the pitch. Looks quality though and will knock the p*ss out of Villa Park for a Birmingham venue. Horrible concept in today's world, but why not get Villa in as co-tenants for a few years - share the load as it were. Villa Park could be fully re-developed into a 50k bowl before they move back. Everybody wins.

With the City of Birmingham Stadium in place by 2014, we'd have Wembley, Emirates, Stanley Park, Stadium of Light and City Of Manchester all available as purpose built new stadia, conforming to FIFA World Cup standards. Add existing stadia such as St James Park, and swap Old Trafford for the City of Manchester for the sake of capacity, and you've got most stadiums in place.

If the FA/Government is serious about the bid, they should go to Portsmouth right now and offer to help finance the additional seats needed for Pompey Village (last time I looked it was planned as a 28k stadium, if Pompey are able to finance that, the FA/Gov should step in and help with the costs of another 15k seats to bump the capacity up suitably. Perhaps do the same in Bristol at Rovers new/redeveloped ground - they are set to build it anyway, so why not go large with government assistance?

If someone can talk Norwich into building a new ground (they really need something bigger than Carrow Road), and something big goes up in Yorkshire (Bramall Lane, oldest contually used sports venue in the world - give United the money to rebuild a few stands there and trade on its history), I think the bid would be unstoppable.


----------



## docker

well any new perth stadium may now be 70,000 seats. and by the way the force are pushing for a 35,000 seat rectangle stadium.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21357760-2761,00.html


*70,000-seat, $700m stadium plan*

Exclusive: Joe Spagnolo

PERTH's proposed new outdoor stadium could end up being a 70,000-seat venue with a $700 million-plus price tag after a re-think on the size of the venue.
Taskforce head John Langoulant has revealed the group was re-thinking the idea of a 60,000-seat venue, admitting it could be too small for the future needs of the sports-mad state.

He also revealed the $600 million price tag that's been bandied around for the project could swell beyond $700 million.

With West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers membership alone ballooning beyond 90,000 between them, there are now concerns that a 60,000-seat venue would be too small.

But Mr Langoulant scoffed at suggestions by Burswood that the Burswood Peninsula was the only site capable of accommodating a larger stadium, saying a rebuilt Subiaco Oval, Kitchener Park in Subiaco and land near the old East Perth power station were also suitable sites for a 70,000-plus stadium.

"We are having another look at the 60,000 figure to make sure it's the right size,'' he said.

"There has been commentary made about ensuring that what we build will meet future demands and we just want to make sure we get it right.

"But it's our view it should not go beyond 70,000.

"Every time you decide to increase the size (of the stadium) you add to the cost _ about an extra $10,000 a seat.''

Burswood says any new stadium needs to be relevant for future generations and is claiming the Burswood Peninsula is the only location that can accommodate a venue larger than 60,000 seats.
"The fear is that, as a state, we are contemplating long-term infrastructure that the Government has said may not be built for 10 years, and will need to be relevant for generations to come,'' Burswood spokeswoman Sonia Mackay-Coghill said.

"There is a very real possibility that WA may outgrow a 60,000 seat stadium during that time.

"To not plan for this when there is clearly opportunity to do so, is a missed opportunity.

"Not one of the other sites being considered can accommodate a larger stadium.''
But the Burswood proposal has its critics.

Nearby residents have formed an action group to lobby against the peninsula proposal, claiming there are environmental and public issues with the site.

"I don't want drunken hooligans wandering around our streets late at night, traffic jams every weekend and the noise of 60,000 sports fans echoing through my windows at night,'' said Jackie Oldfield, head of the action group.

Mr Langoulant claimed that out of all sites being considered, the peninsula had the worst traffic access issues.

And he raised further concerns about the extra costs involved with building a stadium on reclaimed swamp land.

Burswood claims it would cost no more than $20 million to build piled foundations for a stadium, an expense off-set by the fact that the government owns the land and would not have to buy back properties.


----------



## Gherkin

^^ I have now added that stadium list of possible English venues...

...and as a result of many asks, added some *possible USA stadiums* to the first page 

:banana: :carrot: :cucumber: epper:


----------



## Benjuk

Gherkin007 said:


> ^^ I have now added that stadium list of possible English venues...
> 
> ...and as a result of many asks, added some *possible USA stadiums* to the first page
> 
> :banana: :carrot: :cucumber: epper:


As a fan of the club, I can't have that little pic of the Stadium of Light up on that front page - so here's a better one...

http://www.pictureblinds.co.uk/footballgrounds/images/Sunderlandfg.JPG
(have removed image to save the kind folks here a bit of bandwidth)

Curiously enough, there's a lot of rumours going around Sunderland that the new board intends on expanding the capacity to 63000 and cutting gate prices in half in order to fill the stadium (making up extra revenue through extra concession stand sales/merchandising, etc., and placing a premium on number of supporters/atmosphere rather than earnings through the gate. I'll be watching VERY closely to see if they go through with the plan.


----------



## Gherkin

Thanks Benjuk, it's been added


----------



## Sparks

Benjuk, it would be a lot easier to just expand St Mary's in Southampton given it is already a newly built 32,500 seat stadium. It's location is better, 5 mins from the town centre and has the potential of a railway station being built next door. Southampton also has an International Airport and is centrally located between Bournemouth and Portsmouth, the two major population centres on the south coast.


----------



## Benjuk

Sparks said:


> Benjuk, it would be a lot easier to just expand St Mary's in Southampton given it is already a newly built 32,500 seat stadium. It's location is better, 5 mins from the town centre and has the potential of a railway station being built next door. Southampton also has an International Airport and is centrally located between Bournemouth and Portsmouth, the two major population centres on the south coast.


St Mary's rather than Fratton? No problem for me. Extensions often cost more than new constructions from what I've seen (16-18 million for 42000 Stadium of Light but another 6-7 million for the extra 7000 seats when extended). St Mary's also suffers from the same problem as Stadium of Light, Riverside, Pride Park, etc., of being fairly anonymous. A new 40-45k seater in Pompey could be upgraded to be more visually interesting, rather than being a highly functional bowl.


----------



## hngcm

Gherkin007 said:


> ^^ I have now added that stadium list of possible English venues...
> 
> ...and as a result of many asks, added some *possible USA stadiums* to the first page
> 
> :banana: :carrot: :cucumber: epper:


There are about 50 "possible USA stadiums". 

:nuts:


----------



## Guest

Just to let you know the City of Birmingham stadium is being showcased at MIPIM this week. 

It looks very likely to go ahead.

The city aims to host one of the following within the next 25 years.

World Championships, Olympics, Commonwealth Games. (It is already Europes leading sporting championship city and they hope this will bring the additional major events which its craved.


----------



## Benjuk

SimLim said:


> Just to let you know the City of Birmingham stadium is being showcased at MIPIM this week.
> 
> It looks very likely to go ahead.
> 
> The city aims to host one of the following within the next 25 years.
> 
> World Championships, Olympics, Commonwealth Games. (It is already Europes leading sporting championship city and they hope this will bring the additional major events which its craved.


Good shout for the Commonwealth Games because, really, who else wants it? Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Olympics within 25 years - with London coming up, it'll decades before England gets it again (and rightly so). It'll be a sure fire host venue for the World Cup though.


----------



## Guest

Totally agree. I expect them to get the World Championships though as soon as the stadium is built. World Athletics Association is in love with the city.


----------



## elgoyo

2018 is going to CONCACAF, thats northamerica, posible candidates:

USA
Mexico 
Canada


----------



## Ari Gold

^^ 
No.
USA has a small chance. Mexico has a minimal chance. Canada has a fish's arse size chance at getting it.

Australia has a small chance. Spain has a decent chance. England has a next to gareentee chance.

Okie dokie.


----------



## The Hunted

SimLim said:


> Just to let you know the City of Birmingham stadium is being showcased at MIPIM this week.
> 
> It looks very likely to go ahead.
> 
> The city aims to host one of the following within the next 25 years.
> 
> World Championships, Olympics, Commonwealth Games. (It is already Europes leading sporting championship city and they hope this will bring the additional major events which its craved.


I hope your right, this would be a great addition to the world cup bid and it's a truly superb looking stadium (my favourite).


----------



## RobH

elgoyo said:


> 2018 is going to CONCACAF, thats northamerica, posible candidates:
> 
> USA
> Mexico
> Canada


and you know this because?


----------



## Benjuk

RobH said:


> and you know this because?


Because Blatter made some half arsed contradictory statement saying that the rotation may continue... A couple of hours later he contradicted himself by saying that England's bid was excellent and UEFA would definately have a chance to host in 2018.


----------



## Mo Rush

footprints on the moon...hahahah


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Sorry to keep going off track here with the moon thing (  ) but a thought just occured to me: with the gravity up there imagine what the record for keepy-uppy would be!!


----------



## KiwiBrit

marrio415 said:


> Ah but did usa really go to the moon?


You've got a very valid point marrio. I like the way the American flag seems to be fluttering in that picture. Quite an achievment for a planet with no atmosphere! :nuts:


----------



## antigr12

marrio415 said:


> Ah but did usa really go to the moon?


public imposture with expensive useless moving big cocks :bash:


----------



## AleksIII

marrio415 said:


> Ah but did usa really go to the moon?


I don't think so! :nuts:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

marrio415 said:


> Ah but did usa really go to the moon?


nope:nuts:


----------



## 67868

KiwiBrit said:


> You've got a very valid point marrio. I like the way the American flag seems to be fluttering in that picture. Quite an achievment for a planet with no atmosphere! :nuts:


The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the Moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods).
















the wind sure is blowing that flag around

btw really off topic


----------



## Benjuk

IHaveNoLegs said:


> The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the Moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods).


The voice of reason. I always get scared when conspiracy theories about the moon landing get going.

Anyway, back on topic... The Moon, not Mars, for 2034. Either that or Morocco... You tell me which you think is most likely!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Benjuk said:


> The voice of reason. I always get scared when conspiracy theories about the moon landing get going.
> 
> Anyway, back on topic... The Moon, not Mars, for 2034. Either that or Morocco... You tell me which you think is most likely!


Lets not forget they also faked the photos of the moon landing, OK no more off topic Comments


----------



## ccfc-4-life

england will get the 2018 wc for sure, after they were dinied the 2006 wc, the home of football cant get dened again !


----------



## dallasburg

australia would be a good idea, but maybe its lack of soccer only stadia could hurt it. i think england would be the best bet and plus... it hasnt held a wc in the recent past either.


----------



## Benjuk

ccfc-4-life said:


> england will get the 2018 wc for sure, after they were dinied the 2006 wc, the home of football cant get dened again !


Well done - it takes magnificent concentration to manage to spell 'denied' wrong two different ways in the space of one statement.

'Home of football' should have nothing to do with it - quality of facilities and popularity of the game is what it should be about. As previously stated, England has one of the best arrays of either completed or planned stadia in Europe, coupled with huge interest in the game and, by 2018, a 52 year gap since the last finals were staged there.


----------



## Benjuk

dallasburg said:


> australia would be a good idea, but maybe its lack of soccer only stadia could hurt it. i think england would be the best bet and plus... it hasnt held a wc in the recent past either.


Transport a major issue too. It's a long drive from Townsville to Melbourne, even longer from 'anywhere' to Perth. Trains aren't exactly going to make it much easier, which leaves planes... Even if they 'regionalised' the groups, you'd still end up with fans having to travel great distances to get to and from games in Perth (assuming the other games in their group would have to be played in Adelaide?).


----------



## The Gazmon

Benjuk said:


> Transport a major issue too. It's a long drive from Townsville to Melbourne, even longer from 'anywhere' to Perth. Trains aren't exactly going to make it much easier, which leaves planes... Even if they 'regionalised' the groups, you'd still end up with fans having to travel great distances to get to and from games in Perth (assuming the other games in their group would have to be played in Adelaide?).



Hehe... Townsville to Melb? 3 days? 1 day TWNS to BRIS. 1 BRIS to SYD and 1 SYD to MELB.

Hehe... not so far...haha... you could do one side of Europe to the other quicker than that.

The US geographically is as big as Australia, how did they cope with travelling fans?


----------



## Wezza

I've driven from Townsville to Canberra in under 23 hours, straight through, by myself. It is far quicker to drive the inland route, though it wouldn't be recommended for foreign tourists, pretty easy to get lost.


----------



## Benjuk

The Gazmon said:


> The US geographically is as big as Australia, how did they cope with travelling fans?


Easier for US to 'regionalize' groups, also a lot more airlines and a better road network. Someone previously posted a selection of venues for the US based on ease of access by rail - looked pretty impressive.


----------



## ccfc-4-life

personally i reckon england will defo get the 2018 wc, the birthplace of the sport hasnt hosted a wc since the famous year of 1966...too long!


----------



## Benjuk

My original point on this thread was that there was no way Australia would be used as an 'emergency' stand-in for the World Cup Finals in 2010 or 2014, etc.

The very respectable Mr Blatter concurs...

"LONDON, April 30 (Reuters) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter has told the BBC that football's world governing body has contingency plans in case South Africa cannot host the World Cup in 2010. 

Blatter's comments to BBC TV's Inside Sport programme due to be broadcast on Monday night, were reported on the BBC website on Monday. 

'Other countries are ready to organise the World Cup', Blatter is quoted as saying although he implied they would not be needed. 

He tells the programme that the *United States, England, Mexico, Japan and Spain* would be ready to step in, adding: 'definitely we have a possibility to go somewhere else if something happens. 

'It was the same case in Germany. Something can happen. A natural catastrophe or whatever, a big change in society - everybody against football."

No mention of Aussie Aussie Aussie. Maybe Iemma and the Aussie media will get the hint now. If 'we' want it here, we're going to have to build the stadiums and bid for it.


----------



## Wezza

Interesting, considering this news item is doing the rounds:

Australia On 2010 Standby

Apr 30 2007 22:33 
FIFA president Sepp Blatter has said Australia or England could still host the 2010 World Cup.
South Africa are set to host the tournament in three years' time.

It would be the first time the event has been staged on the African continent, but there were reports of delays in stadium construction work which threatened hopes of the tournament being staged there.

The sport's world governing body remain confident that all necessary facilities will be ready in time but Blatter clearly feels FIFA need to keep options open in case there are any unforeseen problems, and listed Australia as one country which could step in.

Asked if England or Australia were fall-back options should the South African organisation falter, Blatter told the BBC's Inside Sport programme: "Yes, but there are other countries that are ready to organise tomorrow morning or in two days, or two months, a World Cup. The United States of America, and Mexico, they can do it, Japan, they can do it. They have enough stadia.

"You say England can do it, and I am sure. Spain, they can do it. There is a lot of countries, but they don't need to be ready."

The English FA has said they are ready to step in if needed, but their willingness to make themselves available in an emergency is understandable considering Blatter does not favour a European bid for the 2018 tournament.

FIFA will make a decision on which continent stages the event later this year but Blatter favours a World Cup in Asia, which could include Australia now they are part of the Asian Confederation.

"Personally, I think that we should maintain a rotation," Blatter said.

"At least with four continents. To take North and South America as one continent, Europe, Africa and Asia. This would mean that the next World Cup after 2014 would go to Asia." 

Copyright (c) 2007 Press Association

Personally, i wouldn't want it here in 2010, i'd rather wait til we have the correct stadia & not have to use cricket stadiums at some cities.


----------



## Gherkin

On an interview for 'Inside Sport' last night (BBC1), FIFA president announced he wanted to continue the rotation policy for continents, so pretty much confirmed that the 2018 World Cup would go to Asia... So China looks the best bet at the moment.


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> Interesting, considering this news item is doing the rounds:
> 
> Australia On 2010 Standby
> 
> Apr 30 2007 22:33
> FIFA president Sepp Blatter has said Australia or England could still host the 2010 World Cup.
> South Africa are set to host the tournament in three years' time.
> 
> It would be the first time the event has been staged on the African continent, but there were reports of delays in stadium construction work which threatened hopes of the tournament being staged there.
> 
> The sport's world governing body remain confident that all necessary facilities will be ready in time but Blatter clearly feels FIFA need to keep options open in case there are any unforeseen problems, and listed Australia as one country which could step in.
> 
> Asked if England or Australia were fall-back options should the South African organisation falter, Blatter told the BBC's Inside Sport programme: "Yes, but there are other countries that are ready to organise tomorrow morning or in two days, or two months, a World Cup. The United States of America, and Mexico, they can do it, Japan, they can do it. They have enough stadia.
> 
> "You say England can do it, and I am sure. Spain, they can do it. There is a lot of countries, but they don't need to be ready."
> 
> The English FA has said they are ready to step in if needed, but their willingness to make themselves available in an emergency is understandable considering Blatter does not favour a European bid for the 2018 tournament.
> 
> FIFA will make a decision on which continent stages the event later this year but Blatter favours a World Cup in Asia, which could include Australia now they are part of the Asian Confederation.
> 
> "Personally, I think that we should maintain a rotation," Blatter said.
> 
> "At least with four continents. To take North and South America as one continent, Europe, Africa and Asia. This would mean that the next World Cup after 2014 would go to Asia."
> 
> Copyright (c) 2007 Press Association
> 
> Personally, i wouldn't want it here in 2010, i'd rather wait til we have the correct stadia & not have to use cricket stadiums at some cities.


Wezza mate, where was this reported? If he did mention Australia, I'm surprised Reuters didn't mention it. On the other hand, I don't know why anyone would infer that he did mention it if he didn't. Alternatively, Blatter's just answering yes to every question as he tries to gain favour with every nation on Earth...

"Absolutely, I think a Nauruan World Cup bid would be tremendous"


----------



## Gherkin

This was never anytihng official. South Africa will be the most ready out of the 3 countries to host the tournament, with the most modern stadia and facilities. Expect England and Australia to battle it out for the 2022 World Cup. 2018 looks set for Asia now.


----------



## UKR87

Ukraine should get WC in 2018!


----------



## Benjuk

Gherkin007 said:


> This was never anytihng official. South Africa will be the most ready out of the 3 countries to host the tournament, with the most modern stadia and facilities. Expect England and Australia to battle it out for the 2022 World Cup. 2018 looks set for Asia now.


You think? I was sure 2018 was going to be Europe. What has changed? (Has Blatter been talking sh*t again?) 
And if it is 2018 in Asia, the would have to be the Aussies best shot (now that they are, as far as FIFA is concerned, an Asian nation again).


----------



## Wezza

If 2018 is going to be an Asian country, it would either be Australia or China. If China got it, we'd have NO chance in 2022 we're in the AFC now as well, not a hope in hell that AFC will get 2 world cups in a row.


----------



## Benjuk

Been google-newsing some old articles - I can see an Aussie bid falling apart as Victoria and NSW argue over who hosts the final!

Are any of our American friends able to comment on if there were any such problems in the US pre1994 Finals (New York arguing with LA for example?)


----------



## Benjuk

Gherkin007 said:


> On an interview for 'Inside Sport' last night (BBC1), FIFA president announced he wanted to continue the rotation policy for continents, so pretty much confirmed that the 2018 World Cup would go to Asia... So China looks the best bet at the moment.


I wish the bloke would make a statement one way or the other. Either it's back to Europe, or it's on with the rotation.

If it IS to be rotated to Asia, then (despite my previous comments), I hope and pray that the Aussie authorities can pull it together - get A-League franchises established a.s.a.p. in Canberra, Townsville and Tasmania - and get some bigger (rectangular) stadiums built in enough locations (as well as sorting out accomodation and transportation) in the next 5 or 6 years so that a bid is 'ready' prior to bidding around 2012.


----------



## Joop20

UKR87 said:


> Ukraine should get WC in 2018!


sure :nuts:


----------



## UKR87

^^Whats wrong with Ukraine hosting WC?


----------



## Wezza

^^
Dude, do you really think Ukraine is capable of hosting a WC? If they are, how come they have to be joint host of Euro 2012?


----------



## UKR87

Wezza said:


> ^^
> Dude, do you really think Ukraine is capable of hosting a WC? If they are, how come they have to be joint host of Euro 2012?


For Ukraine to host such a competition as Euro2012 was too much work with infrastructure and finance so joint bid is a logical step. For 2018 Ukraine would be completely ready with modern stadiums, highways, and hotels.


----------



## Ari Gold

UKR87 said:


> For Ukraine to host such a competition as Euro2012 was too much work with infrastructure and finance so joint bid is a logical step. For 2018 Ukraine would be completely ready with modern stadiums, highways, and hotels.


So would another half dozen to 9 other countries.


----------



## Benjuk

UKR87 said:


> For Ukraine to host such a competition as Euro2012 was too much work with infrastructure and finance so joint bid is a logical step. For 2018 Ukraine would be completely ready with modern stadiums, highways, and hotels.


By 2018, assuming FIFA do opt for Europe, and assuming Ukraine can be ready, they will be in competition with England, Spain, probably Poland, Russia, Portugal and Holland too.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

I doubt FIFA would go for Ukrain or Poland even if they we're ready, just doesnt seem fair since they will host EURO 6 years earlier and it would be hard to swallow for other countries in Europe. 

If FIFA choose Europe and England bids, then they will get it.
Asia, China or Aus
South america, Brazil

all we can do at this stage is speculate.


----------



## Gherkin

Do you think Australia would compete against China for 2018 if it goes to Asia? I'm sure the Ozzies could blag their way into the Asian continent for the tournament


----------



## ||-GOB-||

Gherkin007 said:


> Do you think Australia would compete against China for 2018 if it goes to Asia? I'm sure the Ozzies could blag their way into the Asian continent for the tournament


Australia is already part of the AFC.


----------



## Gherkin

||-GOB-|| said:


> Australia is already part of the AFC.


That seems very sensible. Australia is the only real footballing nation in Australasia/Oceania so it would make sense for it to join with Asia  I have a feeling that FIFA would prefer the tournament to go to China than Australia, though.


----------



## Mr. Maciek

Screw China they dont deserve it, they're already getting the olympics in 2008


----------



## Ari Gold

Gherkin007 said:


> That seems very sensible. Australia is the only real footballing nation in Australasia/Oceania so it would make sense for it to join with Asia  I have a feeling that FIFA would prefer the tournament to go to China than Australia, though.


Well if South Africa gets smacked 10 nil in the opening game, FIFA might reconsider giving it to a country with shithouse footballers.

IMO 22 WC is Australia's to lose. Get our act together (which we will if needed), and where a shoe-in.


----------



## EllasOle

Mr. Maciek said:


> Screw China they dont deserve it, they're already getting the olympics in 2008


Screw Australia, Sydney already hosted the Olympics in 2000. That is your logic. China would be able to host a great WC and would have incredible stadiums with huge capacities. How do they not deserve the next Asian WC?


----------



## Flogging Molly

Benjuk said:


> I get the feeling that there is going to be a line of clubs (both Sheffield sides, Leeds, Preston/Blackpool, Southampton/Portsmouth/Bristol City, Derby, Nott'm Forest, Wolves, etc.) trying to get extra cash out of the government/FA to bring their facilities up to scratch - I'd like to see the clubs that have got their own sh*t together being 'rewarded'.


What the hell are you going on about? Wolves built thier own stadium unlike Manchester City, Wolves have funded a new world class Training facilty ... on thier own, Wolves have plans to develop the stadium ... on thier own. 

Same as Derby, Preston, Southampton and Portsmouth.


----------



## Benjuk

Kobo said:


> However I would have thought Newcastle to be able to offer more interms of infrastructure and tourism for fans. Newcastle has an international airport, metro system linking the airport with all of Newcastle, Gateshead, the coast and St James Park. Newcastle has fantastic cultural attractions such as the Baltic Centre (one of largest contemporary art centres in europe). The Angel of the North and recently regenerated Grainger town, a distrct in the heart of Newcastle, which blends Victorian & Georgian architecture with modern cafe culture. It also has Europes largest shopping complex in the Metro Centre. Plus a fantastic nightlife which I am sure all the football fans would appreciate.


Can't dissagree that Newcastle has more to offer visitors than Sunderland, but then again, Sunderland is only 20 minutes away from the middle of Newcastle by Metro, 30 minutes by car... I tend to agree that it would be Sunderland as well as Newcastle rather than instead of.

As for Newcastle's expansion - bare in mind no renders were ever released of the expansion plan, no planning permission has been applied for, and a lot of the land they have marked out for building is (allegedly) not available - and that it just happened to be announced as Sunderland hit the top of the Championship table, with nothing but silence since.


----------



## Benjuk

Flogging Molly said:


> What the hell are you going on about? Wolves built thier own stadium unlike Manchester City, Wolves have funded a new world class Training facilty ... on thier own, Wolves have plans to develop the stadium ... on thier own.
> 
> Same as Derby, Preston, Southampton and Portsmouth.


Not intended as a slight toward Wolves or any of the other clubs mentioned. A simple statement of fact - Sunderland and Newcastle both already have 48k plus stadiums, both have proved that when given any level of success they can fill those stadiums, both are currently in the Premier League with new owners, and are optimistic about the future.

With the exception of Derby and Portsmoth, the other teams I listed are not currently in the Premier League, and are well short of the required capacity. Pompey's new ground is planned well short of the 40k required, I suggested at the time they announced it that the plan would be to get the government (whether local or national) to pony up some extra cash to make the venue world cup friendly - I'll stand by that assesment because it would be dumb of any business NOT to take advantage of any outside funding.


----------



## Kobo

Benjuk said:


> Can't dissagree that Newcastle has more to offer visitors than Sunderland, but then again, Sunderland is only 20 minutes away from the middle of Newcastle by Metro, 30 minutes by car... I tend to agree that it would be Sunderland as well as Newcastle rather than instead of.
> 
> As for Newcastle's expansion - bare in mind no renders were ever released of the expansion plan, no planning permission has been applied for, and a lot of the land they have marked out for building is (allegedly) not available - and that it just happened to be announced as Sunderland hit the top of the Championship table, with nothing but silence since.



I have only seen renders of the conference centre and hotels planned as part of this expansion. But never any images of an extended St James Park, hence why I used the photoshop image. Didn't realise they announced this info when Sunderland got to the top of Championship, how cheeky of them. However Newcastle might be planning as Aston Villa are, to expand for the 2012 Olympics, as their stadium is going to be used for the Olympic football tournament.

I would expect that both would be used in potential 2018 W.C as both teams have large fan bases and clubs could afford expansions instead of asking government for money, which I am sure the goverment would approve of. However Sunderlands future expansions are a lot easier then Newcastles. Newcastle can't expand on one side due to listed building, and on the other where they can (Gallowgate end), there is a metor line that runs in that area so makes it trickier.


----------



## b13

I think Canada should bid for World Cup 2018! We did so good in the Gold Cup this year making all the way to the semi-finals facing the USA. We lost 2-1 but the game should of been tied but the line man called off side after we scored rhe tieing goal in the final seconds of the game! We got robbed and everyone knows if you don't believe me go check the highlights of the last goal it clearly shows we were on-side, but then again the USA has to get everything. We also moved up 38 spots in the FIFA rankings. Also the FIFA U-20 World Cup will be help in Canada this year mostly in Toronto and just about all the tickets for each game is sold out, it is said that 95% of the whole event is sold out! Also Toronto recieved a new soccer team this year in the MLS league called Toronto FC which everyone thought would not survuve but to their surprise All the season tickets sold out in 2 months time, and all single game tickets are sold out! Soccer does really well in Canada it's just that too many people think all Canada cares about is Hockey and that is not true! Canada would host an amazing World Cup especially the city of Toronto which is the most-multicultural city in the World! All we need to do is prove that were capable of hosting the World Cup 2018 this summer with Fifa U-20 world cup! Canada for World Cup 2018!


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

b13 said:


> I think Canada should bid for World Cup 2018! We did so good in the Gold Cup this year making all the way to the semi-finals facing the USA. We lost 2-1 but the game should of been tied but the line man called off side after we scored rhe tieing goal in the final seconds of the game! We got robbed and everyone knows if you don't believe me go check the highlights of the last goal it clearly shows we were on-side, but then again the USA has to get everything. We also moved up 38 spots in the FIFA rankings. Also the FIFA U-20 World Cup will be help in Canada this year mostly in Toronto and just about all the tickets for each game is sold out, it is said that 95% of the whole event is sold out! Also Toronto recieved a new soccer team this year in the MLS league called Toronto FC which everyone thought would not survuve but to their surprise All the season tickets sold out in 2 months time, and all single game tickets are sold out! Soccer does really well in Canada it's just that too many people think all Canada cares about is Hockey and that is not true! Canada would host an amazing World Cup especially the city of Toronto which is the most-multicultural city in the World! All we need to do is prove that were capable of hosting the World Cup 2018 this summer with Fifa U-20 world cup! Canada for World Cup 2018!



Maybe I think so...!!
2006 Europe
2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 North America
By FIFA President said!!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> Maybe I think so...!!
> 2006 Europe
> 2010 Africa
> 2014 South America
> 2018 North America
> By FIFA President said!!


Thats just ridiculous tho, Europe cant go 16 years without a world cup, the continent which makes up half the teams in the toutnrament, the continent which is the heart and soul of world football, the best leagues, the best teams, most watched matches on TV, home of UEFA, without which FIFA literally doesn't exist, etc etc.

Another reason why Sepp Blatter is an Idiot.

England 2018 makes the most sense


----------



## b13

No Canada should have it! We deserve it


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

b13 said:


> No Canada should have it! We deserve it


Not particularly


----------



## Benn

With Sepp Blatter and the like running the show certainly would not be suprised (and as an American really hoping) to see the US win the 2018 bid. Everyone should keep in mind how much FIFA loves money, whether you see it is the right move or not (and I can certainly understand alot of Europeans, and especially in the UK having serious issues with this).
Oh and Canada would REALLY need to work on stadium infrastructure and maybe making it into the top 40 or 50 teams in the world if they are going to host it. Gold Cup sure, World Cup is a long way off if it does happen, maybe around 2034 or something.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benn said:


> With Sepp Blatter and the like running the show certainly would not be suprised (and as an American really hoping) to see the US win the 2018 bid. Everyone should keep in mind how much FIFA loves money, whether you see it is the right move or not (and I can certainly understand alot of Europeans, and especially in the UK having serious issues with this).


Were really double damned in that respect, FIFA hates UEFA because they control the richest footballing markets and both FIFA and UEFA hate the FA because they controll the richest league.


----------



## Vermeer

*Deserve?*



b13 said:


> No Canada should have it! We deserve it


It's not what you deserve, that matters. It's what football deserve.


----------



## b13

^ and I think Canada is a nation that loves the ga,e of football but is shadowed by other sports, mostly hockey! Canada is an un-tapped market for Soccer and I can gurantee you that if we were to host the world cup many, many Canadians will come to love the game! Honestly, you should of been in Toronto for last year's world Cup it was CRAZY! Ask anyone from Toronto!


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

Benn said:


> With Sepp Blatter and the like running the show certainly would not be suprised (and as an American really hoping) to see the US win the 2018 bid. Everyone should keep in mind how much FIFA loves money, whether you see it is the right move or not (and I can certainly understand alot of Europeans, and especially in the UK having serious issues with this).
> Oh and Canada would REALLY need to work on stadium infrastructure and maybe making it into the top 40 or 50 teams in the world if they are going to host it. Gold Cup sure, World Cup is a long way off if it does happen, maybe around 2034 or something.


wow... u said : 40 or 50 teams?? but I dont believe it!! 
Uruguay 1930-13teams
Italy 1934-16teams
France 1938-15teams
cancelled 1942 - x team because the war of world!!
cancelled 1946 - x team because the war of world!!
Brazil 1950 - 14teams but off turkey and scotland
Switzerland 1954 -16teams
Sweden 1958 -16teams
Chile 1962 - 16Teams
England 1970 - 16teams
West Germany 1974 - 16teams
Argntina 1978 - 16teams
Spain 1982 - 24teams
Mexico 1986 - 24teams
Italy 1990 - 24teams
USA 1994 - 24teams
France 1998 - 32teams
Korea/Japan 2002 - 32teams
Germany 2006 - 32Teams
South Africa 2010 -32teams
South America 2014 - 32 Teams
*I think guess only*
North America 2018 - 36teams (maybe)
Europe 2022 -36teams (maybe)
Asian (China vs Australia) 2026 -36teams (maybe)
Uruguay 2030 - 40teams for 100years ago from 1930 first
Europe 2034 - 40teams
North America -48teams for finished champion title!!


----------



## Benn

I was saying that if Canada wants to host, their national team should be ranked in the top forty or fifty for worldwide rankings, not that the format should be expanded. The 32 team format is fine, but if FIFA were to expand to 32 or even up past 40 I couldn't really complain, just more world class football to watch.
I have always thought the best format for a tournament is a 64 team single game elimination, but is your team got knocked out in round the travel costs really aren't worth it for most of us, and being every four years there has got to be more games for everyone.


----------



## DïegôLG

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> wow... u said : 40 or 50 teams?? but I dont believe it!!
> Uruguay 1930-13teams
> Italy 1934-16teams
> France 1938-15teams
> cancelled 1942 - x team because the war of world!!
> cancelled 1946 - x team because the war of world!!
> Brazil 1950 - 14teams but off turkey and scotland
> Switzerland 1954 -16teams
> Sweden 1958 -16teams
> Chile 1962 - 16Teams
> *England 1970 - 16teams*
> West Germany 1974 - 16teams
> Argntina 1978 - 16teams
> Spain 1982 - 24teams
> Mexico 1986 - 24teams
> Italy 1990 - 24teams
> USA 1994 - 24teams
> France 1998 - 32teams
> Korea/Japan 2002 - 32teams
> Germany 2006 - 32Teams
> South Africa 2010 -32teams
> South America 2014 - 32 Teams
> *I think guess only*
> North America 2018 - 36teams (maybe)
> Europe 2022 -36teams (maybe)
> Asian (China vs Australia) 2026 -36teams (maybe)
> Uruguay 2030 - 40teams for 100years ago from 1930 first
> Europe 2034 - 40teams
> North America -48teams for finished champion title!!


England 1966
Mexico 1970


----------



## Benjuk

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> wow... u said : 40 or 50 teams?? but I dont believe it!!
> Uruguay 1930-13teams
> Italy 1934-16teams
> France 1938-15teams
> cancelled 1942 - x team because the war of world!!
> cancelled 1946 - x team because the war of world!!
> Brazil 1950 - 14teams but off turkey and scotland
> Switzerland 1954 -16teams
> Sweden 1958 -16teams
> Chile 1962 - 16Teams
> England 1970 - 16teams
> West Germany 1974 - 16teams
> Argntina 1978 - 16teams
> Spain 1982 - 24teams
> Mexico 1986 - 24teams
> Italy 1990 - 24teams
> USA 1994 - 24teams
> France 1998 - 32teams
> Korea/Japan 2002 - 32teams
> Germany 2006 - 32Teams
> South Africa 2010 -32teams
> South America 2014 - 32 Teams
> *I think guess only*
> North America 2018 - 36teams (maybe)
> Europe 2022 -36teams (maybe)
> Asian (China vs Australia) 2026 -36teams (maybe)
> Uruguay 2030 - 40teams for 100years ago from 1930 first
> Europe 2034 - 40teams
> North America -48teams for finished champion title!!


You assume the rotation will continue in order for the finals to be in North America in 2018, then you take it back to Europe for 2022 rather than to Asia... Either the rotation continues, and we have North America, then Asia before Europe, or reality prevails and we have Europe before North America, then Asia.

Personally, in order to maintain the 'standard' of participants in the finals, I don't think the comp will ever get above 36 teams. I think 4 will be added in the near future in order to sort out a few political issues, but no more after that...

However, to contradict myself, when the USA next gets the finals, I actually think they should double the number of qualification spots to 64 as a one off in view of the fact that the US is the only country that could cope with a finals on that scale.


----------



## juanmarquez14

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Thats just ridiculous tho, Europe cant go 16 years without a world cup, the continent which makes up half the teams in the toutnrament, *the continent which is the heart and soul of world football*, the best leagues, the best teams, most watched matches on TV, home of UEFA, without which FIFA literally doesn't exist, etc etc.
> 
> Another reason why Sepp Blatter is an Idiot.
> 
> England 2018 makes the most sense


 with all respect, but i disegree with you. 

the heart and soul of world football?

you have to be kidding me.

worls cups... brazil 5
more times as WC top scorer.... pele 4....brazil
lasrgest number of spectetors.... 174000 maracana...brazil
best player of anytime....maradona....argentina
football club with more international titles.... boca juniors... argentina
most exiting club tournament in the world...copa libertadores... south america

























players you adore as ronaldinho, messi, roberto carlos, kaka, crespo, riquelme, recoba......you could go for a long time...as in mayor clubs in europe the better players in most cases are all south american.

so if anyplace is the heart and soul of football there is not doubt about it
it will be SOUTH AMERICA


----------



## dutchmaster

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Thats just ridiculous tho, Europe cant go 16 years without a world cup, the continent which makes up half the teams in the toutnrament, *the continent which is the heart and soul of world football*, the best leagues, the best teams, most watched matches on TV, home of UEFA, without which FIFA literally doesn't exist, etc etc.
> 
> Another reason why Sepp Blatter is an Idiot.
> 
> England 2018 makes the most sense


The heart and soul of world football is in south america. Europe has money, then bring all of our good soccer players to europeans teams. And the south american teams won the last two FIFA world cup in Japan...


----------



## isaidso

As long as FIFA 2018 goes to a new host country: China, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc. All would be satisfactory choices, but of course I'd like Canada to be the next North American host. The other 2 North American countries capable of hosting have already done so. (Mexico and the USA)

Canada has the population centres and a booming interest in soccer from relative obscurity. Only stadium infrastructure is an obstacle.

There are 10 cities over 500,000 people:

Toronto (5.4M)
Montreal (3.7M)
Vancouver (2.3M)
Ottawa (1.1M)
Calgary (1.1M)

Edmonton (1.1M)
Quebec City (0.8M)
Winnipeg (0.8M)
Hamilton (0.7M)
Kitchener-Waterloo (0.5M)

Other probable candidate host cities Halifax and Victoria both have 400,000 people.

The U-20 World Cup that Canada is set to host this July will be a good test.


----------



## bumdingo

We need to stop focusing on giving World Cups to nations/continents just because it's their go at hosting. Because of the behemoth it is the World Cup can only really be given to Western Europe, Japan/Korea and much as I hate to say it the USA. Africa's to poor and it will cripple any country which needs to focus on health and education before sport, South America suffers from similar problems yet not on such a scale as Africa + all the stadiums are pants, Australia is to far away and would play havoc with tele schedules and Canada I've never even heard of, is it near the Shetland Isles?


----------



## CharlieP

Agreed. If they stuck rigidly to rotation, i.e. each confederation in turn, New Zealand would host the World Cup every 20 years by default.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Psychedelic said:


> The heart and soul of world football is in south america. Europe has money, then bring all of our good soccer players to europeans teams. And the south american teams won the last two FIFA world cup in Japan...


Europe is where football started. Europe is where all the best players come. People watch the European leagues more, without which world football will crumble...


----------



## ccfc-4-life

well said, Europe is the birthplace of football; its rightful home without european football, the sport would be nothing...


----------



## GreenwichSE10

Australia doesnt deserve it..its awful when you have a world cup where the host nation has no passion for the game like USA 94 as the majority of australians dont even like Football.It deserves to be in England..the country which invented and gave the world the game..a world cup in england would be the greatest world cup there has ever been..no nation on earth loves football as much as we do.:cheers:


----------



## Gherkin

There's already aa thread on this! Could this one be merged into mine?


----------



## LVM

El Nacionalista said:


> I want Argentina - Chile FIFA World Cup 2018


only argentina


----------



## Benjuk

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Well it is going to a South American country/countries in 2014, no matter what happens, the only issue is which country/countries in south america is gonna get it.
> 
> But, as you rightly say, there are currently some major problems with the potentials bidders at the moment, especially the main candidate Brazil (just see the other thread in this section entited 'Your prefered FIFA World Cup hosts 2014 & 2018').
> 
> :cheers:


Not quite true. FIFA will award the finals if any South American bid can match the required standards... If, on the other hand, a Brazilian, Argentine, or whatever, bid comes up short - FIFA have already said that they will most likely open it up to the rest of the Americas (in other words, chase the US$).

As for 2018 - too early for Australia. Especially when you consider that the bid would be made in around 2013 - only 6 years away. Transport not good enough, hotel accomodation outside of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, not plentiful enough. Stadiums not up to FIFA standard as FIFA will NOT bend the rules to allow a bid that doesn't meet set standards through (in other words, no double venues for Melbourne, Sydney AND Brisbane, no 'too small' venues, etc.). Most new stadiums are being constructed at around the 30k mark. Adelaide are baulking at bumping Hindmarch (the state's principal soccer venue) up to 25k!

Thoughts of major investment in 40k stadia in either Tassie or the NT are just hilarious. Would work for a month in 2018, then sit half empty for the next 20 years. Simply not worth investing $100m building a stadium that won't be used more than 3 times.

I hope that by 2016/17, the A-League will have expanded, and interest will have continued to grow in the country, providing the basis for extensions to stadiums that will be used - then we can look at a realistic bid for 2022, or 2026.


----------



## b13

give it to Canada, trust me there is a love for Soccer here that is undiscovered! We want it 2018 should go to Canada! Just imagine downtown Toronto bussling with the World Cup, if you only had seen downtown Toronto during last years world cup then you would know what I am talking about!


----------



## pgold21

It's time to go back to Brazil for 100k+ capacity stadiums. Been way too long. Wherever it is, it should be in South America. They could do a multi-country thing like Korea-Japan was if they don't think any one country has the infrastructure. Imagine how crazy a Brazil-Argentina hosted cup could be.


----------



## Benn

b13 said:


> give it to Canada, trust me there is a love for Soccer here that is undiscovered! We want it 2018 should go to Canada! Just imagine downtown Toronto bussling with the World Cup, if you only had seen downtown Toronto during last years world cup then you would know what I am talking about!


If Canada is up for billions in expansion/renovation costs to stadiums that really won't use the added capacity the could conceivably make a bid. Right now Commonwealth and the Rogers center could host games (if not very well) and then you need 8 others. All of the other CFL stadiums will need very serious renovations and expansions. Canada's arenas are up there with any one, but the stadiums are really lagging behind the curve, were talking atleast $100 million a piece at todays prices. FIFA might also have some reservations about most of the stadiums having artificial turf, could be temporarily switched to grass I suppose. And as big as football is in Toronto, elsewhere its not that big. During the '06 cup every bar in Minneapolis was running games and there was legit excitement, Fans in Columbus were gathering at the stadium to watch games on the videoboard, but thats nothing like what was happening in Europe or South America. And the Canadian National team will need to manage better than a world rank of 80 something most of the time. 
Nice thought, I would love to hang out in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal and soak in the atmosphere, but World cup football in Calgary or or Winnipeg? I have a hard time seeing it, even with the Infrastructure in place, thats Hockey country, maybe CFL. The US (or Mexico for that matter) can handle a world cup no questions asked, Canada has a ways to go yet.


----------



## Gherkin

But FIFA knows that football will always be popular in Europe, so is trying to host the World Cup in different countries to promote the sport.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Gherkin007 said:


> But FIFA knows that football will always be popular in Europe, so is trying to host the World Cup in different countries to promote the sport.


That doesn't mean Europe should wait 16 years to host another world cup.


----------



## GreenwichSE10

FIFA are a joke..wtf do they think funds their organisation?


----------



## MoreOrLess

Gherkin007 said:


> But FIFA knows that football will always be popular in Europe, so is trying to host the World Cup in different countries to promote the sport.


The flip side is that if you have too many WC's in non established nations it will loose its importance in the fans eyes compaired to club football.


----------



## b13

Its AlL gUUd said:


> That doesn't mean Europe should wait 16 years to host another world cup.


Why not? Europe is not the only continent that loves football. Africa loves football, South America loves football, and even some North American countries love football. Gove other places a chance to host this wonderful event!


----------



## bumdingo

juanmarquez14 said:


> with all respect, but i disegree with you.
> 
> the heart and soul of world football?
> 
> you have to be kidding me.
> 
> worls cups... brazil 5
> more times as WC top scorer.... pele 4....brazil
> lasrgest number of spectetors.... 174000 maracana...brazil
> best player of anytime....maradona....argentina
> football club with more international titles.... boca juniors... argentina
> most exiting club tournament in the world...copa libertadores... south america
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> players you adore as ronaldinho, messi, roberto carlos, kaka, crespo, riquelme, recoba......you could go for a long time...as in mayor clubs in europe the better players in most cases are all south american.
> 
> so if anyplace is the heart and soul of football there is not doubt about it
> it will be SOUTH AMERICA


Boca more international titles because less competition
Largest crowd ever FA Cup White Horse Final, 250,000
England, birth of footbll
Maradona is actually the bloke out of fantasy island who shouted hey boss the plane (only the Argentinians could worship a fat cheat)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

b13 said:


> *Why not*? Europe is not the only continent that loves football. Africa loves football, South America loves football, and even some North American countries love football. Gove other places a chance to host this wonderful event!


Reasons have already been stated, its pretty obvious actually.


----------



## skaP187

Benn said:


> If Canada is up for billions in expansion/renovation costs to stadiums that really won't use the added capacity the could conceivably make a bid. Right now Commonwealth and the Rogers center could host games (if not very well) and then you need 8 others. All of the other CFL stadiums will need very serious renovations and expansions. Canada's arenas are up there with any one, but the stadiums are really lagging behind the curve, were talking atleast $100 million a piece at todays prices. FIFA might also have some reservations about most of the stadiums having artificial turf, could be temporarily switched to grass I suppose. And as big as football is in Toronto, elsewhere its not that big. During the '06 cup every bar in Minneapolis was running games and there was legit excitement, Fans in Columbus were gathering at the stadium to watch games on the videoboard, but thats nothing like what was happening in Europe or South America. And the Canadian National team will need to manage better than a world rank of 80 something most of the time.
> Nice thought, I would love to hang out in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal and soak in the atmosphere, but World cup football in Calgary or or Winnipeg? I have a hard time seeing it, even with the Infrastructure in place, thats Hockey country, maybe CFL. The US (or Mexico for that matter) can handle a world cup no questions asked, Canada has a ways to go yet.


What´s the problem of playing ´real´football in a NFL stadium? most stadiums would be possible for sure. I didn´t have any problems with it in the USA at least and the players didn´t eather. Great stadiums!


----------



## Benn

Nothing is wrong with football playing in an NFL stadium, I never said there was I sad that the CFL stadiums aren't up to the task. The NFL and the CFL are completely different, just as American Football and Canadian Football are different sports. The NFL is a huge in insanely profitable league that play at a very high level. The CFL by contrast is a much smaller league playing at a level significantly lower level, and with different rules. They are closely related, but the fields (a CFL field is good bit bigger and the goalposts are located at the front of the endzones) are different and there are numerous rule differences. There isn't one 40,000+ seater in Canada that in its current form is well laid out for football, Many are in the 25,000-40,000 range with fieldturf fields and very old infrastructure. The NFL has 26 stadiums that could host a world cup game at weeks notice, many that could legally host a final as is. The quality of design and infrastructure in canadian stadiums is my main issue with Canada hosting, I thought that was pretty clear in my earlier post.


----------



## skaP187

If Spain would throw in a bid, England might start to swett, if not, they will get it easely...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

skaP187 said:


> If Spain would throw in a bid, England might start to swett, if not, they will get it easely...


But Spain has hosted it more recently then England, so its England's turn.


----------



## Benjuk

Its AlL gUUd said:


> But Spain has hosted it more recently then England, so its England's turn.


Germany have had it twice since England last hosted...

That said, I still believe the most likely European host would be England.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benjuk said:


> Germany have had it twice since England last hosted...
> 
> That said, I still believe the most likely European host would be England.


The fact that West Germany hosted it in 74 and a united Germany in 06 had alot to do with that I'd guess.

I wouldnt be supprized if the Spainish went for euro 2016 and bartered a mutual support agreement with the FA.


----------



## Benjuk

MoreOrLess said:


> I wouldnt be supprized if the Spainish went for euro 2016 and bartered a mutual support agreement with the FA.


I'd settle for that.


----------



## Gherkin

I've added the two new Liverpool stadiums to the first page in the England bid:

















Can people please post pics of propsoed stadia that I can add to page one! Especially China, as there are plenty of new stadia that are not featured at all.


----------



## lpioe

For Spain you can remove Gipuzkoarena, it won't be built.

But you can add the New San Mames in Bilbao, Cap is 56'000.











There are also plans for the expansion of Estadio Manuel Ruiz de Lopera in Sevilla, the cap is also going to be increased but I don't know any numbers.











The stadium of Sevilla FC is also going to be expanded to 50'000 or 60'000, but there are already two potential cities with 2 stadiums so I guess it won't be used anyways.


----------



## BeestonLad

Gherkin007 you could also update the st james park one and put in that photoshopped pic going around as it will be 60,000 by then


----------



## docker

perth stadium (perth, australia) either 60,000 or 70,000 depending on the expansion. hopefully completed by 2012, depending on how quick the government acts.


----------



## Gherkin

Done and done. Thanks guys! I'm looking for that St. James's Park pic now.


----------



## Kobo

Here are some more stadiums in England that might get put in the 2018 bid. Please add to the 1st page if you want I have no idea how to do that.

Birmingham, expanded Villa Park 51,000 by 2012 for Olympics.

(Its the stand on the left that has changed)










What Villa Park currrently looks like:











Portsmouth, New Stadium 36,000 (hopefully add 4000 extra seats for W.C) built by 2011, costs £600m but this includes redeveloping area and stadium






































Nottingham, Nottingham Forest new stadium 40,000-50,000 built by 2014 cost £40m-£45m


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

wow.... England, Australia and Spain many new stadium!! I very jealous!! I hope i want Belgium/The Netherlands for vote!! :gaah:


----------



## Chimaera

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> wow.... England, Australia and Spain many new stadium!! I very jealous!! I hope i want Belgium/The Netherlands for vote!! :gaah:


Thanks for your support, but it will be hard for us to compete against Spain, England...

I might have explained this before, but what the h*ll.

The Belgian Euro 2000 Tournament Manager, Alain Courtois, is a fierce supporter of a joint Belgian/Dutch World Cup bid for 2018. He now has the support of the Dutch national team manager Marco Van Basten and Dutch prime minister Balkenende. A World Cup 2018 Office recently opened in Antwerp, a Belgian city very popular among Dutch shoppers and tourists. Unfortunately, Blatter doesn't want another joint bid after Japan and South Korea, although you can't compare that to the situation of Belgium and The Netherlands.

There is still a very long way to go:

We need 8 to 10 stadiums. 2 with a 60,000+ capacity.
Feyenoord Rotterdam will build a new Kuip (75.000)
Ajax might expand their Arena to 60,000
Anderlecht (Brussels) wants to move to a new 50,000-60,000 seater by 2013
Bruges has plans for a new stadium with 40,000 seats by 2011
Standard (Liège) will build a new stadium (40,000) by 2012
The city of Antwerp is brainstorming about a common stadium for both arch rivals Antwerp FC and Germinal Beerschot (an idea that goes back more than 15 years already)
And finally, some Dutch clubs like Groningen and Twente also have plans for major expansions.

The most concrete plans for a stadium suited to host a World Cup are to be found in Bruges:


----------



## Gherkin

Kobo said:


>


 Where did you find those images? They are all new to me! I don't expect Villa Park to be used if the City of Birmingham Stadium goes ahead. I'd like more set-in-stone information about the Nottingham Forest ground too before I include it... and there has been no information that suggests the Portsmouth ground to ever expand to over 40,000 so I won't include that one yet. Sorry! Feel free to argue.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Gherkin007 said:


> Where did you find those images? They are all new to me! I don't expect Villa Park to be used if the City of Birmingham Stadium goes ahead. I'd like more set-in-stone information about the Nottingham Forest ground too before I include it... and there has been no information that suggests the Portsmouth ground to ever expand to over 40,000 so I won't include that one yet. Sorry! Feel free to argue.


I havent kept up on recently devolpments that often but last I heard the City of Birmingham Stadium seemed to be dead in the water.

4,000 seats(although I'd guess very slightly less than 40K capacity would not be a massive problem) in a new Portsmouth stadium could probabley be achieved without a major redesign. If it was built then it seems an obvious choice given the lack of alternatives in that part of the country. 

As we saw in Germany were a perfectly good brand new 50K seat stadium was left unused in the west in favour of a much smaller/old one with a track in the east having a good geographical spread is important.

London - Wembley & Emirates
North West - Old Trafford & New Anfield
North East - St James Park & Stadium of Light
Midlands - Villa Park & New Nottingham Stadium
South West - Portsmouth & New Bristol Stadium

Add in another couple of new/redevolped stadiums from Ipswich, Norwich, Leeds or Sheffield plus maybe the Millenium Stadium(espeically if Bristol can't come up with a 40k ground) and I think you've got close to what the FA's ideal bid would be.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

MoreOrLess said:


> I havent kept up on recently devolpments that often but last I heard the City of Birmingham Stadium seemed to be dead in the water.
> 
> 4,000 seats(although I'd guess very slightly less than 40K capacity would not be a massive problem) in a new Portsmouth stadium could probabley be achieved without a major redesign. If it was built then it seems an obvious choice given the lack of alternatives in that part of the country.
> 
> As we saw in Germany were a perfectly good brand new 50K seat stadium was left unused in the west in favour of a much smaller/old one with a track in the east having a good geographical spread is important.
> 
> London - Wembley & Emirates
> North West - Old Trafford & New Anfield
> North East - St James Park & Stadium of Light
> Midlands - Villa Park & New Nottingham Stadium
> South West - Portsmouth & New Bristol Stadium
> 
> Add in another couple of new/redevolped stadiums from Ipswich, Norwich, Leeds or Sheffield plus maybe the *Millenium Stadium*(espeically if Bristol can't come up with a 40k ground) and I think you've got close to what the FA's ideal bid would be.


How many times??!!!:gaah: 

its in wales!!


----------



## MoreOrLess

Its AlL gUUd said:


> How many times??!!!:gaah:
> 
> its in wales!!


It is in a rather unique position though as Wales is politically part of the UK and the stadium itself is now strongly associated from english football. You'd probabley have both westminster and the welsh assembley pushing for it to be used aslong as it didnt represent a handicap to the bid due to the economic benefits it would bring.


----------



## Gherkin

I'd expect the Welsh to welcome the Millennium stadium being used in the English bid! It would be a great boost for hotels/shops in Cardiff, and it's not like it's a long journey from England anyway... at about an hour from Bristol. Still, I really can't see politicians or FIFA sharing the same view though. 

For the record, I'm pretty biased as the Millennium Stadium is an easy train journey from me. I would prefer to watch a match at the Millennium Stadium to any stadium in Birmingham at the tournament, purely due to ease of travel on my behalf. I haven't included it in the english bid because 1) it isn't in England and 2) FIFA are unlikely to allow it.


----------



## Benjuk

MoreOrLess said:


> It is in a rather unique position though as Wales is politically part of the UK and the stadium itself is now strongly associated from english football. You'd probabley have both westminster and the welsh assembley pushing for it to be used aslong as it didnt represent a handicap to the bid due to the economic benefits it would bring.


Nope. It's part of the Welsh F.A., and the Welsh F.A. is very definately a separate entity so far as FIFA is concerned (much to FIFA & UEFA's consternation). Millenium Stadium would NOT be used.

I'm still convinced that Pompey's design has been announced with the specific intent of 'forcing' the authorities to chip in the additional funds in order to expand the design to world cup status...

FA: Why not make it 40k and we can include it in a World Cup bid?
Pompey: We only need 35k for our supporters.
FA: Oh, go on...
Pompey: Well, we'd do it but it'll cost us an extra 20 million and we can't afford that...
FA: How about if the Government and the FA chip in 10 million each..?
Pompey: Oh, okay then, if it'll help the world cup bid (ha ha ha, thanks for the free upgrade!)
FA:


----------



## Kobo

Gherkin007 said:


> Where did you find those images? They are all new to me! I don't expect Villa Park to be used if the City of Birmingham Stadium goes ahead. I'd like more set-in-stone information about the Nottingham Forest ground too before I include it... and there has been no information that suggests the Portsmouth ground to ever expand to over 40,000 so I won't include that one yet. Sorry! Feel free to argue.


Hi Gherkin007, With Villa Park, its going to be part of the football tournament with other UK grounds for the 2012 Olympics. It will be expanded for this and I would have thought it would then go from a Uefa 4 star stadium, to a Uefa 5 star stadium, because its over the 50,000 capacity. I personaly prefer Villa Park to the new Birmingham stadium as it has more history and conforms to the traditional British ground, having 4 different sides.

I also like MoreOrLess, have not heard anything further about the City of Birmingham Stadium. Which might suggest that its not going to happen. However I have read that Birmingham really wants to host the World Championships in Athletics. This could happen in 2015 at the earliest, (doubtful though because of 2012 Olympics) but this would mean a new large athletics stadium for the tournament, with possibly Birmigham City F.C moving into it after. Now this could still be the same design or a new one I don't know. However I know the original design could change shape for football, concerts and cricket. 

With Forests new proposed stadium all I know is from a couple of articles I have read. That Forest want it to be the East Midlands Super Stadium. With initially being 40,000 capacity but rising to 50,000, but it being designed with the 2018 World Cup in mind. Here is the article where I first read about it: 
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2106867,00.html 

With Portsmouths, well it looks amazing, it's set in the city centre by the coast, and it would be a massive shame they couldn't raise it by a few thousand seats for the minimum capacity. It beats the hell out of St Mary's stadium and would be a wonderful addition for our World Cup stadium portfolio.


----------



## Lostboy

I don't think there is anything Politically Correct about doing it that way, it just makes a lot more sense. It will be the first time that it will be hosted in a Traditional Footballing Nation with the Stadiums to make it possible on such a large scale. Make use of a 64,000 Stadium for large in demand games wherever possible, and show off as many cities (regardless of whether they are traditionally touristy or not) and as many stadiums as is practically possible.


----------



## Gherkin

Kobo said:


> However I wouldn't call Bristol a small city, in terms of population Bristol's is bigger then Newcastle's and Sunderland's combined.


Sorry I meant Bristol is a small football city, with no clubs near the top division or capable of attracting 40,000+ crowds. I go to the city quite often and would want tourists to visit it, it's lovely! 

I really expect Sheffield to get a new stadium that both football clubs could share. It's a big city with lots of tourist potential and the new stadium might not need to have temporary seating if the one of the city's football teams is successful enough to attract large crowds after the tournament. 

Does anyone know which is a nicer city to visit out of Southampton or Portsmouth? Which would be most suitable for a WC stadium?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6921154.stm

*England gets Beckenbauer backing * 

Beckenbauer's backing is a big boost for England 
Former Germany World Cup winner Franz Beckenbauer has backed England's hopes of staging the 2018 tournament. 
Beckenbauer, a member of Fifa's executive committee, believes the continental rotation policy should end. 

He told BBC Five Live's Sportsweek: "There is no better country in Europe to host the World Cup in 2018. England is the favourite." 

England are set to launch an official bid next year, and the government has indicated its support. 

Former sports minister Richard Caborn has already been appointed as World Cup ambassador. 

And Beckenbauer, who headed Germany's organising committee for the 2006 finals, believes England have a great chance of hosting the event. 

He added: "The most important thing is to end the rotation and bring the tournament back to Europe. 

"The Premier League at the moment is the best league in Europe and the stadiums are outstanding. 

"In my opinion, there is only one very serious candidate and it is England. 

"I think there is not really a problem to pick a host of the 2018 World Cup." 

Fifa president Sepp Blatter is expected to end the rotation experiment, but he insisted that Europe has no divine right to host the 2018 tournament. 

Instead, Fifa are likely to approve a format which only precludes the continents which held the previous two World Cups from bidding again, which in 2018, would be Africa and South America. 

Despite Beckenbauer's backing, England are expected to face strong competition from Russa and Italy among European countries, while Fifa may choose to give it to an emerging football nation such as China or Australia.


----------



## emreprlk

i think world cup must be held in Turkey.
First of all we love football very much.
Than our country located in two countinents.
Any world cup tournament held in this region of the world.
We have a rich callture.
We are famous for our hospitality.
We are working hard to improve intercominication network.
And we built new stadiums..
Here are the examples

Ataturk Olympic Stadium (82.000 Capacity)









Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium (52.000 capacity)









Ali Sami Yen Stadium (52.000 Capacity) constarction at the point of start









Kayseri New Stadium constraction run on









Izmir Ataturk Stadium (needs to renovated)


----------



## Ari Gold

For all your reasons why the WC 'must' be held in Turkey, their are alot of other reasons why it 'must not' be held there.


----------



## emreprlk

what do u want to mean


----------



## www.sercan.de

WC will go to England :cheers:


----------



## Kobo

Gherkin007 said:


> Sorry I meant Bristol is a small football city, with no clubs near the top division or capable of attracting 40,000+ crowds. I go to the city quite often and would want tourists to visit it, it's lovely!
> 
> I really expect Sheffield to get a new stadium that both football clubs could share. It's a big city with lots of tourist potential and the new stadium might not need to have temporary seating if the one of the city's football teams is successful enough to attract large crowds after the tournament.
> 
> Does anyone know which is a nicer city to visit out of Southampton or Portsmouth? Which would be most suitable for a WC stadium?



Yeah Bristol is a small football city in comparison to other english cities of its size. It would be Bristol City who would get a ground development / new stadium, as Rovers are getting a new ground to share with Bristol Rugby club in 2008. I really want Bristol to be part of this world cup bid, otherwise it just goes to the same old regions of the country. 

At the moment I see sheffield being ahead of Leeds in getting a venue for our bid. I think sheffield also wants to host the commonwealth games in the future too, so maybe a stadium that could accomodate for this.

I have been to Southampton many times its not particularly a nice place, lots of concrete, and 1960's architecture. Although it does have good transport links.


----------



## emreprlk

Always same country. What a boring. take a chance new countries...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

emreprlk said:


> Always same country. What a boring. take a chance new countries...


what are you talking about? by the time 2018 comes around England would not have hosted the WC for 52 years!!


----------



## erteel

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-blatter-wcup&prov=ap&type=lgns



> Blatter says Europe no certainty to host 2018 World Cup, 1st Ld-Writethru
> By CHRIS LINES, Associated Press Writer
> July 28, 2007
> 
> JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- Not so fast, Europe. The president of soccer's world governing body thinks Asia or North and Central America -- including possibly the United States -- could put on just as good a World Cup in 2018.
> 
> "Europe think they are privileged and they should have the World Cup, even in rotation, every third time, but why? There is no written rule they can have it. Other confederations have shown they can organize it," FIFA president Sepp Blatter said.
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> FIFA, which is organized by continental confederations, has been rotating the World Cup among continents. After Japan and South Korea co-hosted the 2002 World Cup, Germany staged for Europe in 2006, South Africa will host in 2010 and Brazil is the only bidder for 2014, which has been designated for South America, meaning Asia or North America, Central America and the Caribbean should get a chance to host the world's most-watched sporting event before Europe does again.
> 
> "When it goes to rotation, the next confederation should be North America or CONCACAF, unless you consider the Americas together," Blatter said Saturday. "This is being studied and is in discussion and it will be very interesting."
> 
> Blatter was in Indonesia to attend Sunday's Asian Cup final between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and said the event had been a "resounding success."
> 
> Asked whether that success would boost the chances of Asia hosting the World Cup in 2018, Blatter said he favors continued rotation between continents. However Europe wants the event to return there in 2018, with England among the leading bidders.
> 
> A decision on the 2018 host continent is likely to take place in November.
> 
> Blatter mentioned Australia, China and India as three nations in soccer's Asian region capable of hosting the next World Cup awarded to that confederation.


----------



## krzysiu_

England won't get WC for sure.


----------



## RobH

krzysiu_ said:


> England won't get WC for sure.


Why?


----------



## Chimaera

Of course I would like to see the World Cup come to Belgium+Holland. But England stand a far, far bigger chance, and is my second choice for sure. It's a logical, natural, sentimental choice: birthplace of football, 52 years since they organised it for the last time, 22 years since Euro 1996. That's a long time, even before the stadium boom of the late nineties. 
True football culture, mixture of traditional and modern stadiums. Not to mention the settings: cities such as Liverpool, London, Manchester...

And yes, why not use more than the needed 10 stadiums? There are 60 matches in a World Cup Tournament...


----------



## hngcm

Rotation should be:

Europe
Rest of the World

2018- England
2022- China
2026- Spain
2030- United States
2034- Italy
2038- Australia
2042- France

or

Europe
Americas
Rest of the World

2018- England
2022- China
2026- United States
2030- Spain
2034- Australia
2038- Mexico
2042- Italy

Africa, Asia, North America, and South America don't have enough nations that can host the WC therefore they don't deserve their own rotation spot.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Sepp Blatter is a total Idiot


----------



## Benjuk

hngcm said:


> Rotation should be:
> 
> Europe
> Rest of the World
> 
> 2018- England
> 2022- China
> 2026- Spain
> 2030- United States
> 2034- Italy
> 2038- Australia
> 2042- France
> 
> or
> 
> Europe
> Americas
> Rest of the World
> 
> 2018- England
> 2022- China
> 2026- United States
> 2030- Spain
> 2034- Australia
> 2038- Mexico
> 2042- Italy
> 
> Africa, Asia, North America, and South America don't have enough nations that can host the WC therefore they don't deserve their own rotation spot.


Europe every other tournament is too much.

I think FIFA appears to have stumbled on the right format -- having hosted a finals tournament a confederation won't be allowed to bid for the next two tournaments.

Realistically, in a straight, non-political bid, it's hard to imagine too many countries being able to rival the major European nations for a football tournament.


----------



## Benjuk

> Blatter mentioned Australia, China and India as three nations in soccer's Asian region capable of hosting the next World Cup awarded to that confederation.


He's pathetic.

China, yes. Australia, maybe. India? Has anyone here been to India in the last 5 years? Vibrant yes. Busy, certainly. But where exactly would they play the games, how would people get around, where would they stay, and how on Earth would the government be able to afford all the work required?


----------



## Benjuk

emreprlk said:


> i think world cup must be held in Turkey.
> First of all we love football very much.
> Than our country located in two countinents.
> Any world cup tournament held in this region of the world.
> We have a rich callture.
> We are famous for our hospitality.


This is not intended as a flame, I like to think the best of people, and all of the Turks I have ever met have been decent people, but -- this is the image of Turkish 'hospitality' that is known outside of Turkey.



> Ali Umit Demir "was right" to stab Leeds Utd fans Kevin Speight, 37, and 40-year-old Christopher Loftus and was "a patriot".
> 
> These were some of the responses from Istanbul residents and workers hours after Mr Demir was sentenced to a total of 15 years for their murders.
> 
> Other residents said he had received a "very heavy sentence" which he "did not deserve".


No doubt there were 1000's of locals who rejoiced at the conviction of Demir, and condemned his actions, but the above kind of reporting is what Turkey is working against around the world.


----------



## Benn

For 2018, either they go with the history, tradition and the most deserving bid and go with England, or they go with $$$ and go with the US. My guess is probably England, but a US with the capacity infrastructure and dollars could get it as well.


----------



## emreprlk

Its AlL gUUd said:


> what are you talking about? by the time 2018 comes around England would not have hosted the WC for 52 years!!


i am not only talk about only world cup. i am talking about general organisation. u'll host olympics for example. i am boring to see same country. germany france usa japan spain etc...


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benn said:


> For 2018, either they go with the history, tradition and the most deserving bid and go with England, or they go with $$$ and go with the US. My guess is probably England, but a US with the capacity infrastructure and dollars could get it as well.


By 2018 I'd guess the $$$ might well be more in England. I'd guess that their biggest rival will be the Chinese, massive opportunity to grow the game their and you know that no expense will be spaired on the stadiums.


----------



## Flogging Molly

The World Cup in 2018 is Englands. The fact Blatter keeps saying this is to convince people FIFA is'nt favoured to Europe and it continues to bring the money in. If nations know the World Cup will be coming to Europe, England will get a free run - no bidding process, less money in the committees coffers and a complete bore result. FIFA survive off World Cup bidding. Just like the IOC.

Infact, Blatter already knows where the 2018 cup is going, and he already knows if it didnt go to England there would be absoluete uproar and will cause massive frictions between the FA and FIFA - FIFA regard the FA as the most important single faculty outside UEFA. They make more money of Englands football association then the FA make off FIFA. They have more to lose then England apart from the money from the 2018 world cup.


----------



## Chimaera

If Blatter wants to be fair (which I do not think is his true intention, he just needs support outside Europe, from the smaller and/or poorer countries) he should give Oceania a separate chance, just like he makes a distinction now between North and South America (or doesn't he?). If one would want to continue with the rotation policy, America should be considered as one continent, as should Europe (including Israel, Russia, Turkey and all the countries that are members of UEFA), Afrika and Asia+Oceania. If it then proves that the continent which turn it is can't make it, they should skip to the next in line... or make an exception and let everyone bid except for those who organized it recently.
Or can you dispose of this rotation system and use other criteria... but which?

Third option is to get rid of all criteria and leave it to a free competition system, where power/influence will be the main factors (to set things straight: I wouldn't feel comfortable with that). But to what extent isn't this already the case?


----------



## SkyLerm

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Sepp Blatter is a total Idiot


Totally agree


----------



## BeestonLad

Getting back to the Sunderland issue is there actually any chance of it getting expanded to 64,000? We all know it *can* as it has been built that way. I mean another 16,000 seats when they very rarely sell out at the moment due to the fact they are a yo-yo club and are constantly in and out of the premiership. 20 odd thousand fans in 64k stadium in the championship will just look stupid!


----------



## Lostboy

The way it is designed it could be expanded and reverted with relatively little cost. And since the takeover and new management there have been many more seats sold, and many more when they enter the Premiership next season.


----------



## Bahnsteig4

> Europe every other tournament is too much.


Not really, since Europe's got about 50% of the qualification spots as well.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> The way it is designed it could be expanded and reverted with relatively little cost. And since the takeover and new management there have been many more seats sold, and many more when they enter the Premiership next season.


Didnt they get planning permission to go up to 55,000(adding the second tier to the other end I'd guess) a few seasons ago only to shelve it when they went down?


----------



## Lostboy

That's right, and they say if they are getting sell out crowds this season they'll go through and expand. Because of the way the Stadium of Light is, it is very easy to do at relatively short notice.


----------



## Benn

MoreOrLess said:


> By 2018 I'd guess the $$$ might well be more in England. I'd guess that their biggest rival will be the Chinese, massive opportunity to grow the game their and you know that no expense will be spaired on the stadiums.


I doubt every stadium in the English bud will be 60,000+ seats with 80+ suites and 6,000+ club/business seats, which is where the USA bid starts looking really good to FIFA.
China could throw together a good bid, but the average stadium wouldn't be much if any bigger than a US bid, and a lot of the stadiums would have athletics tracks (the for good 60,000+ stadiums currently all have tracks, and would probably all be included), a US bid would most likely have 0 with tracks. Which has to factor in a little. You're right about growing the game in China though, I see that is being the one big advantage to the Chinese bid (and to lesser extent the US bid over the English one as well).


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benn said:


> I doubt every stadium in the English bud will be 60,000+ seats with 80+ suites and 6,000+ club/business seats, which is where the USA bid starts looking really good to FIFA.
> China could throw together a good bid, but the average stadium wouldn't be much if any bigger than a US bid, and a lot of the stadiums would have athletics tracks (the for good 60,000+ stadiums currently all have tracks, and would probably all be included), a US bid would most likely have 0 with tracks. Which has to factor in a little. You're right about growing the game in China though, I see that is being the one big advantage to the Chinese bid (and to lesser extent the US bid over the English one as well).


I really don't think there will be much difference between them by 2018 the way redevolpment is going in the premiership. You might see a few smaller stadiums host some group games but its likely almost every knockout game would be in a 60,000+ stadium with modern corperate facilties.

One massive advanatge that an English big would have over an American or Chinese one income wise would be that the matchs would be on at the correct time for the european TV markets.


----------



## Benn

The NFL is still getting bigger and fancier as well, for better or worse.
Besides Indianapolis and Dallas facilities under construction, The Vikings, Chargers, 49ers, Giants/Jets all have proposals on the table. 
To my understanding as things are (and will invariably change in the coming years) the respective bids would look something like this:

USA 
Jerryworld 100,000 (with temp seating)
Fedex 92,000
Retrofitted Rose Bowl/Coliseum 80,000-90,000
New Giants stadium +/-80,000
Arrowhead stadium 79,000
Invesco Field 76,000
Dolphins Stadium 75,000
U of Phoenix 72,000 (with temp seating)
Qwest Field 72,000 (with temp seating
Possibly new Viking/49ers/Chargers stadium 68,000-72,000 seats
Average capacity of about 80,500 (would crack the 5,000,000 ticket mark of the course of the tournament)

England 
Wembley 90,000
New anfield 76,000-80,000
Old Trafford 76,000
Stadium of Light 64,000
St. James Park 60,000
Emirates 60,000
New Everton 50,000
City of Manchester 48,000
Possibly Villa Park 50,000 
New Birmingham City or New Portsmouth 40,000-50,000
Average of about 63,400 seats (would be about 4,000,000 over the course of the tournament)

thats a 17,100 seat difference per venue, which is more than noticeable and would definitley be taken into consideration. TV timing goes in Englands favor, but 1,094,400 tickets is a lot more people getting to be in the stands at the games.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Is Togo vs Saudi Arabia really going to sellout an 80,000 seat stadium though?

Plus you don't get the total seats for a WC by multiplying average capacity by the number of games. Somewhere like the New Portsmouth stadium might only host 3-4 group games where as Wembley would probabley get 6-7.


----------



## Benn

No, but Germany-Togo, or Argentina-Saudi Arabia might, and they would be in a 60,000 seater at best in England for that game. And say there is effectively a 700,000 seat difference over the course of the tournament, thats still significant, especially when theres about 10,000 more seats in the semi final and final rounds.


----------



## Sparks

I brought this up in the UK section about the use of NFL stadia.

This is from the requirements of hosting a hosting a world cup govt report

*All stadia have to able to accommodate a pitch that is 68m wide and 105m long. There must be an at least an additional 6m space to the stand to the side of the pitch and then a 7.5m gap behind the goal to the stand. *

American Stadiums could have a problem with this as (NFL) Football pitches are just 48.8m wide. Going by the dimensions of a (NFL) Football pitch there must be at least 12.6m of space each side of the current position of the sideline on both sides. Problems could also occur with the distance from the corner flag to the stand.


----------



## KiwiBrit

I think all this speculation with the USA hosting the 2018 WC are wide of the mark. I Just can't see fifa hosting back-to-back tournaments in the Americas.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Depends on how the FA organise it I spose, the german's made a mistake IMHO in being too PC with even match allocation(2 seeds games for every stadium and all stadiums host at least 1 knockout game) resulting in some big games being in too small a stadium and vice versa.

The difference IMHO is that while the NFL is upgrading from modern stadiums to slightly more modern stadiums the Premiership is upgrading from dated stadiums that needed standing room to reach proper capacity to modern stadiums.

Unlike say China or South Africa I don't see ticket revenue being different enough to be a massive factor. Fifa's desire to grow the game outside of UEFA and the G14's powerbase and the possibility of bigger sponsors would I'd guess be more of a factor although as Kiwibrit says twice in a row in the america's might be pushing it politically.


----------



## ccfc-4-life

this is a list, according to my little knowledge, of the possible 2018 stadium capacities and venues in England, forgetting about whether expansion would be difficult etc. or even possible (hypothetically speaking) keep in mind that the list does NOT take into account the rule of ONE stadium per city, this is simply a list of the 12 probable highest capacity stadiums in England by 2018:

1. Old Trafford - 96,000
2. Wembley - 90,000+ (expansion for WC???)
3. New Anfield - 80,000
4. St James' Park - 60,000-75,000+ (complete bowl)
5. Emirates Stadium - 60,000-72,000 (fill in corners?)
6. New Chelsea Stadium - 65/68,000?
7. Stadium of Light - 64,000
8. New Spurs Stadium - 60,000
9. New Birmingham Stadium - 55,000
10. Villa Park - 52,000+ (55,000)
11. New Everton - 50,000 (possibly 60,000)
12. Notts Forrest stadium - 40,000-50,000+


----------



## Martuh

Benjuk said:


> This is not intended as a flame, I like to think the best of people, and all of the Turks I have ever met have been decent people, but -- this is the image of Turkish 'hospitality' that is known outside of Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt there were 1000's of locals who rejoiced at the conviction of Demir, and condemned his actions, but the above kind of reporting is what Turkey is working against around the world.


Lol. They guy did something with a Turkish flag, wipet his ass or burnt it or something, right? It's not an act against *one* guy who did something in particular but against Turkey. I don't completely say it right but you get the point.

Things that work against England:





































Every country has things working against themselves. BUT, hooliganism is a problem in every country.


----------



## genkboy

full summary of plans in Belgium:

1. *National football centre euro 2000 near tubize*: 
- 5 footballpitches (3 syntetic, 1 syntetic = indoor)
- 1 rugbyfield
- 1 field with natural gras
- 1 trainingzone for goalkeepers
- 1 mini-pitch
- 1 mountainbike track
- 2 tennis courts
- 1 Finnish track
- 1 covered stand with seats in 3 levels (vestaires, rooms for medical 
care, fitness, ...)
- 1 building for youth ( 8 vestaires, 4 vestaires for coaches, 2 
medical rooms, 1 technical room and 1 for material)
- 1 hotel in 3 levels(60 rooms, 2 restaurants, rooms for directors,
swimming pool, shop, room for semenars, auditorium with translation 
cabines , sauna, jacuzzi, ...

This can be very useful for utilisation during a worldcup. Most of this is already executed. Only the hotel isn't.

2. *Genk: cristal arena (25000)*
- 17000 normal seats
- 3000 business seats (17 lodges for 16 persons, 1000 corner seats, 500 
seats in a lounge environment, 800 seats in a 'club' environment). The 
modernisation of this part is done from march till now.
- still 5000 standing places (easily changed in seat stands)
- 1 museum ('goalmine': connection of mine history with football experience)
- 1 bar (eating and drinking): open all time 
- 1 bar for youth (only drinking and snacks)
- 2 bars in corners (only during games)
- 1 fanshop
- overal places to drink and toilets in the stadium. Especially beer (graetest 
beer selling place in belgium: 1million beers in 1 footballseason)
- 3 trainingpitches for pro (1 with stand for 2000 covered seats)
- 3 for youth
- vetaires for pro and youth, referees, fitness like in most stadiums

For a WC bid=> 3th ring in the stadium and changing the standing places in seats will lift up capacity to 35000-40000. There are currently plans for a uge sports and leisure complex with casino, disco,...

3. *Anderlecht and National team of belgium*:

plans for 50000 seats, price= 200 million euro's, multifunctional stadium probably near schaarbeek.

4. *Bridges*:

40000 seats in loppem, plans are on page 30. This stadium will be located near a shopping place

5 *Standard Luik*:

40000 seats = plans are not concrete for the moment

6. *Antwerp*: 

plans for a 40000 seater


Plans for other stadium: modernisation of Sint -truiden (14000 seats with sports hotel, ...=> beginning of execution end 2007), Gent (20000 seats, skyboxes, near shopping place=> beginning this summer), Bergen (13 seats, execution now). This stadiums can be used as training facilities.


Holland:

1. Kuip (75000 seats, now 50000 seats)
2. Arena (60000 seats, now 50000 seats)
3. Philips stadium (50000 seats??: now 38000 seats)
4. Heereneen
5. Utrecht
6. Groningen/ Arnhem


----------



## rantanamo

After the Pan Am games, I wouldn't wish the World Cup on the US.


----------



## antigr12

www.sercan.de said:


> Real will get a new stadium or do you just meant the retraceable roof?
> 
> Before Spain (last 1982) i would gave 2018 to England (last 1966)


i just think there will be some stadium question , whatever it'd be , for real madrid in 10 years , if spain has willing to host the cup or more if the country gets it . At this moment , that's pure speculation . 7 years ago , there was a 120000 seats project :nuts: which was scrapped due to fans resistance to leave bernabeu ( and because of the potential cost  ) .


----------



## BeestonLad

Gillette Stadium (New England Revolution)


----------



## Sparks

Is that a 105 x 68 m pitch above?


----------



## Benn

yup, it was designed for both kinds of football


----------



## MasonsInquiries

i like gillette stadium. has a nice fit to it. it definitely has my vote.


----------



## hngcm

rantanamo said:


> After the Pan Am games, I wouldn't wish the World Cup on the US.


Why is that?


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> Ben, remember the NRL are unlikely to shut down for 2 months either so i wouldnt exactly be locking in Suncorp just yet.
> 
> If FIFA really wanted the WC in Aus, then they will play it in the summer or winter or something. Why would anyone want to come down under and miss their own summer to a cold, wet and miserable day at the G???


FIFA won't 'WANT' the WC in Aus, they'll have to be convinced (and bribed, no doubt) to come here. They won't re-arrange the timing as it would throw out the timing of all the major leagues in Europe (and FIFA ultimately know that it's those leagues that power the football machine). That's why the bid is a virtual non-starter so long as the AFL season is on (unless they graciously agree to limit the comp to certain venues).

I didn't mention the NRL because, in all reality, it's irrelevent on this scale - they influence one major venue, whilst AFL influences almost ALL of the major ones.

Hope the A-League goes off big time this year - big season for Adelaide, create the need for a bigger Hindmarch - and we get a few expansion slots open for next season (Canberra, Gold Coast, Townsville, Sydney 2)... That's the best chance.


----------



## Ari Gold

It doesnt look good for the WC to come down under then does it.
1. AFL will be stubborn when it has to. It will protect its own interests first. 
2. Its friggen winter in June. 4 seasons in one day in Melb. Hail stones in Sydney. Monsoons (sp?) up north. Cold in Tassie. Boring in Adelaide (jks). Middle of no-where in Perth. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
3. China is a big hombre to overcome.

So unless China completly f.cks the Olympics up or the AFL can accomadate this (which i doubt but you never know i.e Comm Games), it doesnt look good.

Oh and Ben, i agree... The NRL is irrelevant. lol.


----------



## rantanamo

hngcm said:


> Why is that?


The US delegation didn't receive the best treatment, which is a huge understatement. I say if they don't want us, then why care?


----------



## dwbakke

lpioe said:


> A possible list for a Spain bid:
> 
> Camp Nou, Barcelona: 98'000 (probably expanded to 110'000-120'000)
> 
> Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid: 80'000
> 
> Nou Mestalla, Valencia: 75'000
> 
> La Peineta, Madrid: 73'000
> 
> Manuel Ruiz de Lopera, Sevilla: 65'000-70'000
> 
> New San Mames, Bilbao: 56'000
> 
> Nueva Romareda, Zaragoza: ~50'000 (I think they want to build a bigger one than the one shown in the first post)
> 
> 
> That would be 7 excellent stadiums, but after these, I don't know which else :? Maybe the project for the new RCD Mallorca stadium, but I don't know the probability of it being built.


After that you're either talking about renovating and expanding some stadiums that are in the 30,000 range now, or building new ones in the 40,000 range.

Possibilities: Riazor in A Coruña (I know there were plans a while ago to expand that were put on hold)? La Rosaleda in Málaga? Nueva Condomina in Murcia? Vigo? Elche? New stadium for Real Sociedad in San Sebastian?


----------



## ExSydney

Juddy said:


> It doesnt look good for the WC to come down under then does it.
> 1. AFL will be stubborn when it has to. It will protect its own interests first.
> .


You make it sound like the AFL has full control over the stadiums they use...I can tell you....they dont....If the MCG want to bid for the FIFA World Cup venue...they will...Anyway..apart from the MCG and maybe the new Stadium WA..I cant think of any AFL venues that would be used.

simply put..the AFL have ZERO influence whether Australia hosts a WC.


----------



## BeestonLad

Lol just noticed I meant to post that Gillette stadium in the MLS thread, not sure what happened there! Never Mind cant be arsed to move it now!


----------



## dwbakke

ExSydney said:


> You make it sound like the AFL has full control over the stadiums they use...I can tell you....they dont....If the MCG want to bid for the FIFA World Cup venue...they will...Anyway..apart from the MCG and maybe the new Stadium WA..I cant think of any AFL venues that would be used.


Probably AAMI in Adelaide, unless Adelaide builds a new stadium.

I think the winter timing will still hurt Australia, though, even if they get use of all the grounds. And they'll have to expand or build new in several other places, because the whole thing can't be played in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.

It should be a close race between Australia and China for who gets Asia's next world cup.


----------



## MoreOrLess

dwbakke said:


> I think the winter timing will still hurt Australia, though, even if they get use of all the grounds. And they'll have to expand or build new in several other places, because the whole thing can't be played in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.


Actually I'd guess it would help as winter condictions suit football far better, compair that to China were temperatures will be around 30 degrees in June/July.


----------



## ExSydney

dwbakke said:


> Probably AAMI in Adelaide, unless Adelaide builds a new stadium.
> 
> I think the winter timing will still hurt Australia, though, even if they get use of all the grounds. .


Its been currently snowing in parts of South Africa and just outside Jo'Burg.

I reckon Adelaide is our biggest hurdle because AAMI is not up to standard...
I would expect our World Cup cities to be...

Sydney-83,000 + 45,000
Melbourne-100,000
Brisbane-55,000
Perth-70,000
Adelaide?-50,000 New Stadium
Canberra-40,000
Newcastle40,000
Gold Coast-40,000
Townsville-40,000

6 Rectangular grounds
3 Rectangular(retractable) grounds
1 Oval ground


----------



## Wezza

dwbakke said:


> *I think the winter timing will still hurt Australia, though, even if they get use of all the grounds.* And they'll have to expand or build new in several other places, because the whole thing can't be played in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.


South Africa 2010 will be during winter.


----------



## Benjuk

ExSydney said:


> Its been currently snowing in parts of South Africa and just outside Jo'Burg.
> 
> I reckon Adelaide is our biggest hurdle because AAMI is not up to standard...
> I would expect our World Cup cities to be...
> 
> Sydney-83,000 + 45,000
> Melbourne-100,000
> Brisbane-55,000
> Perth-70,000
> Adelaide?-50,000 New Stadium
> Canberra-40,000
> Newcastle40,000
> Gold Coast-40,000
> Townsville-40,000
> 
> 6 Rectangular grounds
> 3 Rectangular(retractable) grounds
> 1 Oval ground


Regarding the 'retractable' grounds - Sydney and Perth are two, which is the other? Are we thinking of the new stadium for Adelaide?

I've also suggested before that Perth should be the city with two venues (possibly one in Fremantle if they can convince FIFA that it's a different city), in order to cut down on travel - with two venues they could base a group in WA meaning supporters of England, for example, wouldn't have to jump on a plane to get over to (for example) Brisbane for their next game, etc.

An interesting aside about Melbourne - when the Bracks government finally rubber stamped the new rectangular stadium for Olympic Park, they confirmed that the foundations of the stadium would be set for a capacity of 50k in case of a world cup bid... This suggests to me that they don't expect to be able to use either Telstra Dome (which will be owned by the AFL by 2018) or the MCG (which is under contract to the AFL throughout the regular season, and has fiercely defended it's contractual rights during finals over the last few years).


----------



## dwbakke

ExSydney said:


> Its been currently snowing in parts of South Africa and just outside Jo'Burg.
> 
> I reckon Adelaide is our biggest hurdle because AAMI is not up to standard...
> I would expect our World Cup cities to be...
> 
> Sydney-83,000 + 45,000
> Melbourne-100,000
> Brisbane-55,000
> Perth-70,000
> Adelaide?-50,000 New Stadium
> Canberra-40,000
> Newcastle40,000
> Gold Coast-40,000
> Townsville-40,000
> 
> 6 Rectangular grounds
> 3 Rectangular(retractable) grounds
> 1 Oval ground


I feel like they'll want Tasmania to get a host city, too, assuming a new stadium can be built (or drastically expanded) in Launceston or Hobart.


----------



## JPBrazil

I think Turkey deserve to host the WC alone


----------



## www.sercan.de

ITs just an old topic
There won't be a GRE/TUR bid for EURO xy or WC xy


----------



## Benjuk

I still tend to believe that the AFL could, with their media and political influence, derail an Aussie bid.

As you've said, any Aussie bid will have to match the standards FIFA expects - and possibly would have to go further because of the distances involved in coming south as well as around the world. Things would have to be near perfect - and those influential in the AFL would do everything in their power to protect their vested interest. They don't control the venues - but they do have an influence over them in terms of long term business...

Say the MCG kicks AFL out for two months, and the AFL plays it's Victorian games at Telstra Dome, shifts others out to the Gold Coast, Tasmania, Canberra, etc., and it works... The AFL could screw the MCG over future deals on the grounds that they no longer 'need' the G.

It's all hypothetical though, the bid will fall apart based on the lack of quality venues away from Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne... At best, reality suggests 40k venues will be present in Perth and Adelaide. That still leaves Australia short of 2 venues (at least, as we don't know what FIFA will want by 2018/2022). Will there ever be a need for a 40k rectangular venue in Newcastle, on the Gold Coast, Townsville, Geelong, Hobart, etc? Is there any point in investing in huge venues that will rarely be used post world cup?

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the A-League grows and by 2015 we've got a dozen clubs that need big stadia PRIOR to any major bid.


----------



## Gherkin

The 82,000 seater Twickenham stadium in London looks gorgeous in this picture. It's such a shame it would never be included in the English bid:


----------



## Ari Gold

ExSydney said:


> You have to be kidding.....
> You really think FIFA have thoughts about the AFL and their needs if Australia bid for a World Cup????
> 
> I have got news for you....FIFA dont give a rats about the AFL and thats even if they knew who the AFL are!


WTF are you on about?? Do i know who the AFL are?? Pffffffffffff. Do you?
And iv got news to you. The AFL dont give a rats arse about FIFA. They are easily the most popular sport in Australia and are continuing to grow big time.



> Fact:
> If Australia wish to bid they must
> -Hold the WC in June/July
> -Have access to at least 8 of the best stadiums in the country.
> -plus many other requirements too many to list
> 
> If Australia dont meet the requirements...then..we dont bid..Simple as that..and FIFA award it to a country that wants it.


Iv said over and over again that our bid does not stack up.
1. AFL wont '**** up' 1 whole season (no way in hell AFL will be played in Summer) to accomodate its rival code.
2. Who the hell wants to come to Australia in winter?
3. We just dont have those stadiums without AFL/NRL support. Perths not getting one unless the WAFC (so essentially Aussie Rules Footy) commit to it.
4. All the other factors.



> This bid would have to be driven by the state governments in conjuction with the FFA..If WA,SA or Vic get pressured by the AFL,then the government would have to tell the AFL to go jump..They dont own the stadiums and most of them are controlled through the state or their events are highly subsidized by the government.(except SA,I believe)


So what the state governments are going to build stadiums for 6 weeks work are they??? Why do you think Perth arent getting anything at the moment???



> Lets take the MCG for example..Lets say the AFL convinced the MCG to back down and Victoria used the Olympic Park venue instead..Im sure that would go down well here in Victoria..Sydney would automatically be granted the best games and Victoria would get Jamacia vs Ivory Coast...


And all those Collingwood supporters are just going to say, 'go ahead mate, just take the stadium no worries'. And thats just 1 set of supporters.



> It wont happen and the Vic government would make sure it wont.


And what about the Vic People?? They are AFL mad remember.



> Could you imagine Australia hostimg the World Cup and at the same time the AFL were playing their home/away games..There would be absolutley no interest in the AFL and the Media would be satuated by the World Cup...Why do you think the AFL and NRL move their season for the 2000 Olympics?


That just wont happen. Thats just like saying... can you imagine the media attention in America if the WC was played during the NFL/ College Football season.



> As I said...the AFL have ZERO influence to Australia bidding for a World Cup.


Ok so fast forward to 2013 (or whatever year the 22 WC bids are), do you think Australia can bid for the WC? Just keep in note that Perth has no stadium. Adelaides is shit. MCG is an oval paradise. Suncorp's not free either.


----------



## emreprlk

[Gioяgos];14618637 said:


> I think best Olympic held in Istanbul. :banana:
> :nuts:


Everybody know that why ioc let olympics held in Athens. ioc took a decision due to first olympics held in Athens. otherwise u wait until forever. your shitty city doesnt rated for olympics.


----------



## Bahnsteig4

Judging by the infantile way that Greeks and Turks behave, FIFA or UEFA would be insane to ever award a tournament to either country...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Gherkin007 said:


> The 82,000 seater Twickenham stadium in London looks gorgeous in this picture. It's such a shame it would never be included in the English bid:


Yeah it is a shame


----------



## Giorgio

emreprlk said:


> Everybody know that why ioc let olympics held in Athens. ioc took a decision due to first olympics held in Athens. otherwise u wait until forever. your shitty city doesnt rated for olympics.


Maybe because Athens has no ghettos. :dunno:
Its hard to win Olympics when your city has a lot of poverty.


----------



## Bahnsteig4

^^ Yup, like Beijing or Moscow or Mexico City. Unthinkable that any of these could ever host Games.


----------



## kinggeorge

matherto said:


> four stadiums in Athens?
> 
> Greece and/or Turkey would do extremely well hosting a EURO or something, but it's clear who the favourites would be for 2018 in Europe, Spain and England. They both have the infastructure, the stadiums, and the money. Any other European bid would be IMO futile.


welll karaiskaki is not in athens but piraeus soo therefore that should qualify as a different city


----------



## emreprlk

[Gioяgos];14666232 said:


> Maybe because Athens has no ghettos. :dunno:
> Its hard to win Olympics when your city has a lot of poverty.


maybe our city has a ghettos but your all city like a ghettoss.


----------



## Arsenal Village MRU

maybe the Sith and the Jedi will merge into one and become friends


----------



## ExSydney

Juddy said:


> WTF are you on about?? Do i know who the AFL are?? Pffffffffffff. Do you?
> And iv got news to you. The AFL dont give a rats arse about FIFA. They are easily the most popular sport in Australia and are continuing to grow big time.
> 
> 
> Iv said over and over again that our bid does not stack up.
> 1. AFL wont '**** up' 1 whole season (no way in hell AFL will be played in Summer) to accomodate its rival code.
> 2. Who the hell wants to come to Australia in winter?
> 3. We just dont have those stadiums without AFL/NRL support. Perths not getting one unless the WAFC (so essentially Aussie Rules Footy) commit to it.
> 4. All the other factors.
> 
> 
> So what the state governments are going to build stadiums for 6 weeks work are they??? Why do you think Perth arent getting anything at the moment???
> 
> 
> And all those Collingwood supporters are just going to say, 'go ahead mate, just take the stadium no worries'. And thats just 1 set of supporters.
> 
> 
> And what about the Vic People?? They are AFL mad remember.
> 
> 
> That just wont happen. Thats just like saying... can you imagine the media attention in America if the WC was played during the NFL/ College Football season.
> 
> 
> Ok so fast forward to 2013 (or whatever year the 22 WC bids are), do you think Australia can bid for the WC? Just keep in note that Perth has no stadium. Adelaides is shit. MCG is an oval paradise. Suncorp's not free either.


The AFL wont waste a season,they would just have to have a 1 month break....they just have to get over it...Simple as that....Sure they can probably continue playing,but nobody would give a crap,especially half the Australian population in the Northern states that dont give a crap anyway about the game.Saying that,transport,logistics would be all focused on world Cup visitors.

As for Perth,If they dont want to build a decent stadium and/or host a World Cup game..Fine..We bid without Perth...NSW,Qld,Vic and SA state premiers have all mentioned one way or another that they want their state involved with any World Cup bid in a big way,with even fighting between NSW and Vic on who hosts the final.

As for Winter in Australia...umm..it is a winter sport and played generally in much colder and worse conditions every year round that Australia can ever muster.
Winter time in Australia is not even an issue and never has been an issue for FIFA.

As I said....I still cannot see how the AFL can derail a World Cup bid..What they going to say ..."Dont play in "our" stadiums!!!!...or we.....umm...we never play their again.....yeh right....no AFL at the MCG ......It wont happen.


----------



## skaP187

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Yeah it is a shame


no it´s not! gives the Netherlands a better chance!


----------



## GEwinnen

*2018 not in England?*

_FIFA’s Jack Warner not too excited about England’s 2018 World Cup Bid


On Thursday the president of Concacaf made it clear in no uncertain terms that he doesn’t want the 2018 World Cup to be held in England.
“If the World Cup were to go to Europe, I’m quite sure, with the English luck as it is, they won’t get it,” Warner told BBC World Service.

“There are moves to give it to England. I must fight that.”

Warner, a member of the world football body’s executive committee since 1983, added: “It will be Italy, Spain, or even France who will get the World Cup if it goes to Europe.

“Nobody in Europe likes England. England invented the sport but has never made any impact on world football.”_


Don't worry, England, Blatter wasn't excited about Germany 2006


----------



## GEwinnen

ExSydney said:


> The AFL wont waste a season,they would just have to have a 1 month break....n.



One month break will be not enough.
The german clubs had to hand out the stadiums to the Fifa 4 weeks before the World Cup .


----------



## Latino177

U Forget some other Stadiums In mexico like 5 more Maybe mexico could be the 2018 Wrold cup


----------



## GEwinnen

Latino177 said:


> U Forget some other Stadiums In mexico like 5 more Maybe mexico could be the 2018 Wrold cup


two World Cups in a row in America? No, it will be 2018 in Europe, no doubts about this!


----------



## ExSydney

GEwinnen said:


> One month break will be not enough.
> The german clubs had to hand out the stadiums to the Fifa 4 weeks before the World Cup .


I meant the AFL had to break for 1 month.I understand that WC venues need 2 months,but the AFL could still play at other venues for 1 month.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

why dig up such an old thread?:dunno: 

there are more recent ones


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

this is the football world cup right? not the world athletics championships


----------



## tiger

I don't care.


----------



## ivan_1984

Stadiums in China:

Beijing Olympic Stadium (91.000)
Guangdong Olympic Stadium (80.012)
Shanghai Stadium (80.000)
Shenyang Sports Center (70.000)
Nanjing Olympic Sports Center (60.000)
Tianjin Olympic Sports Center (60.000)
Wuhan Stadium (60.000)
Yizhong Center in Quindao (60.000)
Chonqing Olympic Sports Centre (58.680)
Changsha Helong Stadium (55.000)
Yellow Dragon Stadium in Hangzhou (48.000)


----------



## krudmonk

Running tracks are like streetfront parking lots...


----------



## uno

China should make a temporary seat over athletics track.


I think China has many good stadiums better and bigger than some countries in western.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

Running tracks have not been an issue at the 2006 World Cup. Unless you are sitting in the first 5 or so rows its not too much of an issue. The 1966 had a running track around Wembley and that wasn't a problem, nor was it a problem at Berlin in 2006. If you could actually score a ticket to a World Cup match, why would you whine about something as trivial as a running track? Diving players is a far bigger problem than that.

The World Cup could well go to China in 2018, no reason why it wouldn't, in fact they are probably more on FIFA's agenda than England.

The problem with having a Cup in England is the over inflated prices. Devalue the pound and we'll consider you.

Also why would FIFA wish to preach to the converted when there is this great expanse of humanity known as China?


----------



## -Corey-

marrio415 said:


> i agree nice stadia but you cannot keep the world cup away from europe for that long sorry but it's englands turn 2018


Sorry but the US will host the 2018 WC


----------



## Benn

I kind of doubt it, but heres hoping


----------



## Red85

what are they going to build in Shanghai then? 'cause no way that the stadium on the pics can host 80.000 people sitting on a desent chair. tarraces are not allowed in the WC


----------



## skaP187

alex537 said:


> Sorry but the US will host the 2018 WC


No way, Jose!
Spain all the way, baby!


----------



## Benjuk

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Running tracks have not been an issue at the 2006 World Cup. Unless you are sitting in the first 5 or so rows its not too much of an issue. The 1966 had a running track around Wembley and that wasn't a problem, nor was it a problem at Berlin in 2006. If you could actually score a ticket to a World Cup match, why would you whine about something as trivial as a running track? Diving players is a far bigger problem than that.


Agreed on the diving, but FIFA has made it quite clear that in reality they have no desire to deal with that problem.

The issue of running tracks is a personal one, and for me is to do with atmosphere. I went to 6 games at the world cup, at 5 different venues (3 of which had running tracks) - the venue which generated the best atmosphere? Cologne, without a running track (this despite seeing Croatias fanatical fans in Stuttgart and Berlin, and England's hordes in Nurenberg.



BobDaBuilder said:


> The World Cup could well go to China in 2018, no reason why it wouldn't, in fact they are probably more on FIFA's agenda than England.
> 
> The problem with having a Cup in England is the over inflated prices. Devalue the pound and we'll consider you.
> 
> Also why would FIFA wish to preach to the converted when there is this great expanse of humanity known as China?


I know it's a pain in the backside for those outside Europe, but the reality is that the majority of tv and advertising money comes from Europe, the majority of teams in the comp come from Europe, and the majority of the world's travelling supporters are from Europe, add history, etc., and there's little chance of the finals staying out of Europe for a third tournament.

I'm 99% sure FIFA will go back to Europe for 2018, and if they do England would be a very hard bid to ignore as it seems to get better every month (latest being Everton's decision to build their new stadium outside Liverpool, therefore adding ANOTHER 50k venue to the potential bid).

2022 is going to be the most interesting bid for a long time, with one idea being that the finals will be open to any nation world wide, with the only constraint being that the hosts confederation of the previous finals will not be allowed to bid - roll on a battle between Asia (China, Australia), North America (USA, Mexico), South America (Argentina, Colombia) and Africa (Morocco... Libya, Egypt?)


----------



## Wezza

The title of this thread is a tad misleading. It should read "China to bid for 2018 WC"


----------



## Athenax

^^ Right, unless it's confirmed.


----------



## LMCA1990

why was my comment deleted? W/E, here it is again:

"They have the stadia, but do they have the human rights?  "


----------



## Benjuk

lmcm1990 said:


> why was my comment deleted? W/E, here it is again:
> 
> "They have the stadia, but do they have the human rights?  "


There were two threads with the same opening post... Perhaps you posted your comment on the other thread.


----------



## big-dog

^^ again, politics blah blah blah :bash:


----------



## mikeeagle

2018 World Cup will be hosted in Europe. It's a waste of time and money to even think about bidding for it for any nation outside Europe. With being by far the most important market, every second WC should be hosted there.

2022 might be a good chance for China. No doubt they could build some nice football arenas for a WC. But they really have to continue to improve their national team and league. Right now they're really not strong enough.


----------



## RobH

I'd say every third world cup for Europe's about right. I quite like the new thinking in FIFA that anyone can bid except for the previous two confederations to host. Hopefully that will be passed.


----------



## Essierules

Running tracks aren't the real problem...Berlin Stadium held the WC 2006 final match even it's not a pure soccer stadium!


----------



## RobH

When you're up against countries with no running tracks they could be seen as a problem. They're not ideal, let's put it that way.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I want vote China 2018 to host world cup but....China to wait until 2026 to host FIFA World Cup by Hayatou said(FIFA vice president)!! 

2006-03-22 09:25:47 Xinhua English 



BEIJING, March 22(Xinhua)-- China will host the Olympic Gamesin less than two years time. But it may have to wait 20 years to stage soccer's World Cup, according to FIFA vice-president Issa Hayatou.

Hayatou said here on Wednesday that under FIFA's continental rotation policy on the host of the World Cup, Asia could next stage the World Cup in 2026 after South Korea and Japan co-hosted the quadrennial event in 2002.


He said China will have a fairly good chance of winning the right to host the 2026 World Cup if it lodges a bid.


"You have very good facilities, and your economy enjoys a high growth, so you are capable of staging the World Cup," Hayatou tolda press conference.


A 10-man FIFA delegation headed by Hayatou wrapped up a two-daytour of Beijing on Wednesday to inspect the Chinese capital's preparations for the soccer tournament of the 2008 Olympic Games.


But Hayatou added that China's chance also depends on how many Asian countries intend to stage the World Cup.


Nicolas Maingot, an official at FIFA's media department, said FIFA has yet to decide on the sites, or even the continents, for the World Cups beyond 2014.


"For the moment, the only dates which are confirmed are 2010 for South Africa, and 2014 for South America," Maingot told Xinhua. Enditem


Editor:


Wang Nan 


hno:


----------



## Bahnsteig4

> "They have the stadia, but do they have the human rights? "


+1


----------



## snow is red

davidkunz/VIE said:


> +1


Sorry what do you mean ??

I think that people are slowly going off topic now


----------



## GEwinnen

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> *I want vote* China 2018 to host world cup


Are you a member of the Fifa Executive Committee?


----------



## Patrick

http://www.sinaimg.cn/ty/o/p/2007-07-04/U397P6T12D3018532F44DT20070704171009.jpg

wow, how far the pitch is away from the seats...


----------



## LDN_EUROPE

England 2018 all the way.


----------



## bendent

lmcm1990 said:


> why was my comment deleted? W/E, here it is again:
> 
> "They have the stadia, but do they have the human rights?  "



depending on what types of humans darling. for me and many others, of course we do.

lol brainwashed much?

-1 for your comment btw for little relevance and going off topic.


----------



## matherto

Essierules said:


> Running tracks aren't the real problem...Berlin Stadium held the WC 2006 final match even it's not a pure soccer stadium!


J heard FIFA rules state you can have a maximum of 2 stadiums with running tracks for hosting the World Cup.

Germany had two, Berlin and Stuttgart.

They don't want it to be like Japan/Korea whereby nearly all of the stadiums had running tracks.


----------



## The Hunted

^Germany had three stadiums with running tracks.


----------



## carlspannoosh

No one really cares about athletics except during the olympics and maybe world championships. An athletics track in the Olympic stadium is necessary of course, but why everywhere else? You only need track facilities to train. You dont need to wrap a stadium around so many running tracks.The stadiums are for football mainly arn't they?


----------



## Benjuk

matherto said:


> J heard FIFA rules state you can have a maximum of 2 stadiums with running tracks for hosting the World Cup.
> 
> Germany had two, *Berlin and Stuttgart*.
> 
> They don't want it to be like Japan/Korea whereby nearly all of the stadiums had running tracks.


And Nurenberg.

Perhaps the ruling is a maximum of 2 out of the minimum 8 can have running tracks?


----------



## Vegnagun

LDN_EUROPE said:


> England 2018 all the way.


Nope

Holland all the way:banana:


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

GEwinnen said:


> Are you a member of the Fifa Executive Committee?


:lol: :lol: , No....!! just joke!!


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> Ok if the States placed a bid and the NFL was on, would you think there will be a bearing? *Sepp isnt going to ring anyone*. In fact, hes probaly not going to do anything apart from reading out the winner.


Sorry to bring this up again - but - Sepp doesn't have to ring anyone... The bid won't be put infront of the bigwigs at FIFA unless it meets the criteria. It won't meet the criteria if the stadiums aren't available. Availability of the stadiums would be decided between the venue owners, their chief tenants, the FFA, and the state governments. If the AFL/NFL clubs kicked up a fuss, it would be hard to get the venues freed up in order for the bid to go in... Add to that the 'good will' issue - it's one thing to tell the AFL/NFL to like it or lump it if the bid is a success - but if the bid fails (as most do), then you've p*ssed your main tenant off and got nothing in return.

As I said before - get the A-League right, build stadiums for football, THEN bid for the finals.


----------



## Essierules

Don't worry guys, China will build some pure football stadiums if it's confirmed that they will be the host!


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> Sorry to bring this up again - but - Sepp doesn't have to ring anyone... The bid won't be put infront of the bigwigs at FIFA unless it meets the criteria. It won't meet the criteria if the stadiums aren't available. Availability of the stadiums would be decided between the venue owners, their chief tenants, the FFA, and the state governments. If the AFL/NFL clubs kicked up a fuss, it would be hard to get the venues freed up in order for the bid to go in... Add to that the 'good will' issue - it's one thing to tell the AFL/NFL to like it or lump it if the bid is a success - but if the bid fails (as most do), then you've p*ssed your main tenant off and got nothing in return.
> 
> As I said before - get the A-League right, build stadiums for football, THEN bid for the finals.


Exactly.
Why would FIFA want to hear the AFL's whining (valid or not) when China will offer up a next to perfect bid?


----------



## MoreOrLess

carlspannard said:


> No one really cares about athletics except during the olympics and maybe world championships. An athletics track in the Olympic stadium is necessary of course, but why everywhere else? You only need track facilities to train. You dont need to wrap a stadium around so many running tracks.The stadiums are for football mainly arn't they?


In a country the size of China I'd guess 3-4 big athletics stadiums maybe needed but I think the typical reason for many of these stadiums is political PR. If your spending massive amounts of public money on a staduim adding an athletics track gives the impression that its for the benefit of the widest possible section of the community. Of course 90% of the time this is total BS and you just end up with an inferior soccer stadium that rarely if ever attracts athletics events large enough to warrent its track.


----------



## Benjuk

Now, I'm not sorry to bring this one up again... 

I'm getting very parochial about this - how come we have 2 Liverpool stadiums and 2 Manchester stadiums and only 1 in the Midlands, 1 in the North East? Besides the fact that rules would get in the way of the 2 stadiums in 1 city, it's an un-natural collection of stadia geographically - there's not THAT many people in the North West - if both of those cities get 2, then Birmingham and/or the North East should get a 2nd...

Get the Sunderland Stadium of Light (or, if we're ignoring the rules, Villa Park) on there!!

:bleep:


----------



## Kobo

ENGLAND GETS BOOST FOR 2018 WORLD CUP
Read here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7013110.stm


----------



## MoreOrLess

If England did end up bidding for 2014 I wonder if that might have an effect on the Olympic Stadium? The Emirates would be an obvious second London venue but maybe delaying downgrading the Olympic and using it for the WC might help offset some of the cost?


----------



## RobH

Chimaera said:


> I didn't mean that building new stadiums is obligatory now, but simply that from Korea/Japan on organising a tournament meant building new stadiums. Just make the comparison between the newly built stadiums for USA 1994, England 1996 and France 1998 on the one hand, and for Japan/Korea 2002, Portugal 2004 and Germany 2006 on the other hand. Pretty obvious, is it not?


Well, yes, you're pointing out the obvious. But that's a coincidence, not a trend. Or at least it shouldn't be a trend. England will probably need to renovate some stadiums to host 2018, but building new ones just for the sake of it would be stupid; the only exceptions being a possible new stadium in the south west or a possible new stadium in East Anglia.


----------



## Arjuch

*Benelux:*

Feyenoord (Rotterdam) : 70000
Ajax (Amsterdam) : 65000
Anderlecht and national stadium (Brussels): 60000
Club Brugge (Bruges) : 40000 
AZ (Alkmaar) : 40000
PSV (Eindhoven) : 40000 or 50000
Krc Genk (Genk) : 40000
Standard (Luik) : 40000
Heerenveen : 40000
Fc Groningen (Groningen) : 40000
Fc Utrecht (Utrecht) : 40000

Maybe the Koning Boudewijn stadion gets a renovation (Brussels) : 50000
And Antwerp will probably get a new stadium : 40000

^^

We really don't have a lack of stadiums, besides we are small and that is an advantage ...

The only thing we don't really have is something like Wembley.
Maybe The Nehterlands can build a national stadium : 100000 :colgate:


----------



## MoreOrLess

europe! said:


> *Benelux:*
> 
> Feyenoord (Rotterdam) : 70000
> Ajax (Amsterdam) : 65000
> Anderlecht and national stadium (Brussels): 60000
> Club Brugge (Bruges) : 40000
> AZ (Alkmaar) : 40000
> PSV (Eindhoven) : 40000 or 50000
> Krc Genk (Genk) : 40000
> Standard (Luik) : 40000
> Heerenveen : 40000
> Fc Groningen (Groningen) : 40000
> Fc Utrecht (Utrecht) : 40000
> 
> Maybe the Koning Boudewijn stadion gets a renovation (Brussels) : 50000
> And Antwerp will probably get a new stadium : 40000
> 
> ^^
> 
> *We really don't have a lack of stadiums*, besides we are small and that is an advantage ...
> 
> The only thing we don't really have is something like Wembley.
> Maybe The Nehterlands can build a national stadium : 100000 :colgate:


Almost all the stadiums you list either don't exist or are currently much smaller so I don't really see how you can say that.


----------



## skaP187

MoreOrLess said:


> Almost all the stadiums you list either don't exist or are currently much smaller so I don't really see how you can say that.


Almost?
I think all of them!
Still it is a pretty realistic list.
Only Heerenveen and FC Utrecht never said they wanted to extend to 40 000. 
(Only a sponser of Utrecht said it)
In chainge of that you can put Enschede/ FC Twente who did say thing like that and are allready extending as we speak. Not to 40 000 but to 24 500...


----------



## Lostboy

_Why would it be not big enough? Agreed, 26 million people isn't the same as Englands 45 million or Spains 40 million. But why would South Africa or Brazil be big enough, and Holland and Belgium not? The combined gdp of Holland and Belgium is over 1,000 billion, roughly the same as Brazil, and way more than South Africa's gdp of about 255 billion. Moreover, Holland and Belgium have the advantage of short distances between cities and high infrastructure density because they are 'not big enough'._

I never said Benelux wasn't wealthy enough, I just said it wasn't big enough. It's population is too small and your reckoning of England's and Spain's is wrong by 5 million (50 million England, 45 million Spain). South Africa would never have got it had it not been for continental rotation. Whereas England and Spain are talking about hypothetical very large stadiums you are merely talking about hypothetical bare minimum 40,000 stadiums. Spain and England arguably have the number of stadiums already - but not the quality.


----------



## Quintana

europe! said:


> *Benelux:*
> 
> Feyenoord (Rotterdam) : 70000
> Ajax (Amsterdam) : 65000
> Anderlecht and national stadium (Brussels): 60000
> Club Brugge (Bruges) : 40000
> AZ (Alkmaar) : 40000
> PSV (Eindhoven) : 40000 or 50000
> Krc Genk (Genk) : 40000
> Standard (Luik) : 40000
> Heerenveen : 40000
> Fc Groningen (Groningen) : 40000
> Fc Utrecht (Utrecht) : 40000
> 
> Maybe the Koning Boudewijn stadion gets a renovation (Brussels) : 50000
> And Antwerp will probably get a new stadium : 40000
> 
> ^^
> 
> We really don't have a lack of stadiums, besides we are small and that is an advantage ...
> 
> The only thing we don't really have is something like Wembley.
> Maybe The Nehterlands can build a national stadium : 100000 :colgate:


If you want something like Wembley you have to start building immediately to have any chance of it being ready in 2018....


----------



## Arjuch

MoreOrLess said:


> Almost all the stadiums you list either don't exist or are currently much smaller so I don't really see how you can say that.


Those are the stadiums for 2018.
Do you want England to bid without renovations or new stadiums ?
And actually they aren't much smaller,just 10000 seats.


To the others 

Fc Groningen has plans for 40000 ...
And you can put Twente with it if you want ...


----------



## Joop20

Lostboy said:


> I never said Benelux wasn't wealthy enough, I just said it wasn't big enough. It's population is too small and your reckoning of England's and Spain's is wrong by 5 million (50 million England, 45 million Spain). South Africa would never have got it had it not been for continental rotation. Whereas England and Spain are talking about hypothetical very large stadiums you are merely talking about hypothetical bare minimum 40,000 stadiums. Spain and England arguably have the number of stadiums already - but not the quality.



Didnt have time to look up the populations of spain and england, hence my 5 million estimation error  But really, I dont see why a population of 26 is too small to organize a world cup, especially when its purchasing power is high and the countries are wealthy (pretty important when you want to build infrastructure and stadiums i would think). I have to admit that Spain and England would have a bid with larger stadiums, something the Benelux will have to make up with other things, but it's no reason to say that we dont have a chance at all against Spain and England.


----------



## MoreOrLess

europe! said:


> Those are the stadiums for 2018.
> Do you want England to bid without renovations or new stadiums ?
> And actually they aren't much smaller,just 10000 seats.
> 
> 
> To the others
> 
> Fc Groningen has plans for 40000 ...
> And you can put Twente with it if you want ...


They are grounds that "could" be in place by 2018 but I'v seen nothing but weak rumours for most of them.


----------



## Arjuch

^^

But B and N want to hold the cup so they have to ...
and that are the stadiums, maybe you can change heerenveen with another club. Eventually this will be the result.

Are you english ? please post the stadiums who are in the running for your country


----------



## MoreOrLess

europe! said:


> ^^
> 
> But B and N want to hold the cup so they have to ...
> and that are the stadiums, maybe you can change heerenveen with another club. Eventually this will be the result.
> 
> Are you english ? please post the stadiums who are in the running for your country


Wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, St James Park, Villa Park, New Anfield(almost certain to be built but the old one could be used if it somehow isnt), Stadium of Light.

Whats more alot of the possible new stadiums or renovations people are talking about in places like Leeds and Sheffield would be replacing grounds of similar size rather than massively increasing in size.


----------



## Stan

*Sports Agenda - Russia's early lead in the 2018 battle*

England not only suffered a desperate Euro 2008 defeat in Moscow yesterday, but Russia have also seized the initiative in the upcoming battle between them to host the 2018 World Cup.

England have been very circumspect in their planning for the 2018 bid campaign — which is also likely to include competition from Australia and China — not wanting to jump the gun before FIFA decide which continents can bid.

The Government's 2018 World Cup envoy Richard Caborn, who was in the Luzhniki Stadium yesterday, has had only preliminary talks with personnel who might help the England cause.

In contrast, the Russian effort being masterminded by Minister of Sport Slava Fetisob is already up and running, and international bid experts, whom Russia know will give them direct access to the FIFA executive committee voting on the venue, are being signed up.

Russia can also match England's successful 2012 Olympic bid know-how by tapping into the strategic blueprint that resulted in the southern city of Sochi being selected as the 2014 Winter Games site.

Oligarchs like Roman Abramovich, who are closely involved in the plans for Sochi, will be even more supportive in the quest to bring the World Cup to Russia for the first time. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...le_id=488199&in_page_id=1951&in_author_id=345


----------



## Arjuch

^^

It is a pity al those countries want to go for 2018, a world cup in England,Spain or BN sounds fantastic ...


----------



## skaP187

Well hell Russia, why not?
they´ve got the potantial and the hungre to proof themselfes.


----------



## BeestonLad

Well according to world stadiums the only stadium they have over 40k is the one used last night against england that holds about 84k, so theres a lot of work needed to be done


----------



## xXFallenXx

i haven't been following this at all...so i'm really ignorant...but what is the chance of the USA getting this?


----------



## LMCA1990

I think it should go to Australia or Canada. Hopefully Colombia will make a bid for it or for the 2022 cup since so many stadiums have been modernized and expanded this year.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Stan said:


> *Sports Agenda - Russia's early lead in the 2018 battle*
> 
> England not only suffered a desperate Euro 2008 defeat in Moscow yesterday, but Russia have also seized the initiative in the upcoming battle between them to host the 2018 World Cup.
> 
> England have been very circumspect in their planning for the 2018 bid campaign — which is also likely to include competition from Australia and China — not wanting to jump the gun before FIFA decide which continents can bid.
> 
> The Government's 2018 World Cup envoy Richard Caborn, who was in the Luzhniki Stadium yesterday, has had only preliminary talks with personnel who might help the England cause.
> 
> In contrast, the Russian effort being masterminded by Minister of Sport Slava Fetisob is already up and running, and international bid experts, whom Russia know will give them direct access to the FIFA executive committee voting on the venue, are being signed up.
> 
> Russia can also match England's successful 2012 Olympic bid know-how by tapping into the strategic blueprint that resulted in the southern city of Sochi being selected as the 2014 Winter Games site.
> 
> Oligarchs like Roman Abramovich, who are closely involved in the plans for Sochi, will be even more supportive in the quest to bring the World Cup to Russia for the first time.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...le_id=488199&in_page_id=1951&in_author_id=345


Yeah, the Russians are that well organised...I see they still play games on plastic pitches!


----------



## RobH

Well, not being the frontrunner didn't do us any harm for 2012 did it?


----------



## Stan

BeestonLad said:


> Well according to world stadiums the only stadium they have over 40k is the one used last night against england that holds about 84k, so theres a lot of work needed to be done


These stadiums will be opened in 2009:

Spartak Moscow 42000










CSKA Moscow 30000










Zenit St Petes 62000









In 2008
Khimki









In 2012
Sochi Olympic stadium 40000









Plus a dozen more will be built or renovated. More here
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=486660


----------



## Pronaos

lmcm1990 said:


> I think it should go to Australia or Canada. Hopefully Colombia will make a bid for it or for the 2022 cup since so many stadiums have been modernized and expanded this year.


Would they give it to Canada after they hosted to U20 world cup this year?


----------



## cmc

Russia sounds like a good idea...and if they fight for it,they could have a strong bid..


----------



## dwbakke

cmc said:


> Russia sounds like a good idea...and if they fight for it,they could have a strong bid..


A lot of stadium building needs to happen, plus the cities are far apart and the infrastructure is not great. I think they're more likely to get it the next time it comes to Europe after 2018.


----------



## Kobo

PANORAMA TV SHOW ON ENGLANDS 2018 WORLD CUP BID

For those of you who can get BBC 1, there is a Panorama show on monday 22nd October at 8.30pm GMT discussing there 2018 world cup bid. It might be very interesting, and will probably feature lots of aerial shots of the various stadiums  if nothing else. Here is a link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=monday&service_id=4223&filename=20071022/20071022_2030_4223_18468_30


----------



## Sparks

*"Andrew Jennings investigates new allegations against FIFA officials and asks if FIFA ethics chief Seb Coe can expect 'fair play' from the rulers of the beautiful game"*

Seems more like a political scandal type programme.


----------



## FreeToLove

Go Australia!


----------



## Wezza

FreeToLove said:


> Go Australia!


I'd love for us to get it, i can't see it happening by 2018 though. I really don't think we'd be ready. Maybe 2022 is a better shot. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Lostboy

Why on earth would Australia even have a chance at the World Cup? They simply couldn't sustain the number of stadiums required, their population is too small.


----------



## *England*

> We would be doing the English a favour by staging the event so even they would stand a chance of getting in for a reasonable price.


like in 2003 rugby world cup final when england fans paid upto 2 grand a ticket? even at 2000 olympics the brits had to pay hundreds just to see the rowing!



> If you stage it down in Oz, you'll get to see a bunch of matches at the stadium because we have a less people, less density


basically saying you wont fill any of the stadiums and will rely on teams like england qualifying because we have the traveling support



> Bottom line is if Oz hosted the World Cup, it would be 'for the people'


bottom line is you want it purely to qualify for a world cup lol, nothing you have said gives me the impression you care what people want


----------



## Wezza

^^
Wow, talk about reviving an old thread.


----------



## Wezza

Lostboy said:


> Why on earth would Australia even have a chance at the World Cup? They simply couldn't sustain the number of stadiums required, their population is too small.


No one asked for your opinion.


----------



## Benjuk

Lostboy said:


> Why on earth would Australia even have a chance at the World Cup? They simply couldn't sustain the number of stadiums required, their population is too small.


In which case we can rule out bids from Holland/Belgium (comb pop approx the same as Australia) and Portugal.

The reality is that Australia can (and do, sort of) support the (size) number of stadiums required - just not under the conditions required to fulfill FIFA standards (split over 7 cities and empty for two months other than the World Cup games being the real killers).


----------



## Benjuk

i think that's due to the way this site 'links' you similarly themed threads at the bottom of the page... It's easy to hop into an old thread without noticing the dates, and by the time you realise that it's out of date you have already formulated your response... And we all know how hard it is NOT to give an opinion on a forum like this.

At the end of the day, the argument used by BobDaBuilder that staging in Oz would lead to lower ticket prices due to lower demand for tickets is pretty week as (a) FIFA want the games all sold out well in advance, and (b) once you add the price of flights on top of the ticket prices, it isn't going to be cheaper.

For the record, I went to 6 games in Germany 06 and didn't pay above the face value of the ticket for any of them.

That said, I'd love a world cup down here - it's a lot easier for me than flying to Germany, South Africa, Brazil and then England...


----------



## Lostboy

I've already said that the Netherlands/Belguim is simply too small (as well as being a hated joint bid) for the World Cup. Portugal certainly is. It's simply arrogance to think that a country where soccer must be the sixth or seventh sport in unfavourable timezones with subpar facilities, isolated from the footballing world should host just to host it, which is the attitude of many of the Australians.


----------



## Wezza

Wow, nice signature fool. Where's the mods around this place?


----------



## skaP187

Wezza said:


> Wow, nice signature fool. Where's the mods around this place?


Why, is there something wrong with it?


----------



## Vermeer

*Australia - The Netherlands/Belgium*



Benjuk said:


> In which case we can rule out bids from Holland/Belgium (comb pop approx the same as Australia) and Portugal.
> 
> The reality is that Australia can (and do, sort of) support the (size) number of stadiums required - just not under the conditions required to fulfill FIFA standards (split over 7 cities and empty for two months other than the World Cup games being the real killers).


There are two big differences between Australia and The Netherlands/Belgium, as hosts of the World Cup. Australia is a rural area with 25 millions spread over a huge area, while The Netherlands/Belgium has 25 millions on an are of the size of Melbourne with an infrastructure that Australia can not dream about. The Netherlands and Belgium are football countries and can use 12 40+ stadiums after a world cup. Australia doesn’t need a single 40+ stadium for football and your cricket stadiums are not good enough for football. Football will most likely never become an important sport in Australia.

I do not support a Dutch bid. Too much money for a small country.


----------



## invincible

Australia is actually one of the most urbanised countries in the world. The vast majority of its population is concentrated within cities. That's why Australia would struggle with getting enough cities for a WC bid - Adelaide, as the fifth largest city, is twice as large as the Gold Coast, which is the next largest city and has practically merged with Brisbane.

In the state of Victoria, the next three largest cities after Melbourne are all roughly an hour away by train from Melbourne. It's a similar story for Sydney (Woolongong, Newcastle) and Brisbane (Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast). Infrastructure between these cities isn't actually that bad a problem because they are all commuter cities and they all have established road and rail connections. It's just getting between major cities that's hard. But keep in mind the Melbourne to Sydney air route operates on a 15 minute frequency.

The rugby states also have existing rectangular stadiums (whether you count Telstra Stadium is up to you) and I'm sure you'll have a lot of luck convincing them that they don't actually need all the stadiums they've had for years. Melbourne's building a 31,500 (with foundations for 50,000) rectangular stadium and its main tenant is a club which has only been around for two seasons, which has already managed to pull several 40k+ crowds. Telstra Dome has an arguably better rectangular configuration than Sydney's Telstra Stadium but Melbourne Victory chooses to play with the oval configuration to maximise capacity.

Besides, the basketball competition has faded into obscurity and we need another club sport to fill the gap over summer.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Vermeer said:


> There are two big differences between Australia and The Netherlands/Belgium, as hosts of the World Cup. Australia is a rural area with 25 millions spread over a huge area,


Actually Australia's population is'nt that spread out



> while The Netherlands/Belgium has 25 millions on an are of the size of Melbourne with an infrastructure that Australia can not dream about.


About ½ the size of the state of Victoria.
As for infrastructure large Australian cities have more high volume transit than Dutch or Belgian cities. Mind you Dutch and Belgian cities are generally smaller and far more compact. 



> The Netherlands and Belgium are football countries and can use 12 40+ stadiums after a world cup.
> Australia doesn’t need a single 40+ stadium for football and your cricket stadiums are not good enough for football. Football will most likely never become an important sport in Australia.


Eh? Not a single 40k+ stadium for football? Cricket stadiums? Get your head out of your arse.



> I do not support a Dutch bid. Too much money for a small country.


----------



## Lostboy

_Besides, the basketball competition has faded into obscurity and we need another club sport to fill the gap over summer._

Sums up Australian Attitudes to the great game.


----------



## Joop20

Lostboy said:


> _Besides, the basketball competition has faded into obscurity and we need another club sport to fill the gap over summer._
> 
> Sums up Australian Attitudes to the great game.


You are getting abit annoying dear lostboy...saying only negative things about every possible bid that has been discussed here. Surely England and Spain are not the only countries that are able to host a world cup... And why on earth are you against Australians?


----------



## Lostboy

I'm not. China, England, Spain and Russia would all have a decent chance, as would the USA should it bid. The Lowlands and the Australians would not. 

I have a personal dislike for Australians but that isn't why I think they don't stand a chance in hell of getting a bid.


----------



## dwbakke

Lostboy said:


> I'm not. China, England, Spain and Russia would all have a decent chance, as would the USA should it bid. The Lowlands and the Australians would not.


Not sure why Russia would have so much of a better bid than Australia. Both countries have cities that are pretty far apart, and need a lot of stadiums to be built. Australia's infrastructure is actually better than Russia's, but other than that they seem like they're pretty similar.


----------



## Benjuk

Lostboy said:


> I'm not. China, England, Spain and Russia would all have a decent chance, as would the USA should it bid. The Lowlands and the Australians would not.
> 
> I have a personal dislike for Australians but that isn't why I think they don't stand a chance in hell of getting a bid.


Just curious, what's your problem with Australians? I've lived amongst them for the last 7 years and (other than when the Ashes are on) I've not found them to be annoying in the slightest.


----------



## Benjuk

Funny, now that this thread has been brought back to life - I've had a good laugh reading through it, particularly some of the more naive pre-Germany '06comments.

I've also had a good search around on Worldstadiums.com, and my feeling is now that if Straylia ever really wanted to host the finals, they would have to invest in new stadia in the way that South Africa are at the moment - I really don't see how the country could hope to beat off rival bids by doing cheap re-fits of existing stadia and hoping for clearance to use AFL venues.

We'd need to be building new stadiums for Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Newcastle or Wollongong, plus somewhere in Tasmania and somewhere north of Brisbane, in order to have a chance... Not sure the government would bankroll the sport to that degree.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Let's just do well at World Cups for a few years before we sell off the farm to build soccer stadiums all over the countryside.


----------



## Wezza

2022, that's our best shot. Plenty of time for us to pull our finger out before then.


----------



## skaP187

Lostboy said:


> I'm not. China, England, Spain and Russia would all have a decent chance, as would the USA should it bid. The Lowlands and the Australians would not.
> 
> I have a personal dislike for Australians but that isn't why I think they don't stand a chance in hell of getting a bid.


China and Russia cannot make a decent bid at this moment either...


----------



## Lostboy

No but they can sustain a bid, Australia and the Lowlands simply can't.


----------



## Noostairz

Lostboy said:


> It's simply arrogance to think that a country where soccer must be the sixth or seventh sport in unfavourable timezones with subpar facilities, isolated from the footballing world should host just to host it...


this is a very, very fair post.

australians, isn't there also an issue with the world cup coinciding with your afl season (march - august), meaning some of these venues you'd like to use might not even be available anyway?


----------



## KIWIKAAS

^^
not really because he also supports a US bid. Bit of a double standard really


----------



## Svartmetall

Lets put it this way, Germany will be a hard act to follow for any nation. I think a nation with tried and tested ability for hosting large sporting events would be a safe bet, don't you?

I'd like Australia to get it. I think they'd put on a good show especially with the publicity the Socceroos got thanks to their performance in the last world cup.


----------



## Wezza

edennewstairs said:


> this is a very, very fair post.
> 
> australians, isn't there also an issue with the world cup coinciding with your afl season (march - august), meaning some of these venues you'd like to use might not even be available anyway?


It won't be an issue, because if we're bidding, by that time we could have enough rectangle stadia in the country. With Perth, matched can be played at the new 70,000 seat retractable stand stadium, AFL matces can be moved back to Subiaco. With Adelaide, if matches were to be played at football park (god forbid), AFL matches can be played at Adelaide oval for the period. Every other city in the country that would be hosting matches won't have the problem of AFL.

In the case of NRL, the same can happen. There are ways & means around everything. I'm pretty sure the FFA won't let the AFL & NRL seasons get in the way.


----------



## Ari Gold

We dont need to sell the farm to host the WC.

Cities liike Perth need to cater for the Eagles, Dockers, Force, Glory and lesser extent Warriors. Adelaide needs to cater for Crows, Power, Redbacks, United. This can all be solved through multi-use stadiums with extendable seats.

The top end of Queensland is generally a massive buzz for sports and Tassie love their sport as well.


----------



## Ari Gold

Subiaco will be demolished when the new one is built. The land value is massive!!

As for the ability to hold the WC? Didnt people write Sydney off? Ok, now go and look at Athens and Salt Lake and come back to me.


----------



## Lostboy

Don't be idiotic. The Olympics in Sydney were great, but the World Cup is rather different, in terms of scale there are far fewer countries that can host on their own than there are cities that can host an Olympics. To compare the two is ignorant, and just shows Australian contempt for the World Sport.


----------



## Lostboy

_It won't be an issue, because if we're bidding, by that time we could have enough rectangle stadia in the country_

Which ten cities?


----------



## Arjuch

Lostboy said:


> I'm not. China, England, Spain and Russia would all have a decent chance, as would the USA should it bid. The Lowlands and the Australians would not.
> 
> I have a personal dislike for Australians but that isn't why I think they don't stand a chance in hell of getting a bid.


Actually the B and Nl has the greatest chance ...
We have the stadiums and the organisations skills, besides we are the smallest and that is a POSITIVE thing. 26 million people is surely enough and we lay in the centre of western-europe so we are certainly approachable. Nl could do it on their own, Belgium could do it on their own. It is just for the stadiums we need each other. 

So can you please explain me why we wouldn't make a chance!
We have nice stadiums,good transport and a small area. So on which point would we lose ?


----------



## Mo Rush

Benjuk said:


> Funny, now that this thread has been brought back to life - I've had a good laugh reading through it, particularly some of the more naive pre-Germany '06comments.
> 
> I've also had a good search around on Worldstadiums.com, and my feeling is now that if Straylia ever really wanted to host the finals, they would have to invest in new stadia in the way that South Africa are at the moment - I really don't see how the country could hope to beat off rival bids by doing cheap re-fits of existing stadia and hoping for clearance to use AFL venues.
> 
> We'd need to be building new stadiums for Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Newcastle or Wollongong, plus somewhere in Tasmania and somewhere north of Brisbane, in order to have a chance... Not sure the government would bankroll the sport to that degree.


A combination of new and upgraded existing stadia IMO is the best solution. South Africa uses 5 existing and 5 new venues. I think Australia should use 8 venues in 8 cities to host.


----------



## Wezza

MoreOrLess said:


> I don't recall many people being agenst the 2000 olympics and I'v seen very little evidense you'd hold a "better" WC.


Nice spelling.



GreenwichSE10 said:


> australia isnt a football country..you might as well give it to india.


Neither is the USA, or South Africa for that matter........:|


----------



## Lostboy

Of course South Africa is, it is by far their national sport.

And the USA at least was able to provide massive rectangular stadiums and represents a big market.


----------



## Wezza

Lostboy said:


> Of course South Africa is, it is by far their national sport.


Errrr, rugby union??


----------



## MoreOrLess

Wezza said:


> Errrr, rugby union??


While they might not have had a great deal of sucess football does I believe attract much larger attendances than either Rugby or Cricket.

Speculating if a stadium might be built is one thing but just reeling off a list of venues and capacities based on very little is not grounds for claiming a nation could definately stage an event.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Benjuk said:


> Let's tidy that up...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a lot of money to spend on a relatively small sport in this country. I'd love it. I hope the game keeps growing... But if we're up against England, Spain, China, the USA, etc., we haven't a chance.


Sydney-83,000 + 45,000 = Ok
Melbourne-Rectangular Stadium 31,500 + 8,500, Telstra Stadium 56,000, MCG 100,000. Not an insurmountable problem for Melbourne = Ok
Brisbane-55,000 = Ok
Perth-current 42,000 Subiaco upgrade to 60,000 already planned
Adelaide? AAMI = 51,000. Major redevelopment needed or a new stadium
Canberra-40,000 Upgrade - current 25,000 = 15,000 extra needed
Newcastle40,000 -current 26,000 = 14,000 extra needed 
Townsville-40,000 - current 25,000 = 15,000 extra needed
Wollongong = New Stadium


----------



## Lostboy

_Errrr, rugby union??_

Oh I see, your living in the apartheid era still where Whites were considered the only full humans in South Africa. I'm sorry for you my supremacist friend, but that ended a decade and a half ago, and you now have majority rule in South Africa, and the majority, the Black Majority, prefers football son.


----------



## Wezza

^^
Find some attendance figures from the South African Premier League to prove it to me......_son_

P.s. With a sig like that, the only one with the supremacist attitude is you.


----------



## Lostboy

I'm not exactly sure how being pro-humanity makes me a supremacist, but anyone ignoring little taunts like that from you:

It would not be representative to look at South African attendance figures for their league, like all African Leagues most of their players go to Europe where the conditions and the salaries are better and African Teams aren't able to compete, the white dominated game of Rugby doesn't have the world competition that football has so can afford a relatively decent league in South Africa, but there is no doubt what is the country's naitonal sport.


----------



## Arjuch

Lostboy said:


> Do any of those stadiums actually exist with their stated capacities.
> 
> And so many of them would be *bare minimum* as would having only 10. hno:
> 
> What a sad World Cup that would be.


Feyenoord: 70000 +
Ajax: 65000
Anderlecht: 60000
PSV: probalby above 40000

There are rumours that the new capacity of Feyenoord would be 100000!
Maybe England has more above 40 th. stadiums but then the emirates and stanley park are old stadiums. While in B and Nl it are new st.


----------



## Lostboy

10 years old is not an old stadium. How Ancient would the Amsterdam Arena be by then I wonder, son?

The fact is to have a final in only a 70,000 stadium might have been acceptable in 1954 but we live in the modern world move with it or get out of it.


----------



## Benjuk

KIWIKAAS said:


> Sydney-83,000 + 45,000 = Ok
> Melbourne-Rectangular Stadium 31,500 + 8,500, Telstra Stadium 56,000, MCG 100,000. Not an insurmountable problem for Melbourne = Ok
> Brisbane-55,000 = Ok
> Perth-current 42,000 Subiaco upgrade to 60,000 already planned
> Adelaide? AAMI = 51,000. Major redevelopment needed or a new stadium
> Canberra-40,000 Upgrade - current 25,000 = 15,000 extra needed
> Newcastle40,000 -current 26,000 = 14,000 extra needed
> Townsville-40,000 - current 25,000 = 15,000 extra needed
> Wollongong = New Stadium


Without extensive new stadium building, it all comes down the the AFL - Subiaco, AAMI, MCG, Telstra Dome, even Telstra Stadium, all rely on the AFL for a hefty portion of their year by year income... With FIFA's rules on non-world cup use of stadia during the month before, and the duration of the finals, you'd have to:
- convince the two clubs in Adelaide to step down from the 50k AAMI stadium to the 30k Adelaide Oval;
- convince the two clubs in Perth to step down from the 42k Subiaco to the 22k WACA (or convince the powers that be to leave Subiaco in place if and when they build the new multi-purpose stadium);
- the Swans in Sydney to switch from the 83k Telstra Stadium to the 42k SCG
- convince the Victorian clubs to play all Victorian games at TelstraDome, thus freeing up the MCG for the World Cup. Reducing capacity (and earnings potentials) for the biggest games by around 45k.

Beyond AFL, you have to deal with the rugby people to get Suncorp, Telstra Stadium and Sydney Football Stadium games switched to alternate venues for the two month window in question.

Beyond that, you have to convince the state and federal governments that expanding stadiums (or building entirely new ones) in Newcastle, Melbourne (MRS), Wollongong, Townsville and Canberra, is a worthwhile move - despite the fact that they are all unlikely to be anythign like filled after the finals...

God I'm depressed now. It's a long way away.


----------



## Ari Gold

MoreOrLess said:


> I don't recall many people being agenst the 2000 olympics and I'v seen very little evidense you'd hold a "better" WC.


Shit transport system. Shit roads access. Homebush being out in whoop whop. No one will turn up. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Ari Gold

Lostboy said:


> I'm not exactly sure how being pro-humanity makes me a supremacist, but anyone ignoring little taunts like that from you:
> 
> It would not be representative to look at South African attendance figures for their league, like all African Leagues most of their players go to Europe where the conditions and the salaries are better and African Teams aren't able to compete, the white dominated game of Rugby doesn't have the world competition that football has so can afford a relatively decent league in South Africa, but there is no doubt what is the country's naitonal sport.


It would not be representative to look at Australian attendance figures for their league, like all Australian and most Asian leagues most of their players go to Europe where the conditions and the salaries are better and Asian/Australian teams aren't able to compete..........

Your argument sucks.


----------



## Lostboy

No it isn't, Antipodean, it is true. Many African Countries are fanatical about football but their own domestic leagues simply don't get much itnerest they would far rather follow a Premiership Team. The fact is the national sport of South Africa is Football.


----------



## aussiescraperman

if South Africa can hsot it...so can we.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Juddy said:


> Shit transport system. Shit roads access. Homebush being out in whoop whop. No one will turn up. Etc. Etc.


Specifics will always come under criticism, I was thinking more about the broader idea that Australia would not be able to host the games as is being brough up here with the WC.


----------



## GreenwichSE10

yeah but the point your missing is the majority of their population are football mad..most australians have no interest in football at all and deride it most of the time whuilst prefering afl and a pie.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

GreenwichSE10 said:


> yeah but the point your missing is the majority of their population are football mad..most australians have no interest in football at all and deride it most of the time whuilst prefering afl and a pie.


AFL popularity is pretty regional enjoying its highest following in Victoria. The there is NRL which has it's biggest following in NSW and Queensland.
Soccer matches enjoy a resonable following especially in Melbourne. 
Don't make the mistake that because soccer is'nt the national sport that Australians are ignorent of the game. Unlike Americans (in the case of 1994) Australians are very familiar with the game and even when Australia has'nt participated in a World Cup that the number of Australian viewers is till high. You have to remember that Australians generally love sport in general. Interest and knowledge of a particular sport is not confined to the most played ''national'' sports. In contrast European countries are highly ignorent of anything they don't excel at themselves. Try talking to the average continental European about Cricket or Rugby.


----------



## Arjuch

Lostboy said:


> 10 years old is not an old stadium. *How Ancient would the Amsterdam Arena be by then I wonder, son?*
> 
> The fact is to have a final in only a 70,000 stadium might have been acceptable in 1954 but we live in the modern world move with it or get out of it.


About 6,5,4 years or later. Maybe Em won't be ancient by that time but many stadiums are in 10 years old, i hope not for them of course, i like the stadium.

Still the fact is that B and Nl will have new stadiums and England rather old.
Maybe you can show me renovations or new stadiums planned so i have a better view of England's plans


----------



## Lostboy

Well the Germans successfully hosted the final in a stadium (albeit one with a running track of hate) of many decades and a very beautiful one at that.

As for England there can be no certainties of what stadiums but I would say that at least:-

90,000 Wembley still relatively new, huge, awe inspiring.
60,000 Emirates (by no means the second stadium in London, Twickenham is larger (82,000), significantly so, but of course the good people of the RFU hate football, unless enough money was paid).
76,000 Old Trafford (I am only giving its current capacity there is a good chance that it would be 90,000 +)
48,000 - (64,000) Stadium of Light (whilst the capacity is only 48,000 currently if I were to show you a photo of the stadium you would understand just how easily and cheaply it could be converted into 64,000 with minimal effort, rather like putting out extra deckchairs
52,000 St James Park - Could very easily be upgraded to more than 60,000 without even damaging the historic buildings on one side - if this was done, we'd be looking at 79,000, but as someone who loves Newcastle I hope it is not

Remember these are current sizes, whereas all yours so far are projections, don't forget Stanley Park will almost certainly be built at around 60,000-70,000.

I think we'd be looking at 16 stadiums in total.


----------



## The Sage

I'd love it if China or England won the bid. Any of the other countries mentioned would deeply disappoint me.


----------



## Flogging Molly

Its about revnue now. England is the biggest market in terms of sponsorship and current deals that FIFA can currently take for granted. 

After the 2006 fiasco another lost England bid would cause unimaginable tension between the FA, UEFA and FIFA. 

Bad for all of football. 

Lets not forget the Premiership makes up over 50% of all players who particpate in the tournament and Europe 90%. Figues speak for themselves and in the end. Thats all that matters.

Its a one way ticket to England in 2018. Australias bid is based on an ideology that any recent rejected bid for a major tournament gives an advantage the following time round. 

Its how London cleverly planned for the 2012 Olympics making Manchester and Birmingham un-realistically bid before them in the 90's.


----------



## Ari Gold

Lostboy said:


> Spreading football into new, large markets like America, China and India is a very good thing, Australia is small and unimportant though.


Pfffffffffff..... Were more passionate about our sport then China or India. Take about Cricket in India and their a bunch of normal people who work, eat and sleep every day. Take away ummmmmmm.... table tennis and yeah...

FIFA tried to spread into the massive and large market of America as you think and it sucked ass big time. Major flop if anything. If anything... Baseball and NHL (2 of the Big 4 sports) are on the major decline and thats before talking about MLS.

Australia has only had a small taste of it and from what we have seen so far... were heading in the right direction.


----------



## Ari Gold

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Well if FIFA actually took this into account more often then not, then there wouldn't be soo much corruption in FIFA. Having an 'unknown' footballing country hosting the WC every once in a while is fine but 2018 is England's turn.
> Although im sure FIFA officials could so easily be bribed...


I agree with ya.

What shits me though is that people are actually throwing my countrys bid into the urinal before we even actually bid.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> I agree with ya.
> 
> What shits me though is that people are actually throwing my countrys bid into the urinal before we even actually bid.



It's 'cos it's a very hard sell mate. I'd love it to come here but as I've said elsewhere Australia's sporting diversity will most likely kill it.



Now, when are you going to change your name/avatar? He looks much smarter in a blue shirt!


----------



## Benjuk

Lostboy said:


> Mo Rush,
> 
> You are wrong!
> 
> http://www.2018england.co.uk/2018-stadiums/
> 
> Potential Stadia for Englands 2018 World Cup Bid.


Poor site and out of date.

I still think the strength of England's bid is that it could be done on an "as is" basis, with very little work required on the stadiums themselves between the bid and the finals. There will be at least 8 stadiums of sufficient size by 2012, prior to any bid being formally made - and with FIFA going through the nervous wait on stadium completion prior to Germany 06, and now waiting for South Africa to get everything ready, whilst being fully aware that Brazil hasn't even started yet... They might just like a relaxing 4 year build up to 2018, safe in the knowledge that the stadiums are ready.


----------



## Benjuk

Joop20 said:


> 10 stadiums in 9 cities would probably be better, considering Germany used 12 stadiums and SA will use 10 stadiums. I agree that getting a decent amount of rectangular stadiums is key. What can we realistically expect by 2022 in terms of rectangular stadiums:
> 
> - Brisbane (55,000)
> - Melbourne rectangular stadium (30,000 u/c and can be expanded to 50,000)
> - Gold coast (25,000 u/c, at the rate this city is growing they'll be able to sustain a large rectangular stadium by 2022)
> - Sydney footbal stadium (45,000)
> - Its not impossible to assume that Newcastle, Canberra and Townsville will be expanded to 40,000 in the next 10/15 years
> 
> So, 6 or 7 40,000+ rectangular stadiums by 2022 is quite likely. Add to this the multi-use stadiums, and you've got a pretty good list if you ask me:
> - *Sydney Telstra *in rectangular mode (83,500)
> - *Perth new stadium *in rectangular mode (70,000)
> - *Adelaide new stadium* (50,000 - hell, its about time Adelaide gets a decent stadium)



Still works on the basis that current tenents could be tempted into playing their games at smaller venues for 2 months.


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> It's 'cos it's a very hard sell mate. I'd love it to come here but as I've said elsewhere Australia's sporting diversity will most likely kill it.


What is hard to sell? Have you seen the bid??

People (mainly brits) are pi$$ing all over a mythical Australian bid which is kind of sad really, especially when even we concede that a successful 2018 bid is an extreme long shot. But if we're serious about hosting the event we need to put our hat in the ring for 2018 to demonstrate to FIFA how dedicated we are, and in turn should keep us in good stead for future bids.

I'll reserve my judgement if/when it becomes official...



> Now, when are you going to change your name/avatar? He looks much smarter in a blue shirt!


No arguments there...:cheers:


----------



## Joop20

Benjuk said:


> Still works on the basis that current tenents could be tempted into playing their games at smaller venues for 2 months.


True...I'm not into Australian sport rivalries, but I guess there's no chance of the AFL taking a 2 month break in their season for a world cup?


----------



## Lostboy

Whether the site is out of date I don't know, but the rules are certainly not.


----------



## Ari Gold

Joop20 said:


> True...I'm not into Australian sport rivalries, but I guess there's no chance of the AFL taking a 2 month break in their season for a world cup?


Not when 1 of the sports pull the third highest aggregate crowds in the world.


----------



## Benjuk

NavyBlue said:


> What is hard to sell? Have you seen the bid??
> 
> People (mainly brits) are pi$$ing all over a mythical Australian bid which is kind of sad really, especially when even we concede that a successful 2018 bid is an extreme long shot. But if we're serious about hosting the event we need to put our hat in the ring for 2018 to demonstrate to FIFA how dedicated we are, and in turn should keep us in good stead for future bids.
> 
> I'll reserve my judgement if/when it becomes official...


I'm trying to be as realistic as possible. In order to sell FIFA on an Aussie world cup, 'we' have to overcum the distance issue, the timezone issue, and the issue of the nations' footballing reputation (as summed up by the Brit pi$$ing)... That's before the stadiums come into it.

I can't see any way in which the footballing authorities could convince the government of the value of a world cup to the point that they would pay out a couple of billion $ on new facilites in Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong, Townsville, Hobart, Perth, Adelaide, etc. Hope I'm wrong.

For the record, people keep mentioning the capacity of certain English stadiums that could be raised in the event of a winning bid from England... I'd feel a bit cheated if I was a supporter of a club that had self-financed stadium developments, if a rival club got an extra 10-15k seats 'free', or even a new stadium (as the South West is hoping). As for the 'easy and cheap' expansion of the Sunderland Stadium of Light - an extra 16k seats at a cost of around 30 million Sterling. Relatively cheap, but pretty expensive for the sake of 3 or 4 games.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benjuk said:


> For the record, people keep mentioning the capacity of certain English stadiums that could be raised in the event of a winning bid from England... I'd feel a bit cheated if I was a supporter of a club that had self-financed stadium developments,


The difference is a self financed stadium like the Emirates is actually owned by the club were as I'd guess any publically funded stadiums would be owned by the local council meaning the club would have to pay rent. 

Personally I think FIFA are going to be less interested in trying to open new markets in the future and more interested in trying to keep hold of what they have as international football continues to decline in importance agenst the club level. Aside from the Korean's sucess 2002 was IMHO a horrible advert for the WC that gave the impression playered valued club over country.


----------



## Second City

I like England for this one...


----------



## EADGBE

Assuming a 16 venue requirement where no more than 2 venues can be in the same city, what would an England v Australia bid look like?

*England*

Wembley (London)................90,000
Emirates (London).................60,000
Old Trafford (Manchester)......76,000 - possibly 90,000
Eastlands (Manchester).........48,000
Stanley Park (Liverpool).........60,000 - possibly 76,000
New Everton ground (Kirby).....50,000
St. James' Park (Newcastle)....60,000
Stadium of Light (Sunderland)..48,000 - possibly 64,000
Villa Park (Birmingham)............45,000
Elland Road (Leeds)................40,000
Hillsbrough (Sheffield).............40,000
City Ground (Nottingham)........36,000
Riverside (Middlesbrough)........36,000
St. Mary's (Southampton)........32,000
Walkers Stadium (Leicester).....32,000
Stadium:MK (Milton Keynes).....32,000 (would have to be expanded from 22k)

*Australia*

Telstra Stadium (Sydney).........85,000 - could it go back to 115,000?
Aussie Stadium (Sydney)..........45,000
MCG (Melbourne)....................99,000
Telstra Dome (Melbourne).........55,000
SunCorp Stadium (Brisbane)......52,000
The Gabba (Brisbane)...............42,000
Adelaide Oval (Adelaide)...........33,500
Hindmarsh Stadium (Adelaide)....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 16,500)
Subiaco Oval (Perth)................43,000
WACA (Perth).........................30,000 (expected increase, required for WC)
Canberra Stadium (Canberra).....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
EnergyAus. Stadium (Newcastle).30,000+ (would have to be extended from 26,000)
Aurora Stadium (Launceston).....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 23,000)
Dairy Farmers' Sta. (Thuringowa).30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
Skilled Park (Gold Coast)............30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 27,500)
Toyota Park (Cronulla)...............30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 21,500)

Both lists are of course subject to inevitable debate. Yes, there are probably more A-League grounds that could be included, but they would require further increases to get to FIFA's minimum capacity level of 30k.


----------



## dwbakke

16 venues!???! I don't even think FIFA would allow 16 venues.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

^^
Indeed. What a load of bollocks EADGBE.
assuming those were the criteria then we can pretty much cancel out every country in the world apart from the UK, US, China, and Germany. Crap post.
Let's face it. You want it in the UK and nowhere else will do. Full stop.


----------



## EADGBE

KIWIKAAS said:


> ^^
> Indeed. What a load of bollocks EADGBE.
> assuming those were the criteria then we can pretty much cancel out every country in the world apart from the UK, US, China, and Germany. Crap post.
> Let's face it. You want it in the UK and nowhere else will do. Full stop.


Excuse me? I expect a little more decorum than that - or does your avatar represent the orifice from which you most frequently choose to speak?

I only used the figure of 16 because Lostboy mentioned it earlier. I didn't even give it any thought. Having looked at Germany 2006, I note that only 12 venues were used - so you have my _unreserved_ apologies for the oversight.

I can imagine that this may cause you a problem because the only way my list is now valid is to just knock off the smallest four from each (check my maths, 16-12 = 4, right?) and that's, like, so difficult to do.

Yes I'd like 2018 to be in _England_ (not the UK - understand the difference), and - shit - I'm English, so that can't be particularly sporting, can it? Strangely, though, I can't remember expressing a preference either way in my original post so I sort of suspect your final point (if you can call it that) was a little thin on substantiation.

By the way people who use terms like 'full stop' in an attempt to finish their point, implying there's nothing more to say tend to do so to mask their limited ability to construct a cogent argument.

Sound familiar?


----------



## KIWIKAAS

The full stop was not intended to finish MY point, rather to place emphasis on the fact that post (especially from Lostboy) are all engineerd with only one possible candidate that being England. That is what my post was addessing. And as to out of which orifice I speak, that depends on whether you think my opinion stinks or not I suppose.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

EADGBE said:


> Excuse me? I expect a little more decorum than that - or does your avatar represent the orifice from which you most frequently choose to speak?
> 
> I only used the figure of 16 because Lostboy mentioned it earlier. I didn't even give it any thought. Having looked at Germany 2006, I note that only 12 venues were used - so you have my _unreserved_ apologies for the oversight.
> 
> I can imagine that this may cause you a problem because the only way my list is now valid is to just knock off the smallest four from each (check my maths, 16-12 = 4, right?) and that's, like, so difficult to do.
> 
> Yes I'd like 2018 to be in _England_ (not the UK - understand the difference), and - shit - I'm English, so that can't be particularly sporting, can it? Strangely, though, I can't remember expressing a preference either way in my original post so I sort of suspect your final point (if you can call it that) was a little thin on substantiation.
> 
> By the way people who use terms like 'full stop' in an attempt to finish their point, implying there's nothing more to say tend to do so to mask their limited ability to construct a cogent argument.
> 
> Sound familiar?


:lol: i concur kay:


----------



## EADGBE

KIWIKAAS said:


> The full stop was not intended to finish MY point, rather to place emphasis on the fact that post (especially from Lostboy) are all engineerd with only one possible candidate that being England. That is what my post was addessing.


Fine, if you're talking about the general direction of the topic, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Do not confuse that with the fact that when you address a general point to a specific post, you could very well be wrong - like in this case. I wouldn't mind at all if the WC went to Australia in 2018. It's a country that deserves any major sporting occasion. All I was trying to do was compare the two cases. I'm afraid you made the mistake of seeking to read between the lines and finding a message that wasn't there.

There are a lot of over-opinionated, less-than-eloquent posters on here, so I can appreciate you may tire of hearing from them. However, I assure you that I am not one of them.

Thanks.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

^^
Looks like a typical misunderstanding. My appologies


----------



## EADGBE

No worries


----------



## Benjuk

EADGBE said:


> Assuming a 16 venue requirement where no more than 2 venues can be in the same city, what would an England v Australia bid look like?
> 
> *England*
> 
> Wembley (London)................90,000
> Emirates (London).................60,000
> Old Trafford (Manchester)......76,000 - possibly 90,000
> Eastlands (Manchester).........48,000
> Stanley Park (Liverpool).........60,000 - possibly 76,000
> New Everton ground (Kirby).....50,000
> St. James' Park (Newcastle)....60,000 - *52,000 possibly 60,000 if expansion goes ahead*
> Stadium of Light (Sunderland)..48,000 - possibly 64,000
> Villa Park (Birmingham)............45,000
> Elland Road (Leeds)................40,000
> Hillsbrough (Sheffield).............40,000
> City Ground (Nottingham)........36,000
> Riverside (Middlesbrough)........36,000
> St. Mary's (Southampton)........32,000
> Walkers Stadium (Leicester).....32,000
> Stadium:MK (Milton Keynes).....32,000 (would have to be expanded from 22k)
> 
> *Australia*
> 
> Telstra Stadium (Sydney).........85,000 - could it go back to 115,000?
> Aussie Stadium (Sydney)..........45,000 *(now called Sydney Football Stadium)*
> MCG (Melbourne)....................99,000
> Telstra Dome (Melbourne).........55,000
> SunCorp Stadium (Brisbane)......52,000
> The Gabba (Brisbane)...............42,000
> Adelaide Oval (Adelaide)...........33,500
> Hindmarsh Stadium (Adelaide)....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 16,500 - *hedged in by roads and buildings, no way could it go up to 40k*)
> Subiaco Oval (Perth)................43,000
> WACA (Perth).........................30,000 (expected increase, required for WC)
> Canberra Stadium (Canberra).....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
> EnergyAus. Stadium (Newcastle).30,000+ (would have to be extended from 26,000)
> Aurora Stadium (Launceston).....30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 23,000)
> Dairy Farmers' Sta. (Thuringowa).30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
> Skilled Park (Gold Coast)............30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 27,500)
> Toyota Park (Cronulla)...............30,000+ (would have to be expanded from 21,500)
> 
> Both lists are of course subject to inevitable debate. Yes, there are probably more A-League grounds that could be included, but they would require further increases to get to *FIFA's minimum capacity level of 30k*.


It's actually something more like 10 venues over 9 cities, with only one city entitled to 2 venues. Also, the minimum capacity is 40k rather than 30. So more realistically you're looking at:


*England*

1 - Wembley (London)................90,000
2 - Emirates (London).................60,000
3 - Old Trafford (Manchester)......76,000 - possibly 90,000
4 - Stanley Park (Liverpool).........60,000 - possibly 76,000
5 - St. James' Park (Newcastle)....60,000 - *52,000 possibly 60,000 if expansion goes ahead*
6 - Stadium of Light (Sunderland)..48,000 - possibly 64,000
7 - Villa Park (Birmingham)............45,000
8 - Elland Road (Leeds)................40,000
9 - City Ground (Nottingham)........36,000 or
Walkers Stadium (Leicester).....32,000 or
Pride Park (Derby)..................30,000 (one of the three, but only if expanded to 40k)
10 - St. Mary's (Southampton)......32,000 (expanded to 40k) or
Portsmouth's new stadium.....40,000 (assuming they get permission and up the capacity to 40k)


*Australia*

1 - Telstra Stadium (Sydney)...............85,000
2 - Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney)...45,000 
3 - MRS (Melbourne)...........................31,500 (foundations built for 50,000, reasonable to assume they would up it if a bid was succesful)
4 - SunCorp Stadium (Brisbane)............52,000
5 - Adelaide - nowt suitable and nothing planned at the moment.
6 - Multi-purpose (Perth).....................75,000
7 - Canberra Stadium (Canberra)...........40,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
8 - EnergyAus. Stadium (Newcastle)......40,000+ (would have to be extended from 26,000)
9 - Dairy Farmers' Sta. (Thuringowa)......40,000+ (would have to be expanded from 25,000)
10 - Skilled Park (Gold Coast)................40,000+ (would have to be expanded from 27,500)

I live in Oz, I'd love it to come here, but it's really a no brainer for 2018 (which is worrying as FIFA has no brain).

Under the current suggested policy to replace the rotation - a federation can't bid again in the two tournaments after it is host), it would appear to be more than likely that 2022 would be likely to go to the USA as they're just too big to ignore.

2026 would then be between South America, Asia (inc. Australia) and Africa... 

2030 would be Europe again.

So, it strikes me that we've got until about 2020 to get the A-League fully in order - and to build the game in this country, before a hard-to-resist bid could be made for 2026.


----------



## Benjuk

MoreOrLess said:


> The difference is a self financed stadium like the Emirates is actually owned by the club were as I'd guess any publically funded stadiums would be owned by the local council meaning the club would have to pay rent.


But it does mean that the club wouldn't have to find the money to build the stadium in the first place, they would 'simply' have to find the rent money (likely to be very reasonable as the alternative would be to have a magnificent venue sitting un-used) which would more than likely be met from increased revenue through larger gates attracted by the improved facilities.


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> Now, when are you going to change your name/avatar? He looks much smarter in a blue shirt!





NavyBlue said:


> No arguments there...:cheers:



Well name change can't happen until Chrissy period according to Jan and il probaly be too smashed to log onto SSC anyways.
Avator change will probaly happen when i can find a suitable replacement and someone worthy enough of gaining Juddy's glorious picture spot.


----------



## Ari Gold

Ben what you mean by the US are too big to ignore.

Like do you mean it in a negative way because their league stinks (seriously it makes the A-league look like Johan Cruff Perfect football), their national team sucks, crowd sucks and bringing Beckham just proves that people value their money rather then his footballing talents.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benjuk said:


> But it does mean that the club wouldn't have to find the money to build the stadium in the first place, they would 'simply' have to find the rent money (likely to be very reasonable as the alternative would be to have a magnificent venue sitting un-used) which would more than likely be met from increased revenue through larger gates attracted by the improved facilities.


Depends on the terms of rental which might include a percentage of ticket sales and not allow the club to use the ground to earn money in other areas(other sporting events, concerts, food sales, tours, business events etc). If you look across europe the trend seems to be for clubs to move out of publically owned stadiums into self financed ones so I'd guess they provide the better long term income if you have the capitcal to afford them.

The NFL is a very different situation as the teams have the increased barginning power of being able to move elsewhere to negoiate favourible rental contracts.


----------



## Sparks

45,000 minimum will be required by 2018.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

I think one of the main advantages of an English bid would be the use of all football-specific stadiums...i.e stadiums purpoe built for football *with no running track* inside them.

I was listening to a guy on the radio yesterday talking about the 2014 WC, saying how one of the major problems in terms of the standard of the WC would be the number of old stadiums that had just been renovated, stadiums with running tracks round the pitches, which is already an obselete design, an outdated part of a wc. It is becoming no longer acceptable to have them as part of modern WC bids, as they make watching a game pretty poor. Germany set the standard last year, now every tournament after it has to match it and better it.

England could be one of the only (if not THE only) WC's to use all football-pure stadiums, which would be pretty impressive.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Germany set the standard last year, now every tournament after it has to match it and better it.
> 
> .




^^
Germany had running tracks

But yeah I agree. Away with athletics tracks


----------



## MoreOrLess

As far as the age of the english stadiums goes I'd say the likes of Wembley, the Emirates and probabley the New Anfield being a few years old could actually be an advanatge. Beyond giving the surrounding infrastructure(transport, food, hotels etc) longer to devolp its also going to give them the chance to gain a bit of history which I' guess would be a big selling point for an english WC.


----------



## BeestonLad

By the way the city ground is only currently at 30,600 not 36,000 but if they redeveloped the main stand would increase it to 40,000 however the club also have plans for a new stadium of 50,000


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> Ben what you mean by the US are too big to ignore.
> 
> Like do you mean it in a negative way because their league stinks (seriously it makes the A-league look like Johan Cruff Perfect football), their national team sucks, crowd sucks and bringing Beckham just proves that people value their money rather then his footballing talents.


Their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Oh, and poor as their league is, the A-League is just as poor. Mickey Bridges being a major signing is a desperate sign of how poor the league is here - and if he excells (as I expect him to) it'll go to prove that the league is (as he suspects) akin to League One in England.


----------



## Ari Gold

Benjuk said:


> Their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> Oh, and poor as their league is, the A-League is just as poor. Mickey Bridges being a major signing is a desperate sign of how poor the league is here - and if he excells (as I expect him to) it'll go to prove that the league is (as he suspects) akin to League One in England.


But you would think China could match the US in dollars. Well by 2022????

As for the A-league... We are getting better. More players are willing to come. Dollars are starting to flow in. The MLS it seems is going no-where.


----------



## Benjuk

Juddy said:


> But you would think China could match the US in dollars. Well by 2022????
> 
> As for the A-league... We are getting better. More players are willing to come. Dollars are starting to flow in. The MLS it seems is going no-where.


China maybe, but America definately. They are the masters of making a buck and whether we like it or not, FIFA won't ignore them for long.

As for the A-league...  Doing fantastic for a 3 year old league, but the players coming here tend to do so because they don't have other options. An injury prone lad joining from Hull reserves and a retirement bound striker from the Spanish Segunda league are hardly the 'stars' that Foxtel are trying to build them up as.


----------



## Gherkin

I can't see FIFA giving the USA another World Cup before Australia hosts one.


----------



## masterpaul

GREECE AND TURKEY... JOINT BID!!!!

The world would have been shocked


----------



## Bahnsteig4

Positively shocked!


----------



## Mo Rush

Gherkin007 said:


> I can't see FIFA giving the USA another World Cup before Australia hosts one.


why not?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

what?? how many times does mexico need to have it???? :gaah:


----------



## sibyl-vane

@FlicKlings:

I like the brazilian stadia and projects. I've already been to Brazil and i went to some stadia there. But let's discuss this issue in the Brazil 2014 thread,ok?


----------



## Mo Rush

Dasher39 said:


> I don't think we are much of a chance for 2018, think we have a better chance for 2022, but at least we are putting our name in the ring.
> 
> As for stadiums, if I remember correctly the minimum number of stadiums is 8. I can see us just filling this quota, and maybe using 10 if we also put in Canberra and Townsville.
> 
> This is what I would have:
> 
> *1. Telstra Stadium - Sydney*
> _Capacity - 83,500_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Sydney Football Stadium - Sydney*
> _Capacity - 45,500_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne*
> _Capacity - 100,000_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane*
> _Capacity - 52,500_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Skilled Park - Gold Coast*
> _Capacity - Currently 27,000 (to be upgraded to 40,000 for World Cup)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *6. EnergyAustralia Stadium - Newcastle*
> _Capacity - Currently 26,126 (to be upgraded to 40,000. Talks in progress with NSW Government for this to happen already)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *7. StadiumWA - Perth*
> _Capacity - Proposed to be 60,000_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Picture is illustration only and not exactly what stadium will look like_
> 
> *8. Adelaide Rectangular Stadium - Adelaide*
> _Capacity - 45,000_
> Adelaide would need to build a new stadium is none of their current stadia (AAMI Stadium, Adelaide Oval and Hindmarsh Stadium) fit the requirements. By such time as 2018/2022 Adelaide will require a larger rectangular stadium for Adelaide United, Socceroos, Wallabies games and this will provide just that. Something similar to the Gold Coast would be ideal.
> 
> 
> I think Australia is more than capable of hosting a brilliant FIFA World Cup. Obviously we have some factors against us, but we have shown in the past we are capable of putting to world class events and a FIFA World Cup would be no different!


Excellent combination but as the capital Canberra needs to be included


----------



## Wezza

^^
Agreed. Canberra Stadium could easily be upgraded to 45,000+ as well.


----------



## genkie456

Benelux can organise a WC: 

belgium:

1 New national stadium in *Brussels* (60 000 seater , cost : 200 000 000 euro's in a business and shopping complex of 1 000 000 000 euro's (congrescenter, shopping malls, covered indoor sport center,...) near schaarbeek. (execution in 2012-2014) => opening ceremony

- beatiful training complex near tubize: 5 pitches (2 syntetic, 1 indoor, 
mini-pitch,training zone for keepers,3 tennis courts, mountenbike 
track, finnish pist, Sports hotel, rooms for semenars with simultane 
translation, rugby pitch,.... : already executed

2 Brugge ( new 40 000 seater) + shopping centre:










3 Antwerp (new 40 000 seater): still 4 locations left. Study is on progress

4 Luik (new 40 000 seater ): or in Luik city or in Ans. Like Allianz arena in munchen

5 Genk ( expansion to 40 000? ): will now comercially expanded by shopping centre, disco, casino,...
Museum and uplift business sections already executed
For WC a tird ring probably






































or

5 Gent: Arteveldestadium expanded to 40 000 ?: cost 40 000 000 + Shopping centre











Netherlands: 

feyenoord Kuip: probably 75 000+










Ajax Arena: 50 000 or expansion to 60000



















AZ Alkmaar DSB stadium: 16 000=> 45000 (expansion is approved by government)










PSV (45 000)









Heerenveen, Groningen,...?

heerenveen: 










groningen:










Much better than hypermodern stadiums where there is no interaction between fans and players, where you feel like watching a movie.


----------



## *England*

only thing i wanna see australia host is im a celebrity get me out of here!


----------



## Brilliant

Well FIFA wants a cash strong WC 2018 after two WCs that won't make massive profits, so they want a big average stadia capacity and lots of fans that can pay quite a bit, this is very good for England who by 2018 will have so many good and large stadia (e.g. Wembley, Emirates, New Anfield, Old Trafford) that I suspect the average attendance will be largest in an England World Cup 2018.

Potential England stadia, compiled by the Daily Telegraph with some changes by me.

England's potential stadia: Capacity
Wembley Stadium	London 90,000
Old Trafford Manchester United 76,212
Emirates Stadium Arsenal 60,432
Liverpool's (planned Stanley Park stadium) Liverpool 60,000 - 80,000
West Ham's (planned new east London ground) West Ham	60,000
St James' Park	Newcastle 52,387 (could go up to over 60000)
Everton's (planned Kirby stadium) Everton 50,000
Nottingham (planned new stadium) 50,000
Stadium of Light Sunderland 49,000 (could go up to over 50000)
City of Manchester Stadium Manchester City 47,726
Villa Park Aston Villa 42,573 (could rise)
Stamford Bridge	Chelsea 42,055 (probably new and larger stadium by then)
Elland Road Leeds 40,242


----------



## Brilliant

It seems that England has already taken Russia out of the equation, that is good because that makes it easier to win block support from UEFA.

Link.
http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...NAME=soccer/07/11/01/SOCCER_FA_World_Cup.html


----------



## Benjuk

Brilliant said:


> Well FIFA wants a cash strong WC 2018 after two WCs that won't make massive profits, so they want a big average stadia capacity and lots of fans that can pay quite a bit, this is very good for England who by 2018 will have so many good and large stadia (e.g. Wembley, Emirates, New Anfield, Old Trafford) that I suspect the average attendance will be largest in an England World Cup 2018.
> 
> Potential England stadia, compiled by the Daily Telegraph with some changes by me.
> 
> England's potential stadia: Capacity
> Wembley Stadium	London 90,000
> Old Trafford Manchester United 76,212
> Emirates Stadium Arsenal 60,432
> Liverpool's (planned Stanley Park stadium) Liverpool 60,000 - 80,000
> West Ham's (planned new east London ground) West Ham	60,000 *only if it's larger than Emirates*
> St James' Park	Newcastle 52,387 (could go up to over 60000)
> Everton's (planned Kirby stadium) Everton 50,000
> Nottingham (planned new stadium) 50,000
> Stadium of Light Sunderland 49,000 (could go up to over 50000) - *if it's expanded it will to either 55k (south stand extension) or 63k (south and east stand extensions)*
> City of Manchester Stadium Manchester City 47,726 *not if Old Trafford used*
> Villa Park Aston Villa 42,573 (could rise)
> Stamford Bridge	Chelsea 42,055 (probably new and larger stadium by then) *irrelevent unless new stadium larger than Emirates*
> Elland Road Leeds 40,242 *not a chance in its current state - more chance of a new stadium being built either in Leeds or Sheffield*


Sorry, but if it's about capacities and attendance then the finals would go straight to the USA. They could host a 12 venue finals with every stadium over 60k seats.

The English bid has a lot going for it that's more impressive than simple capacity (like history, travel, location, passion, etc.)


----------



## Mo Rush

Brilliant said:


> Well FIFA wants a cash strong WC 2018 after two WCs that won't make massive profits, so they want a big average stadia capacity


FIFA wants revenues not profits. They don't get rich from ticket sales.
Germany 2006 $2.8 billion
South Africa 2010 $3.2 billion secured (final amount est. - $3.5-4 billion)

In terms of average stadium capacity, South Africa has the highest since USA 1994.


----------



## Sparks

The Benelux countries are fighting a losing battle here.

I'd say the MCG is more of a liability than an asset in the Australian bid. It's a cricket stadium not football stadium, the gaps to the pitch are just too far. Could you imagine a football game at Lords or The Oval?


----------



## *England*

> They don't get rich from ticket sales


tell that to jack warner


----------



## *England*

be interesting to see what happens with the olympic stadium now we are bidding for wc


----------



## Sparks

Of more interest are West Ham and Tottenham's new stadiums, with half decent transport links they would likely replace the Emirates Stadium on the list.


----------



## carlspannoosh

When do they announce which stadiums are chosen?


----------



## Sparks

Couple of years yet and even then the plans are liable to change.


----------



## Lostboy

_Benelux can organise a WC: _

:lol: so cute!


----------



## Wezza

Sparks said:


> I'd say the MCG is more of a liability than an asset in the Australian bid. It's a cricket stadium not football stadium, the gaps to the pitch are just too far. Could you imagine a football game at Lords or The Oval?


I tend to agree, but when you look at a couple of the stadiums planned for Brazil 2014, you have to wonder a little if it's any worse than them.


----------



## Benjuk

Sparks said:


> The Benelux countries are fighting a losing battle here.
> 
> I'd say the MCG is more of a liability than an asset in the Australian bid. It's a cricket stadium not football stadium, the gaps to the pitch are just too far. Could you imagine a football game at Lords or The Oval?


I used to think the same way, but the fact that the pitch area had to be expanded for athletics at the Commonwealth games last year, and has since been returned to the pre Comm Games dimensions, would indicate that the distances from fans to field will actually be LESS than at Berlin, Stuttgart, Nurenberg, etc.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Mo Rush said:


> *FIFA wants revenues not profits*. They don't get rich from ticket sales.
> Germany 2006 $2.8 billion
> South Africa 2010 $3.2 billion secured (final amount est. - $3.5-4 billion)
> 
> In terms of average stadium capacity, South Africa has the highest since USA 1994.


Why exactly?


----------



## Sparks

45k minimum capacity remember!


----------



## Lostboy

_4) They are geographically as widespread as they really could be. Ideally, the 12th venue should be Ipswich or Nowrich but neither have any plans or planning to allow a 40k+ capacity. The counter argument to spreading the venues being usage after the finals (see Southampton @ 50k). *For this reason, the whole of the South West is a non-starter at present*._

Bristol could very well be in the Premiership next season given how well Bristol City is sitting. As one of the core cities of England, I see no reason why it can't hold a 40,000 seater stadium especially as the Guinness Premiership has year upon year increases in attendances as well.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

Sparks said:


> 45k minimum capacity remember!


I thought it was 40,000?


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> Bristol could very well be in the Premiership next season given how well Bristol City is sitting. As one of the core cities of England, I see no reason why it can't hold a 40,000 seater stadium especially as the Guinness Premiership has year upon year increases in attendances as well.


The key to coming up with a 45K+ stadium in Bristol (beyond either of the two teams being in the prem for a lenght of time) might I'd guess be getting a few rubgy internationals or maybe the Guinness prem final . The SW is afterall the heartland of rugby union in England and it would be alot easier to justify the expense to give it a centerpeice stadium.


----------



## Lostboy

_The key to coming up with a 45K+ stadium in Bristol (beyond either of the two teams being in the prem for a lenght of time) might I'd guess be getting *a few rubgy internationals or maybe the Guinness prem final .* The SW is afterall the heartland of rugby union in England and it would be alot easier to justify the expense to give it a centerpeice stadium._

Exactly my thoughts. The South-West is as you say the centre of English Rugby, - Bristol, Gloucester and Bath are probably the only major centres in England where football takes number 2 spot to any other sport and believe me certainly in Gloucester it does - and with all these competitions there is surely at least one major final which could be located in Bristol, and it would be nice for the RFU to have access to another major stadium with strong rugby associations apart from Twickenham, perhaps if nothing else for some of the smaller games, like the England Saxons etc.


----------



## sibyl-vane

well i think Pfaff and Preud'homme are quite popular players. Or better WERE popular players. But i think guys like Enzo Scifo or Jan Ceulemans are even more well-known. But to be honest I don't think Belgium and Holland have much of a chance when they compete against England. And yes maybe they can handle hooligans better than other countries do (italy...what a bunch of f.....g a......s)but they don't really know how to differ a football fan from a hooligan.As an aftermath of the Heysel tragedy maybe they tend to treat every footballfan like a potential serial killer - at least in Euro 2000...


----------



## genkie456

I admit that during EURO 2000 the policing in brussels was quite heavy. But that was only in brussels. And thats not only with hooligans. They tend to profile themselves as 'robocops' with zero-tolerance. It's like a referee. You can control a match on two ways: low-profile and intervene when neccesary or high profile and zero-tolerance. But you have to admit that those days were different. Fans were stabbed with knives in the UEFA-cup final before tournment, there was a reveavel of hooliganism, and the system of preventing hooligans to travel during tournaments worked only by the germans, the behaviour of british fans was disgusting. In that circunstances police work was well done. But that doesn't surpise me. We have the best equipped police in the world: 



http://www.polfed-fedpol.be/org/org_newdgs_dgm_mid_nl.php


----------



## Guest

Going off the 2006 World Cup we need 12 venues and a city cannot have more then two venues. Each of these stadiums must have a capacity of at leats 45000 and the venues for the opening match, the semi-finals and the third place playoff must have a minimum of 60000.

I presume the final venue needs a capacity of at least 70000.

1. Wembley Stadium, London
_capacity 90,000_










2. Emirates Stadium, London
_capacity 60,432_










3. Old Trafford, Manchester
_capacity 76,212_










4. City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester
_capacity 47,726_










5. Stanley Park Stadium, Liverpool
_capacity 60,000 (possible expansion to 78,000)_










6. New Goodison, Liverpool
_capacity 50,000_










7. St James Park, Newcastle
_capacity 52,387_










8. Stadium of Light, Sunderland
_capacity 49,000_










9. Villa Park, Birmingham
_capacity 42,573 (possible expansion to 56,000 for the Olympics)_









10. City of Birmingham Stadium, Birmingham
_capacity of 55,000_

11. New Nottingham Forest Stadium, Nottingham
_capacity 50,000_

12. Elland Road, Leeds
_capacity (with redevelopment) 45,000-67,000_


----------



## KiwiBrit

From a European point of view, I don't think it's a good idea having possibly 4 countries from one continent bidding for the same WC. Uefa (for example) should poll the European unions and decide on just one candidate each time. 

At least with just one candidate, the European votes can be targeted at one country, but with several options the vote could become 'diluted' and another continent could win!


----------



## Guest

genkie456 said:


> I admit that during EURO 2000 the policing in brussels was quite heavy. But that was only in brussels. And thats not only with hooligans. They tend to profile themselves as 'robocops' with zero-tolerance. It's like a referee. You can control a match on two ways: low-profile and intervene when neccesary or high profile and zero-tolerance. But you have to admit that those days were different. Fans were stabbed with knives in the UEFA-cup final before tournment, there was a reveavel of hooliganism, and the system of preventing hooligans to travel during tournaments worked only by the germans, the behaviour of british fans was disgusting. In that circunstances police work was well done. But that doesn't surpise me. We have the best equipped police in the world:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.polfed-fedpol.be/org/org_newdgs_dgm_mid_nl.php


I'd say British police are pretty good at dealing with hooliganism.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Lostboy said:


> Exactly my thoughts. The South-West is as you say the centre of English Rugby, - Bristol, Gloucester and Bath are probably the only major centres in England where football takes number 2 spot to any other sport and believe me certainly in Gloucester it does - and with all these competitions there is surely at least one major final which could be located in Bristol, and it would be nice for the RFU to have access to another major stadium with strong rugby associations apart from Twickenham, perhaps if nothing else for some of the smaller games, like the England Saxons etc.


Not impossible as the RFU are probabley not as closely tied to using Twickenham as the FA are to Wembley due to the lower contruction costs, a few of the less glamourous(non 5 nations basically) internationals might actually make more in Bristol. 

Part of the reason I'v always thought the Millenium stadium might be used if Bristol can't come up with a venue is that a SW stadium could end up being an important part of the bid due to its isolation. If the above could be worked out though I'd guess 50,000+ isnt out of the question with the possibility of getting a QF.


----------



## genkie456

police during euro 2000 was good, certainly as you know that the MI5 warned the autorities for a 'hooligan' war without limits.


----------



## sibyl-vane

@genkie:

i don't think it was good. it was too strict. one felt like a prisoner. maybe they didn't treat you as a resident like this. but i am german...

but apart from that police/hooligan-thing, i don't think belgium and holland have a chance regarding the proposed competetors. Besides England i expect Spain to place a bid and be the country to watch out for.


----------



## Lostboy

_i don't think it was good. it was too strict. one felt like a prisoner. maybe they didn't treat you as a resident like this. but i am german..._

I agree, we must remember that the Belgians are ruled by French Speakers and their Germanic Language speakers are an oppressed majority, we cannot expect their agents of the state to act with tolerance until Romancian Rule is overthrown in Belguim.


----------



## Lostboy

_Part of the reason I'v always thought the Millenium stadium might be used if Bristol can't come up with a venue is that a SW stadium could end up being an important part of the bid due to its isolation. If the above could be worked out though I'd guess 50,000+ isnt out of the question with the possibility of getting a QF._

Cardiff is not in the South-West of England hno:


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

KiwiBrit said:


> From a European point of view, I don't think it's a good idea having possibly 4 countries from one continent bidding for the same WC. Uefa (for example) should poll the European unions and decide on just one candidate each time.
> 
> At least with just one candidate, the European votes can be targeted at one country, but with several options the vote could become 'diluted' and another continent could win!


I agree :yes:

and for the Holland&Belgium bid, i thought joint bids were frowned upon after 2002 :dunno:


----------



## Gherkin

It's only frowned upon, rather than not allowed. They'll probably bid.


----------



## Joop20

So does anyone have info on the new stadiums in San Sebastian and Zaragoza in Spain? Or on the new Atletico Madrid stadium?


----------



## Quintana

Lostboy said:


> _Benelux can organise a WC: _
> 
> :lol: so cute!


Why are you so anti-Germanian?


----------



## lpioe

Joop20 said:


> So does anyone have info on the new stadiums in San Sebastian and Zaragoza in Spain? Or on the new Atletico Madrid stadium?


The new stadium in San Sebastian won't be build.
In Zaragoza I think there are still some legal problems to build the new stadium and it's not sure if it will be 40'000 or 50'000. But by 2018 it should be built, and if Spain is bidding it will surely be 50'000.
The new Atletico stadium was presented a few weeks ago. It will be finished by 2010 if I remember correctly.


----------



## Benjuk

KiwiBrit said:


> From a European point of view, I don't think it's a good idea having possibly 4 countries from one continent bidding for the same WC. Uefa (for example) should poll the European unions and decide on just one candidate each time.
> 
> At least with just one candidate, the European votes can be targeted at one country, but with several options the vote could become 'diluted' and another continent could win!


Maybe each of the eligable federations should field bids from it's own national FA's, and vote internally - forwarding the winner to FIFA, who would chose the Finals hosts... In this case, Europe, Asia and North America would each have one nominated bid - these would then be put to FIFA (South America and Africa being ineligible after hosting the previous two tournaments).


----------



## eomer

I think that: 
- a Netherland-Belgium bid could be interesting but theses countries allready hosted Euro 2000.
- Europe should be united to get WC 2018: it's not possible to wait 16 years between 2 WC hosted in Europe. There are more powerfull teams in Europe than everywhere else.
==> Europe should support England's bid for WC 2018. In exchange, Englad should accept to not send a bid for Rugby World Cup 2015: Scotland or Ireland could host it.

We could have in the futur:
- South Africa 2010
- Brazil 2014
- England 2018
- Australia 2022
- Europe (Spain-Portugal, Russia, Turkey-Greece, Netherland-Belgium...) 2026
- Uruguay / Argentina 2030 (100 years after...) 
- China or Canada 2034


----------



## Irish Blood English Heart

That couldnt happen as Europe will only be allowed every 3rd bid


----------



## Ari Gold

Well swap the Europe bid of 2026 with 2030. So Colombia in 2026 and Spain in 2030 or something.


----------



## skaP187

I still don´t know why an England bid, stadiumwise, would beat a Spain bid for 2018.


----------



## eomer

Juddy said:


> Well swap the Europe bid of 2026 with 2030.


No: 2030 will be hosted by Uruguay in memoriam of first WC en 1930. Argentina is the logical co-host for Uruguayen bid. So, Europe should get 2018 and 2026 WC and South America should get 2014 and 2030 WC.
Don't forget that, with 2010 and 2014, it's the first time that two following WC will take place outside Europe. Why not 2018, 2026, 2038, 2050....


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

eomer said:


> ==> Europe should support England's bid for WC 2018. In exchange, Englad should accept to not send a bid for Rugby World Cup 2015: Scotland or Ireland could host it.


No offense to Ireland or Scotland but neitehr nation could host a rugby WC on its own, I mean France had to utilise stadiums outside it's own country, so how on earth do ou expect small countries like Scot or Ire to host a WC tournament on its own...it's almost as demanding as hosting a football WC.



eomer said:


> We could have in the futur:
> - South Africa 2010
> - Brazil 2014
> - England 2018
> - Australia 2022
> - Europe (Spain-Portugal, Russia, Turkey-Greece, Netherland-Belgium...) 2026
> - Uruguay / Argentina 2030 (100 years after...)
> - China or Canada 2034


For one thing, I can't see Europe ever again getting two WCs in the space of 8 years, not with every continent now begging for it; also Spain will not need or want a joint bid with Portugal, and in fact Portugal (having staged a good Euro tournament recently) are not too far off being capable of hosting a WC themselves.

Secondly I wish people would stop suggesting Uruguay for 2030, it's days of hosting WC's are over, yes it may be symbolic and all that, but the fact is that it's stadiums are dire, infastructure poor and just generally not able to cope with hosting a modern-day football WC anymore, not now, not in 2030!

Thirdly, I'd love Canada in 2034, but I'm pretty sure that if we go up against China it aint gonna come out too well!


----------



## sibyl-vane

answering to that 2030 issue: at least Argentina and Uruguay showed their interest recently to stage the world cup then. It doesn't mean they really will, but many things can happen in the next 20 years...


----------



## Lostboy

_I mean France had to utilise stadiums outside it's own country, so how on earth do ou expect small countries like Scot or Ire to host a WC tournament on its own...it's almost as demanding as hosting a football WC._

France didn't have to, it chose to, France hosted the best World Cup Rugby has had, the only thing that detracted were those stupid games outside of it. That said there is no way Scot/Ire can put on anything near as good as that, with Ireland's best stadium out of the question and the Scots dismal home record attendances (let alone for games like Tonga v Namibia) and there general lack of enthusiasm for rugby I'd prefer to see England support an Italian Bid, get rugby growing a bit there.


----------



## Benjuk

skaP187 said:


> I still don´t know why an England bid, stadiumwise, would beat a Spain bid for 2018.


Stadium wise it would be very close - both have a lot of magnificent venues. The biggest difference is the time since last hosting, that tips it in England's favour.


----------



## eomer

Lostboy said:


> _I mean France had to utilise stadiums outside it's own country, so how on earth do ou expect small countries like Scot or Ire to host a WC tournament on its own...it's almost as demanding as hosting a football WC._
> 
> France didn't have to, it chose to, France hosted the best World Cup Rugby has had, the only thing that detracted were those stupid games outside of it.


If wasn't really a choice: it was an arrangment with Celtic nations to win the contest againts England's bid. Of course France could have hosted RWC alone as France hosted 1998 WC alone: 10 stadiums were enough for 48 games !
Scotland or Ireland could not host RWC 2015 alone but a "Celtic bid" could be a great solution: 
- the main host (Ireland or Scotland) would get Oppening match, 2 pools, two quater final, at least one semi-final, the bronze final and the final.
- the two co-hosts (Scotland or Ireland and Walles) would get a pool and a quater final. 
- A co-host could even get a semi-final

It is not a "multinational bid": it is a bid with a main-host and two co-host.



skaP187 said:


> I still don´t know why an England bid, stadiumwise, would beat a Spain bid for 2018.


It is not a problem with stadia: it's only because it is the turn of England :

If you consider that, since 1966, 6 WC took place in Europe:
- 1966: *England*
- 1974: (West) Germany
- 1982: *Spain*
- 1990: Italy
- 1998: France
- 2006: Germany

And if you consider that Euro was really created in 1980:
- 1980: Italy
- 1984: France
- 1988: (West) Germany
- 1992: Sweden
- 1996: *England*
- 2000: Belgium-Netherlands
- 2004: Portugal
- 2008: Switzerland-Austria
- 2012: Poland-Ukraine

It's easy to understand that *Spain* should bid for Euro 2016 and WC 2026 when *England* should get WC 2018. Even Platini, Bekenbaüer and Italian's newspapers admit that England is the best choice for 2018.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Benjuk said:


> Stadium wise it would be very close - both have a lot of magnificent venues. The biggest difference is the time since last hosting, that tips it in England's favour.


:yes:

Plus if FiFa want money, English football is the richest in the world.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

eomer said:


> If wasn't really a choice: it was an arrangment with Celtic nations to win the contest againts England's bid. Of course France could have hosted RWC alone as France hosted 1998 WC alone: 10 stadiums were enough for 48 games !
> Scotland or Ireland could not host RWC 2015 alone but a "Celtic bid" could be a great solution:
> - the main host (Ireland or Scotland) would get Oppening match, 2 pools, two quater final, at least one semi-final, the bronze final and the final.
> - the two co-hosts (Scotland or Ireland and Walles) would get a pool and a quater final.
> - A co-host could even get a semi-final


Its actually quite annoying seeing a tournament hosted in Two countries let alone THREE?!


----------



## Lostboy

_If wasn't really a choice: it was an arrangment with Celtic nations to win the contest againts England's bid. Of course France could have hosted RWC alone as France hosted 1998 WC alone: 10 stadiums were enough for 48 games !_

You could have won without the votes and in terms of facilities if France can host World Cup 1998, it could certainly have managed a far smaller Rugby World Cup.

_Scotland or Ireland could not host RWC 2015 alone but a "Celtic bid" could be a great solution: 
- the main host (Ireland or Scotland) would get Oppening match, 2 pools, two quater final, at least one semi-final, the bronze final and the final.
- the two co-hosts (Scotland or Ireland and Walles) would get a pool and a quater final. 
- A co-host could even get a semi-final

It is not a "multinational bid": it is a bid with a main-host and two co-host._

I'm really quite sceptical of this so far the best Rugby World Cups have been those that have tended to keep all the matches in a single country South Africa 1995, Australia 2003 etc and besides after the debacle of 2011 going to New Zealand isn't it time to honour Asia (so far along with South America the only continent without hosting it) if we are to expand the World Cup then a Japan 2015 bid would be a very good idea. Unless you are one of those who believes that rugby must forever be the preserve of the founding eight members hno:


----------



## eomer

Lostboy said:


> You could have won without the votes and in terms of facilities if France can host World Cup 1998, it could certainly have managed a far smaller Rugby World Cup.


It's easy to say that after but France's bid won against England's one by 17 votes to 3 (2 English votes and the Canadian's one). If Celtic nations voted for England, the result would have been 11 to 9.

Almost everybody on the "oval planet" admit that, if England send a bid to host RWC 2015, it will won. But I'm not sure that hosting OG, RWC and WC in less than 6 years would be so easy. Japan: why not but after NZ 2011, I think it would be better to come back to Europe or to go to South Africa. For European viewers, both matchs in NZ and Japan will start between 5h00 and 13h00.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

eomer said:


> IIf you consider that, since 1966, 6 WC took place in Europe:
> - 1996: *England*
> - 1974: (West) Germany
> - 1982: *Spain*
> - 1990: Italy
> - 1998: France
> - 2002: Germany


Ah yes, good old WC 96, England staged a great tournament then... Greedy buggers are asking for 2018 as well?


----------



## Chimaera

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Ah yes, good old WC 96, England staged a great tournament then... Greedy buggers are asking for 2018 as well?


Germany did a great job in 2002 as well


----------



## eomer

Chimaera said:


> Germany did a great job in 2002 as well


All right guys: I made two mistakes with my keyboard. Thank you for your remarks. But that doesn't change anything: Europeans should support together *England*'s bid for WC 2018 and *Spain* should get Euro 2016 and bid for WC 2026.


----------



## Irish Blood English Heart

Scotland could easily host a Rugby World Cup on its own, it has at least as good stadiums as Australia did or New Zealand.

Murrayfield - 67500
Hampden Park - 52000
Ibrox Park - 51000
Celtic Park - 61000
Pittodrie - 22000 (or new Aberdeen stadium 30000)
Tannadice - 18000
Rugby Park - 17000
Tynecastle - 25000 by then

and improvements to Inverness/Falkirk etc.

It wont though because Rugby isnt big enough.

Ireland probably could if GAA stadiums were used, and Rugby is big enough but doubt they'd be allowed to use them.


----------



## Benjuk

eomer said:


> All right guys: I made two mistakes with my keyboard. Thank you for your remarks. But that doesn't change anything: Europeans should support together *England*'s bid for WC 2018 and *Spain* should get Euro 2016 and bid for WC 2026.


Rumour was that the English FA have already done a deal to back Russia for 2016 if the Russian's back England for 2018.

Don't think Spain would win against England for the simple reason of history - England have waited a bit longer 1966 vs 1982.


----------



## Chimaera

eomer said:


> All right guys: I made two mistakes with my keyboard. Thank you for your remarks. But that doesn't change anything: Europeans should support together *England*'s bid for WC 2018 and *Spain* should get Euro 2016 and bid for WC 2026.


Come on, don't be touchy, I'm not here to provoke or to spread stupid prejudices and stubborn arguments, unlike some other members.

Still, no matter how realistic the chances are that the Benelux will get it, I support our bid. We can do it, and even if we don't get it, we will still have new stadiums, something we urgently need (especially Belgium). It's hard to get support in Belgium for new stadiums. In the occasion that politics are being cooperative, the local nimbys are opposing.


----------



## Sparks

MoreOrLess said:


> The key to coming up with a 45K+ stadium in Bristol (beyond either of the two teams being in the prem for a lenght of time) might I'd guess be getting a few rubgy internationals or maybe the Guinness prem final . The SW is afterall the heartland of rugby union in England and it would be alot easier to justify the expense to give it a centerpeice stadium.


The biggest problem with a Bristol stadium apart from the obvious funding problem, is the demand for it. City may have been doing great and are in their highest position for many years, but their attendances are still very ordinary in all honesty. They're still not selling out home games, just 13,000 were at Ashton Gate a couple of weeks back against Sheffield Utd and it's not as if it's a large stadium.


----------



## Joop20

eomer said:


> All right guys: I made two mistakes with my keyboard. Thank you for your remarks. But that doesn't change anything: Europeans should support together *England*'s bid for WC 2018 and *Spain* should get Euro 2016 and bid for WC 2026.


Get your facts right mate: Fifa adopted a rule last week that states that a continent cannot host if it has hosted one of the previous two world cups. After a European world cup in 2018, this means that Europe will have to wait till 2030 for its next possibility. Likewise, Africa cannot bid in 2014 and 2018, and South America cannot bid in 2018 and 2022.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Joop20 said:


> Get your facts right mate: Fifa adopted a rule last week that states that a continent cannot host if it has hosted one of the previous two world cups. After a European world cup in 2018, this means that Europe will have to wait till 2030 for its next possibility. Likewise, Africa cannot bid in 2014 and 2018, and South America cannot bid in 2018 and 2022.


which is kind of silly considering that Europe has far more countries that are able to host the WC then anyother continent. Btw i think both North and South America should be classed as one(the Americas) as there are only a few countries that have the ability to host such an event.


----------



## Benjuk

Chimaera said:


> Come on, don't be touchy, I'm not here to provoke or to spread stupid prejudices and stubborn arguments, unlike some other members.
> 
> Still, no matter how realistic the chances are that the Benelux will get it, I support our bid. *We can do it, and even if we don't get it, we will still have new stadiums, something we urgently need (especially Belgium). *It's hard to get support in Belgium for new stadiums. In the occasion that politics are being cooperative, the local nimbys are opposing.


Typically speaking - the stadiums are PLANNED as part of the bid and only built if the bid is succesful... So don't count on getting them.


----------



## Quintana

In normal countries that would be the case but we're talking about Belgium here


----------



## Wezza

Irish Blood English Heart said:


> Scotland could easily host a Rugby World Cup on its own, it has at least as good stadiums as Australia did or New Zealand.
> 
> Murrayfield - 67500
> Hampden Park - 52000
> Ibrox Park - 51000
> Celtic Park - 61000
> Pittodrie - 22000 (or new Aberdeen stadium 30000)
> Tannadice - 18000
> Rugby Park - 17000
> Tynecastle - 25000 by then
> 
> and improvements to Inverness/Falkirk etc.
> 
> It wont though because Rugby isnt big enough.
> 
> Ireland probably could if GAA stadiums were used, and Rugby is big enough but doubt they'd be allowed to use them.


Wouldn't the pitch dimensions at Celtic Park & Ibrox be too small for rugby union? There wouldn't be enough for an in goal area.


----------



## Chimaera

Benjuk said:


> Typically speaking - the stadiums are PLANNED as part of the bid and only built if the bid is succesful... So don't count on getting them.


That's what Alain Courtois, Belgian promotor of the bid, has promised, but it might just be an extra argument to get more support, and we don't know if it will be realised. I mean: he said something like "even if we don't get the World Cup, we will have big, modern and comfortable stadiums". He knows that we need them and uses this as an argument for definitely building those stadiums.


----------



## Joop20

Benjuk said:


> Typically speaking - the stadiums are PLANNED as part of the bid and only built if the bid is succesful... So don't count on getting them.


You're wrong there mate. Club Bruges and Anderlecht are for sure going to build a new stadium in Belgium, as is Feyenoord in Holland. I'm not sure about the stadiums in Antwerp and Liege though. Fact is that a number of stadiums will be built before 2018, no matter how the bid turns out.


----------



## Chimaera

Joop20 said:


> You're wrong there mate. Club Bruges and Anderlecht are for sure going to build a new stadium in Belgium, as is Feyenoord in Holland. I'm not sure about the stadiums in Antwerp and Liege though. Fact is that a number of stadiums will be built before 2018, no matter how the bid turns out.


I'm not going to repeat myself in others again in summing up all the Belgian and Dutch stadium plans, but I'll try to give a brief summary of the Belgian intentions and how concrete they are:

Ghent: most concrete plans. 20,000-seater that can be expanded to 40,000. They would like to join the bid.
Bruges: very clear intentions to build a new stadium with 40,000 seats. The location has been chosen, the project has been fully worked out, the MER-demand is in (milieu effecten rapport = report on environmental impacts), they have the budget. Politics and people are divided in pro (the clubs needs more revenue, needs to meet international standards in capacity, accessability and comfort, a shopping center is sustainable...) and contra (environmental impact, impact on living conditions of local inhabitants, impact on local shops).
Brussels: location should not a problem. Anderlecht needs to find an agreement with the politics in Brussels. Probably 60,000 seats.
Liège: plans are not concrete yet, but the city is willing to help the club as much as possible. New 40,000 seater on new location.
Antwerp: city wants a new stadium for both rivaling clubs. Main obstacle is the rivalry.

Conclusion: Bruges, Anderlecht and Liège want to build a 40,000+ stadium, and their plans are not connected to an eventual World Cup in Belgium and The Netherlands. On the other hand, in Ghent and Antwerp plans for 40,000 seats are linked to the bid.
Currently Genk has the best stadium in the country, but they didn't pronounce any plans yet to participate in the WC bid.

The stadium in Ghent should be ready by 2009, Bruges and Anderlecht (and maybe Liège) want it by 2012, when the new UEFA regulations become reality (minimum 40,000 seats for CL participation).


----------



## Mo Rush

Chimaera said:


> That's what Alain Courtois, Belgian promotor of the bid, has promised, but it might just be an extra argument to get more support, and we don't know if it will be realised. I mean: he said something like "even if we don't get the World Cup, we will have big, modern and comfortable stadiums". He knows that we need them and uses this as an argument for definitely building those stadiums.


related to laurence courtois?


----------



## eomer

Chimaera said:


> That's what Alain Courtois, Belgian promotor of the bid, has promised.


If Belgium is able to build stadia as fast as it build government, the WC2018 will took place in 2020 !
As we say on the other side of the Quievrain, between Belgium-Netherland's bid and England's one, "il n'y a pas photo" ("there is no picture"). Wembley, Emirates, the "new old" Trafford, the new Anfield Road and maybe the new Villa Park were allready designed to host the WC. I repeat: having more than one European bid wouln't be a good thing: Europe should stay united because it can't wait until 16 years before hosting WC again.

I think that England got only one serious rival for 2018 and it's Australia. But I could bet 1M€ against a Rugby ball that England (or maybe UK) would host WC2018.


----------



## SoHype!

Hate so much those shoebox stadiums!










uke:


----------



## sibyl-vane

am i the only one to expect the spanish to be strong? no spanyards in this forum?


----------



## Benjuk

eomer said:


> If Belgium is able to build stadia as fast as it build government, the WC2018 will took place in 2020 !
> As we say on the other side of the Quievrain, between Belgium-Netherland's bid and England's one, "il n'y a pas photo" ("there is no picture"). Wembley, Emirates, the "new old" Trafford, the new Anfield Road and maybe the new Villa Park were allready designed to host the WC. I repeat: having more than one European bid wouln't be a good thing: Europe should stay united because it can't wait until 16 years before hosting WC again.
> 
> *I think that England got only one serious rival for 2018 and it's Australia. But I could bet 1M€ against a Rugby ball that England (or maybe UK) would host WC2018*.


Never. Australia is nowhere near being in a position to host the 2018 finals. Haven't the stadiums, haven't the footballing culture. Also, no way will a UK bid be made - England all the way.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

^^ I think you're underestimating the Australian bid you know.



sibyl-vane said:


> am i the only one to expect the spanish to be strong? no spanyards in this forum?


Well there's no doubt that a Spanish bid, in terms of stadiums and love of football would probably match England's in most respects, some would argue England has the better stadiums/infastructure/football heritage/fan support...etc etc, some would argue Spain has the better of those things...except maybe the football hertigae.....and fan support. 

But anyway, most people would at least grudgingly agree that the two bids would be very close, so that just leaves the one issue which of which England has the distinct advantage: when did they last stage the tournament? ......I'm sorry but this matter rather settles it in my mind as to which bid Europe should back....1966 or 1982....France has hosting it twice, so has Italy, so has Germany...so aint it more then overdue for the country that gave the game to the world to get it back again?


----------



## Chimaera

Mo Rush said:


> related to laurence courtois?


No idea.

You know Laurence Courtois? I'm surprised.

@eomer: off-topic but in a reaction to your post: these government negotiations are terrible, I agree. Almost 150 days now. It's getting more and more difficult to reach a "compromis à la Belge"... with both sides drifting apart and opposing each other more and more. We need politics, but sometimes... :gaah:

And yeah, England is a stronger player than Belgium in this WC bidding. Does that mean that we should just withdraw???


----------



## Benjuk

SoHype! said:


> Hate so much those shoebox stadiums!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uke:


Not bad for a lower league club though.


----------



## Mo Rush

Chimaera said:


> No idea.
> 
> You know Laurence Courtois? I'm surprised.
> 
> @eomer: off-topic but in a reaction to your post: these government negotiations are terrible, I agree. Almost 150 days now. It's getting more and more difficult to reach a "compromis à la Belge"... with both sides drifting apart and opposing each other more and more. We need politics, but sometimes... :gaah:
> 
> And yeah, England is a stronger player than Belgium in this WC bidding. Does that mean that we should just withdraw???


I know many things. lol


----------



## Sparks

SoHype! said:


> Hate so much those shoebox stadiums!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uke:


That's Bristol Rovers, it won't have anything to do with the 2018 bid.


----------



## RobH

England can't be expected to be given this on a platter. We'll have to convince many people; that's our job now.

Not everyone will be convinved for whatever reasons (some of them may be daft reasons but that's beside the point). We have to convince, not demand.


----------



## parker941

*China may go for it*

and it will create a whole lot dynamic of competitions


----------



## KiwiBrit

I'm not saying we should be given the WC on a platter, no one has a devine right to be hosts. It just concerns me when the president's of both fifa and uefa both spout about the 'problems' in the English game. And how they are not sure England is 'right'.

I wonder if Platini would talk about the money and racism problems if Spain were to bid? Or the hooligan element if Poland were to, or the supposed corruption if Russia did?

Probably not...


----------



## Wezza

Mo Rush said:


> doesn't change the fact that south africa will host the 2010 world cup.


I know that, i never said it did.

I was only reacting to this comment:



Mo Rush said:


> There are *far* better choices. uh England.


Which is clearly not true. However, England will probably get 2018.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

The thing I don't get is what the hell England's number of foreign players and owners have to do with a WC bid from England in 2018...? I too am rather concerned with the number of foreign players and owners in teh Premiership as it is starting to stifle English talent, but as I doubt the likes of Platini (if he's honest with himself) really gives a crap about the future of English footballers, I can only surmise that it yet another ever-present sign that UEFA/FIFA are becoming rather scared about the level of money and power the Premiership has been gaining over the last 10 years. It's increasing domination over the Asian market, and the South African market and (though little) the North American market (with signs also that it is gaining in popularity in South America as well) mean it's getting money and power by the truckloads and English teams are starting to really prosper in the CL (altough as yet not dominating the trophies). It's no wonder Platini wants to restrict England and others to 3 CL places, he'll use the excuse of wanting to give other countries a shot at it but it's really to limit the Premiership's and La Liga's power.

If he makes constructive criticism about England's bid...stadiums, infastructre etc etc that's ok, there's nothing wrong with that, but why the hell is he trying to take a shot at it because of what's going on in the Premiership (which is also going on in Spain and Italy as well!)


----------



## ÔMorocco

2018 England 
2022 China
2026 Argentina
2030 Morocco (for the best WC of all time) :banana:


----------



## Mo Rush

Wezza said:


> I know that, i never said it did.
> 
> I was only reacting to this comment:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is clearly not true. However, England will probably get 2018.


I do believe if it is true and as this is a forum, you don't have to agree.


----------



## Benjuk

Mo Rush said:


> There are far better choices. uh England.





Wezza said:


> Which is clearly not true. However, England will probably get 2018.


I can give you numerous reasons why an England 2018 bid would be stronger than an Aussie one (and all of these coming from a bloke who lives in Australia and wants the finals here):

1) Population of 60 mill vs 25 mill
2) Time zone compatible with prime time in the big tv markets vs time zone compatible with sleep in the big tv markets
3) A glorious history of footballing support vs a history of ethnically based dislike of the sport (Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters, great book by a great man)
4) A couple of hours flight to half the competing nations vs a couple of hours flight and your still in Aussie airspace.
5) Excellent communications links between all venues vs massive travelling times between most venues
6) The presence of all the required stadiums PRIOR to the the bid vs lots of speculative stadia.

Australia would have to come up with a bid that TOPS all of those factors, THEN hope that the rest of FIFA agreed.

How many reasons can you give for an Aussie one being better than England? The only ones I can come up with are:

1) Australia's never had it, England has once (goes for many other nations).
2) It's always in Europe, let someone else have a go (no longer true).
3) Australia always does a good job hosting major events (debatable).


----------



## Wezza

I don't really think it's debatable at all that Australia does a good job at hosting major events. While i don't think 2018 is our best shot (2022 would be the best for us), i refuse to believe that we couldn't do as good of a job as any other candidates.


----------



## masterpaul

All the points against England:

1)

England won't organize the WC, especially after 5 years after the Olympics.

FIFA, never gives the olympics to country who just hosted something as big as the Olympics.

(you have to wait atleast 10 years)

2) 

Soccer is already Poular in England


3)

Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.




---


----------



## Bahnsteig4

> Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.


Sadly. They should be more concerned with what's in there for FOOTBALL...

Bunch of scum.


----------



## Mo Rush

masterpaul said:


> All the points against England:
> 
> 1)
> 
> England won't organize the WC, especially after 5 years after the Olympics.
> 
> FIFA, never gives the olympics to country who just hosted something as big as the Olympics.
> 
> (you have to wait atleast 10 years)
> 
> 2)
> 
> Soccer is already Poular in England
> 
> 
> 3)
> 
> Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---


many assumptions. Why would FIFA revenues be an issue? South Africa has already exceeded Germany 2006 revenues, How would this be a problem for England? oh and FIFA doesn't award the Olympic Games. England is capable of hosting Olympic Games and a FIFA World Cup 6 years apart. It hosted enough football matches across the country at all levels over the last 100 years to make anyone dizzy.


----------



## Mo Rush

Benjuk said:


> I can give you numerous reasons why an England 2018 bid would be stronger than an Aussie one (and all of these coming from a bloke who lives in Australia and wants the finals here):
> 
> 1) Population of 60 mill vs 25 mill
> 2) Time zone compatible with prime time in the big tv markets vs time zone compatible with sleep in the big tv markets
> 3) A glorious history of footballing support vs a history of ethnically based dislike of the sport (Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters, great book by a great man)
> 4) A couple of hours flight to half the competing nations vs a couple of hours flight and your still in Aussie airspace.
> 5) Excellent communications links between all venues vs massive travelling times between most venues
> 6) The presence of all the required stadiums PRIOR to the the bid vs lots of speculative stadia.
> 
> Australia would have to come up with a bid that TOPS all of those factors, THEN hope that the rest of FIFA agreed.
> 
> How many reasons can you give for an Aussie one being better than England? The only ones I can come up with are:
> 
> 1) Australia's never had it, England has once (goes for many other nations).
> 2) It's always in Europe, let someone else have a go (no longer true).
> 3) Australia always does a good job hosting major events (debatable).


England should really push the..."football comes home" thing..ala athens 2004.


----------



## Joop20

masterpaul said:


> 3)
> 
> Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.
> 
> ---


Care to explain this point? Why can't FIFA make heaps of money in England?


----------



## RobH

Mo Rush said:


> England should really push the..."football comes home" thing..ala athens 2004.


We did that for our 2006 bid. It didn't work.


----------



## Mo Rush

RobH said:


> We did that for our 2006 bid. It didn't work.


well then the communications team failed. apparently South Africa was rated higher than england in the 2006 bid technical evaluation. i wonder how FIFA managed that.


----------



## Lostboy

Yes I just don't understand the revenues argument, I am convinced England would be far more profitable than 20 million Australia.


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> I don't really think it's debatable at all that Australia does a good job at hosting major events. While i don't think 2018 is our best shot (2022 would be the best for us), i refuse to believe that we couldn't do as good of a job as any other candidates.


Australia did a stunning job with the Olympics, lesser events like the Commonwealth Games and the Rugby World Cup were pretty well handled, but there's a lot of attention of the struggles to make the F1 Grand Prix financially viable due to the huge travelling distances and the problems with television broadcast in the primary market (Europe). FIFA will notice that.

And it's not about whether Australia could do a good job or not - it's about convincing FIFA that we could do a BETTER job than anyone else, and do it well enough to overcome all the points mentioned above.



masterpaul said:


> All the points against England:
> 
> 1) England won't organize the WC, especially after 5 years after the Olympics.
> 
> FIFA, never gives the olympics to country who just hosted something as big as the Olympics.
> 
> (you have to wait atleast 10 years)
> 
> 2) Soccer is already Poular in England
> 
> 3) Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.
> ---


1) The two aren't connected. FIFA and the IOC certainly have no problem doing things the other way around, USA '94, Atlanta '96, why should it be a problem the other way around? 

2) Soccer was already popular in Germany, is fairly popular in Brazil, and I'm pretty sure Mo Rush will back me up that it's popular in South Africa.

3) A world cup in England would be ideal for tv audiences around Europe - the biggest football audiences in the world, giving huge guarenteed revenues.


----------



## Benjuk

Mo Rush said:


> well then the communications team failed. apparently South Africa was rated higher than england in the 2006 bid technical evaluation. i wonder how FIFA managed that.


IIRC England went back on a deal with Germany, and lost a lot of favour within UEFA, which lead to Euro votes going to Germany rather than England and ultimately lost England the chance to host. All round it was apparently a pretty botched up bid by my lot.


----------



## Evoluon

Sepp Blatter has welcomed the bid by Netherlands/Belgium. They will work under one organisation committee as two friendly neighbouring countries (contrary to the Japan-South Korea tournament of 2002). Plus they have had a succesful Euro 2000 tournament.

As our attacking play and ´total football´ has allways been well-liked, the 2018 tournamant will go Dutch (and Belgium)!  All it will take are some extra tiers to existing stadiums, which will arrive in time.


----------



## Mo Rush

Kwakzalver said:


> Sepp Blatter has welcomed the bid by Netherlands/Belgium. They will work under one organisation committee as two friendly neighbouring countries (contrary to the Japan-South Korea tournament of 2002). Plus they have had a succesful Euro 2000 tournament.
> 
> As our attacking play and ´total football´ has allways been well-liked, the 2018 tournamant will go Dutch (and Belgium)!  All it will take are some extra tiers to existing stadiums, which will arrive in time.


I say go for it. Should be an interesting bid.


----------



## Joop20

_*Associations of Belgium and the Netherlands officially announce interest in submitting joint bid(FIFA.com)* 

Wednesday 14 November 2007

In a meeting today (Wednesday, 14 November 2007) with FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter and FIFA General Secretary Jérôme Valcke, the Presidents of the football associations of Belgium, François de Keersmaecker, and the Netherlands, Mathieu Sprengers, officially announced their interest in submitting a joint bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup™.

"There are no borders between our countries, but there is a lot of friendship," stressed FIFA's guests. "Remember, we successfully hosted EURO 2000."

"These two neighbours are founder members of FIFA," said Blatter. FIFA explained that it was important for the governing body to have only one point of contact at local organising committee level.

Blatter also noted that other countries were already planning to submit bids. "It says everything about the popularity of football in general and the FIFA World Cup in particular that we already have concrete proposals for the 2018 World Cup."

The FIFA Executive Committee will allocate the hosting rights for the 2018 FIFA World Cup™ in 2011._

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/releases/newsid=637931.html


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

masterpaul said:


> All the points against England:
> 
> 1)
> 
> England won't organize the WC, especially after 5 years after the Olympics.
> 
> FIFA, never gives the olympics to country who just hosted something as big as the Olympics.
> 
> (you have to wait atleast 10 years)


What are you talking about?! lots of countries have hosted both events in quick succession. :nuts:




masterpaul said:


> 3)
> 
> Theres nothing in for Fifa, if they orginize the WC in England. They care about money.
> 
> 
> ---


once again what are you talking about?! English football is the most profitable in the world. :nuts:


----------



## marrio415

RobH said:


> We did that for our 2006 bid. It didn't work.


The hooligans in Belguim ended that bid at euro 2000


----------



## ottooo

Blatter is quoted saying something like that there are 15 to 20 countries in the world capable of organising a WC, but if Belgium and The Netherlands do a good job, that would open the door for smaller countries in the future. He also said that Belgium/The Netherlands is the first candidate to officially tell the FIFA that they are interested in organising the 2018 WC.

Btw, this is a quote from Jeu Sprengers, one of the representatives of the Dutch and Belgian FA who met with Blatter.


----------



## *England*

> The hooligans in Belguim ended that bid at euro 2000


we was never gonna get it no matter what, what it will do is help get 2018, same as australia when they fail to get 2018 it will help them get it in the 20s.


----------



## aCidMinD81

I've just read in a Spanish newspaper that the Spanish Footbal Association expects to announce their bid for World Cup 2018 on the first semester of 2008.
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Kobo

BENELUEX COUNTRIES WANT WORLD CUP
Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg shall jointly bid to host the 2018 W.C. Only Belgium and The Netherlands shall host matches but Luxembourg will stage a Fifa conference. Only Belgium and the Netherlands shall qualify automatically for matches. Here is more from the BBC article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7095242.stm
What does everyone think of a 3 way bid, apparently Blatter has now gone back on his view that a World Cup could be jointly held. This is probably because this bid is completely different to the 2002 Japan/ S.Korea bid. The Beneleux share the same currency, are all connected by land and cover a small area.


----------



## Joop20

Kobo said:


> BENELUEX COUNTRIES WANT WORLD CUP
> Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg shall jointly bid to host the 2018 W.C. Only Belgium and The Netherlands shall host matches but Luxembourg will stage a Fifa conference. Only Belgium and the Netherlands shall qualify automatically for matches. Here is more from the BBC article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7095242.stm
> What does everyone think of a 3 way bid, apparently Blatter has now gone back on his view that a World Cup could be jointly held. This is probably because this bid is completely different to the 2002 Japan/ S.Korea bid. The Beneleux share the same currency, are all connected by land and cover a small area.


Apperantly, the big difference that made Blatter support this joint bid is Belgium and Netherlands really presented themselves as one bid / organisation, while the Japan / South Korea was much more devided, and basically consisted of two organisations. 

Seven stadiums in the Netherlands and six in Belgium were proposed to Blatter, but he stated that 10 stadiums are enough for a successful Word Cup.


----------



## Kobo

Joop20 said:


> Apperantly, the big difference that made Blatter support this joint bid is Belgium and Netherlands really presented themselves as one bid / organisation, while the Japan / South Korea was much more devided, and basically consisted of two organisations.
> 
> Seven stadiums in the Netherlands and six in Belgium were proposed to Blatter, but he stated that 10 stadiums are enough for a successful Word Cup.


Hi Joop20, well yes i would have thought that would be their approach, it seems more logical then proposing 2 different organisations. Do you have any links or web addresses that shows the Beneluex 2018 bid, especially the stadiums they propose to use and develope. One of the good things about this bid, if its successful, is it would open up doors for other smaller nations to propose W.C bids in the future. As in recent history the larger economical and populated countries tend to be winning their bids.


----------



## Chimaera

Kobo said:


> BENELUEX COUNTRIES WANT WORLD CUP
> Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg shall jointly bid to host the 2018 W.C. Only Belgium and The Netherlands shall host matches but Luxembourg will stage a Fifa conference. Only Belgium and the Netherlands shall qualify automatically for matches. Here is more from the BBC article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7095242.stm
> What does everyone think of a 3 way bid, apparently Blatter has now gone back on his view that a World Cup could be jointly held. This is probably because this bid is completely different to the 2002 Japan/ S.Korea bid. The Beneleux share the same currency, are all connected by land and cover a small area.


Not only do we share the currency (and Belgium and Luxemburg already shared it long before the Euro), Belgium and Luxemburg formed the first economic union in Europe, the BLEU (Belgium-Luxemburg Economic Union), followed by Benelux. Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands are founding members of the European Union, back when it only consisted of 6 countries.
Another advantage is language: 20 million (or more?) speak Dutch with a strong knowledge of two or more languages, 4-5 million speak French and a small minority German (and the German speaking also know French, English or Dutch).
We even formed one country once.

Of course I can't deny that for the moment, with the political issues (or maybe even crisis?) it might look like we will end up existing as 4 or 5 countries (including NL and LUX) instead...


----------



## Joop20

Kobo said:


> Hi Joop20, well yes i would have thought that would be their approach, it seems more logical then proposing 2 different organisations. Do you have any links or web addresses that shows the Beneluex 2018 bid, especially the stadiums they propose to use and develope. One of the good things about this bid, if its successful, is it would open up doors for other smaller nations to propose W.C bids in the future. As in recent history the larger economical and populated countries tend to be winning their bids.


There's no official info on the Benelux 2018 bid yet, as far as I know. I heard on the telly yesterday that more info will be released mid-december. The Belgian news mentioned that new stadiums in Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and Charleroi could be used in 2018, and that the stadium in Genk could be expanded. As you can see, still alot of work needs to be done stadium-wise, especially in Belgium. The positive point is that some of these stadiums will get built no matter what happens with the bid!

My bet would be on the following stadiums:

Rotterdam new Feyenoord stadium - 70k
Rotterdam old Feyenoord stadium - 50k (to be demolished after the wc?)
Amsterdam Ajax stadium - 60k (plans for expansion)
Eindhoven PSV stadium - 40k (currently 35k, no plans for expansion or new build as of yet)
Alkmaar AZ stadium - 40k (currently 15k, concrete plans for expansion)
Groningen - 40k (currently 20k, plans for expansion)

Bruges - 40k (concrete plans for new build)
Brussels - 60k (concrete plans for new build)
Antwerp - 40k (no concrete plans yet)
Liege - 40k (no concrete plans yet)

The only downside is that there'd be rather alot of stadiums with minimum capacity, maybe this could be solved with temporal stands?


----------



## Chimaera

Joop20 said:


> There's no official info on the Benelux 2018 bid yet, as far as I know. I heard on the telly yesterday that more info will be released mid-december. The Belgian news mentioned that new stadiums in Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels, Liege and Charleroi could be used in 2018, and that the stadium in Genk could be expanded. As you can see, still alot of work needs to be done stadium-wise, especially in Belgium. The positive point is that some of these stadiums will get built no matter what happens with the bid!
> 
> My bet would be on the following stadiums:
> 
> Rotterdam new Feyenoord stadium - 70k
> Rotterdam old Feyenoord stadium - 50k (to be demolished after the wc?)
> Amsterdam Ajax stadium - 60k (plans for expansion)
> Eindhoven PSV stadium - 40k (currently 35k, no plans for expansion or new build as of yet)
> Alkmaar AZ stadium - 40k (currently 15k, concrete plans for expansion)
> Groningen - 40k (currently 20k, plans for expansion)
> 
> Bruges - 40k (concrete plans for new build)
> Brussels - 60k (concrete plans for new build)
> Antwerp - 40k (no concrete plans yet)
> Liege - 40k (no concrete plans yet)
> 
> The only downside is that there'd be rather alot of stadiums with minimum capacity, maybe this could be solved with temporal stands?


The one in Bruges will probably get a 44-45k-capacity.


----------



## Joop20

Chimaera said:


> The one in Bruges will probably get a 44-45k-capacity.


Thanks for the info. Any news on the other new stadiums in Belgium? 

I'm hoping that the bid will also contain a new stadium for PSV in Eindhoven. Imo, the current stadium is at the max of its capacity, and I think that PSV could well fill a 40k stadium. It'd be great to see a 45k or 50k in Eindhoven as part of the Benelux bid! A new stadium for PSV could also be a great showcase for Philips, I'm sure they could come up with some great lighting effects etc for the exterior of this new stadium!


----------



## lpioe

Isn't the minimum capacity in 2018 45k? Think I read that somewhere...


----------



## Kobo

To Joop20 and/or Chimaera, I assume that you both live in Belgium at the moment from what you have both said. Earlier this week i read an article about the crisis that Belgium is going through right now, and that it could possibly split into two different nations, or either relivant speaking area become part of France or The Netherlands respectively. I don't have a great understanding about this political situation, could either of you enlighten me further if you feel that one of these scenario's could happen. If so do you think it would hinder the Benelux bid.


----------



## Chimaera

@Joop: I agree with you on PSV. I had a look sometime ago at it on Google Maps, and they seem to have the same problem as e.g. ManU and Newcastle: lack of room for further expansion.

@lpioe: 45k? That's new information. It will be for a lot of people I think. I wonder...

@Kobo: enlightening you on the political situation in Belgium will require a long, long story... maybe even longer than the 160 days it is already taking to form a new government.


----------



## Kobo

Chimaera said:


> @Kobo: enlightening you on the political situation in Belgium will require a long, long story... maybe even longer than the 160 days it is already taking to form a new government.


Ok, fare point. But do you feel if Belgium were to brake up it would hinder thier W.C bid?


----------



## Chimaera

Kobo said:


> Ok, fare point. But do you feel if Belgium were to brake up it would hinder thier W.C bid?


I'll limit my explanation to the recent issues, otherwise I have to go several decades back in time, and that would mean a pageful of text. And I don't have the complete history of Belgium in my brain. Whether Belgium breaks up or not, Flemish, Walloons and "Brusseleirs" will have to find agreements/solutions for their mutual conflicts. Main problem here is what to do with Brussels and the facility towns along the "language border", especially around Brussels. Another one is the so-called "cashflow" from Flanders to Wallonia, which is considered a problem by many Flemish.
If those solutions could be found in time (before 2011), and the communities manage to find peace again, I don't see why a WC bid would be impossible, whether as one country or as two separate ones.


----------



## Erasmus

As far as it concerns the stadiums: The Netherlands are at this moment working to expand a lot of stadiums:
Kooimeer Plaza (AZ): from 15,000 now to 40,000 seats
Arke Stadium (Twente): from 15,000 now to 30,000 in the near future, can be expanded to host the World Championships
Nieuw Galgewaard (Utrecht): 25,000 now. Can be increased, no plans yet
Abe Lenstra Stadium (Heerenveen): 25,000+ now, will be increased to 40,000+ seats
Euroborg (Groningen): 20,000 seats now. Can be increased to 40,000 seats. Already planning a small increase of seats
Gelredome (Vitesse): 30,000 seats now. I don't know the possibility to increase the number of seats. They will however certainly try to become one of the cities to host some WC football games.

The big ones:
De Kuip (Feyenoord): 48,000 seats. They are planning to build a new 70,000+ seater. The old stadium will not be demolished, as it is a monument. There's two possible stadiums in Rotterdam that way
Arena (Ajax): 50,000 seats, but planning to increase the number of seats to over 60,000. Maybe the old Olympic Stadium can be increased to over 40,000, there's also two options in Amsterdam.
Philips Stadium (PSV): 35,000 seats now. Hard to increase the number of seats to over 40,000. New stadium???

The outsiders:
Rath Verlegh (NAC): 15,000 seats now but planning an increase to over 20,000 seats. The city of Breda is desperate to become a playing city in the WC football bid, they will definately look at plans to increase the capacity of their stadium.
Parkstad Limburg (Roda): 20,000 seats now. There are rumours of increasing the capacity of to wc football standards.

WTF: do we need them Belgians? I don't think so, but it would be better to do a joint bid for the wc football, just because of things like hotel-space and others. Certainly when the Belgians succeed in their plans to build the stadiums that qualify for wc football. Most likely cities: Bruxelles, Bruges, Liege, Charleroi. Other possibilities will be Genk or eventually Gent!


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

mavn said:


> Holland could do it:
> 
> Amsterdam 65000
> Rotterdam 70000
> Eindhoven 50000
> Heerenveen 45000
> Enschede 43000
> Alkmaar 40000
> Groningen 40000
> 
> Even without the WC, these capacities will probably be reached and filled. Some reconstruction have already started.
> 
> We would only need two from the list of:
> 
> Rotterdam 50000 (current Feyenoord stadium)
> Amsterdam/Almere 80000 (possible olympic stadium for 2028 bid)
> Kerkrade (temporary expansion to 40000)
> Utrecht
> The Hague
> Arnhem
> Breda
> 
> It would be a tight fit, but possible and not (on contrary to what a lot of people seem to think) "unneeded". The first 7 new stadiums/expansions will happen. WC or not.
> 
> And do you really think Fifa will ask a country to have at least a couple of other world cup quality stadiums left outside the bid just for the sake of it? If the bid consists of 9 or 10 stadiums with a minimum of 40000 seats (2 of 60000), you can make a valid bid. So Holland could do it.
> 
> But we've teamed up with Belgium, and that makes the chances of more stadium choices even bigger. But please, can we stop the arguments "Holland and Belgium don't need all those big stadiums". They are false. We do need them.


if Holland could host it alone then they would have bid alone, but they need Belgium to make a formidable bid, even then its a joint bid which most people do not like.

@your last paragraph: no they don't need them, for the world cup yes but otherwise no.


----------



## mavn

Its AlL gUUd said:


> if Holland could host it alone then they would have bid alone, but they need Belgium to make a formidable bid, even then its a joint bid which most people do not like.
> 
> @your last paragraph: no they don't need them, for the world cup yes but otherwise no.


We didn't go for a bid because Holland has a traditional lack of guts when it comes to these kind of things. On contrary to our international reputation. We always look at problems instead of opportunities.

Belgium wanted to do a bid and they needed us... 

BTW, Could you please tell me why we don't need them? Our league has the same average attendance as the Serie A and it's only slightly less than Ligue 1. You wouldn't question a French or Italian bid would you? The seven stadiums I mentioned will be build, whether or not the WC will be given to us. The same goes for at least 3 of the Belgian stadiums. So please, can you give me a valid argument as to why we don't need them. saying "you just don't need them" sounds a bit uneducated...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

mavn said:


> We didn't go for a bid because Holland has a traditional lack of guts when it comes to these kind of things. On contrary to our international reputation. We always look at problems instead of opportunities.
> 
> Belgium wanted to do a bid and they needed us...
> 
> BTW, Could you please tell me why we don't need them? Our league has the same average attendance as the Serie A and it's only slightly less than Ligue 1. You wouldn't question a French or Italian bid would you? The seven stadiums I mentioned will be build, whether or not the WC will be given to us. The same goes for at least 3 of the Belgian stadiums. So please, can you give me a valid argument as to why we don't need them. saying "you just don't need them" sounds a bit uneducated...


well basically the capacities are rarely full.


----------



## mavn

Its AlL gUUd said:


> well basically the capacities are rarely full.


In Holland?!?!? You must be joking...

Each season pretty much every team sells out all available season tickets (apart from 3 or 4 small ones). In fact, I think our occupancy is as big as any other country in Europe. Check the numbers before you start claiming things...

Again (3rd time), AZ Alkmaar, Groningen, Heerenveen, Twente, PSV and Feyenoord were talking about these proposed capacities before this whole "WC bid thing" started.

But hey, according to you, even England (34000 average league attendance) would be a doubtful host as to "needing" the big stadiums. Germany (40000) are the only eligible to make a European Bid. Holland (18000) Italy (18000) and France (21000) don't need all those stadiums. Even Spain's average League attendance (28000) is waaay to small to justify a world cup bid (especially if you take the 2 80k+ averages from Barca and Madrid away...) 

Come on, You don't want the Benelux to get it because you want England to get it. That's fine by me, but don't make up nonsense arguments. You don't have to, the English bid will be good enough by itself. You don't have to patronize our bid...


----------



## Benjuk

mavn said:


> In Holland?!?!? You must be joking...
> 
> Each season pretty much every team sells out all available season tickets (apart from 3 or 4 small ones). In fact, I think our occupancy is as big as any other country in Europe. Check the numbers before you start claiming things...
> 
> Again (3rd time), AZ Alkmaar, Groningen, Heerenveen, Twente, PSV and Feyenoord were talking about these proposed capacities before this whole "WC bid thing" started.
> 
> But hey, according to you, even England (34000 average league attendance) would be a doubtful host as to "needing" the big stadiums. Germany (40000) are the only eligible to make a European Bid. Holland (18000) Italy (18000) and France (21000) don't need all those stadiums. Even Spain's average League attendance (28000) is waaay to small to justify a world cup bid (especially if you take the 2 80k+ averages from Barca and Madrid away...)
> 
> Come on, You don't want the Benelux to get it because you want England to get it. That's fine by me, but don't make up nonsense arguments. You don't have to, the English bid will be good enough by itself. You don't have to patronize our bid...



I agree that there's no need to talk anyone else's bids down - the winning bid will be the best bid, end of story... However, why mention that England's average league attendance is 34000, but talk about Holland's proportion of tickets sold/available? It's too different stats - the English Premiership attendances, if you look at them on a club by club basis, are virtually all over 90% full on average (only Blackburn really let the league down)

Keep it positive - a Benelux bid would be good, and a tournament there would be good, I just suspect the bid won't be as strong as the English one (on the other hand, the fact you haven't hosted it before would have to count in your favour at least a bit).


----------



## mavn

Benjuk said:


> I agree that there's no need to talk anyone else's bids down - the winning bid will be the best bid, end of story... However, why mention that England's average league attendance is 34000, but talk about Holland's proportion of tickets sold/available? It's too different stats - the English Premiership attendances, if you look at them on a club by club basis, are virtually all over 90% full on average (only Blackburn really let the league down)
> 
> Keep it positive - a Benelux bid would be good, and a tournament there would be good, I just suspect the bid won't be as strong as the English one (on the other hand, the fact you haven't hosted it before would have to count in your favour at least a bit).



All I wanted to say by giving the 34000 number, was that by his arguments (Benelux doesn't need 40000 capacity stadiums) even an English bid could be questioned. Obviously, that was an extreme exaggeration... 

Apparently a lot of non Benelux people seem to know better what we need or don't need. That's just insulting and patronizing. Saying "you don't need those stadiums" is uninformed nonsense... And, even if it were true, you seriously think FIFA gives a... on whether these stadiums will be full or or half full after the event?

Reasons why I think a Benelux bid could by successful in comparison to an English bid besides stadiums by the way.
-An English world cup COULD become a hooligan festival (You can keep them from going abroad during a tournament, but what if the tournament comes to you? You're going to export them to anther country for a month? Government payed vacation to Ibiza or something...?) 
-The transportation infrastructure in the Benelux is superior to that in England. We may need to build stadiums, but England definitely needs to start building/organizing a proper rail and road network....


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger

mavn said:


> All I wanted to say by giving the 34000 number, was that by his arguments (Benelux doesn't need 40000 capacity stadiums) even an English bid could be questioned. Obviously, that was an extreme exaggeration...
> 
> Apparently a lot of non Benelux people seem to know better what we need or don't need. That's just insulting and patronizing. Saying "you don't need those stadiums" is uninformed nonsense... And, even if it were true, you seriously think FIFA gives a... on whether these stadiums will be full or or half full after the event?
> 
> Reasons why I think a Benelux bid could by successful in comparison to an English bid besides stadiums by the way.
> -An English world cup COULD become a hooligan festival (You can keep them from going abroad during a tournament, but what if the tournament comes to you? You're going to export them to anther country for a month? Government payed vacation to Ibiza or something...?)
> -The transportation infrastructure in the Benelux is superior to that in England. We may need to build stadiums, but England definitely needs to start building/organizing a proper rail and road network....


- Euro 96, in England, had less trouble than virtually any tournament in recent memory. England knows how to police these things. Hooliganism is also no area for the Dutch to be getting on their high horse. 
- The trains I'll give you, but if we have to rely on the Dutch road network to transport supoprters we are in trouble since it struggles to cope with the everyday level of traffic.

Having said that, I think the Benelux will put in a good bid. For me assuming Spain bid then it will be a good competition to be the hosts. Competition should mean that all 3 will have to try very hard to come up with something special to tip the vote. That has to be a good thing. Unlike the farce with brazil where they were given the world cup on a plate, no matter whether they had good plans or not. For me the deciding factors will be:

Spain: Spain should have a bid with great stadia but there may be a feeling of 'not their turn'.

Benelux: They can turn out as good bid, but in order to be a winning bid they will have to push the limits of their ambition, really go for it in terms of stadium improvements. Having the bare minimum number of 40-45 thousand stadiums means you can bid, but mow much do you want to win? In their favour is the, never before factor. 

England: Similar to France 2012, you feel it's their's to lose. But we know what happened there. The big issue for me will be over-confidence. If they say our stadiums are already good enough as they are, i think they could lose out to Spain. They will have to show they want to really want it, that means making improvements for the tournament itself. Complacency will see Spain's stadium specification gradually overhaul Englands by 2018.


----------



## RobH

Is there any indication Spain will bid? I've only ever heard it mentioned on internet forums, but not actually heard anything from the Spanish...


----------



## aCidMinD81

^^


aCidMinD81 said:


> I've just read in a Spanish newspaper that the Spanish Football Association expects to announce their bid for World Cup 2018 on the first semester of 2008.
> :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## mavn

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> - Euro 96, in England, had less trouble than virtually any tournament in recent memory. England knows how to police these things. Hooliganism is also no area for the Dutch to be getting on their high horse.
> - The trains I'll give you, but if we have to rely on the Dutch road network to transport supoprters we are in trouble since it struggles to cope with the everyday level of traffic.


You're right, Holland has it's fair share of hooliganism, but it's only between clubs. When the national team plays all hooligans seem to have vanished... In England it seems to be the other way round. I'm sure England can handle it, but Fifa will have a close eye on the matter. Any incidents at Euro 2008 could cause a serious problem for your bid. So let's hope all goes well (or Croatia would have to pull off an unexpected stunt). Because I think it would be very sad for any bid to fail for those reasons.

The road networks in Holland are crowded, granted, But especially the "Randstad" is one of the most crowded pieces of land in the world. Sure London on it's own is even more crowded, but from Schiphol airport (Especially by rail) you're faster in the city center of either Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague or Utrecht then you are in the city center of London from either Heathrow or Gatwick. And congestion wise, our roads probably aren't much worse (if any) than the roads in and around your big cities on a typical weekday.


----------



## Mo Rush

RobH said:


> Is there any indication Spain will bid? I've only ever heard it mentioned on internet forums, but not actually heard anything from the Spanish...


Spain is in a bidding frenzy. madrid 2012 madrid 2016. spain 2018?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

mavn said:


> Come on, You don't want the Benelux to get it because you want England to get it. That's fine by me, but don't make up nonsense arguments. You don't have to, the English bid will be good enough by itself. You don't have to patronize our bid...


Actually i don't have anything against the Benelux Bid, i'd prefer them to get it out of any other European Bid (apart from England of course). If Spain get it before England it would be absolutely scandalous.


----------



## KiwiBrit

mavn said:


> ...Reasons why I think a Benelux bid could by successful in comparison to an English bid besides stadiums by the way.
> -An English world cup COULD become a hooligan festival (You can keep them from going abroad during a tournament, but what if the tournament comes to you? You're going to export them to anther country for a month? Government payed vacation to Ibiza or something...?)
> -The transportation infrastructure in the Benelux is superior to that in England. We may need to build stadiums, but England definitely needs to start building/organizing a proper rail and road network....


Where do you get the idea you can stop hooligans from travelling to another country? Are you saying the last WC in Germany was trouble free? No matter what sanctions you put on people, they still find a way around them and travel! If the Benelux bid can guarantee not one hooligan will cross their boarders I would give them every World Cup.

And your claim about the transport system in the UK. You make it sound like England is a third World country. Yes the roads & trains can be improved, name a country with a perfect system? And yes, of course we have a proper road and rail network. In fact I've heard they may even begin to convert the road lights from gas to this new thing called electricity! Some English motorways even have 6-7 lanes in each direction at certain points, yet during rush hour they still lock up. The congestion may just have to do with the fact it's a small island with 60 million inhabitants. Nothing to do with not having any road system in place, as you stated.

Fans from further afield would probably only use air travel as their means of transport including internally. And Britain has very good international airports at every major city, sometimes two and in London's case even three. 

For Germany '06, England took over 100,000 supporters to the finals. Other nations took similar amounts. Let's see how your countries transportation system copes in such circumstances. Because I bet it hasn't been tested like that before?


----------



## mavn

KiwiBrit said:


> Where do you get the idea you can stop hooligans from travelling to another country? Are you saying the last WC in Germany was trouble free? No matter what sanctions you put on people, they still find a way around them and travel! If the Benelux bid can guarantee not one hooligan will cross their boarders I would give them every World Cup.


I've always understood that because of a "football law" during an EC or WC all by Police registered hooligans aren't allowed to leave England. The same way that they have to report to a local police station when their team plays. Holland is currently trying to copy that system and is always referring to the English system. And let's face it. In international football the English fans have a pretty bad reputation. Sure, allmost all of them have fine manners but a small group always manages to **** it up for everyone. 



KiwiBrit said:


> And your claim about the transport system in the UK. You make it sound like England is a third World country. Yes the roads & trains can be improved, name a country with a perfect system? And yes, of course we have a proper road and rail network. In fact I've heard they may even begin to convert the road lights from gas to this new thing called electricity! Some English motorways even have 6-7 lanes in each direction at certain points, yet during rush hour they still lock up. The congestion may just have to do with the fact it's a small island with 60 million inhabitants. Nothing to do with not having any road system in place, as you stated.


Whichever way you put it, our transportation networks are way more efficient. Our roads aren't more congested (not much les either i'll admit), and our country is more densely populated than England (Especially if you take away London for a second wich is a country on it's own to a certain degree...) 

When it comes to rail networks, I just learned on tv tonight that we have reletively a more or less perfect system. We've got the busiest rail network (amount of trains per hour per track) in the world. The government even aims to increase that by at least a factor of 1,5 in the coming years. But we're number 3 in the world when it comes to punctuality aswell. That pretty much speaks for itself. The English rail network is a complete mess. Far behind any other west-European country.



KiwiBrit said:


> Fans from further afield would probably only use air travel as their means of transport including internally. And Britain has very good international airports at every major city, sometimes two and in London's case even three.


All nice and well, but from Schiphol Airport (4th busiest airport in europe, 12th in the world. heathrow nr 1 and 3) it takes less time to get in the city center of either Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague or Utrecht then it wil take you to get in the City center of London from either Heathrow or Gatwick... That pretty much says it all doesn't it? And we have several other airports off course that can spread the passenger load. Besides that, we are better connected to the European High speed rail network than England is.



KiwiBrit said:


> For Germany '06, England took over 100,000 supporters to the finals. Other nations took similar amounts. Let's see how your countries transportation system copes in such circumstances. Because I bet it hasn't been tested like that before?


Has yours? From the top of my head I would say you had Euro 1996 and the commonwealth games in Manchester (way smaller), we had Euro 2000. I think we both managed alright. And I'm not claiming that England can't handle the amount of people, I'm just saying we at the moment can do it better and faster. Currently our overall transportation network is more refined than yours. Things could chance off course by 2018.


----------



## RobH

Transport was used by opponents of our 2012 bid to suggest we shouldn't get the Olympics. See how that turned out.

I'm not too worried about transport. Hundreds of thousands of football fans use public transport to get to football grounds every week in England. The stations around these stadiums are used to taking many, many people in a short period of time.


----------



## marrio415

mavn said:


> I've always understood that because of a "football law" during an EC or WC all by Police registered hooligans aren't allowed to leave England. The same way that they have to report to a local police station when their team plays. Holland is currently trying to copy that system and is always referring to the English system. And let's face it. In international football the English fans have a pretty bad reputation. Sure, allmost all of them have fine manners but a small group always manages to **** it up for everyone.
> 
> Whichever way you put it, our transportation networks are way more efficient. Our roads aren't more congested (not much les either i'll admit), and our country is more densely populated than England (Especially if you take away London for a second wich is a country on it's own to a certain degree...)
> 
> When it comes to rail networks, I just learned on tv tonight that we have reletively a more or less perfect system. We've got the busiest rail network (amount of trains per hour per track) in the world. The government even aims to increase that by at least a factor of 1,5 in the coming years. But we're number 3 in the world when it comes to punctuality aswell. That pretty much speaks for itself. The English rail network is a complete mess. Far behind any other west-European country.
> 
> All nice and well, but from Schiphol Airport (4th busiest airport in europe, 12th in the world. heathrow nr 1 and 3) it takes less time to get in the city center of either Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague or Utrecht then it wil take you to get in the City center of London from either Heathrow or Gatwick... That pretty much says it all doesn't it? And we have several other airports off course that can spread the passenger load. Besides that, we are better connected to the European High speed rail network than England is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i respect the fact that your trying to defend your bid.But do you think you can compare those countries to england.Every week in this country it's like the world cup with 92 league clubs playing week in week out,our top two leagues in the top four attendences in europe and do we hear of transport problems-no you don't(i don't doubt we have problems but what country doesn't we do have 46 million living in england you know and only about 680 miles long).we have the stadiums to which your country clearly doesn't yet we will get the world cup as we deserve it.Don't forget we invented the bloody game and that alone should mean we get it.By the way look into crossrail london the major rail link from canary wharf to maidstone tell me then can you not get to heathrow to london city in quick time it's only costing 16 billion pounds now thats investment my friend gatwick to the centre of london takes about thirty mins on the gawick express.and yes we are connected to the european high speed network please do your homework pal.transport clearly won't be an issue.As regards hooligenism that is no longer a major issue we have the best police set up in europe for that and one you cannot dispute as it is fact you should be more worried about germany,poland,holland and italy dude.


----------



## mavn

marrio415 said:


> i respect the fact that your trying to defend your bid.But do you think you can compare those countries to england.Every week in this country it's like the world cup with 92 league clubs playing week in week out,our top two leagues in the top four attendences in europe and do we hear of transport problems-no you don't(i don't doubt we have problems but what country doesn't we do have 46 million living in england you know and only about 680 miles long).we have the stadiums to which your country clearly doesn't yet we will get the world cup as we deserve it.Don't forget we invented the bloody game and that alone should mean we get it.By the way look into crossrail london the major rail link from canary wharf to maidstone tell me then can you not get to heathrow to london city in quick time it's only costing 16 billion pounds now thats investment my friend gatwick to the centre of london takes about thirty mins on the gawick express.and yes we are connected to the european high speed network please do your homework pal.transport clearly won't be an issue.As regards hooligenism that is no longer a major issue we have the best police set up in europe for that and one you cannot dispute as it is fact you should be more worried about germany,poland,holland and italy dude.



The passenger load on a weekday is bigger than on a saturday afternoon, so I don't get what you are trying to say with the first part... And about the stadiums. We'll have them by 2018. Whether we get the WC or not. 

Apparently you seem to think you have a divine right to organize the world cup. Here's one for you: You organized it once. We didn't. Wait in line, it's our turn...

Good to hear you're going to do something about the connections between the center of London and your Airports. We're are more efecient at it at the moment and also keep improving it as well. And I did my homework, pal. I said We're are BETTER connected to the high speed rail networks. We have two lines. From the south (France) through Belgium and from the East (Germany). You only have the channel tunnel.

When fans want to come to the worldcup we can offer them (to get into the country) 2 High speed rail links, several normal speed rail links, Numerous motorways, and Airports that are better connected to several city centers. To get into England you have 1 High speed rail link, 1 normal speed rail link, no moterways and bigger Airports which are less connected to their own city center than the dutch are to several. You can't really argue with that can you? The facts speak for themselves.

On the Hooligan part, I think English reputation in international football speaks for itself... Not wanting to disregard problems with other countries, but when next summer the English will make problems again, it could have a negative impact on your bid. Like the riots in Italy have had for the Italian bid for Euro 2012. We have our share of club rivalry hooliganism in Holland, but I think we can be pretty sure that it won't happen with the "Orange" fans. It would be a first in history 


The funny thing here, is that most of the English seem to think they have a god given right to get the WC in 2018. You criticize all other bids with arguments that are in some cases uninformed and in some simply false. But when somebody reveals a relative weak spot in your bid(in comparison to other bids) You start to come up with all kinds of excuses and stuff. Already i've read a few times that congestion is normal for you because there are so many of you on a small piece of land. Get your facts straight. Holland and Belgium are more densely populated than you are and therefor it's population forms a bigger burden on public transportation. Yet we achieve better results... especially on public transport. And since It will be pretty hard to get into England by car, public transport will be vital for you. You simply can't argue with that.


----------



## mavn

RobH said:


> Transport was used by opponents of our 2012 bid to suggest we shouldn't get the Olympics. See how that turned out.
> 
> I'm not too worried about transport. Hundreds of thousands of football fans use public transport to get to football grounds every week in England. The stations around these stadiums are used to taking many, many people in a short period of time.


And England criticized France that "Stade de France" would be too old and outdated by 2012. You dangled all kinds of fantastic stadium designs in front of the electing committee. Now that you got it, you managed to come up with the worst olympic stadium (relatvie to it's time) ever... Even in 2012, the Stade the France will be way more beautifull. Let alone 2013...

And this stunt should pretty much stops any English criticism were a country to make a WC bid which incorporates 1 or 2 temporary extensions because they can't sustain all those stadiums. You managed to come up with a temporary design when you only have to build 1 (so to peak) stadium...


----------



## Joop20

marrio415 said:


> Don't forget we invented the bloody game and that alone should mean we get it.


That argument sucks, dude.


----------



## RobH

> The funny thing here, is that most of the English seem to think they have a god given right to get the WC in 2018


That's simply not true. I read marrio415's post and cringed at some of his reasons for England deserving the world cup (i.e. "Don't forget we invented the bloody game and that alone should mean we get it").

I hope thast was meant as tongue in cheek (if it was, fair enough ) marrio415 because that sort of sentiment doesn't win anyone over!

Manv, it may be the case that your transport is better than ours, but I doubt ours is that much worse that it'll make any difference to voting members' intentions in four years time.

I think England and China are probably the two early favourites, but a lot can happen in four years. It'll be a great race though!


----------



## mavn

marrio415 said:


> of course it is but i do get wound so easy at the brit bashing when people clerly haven't been to the uk or england for that matter and germany 2006 our fans were well behaved it was the polish that were the trouble


Again, Australia and the Benelux are being critized with all kind of arguments that are based on misinformation and pure arrogance fueled patronizing. 

You seem to know they don't need the stadiums. You seem to think they'll all have running tracks around them. You seem to know all kind of things that are simply false.

But when somebody pouints out 1 or 2 points thight might be lacking or could be a small problem in comparison to other bids, it's regarded as "Brit bashing" and "you hate England". Come on guys, grow up. 

And for your information. I've been to England (London, Birmingham and a few other cities) several times in the last 15 years, and, well, I got to where I wanted to go, but it stopped me from ever being critical towards our public transport services. off course, I'm sure you'll manage fine if you would get the WC, but our system is better and way more punctual. All facts back this statement wether you like it or not...

When it comes to hooliganism, I fully agree that the English have behaved very well during the last events, but in the eyes of the general public in Europe, I think you're still percieved as a dangerous nation when it comes to violence around stadiums. (only with the national team, You're clubs have pretty much wiped that image away) You surely must understand that a certain image isn't cleared in a day. It will take time. And since I hate any violence, I hope all will be well and it won't be an issue. But IF anything happends at Euro 2008 for instance, it COULD have a negative effect. At least more than on the Netherlands for instance (pretty inconceavable seeing our track record around the national team in the last 20 years) simply because of your history. 

So, again, I don't hate you! In fact, I've enjoyed all my visits to your country very much. You can be a bit arrogant at times, but so are we. Just ask the Belgians


----------



## RobH

> You surely must understand that a certain image isn't cleared in a day


Not a day no, but isn't six years enough? A decade by the time 2011 rolls around.

Luckily it's not the general public on the continent who'll be voting on this though!


----------



## Quintana

Surely countries that can't even qualify for the Euro's shouldn't be hosting World Cups.


----------



## Mo Rush

Quintana said:


> Surely countries that can't even qualify for the Euro's shouldn't be hosting World Cups.


south africa's national team can't even play football. no i dont think it matters.


----------



## mavn

Quintana said:


> Surely countries that can't even qualify for the Euro's shouldn't be hosting World Cups.


Damn, You beat me to it. I guess the argument that Belgium wouldn't desirve a wildcard will be pretty much silenced by this.

Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result. 

But, although you would probably have gone home after the first round if you had qualified (damn you looked poor tonight... hno , An English team should always be at a EC or WC.


----------



## RobH

> Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result.


Ha, bloody ha! :tongue3:



> Surely countries that can't even qualify for the Euro's shouldn't be hosting World Cups.


I doubt England will ever sink far enough that the inclusion of an English team will look strange amongst the other teams in the tournament. I mean, if FIFA are prepared to give Korea and Japan an automatic spot each and UEFA are prepared to give Austria and Switzerland automatic spots....

Nah, we'll win the 2010 world cup and then it'll all be fine. You'll see :uh:

:badnews:


----------



## Benjuk

mavn said:


> Damn, You beat me to it. I guess the argument that Belgium wouldn't desirve a wildcard will be pretty much silenced by this.
> 
> *Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result. *
> But, although you would probably have gone home after the first round if you had qualified (damn you looked poor tonight... hno , An English team should always be at a EC or WC.


As England are famed for taking huge numbers with them - most of whom require hotel accomodation, food, drinks, etc., many of whom are willing to pay way over-the-top prices for tickets to 'entrepeneurs', and the vast majority of whom behave well, I would think that Austrian and Swiss businesses will be gutted that England failed to qualify.


----------



## mavn

Benjuk said:


> As England are famed for taking huge numbers with them - most of whom require hotel accomodation, food, drinks, etc., many of whom are willing to pay way over-the-top prices for tickets to 'entrepeneurs', and the vast majority of whom behave well, I would think that Austrian and Swiss businesses will be gutted that England failed to qualify.


Russia bring people too. Way less (but way more rich) , but a lot of them non the less. Other countries will bring loads of fans too, and they will have to pay over-the-top prices for all things as well. The English not being there won't have that big an impact. 

I merely stated it because (like I said in previous posts) football programs i saw last night showed exactly wat I said. Off course it was meant tongue-in-cheek, but there might be more truth in at than you think. 

"The police at Euro 2008 will be happy because chances on violence will be a lot less now that the English aren't going" 

Unlike the English seem to think, this is still an issue. Call it ingnorant, but they're still regarded as a nation that brings a lot of violence. Whether it's true or not is sort of irrelevant. You'll have to start to try and change that image because it could hurt you. Well, not at Euro 2008 that is.


----------



## RobH

> Call it ingnorant, but they're still regarded as a nation that brings a lot of violence


I will call it ignorant. Mind bogglingly ignorant in fact and there's no excuse for such ignorance given the time and money that's been spent in our country trying to get rid of this problem.



> You'll have to start to try and change that image because it could hurt you.


_Start_ to change that image? Because we've obviously been sitting on our arses for the last 15 years doing nothing to prevent the problem! I'm sorry but that sentence comes across as thoughtless and does a great disservice to all those who have, not only started to get rid of this image, but have almost totally irradicated hooligans from English football.

Mavn, that image has been irrelevent for six years! Is that not long enough for you: I know the pace of life is more relaxed over in Holland but come on! What else can we do? How long do we have to wait before you'll consign what is history to history? The authorities have done everything possible to irradicate this problem investing a huge amount of money and time. They have pretty much got rid of the travelling hooligan element; and yet you dimiss this effort by saying "oh yeh, but your image still isn't very good". WTF?!

Well, if our image still isn't very good that's tough and that's really your problem, not ours because there's not much more we can do that hasn't already been done. It's reality that counts not "image" and I'm fed up with this argument coming up every time England is discussed on various forums on the internet.

I'm sorry for the tone of this post, but as I've said, it angers me that some people regard this as an issue still.


----------



## Lostboy

The Belgians are better at starting race wars than us, I believe should they host we would see race riots erupt across their cities, Belgians are well known for their racism. I certainly would not mind losing to the Dutch (whether that is the Netherlands or the Greater Netherlands including Flanders) but never to the Belgians, the Dutch would do well to stay away from Belgians and those who sympathise with their kind as for the Belgians you race hate monsters should stick to the Unicycle tour of Wallonia or whatever World Sport you are leaders in.


----------



## Lostboy

_Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result. _

So will TV fees. You are one ignorant, hateful, dirty little man who has no place on this forum.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

belgium/the netherlands 2018 WC ok! but have Luxembourg host??


----------



## mavn

Lostboy said:


> _Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result. _
> 
> So will TV fees. You are one ignorant, hateful, dirty little man who has no place on this forum.


Damn, you can't even see a teasing joke when it's right in front of your eyes...hno:

Please educate me on what ignorant, hateful and being dirty have to with it tough... But hey, somebody made a joke about England. Let's hang him...


----------



## Joop20

Lostboy said:


> The Belgians are better at starting race wars than us, I believe should they host we would see race riots erupt across their cities, Belgians are well known for their racism. I certainly would not mind losing to the Dutch (whether that is the Netherlands or the Greater Netherlands including Flanders) but never to the Belgians, the Dutch would do well to stay away from Belgians and those who sympathise with their kind as for the Belgians you race hate monsters should stick to the Unicycle tour of Wallonia or whatever World Sport you are leaders in.


Are you on crack _again_?


----------



## mavn

RobH said:


> I will call it ignorant. Mind bogglingly ignorant in fact and there's no excuse for such ignorance given the time and money that's been spent in our country trying to get rid of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> _Start_ to change that image? Because we've obviously been sitting on our arses for the last 15 years doing nothing to prevent the problem! I'm sorry but that sentence comes across as thoughtless and does a great disservice to all those who have, not only started to get rid of this image, but have almost totally irradicated hooligans from English football.
> 
> Mavn, that image has been irrelevent for six years! Is that not long enough for you: I know the pace of life is more relaxed over in Holland but come on! What else can we do? How long do we have to wait before you'll consign what is history to history? The authorities have done everything possible to irradicate this problem investing a huge amount of money and time. They have pretty much got rid of the travelling hooligan element; and yet you dimiss this effort by saying "oh yeh, but your image still isn't very good". WTF?!
> 
> Well, if our image still isn't very good that's tough and that's really your problem, not ours because there's not much more we can do that hasn't already been done. It's reality that counts not "image" and I'm fed up with this argument coming up every time England is discussed on various forums on the internet.
> 
> I'm sorry for the tone of this post, but as I've said, it angers me that some people regard this as an issue still.


I was just trying to tell you what I hear around me, read on forums and see on TV. Don't shoot the messenger...

I personally *fully agree* on what you're saying . Maybe the fact that you travel with so many still fears the cities and nations that you visit? 

BTW, these fears are solely around your national team. With regards to violence around domestic league matches (and European matches of those teams) your applauded for the efforts you made all around the continent. In Holland for instance, your laws on this are regarded is the perfect solution for the (relatively small) problems that we have with the matter. The legislation that is prepared will be like a carbon copy of yours.


----------



## Chimaera

mavn said:


> Damn, you can't even see a teasing joke when it's right in front of your eyes...hno:
> 
> Please educate me on what ignorant, hateful and being dirty have to with it tough... But hey, somebody made a joke about England. Let's hang him...


He was just talking to himself.


----------



## RobH

mavn said:


> I was just trying to tell you what I hear around me, read on forums and see on TV. Don't shoot the messenger...
> 
> I personally *fully agree* on what you're saying . Maybe the fact that you travel with so many still fears the cities and nations that you visit?
> 
> BTW, these fears are solely around your national team. With regards to violence around domestic league matches (and European matches of those teams) your applauded for the efforts you made all around the continent. In Holland for instance, your laws on this are regarded is the perfect solution for the (relatively small) problems that we have with the matter. The legislation that is prepared will be like a carbon copy of yours.


Sorry. I wasn't so much having a go at you as the things you were telling me. The thing is England do travel in huge numbers, maybe that does make people fearful but it oughtn't.

Anyway, regardless of the ignorance amonst some people on the continent, they're not the people who decide 2018 so that should in no way effect our bid for 2018:

_"Forget marketing, forget promotion. The target audience is not the world. 

"The executive committee of Fifa is 24 men, one of whom is Sepp Blatter. And these 24 men award the World Cup."_

These are the words of the special advisor to FIFA president Sepp Blatter, Peter Hargitay who, along with Markus Siegler, Fifa's former director of communications is now working for England 2018.

*FA hires big hitters for 2018 bid *


----------



## mavn

BTW,

I know the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants were to blame for the state of last nights pitch, but the way it looked, it wasn't a nice commercial for a world cup of great football... 

It also shows that current stadiums that are being build are a disaster to the quality of pitches. Steep tiers, enclosing roofs. This really is a problem you see in a lot of the new stadiums around Europe. Old Wembley had a name for having a pitch of fantastic quality. Unfortunately, I don't think new Wembley will be able to sustain that legacy.


----------



## RobH

I don't know. The new German stadiums for the 2006 world cup haven't had those sorts of problems as far as I'm aware. 

Arsenal's Emirates has a great pitch and that is a fairly similar stadium to Wembley in many ways.

I'm sure whatever it is it's fixable, even if it does mean a completely new pitch and undersoil.


----------



## mavn

RobH said:


> I don't know. The new German stadiums for the 2006 world cup haven't had those sorts of problems as far as I'm aware.
> 
> Arsenal's Emirates has a great pitch and that is a fairly similar stadium to Wembley in many ways.
> 
> I'm sure whatever it is it's fixable, even if it does mean a completely new pitch and undersoil.


We've had this problem at th Amsterdam Arena since it opened. It has become better but it's far from ideal. And to a certain extend even at Eindhovens Philips Stadium. When they added the top corners, they made a construction that could be "opened" so wind could come through it. It didnt work that well as the state of the pitch most of the time is mediocre at best.

I believe the Allianz Arena is having similar problems.
A pitch needs sunshine, rain and wind to grow. And especially the lack of wind and sun (we're not on the equator) are a problem.


----------



## Chimaera

RobH said:


> Sorry. I wasn't so much having a go at you as the things you were telling me. The thing is England do travel in huge numbers, maybe that does make people fearful but it oughtn't.
> 
> Anyway, regardless of the ignorance amonst some people on the continent, they're not the people who decide 2018 so that should in no way effect our bid for 2018:
> 
> _"Forget marketing, forget promotion. The target audience is not the world.
> 
> "The executive committee of Fifa is 24 men, one of whom is Sepp Blatter. And these 24 men award the World Cup."_
> 
> These are the words of the special advisor to FIFA president Sepp Blatter, Peter Hargitay who, along with Markus Siegler, Fifa's former director of communications is now working for England 2018.
> 
> *FA hires big hitters for 2018 bid *


Well, if it's going to be that way, maybe FC Bruges President Michel D'Hooghe (honorary president of the Belgian Football Union) can do something with his connections:

- President of the FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre
- Chairman of the UEFA Medical Committee
- European Member of the FIFA Executive Committee

:dunno:


----------



## RobH

> Well, if it's going to be that way


Whether you like it or not, it is! :lol:

That's what these four years will be once the plans are completed; getting people on side and that's ALL about personal connections and what goes on behinf closed doors and in FIFA's corridors of power.


----------



## genkie456

Do not forget the influence of:

Jacques Rogge (belgian): President of the IOC

The capital of Belgium , Brussels: city with a metropolian area of 2 to 4 million people. Capital of europe. Second diplomatic city in the world (after washington) and fifth business city of europe.


Reasons why I think a benelux bid is better than a single dutch bid.


----------



## eusebius

I think la Belgique and Luxembourg should go on without those awful Dutch. Lots of Calatrava stadiums please!


----------



## Martuh

Lol belgium doesn't even exists.


----------



## genkie456

EU doesn't exist either, US is devided, Russia has more than 52 communities,...
There will always exist problems and tensions. It's how yoy manage those problems. You can do that with democracy or with a gun (Pim fortuyn in holland,...). So that's not a reason for a bid.


----------



## RobH

genkie456 said:


> Do not forget the influence of:
> 
> Jacques Rogge (belgian): President of the IOC


I'm sure he has some influence but it certainly won't be decisive. It was known that he favoured Paris 2012 yet the IOC, the organisation he heads and the place where his influence is strongest, didn't vote for his preferred city.


----------



## AdamT

Australia should get it imo


----------



## Chimaera

eusebius said:


> Lots of Calatrava stadiums please!


The first Calatrava building in Belgium is rising: the new railway station in Liège. It would be nice to have a second one, more specifically: a stadium.


----------



## Benjuk

genkie456 said:


> Do not forget the influence of:
> 
> Jacques Rogge (belgian): President of the IOC


Why would he have any influence what-so-ever over the World Cup? He's got nothing that FIFA want and they are the most self-obsessed organisation in the world.


----------



## NavyBlue

Benjuk said:


> Why would he have any influence what-so-ever over the World Cup? *He's got nothing that FIFA want and they are the most self-obsessed organisation in the world.*


Totally agree but I would've thought the word corrupt would be a more appropriate description of the IOC.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger

NavyBlue said:


> Totally agree but I would've thought the word corrupt would be a more appropriate description of the IOC.


Ha, maybe we should have a poll, who do we think is more corrupt FIFA or IOC? Would be a pretty close run thing.


----------



## RobH

The IOC have cleaned their act up somewhat since the scandals in the last decade. I think now it's definately FIFA that holds that crown.


----------



## Lostboy

Isn't it strange all those organisations founded by the Latins happen to be the most corrupt. Time for Germanic Institutions with our incorruptible administrations.


----------



## genkie456

Since rogge headed the ioc, a lot of corruption is out there. The voting is now live on television. That's not with the Fifa. It's all a bit more transparant in the IOC for the moment. Not that it is all clean. But it's quite a bit less corrupt than in times of the situation of salt lake city.

Possible influence of rogge: countries in africa depend on money support from the ioc. The same countries have a vote in the fifa for a world cup. I think it can have influence.


----------



## marrio415

mavn said:


> Unlike the English seem to think, this is still an issue. Call it ingnorant, but they're still regarded as a nation that brings a lot of violence. Whether it's true or not is sort of irrelevant. You'll have to start to try and change that image because it could hurt you. Well, not at Euro 2008 that is.


well i have to say then the rest of europe is out of touch and yes it is ignorence.The image of the english fan has changed but it seems europe chooses not to see it.As regards Euro 2008 i'm glad were not there because the group stages is all we would have played.And at the moment it's the team i am concerned about not the fans.If the team was like the fans the team would be world cup winners.


----------



## skaP187

Lostboy said:


> Isn't it strange all those organisations founded by the Latins happen to be the most corrupt. Time for Germanic Institutions with our incorruptible administrations.


??? What are you trying to say here?


----------



## mavn

marrio415 said:


> well i have to say then the rest of europe is out of touch and yes it is ignorence.The image of the english fan has changed but it seems europe chooses not to see it.As regards Euro 2008 i'm glad were not there because the group stages is all we would have played.And at the moment it's the team i am concerned about not the fans.If the team was like the fans the team would be world cup winners.


That's why 6 thousand Croatians sounded like 84000 home fans and 84000 sounded like an away section somewhere stuck somewhere along the top tier? 

And the Scottish showed ten times more passion as well in the match against Italy than you did last week...

On average, you've got good and loud fans but don't get carried away now...


----------



## marrio415

mavn said:


> That's why 6 thousand Croatians sounded like 84000 home fans and 84000 sounded like an away section somewhere stuck somewhere along the top tier?
> 
> And the Scottish showed ten times more passion as well in the match against Italy than you did last week...
> 
> On average, you've got good and loud fans but don't get carried away now...


we were talking about recent behaviour of our fans this time you've turned to talking about vocal support(stick to the point at hand dude) well we are a little disillusioned with our teamat the moment as you can expect overpriced and overpaid muppets the only two players who showed balls were Beckham(as usual) and Crouch.(fans were gobsmacked as we all were nearly every england player who played that night were booed on the pitch today while playing for there respective clubs)


----------



## Benjuk

skaP187 said:


> ??? What are you trying to say here?


Ignore him and he might go away. He's the biggest attention seeker on here.


----------



## RobH

Great start :uh:


----------



## JimB

mavn said:


> What I said was about you claiming you'd be World Champion if it was for you fans...
> 
> But please, can we rest these arguments and all. Around me I hear a lot of jokes like "the police over there will be happy England didn't qualify" and similar remarks. Personally, I don't really agree with those. But when I use them as a possible "image problem" I'M getting crucified. It apparently is a fairly sensitive matter for you guys...
> 
> So I'm not going to discuss it any more. I'll always be offending someone, and others fail to see that I'm not necessarily speaking my own oppinion.


It's quite clear that, despite all your protestations of innocence, you have been trolling on and on about England and the English 2018 bid for the past five or ten pages. That's not to say that some English posters haven't been equally guilty. But the fact that you continually post crap about English hooligans and about how the English are arrogant etc and then recant, claiming that it was only a joke, means that people have tired of you. Your claims of innocence appear totally insincere. So I think you're right. Best that you don't discuss it any more.


----------



## JimB

Joop20 said:


> Regarding this issue: it has been stated numerous times in this thread that Australia is in the 'wrong' timezone to host a world cup. I don't think this is totaly true. Australia is very convienetly located regarding the timezones of for example China, Japan and South Korea, which are important markets for Fifa.


After Brazil 2014, the next two world cups will go to Europe and Asia. If Asia gets 2018, Europe will get 2022 and vice versa. Australia is now a member of the Asian Football Confederation and shares the same time zones with many big Asian countries, so there's no good reason why they couldn't host the World Cup.


----------



## Joop20

JimB said:


> After Brazil 2014, the next two world cups will go to Europe and Asia. If Asia gets 2018, Europe will get 2022 and vice versa. Australia is now a member of the Asian Football Confederation and shares the same time zones with many big Asian countries, so there's no good reason why they couldn't host the World Cup.


Yep, that's exactly what i was saying, hence the timezone argument against an Australian bid isn't valid.


----------



## JimB

Regarding the relative merits of a Benelux bid and an English bid, I think it would come down to Benelux never having hosted a World Cup before against England having a plethora of iconic footballing venues.

I'm quite certain that Holland and Belgium could have good enough and big enough stadiums by 2018. But England will still be superior in that one vital respect. The Benelux stadiums would probably have an average capacity of no more than 50,000. The English stadiums would, by 2018, probably have an average capacity in excess of 60,000.

Furthermore, because of the worldwide coverage of the Premiership and because of the fame and popularity of clubs such as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, English stadiums have an iconic status that the Benelux stadiums will not be able to match. And that's before even considering Wembley.

However, Holland and Belgium have never hosted the World Cup and many will feel that they deserve a chance. I suspect, also, that the English bid will be scuppered by political manoeuvring. The bumbling English FA has never been good at winning friends in high places. Many within FIFA (and UEFA) would therefore love to deny England the chance to host the World Cup and will side with Holland and Belgium.


----------



## mavn

JimB said:


> It's quite clear that, despite all your protestations of innocence, you have been trolling on and on about England and the English 2018 bid for the past five or ten pages. That's not to say that some English posters haven't been equally guilty.


I haven't. The first time, I only used to point out some issues that COULD be a negative thing for the English bid IN COMPARISON to other bids. The 50 pages before that "the English" (unfair generalization, I know. Just to make my point) did exactly the same about the non English bids. Apart from a possible Spanish bid, all others were being flamed. I never intended to start a discussion the way it turned out. I merely pointed out the things that you could work on to make the bid more succesfull (improved public transport and an improved image for the English supporters for the people outside of England)



JimB said:


> But the fact that you continually post crap about English hooligans and about how the English are arrogant etc


People kept misunderstanding me thinking I claimed that all English supporters are a bunch hooligans. I tried to clear that by saying what I meant with the hooligan issue which was again interpreted as if I was flaming them. A lot of people simply didn't read my posts. People kept quoting me thinking I said all English fans are hooligans...



JimB said:


> and then recant, claiming that it was only a joke, means that people have tired of you.


I never said it was a joke. You are mixing up two things here. The quote: "Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result" was used in a teasing post about the English failing to qualify for euro 2008. For me, it was obvious that this was a teasing joke. Perhaps I shouldn't have made it given the earlier discussions. My bad. 



JimB said:


> Your claims of innocence appear totally insincere.


I would like to ask you to read all my posts on this issue and then come back to me on it. From the start onwards I never said the English supporters are Hooligans. Only that there is a negative image in a lot of peoples minds outside of England. 

I've read in papers and heard on TV several remarks like "the Austrian/Swiss police will be happy England didn't qualify". I'm not making this up. I'm just stating what I hear.

All I tried to do, was to point out an issue that could harm your bid somewhat in regards to other bids. Not because it is true, but because a lot of people still think it's true. Do with it as you like, but don't accuse of intolerance just because I'm saying the things I see and hear around me. 



JimB said:


> So I think you're right.Best that you don't discuss it any more.


I've said all I had to say, but people keep quoting me an then state false accusations.


----------



## eomer

Kobo said:


> Europe though could shoot it's self in the foot here by putting in so many bids, and thus losing lots of votes.


That's so thrue...:bash:
Maybe should UEFA organize a vote to chose only one European bid before sending it to FIFA ? I think that Spain should host Euro 2016 (assuming that Madrid won't get OG 2016) and England should host WC 2018).
Australia can wait until 2022. Spain allready hosted in 1982, USA in 1994 and Mexico in 1970 and 1986.

If UK got Euro 2016 (Scotland and Walles) after OG 2012 (London), Commonwealth games 2014 (Cardiff) and RWC 2015 (Scotland or England), it will be hard for England to get WC 2018: Benelux would be a good choice for Europe.


----------



## Kobo

eomer said:


> That's so thrue...:bash:
> Maybe should UEFA organize a vote to chose only one European bid before sending it to FIFA ? I think that Spain should host Euro 2016 (assuming that Madrid won't get OG 2016) and England should host WC 2018).
> Australia can wait until 2022, USA allready hosted WC 1994 and Mexico allready hosted WC twice (1970 and 1986)


I think that is what would happen, Uefa will have to back one bid from Europe so that it stands a good chance of bringing the World Cup back to Europe in 2018. Otherwise China, Australia or U.S.A will win. Deciding which country should be that European bid will be tough.


----------



## mavn

JimB said:


> Regarding the relative merits of a Benelux bid and an English bid, I think it would come down to Benelux never having hosted a World Cup before against England having a plethora of iconic footballing venues.
> 
> I'm quite certain that Holland and Belgium could have good enough and big enough stadiums by 2018. But England will still be superior in that one vital respect. The Benelux stadiums would probably have an average capacity of no more than 50,000. The English stadiums would, by 2018, probably have an average capacity in excess of 60,000.
> 
> Furthermore, because of the worldwide coverage of the Premiership and because of the fame and popularity of clubs such as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, English stadiums have an iconic status that the Benelux stadiums will not be able to match. And that's before even considering Wembley.
> 
> However, Holland and Belgium have never hosted the World Cup and many will feel that they deserve a chance. I suspect, also, that the English bid will be scuppered by political manoeuvring. The bumbling English FA has never been good at winning friends in high places. Many within FIFA (and UEFA) would therefore love to deny England the chance to host the World Cup and will side with Holland and Belgium.


Our stadiums won't be able to compete with yours capacity wise. That will be fact. But our stadiums will probably be of similar size to the ones in Germany last year so we'll be able to give you a good battle.

When it comes to the worldwide acknowledgment of your teams and stadiums I think you're exagerating a bit. New Wembley shares nothing with the "real" Wembley other than the name and ground it's build on. But the name will probably be a big selling point in itself I guess. 

And as to clubs, I don't think Arsenal for instance can compete with Ajax on being known worldwide. And let's not start about the prizes they've won. Even Feyenoord and PSV can compete with Manchester United when it comes to European trophies. England as a whole have obviously won more trophies than we have though and you're league has become way bigger. Money rules.

Emirates stadium is a nice new stadium but the Amsterdam Arena isn't some kind of old dump. And as to "the kuip" (feyenoord stadium) it has featured more european finals then any other stadium. Talking about iconic status... 

Yes, like I said, you're stadiums will out power ours, but it's not like we are putting some old just big enough dumpsters in the race.

And you're national team isn't as big a selling point anymore. On the contrary, Your stadiums profit from the premier League but you're national team doesn't. You're league is buying so much foreigners that several names that come on the pitch are virtually unknown to the general population in the world. The players we do know from teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester and Chelsea are foreigners. Not much of our players play in Holland but they do play in the big leagues for big teams. They are recognized worldwide. 

Blatter has stated on several occasions did he doesn't like the fact that the big leagues just buy all the players they can get and leave the smaller countries empty. If the Premier League keeps doing business as it is now, it could harm you're chances. That's the negative side to having a big league with big stadiums.


----------



## Joop20

Gold Coast stadium u/c, nearing completion (capacity - 27,000):




























Melbourne Rectangular stadium u/c (capacity - 31,500):


----------



## JimB

mavn said:


> Our stadiums won't be able to compete with yours capacity wise. That will be fact. But our stadiums will probably be of similar size to the ones in Germany last year so we'll be able to give you a good battle.
> 
> When it comes to the worldwide acknowledgment of your teams and stadiums I think you're exagerating a bit. New Wembley shares nothing with the "real" Wembley other than the name and ground it's build on. But the name will probably be a big selling point in itself I guess.
> 
> And as to clubs, I don't think Arsenal for instance can compete with Ajax on being known worldwide. And let's not start about the prizes they've won. Even Feyenoord and PSV can compete with Manchester United when it comes to European trophies. England as a whole have obviously won more trophies than we have though and you're league has become way bigger. Money rules.
> 
> Emirates stadium is a nice new stadium but the Amsterdam Arena isn't some kind of old dump. And as to "the kuip" (feyenoord stadium) it has featured more european finals then any other stadium. Talking about iconic status...
> 
> Yes, like I said, you're stadiums will out power ours, but it's not like we are putting some old just big enough dumpsters in the race.
> 
> And you're national team isn't as big a selling point anymore. On the contrary, Your stadiums profit from the premier League but you're national team doesn't. You're league is buying so much foreigners that several names that come on the pitch are virtually unknown to the general population in the world. The players we do know from teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester and Chelsea are foreigners. Not much of our players play in Holland but they do play in the big leagues for big teams. They are recognized worldwide.
> 
> Blatter has stated on several occasions did he doesn't like the fact that the big leagues just buy all the players they can get and leave the smaller countries empty. If the Premier League keeps doing business as it is now, it could harm you're chances. That's the negative side to having a big league with big stadiums.


Sorry, but 90% of what you have just written is irrelevant.

When bids are considered, the domestic league and the quality of the national team is unimportant. Otherwise, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, USA and even Mexico would never have hosted the World Cup.

And I repeat: England's stadiums will be far better known than Holland's and Belgium's. That's not an arrogant boast. It's simply fact. (and, incidentally, I never said that Benelux's stadiums would be poor quality - just that they would be smaller and less iconic). Comparatively few people around the world watch the Eredivisie. By contrast, virtually the whole world (other than South America) watches the Premiership avidly.

But, as I also said, the decision won't be made purely on the basis of stadiums. Benelux has a good chance because they have never hosted the world cup before and because there will be many voters who won't want England to be awarded the tournament. For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.


----------



## mavn

JimB said:


> Sorry, but 90% of what you have just written is irrelevant.
> 
> When bids are considered, the domestic league and the quality of the national team is unimportant. Otherwise, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, USA and even Mexico would never have hosted the World Cup.
> 
> And I repeat: England's stadiums will be far better known than Holland's and Belgium's. That's not an arrogant boast. It's simply fact. (and, incidentally, I never said that Benelux's stadiums would be poor quality - just that they would be smaller and less iconic). Comparatively few people around the world watch the Eredivisie. By contrast, virtually the whole world (other than South America) watches the Premiership avidly.
> 
> But, as I also said, the decision won't be made purely on the basis of stadiums. Benelux has a good chance because they have never hosted the world cup before and because there will be many voters who won't want England to be awarded the tournament. For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.


Ok, I get your point. Maybe we just mean something different by "iconic". Because I don't think it applies to stadiums like Emirates, the new Liverpool stadium and new Wembley. Their "just" really nice, big, new stadiums like in any other country. Highbury, Anfield and old wembley would have been iconic though.

And with regard to the league, I think it's pretty relevant when people like Blatter and Platini make negative comments on the Premier league. They will eventually be the kind of people that will decide who gets the World Cup. If the Premier League opposes to the plans Blatter has with regards to the amount of foreigners per team and such things, not giving them the world cup could be a easy punishment from their point of view...

But as it is, England is still a small favourite for me. Let's wait till the real bids are made, only then we can say who has the best one and who will be the one to beat.


----------



## Lars13

JimB said:


> For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.



Let me give you some additional reasons...

First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.

Secondly, England will host the Olympic games in 2012, so for them to host the world cup four years after that, would be slightly "over the top". But that doesn't mean Enland is a bad candidate, on the contrary! Football would come home (again), and they have the stadiums and know-how to organise this kind of mass-event.

What to do with Spain then? The biggest competitor for Belgium and Holland I guess. Nice stadiums, with plenty of updating (e.g. Cap Nou) and new construction initiatives (e.g. Valencia). But it would be the second time they'll host a world cup...

My vote goes to Belgium and Holland, but they have to come up with some solid plans and propositions to make their bid more tangible.


----------



## Joop20

Lars13 said:


> First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.


Can't really agree with you on this point. Remember that the last world cup in Asia was in 2002, while the last world cup in Europe was in 2006. If Europe can't unite behind one bid, and Asia can, I don't see why China or Australia won't have a fair chance for the 2018 world cup.


----------



## dwbakke

Benjuk said:


> Been google-newsing some old articles - I can see an Aussie bid falling apart as Victoria and NSW argue over who hosts the final!
> 
> Are any of our American friends able to comment on if there were any such problems in the US pre1994 Finals (New York arguing with LA for example?)


New York almost didn't get to host any games at all, due to complications with the field at the Meadowlands, which in 1994 was artificial turf. A temporary grass field was eventually put in for the World Cup, but the final had been already set for LA. The Rose Bowl is bigger and LA probably would have gotten the final anyway, but these issues ensured it.


----------



## Benjuk

Joop20 said:


> Regarding this issue: it has been stated numerous times in this thread that Australia is in the 'wrong' timezone to host a world cup. I don't think this is totaly true. Australia is very convienetly located regarding the timezones of for example China, Japan and South Korea, which are important markets for Fifa.


One comment re the time zone issue...

If a game kicks off in Sydney at 3pm, live broadcasts in Europe would be between 6-9am, in East Africa/Middle East 9am - in South America it would be between 1-3am, in North America between 11pm-1am. None of them particularly good for tv ratings/advertising revenue - especially as around 19 of the qualifying sides come from the "Euro" time slot, similarly 8 or 9 are from the Americas.

That's the chief reason FIFA likes to bring things back to Europe - keep the biggest audience happy, keep the cash rolling in. That said, I've no idea how much the tv rights are in far East Asia - but I suspect they don't rival those in Europe.


----------



## JimB

mavn said:


> Ok, I get your point. Maybe we just mean something different by "iconic". Because I don't think it applies to stadiums like Emirates, the new Liverpool stadium and new Wembley. Their "just" really nice, big, new stadiums like in any other country. Highbury, Anfield and old wembley would have been iconic though.


Not just big and new. The English stadiums will also be known around the world. To give you an example of what I mean:

For my sins, I'm a Spurs fan. We're a big club with a good history. But we haven't been successful over the past twenty years. And we've rarely played in Europe in all that time. And yet, the players and supporters of our UEFA Cup opponents over the past two seasons have been incredibly excited to come to White Hart Lane. They know all about Tottenham and White Hart Lane. I know this because I love to visit the message boards of those European teams that we are about to play.

Without exception, they have all been thrilled to come up against Spurs. Not because they thought it gave them an easy route to the next round (quite the contrary - last season, in particular, we were one of two or three teams most likely to win the cup). The reason all these teams and fans have been thrilled to play Tottenham is because, whether you like to admit it or not, English football and English stadiums are so famous around the world.

One of the teams Spurs faced earlier this season was Getafe. They had beaten Twente Enschede of Holland in the previous round (Enschede would be one of the venues in any Holland / Belgium bid). Playing Twente was a big deal for Getafe fans but only because it was their first ever European game. In all other respects, they knew nothing about Twente or their stadium. By contrast, when Getafe fans discovered that their next game would be at White Hart Lane, they turned cartwheels of delight. That would be their first real taste of big time European football and a chance to play in such a famous stadium. They were chuffed to bits.

Tottenham has done hardly anything noteworthy in over twenty years. Yet to play against Spurs at White Hart Lane is still a dream come true for our opponents.

That is what any Holland / Belgium bid has to compete against.



> And with regard to the league, I think it's pretty relevant when people like Blatter and Platini make negative comments on the Premier league. They will eventually be the kind of people that will decide who gets the World Cup. If the Premier League opposes to the plans Blatter has with regards to the amount of foreigners per team and such things, not giving them the world cup could be a easy punishment from their point of view....


Blatter and Platini only make comments about the Premier League because it is one of the very biggest leagues. It is therefore worthy of comment. It makes for a good soundbite and portrays them as strong. But what they say about any domestic league won't have any impact on which country they believe is best suited and best able to host the world cup.


----------



## JimB

Lars13 said:


> First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.


It's a new world. Asia is already a massive football market and it's getting bigger by the day. Come 2018, it will be 16 years since the world cup was last held in Asia. So I'd say that Asia has every chance of winning the vote.



> Secondly, England will host the Olympic games in 2012, so for them to host the world cup four years after that, would be slightly "over the top".


That won't be a consideration. Mexico had the Olympics in 1968 and the World Cup in 1970. West Germany had the Olympics in 1972 and the World Cup in 1974. USA had the World Cup in 1994 and the Olympics in 1996. A two year time gap in each instance. I hardly think that England would therefore be disqualified by a six year time gap. Besides, FIFA and the IOC are two entirely separate entities - one of which awards host status to a nation while the other awards host status to a city. They do not, and have never, coordinated over the issue of host nations / cities.



> What to do with Spain then? The biggest competitor for Belgium and Holland I guess. Nice stadiums, with plenty of updating (e.g. Cap Nou) and new construction initiatives (e.g. Valencia). But it would be the second time they'll host a world cup....


Main argument against Spain is that they have hosted the World Cup relatively recently, in 1982. By 2018, there will only have been three world cups held in Europe since Spain last hosted the tournament (Italy 90, France 98 and Germany 06). So however good Spain's bid might be technically, they ought not to get the World Cup again before the likes of Benelux, England or even Russia (should they bid).


----------



## nazor

Benjuk said:


> One comment re the time zone issue...
> 
> If a game kicks off in Sydney at 3pm, live broadcasts in Europe would be between 6-9am, in East Africa/Middle East 9am - in South America it would be between 1-3am, in North America between 11pm-1am. None of them particularly good for tv ratings/advertising revenue - especially as around 19 of the qualifying sides come from the "Euro" time slot, similarly 8 or 9 are from the Americas.
> 
> That's the chief reason FIFA likes to bring things back to Europe - keep the biggest audience happy, keep the cash rolling in. That said, I've no idea how much the tv rights are in far East Asia - but I suspect they don't rival those in Europe.


its a 2 way street mate ....

we had to get up early to watch the last world cup! so what? people are still going to watch it. i dont think TV ratings should be a deciding factor in who hosts the world cup? :bash:


----------



## Benjuk

nazor said:


> its a 2 way street mate ....
> 
> we had to get up early to watch the last world cup! so what? people are still going to watch it. *i dont think TV ratings should be a deciding factor in who hosts the world cup?* :bash:


But this is the real world.

My point was that the vast majority of world cup viewers are inconvenienced by the world cup being staged in the 'Asian' timezone, whereas 'only' the Asian timezone is negatively affected by a European world cup - more specifically that the majority of competing nations are from time-zones more suited to watching world cups from a Euro time-zone.

I don't put forward the time-zone as the singular reason why Australia (or China) won't get the 2018 Finals - it's just another hurdle to be cleared, along with distance to the country, distance between the venues, stadium facilities, infrastructure, population, popularity of the game, etc.


----------



## Quintana

Lostboy said:


> Because he is a hate mongerer like most of the Latin persuasion.


He's actually a Dutchman living in Spain. Europe! is Flemish and not Wallonian by the way :lol:


----------



## Benjuk

Lostboy said:


> Because he is a hate mongerer like most of the Latin persuasion.


Hello Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?


----------



## MoreOrLess

One problem I see with an Iberian joint bid is that the Spainish are likey going to want to use as many venues as possible were as the Portuguese are likey to want to use as few as possible given the white elephants euro 2004 created.


----------



## Joop20

MoreOrLess said:


> One problem I see with an Iberian joint bid is that the Spainish are likey going to want to use as many venues as possible were as the Portuguese are likey to want to use as few as possible given the white elephants euro 2004 created.


A joint Iberian bid will never happen, end of story.


----------



## Mateus_

The joint bid is an idea from National Leagues presidents. But I think that Portugal must spend money in other things that new stadia. Euro 2004 was enough for us.


----------



## amnesia

Doha FTW


----------



## SkyLerm

:? xDDDD...


----------



## amnesia

just playing around 

I vote for Australia or Spain


----------



## GlasgowMan

I would love it to be in Spain!!


----------



## Ari Gold

Spain or Australia?

Do you prefer hot spanish mamacitas or hot Aussie sheilas?

Either way you can't lose. lol


----------



## Blackpool88

skaP187 said:


> If Spain and Portugal would bid together they could outclass an English or Brittish bid easely. England would just not be able to match the numbers...
> (let´s see who takes the bate)


I'll grab the bait** and say that British stadia wipes the floor with spanish stadia...heck i'd say we have better then you even without including premiership grounds!


----------



## Gherkin

That's pushing it. :lol: There's so much bait in this thread


----------



## Blackpool88

Gherkin007 said:


> That's pushing it. :lol: There's so much bait in this thread


haha true, but people say deliberately provocative things, followed by "(lets see who takes the bait)" making anybody who replies look like a tit regardless of how good their point was!


----------



## Iemand

www.beltomundial.org


----------



## Gherkin

Iemand said:


> www.beltomundial.org


That's a nice website, by why do they use the City of Manchester Stadium in the UK as their stadia logo!? Can't they use a Belgian/Dutch stadium instead!?


----------



## carlspannoosh

Iemand said:


> www.beltomundial.org


 Why do they use the Allianz Arena in Germany as a backdrop for the presentation?


----------



## patroeski

To show the ambition to built stadiums like this...


----------



## Lostboy

What a surprise that on the English Language version it was some dumb Wallonian telling us about the bid, who could barely speak English. A far better bid would be a Greater Netherlandish bid, of Core Netherlands and Flanders.


----------



## patroeski

^^ As you might know French people can't speak English just like English people can't speak french.


----------



## dom

Spain won't go for the world cup in 2018 as they had it in the 80s. China or England are probably at the head of the pack. 

What about a Benlux bid or one from Latin America?


----------



## §æµ

MCG 100,000 Melbourne Existing
Telstra Stadium 83,500 Sydney Existing
Perth Stadium 60,000 Perth New
Suncorp Stadium 52,500 Brisbane Existing
Rectangular Stadium 50,000 Melbourne New
Adelaide Stadium 50,000 Adelaide New 
Aussie Stadium 42,000 Sydney Existing
EnergyAustralia Stadium 40,000 Newcastle Expansion/new
Skilled Park 40,000 Gold Coast Expansion
Canberra Stadium 40,000 Canberra Expansion
Diary farmers Stadium 35,000 after expansion


----------



## lpioe

I think the biggest problem for Australia is that FIFA is interested mostly in money and Australia would probably be the bid they get the least money from. The timezone is really bad for european TV and the market is limited because of the small population of the country. So the next time the WC is in 'Asia' I think China will host it. But I'd personally rather see it in Australia.

But it's great to see stadiums for soccer being built there. I was really surprised to see the attendances of the A-league, expected a lot less.


----------



## Benn

It's not good for TV with North and South America either which could be another catch, although I was up at 5 am to watch some of the 2002 games, I doubt that too many did here in the US. And it would be right in the middle of the night in Europe. They'll probably get it but not till 2022 if not later.


----------



## city_thing

I never knew that Sydney's Telstra Stadium seated 83,000. Doesn't it fill up like, every Monday night for the rugby?


----------



## Benjuk

§æµ said:


> MCG 100,000 Melbourne Existing
> Telstra Stadium 83,500 Sydney Existing
> Perth Stadium 60,000 Perth New
> Suncorp Stadium 52,500 Brisbane Existing
> Rectangular Stadium 50,000 Melbourne New *second stadium in Melbourne, only one city can have two stadiums, and I still struggle to see how Melbourne tax-payers would be expected to pay for the upgrade to make the MRS more or less the same size as Telstra Dome*
> Adelaide Stadium 50,000 Adelaide New
> Aussie Stadium 42,000 Sydney Existing *second stadium in Sydney, only one city can have two stadiums*
> EnergyAustralia Stadium 40,000 Newcastle Expansion/new
> Skilled Park 40,000 Gold Coast Expansion
> Canberra Stadium 40,000 Canberra Expansion *basically a new stadium*
> Diary farmers Stadium 35,000 after expansion *in other words, too small*


And as has been said on numerous occasions, the use of most of these venues would be dependent on other codes co-operating and closing down their season for two months (or finding alternate venues) as FIFA doesn't allow venues to be used for anything else prior to or during the finals.


----------



## Chairman

Benjuk said:


> No roof? - and regarding that linky, he says it's based on Frankfurt's World Cup stadium, but it looks a lot more like Nurenburg's to me.
> 
> 2018 - as has been said so many times, it's too soon. Aussie will possibly have the stadia to put in a minimum 8 site bid - minimum - whilst England, the USA, China, etc., will be able to put in bids with 12 stadiums.
> 
> 2022 - competition will still be there from the losers of 2018, PLUS any African nation that feels capable of a bid (if South Africa pull it off, the odds of another African World Cup would go up).
> 
> Let's not forget that Australia is a small country (population) spread over a huge area, making it a logistical nightmare - and that as much as FIFA wants to 'spread the game', the joy of knocking rugby out of top place in a small country is way down the list of priorities when compared to cracking the Chinese market, or getting a larger share of the US market, etc.
> 
> Again, I HOPE Aussie can get it, but I don't BELIEVE Aussie can.


Get your facts straight rugby is nowhere near most popular sport in Australia, in fact it's the least popular.

In terms of attendances and ratings it's AFL, then cricket, then league then football then rugby last by a long way.

in terms of playing it's probably cricket then football then afl then tennis/swimming then league and rugby.


----------



## ExSydney

Benjuk said:


> And as has been said on numerous occasions, the use of most of these venues would be dependent on other codes co-operating and closing down their season for two months (or finding alternate venues) as FIFA doesn't allow venues to be used for anything else prior to or during the finals.


Do we have to go through this again?
Once again..the other codes do not own these stadiums and in most cases these stadiums are owned by the respective state government who will in fact be financially underwriting a World Cup!..

Thats said...How many venues are affected by the AFL...

MCG-Major AFL influence
Melbourne Rectangular stadium-Nil
Docklands Telstra Dome-Major AFL influence
ANZ Stadium-Minor AFL influence
Sydney Football Stadium-Nil
Suncorp Stadium -Nil
Gold Coast-Nil
Townsville-Nil
Canberra-Nil
Newcastle-Nil
New Adelaide Stadium-Nil
New Perth Stadium-Govt owned,but certainly major AFL influence

There You go..Just 2 Melbourne venues and Perth...
I cannot see the Victorian Government NOT using the MCG..BUT if it doesnt happen...the Melbourne would a city with one venue..the Rectangular Stadium

Perth...The WA government are spending nearly a Billion Dollars to provide Perth a new venue to attract big events away from the Eastern States..Here is a World Cup and WA will make sure they get some slice of it...

As for the NRL...We have discussed many times that especially in Sydney,the NRL have ample choice of alternate venues...and Brisbane can play for a few weeks at the GABBA or even back to their old home at QE2.


----------



## Benjuk

ExSydney said:


> Do we have to go through this again? *do we have to, once again, go through the first rule of business - don't p*ss off your regular customers - in the case of most of these sports, the biggest client is NOT football - I sincerely hope your right and that the AFL, rugby, etc., will be happy to step aside (or be pushed to the side) for 2 months*
> 
> Once again..the other codes do not own these stadiums and in most cases these stadiums are owned by the respective state government who will in fact be financially underwriting a World Cup!..
> 
> Thats said...How many venues are affected by the AFL...
> 
> MCG-Major AFL influence
> Melbourne Rectangular stadium-Nil
> Docklands Telstra Dome-Major AFL influence
> ANZ Stadium-Minor AFL influence
> Sydney Football Stadium-Nil
> Suncorp Stadium -Nil
> Gold Coast-Nil
> Townsville-Nil
> Canberra-Nil
> Newcastle-Nil
> New Adelaide Stadium-Nil
> New Perth Stadium-Govt owned,but certainly major AFL influence
> 
> There You go..Just 2 Melbourne venues and Perth...
> I cannot see the Victorian Government NOT using the MCG..BUT if it doesnt happen...the Melbourne would a city with one venue..the Rectangular Stadium
> 
> Perth...The WA government are spending nearly a Billion Dollars to provide Perth a new venue to attract big events away from the Eastern States..Here is a World Cup and WA will make sure they get some slice of it...
> 
> As for the NRL...We have discussed many times that especially in Sydney,the NRL have ample choice of alternate venues...and Brisbane can play for a few weeks at the GABBA or even back to their old home at QE2.


Hope so.

I've said several times on various forums (partly from a stadium greed thing) - that I'd love to see the Aussie Government (at Federal and State level), putting together a State Multi-Purpose Venue plan - which would involve building new venues in each state, with capacities varying between 40 and 70k seats (depending on location). This would, theoritically, provide new venues suitable for football/rugby/cricket/AFL in Geelong (as Melbourne is already sorted), Newcastle or Wollongong (as Sydney is sorted), Brisbane or Townsville, Canberra, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth (already in progress) and Darwin. 

Get that sorted, to the benefit of all sports fans in Australia, rather than just the AFL or football or cricket, and we'd have a hell of a shot at a World Cup (assuming the hotel and transport issue is covered!!)


----------



## Benjuk

Olympiaki-Agones said:


> I definitely hope that Australia formalises its bid, then the real World Cup rotation would be accomplished without being under that policy.


Only assuming that they actually win, AND that Central/North America gets 2022... And the chances of Europe missing out on 2010, 2014, 2018 AND 2022 is so miniscule that I wouldn't even dream about it.


----------



## ExSydney

Australia will formally submit their bid to FIFA during the upcoming FIFA Congress in Sydney.
Im sure then,we will know what venues they propose..


----------



## www.sercan.de

The candidates (according to german news)

-Belgium and the Netherlands
-Mexico
-USA
-England
-Russia
-China
-Japan
-Australia
-Spain
-Portugal


I would prefer
1. England or Spain
3. Australia
4. China
5. Russia
6. USA
7. Mexico
8. Portugal
9. Japan or Belgium and the Netherlands


----------



## Joop20

Benjuk said:


> Hope so.
> 
> I've said several times on various forums (partly from a stadium greed thing) - that I'd love to see the Aussie Government (at Federal and State level), putting together a State Multi-Purpose Venue plan - which would involve building new venues in each state, with capacities varying between 40 and 70k seats (depending on location). This would, theoritically, provide new venues suitable for football/rugby/cricket/AFL in Geelong (as Melbourne is already sorted), Newcastle or Wollongong (as Sydney is sorted), Brisbane or Townsville, Canberra, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth (already in progress) and Darwin.
> 
> Get that sorted, to the benefit of all sports fans in Australia, rather than just the AFL or football or cricket, and we'd have a hell of a shot at a World Cup (assuming the hotel and transport issue is covered!!)


Certainly Brisbane doesn't need any new stadiums? It already has 2 great stadiums: Suncorp for rugby and football, and the Gabba for AFL/cricket. 

Newcastle, Canberra and Townsville will do fine with an upgrade of their current stadiums to a 40/45k capacity. I'm sure Hobart and Darwin can't sustain a world-cup size stadium at the moment. Besides, these cities don't even have AFL teams, so there's no need for non-rectangular stadiums. The only city that really needs to come up with some new stadium is Adelaide, and apperantly they just have!

And as far as an Australia WC being a logistical nightmare: why exactly? I'm sure Australia's road network and public transport is better than that of South Africa and Brazil. Moreover, all cities are easily accessable by airplane. Sydney to Perth is what, a 4 or 5 hour flight? No problem there I think. And people go down under to travel all the time anyways .


----------



## Wezza

Japan?? Who are they kidding? They co-hosted in '02!! 

P.S. I like the look of St. James Park in this render....


----------



## SkyLerm

LOL^^ That's not St James but the project for refurbishment of New Romareda, Zaragoza (Spain)


----------



## Wezza

^^
Ooops! My bad!! It could be done like that though.

P.S. I was wondering why the roof trusses were curved! :lol:


----------



## lpioe

www.sercan.de said:


> The candidates (according to german news)
> 
> -Belgium and the Netherlands
> -Mexico
> -USA
> -England
> -Russia
> -China
> -Japan
> -Australia
> -Spain
> -Portugal
> 
> 
> I would prefer
> 1. England or Spain
> 3. Australia
> 4. China
> 5. Russia
> 6. USA
> 7. Mexico
> 8. Portugal
> 9. Japan or Belgium and the Netherlands


I read that also in german news, but it only said these countries showed interest to host it, so not all of them will probably officialy bid.
They also said that Spain and Portugal would host together.
I know most people from Spain are against it and think they could host it on their own. Well, they certainly could, but a joint bid with Portugal would have an amazig list of stadiums:

Camp Nou 104k
Bernabeu 80k
Nou Mestalla 75k
New Atletico Stadium 73k
Da Luz 66k
Expanded Sanchez Pizjuan 65k (?)
New San Mames 56k
Dragao 50k
Nueva Romareda 50k (?)

+maybe new or expanded stadiums in Mallorca, La Coruña, Malaga


----------



## www.sercan.de

Spain should bid alone.
Otherwise England should win


----------



## eomer

www.sercan.de said:


> Spain should bid alone.
> Otherwise England should win


Spain should bid for Euro 2016
England should get WC2018: Football coming home.


----------



## lpioe

www.sercan.de said:


> Spain should bid alone.
> Otherwise England should win


Why don't you like joint bids?
Spain and Portugal would both qualify to 95% anyway.


----------



## Stifler

We will have elections in the Spanish federation soon and they said they won't decide anything about the bid until then. No idea if it will be a bid for Euro2016, WC2018 alone or WC2018 with Portugal, but I am pretty sure they will make at least one bid.

About bidding with Portugal, I am not sure. I read in the Portuguese subforum they wanted half of the host cities in the WC, and I guess most of the Spaniards would never accept that. We are 4.5 times larger in population and 5.5 in size, so in that scenario I would prefer to bid alone. Nevertheless, adding the best Portuguese stadiums to the ones projected in Spain would make it a stunning bid in terms of infraestucture.


----------



## Benjuk

Wezza said:


> Yep, that's definitely our best shot at hosting it IMO.


Option 1 or Option 2... I'd say they are both good ideas.


----------



## isaidso

Joop20 said:


> Sure Canada is new territory for the FIFA, but so is Australia basically. And Australia is in the same timezone as Asia, which is FIFA's largest new territory!
> Canada is really a long way from ever hosting a World Cup. There stadium infrastructure really sucks (you guys have great arenas though), and Canada has only one team in the MLS, come on!


Um, yes and no. Canada's stadium infrastructure does suck, but I wouldn't discount Canada without researching the facts. Canada represents a larger market than Australia. Canada is about 50% larger and there's a massive population within driving distance of all major Canadian cities. Asia is huge, but they can't exactly hop in their Honda and drive to Sydney.

Canada recently hosted the U-20 WC and smashed the attendance record previously held by Mexico. FIFA was very impressed and has been encouraging Canada to consider a future FIFA bid. 

You are right that Canada would need better stadiums, but in most other areas, Canada is arguably much closer to being able to host than Australia is. If we had better stadiums, we're very much ready to host it now. This might be hard to fathom to a foreigner, but not to someone familiar with this country.

There are 9 cities over 750,000 people here. I believe FIFA requires 8 venues. There are only 5 Australian cities of any considerable size. Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane would have to 'double' up. Australia could do it, and deserves a WC, but it's rather fool hardy not to recognize that there are other markets that offer good alternatives. Canada is just one of many.


----------



## timmy- brissy

isaidso said:


> Um, yes and no. Canada's stadium infrastructure does suck, but I wouldn't discount Canada without researching the facts. Canada represents a larger market than Australia. Canada is about 50% larger and there's a massive population within driving distance of all major Canadian cities. Asia is huge, but they can't exactly hop in their Honda and drive to Sydney.
> 
> Canada recently hosted the U-20 WC and smashed the attendance record previously held by Mexico. FIFA was very impressed and has been encouraging Canada to consider a future FIFA bid.
> 
> You are right that Canada would need better stadiums, but in most other areas, Canada is arguably much closer to being able to host than Australia is. If we had better stadiums, we're very much ready to host it now. This might be hard to fathom to a foreigner, but not to someone familiar with this country.
> 
> There are 9 cities over 750,000 people here. I believe FIFA requires 8 venues. There are only 5 Australian cities of any considerable size. Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane would have to 'double' up. Australia could do it, and deserves a WC, but it's rather fool hardy not to recognize that there are other markets that offer good alternatives. Canada is just one of many.


Im sorry but the rate australia is growing is way more quicker than Canada and surely that means cities like Gold coast, Newcastle and maybe Wollongong maybe big enough to have big stadiums and there population maybe just under a million there but if i would vote australia or canada it would be australia because there market is growing rapidly.Now on skysports there showing matches from australia.But who knows all im saying is australia's population could be two million in population beheind canada and with so much press of australia in the uk its likely that australia will have bigger cities.And now people are starting to watch football from australia.I no my friends watched the australian football final and enjoyed it.And even now players in the championship and primiership are starting to consider moving to australia.Plus they've had players like juninho paulista and dwight york play for them.


----------



## Joop20

isaidso said:


> Um, yes and no. Canada's stadium infrastructure does suck, but I wouldn't discount Canada without researching the facts. Canada represents a larger market than Australia. Canada is about 50% larger and there's a massive population within driving distance of all major Canadian cities. Asia is huge, but they can't exactly hop in their Honda and drive to Sydney.
> 
> Canada recently hosted the U-20 WC and smashed the attendance record previously held by Mexico. FIFA was very impressed and has been encouraging Canada to consider a future FIFA bid.
> 
> You are right that Canada would need better stadiums, but in most other areas, Canada is arguably much closer to being able to host than Australia is. If we had better stadiums, we're very much ready to host it now. This might be hard to fathom to a foreigner, but not to someone familiar with this country.
> 
> There are 9 cities over 750,000 people here. I believe FIFA requires 8 venues. There are only 5 Australian cities of any considerable size. Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane would have to 'double' up. Australia could do it, and deserves a WC, but it's rather fool hardy not to recognize that there are other markets that offer good alternatives. Canada is just one of many.


I know pretty much about both countries, and I'm sure both would be a great host. Fact is that stadiums are the very basis of a WC bid though, and I can't see Canada building 8 to 10 40,000+ stadiums in the next 10 years really, there just isn't the demand for it.

It's true that Canada's population is larger, but Australia has enough cities to host the olympics. There are Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide ofcoruse, but Newcastle, Gold Coast, Canberra, and Townsville for example also have the potential to be included in a bid. What's more important is that all these cities have at least 1 team in a national league, be it AFL, Rugby League, or the A-League. 

In Canada, there generally is a lack of top-league teams in the large cities, when you exclude NHL. I don't get why Canada has to team up with the USA for everything in sports. Surely you could expand your Canadian Football League beyond the 8 teams that it has now, and surely Canada can sustain a professional football league on its own with a population of 33 million? Compare it to Australia, which has succesful AFL, Rugby League, and Football competitions, and has 4 teams in the Super 14 rugby union competition...


----------



## Joop20

Some of you are forgetting that China and Australia probably won't be bidding both, the AFC apperantly have stated that they want to have only one bid from their confederation (of which Australia is a member as well). So it won't be China vs. Australia, one of them will be selected by the AFC, if China decides to bid at all.


----------



## KiwiBrit

Benjuk said:


> The big question regarding a joint bid is who would miss out of the extra spot at the finals? Australia and New Zealand would both have to get host spots - which means that another Federation would have to lose a spot. Asia would begrudge losing an auto spot to Oceania, which could lead them to voting against Australia/New Zealand, or against Blatter himself at the Presidential election - and Blatter won't allow that to happen. The other Oceanic nations would object to losing their 'half' spot, and could vote against Australia/New Zealand. It's a political minefield.
> 
> For the record, wasn't intended to be in any way condescending toward New Zealand, the comments were aimed square at The Age... Which also suggested that the MCG, TelstraDome AND the new 'Bubbledome' could be used as venues in an Aussie bid... 3 in 1 city, nice thinking boys.


I actually think the Kiwi's would not expect an automatic entry into the finals. I believe they would simply be pleased to have the football World on their doorstop, and all the rich trappings that would bring. Remember, the All Whites lost to Vanuatu only a couple of years ago. Who knows what scores they could suffer in the finals, and the NZFA know that.

Now if the joint bid had both Asia and the Oceanic federations and Blatter backing it, they could hold a strong hand.


----------



## Benjuk

Joop20 said:


> Some of you are forgetting that China and Australia probably won't be bidding both, the AFC apperantly have stated that they want to have only one bid from their confederation (of which Australia is a member as well). So it won't be China vs. Australia, one of them will be selected by the AFC, if China decides to bid at all.


The Asian federation would back what they considered to be the strongest bid - so Australia still has to put together a better bid than China in order to get the finals.


----------



## Benjuk

isaidso said:


> Australia could do it, and *deserves a WC*, but it's rather fool hardy not to recognize that there are other markets that offer good alternatives. Canada is just one of many.


Nobody 'deserves' a world cup.

There are probably about 30 countries around the world who have as much claim to host the finals as Australia - and 20 of them have never hosted it before.


----------



## isaidso

Joop20 said:


> I know pretty much about both countries, and I'm sure both would be a great host. Fact is that stadiums are the very basis of a WC bid though, and I can't see Canada building 8 to 10 40,000+ stadiums in the next 10 years really, there just isn't the demand for it.
> 
> It's true that Canada's population is larger, but Australia has enough cities to host the olympics. There are Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide ofcoruse, but Newcastle, Gold Coast, Canberra, and Townsville for example also have the potential to be included in a bid. What's more important is that all these cities have at least 1 team in a national league, be it AFL, Rugby League, or the A-League.
> 
> In Canada, there generally is a lack of top-league teams in the large cities, when you exclude NHL. I don't get why Canada has to team up with the USA for everything in sports. Surely you could expand your Canadian Football League beyond the 8 teams that it has now, and surely Canada can sustain a professional football league on its own with a population of 33 million? Compare it to Australia, which has succesful AFL, Rugby League, and Football competitions, and has 4 teams in the Super 14 rugby union competition...


You are quite right to stress the importance of stadia. It is Canada's largest obstacle to a WC bid by far. With all due respect, Canada wouldn't have to build as many stadia as you suggest:

BC Place Stadium, Vancouver, 60,000 reno required
Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton, 60,217
McMahon Stadium, Calgary, 35,000, reno and expansion required
BMO Field, Toronto, 20,000, expansion required
Olympic Stadium, Montreal, 59,000, reno required

Winnipeg will probably get a 40,000 stadium in the next 2 years. Soccer specific stadiums are being built in Vancouver and Montreal. Hamilton and Quebec City are already looking into building stadium, while 30,000 + stadium already exist in Ottawa and Regina. Toronto's Skydome has 54,000 seats, but probably not suitable. As you can see, much work would need to be done on this front, but Canada is hardly starting from scratch here.

As far as having enough cities, the Olympics only require one capable city, a WC requires 8, I believe. Australia could pull it off, but outside Australia's big 5 cities, the choices aren't good. Gold Coast yes, but Townsville or Canberra? Beautiful, but they simply don't have an adequate population base. 

The argument about Canada not having it's own domestic league is a huge source of contention, not just in soccer, but all sports. It has more to do with the economics of pro sport on this continent rather than as a guage of popular support. Sport on this continent is determined by television revenue. The US with 10X the population will win that argument over Canada every single time. The result has always been the stunting of growth in Canadian leagues in favour of franchises in wealthier US leagues. A national disaster, but the lack of Canadian based teams should not be used as a determinant of support for particular sports. Canada is a very unique case in the western world in this respect. We live next to a super power. There are some major drawbacks to that. This is one of them.

I guarantee you, if Canada was an island thousands of miles from the USA, the CFL would have 20 teams, and domestic leagues in all sports rather than accepting the 1 or 2 franchises that Americans deem we're entitled to.

Benjuk:

Point taken. I agree.


----------



## isaidso

timmy- brissy said:


> Im sorry but the rate australia is growing is way more quicker than Canada. Now on skysports there showing matches from australia. But who knows all im saying is australia's population could be two million in population beheind canada and with so much press of australia in the uk its likely that australia will have bigger cities.And now people are starting to watch football from australia.I no my friends watched the australian football final and enjoyed it.And even now players in the championship and primiership are starting to consider moving to australia.Plus they've had players like juninho paulista and dwight york play for them.


With all due respect to your wonderful country, Australia won't catch Canada in population in your life time... even if you live to 100. Australia may be growing quickly, but so is Canada. The Greater Toronto region alone absorbs more immigrants each year than any city in the western world: about 125,000. That's almost as much as all of Australia. Australia took in 131,000 in 2006.

Australia's rapid ascension is great, but keep in mind that you live in the Australian-UK cultural sphere. People from these 2 countries follow what goes on in Australia and the UK. In other parts of the world, we don't. I have zero idea who Juninho Paulista or Dwight York are. You can't guage Australian cultural influence around the world, till you travel beyond that UK-Australia bubble. We are all guilty of this. North Americans live in our own bubble too. Do you know who Steve Nash is? Probably not. See what I mean?

I hope you get the WC, just realize that there's stiff competition out there from many many capable nations.


----------



## Joop20

Benjuk said:


> The Asian federation would back what they considered to be the strongest bid - so Australia still has to put together a better bid than China in order to get the finals.


Yeap, that's what i meant actually, they'll be bidding against eachother to become the AFC's nomination, but not in the final stage of the 2018 bidding.


----------



## Wezza

isaidso said:


> With all due respect to your wonderful country, Australia won't catch Canada in population in your life time... even if you live to 100. Australia may be growing quickly, but so is Canada. The Greater Toronto region alone absorbs more immigrants each year than any city in the western world: about 125,000. That's almost as much as all of Australia. Australia took in 131,000 in 2006.
> 
> Australia's rapid ascension is great, but keep in mind that you live in the Australian-UK cultural sphere. People from these 2 countries follow what goes on in Australia and the UK. In other parts of the world, we don't. I have zero idea who Juninho Paulista or Dwight York are. You can't guage Australian cultural influence around the world, till you travel beyond that UK-Australia bubble. We are all guilty of this. North Americans live in our own bubble too. Do you know who Steve Nash is? Probably not. See what I mean?
> 
> I hope you get the WC, just realize that there's stiff competition out there from many many capable nations.


Timmy is from the UK mate. Also, Juninho Paulista & Dwight Yorke are VERY well known around the world. In Australia, we don't live in a bubble at all. In fact, i'd say we pretty much have our fingers on the pulse in world events. It's mainly North America that lives in a bubble. (Especially USA)

P.S. I know who Steve Nash is.


----------



## timmy- brissy

isaidso said:


> With all due respect to your wonderful country, Australia won't catch Canada in population in your life time... even if you live to 100. Australia may be growing quickly, but so is Canada. The Greater Toronto region alone absorbs more immigrants each year than any city in the western world: about 125,000. That's almost as much as all of Australia. Australia took in 131,000 in 2006.
> 
> Australia's rapid ascension is great, but keep in mind that you live in the Australian-UK cultural sphere. People from these 2 countries follow what goes on in Australia and the UK. In other parts of the world, we don't. I have zero idea who Juninho Paulista or Dwight York are. You can't guage Australian cultural influence around the world, till you travel beyond that UK-Australia bubble. We are all guilty of this. North Americans live in our own bubble too. Do you know who Steve Nash is? Probably not. See what I mean?
> 
> I hope you get the WC, just realize that there's stiff competition out there from many many capable nations.


You are totally correct on the theory but if oyu1 actually knew the players i could tell Dwight york played for Manchester United and Juninho Paulistam plaqyed for brazil and Middlesborough and Athletic Madrid and we are talking about football the most popular sport in the world steve nash.But anyway im guessing steve nash is plays for NBA and international team of canada and maybe captian but its just a guess.


----------



## GTown

Steve nash is a canadian of English and welsh heritage who is a basketball player..am i right:cheers:


----------



## isaidso

Wezza said:


> Timmy is from the UK mate. Also, Juninho Paulista & Dwight Yorke are VERY well known around the world. In Australia, we don't live in a bubble at all. In fact, i'd say we pretty much have our fingers on the pulse in world events. It's mainly North America that lives in a bubble. (Especially USA)
> 
> P.S. I know who Steve Nash is.


Ah, I assumed Brissy meant Brisbane. Thanks for the info on Paulista and Yorke. As far as living in a bubble. Everyone on earth lives in a bubble in some respects. We all get a decent splattering of what goes on in the world, but you only have to travel from one region of the world to another to realize that we all live in 'cultural spheres' of influence. 

It's rather naive to think that it is just North Americans that live in a bubble. Do you think South Americans or Chinese people keep up with cricket and Coronation Street? No, they don't. We all share certain things, but many cultural phenomenons do not transcend boundaries. Soccer is an exception to the rule. That's one area where Canadians and Americans really do live in a bubble. 

For instance, you could easily have gotten through the entire 90's in North America without ever having heard of David Beckham or Kylie Minogue. I had to go to the UK in 2000 to realize who they were and that they were famous. People know who Beckham is now, but Kylie is still abit of a stretch.

We hear more about Mexico or Russia than we do about Australia. It's not that nothing happens there, it's simply that Australia isn't on our radar. I'm sure Canada isn't on the radar in Australia for the same reasons. We don't play cricket, rugby, or netball, and there's simply a massive cultural disconnect. Australians have a connection with Brits, we have ours with Americans.

I'm surprised you know who Steve Nash is, but I'm sure the point isn't lost on you. What's popular in the UK and Australia often doesn't translate beyond your borders. What's popular here often doesn't either. That is what a bubble is. It's simply arrogant for anyone in Canada, the US, Australia, or the UK to infer that what is relevant in our own respective countries is what the rest of the world is paying attention to. This argument is in response to a post that suggested it was.

Any way, back to the thread. Australia will get the WC eventually. There's just a lot more competition than people on this thread seem to acknowledge. There are many many nations besides the anglo-tunnel vision (USA, Canada, UK, Australia) we're all guilty of perpetuating.

Timmy-brissy:

very very good guess. Yes, he's our best basketball player, and 2 time NBA MVP. I doubt you could name another 20 Canadian sports stars though. That's more of what I am getting at. Our cultural reference points are different. To a Brit, New Zealander, or South African, Australia is a logical reference point. To an American, Russian, or Chinese person, Canada makes more sense. Awarding a WC will play on many of the same perceptions. It has to do with geography and cultural ties.


----------



## Benjuk

isaidso said:


> I doubt you could name another 20 Canadian sports stars though. That's more of what I am getting at. Our cultural reference points are different. To a Brit, New Zealander, or South African, Australia is a logical reference point. To an American, Russian, or Chinese person, Canada makes more sense. Awarding a WC will play on many of the same perceptions.


I thought the whole point was that, in football terms, Aussies have attracted (formerly) world class players - whilst Canadians have attracted... Danny Dichio.

The average Canadian, it would appear, can not identify Juninho - a world cup winner with Brazil and a former player with a few huge clubs (and Middlesbro), or Dwight Yorke - former Aston Villa and Man Utd, a world cup player at 34, still in the English Premiership at 36 - which shows a distinct lack of interest in football... Again, I think this was the original point - in footballing terms, Australia is culturally ahead of Canada.

As for Steve Nash - when there's a Basketball World Cup, no doubt Canada will be ahead of Australia in the bidding.


----------



## isaidso

I understand your point, but cultural ties don't seem to be as huge a factor as one might think. It's financial/physical support for an event that often trumps cultural support. Purists are going to be ticked off, but the reality in Canada/USA is that a WC gets massive support mainly because it is the WC, not because it is soccer. Same goes for the Olympics.

If it's not gridiron (US or Canadian Football), basketball, ice-hockey, or baseball + perhaps golf or auto racing, it just doesn't register. We still get awarded events because they are massively supported. If cultural interest trumped financial/physical support we'd never get the Olympics, but we get awarded them all the time. 

Soccer fans probably rolled their eyes when the USA was awarded the WC, but those games were a huge success. Same would happen if they came to Canada. Canada will probably get awarded a WC despite the cultural disconnect because they would be a huge success here, and the sport is booming due to huge immigration from everywhere.

Soccer surpassed hockey in participation by Canadian adults for the first time ever last year. We still have a traditional disinterest in sporting news from beyond North America that is all. Australia is more internationalist in it's view of sports. We simply aren't. It's not our history. We've never looked beyond our borders in this one area. Our own sports have always been all-consuming.

Basketball? Well that may be our own sport, but there is no reason Australia should stand behind Canada in bidding for the Basketball World Championship. We've got the NBA anyway. Basketball may be culturally ours, but sport should be shared with all who want to host it. A cultural pecking order doesn't put a sport's interests first. A case in point: The 72nd Ice Hockey World Championships are going to be hosted by Canada for the first time in history in 2008. That's a shocker isn't it?


----------



## PrinzPaulEugen

Here's the reason Australia wont get it:

Largesse

We stand on our own laurels. An Australian FIFA world cup would be the best ever, just like the 2000 Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Australia loves sport for sport - not money. Our problem is that we aren't inherently corrupt and/or willing to pay the hundreds of millions worth of bribes to secure such an event. Up against China and Russia???? No hope.


----------



## timmy- brissy

PrinzPaulEugen is that david Carney in your pick.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

PrinzPaulEugen said:


> Here's the reason Australia wont get it:
> 
> Largesse
> 
> We stand on our own laurels. An Australian FIFA world cup would be the best ever, just like the 2000 Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Australia loves sport for sport - not money. Our problem is that we aren't inherently corrupt and/or willing to pay the hundreds of millions worth of bribes to secure such an event. Up against China and Russia???? No hope.


That's also why you lost to Italy in WC 2006, you were just out there playing football, expecting the match to be decided on merit, you weren't experienced enough to know that when an Italian player enters the opposition penalty area he's better at diving then an Olympic swimmer!

Canada, unfortunately, will not be getting a football WC for quite some years i think, we just don't have the neccessary stadium infastructure or fan base to really put forward a serious bid that would challenge the likes of England/China/Spain/USA or even Russia. Hopefully with a Canadian team now in the MLS it might be the start of a growth for the sport, but it will still take a fair few years if it does happen, the 'soccer' WC is probably the most difficult tournament to host; it is unlike anything else, so for countries like Canada and Australia to say "well we hosted a hockey tournament last year which went very well"....it's not the same. Though I dare say that if the Canadian government ever did set it's mind to it they could come up with the money to fund a new generation of stadiums that could be used for soccer/american football...capacities might not be the greatest but it could still be an option if ever FIFA needed a backup plan.


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim

ExSydney said:


> Its official enough!
> 
> Australia to bid for FIFA World Cup 2018
> http://news.theage.com.au/australia-to-bid-for-fifa-world-cup-2018/20080223-1u8g.html
> 
> February 23, 2008 - 10:55PM
> 
> Advertisement
> Australia is to bid for the soccer World Cup in 2018.
> 
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced the government's backing for the bid, saying it's a natural follow-on from the popularity of the game in Australia and the success of the Socceroos in the 2006 event.
> 
> *The prestigious tournament is the second-largest sporting event in the world, watched by about 26 billion people around the globe.*
> 
> Hosting it would generate tens of billions of dollars for the Australian economy, Fairfax newspapers report.
> 
> Mr Rudd said Australia faces an uphill battle for hosting rights against rivals England, China, Mexico and Canada.
> 
> "Winning the rights to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup is a herculean task, but overcoming tough odds is what Australian football does best," he told Fairfax.
> 
> "For an Australian world cup bid to be successful, the FFA (Football Federation Australia) will need the full and united support of the commonwealth and state and territory governments."
> 
> FFA chief executive Ben Buckley will head the bid team, which includes state and federal government representatives.
> 
> Mr Rudd said the team would meet next week to begin planning the bid, the cost of which would be shared between federal and state governments.
> 
> FIFA chairman, Westfield boss Frank Lowy, has met with Mr Rudd to brief him on the merits of hosting the World Cup.
> 
> "In the same way Australia has developed a relationship with all levels of India by virtue of our common cricket interests, soccer - which is the huge sport in every Asian country - is an entree to promoting Australia's interests around the world," Mr Lowy's spokesman Mark Ryan told News Ltd newspapers.
> 
> © 2008 AAP


Wow, an extra 20 billion people then what's on the planet watch the WC...shows how popular it is!

The football WC is bigger then the Olympics any day, I mean honestly, who watches the Olympics from start to finish these days....the opening ceremony, maybe you'll swtcih on the tv a few times if your country if participating in something...even the stadiums are half empty quite often...compare this to the sheer number of people watching every game of the WC, with sell-out crowds for every game, hundreds of millions of people watching the final.....


----------



## Benjuk

Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> Wow, an extra 20 billion people then what's on the planet watch the WC...shows how popular it is!
> 
> The football WC is bigger then the Olympics any day, I mean honestly, who watches the Olympics from start to finish these days....the opening ceremony, maybe you'll swtcih on the tv a few times if your country if participating in something...even the stadiums are half empty quite often...compare this to the sheer number of people watching every game of the WC, with sell-out crowds for every game, hundreds of millions of people watching the final.....


Whilst I agree that the World Cup is bigger than the Olympics - I think if you had experienced the difficulty in obtaining tickets for Olympic events, you would appreciate that "half empty" stadiums are few and far between.

As for all WC games being sell-outs - yup, they may sell the tickets, but they don't always fill the seats... There were quite a few patches of empty seats at Czech Rep vs Ghana in 2006 - but the attendance was still given as capacity... Serbia & Montenegro vs Holland was played in the 43k capacity stadium, with an official attendance of 37,216 (other games at the venue were listed as 43k sell-outs)


----------



## Benjuk

PrinzPaulEugen said:


> Here's the reason Australia wont get it:
> 
> Largesse
> 
> We stand on our own laurels. An Australian FIFA world cup would be the best ever, just like the 2000 Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Australia loves sport for sport - not money. Our problem is that we aren't inherently corrupt and/or willing to pay the hundreds of millions worth of bribes to secure such an event. Up against China and Russia???? No hope.


In which case it's a miracle that Sydney got the 2000 Olympics - at the very height of brown envelope dealings within the IOC. As for not being inherently corrupt - what was our nation founded on? ;-) And seriously... It's big business that bids for the finals - Australian big businesses have proved to be just as corrupt as any of our overseas friends.



Jack Rabbit Slim said:


> That's also why you lost to Italy in WC 2006, you were just out there playing football, expecting the match to be decided on merit, you weren't experienced enough to know that when an Italian player enters the opposition penalty area he's better at diving then an Olympic swimmer!


Urban myth #311
Lucas Neill, who offered the Italian a body to fall over, has played most of his career in the upper leagues of England, he knows all about the tendancy of 'top' players to take a dive when offered the chance.

Timmy Cahill, also a regular in English football, flopped in the Italian box on at least one occasion in the couple of minutes prior to the Italians getting their penalty. His was a worse attempt to win the game through cheating.

The only naivity evident in Australia's World Cup was that in the opinions and reactions of the Aussie media, and as a result by those members of the public who only became interested in football during the world cup.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^

Whatever, we will get it one day. There is only really 20 countries in the world that could do the job and Oz is one of them.

It'll happen.

Russia and China hosting it, are you kidding? They are 3rd world countries which are closed states. If FIFA wanted a complete failure. It was a pain in the arse to get to Japan let alone China and Russia.

HAve any of you guys tried getting a visa for those places? You have to be 'invited' in Russia.


----------



## Perth4life

Benjuk said:


> Still nice of them to be complient (and to know their place).



The AFL is one of the largest leagues in the world, you can't compare a league to a Competition between multiple countires, but saying they "Know their place" is a load of shit, the AFL could easily go and tell FIFA to go and get fucked and nothing would happen to the AFL.

I think we would get it over China simply because of what China have done re: the olympics, just knocking down whole villages and kicking millions out of their homes to build stadiums.


----------



## Wezza

timmy- brissy said:


> PrinzPaulEugen is that david Carney in your pick.


That's Steve Waugh mate.



Perth4life said:


> The AFL is one of the largest leagues in the world, you can't compare a league to a Competition between multiple countires, but saying they "Know their place" is a load of shit, the AFL could easily go and tell FIFA to go and get fucked and nothing would happen to the AFL.


WTF?


----------



## Benjuk

Perth4life said:


> The AFL is one of the largest leagues in the world, you can't compare a league to a Competition between multiple countires, but saying they "Know their place" is a load of shit, the AFL could easily go and tell FIFA to go and get fucked and nothing would happen to the AFL. *Easy tiger, my post was not intended to be taken seriously...*
> 
> I think we would get it over China simply because of what China have done re: the olympics, just knocking down whole villages and kicking millions out of their homes to build stadiums.*FIFA couldn't give a toss about human rights - when the voting was taking place for 2010, it was Morocco and South Africa, FIFA's report on the two venues didn't mention Morocco's human rights record in the Wester Sahara - it concentrated on stadiums and infrastructure*


All FIFA cares about is money and exposure. By having the tournament in China rather than Australia they would get more money and would ignite a nation of 1.2 billion as opposed to 20 million.

That said, it appears likely that the only competition between Australia and China will be the Asian selection of a bid to forward to FIFA - so the likes of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Thailand, North Korea, etc., voting against China because of it's human rights issues? Seems a bit of a stretch.


----------



## skyboi

Why is there so much bitterness and mocking to each other here ,your Countries all had won the right to host some kind of international sporting events and will be more to come in the future , so just take a break ,and let your counterpart put on a show for now, take it easy , recouperate yourself because no Country from the so called the third world will be able to snatch those games away from you guys , no need to churn one another into butter


----------



## veronika

world cup 2010 south africa
world cup 2014 brazil
world cup 2018 england
world cup 2022 russia
world cup 2026 china

champions league 2007 athens
champions league 2008 moscow
champions league 2009 rome
champions league 2010 spain
champions league 2011 london
champions league 2012 berlin

uefa cup 2007 glasgow
uefa cup 2008 manchester
uefa cup 2009 istanbul
uefa cup 2010 hamburg
uefa cup 2011 valencia
uefa cup 2012 london

olympic games 2000 sydney
olympic games 2004 athens
olympic games 2008 beijing
olympic games 2012 london
olympic games 2016 rio
olympic games 2020 africa
olympic games 2024 north america
olympic games 2028 no games due to global disaster


----------



## hngcm

veronika said:


> world cup 2018 england
> world cup 2022 russia


Can't happen.

Back to back World Cups in Europe is a no-no.


----------



## veronika

hngcm said:


> Can't happen.
> 
> Back to back World Cups in Europe is a no-no.


Money talks, money talks, dirty cash I need you, dirty cash i want you now, money talks money talks...:banana:


----------



## Benjuk

veronika said:


> Money talks, money talks, dirty cash I need you, dirty cash i want you now, money talks money talks...:banana:


a) if money talks the USA should be on your list
b) the rules say no federation can host 2 world cups in a row (in fact, it currently says no federation can host 2 out of 3
c) that's a bad song


----------



## Wuppeltje

For football money talks in Europe. For the 2018 bid there are some interesting ones, next to England, The Netherlands & Belgium will also make a strong bid.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Why the UK will not get the World Cup in 2018, noone said it better than the Iraqi Information Minister. "Britain is not worth an old shoe!"


----------



## canarywondergod

Am i the only failing to see the fact that since when has russia been part of europe?!


----------



## Vermeer

canarywondergod said:


> Am i the only failing to see the fact that since when has russia been part of europe?!


Russia has always been a part of Europe and is of course a member of UEFA.


----------



## veronika

Benjuk said:


> a) if money talks the USA should be on your list
> b) the rules say no federation can host 2 world cups in a row (in fact, it currently says no federation can host 2 out of 3
> c) that's a bad song


a, i agree
b, that will change i am convinced
c, you are right its a very bad song


----------



## Wezza

canarywondergod said:


> Am i the only failing to see the fact that since when has russia been part of europe?!


Um, Russia pushed England out of a qualifying spot for the Euro '08 in case you forgot........


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Russia is a 'closed state'. Meaning tourists cannot just jump in a car in Berlin or Paris and drive up to Moscow.

There is that much red tape that it is just not worth the effort.

Parts of Russia is geographically in Europe, but their attitudes are backwards and insular.

The World Cup should only be staged in free states. We don't want to be like the IOC and reward these despotic anarchic states.


----------



## GEwinnen

Facts Russia:


area: 17,000,000 sqkm (european part: 4,000,000, asian part 13,000,000)
inh.: 148,000,000 (european part: 104,000,000, asian part 44,000,000)

Largest cities:

1. Moscow 10,000,000
2. Sankt Pertersburg 4,800,000
3. Novosibirsk 1,400,000


Distance from Moscow to Vladivostok: 7,000 km 
Distance from Berlin to Moscow: 1,600 km
from Paris to Moscow 2,600 km


----------



## Vermeer

BobDaBuilder said:


> Russia is a 'closed state'. Meaning tourists cannot just jump in a car in Berlin or Paris and drive up to Moscow.
> 
> There is that much red tape that it is just not worth the effort.
> 
> Parts of Russia is geographically in Europe, but their attitudes are backwards and insular.
> 
> The World Cup should only be staged in free states. We don't want to be like the IOC and reward these despotic anarchic states.


You can’t have followed the news the last 15 years. Russia is as far as I know open and you can travel wherever you want. It’s even much richer than the Old Empire (read England). Most of us West-Europeans will have problem to accept UK as Europe. You are the American’s “hangarounds” and have nothing in common with the European culture.


----------



## skyboi

"Closed state" is a wrong term to use , nowaday you can almost go any where in the world ,depending on your bank account ,for example Cuba has always been a "closed state" but their Tourism Industry has never been better than now so maybe they should host the World cup too , enough of all of the Countries mentioned above you guys are just very greedy and it shows


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure you can 'visit' Russia. But to obtain a visa practically everyone has to get this 'invitation'. Which is just beaureacratic red tape and is used by people just to screw money out of tourists.

It would be better if Russia just asked 50 US/GBP/Euros for a visa which entitles you to stay for 3 months. 

Problem is because Russia is so suspicious of foreigners that it is impossible to get a simple system there. But I guess it suits certain types that they keep things the way they are.

I am afraid Russia has no chance of hosting anything more than a FIFA womens trophy in the short term until it becomes more westernized and liberal. When the two English clubs supporters have all kinds of problems getting in there for the UCL final it will prove how much trouble it is to get there by comparison with the west.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Malcom Dunn, 47, mortgage broker, went to Moscow to watch England last October and hopes to return for the Champions League final.

'I think a lot of people are in for a shock about how things are in Moscow. It took me almost a month to get my visa for the England game, which cost £95. Then the costs of things in Moscow - a beer is £10 in a hotel bar, and a meal, even of steak and chips, will be a minimum £50 - are absolutely astronomical.

'Getting around is nigh-on impossible. The metro is cheap but it's difficult to follow because everything is in Russian. We didn't feel safe travelling on it. We were also told not to display flags or team colours or have meetings of more than four people because that's classed as almost a political rally and you ran the risk of being arrested.

'It's crazy to have the Champions League final in Moscow. Fans will need to be at the stadium three or four hours early just to get through the security.'


Why is UEFA staging big matches in Russia has to be asked. Stick to the western countries.


----------



## matthemod

What does any of this have to do with Australia and their (lack of) capability to host a World Cup!


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^

Someone brought up the prospect of Russia hosting it and I just wanted to nip that in the bud straight away. Incidently I will be in Russia next year for a while, so we will see just how free and prosperous they have become.

2018 will be between USA, England, Oz and China.

China should not get it either, simply because the place is a despotic closed state.

I would be more than happy with USA or England. England probably deserves it in all honesty, but it would be great if we could get it down here in Oz one day soon.


----------



## Samacado

BobDaBuilder said:


> Russia is a 'closed state'. Meaning tourists cannot just jump in a car in Berlin or Paris and drive up to Moscow.
> 
> There is that much red tape that it is just not worth the effort.
> 
> Parts of Russia is geographically in Europe, but their attitudes are backwards and insular.
> 
> The World Cup should only be staged in free states. We don't want to be like the IOC and reward these despotic anarchic states.



So the US with its VISA resitrictions, fingerprint, 4 hour waiting when coming to the country is an "open state'?

I think your pic of Russia has been frozen some 20 years ago.


----------



## aCidMinD81

*FIFA president Sepp Blatter wants Spain to bid for 2018 World Cup*

"I have good memories of the 1982 World Cup in Spain," Blatter told a visiting party of 50 soccer officials from Spain led by Angel Maria Villar, a vice-president of FIFA.

"I have heard that you might have some interest in hosting another World Cup," Blatter said Monday. "I encourage the Spanish FA to present a bid and the next occasion when this would be possible is for 2018."

South Africa will be the first African nation to host the tournament in 2010, and Brazil has been awarded the 2014 World Cup.

The English Football Association has set aside 18.9 million euros (C$29.5 million) for its bid to host the 2018 tournament. Other likely candidates include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Belgium and Netherlands as a joint bid, Russia, China, Japan and Australia.

FIFA votes on the host nation in 2011.

Link


----------



## poxuy

BobDaBuilder said:


> Malcom Dunn, 47, mortgage broker, went to Moscow to watch England last October and hopes to return for the Champions League final.
> 
> 'I think a lot of people are in for a shock about how things are in Moscow. It took me almost a month to get my visa for the England game, which cost £95. Then the costs of things in Moscow - a beer is £10 in a hotel bar, and a meal, even of steak and chips, will be a minimum £50 - are absolutely astronomical.
> 
> 'Getting around is nigh-on impossible. The metro is cheap but it's difficult to follow because everything is in Russian. We didn't feel safe travelling on it. We were also told not to display flags or team colours or have meetings of more than four people because that's classed as almost a political rally and you ran the risk of being arrested.
> 
> 'It's crazy to have the Champions League final in Moscow. Fans will need to be at the stadium three or four hours early just to get through the security.'
> 
> 
> Why is UEFA staging big matches in Russia has to be asked. Stick to the western countries.


wtf? I think this Malcom Dunn simply lies  Steak and chips - maximum 1-1,5$, beer - 1$.
In the street it is possible to go absolutely free and with the big groups with flags, nobody will arrest you! And I agree that pic of Russia of many fool people has been frozen some 20 years ago.


----------



## BeestonLad

There is no way Spain should get it again before England does


----------



## skyboi

W/C, Olypmpic... are big Business ,that's where the money comes in for the Organizers and Corporations , as well as promoting their Country in the world stage, so it's no surprised people will do whatever it takes to disgrace other who's got the Game or want to compete with them for the right to host , to me they are all equally Deceptive no more or less , so it's better not to listen to any wild speculations because they will all die down after the games are over


----------



## Benjuk

aCidMinD81 said:


> *FIFA president Sepp Blatter wants Spain to bid for 2018 World Cup*
> 
> "I have good memories of the 1982 World Cup in Spain," Blatter told a visiting party of 50 soccer officials from Spain led by Angel Maria Villar, a vice-president of FIFA.
> 
> "I have heard that you might have some interest in hosting another World Cup," Blatter said Monday. "I encourage the Spanish FA to present a bid and the next occasion when this would be possible is for 2018."
> 
> South Africa will be the first African nation to host the tournament in 2010, and Brazil has been awarded the 2014 World Cup.
> 
> The English Football Association has set aside 18.9 million euros (C$29.5 million) for its bid to host the 2018 tournament. Other likely candidates include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Belgium and Netherlands as a joint bid, Russia, China, Japan and Australia.
> 
> FIFA votes on the host nation in 2011.
> 
> Link


Sepp Blatter says exactly what his audience wants to hear... Now there's a new story.

I still say the only realistic options are England, USA and China... Mexico's had it twice (both since England last had it), Canada, lovely country, but I'd imagine they'd struggle with venues, Japan had 1/2 a tournament in 2002, and I'd imagine that a lot of UEFA nations would vote against a joint Belgium/Netherlands bid as it would reduce the number of spots available for qualification by one (I can think of at least a dozen nations more likely to qualify than Belgium, and at least 2 dozen who would be jealous of Belgium getting a 'free' path to the finals). And for my little Aussie, too much to overcome at this point (stature of the game, venues, distance, etc) - it's only 3 years til the vote, only 10 years til the finals, and we're still piddling around with an 8 team comp (only 7 in Oz) and average crowds of around 10k. Give it time to grow so we can do it properly. 2022, maybe 2026.


----------



## Kobo

Here are two little articles about English and Spanish 2018 bids:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/apr/29/portsmouth.worldcup2018
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/7491286


----------



## Wezza

poxuy said:


> wtf? I think this Malcom Dunn simply lies  Steak and chips - maximum 1-1,5$, beer - 1$.
> In the street it is possible to go absolutely free and with the big groups with flags, nobody will arrest you! And I agree that pic of Russia of many fool people has been frozen some 20 years ago.


Don't worry about Bob, he tends to talk crap. :crazy:


----------



## Wezza

Benjuk said:


> Sepp Blatter says exactly what his audience wants to hear... Now there's a new story.
> 
> I still say the only realistic options are England, USA and China... Mexico's had it twice (both since England last had it), Canada, lovely country, but I'd imagine they'd struggle with venues, Japan had 1/2 a tournament in 2002, and I'd imagine that a lot of UEFA nations would vote against a joint Belgium/Netherlands bid as it would reduce the number of spots available for qualification by one (I can think of at least a dozen nations more likely to qualify than Belgium, and at least 2 dozen who would be jealous of Belgium getting a 'free' path to the finals). And for my little Aussie, too much to overcome at this point (stature of the game, venues, distance, etc) - it's only 3 years til the vote, only 10 years til the finals, and we're still piddling around with an 8 team comp (only 7 in Oz) *and average crowds of around 10k.* Give it time to grow so we can do it properly. 2022, maybe 2026.


Average crowds are around 14,500, '09/'10 season will be 10 teams. I think it won't be long after that & the league will be 12 teams. But i agree with what you're saying otherwise.


----------



## melbstud

Australia will get the World Cup with this to be soon. You see we are the leaders in putting on world events. As Juan Antonio Samaranch said at the closing Ceremony of the Sydney 200 Games " You have put on the best Olympic Games ever!- crow goes mad". We the heard the same remark when Melbourne hosted the 2006 Commonwealth Games " You have staged the best Commonwealth Games ever- crowd goes nuts!". You see we areleaders, Atehns had a lot of bad press and 30 years to pay off Olympic Debt, Beijing is already screwed and from what I hear from town planner friends in London, its going to manin for 2012. 

Melbourne alone is building a world class Soccer Stadium, if you go to OZSCRAPER and click VIC down the bottom you will see a topic called" rectangluar stadium", that will be done by the end of next year. We are in preperation for the World Cup as it may seem. We have a booming A League with many International Players playing for our teams, and Famous Greek team alone cant remember what one is going to have their international base at our new stadium in Melbourne. Now...

Add with the boom in Brisbane and Perth, along with tourists and migrants flociking to Australia and our excellent reputation, me thinks we will get in verty soon.

I would also like to comment on how some readers belive Australia isnt on the world radar in North America. What a load of shit, many Australian travel and do student exchange, not to mention the amount who are taking over Hollywood and as for the Kylie Minogue comment, she was just there 2 weeks ago on Danicng with the Stars!. People know where we are and often aspire to be like us, just speak to American backpackers whop dont want people to know they are from the US, and the refuse to say they are Canadian as they belive Canada is backwards. 

In essence we will host the games and we will host the best games aswell!

Cheers.


----------



## rover3

Oz will not get the WC for another 2 rounds. Reason? Simply that the next 2 are already Southern hemisphere tournaments. So, a 3rd one in a row won't happen. It'll probably be UK 2018, and then probably USA 2022. And then by 2026, that'll probably be between Oz, China and Russia.


----------



## BeestonLad

lol an arrogant aussie theres a suprise. Although in this instance there is nothing to be cocky about, Australia wont be capable of hosting the best ever world cup for a long time yet


----------



## Wezza

BeestonLad said:


> lol *an arrogant aussie theres a suprise.* Although in this instance there is nothing to be cocky about, Australia wont be capable of hosting the best ever world cup for a long time yet


Settle down! Don't be so stereotypical. There are just as many arrogant english people as there are aussies.


----------



## marrio415

Blatter need to make his mind up again.That second story the guy is hilarious


----------



## melbstud

AUSTRALIA will get it, if not the one before it.


----------



## BeestonLad

melbstud said:


> AUSTRALIA will get it, if not the one before it.


Oh you mean the one that has already been awarded to Brazil?


----------



## Flogging Molly

What a ****. This is why football should be left to the Europeans, Africans and South Americans.

Why are Spain going to waste money bidding aswell. How stupid are the top dogs?


----------



## Vermeer

KiwiBrit said:


> I actually think the Kiwi's would not expect an automatic entry into the finals. I believe they would simply be pleased to have the football World on their doorstop, and all the rich trappings that would bring. Remember, the All Whites lost to Vanuatu only a couple of years ago. Who knows what scores they could suffer in the finals, and the NZFA know that.
> 
> Now if the joint bid had both Asia and the Oceanic federations and Blatter backing it, they could hold a strong hand.



A joint bid between Australia and New Zeeland will in distance be the same as a joint bid between England and Morocco.


----------



## Vermeer

melbstud said:


> Australia will get the World Cup with this to be soon. You see we are the leaders in putting on world events. As Juan Antonio Samaranch said at the closing Ceremony of the Sydney 200 Games " You have put on the best Olympic Games ever!- crow goes mad". We the heard the same remark when Melbourne hosted the 2006 Commonwealth Games " You have staged the best Commonwealth Games ever- crowd goes nuts!". You see we areleaders, Atehns had a lot of bad press and 30 years to pay off Olympic Debt, Beijing is already screwed and from what I hear from town planner friends in London, its going to manin for 2012.
> 
> Melbourne alone is building a world class Soccer Stadium, if you go to OZSCRAPER and click VIC down the bottom you will see a topic called" rectangluar stadium", that will be done by the end of next year. We are in preperation for the World Cup as it may seem. We have a booming A League with many International Players playing for our teams, and Famous Greek team alone cant remember what one is going to have their international base at our new stadium in Melbourne. Now...
> 
> Add with the boom in Brisbane and Perth, along with tourists and migrants flociking to Australia and our excellent reputation, me thinks we will get in verty soon.
> 
> I would also like to comment on how some readers belive Australia isnt on the world radar in North America. What a load of shit, many Australian travel and do student exchange, not to mention the amount who are taking over Hollywood and as for the Kylie Minogue comment, she was just there 2 weeks ago on Danicng with the Stars!. People know where we are and often aspire to be like us, just speak to American backpackers whop dont want people to know they are from the US, and the refuse to say they are Canadian as they belive Canada is backwards.
> 
> In essence we will host the games and we will host the best games aswell!
> 
> Cheers.


Must be fantastic to live in a perfect country. If there are anything you are not best at, please tell me.


----------



## th0m

Korea and Japan jointly bid and won as well...


----------



## Joop20

Flogging Molly said:


> What a ****. This is why football should be left to the Europeans, Africans and South Americans.
> 
> Why are Spain going to waste money bidding aswell. How stupid are the top dogs?


What do you mean by why are Spain going to waste money bidding as well? Spain have a very good change of getting the WC2018 if they would come up with a bid.


----------



## CrazyMac

Flogging Molly said:


> What a ****. This is why football should be left to the Europeans, Africans and South Americans.
> 
> Why are Spain going to waste money bidding aswell. How stupid are the top dogs?


Sepp Blatter is prick. The only reason he wants Spain to bid is because he hates the English and in paticular the English newspapers...and the thought of England hosting the World cup is unbearable...**** him.

Its Englands turn. One world cup in 60 years for the country that invented the game is a fucking disgrace and just shows the level of jealousy and hatred of all things English in FIFA and UEFA.


----------



## RobH

Well, to be fair we only bid once in that time as far as I know....that's hardly FIFA's fault now is it? That said, Blatter is a bit of an idiot.


----------



## Flogging Molly

Blatters a ****, and so are UEFA and FIFA. The confirmation for more was when they told referees before the world cup to crack down on Peter Crouch and penalise him every time. It still happens to this day. How can an organisation deliberately single out a player for refs to give fouls against at every opportunity. That screams cheating before a balls even been kicked. 

And Spain dont stand a chance of winning 2018. For a start if they won it ahead of England, FIFA will lose all crediability with the worlds leading footballing nation. Something knowbody wants to do in whatever they do.


----------



## EPA001

Flogging Molly said:


> And Spain dont stand a chance of winning 2018. For a start if they won it ahead of England, FIFA will lose all crediability with the worlds leading footballing nation. Something knowbody wants to do in whatever they do.


Well that sounds to me as if England is bidding, they should get it. I am sorry but I do not think it works that way. I am not a big fan of UEFA and FIFA either, but it is in their best interest to have as many countries bidding to host the WC-2018. Blatter is doing just that.

On points England has a good chance to win the WC-2018 bid. The stadium infrastructure is very good and will improve over the next years to come. And since 1966 they did not bid and subsequently did not host another WC anymore. Compared to Germany which hosted 1974 and 2006, that strengthens the England chances. England will need to play their cards right in order to win, I am sure they can win. Personally I will like it very much if England would win, but it is not a certainty.

Because do not rule out Spain. Also they hosted only once in 1982. In their favor counts that their stadium infrastructure is equally good as Englands, also many new big stadiums are being built, renovated and expanded (i.e. Zaragoza, Bilbao, Sevilla, Valencia, Barcelona, Madrid). And Spain has lots of Hotel capacity and have invested heavily on a terrific infrastructure. Big improvements in roads, high speed rail and airports (definately much more than England has done) are big assets. And the good weather in Spain, the sunny pictures that will appeal to the public, are also plus points for Spain.

The Belgium-Netherlands WC-2018 bid is to me an outsider at best. But if the large countries can not agree on who is going to host, they might just run away with it. The strongest point in their bid is the EURO-2000 tournament which they co-hosted very well, and the central position and easy reachability of the stadiums since both countries are very close to or even neighbouring to Germany, France and Great Britain. The stadiums will not be the largest venues (though Brussels and Antwerp plan new large stadiums in Belgium and the Netherlands will expand the Amsterdam ArenA to about 70.000 seats and Rotterdam will build for sure (after than more than 80 years) a new Feyenoord stadium which will seat a minimum of 75.000 spectators!). Since that stadium is the one I very frequently visit, I know that with or without WC-2018, it is going to be build!:banana:


----------



## Benjuk

th0m said:


> Korea and Japan jointly bid and won as well...


No they didn't. Korea bid and won, then the bid started to unravel so FIFA allowed Japan to join in and dig Korea out of trouble. It caused a massive organisational headache with the Asian Federation wanting all of their qualification spots PLUS an extra host spot for Japan. Also caused headaches over who would get the hosting rights for the final.

This is why FIFA have said that joint bids will only be allowed if it's one organising committee and counted as one nation. If there is a joint bid, it'll be interesting to see which country gets to qualify automatically and which will have to earn their place...



melbstud said:


> AUSTRALIA will get it, if not the one before it.


I'm assuming you mean that if Brazil's preparations aren't up to standard Australia can step in to save the day? Not going to happen. Australia may be able to build the required stadiums if they have a 4 or 5 year warning (as would be the case if they won the 2018 bid), but no way could they do it in a year (which is about how long they'd have in the event of a collapsed attempt by the selected host). If Brazil were to fail, the finals would most likely be moved to the USA.

As for a 2018 bid... As has been said countless times before - it will go to Europe, UEFA won't allow themselves to be outbid. The world cup has NEVER been played outside Europe when the Europeans were eligible to host it. It used to alternate between Europe and the Americas, in 2002 Asia took the place of the Americas, and despite Blatter's wishes (and promises) Germany beat South Africa for 2006 - FIFA had to change the rules for 2010 and 2014 in order to make sure the finals went to Africa and South America. The new rules have been brought in specifically to allow Europe to host every 3rd finals and give the rest of the world 2 tournaments to fight over... So, 2018 Europe, 2022 - Australia/USA/China/etc.


----------



## Benjuk

EPA001 said:


> Well that sounds to me as if England is bidding, they should get it. I am sorry but I do not think it works that way. I am not a big fan of UEFA and FIFA either, but it is in their best interest to have as many countries bidding to host the WC-2018. Blatter is doing just that.
> 
> On points England has a good chance to win the WC-2018 bid. The stadium infrastructure is very good and will improve over the next years to come. And since 1966 they did not bid and subsequently did not host another WC anymore. Compared to Germany which hosted 1974 and 2006, that strengthens the England chances.


England made a terrible bid for 2006, got it all wrong assuming that 40 years since 1966, tradition and 'New Wembley' would be enough. Ironically, New Wembley wouldn't have been ready in time for FIFA anyway.

As it stands, in order to host the finals you need 13 of the FIFA Exec votes.

9 votes come from Europe. Assuming a unified bid is put in from each federation, and England gets the Euro vote, that will be 9 votes in the bag for England.

3 votes come from CONCACEF - Jack Warner has already said he'll back England. He may be a money grabbing tosspot, but Warner rarely changes direction no matter how much pressure is put on him. He controls CONCACEF - so that's 3 votes for the English bid. One more needed.

For the 2006 finals, Europe and South America did a deal in order to squeeze Oceania out of an automatic qualification spot - Europe sided with South America who effectively got 1/2 a spot back (ultimately Uruguay lost to Australia so Oceania got the place anyway), in return South America arranged its WC qualifiers in 2 game blocks to cause minimal disruption to Euro clubs with top South American players... It's reasonable to assume that Europe and South America will be able to come to some kind of arrangement for the 2018 bid (especially as South America can not bid for the finals themselves). 

In the event that Belgium/Netherlands, or Spain, gets the Euro bid, the South American voting would be the same (or even stronger with the Spanish connection), and that Africa could be swayed with the promise of European backing for an African 2022 bid.

In short, it's hard to imagine Europe not getting the tournament.


----------



## *England*

the english papers wont help our bid, during the big run up to the votes they're bound to start dishing some dirt on blatter and warner, i just hope they keep quiet til we win the bid.


----------



## GTown

nearly all that post was complete bollocks:lol:


----------



## Gherkin

But the english papers will be the first people to celebrate...


----------



## krudmonk

The English could learn a thing or two about humility. This whole sense of entitlement is really annoying. It's worse than when Canada pulls this shit in reference to hockey. Football is the world's game and England is just part of it. You're not owed anything. If Spain puts together a nice bid, they should not be hindered by the fact that the game was not created within their borders.


----------



## RobH

krudmonk said:


> The English could learn a thing or two about humility. This whole sense of entitlement is really annoying. It's worse than when Canada pulls this shit in reference to hockey. Football is the world's game and England is just part of it. You're not owed anything. If Spain puts together a nice bid, they should not be hindered by the fact that the game was not created within their borders.


I agree, the sense of entitlement some other England 2018 supporters show here is annoying. There are plenty of advantages we have over other bids and I'd even suggest we're early favourites but nothing's set in stone and nor should it be; lack of competition is exactly what has caused FIFA problems for 2014 so a fierce bidding contest for 2018 is exactly what's needed.

I think most England 2018 supporters are more realistic though Krudmonk, especially after what happened with our 2006 bid so I resent your use of "The English" as if everyone has that attitude.


----------



## petersc75

While I would love England to get the 2018 World Cup and I think the fact we have only held the competition once before is in our favour I still believe a fair bidding competition should be held. We should make a strong bid and try to win on merit rather than just demanding that its somehow our turn and if we lose then we should have the dignity to lose with grace and wish whatever country does get given the Cup good luck.


----------



## Flogging Molly

I dont think anyone here quite understands politics. England wont lose its second bid in 20 years to allow another European nation to host 2 world cups in a time span twice as short as Englands wait. The Football Association is to large to upset as is England footballing credentials as a whole. The amount of foreign investment, commercial deals is something FIFA cant turn down. England is the only other nation that can compete with Germany in football finances from a public point of view. England cannot lose.


----------



## Aka

GunnerJacket said:


> The concept of joint bids has been discussed and already dismissed. Unless FIFA changes their tune this isn't happening. PM me if you need more reasoning.


According to whom? This thread users? :|



> "El presidente de la FIFA, al menos, confirmó una buena noticia para nuestro fútbol y es que la idea de una candidatura conjunta entre España y Portugal para la organización del Mundial del año 2018 va tomando cuerpo. “*Holanda y Bélgica ya han presentado su informe por escrito* y en la FIFA nos consta que también existe interés de México, Estados Unidos, Inglaterra, Rusia, China, Australia *y una opción conjunta de España y Portugal*”.


Well... not by the FIFA President himself.

And recent news have said that the Spanish and Portuguese FA's are favourable to the idea and will meet again during Euro 2008.


----------



## JGuerreiro

What a great new to Portugal. I think together we can make it great, although naturaly Spain will have 70-80% of the stadiums and games due to their size.

Anyway, Portugal doesn't have size to do it alone.


----------



## Flogging Molly

They could produce a great bid. I just dont think tehy would win it due to Euro 2004 already being in Portugal. Spain have a better chance alone, plus I dont think the spanish people would like it to much considering they could hold it themselves.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I don't think a joint bid is impossible however it would be at a big disadvanatge, if Spain/Portugal or Neatherlands/Belguim means one less european team is going to qualify do you really think any of them are going to vote for it? Japan/Korea got away with it because there was nobody else in the asian federation to offer an alternative.


----------



## GunnerJacket

skaP187 said:


> Serious question, why do the Netherlands and Belgium do their best to make a serious bid then? They should have enough reasoning thereselves. I supose they have contacts to.
> The Netherlands and Belgium could profide a good bid. And distances (sorry for my English) can not be the problem. the Netherlands + Belgium is smaller then England.





Aka said:


> According to whom? This thread users? :|
> 
> ...
> 
> Well... not by the FIFA President himself.
> 
> And recent news have said that the Spanish and Portuguese FA's are favourable to the idea and will meet again during Euro 2008.


Fine, technically speaking His Blatterness and FIFA haven't officially ruled out joint bids but raised the very prospect after the difficulties they realized during Korea/Japan. They've also dicouraged it as a means of both increasing the volume of overall bids and as a means to encourage countries to invest in their own infrastructure. 

When Netherlands and Belgium announced their bid they acknowledged FIFA would have to be reconvinced such partnerships could still work. An Iberian pairing, a British bid, or even the Benelux bid could all work fine, but still presents problems. Mainly FIFA doesn't want to offer 2 guarantee bids to host teams. They've already proposed making the hosts qualify like everyone else, but realize that'd spoil the support for the event from the home fans. So if Spain and Portugal pair up, would Portugal support the effort if their team failed to qualify?

FIFA is also weary of two superpowers merging bids. What if two larger countries in UEFA, like Netherlands and Germany merged? As a bid it would be tough to turn down and essentially raise the politcal nature of the process. If FIFA is going to look to someone like England or Spain they're going to ask why those countries are needing a partner instead of investing in themselves. Look at how many middling clubs recieved great facilities as a result of Germany's cup! That's what they want to see.

There's also the issue of travel logistics. FIFA didn't enjoy the issues with visa/passport management during Korea/Japan. Granted not every situation would be that spread out or present the same problems, but not every situation would be as graceful an international trip as traveling from Manchester to Glascow. (Or any other placw within the EU, for that matter). And if there's a precedence for pairs, what about 3 or 4 nations joining up? 

I'll amend my statement to suggest FIFA does allow paired bids, but they're not as given to it as UEFA is with the Euro tournaments and have vowed after Korea/Japan to be extra critical of the package. So while an Iberian bid is possible, it lacks the necessities that make the Benelux bid more palatable to them. At least in the latter case it's clear neither nation could host a WC on their own.

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## rover3

Just supposing a Benelux bid, other than Amsterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam, the Hague, Utrecht -- what other cities of any size or importance would merit being a WC venue? So, Bruxelles would get the opener and Amsterdam the finals?


----------



## EPA001

rover3 said:


> Just supposing a Benelux bid, other than Amsterdam, Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam, the Hague, Utrecht -- what other cities of any size or importance would merit being a WC venue? So, Bruxelles would get the opener and Amsterdam the finals?


Well, the final should go to Rotterdam again, just as in the Euro 2000 tournament. Because in Rotterdam the City and Feyenoord (and founders) will construct the largest stadium of the area (and of the surrounding countries for that matter).

Plans have leaked that they will build an 80.000 seater as the new Feyenoord stadium, this was no secret. But this is(was): it could be expanded to 100.000+ seats. And the latest info, which is half confirmed, half rumours, has it that they will built the large version from the start. They want to tie capacity with Camp Nou at 106.000 seats (the number which Camp Nou will hold once it has been renovated and expanded in two years or so).
The plans call for a real football stadium which breathes the atmosphere of a football stadium. The atmosphere of the present Feyenoord stadium is one of the examples for the new stadium. Other examples are Emirates, Allianz, Arena Auf Schalke and Reliant Stadium. 

Now this new Feyenoord stadium will be built with or without a WC in 2018 in the Netherlands and Belgium. Because Rotterdam needs a new stadium badly. The old one is basically a continues sell-out at 47.000 spectators. Also season tickets are sold out and commercial opportunities are very thin in this old stadium. Staying there will mean losing out money and competitive power against the other teams in the league, especially PSV and Ajax. And the city is losing out big time on lucrative concerts and congresses which go to other facilities, mainly in Amsterdam of course.

The old stadium De Kuip, a very historic venue being now over 70 years old, could still be used (after some modifications) as a supporting stadium for the WC 2018. Even with new, wider seats and upgraded facilities the capacity will still be well above 40.000 spectators.

Amsterdam will increase the ArenA to just over 70.000 seats (more is impossible without demolishing neighbouring buildings close to the stadium, according to a study done by the stadium management and Ajax). This expansion will also be done, with or without the WC-2018 being awarded. Also Ajax could achieve higher numbers in spectators and sponsors with an expanded stadium then they can do now.

The Hague and Utrecht have no stadiums to host a WC match at this time. But if the WC-2018 is awarded to the Netherlands-Belgium bid, this could change very rapidly.

There are plans to build a 50.000 seater on the Western part of Utrecht, in a new development area along the A2 highway. The recently renovated and expanded venue on the East side of the City (24.500 seats) can not be expanded anymore because of limitations set by the area the stadium is built in. The plans are still being debated. The club FC Utrecht has recently been taken over by an investor, so that might speed up the process. Time will tell if this stadium will be built soon.

The new stadium in The Hague (1 year old, for ADO Den Haag) only holds 15.000 or so at this time. It is an all seater and it is situated at the intersection of the A4 and A12 highways. But it could be expanded to 40.000+ if the WC 2018 comes to the Netherlands and Belgium.
Now ADO Den Haag is a second league team, but they play a final promotion match against RKC Waalwijk soon (tomorrow I believe). So maybe they will be in the first league again next year. That could speed up developments there too.

Eindhoven will increase the capacity of the Philips stadium of PSV up to about 42.000. Also with or without the WC. PSV is dominating Dutch football the last 10 years or so. They will take their measures to remain competative in the future.

Enschede is building a 40.000+ seater (in two stages) for FC Twente as we speak. It will be one of the best looking in The Netherlands for sure. And FC Twente as a club are developing rapidly. The stadium expansion underlines this. The present capacity of 13.500 is continuesly sold out.

Heerenveen is continuesly expanding the fairly new Abe Lenstra stadium of SC Heerenveen (26.000 seats now, final capacity will be 40.000+. The final number is not determined yet. Also SC Heerenveen is a fast growing club. The stadium is almost always sold out. 

Alkmaar will expand the new, only two years old DSB stadium for AZ to 40.000+ from the present 17.000. Work will commence in 2008 or 2009. They have waiting lists for season tickets so they need this expansion bad. But they have conducted studies showing that their ground could be enlarged to a maximum capacity of 60.000 seats, if they need them. They really want to put some heat on Ajax in the Northern Randstad Area where Ajax basically has no competition.

Groningen is also continueasly expanding the new (3 years old) Euroborg stadium for FC Groningen. This summer they will increase from 19.600 to 24.000, and they are studying on how to reach the 40.000+ mark now. The stadium is part of a multi-functional complex, so it will take some work to make this happen. But the demand is there so I am sure they will find a way.

So even without City numbers 3 & 4 in the Netherlands (DH &U) there are a possible 8 venues in the Netherlands in the making or already there.

Now if Belgium will build new venues in Brussels and Antwerp, that makes already 10. However, I do think that Belgium will not build the big stadiums before the WC-2018 has been rewarded to them.

And I think in Brugge and Liege (Luik) there could be new venues build or existing ones expanded or redeveloped. Brugge has two first league teams, (Club and Cercle) they play in the same Jan Breydel stadium now. And Standard Liege (Luik) just turned champions again after more than 20 years. Their Sclessin stadium could also be redeveloped up to standards to hold WC matches.

The larger stadiums (50.000 - 70.000 seats?) would be in Brussels and Antwerp of course, Brugge and Liege would be supporting stadiums but still need to be big enough to hold 40.000 spectators. And Brussel can still offer the present King Boudewijn stadium as a venue.

So the stadiums would not be the biggest a WC has ever seen, but they would be up to the standards that FIFA sets, if they do not change the rules. This they have done frequently, as have UEFA.

*Now on the other matter of two organizing countries:*

As long as it is one organizing committee, FIFA has no problems with two (smaller) countries organizing a single WC tournament. FIFA was just very unhappy about the WC 2002 which basically were two tournements in one WC.

Two countries, not really connected, two organizing committees, two identies, two styles, it just did not feel as one WC tournament. FIFA will make sure that such a thing will not happen again. The Netherlands and Belgium have proven already they can organize a great tournament as one entity with one identity. They showed this perfectly with the Euro 2000 tournament which impressed UEFA and FIFA for that matter.

Now despite all the beautiful plans, and despite the thought that I am sure the WC 2018 will behosted in Europe, I think England stands the best chances for the WC 2018, but Spain is only just behind them. The Netherlands-Belgium bid is to me the outsider one at best, but it is not without a chance. If it comes to them many preparations would have been done already.

May we have your votes please ...........?


----------



## Ari Gold

Gee everyones very optimistic arent they.


----------



## Zeno2

As always, don't expect too much from Belgian stadiums. They suck today and they will suck in 2018. The Dutch should organise the WC themselves if they are smart. 

Brugge and Standard de Liege each intend to build a new 40.000 arena, which in my opinion is too small, given the fact that they already play for a 27.000 (sold out) crowd. Typical Belgian mentality, always playing on the safe side, no guts at all. 

Anderlecht (same problem) also prefers a new arena (60.000) that will become the homebase for the national team at the same time. 

Only Standard has the support of local politicians, their new stadium will be first to be erected. 

Artevelde stadium in Gent (20.000) will start in september.

And that's it. 

The renewed Heysel stadium is a big disaster, it has absolutely no catering or business facilities at all. Tents are built before each important game (national team or cup final) in front of the main stand. Belgian football anno 2008.

What about Antwerp? They talk about a new stadium for more than 20 years now. Back in 1988 George Kessler came up with a group of German investors to build Euope's first soccer arena with a retractable roof but nobody was interested.

I wouldn't count on Genk or Charleroi either. Their current stadiums (24.000 and 22.000) can last for a while without a problem.


----------



## EPA001

Thanks ZENO2 for the Info on the Belgium situation on new stadium developements. It is not as good looking as here in the Netherlands, but I still think the WC 2018 should be organized by Belgium and the Netherlands. If the bid is awarded to them of course.

Once the decision has been taken, Belgium will come across and build new stadiums. It is the perfect boost for Belgium Football, although the Euro 2000 was also a good boost. But the Netherlands converted thier chances much better than Belgium did.

But Belgium should be there in the bid, Brussels, Antwerp, Brugge and Liege(?) are beutiful cities which add quality to the bid. Also the two countries together offer more hotel capacity, stadium capacity, airport capacity, etc, etc. So to me it is like this: either we bid together or we do not bid at all!


----------



## Wuppeltje

The Netherlands is going faster with their developments than Belgium. However you can count on them when you need them for such things. For the Netherlands the WC might give a smaller boost for their venues, because they are all thinking of expanding. It wouldn't be strange if Belgium would build a bigger national stadium to compete with the dutch counterparts. I am sure that they want the opening again (as in the euro 2000), because they can't show up with a stadium of 50.000 while Rotterdam & Amsterdam probably will have 70.000 - 100.000+ stadiums. 

If Belgium has 4 large venues, and the Netherlands 8, it seems to be fine in the current situation, considering every stadium will be 40.000+ than. Maybe even more Belgium stadiums when it comes to the point of making the final plans.


----------



## Overground

RobH said:


> That's why the Italians want to adopt the "British model" for crowd control at football matches is it? :bash:
> 
> As for the rest of your rant, pfffft. Nothing to do with England 2018 and not backed up by facts...hardly worth responding to really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the trolls are out in force tonight. If it wasn't so pathetic I'd be laughing. hno:
> 
> To the ignoramous who questioned our stadium infrastructure, and to those who think the UK (by that I assume they mean _England_) has little chance I respond with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :banana::banana:



:applause:


----------



## Vanguard

Weebie said:


> I agree.
> 
> There is nothing Great about the UK. Except for posessing the worlds greatest city the rest of Britain is poor..economical depressed and in my honest opinion 2nd world.
> 
> Britain was great....World War 1 f**ked it and World War 2 made sure it would never recover. Now Britain resembles a country that relys on low wages immigration and a financial centre that is run by Aussies and Kiwis.
> 
> The Future is Asia and anyone who has there head outside of Euro Football is well aware that China will announce there intention to bid for the 2018 WC within 3 months after the Olympics.



LOL @ the Aussie inferiority complex. :lol::lol::lol:

If only any of that were true, eh, Weebie?


----------



## Vanguard

This is how I see an England bid going. London will be the two stadium city of course - though London could just about hold a WC on its own come 2018, what with proposed new stadiums for Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, etc,. on top of existing stadia. 

If the England bid is half as good as the excellent London Olympic bid, and with China being a tad on the nose what with all the Tibet protests, etc,. And with, come 2018, England having the best stadium infrastructure in Europe and possibly the world, this kind of presentation should make England a warm favorite. 

*Wembley* (90,000)
*New Chelsea stadium* (70,000) _proposed_

*Old Trafford.*(75,000/95,000)*Stanley Park*.(75,000) _proposed
_
*St James Park*(60,000)
*City of Birmingham Stadium*(55,000) _proposed
_
*Stadium of Light*(55,000/64,000)
*St Marys* (45,000)

*Pride Park* (45,000)
*New Nottingham stadium*(45,000) _ proposed _

*Ricoh Arena* (45,000/50,000)
* New Bristol Stadium* (40,000 - 45,000) _proposed_

*Semi-Final* :Stanley Park (75,000) 
*Semi-Final* :Old Trafford (95,000)


*Final:* Wembley Stadium (90,000)


----------



## Benjuk

BNE01 said:


> I don't know what you guys are arguing about Australia is going to get the Finals!
> 
> And anyone that does not realise the support for the sport down here has obviously never been to a Socceroos game either here or overseas!


First - note where I am.

Second - have a word with yourself. USA, Mexico, China, England, Holland/Belgium, Spain, Australia... Spot the odd one out.

As for the support the sport has... Yeah, okay, the Socceroos sell out their games, but at league level, average attendances of less than 15k across the league are really poor for a country hoping to host a finals (yes, the Yanks aren't a lot better, but their stadium infrastructure and the power of their $ and the massive population may swing things ever-so-slightly in their favour at FIFA). Don't get me wrong, attendances here are fantastic when you take into account where the game was 5 years ago, but we need a lot of growth over the next 3 or 4 years before we can hope to get the finals in 2018.


----------



## Benjuk

Vanguard said:


> If the England bid is half as good as the excellent London Olympic bid, and *with China being a tad on the nose what with all the Tibet protests*, etc,.


It's been interesting (as well as tragic) to see the way the Chinese authorities have handled the earthquake - refusing outside aid, etc. If they don't like outsiders travelling around in large numbers they'd have an awfully big surprised when the English and Dutch fans arrived for 2018.


----------



## AndyGM

Benjuk said:


> *It's been interesting (as well as tragic) to see the way the Chinese authorities have handled the earthquake *- refusing outside aid, etc. If they don't like outsiders travelling around in large numbers they'd have an awfully big surprised when the English and Dutch fans arrived for 2018.



Are you confusing China with Burma? China has accepted quite a lot of outside aid and has allowed (almost) free movement of western journalists in the quake affected regions. 

I think most in the international relations community are fairly surprised and delighted about the maturity of the Chinese response. Burma on the other hand...


----------



## witn88

Zeno2 said:


> As always, don't expect too much from Belgian stadiums. They suck today and they will suck in 2018. The Dutch should organise the WC themselves if they are smart.
> 
> Brugge and Standard de Liege each intend to build a new 40.000 arena, which in my opinion is too small, given the fact that they already play for a 27.000 (sold out) crowd. Typical Belgian mentality, always playing on the safe side, no guts at all.
> 
> Anderlecht (same problem) also prefers a new arena (60.000) that will become the homebase for the national team at the same time.
> 
> Only Standard has the support of local politicians, their new stadium will be first to be erected.
> 
> Artevelde stadium in Gent (20.000) will start in september.
> 
> And that's it.
> 
> The renewed Heysel stadium is a big disaster, it has absolutely no catering or business facilities at all. Tents are built before each important game (national team or cup final) in front of the main stand. Belgian football anno 2008.
> 
> What about Antwerp? They talk about a new stadium for more than 20 years now. Back in 1988 George Kessler came up with a group of German investors to build Euope's first soccer arena with a retractable roof but nobody was interested.
> 
> I wouldn't count on Genk or Charleroi either. Their current stadiums (24.000 and 22.000) can last for a while without a problem.


The Cristal Arena of Genk is the 5th stadium when Belgium holds the WC, they will expand their stadium to 45.000. They have an agreement with Courtois.
So the 5 Belgium cities are Bruges (40.000), Liège (40.000), Genk (45.000), Antwerp (40.000) and Brussels (60.000).
Ghent and Charleroi are back-ups.

For Bruges and Liège I need agree with you, I also think that the stadiums should be bigger. Certainly the Bruges Stadium.
I hope that Bruges will expand it for the WC when they see that it is too little. The new stadium should be ready in 2012/2013, so time enough to expand it when necessary. The decision of the new Bruges stadium will be taken in the beginning of next month.


----------



## RobH

BobDaBuilder said:


> The violence from after the UEFA Cup final proved yet again in the UK that fans there simply cannot be trusted.
> 
> What is wrong with people over there? Supposedly they are 'adults' and they behave like psychopaths. Why don't they join the armed forces or play contact sports if they want to fight. I guarentee most of those fans one on one would be gutless ******* in fights.
> 
> No chance the World Cup should be entrusted to Britain.


Sorry to drag this up again but I've been away this weekend and I can't let this idiotic post pass without comment.

There were 40 arrests and probably about 100 people involved in violence that evening. There were at least *100,000* Rangers fans in the city.

That means 0.001% of fans caused problems (and that's taking the higher estimate of violent fans and the lower estimate of total fans). Hardly endemic of a wide problem amongst travelling British fans is it?

That percentage also goes to show how troll-like comments such as "what's wrong with people over there" are. Think before you post please BobDaBullshitter.


----------



## Flogging Molly

OK. Although major stadiums will get recognition, The FA has announced that cities will have to bid individually to them if they want to host games during 2018. This will allow the FA and Gov to judge what every city has to offer , its security, infrastructure, public square etc. 

This could be good news for Bristol who might have struggled before.

I see the 9 cities to be picked outside London to be ... 

Bristol, Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Leeds and Sheffield.

That would mean developments will be needed at Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Portsmouth and Sheffield. And as I speak. Every single one of those cities have either 1 or all of thier clubs proposing stadium advances. 

I named Portsmouth ahead of Southampton on the fact, that by 2018, Portsmouth port etc will be a buzz of entertainment and with a design of that quality it shoudl showcase games even if it is lower pool matches such as Boliva V Poland.


----------



## BeestonLad

BobDaBuilder said:


> We call our football team the 'Socceroos' actually. Never heard it called the Australian Football Team. That would imply that our football is played internationally.
> 
> England is too risky a place to have the World Cup because you cannot keep all the villains away if you stage it in their backyards. It is like an open invitation to all known troublemakers.
> 
> Also your hotels and transport infrastructure is laughable and over-priced. What does it cost, something like $120 USD just to take the train to the next city? The standard of hotels in England is shameful. Fawlty Towers is not a comedy but a documentary!
> 
> The only reason FIFA would go to England is to make shed loads of cash. And they manage to rub up FIFA so wouldn't bet on it. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge yet. Hopefully sanity will prevail. Also, what makes the English think they would be worthy hosts in any case? You might not qualify for the World Cup for a while yet. All you players are all prima donas who don't give a **** about anything but money.


Whats up with you did an english guy shag your missus while on holiday or something? Get that chip off your shoulder


----------



## Elensar77

ı want to world cup 2018 bid to Turkey but,we are not enough yet,maybe 2022...


----------



## GunnerJacket

skaP187 said:


> Bwoah, that´s a design with balls. How serious are the planns of Portsmouth?


Serious, but as discussed earlier that particular design and location are now removed from the equation. The club will have something, the questions is exactly where and how large. Original proposal called for 36k.



flare said:


> One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.
> 
> World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community.


This issue isn't unique to England nor too big a concern for FIFA. Local governments are responsible for security and accessibility, and if a ground prohibits the volume of luxury or advertising/merchandising space that would be considered ideal, it will merely cut into the profits for the hosts. FIFA will get their cut and then merely care about the success of the games, and social events can be held away from the actual stadium. 



Flogging Molly said:


> There will only be 10 host cities and 11 stadiums that will be used.


Seems to me 11 and 12 are the more reasonable numbers, as 11 stadiums creates an interesting imbalance in how to distribute matches. 



> Its just a shame Wolverhampton is such a dive...


The Birmingham metro will host games by default, so it's simply a matter of the community and the clubs determining the best package. Clearly Villa has the most direct path to a large facility that will be used after the WC, but, by all accounts and images I've noted from afar, Villa Park is among the least graceful of facilities available. Renovations would have their restrictions and be quite costly on a per seat basis. Depending on the money the club could bring to the table, I'd venture that a brand new ground for Birmingham City would be the most attractive option here, even if slightly smaller than what Villa Park could achieve. Honus is on BCFC to prove they can make a 45k (or larger) seat stadium a financially viable home for their club.


Benjuk said:


> The essense of a great bid is to exceed the minimum requirements - in stadium terms, you present FIFA with 14 stadiums and say 'pick the ones YOU like'.


Host cities must also prove their package to bid organizers, and thus far it seems there will be no "If we get the bid" conditions allowed. In other words, they only want offers to host from cities/facilities where any improvement plans or new construction will be followed through regardless so as to ensure each situation is on safe financial footing.


Benjuk said:


> It'll be very interesting to see what happens in the Premier League over the next few seasons - because the location of major new stadiums is highly dependant on who's up and who's not.


Traditionally, but this may change that, especially as the Championship is retaining strong revenue returns. Some clubs know they can attract larger crowds with the right facilities even outside the premiership and see this as their means for making that move up (Bristol City, Nottingham, etc). No better time to build when you're (practically) guaranteed some nice extra revenue through hosting 3+ WC matches.



> Certainly, if Nott'm Forest, Norwich, Bristol City, Sheff Utd and Leeds could all get into the top league (at the expense of Fulham, Bolton, Wigan, Middlesbro, and West Brom), then the geographic spread of potentially well supported Prem clubs with good facilities, or the need for new stadia would be much better.


This is something the EPL needs quite desperately, IMO. England is unmatched in the volume of great stadiums for lower drawing clubs around the 20-30k mark, and the upper echelon of stadiums should be grand come 2014, assuming Liverpool and Everton do their parts. :| However that second level of clubs are now well behind their counterparts in Germany in terms of great facilities, *especially* outside the major metro areas. Elland Road has the size but hardly the amenities, plus some obstructed views still. Forest has built themselves into a bind given their limitations to expand, while Sheffield's main clubs might be loathe to leave their historic grounds but find expansions truly difficult. Middlesbrough can't sell out Riverside now, so what good would 45k do?

Sounds like a topic for it's own thread, no? 
Regarding an England WC bid, and assuming that London (2 stadiums), Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle/Sunderland and Liverpool are given locations, which cities are the next best options for distributing the vents, _and_ which clubs would best maximize the expanded/new facility of 45k or larger? Hmmm....

I dare say a number of facilities will be built with at least one side of upper tier seats made temporary. Portsmouth's new ground could see one long side taken down after the games so as to reduce capacity to the 36k mark they're looking for. Others might follow suit.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Benjuk said:


> Sunderland:
> 
> The Stadium of Light - 61000 (new tiers on East and South stands to expand from 49000; approved) *will only happen if we have huge on pitch success over the next 5 or 6 years*


But extending over the other end to 55k is quite reasonable and unlikely to be a deterrent to the club even if they move down (which I don't think will happen). This facility is too good to be left out, the club could likely fill that for big games and what better time to expand then when extra revenue is coming in.



> Leeds:
> 
> New stadium for Leeds Utd - 50000 (current Elland Road 40000 seats) *again, will only happen if they have tremendous success - (a) they would need to win the play-offs, THEN get promoted again within 2 or 3 years, and (b) they'll find it incredibly hard to get enough credit together to build a stadium as they've done two massive credit write-offs in the last 4 years*


Possibly not. Leeds, like Newcastle and Sunderland, benefits from essentially being "the only show in town," and have a proven track record of support. Since the bid organizers will want to disperse the games then something has to go in central england, and Leeds might be the best candidates to make use of that bill. May not be 50k, but will certainly exceed Elland Road and may serve as the catalyst for the club to prosper again. 

In time for Mr. Bates to ruin them all the more... hno:



> Sheffield:
> 
> Bramall Lane - 42000 (expanded Kop and Main stand to expand from 33000) of all the pipe-dreams suggested for 2018, this is the only one I'd put 'public' money into. Bramall Lane is the oldest stadium that has been in continuous use for football in the world - would be a great element to the bid


A great sentimental nod and one I agree may get the bill for that reason. The overall site seems confining, however, and I'm dubious of the club's ability to maximize such a gift.



> Nottingham:
> 
> New Forest Stadium - 45000 (current City Ground 31000)


Ground can't really be expanded. Not nicely, anyway. Great candidate for a new stadium with some seats removed after the games.



> I'd like to see a new stadium in East Anglia, whether in Norwich or Ipswich, to allow a true georgraphic spread around the country. I think Norwich could possibly justify one if they could get back into the Prem.


+1.


----------



## NeilF

flare said:


> One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.
> 
> World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community. Stadiums I'm particularly thinking of are:
> 
> Old Trafford (Manchester)
> Villa Park (Birmingham)
> Stamford Bridge (London/Chelsea)
> St James Park (Newcastle)


Stamford Bridge won't be used and isn't at all worry - the likely London stadia will be Wembley and Emirates Stadium, although Emirates will have similiar problems. If, by some miracle, the bid chose to use Twickenham instead, then this problem is removed entirely from the equation. Wembley has parkland to the south-east that could be used.

Villa Park has parkland to the south-west, including a full-size astroturf pitch that could easily be used to accomodate the various space requirements. Old Trafford is surrounded by vast carparks, which could be used. St. James's Park has a large parkland to the north-west which could be used. Anfield has parkland to the north-east; New Anfield will have it's own surrounding space.

While many English stadia do not have their own space, most have usable spaces nearby. Given that most of these spaces are publically owned parklands, there is no doubt they could be used to fulfill these kinds of roles.


----------



## BeestonLad

GunnerJacket said:


> Ground can't really be expanded. Not nicely, anyway. Great candidate for a new stadium with some seats removed after the games.


Well it could easily be expanded up to 40k with a new main stand but its whether that will be enough to get a world cup game by 2018. But you're right a new stadium on another site is more likely given the value of the land its currently on. The new stadium would be between 45,000 and 50,000 apparently


----------



## Benjuk

GunnerJacket said:


> Traditionally, but this may change that, especially as the Championship is retaining strong revenue returns. Some clubs know they can attract larger crowds with the right facilities even outside the premiership and see this as their means for making that move up (Bristol City, Nottingham, etc). *No better time to build when you're (practically) guaranteed some nice extra revenue through hosting 3+ WC matches.*


Red herring. You need a lot more than 3 sell-out crowds to even consider building work.

With regard to my own club, Sunderland, and our expansion plans - we could easily sell extra seats in a South Stand extension for a couple of games a season (Newcastle, Man Utd), but wouldn't even consider extending just for that.

Assuming Nottingham, for example, were to build a new 50k stadium prior to the World Cup, and assuming they got to keep 50% of the ticket revenue, with an average ticket price of GB100 (which is steep) - they would only earn 7.5 million.

That would hardly make a convincing dent in the cost of constructing the stadium in the first place.



BobDaBuilder said:


> 'It Ail Shite', you quote some of the most extreme places. Who said anything about playing the World Cup in Italy, Turkey or Spain?
> 
> In England you have crowd 'issues' every weekend. It just does not get reported. I lived in your country and saw it all firsthand every weekend down Fulham Broadway.
> 
> If you want to have to deal with moronic drunkards fighting then sure go and stage it in England. Most Brits couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and need a bucket load of booze to get their courage up.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how to go over in Russia, the 'born to rule' mentality will get you a long way over there! :lol:


Having lived in England for the first 29 years of my life, and having attended games at the majority of stadia around the country, throughout the mid/late 80s and the 90s... Having walked around the outside of many venues on matchdays prior to and after fixtures... Having travelled on public transport to many of these games... Etc., etc... I've never witnessed anything that would be regarded as football related violence. There's no doubt that it happens - just as it does in Italy, Turkey, Spain, etc... Just as it did at Melbourne Victory vs Sydney FC last year, just as it did at South Melbourne vs Melbourne Victory in pre-season last year...


----------



## NeilF

Aren't Nottingham Forest planning on moving to a new stadium in 2014? I know a plan to that effect was released at some point last year. Have they been shelved? As far as I remember, the plan is for a 50,000 all seated stadium, which would be more than enough for a world cup, even if grossly excessive for the club given their current on-pitch travails. 










An interesting thought that seems to have been ignored is a possible expansion of the K.C. Stadium in Hull. I'm aware that this city doesn't have a particularly 'desirable' image but it is undergoing some manner of an urban renaissance with considerable investment in the city centre. The K.C. was build with easy expansion to around 30,000 in mind by expanding the East Stand. I believe Paul Duffen has said that this expansion will go ahead if Hull City win the playoff final on Saturday, taking capacity up to 32,000 (although I'm unsure where the extra 2,000 seats in this figure have come from - a replica of the upper West Stand would only hold 5,000, so an overall capacity on the East side of the stadium would require a fairly significantly larger upper tier than currently found on the West side. If Hull City made the Premier League and stayed there, further expansion of the North and South stands, taking capacity up to 38,000-40,000 isn't beyond the realms of possibility. Indeed, the potential to use the quadrants could give a final capacity in excess of 40,000.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

World Cup bid at risk if fans fail to behave, warns British Minister 

Sachin Nakrani The Guardian, Wednesday May 21 2008 

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday May 21 2008 on p5 of the Sport news & features section. It was last updated at 00:07 on May 21 2008. The sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, last night warned Chelsea and Manchester United supporters who travelled to Moscow for the Champions League final to be on their best behaviour, emphasising that any violence in the Russian capital, coming so soon after the riots that took place during last week's Uefa Cup final in Manchester, could jeopardise England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

"The World Cup is a showpiece event and Fifa does not want violence attracted to it in any way," said Sutcliffe, who has also made the trip to Moscow. "Our bid has a long way to go, there is still a World Cup in South Africa and Brazil to take place, but we want to have a successful bid for 2018 and we may not be successful if there are repeats of the violence in Manchester last week."

A Russian fan was stabbed and 42 people were arrested after riot police clashed with Glasgow Rangers supporters who became irate when large-screen televisions in the city centre broke down and failed to show their team's match against Zenit St Petersburg from the City of Manchester Stadium.

More than 42,000 supporters of the Premier League sides have descended on Moscow and they have been met by 6,000 police and military officers who have been deployed to maintain order in the city during the week of the final. Other measures include a ban on public drinking. 

"I hope the next couple of nights in Moscow go off without any hitches and the people who have gone there enjoy what should be an opportunity to show off the best of British football," said Sutcliffe. "As a Manchester United fan, I of course hope United win."

Responding to the minister's warning, the Football Association said it did not believe the riots in Manchester will affect the 2018 bid and that it did not want to discuss incidents "that have not yet happened".

"The behaviour of English supporters remains an issue but it has improved beyond recognition in recent years due to the efforts of the supporters themselves, the football authorities, clubs, police and government legislation," a spokesman said. "We hope all supporters who have travelled to Moscow have a great time, back their team and travel home without any problems."

The FA last week announced the creation of its 2018 "company", a panel headed by its chairman Lord Triesman that will spearhead the bid. The role of the government was at that stage unclear and yesterday Sutcliffe said discussions were ongoing to clarify how the two authorities will work together to bring a World Cup to England for the first time in 62 years. 

"As a government, we want to provide every effort of support we can to the bid," said Sutcliffe. "I believe we already have the stadiums to host the tournament, what we want to show Fifa now is that this country can establish a legacy which lasts beyond the hosting of a World Cup."


----------



## Vanguard

I would have thought trouble in Moscow would more likely have an adverse effect on Russia's ambitions for the 2018 WC?

Like I said before, 100,000 English and Welsh fans were in London over the weekend, there were no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Wezza

*FIFA move boosts 2018 World Cup bid*
21 May 2008 

Australia’s chances of hosting the 2018 FIFA World Cup have been strengthened with an unexpected decision by FIFA to bring forward the bid process for the following event in 2022. 

*The World Game can EXCLUSIVELY reveal that FIFA’s top brass, only in the past few days, has decided to align awarding the hosting rights to both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups on the same date – a decision due in June 2011.* 

It is thought that the decision was driven by the view that aligning the announcements will increase potential television and sponsorship revenues. 

The right to host the 2018 World Cup already has a multitude of declared likely bidders – among them Australia, China, USA and up to five European aspirants, including England. 

The late decision by FIFA, on the eve of the world body’s Congress in Sydney, is sure to cause a re-think by some of the 2018 bidders, especially those from outside Europe. 

With the 2010 World Cup due to be hosted by South Africa and the 2014 edition already awarded to Brazil, popular betting has the 2018 tournament returning the World Cup to the financially powerful seat of Europe which, by then, will be 12 years without hosting football’s most prized tournament. 

But the move by FIFA is likely to spread bids across two World Cups and dilute the competition for the 2018 tournament, thereby strengthening Australia’s chances and conversely weakening the case for a European host that year. 

Australia, unfazed by formidable opposition from European bidders, has so far stayed the course in its pursuit of the 2018 World Cup, with serious financial backing from the federal government. 

But this decision might persuade it to put its hand up for two editions at the price of one. 

The FFA declined to comment on FIFA’s latest move. 

FIFA will issue hosting tenders for both World Cups in June next year. The deadline for delivery of the bids is March 2011 with FIFA’s executive committee due to announce the winning bids in June of that year.

LINK: http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/australia/fifa-move-boosts-2018-world-cup-bid-118960/


----------



## BeestonLad

NeilF said:


> Aren't Nottingham Forest planning on moving to a new stadium in 2014? I know a plan to that effect was released at some point last year. Have they been shelved? As far as I remember, the plan is for a 50,000 all seated stadium, which would be more than enough for a world cup, even if grossly excessive for the club given their current on-pitch travails.


As far as I know the plans are still on the cards after all we did get promoted this year! As for financing the works it shouldnt really be a problem as the majority of the funds will come from outside the club. The land that the current ground sits on is worth quite a lot with good potential to develop some luxury flats apparently (riverside views etc). The council are very keen on the idea as well.


----------



## Flogging Molly

flare said:


> One problem I can see with Englands bid is that many of the existing stadium (and ones planned to be redeveloped) are in very tight inner city locations.
> 
> World Cup matches demand so much space for all the promotion/advertising activites and wider FIFA community. Stadiums I'm particularly thinking of are:
> 
> Old Trafford (Manchester)
> Villa Park (Birmingham)
> Stamford Bridge (London/Chelsea)
> St James Park (Newcastle)


Obviously you've never been to Spain. All these stadiums reguarl cope with huge crowds. I dont think a World Cup would be any different.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Benjuk said:


> Red herring. You need a lot more than 3 sell-out crowds to even consider building work.
> 
> With regard to my own club, Sunderland, and our expansion plans - we could easily sell extra seats in a South Stand extension for a couple of games a season (Newcastle, Man Utd), but wouldn't even consider extending just for that.
> 
> Assuming Nottingham, for example, were to build a new 50k stadium prior to the World Cup, and assuming they got to keep 50% of the ticket revenue, with an average ticket price of GB100 (which is steep) - they would only earn 7.5 million.
> 
> That would hardly make a convincing dent in the cost of constructing the stadium in the first place.


The point is that if you're _already_ investigating the expansion/improvement of your ground or considering a new one, what better time to do that than when you're guaranteed _extra_ money and exposure. Don't forget there's more than just the tickets - concessions, parking, etc, will add significantly to that. IIRC, the organizers behind the German bid expected the host facilities to pull in a minimum 10M GBP. Still not enough to pay for an expansion outright, but if you're already considering such development surely you wouldn't object to having the cost dropped a few million!

There's also something to be said for the exposure. Modern technology has enabled fans the world over to learn about many different clubs and cities, and events such as this usually lead to a geometric increase in awareness of clubs and cities previously disregarded by the casual fans. Again, folks in Germany say the exposure has increased the appeal and interest in many middling clubs beyond the likes of Bayern and Dortmund. I know many folks who could name some clubs in the EPL but have never heard of Sunderland. Hosting some WC matches could help change that.

Otherwise there wouldn't be such interest in bidding, no?  



NeilF said:


> An interesting thought that seems to have been ignored is a possible expansion of the K.C. Stadium in Hull...


There are a handfull of clubs and facilities that could fit this description, but if I could place a wager on this I'd say the organizers don't want anything less than 45k, preferably 50k, for every stadium. This will also be cross referenced with cities that serve as the best tourist destinations. Thus, while KC Stadium may meet the letter of the standards required by FIFA, it may still be well behind the list of better options available. And, to be frank, if England can't foist 12 better facilities together than Hull City's home, then they should rethink their bid.



BobDaBuilder said:


> World Cup bid at risk if fans fail to behave, warns British Minister


Please note this headline could apply to any of the organizers. After all, this isn't a startling analogy - Criminal behavior could make you look bad! Yes, if English fans get out of control it could harm their bid.

Ditto Spanish fans.
Ditto Dutch fans.
Ditto Australian fans.

And so on, and so on.


----------



## Mo Rush

England 2018
China 2022


----------



## NeilF

GunnerJacket said:


> There are a handfull of clubs and facilities that could fit this description, but if I could place a wager on this I'd say the organizers don't want anything less than 45k, preferably 50k, for every stadium. This will also be cross referenced with cities that serve as the best tourist destinations. Thus, while KC Stadium may meet the letter of the standards required by FIFA, it may still be well behind the list of better options available. And, to be frank, if England can't foist 12 better facilities together than Hull City's home, then they should rethink their bid.


I can see where you're coming from, but... Leeds, specifically, is a generally more pleasing location than Hull. The city is nicer for the most part, it's a bigger city and it's more easily accessible by existing transport than Hull. As such, if Leeds can put a decent stadium into the mix then Hull would never be considered. Ditto Sheffield. The trouble is that, at this time, Hull is the only city with a realistic redevelopment in the works, although a lot can change in 10 years.

I'd say a stadium somewhere in Yorkshire will be desirable for any planners because of geographic spead. At the moment, realistically, it's going to come down to a race between Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday / United and Hull City. Of those four, at this moment in time, Hull City actually have the most realistic chance of expansion, with plans on the table and the finances in place to carry out the expansion. Not to mention the potential demand for use of the extra seating if Hull do win promotion.

The K.C. Stadium is frequently voted as the best stadium in the Championship by away fans. It is a better facility than either Hillsborough or Elland Road in that sense. You must also remember the huge docks in Hull and the passenger ferries that come into Hull from mainland Europe - Hull easily accessible for many mainland European fans because of these docks. Given the nature of travelling around the UK, Hull is also a 50 minute train journey from York which is on the main east-coast line. 

As I said, I'm dealing in theory here - if Leeds and / or Sheffield fail to provide a facility up to standard then Hull is a realistic possibility, even if the city is seen as being less desirable.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

I'd be happy to have it in England in 2018 as long as Australia gets it in 2022.

China hosting it, you must be crackers. It is a despotic state. 

India would be a better location by a country mile.


----------



## GunnerJacket

NeilF said:


> I can see where you're coming from, but...
> 
> ...
> 
> As I said, I'm dealing in theory here - if Leeds and / or Sheffield fail to provide a facility up to standard then Hull is a realistic possibility, even if the city is seen as being less desirable.


Fair enough, and after reviewing population numbers and the distribution of English metros I can see where this is indeed an attractive option. Would be better still if the stadium could surpass 45k, even if only temporarily.

Shame Bristol and Hull must fight for promotion when it'd be so interesting to see both in the Prem.

So assuming you're correct, my "_as of today_" selection of cities, based on geographic dispersal, etc: would probably pan out as:

London (2)
Manchester 
Liverpool 
Birmingham 
Sunderland 
Portsmouth 
Bristol 
Norwich/Ipswich 
Derby/Nottingham

That leaves 2 from
Hull 
Sheffield
Leeds
Middlesbrough
Newcastle

If the bid ends up with a set of 40-45k facilities to choose from, I wonder if there'll be sympathy to favor the situation that provides the biggest improvements, regardless of club stature? For instance, it could be said Derby have less need for facility upgrades compared to Nottingham. We shall have to watch and see, I guess!



BobDaBuilder said:


> China hosting it, you must be crackers. It is a despotic state.


One would agree, but then China got the Olympics, didn't it? Sadly. hno:


----------



## rover3

Mo Rush said:


> England 2018
> China 2022


Ha!!

England - 2018
USA - 2022


----------



## RobH

BobDaBuilder said:


> I'd be happy to have it in England in 2018 as long as Australia gets it in 2022.


I thought you said Britain couldn't be trusted with the world cup. :? 

I wish you'd make your mind up, though I'm glad you've changed your tune even if it is because of the new circumstances surrounding the bidding process.


----------



## Príncipe

Is very unlikely that Fifa will choose Mexico for 2018 world cup - reasons : 2014 world cup in latin america already, in Brazil - probably the next host will be in other area of the globe - other reason that goes against Mexico's bid - they hosted in 1970 and 1986 - seriously , three world cups in 50 year gap to a country that don't have a strong national team in world cups would be quite random....


----------



## larsul

Príncipe_Luiz said:


> Is very unlikely that Fifa will choose Mexico for 2018 world cup - reasons : 2014 world cup in latin america already, in Brazil - probably the next host will be in other area of the globe - other reason that goes against Mexico's bid - they hosted in 1970 and 1986 - seriously , three world cups in 50 year gap to a country that don't have a strong national team in world cups would be quite random....


And you think England or the USA will win the worldcup any time soon??


----------



## en1044

larsul said:


> And you think England or the USA will win the worldcup any time soon??


Well id say England has about a 85 -90% chance of hosting it in 2018, and the US is going to host it again before Mexico does.


----------



## talrok

Live with it buddy .. we here in Australia, and the Asian region in general (had to include that otherwise it would look as if I was whinging on behalf of just 20 mill people), have been waking up or staying up anywhere between midnight and 5am to watch football matches. If we get it then for 4 weeks you can put up with it if you really love the game and support your team(s). 

How did you do it for Japan/Korea??? Suffer!!


----------



## larsul

en1044 said:


> Well id say England has about a 85 -90% chance of hosting it in 2018, and the US is going to host it again before Mexico does.


i was answering the brazilian who said Mexico would never have it because We dont have a strong team, not because the things we have to offer.. it is obvious that England and USA will have the following worldcups.. however the reasons for that are not that they have a strong national team, because they dont. I dont see England winning the world cup again for a long time..


----------



## en1044

larsul said:


> i was answering the brazilian who said Mexico would never have it because We dont have a strong team, not because the things we have to offer.. it is obvious that England and USA will have the following worldcups.. however the reasons for that are not that they have a strong national team, because they dont. I dont see England winning the world cup again for a long time..



Ah, didnt see that. Well in that case, i have to agree with you.


----------



## en1044

melbstud said:


> Australia will get the World Cup with this to be soon. You see we are the leaders in putting on world events. As Juan Antonio Samaranch said at the closing Ceremony of the Sydney 200 Games " You have put on the best Olympic Games ever!- crow goes mad". We the heard the same remark when Melbourne hosted the 2006 Commonwealth Games " You have staged the best Commonwealth Games ever- crowd goes nuts!". You see we areleaders, Atehns had a lot of bad press and 30 years to pay off Olympic Debt, Beijing is already screwed and from what I hear from town planner friends in London, its going to manin for 2012.
> 
> Melbourne alone is building a world class Soccer Stadium, if you go to OZSCRAPER and click VIC down the bottom you will see a topic called" rectangluar stadium", that will be done by the end of next year. We are in preperation for the World Cup as it may seem. We have a booming A League with many International Players playing for our teams, and Famous Greek team alone cant remember what one is going to have their international base at our new stadium in Melbourne. Now...
> 
> Add with the boom in Brisbane and Perth, along with tourists and migrants flociking to Australia and our excellent reputation, me thinks we will get in verty soon.
> 
> I would also like to comment on how some readers belive Australia isnt on the world radar in North America. What a load of shit, many Australian travel and do student exchange, not to mention the amount who are taking over Hollywood and as for the Kylie Minogue comment, she was just there 2 weeks ago on Danicng with the Stars!. People know where we are and often aspire to be like us, just speak to American backpackers whop dont want people to know they are from the US, and the refuse to say they are Canadian as they belive Canada is backwards.
> 
> In essence we will host the games and we will host the best games aswell!
> 
> Cheers.


Im not hating on Australia, I love the country, but i dont know a single person in the US who would rather be Australian.


----------



## elgoyo

Well heres the final list of Mexican stadium as sugested by me, with 8 stadiums and the limitation of only one city with two of them

1) Estadio Azteca
Location: Mexico City
Capacity: 114,600



















2) Estadio Olimpico Universitario
Location: Mexico city
Capacity: 72,449



















3) Estadio Chivas (2009)
Location: Guadalajara
Capacity: 54,500










4) Estadio Corregidora
Location: Queretaro
Capacity: 50,000
Could also be remodeled










5) Estadio Monterrey
Location: Monterrey
Capacity: more than 45,000

this project is under study, but the city will have a new stadium for sure










6)Estadio Cuahutemoc
Location: Puebla
Capacity: 42,649











7) Arena Indios (2010)
Location: Ciudad Juarez
Capacity: 40,000











8) Estadio Morelos
Location: Morelia
Capacity: 38,384











Others with less than 40K>

Estadio Caliente (2009)
Location: Tijuana
Capacity: 33,333










Estadio Hidalgo
Location: Pachuca
Capicity: 33,000










Territorio Santos (2009)
Location: Torreon
Capacity: 25,000










Estadio Victoria
Location: Aguascalientes
Capacity: 24,000


----------



## Flogging Molly

Well I see England winning the world cup in 2010. Ever the optimist.


----------



## aaronaugi1

en1044 said:


> Im not hating on Australia, I love the country, but i dont know a single person in the US who would rather be Australian.


Like yourself nothing against the USA but...likewise, i cant say ive met an Australian who wishes they could become a US citizen, though can say i've met a few American travellers who wish to stay in Australian...none the less, what does this have to do with Australia's 2018-beyond chances?


----------



## aaronaugi1

lol at Mexico...its pretty much a repeat World Cup..same stadiums and all...good luck!


----------



## Carrerra

I'm with Mexico if I have to choose between Mexico and USA but not if other countries join the race. There are still many countries left which have huge football popularity and can afford to host World cup but haven't had the honor or had the honor so long time ago - Russia, Turkey, China, Netherland and Belgium, Sweden and Norway, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, England, Spain, Argentine...


----------



## www.sercan.de

2018 wil go to Engalnd, because Spain will bid together with Portugal hno:
Sorry Mexico, but you already hosted 2 times
Even your first one was after Englands one


----------



## RSG

I believe that Australia can host a great world cup as can many other countries. I do hope that Fifa take a serious look at the past events that Australia has held. Maybe not 2018 or 2022 but we will one day host it and host it well.

I guess some may just pass this off as another Aussie talking up their country but we did host one of the two biggest sporting events in the world. I think we could host the other and so do many other non Australians.


----------



## aaronaugi1

RSG said:


> I believe that Australia can host a great world cup as can many other countries. I do hope that Fifa take a serious look at the past events that Australia has held. Maybe not 2018 or 2022 but we will one day host it and host it well.


I dont think i've spoken to any other Australians that SERIOUSLY believe we will get 2018 or 2022...and some of them dont think we will host ever...infact the British i've spoken to seem more confident in us winning 2018.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Oceania Football Confederation will support Australia's bid(on the record). Thats 11 votes for starters. Now we need to get the Asian Football Confed on board. Possibly another 45 votes.

The Italians are on our side. Surely we can get the Greeks, Turks, eastern Europeans on board thanks to some good deals.

Africa and the Americas needs work.

What the English seem to forget is, they thought 2006 was in the bag. The Krouts trumped them and the Africans.

It is all about politics and deals, not about what is fair and just. As Australians we suffered for many, many years in Oceania. Didn't see England giving us a leg up. It's everyone for themselves. You would think England would get it, but you just never know.


----------



## skaP187

www.sercan.de said:


> 2018 wil go to Engalnd, because Spain will bid together with Portugal hno:
> Sorry Mexico, but you already hosted 2 times
> Even your first one was after Englands one


? That would make the bid only better no?
Atleast two stadiums which are up to date and big enough. Then I am only counting one in Lisboa.


----------



## Carrerra

elgoyo said:


> 3) Estadio Chivas (2009)
> Location: Guadalajara
> *Capacity: 54,500*


Isn't it 46,500?


----------



## C.M.

To host a FIFA world cup the host nation will need 13 votes from the FIFA executive. 

(a) CONMEBOL vice-president (1) members (2)
(b) AFC vice-president (1) members (3)
(c) UEFA vice-presidents (2) members (5)
(d) CAF vice-president (1) members (3)
(e) CONCACAF vice-president (1) members (2)
(f) OFC vice-president (1) member (–)
(g) the four British Associations vice-president (1) member (–)


If England can secure the 7 UEFA votes, the one British vote, the 4 African votes and bully a vote out of the OFC like Germany did to win the right to host the 2006 World cup then the world Cup 2018 is theirs.

It is a politcal decision at the end of the day.


----------



## Príncipe

larsul said:


> And you think England or the USA will win the worldcup any time soon??


England actually is my favorite for the 2018 world cup, and I think they have much more tradition on football than Mexico - they won a world cup , they have the premier league, one of the most famous footbal tournaments of the planet and there are a lot of super stars playing there or British playing around the world - thy have much more status in the football world than Mexico has in the moment . 

And The Usa is an economic powerhouse and the $$$ that Fifa would get from american endorsements for the cup would compensate their lack of football tradition; also they proved in different events that they can pull it off a huge event like a world cup.


----------



## www.sercan.de

skaP187 said:


> ? That would make the bid only better no?
> Atleast two stadiums which are up to date and big enough. Then I am only counting one in Lisboa.


joint bid?
I thought FIFA do not like joint bids


----------



## *England*

no one takes into account what the english fa do for other growing countries around the world, we spend millions helping other countries, probably do more than the rest of the world combined, also why england do shit because our fa is busy helping out all other countries more than its own.


----------



## *England*

if you are all so desperate for your countries to host a wc you should be hoping england host it asap because if they dont they'll get the one you all hope to get


----------



## *England*

it'll be hosted by england australia china usa before mexico get it again, plus warner and blatter wont be there much longer which will make it even harder for mexico


----------



## RobH

Possibly another 45 votes? There are only 24 votes in total Bob!!


----------



## rover3

England shouldn't be the 2018 WC because it would be just too 'traditional.' The super zeal of its fans would be prejudicial to the 31 other teams playing in the tournament.

Similarly,

Australia -- too small; who needs a 3rd southern hemisphere WC in a row?

China -- after the 2008 Torch uproar; after a failed attempt at their first Womens' World Cup -- why should it go there?

Mexico -- 2 WCs when others haven't had it? Ix-nay.

Russia -- venues too distant; too cold; don't speak enough English.

Spain -- Too Spanish. cities too close to each other. 

USA -- already staged a successful 1994 WC. Why should FIFA want another one? It would put future hosts like China, India or Bangladesh to shame.

*CONCLUSION: Too many negatives all around. Disband the event. *


----------



## hempbeat

rover3 said:


> Russia -- venues too distant; too cold; don't speak enough English.
> *CONCLUSION: Too many negatives all around. Disband the event. *


too cold?? In summertime they have heatwave (exept for example Siberia). Russia will be a good choice. last huge country without WC and there football is the most popular sport.


----------



## rover3

hempbeat said:


> too cold?? In summertime they have heatwave (exept for example Siberia). Russia will be a good choice. last huge country without WC and there football is the most popular sport.


uhmmm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you... :lol:


----------



## www.sercan.de

Spain -- Too Spanish. cities too close to each other. 

?
WTF 
Too spanish?


----------



## en1044

rover3 said:


> uhmmm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you... :lol:


I guess for some people it goes WOOSH! over their heads...:lol:


----------



## roberto0qs

my country will never host a world cup again just because it has hosted it 2 times??


----------



## en1044

Tonio0qs said:


> my country will never host a world cup again just because it has hosted it 2 times??


Not until a lot of other countries host it for the second time...


----------



## Carrerra

en1044 said:


> Not until a lot of other countries host it for the second time...


For USA not until Mexico hosts it for the 20th time


----------



## Carrerra

kazetuner said:


> i just dont want australia to get the wc beacause i dont want to stay awake until 3 am to see a match


I want Australia get the wc because I don't have to stay awake past midnight to see a match


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> For USA not until Mexico hosts it for the 20th time


I hope you kidding because your being very troll-like


----------



## marrio415

rover3 said:


> England shouldn't be the 2018 WC because it would be just too 'traditional.' The super zeal of its fans would be prejudicial to the 31 other teams playing in the tournament.
> 
> Similarly,
> 
> Australia -- too small; who needs a 3rd southern hemisphere WC in a row?
> 
> China -- after the 2008 Torch uproar; after a failed attempt at their first Womens' World Cup -- why should it go there?
> 
> Mexico -- 2 WCs when others haven't had it? Ix-nay.
> 
> Russia -- venues too distant; too cold; don't speak enough English.
> 
> Spain -- Too Spanish. cities too close to each other.
> 
> USA -- already staged a successful 1994 WC. Why should FIFA want another one? It would put future hosts like China, India or Bangladesh to shame.
> 
> *CONCLUSION: Too many negatives all around. Disband the event. *


hno: what a prat


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^

As we say in Oz, 'tough titties!'


----------



## rover3

Carrerra said:


> I want Australia get the wc because I don't have to stay awake past midnight to see a match


Oh yeah. The selection will revolve entirely around _your_ viewing habits, Carrera. hno:


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Why we're still good for 2018

By Les Murray | 3 June 2008 | 09:22

The 58th FIFA Congress came and went and though it wasn’t the front page splash on every Australian daily, it left an indelible mark on world football, on our football and probably on our country as a whole. 

The concert hall of the Sydney Opera house teemed with a rainbow gathering of VIPs from all corners of the globe, not just from football but politicians, diplomats, corporate bigwigs. 

Giant stills of footballers in action were projected onto the pylons of the Harbour Bridge illuminating the night sky. The Opera House forecourt, for the first time ever, was given over to a giant marquee, housing a colossal banquet for over a thousand suits. 

Frank Lowy leaned across to a companion and whispered: ‘We’ve turned the world upside down.’ 

Football is indeed in a conquering groove. It is re-sculpting the topography of the Australian sporting landscape in a way unimaginable just a short time ago, even though, as the Johnny Warren tee shirt slogans remind us, it was inevitable all along. 

Globalisation and the natural urge of Australians to be relevant in the world made this possible. David Crawford and Frank Lowy merely quickened its pace. 

But all is not done yet and Lowy’s passion to complete the job, for all his 77 years, burns like a fire. 

In his quest to land for Australia the hosting of the 2018 World Cup he means business. And we know how much he knows about business. 

This should have been noted by those who got a little sexed up by the FIFA president’s remarks in the post-congress press conference, in which he said it would be ‘logical’ to have the 2018 World Cup in the northern hemisphere after it had resided in the south for two consecutive editions (South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014). 

The titillated should have stopped, taken a pill, and asked, why? 

Of what relevance, in terms of where the World Cup is held, is the question of north or south? 

Politically the suggested bidders from the northern hemisphere, the USA, Japan, China and a number from Europe are totally disparate as a force or a cause. There is no apparent or natural imperative, commercial or otherwise, that unifies them. 

With European television revenue being a prime driver of the World Cup’s success for FIFA, one would have thought that the question of east or west, rather than north or south, would be what matters. 

If favourable time zones are the key, that is east versus west, by 2010 we will have had two consecutive World Cups in the same hemisphere: Germany and South Africa. 

With Brazil hosting 2014 why should it be logical to then take the World Cup back again to Europe, or a European time zone, which is surely what Blatter was hinting at when he made those remarks? 

At the bottom of Blatter’s remarks is a massive political push to have the 2018 World Cup in Europe, led by England, and his desire to please all by encouraging non-European bidders to desist and accept the notion that 2022 is a safer bet. 

But this was only his personal view and suggestion. It had no roots in FIFA policy. FIFA remains open to all bidders to host the 2018 World Cup, no matter what hemisphere, north or south, east or west, they belong to, except for the fact that South America, having hosted it in 2014, cannot be among them. 

In any case Sepp Blatter does not decide. The 24-man FIFA executive committee does. And on that committee Blatter has but one vote. And we all know what happened in the vote for the 2006 World Cup host nation, when Blatter wanted South Africa and, thanks to the eccentric Charlie Dempsey, he got Germany. 

Had Blatter got his way then, South Africa would have hosted 2006, Germany would have got 2010, it would have been Brazil in 2014 and we would now be looking at Australia as a much surer thing for 2018. 

Silly Charlie has a lot to answer for. 

The decision on 2018 will not be made until 2011, almost three years from now, a very long time in any political campaign let alone this one. It’s a three-year minefield of possible gaffes, counter-gaffes, bad politicking and strategic blunders that can derail the prospects of the hottest favourite. 

According to the bookies England is the galloping favourite but I would be careful in placing a wager just yet. 

The English FA will be the first to acknowledge that its ill-fated campaign to land the 2006 World Cup was down to its perceived arrogance, the notion that as the motherland of football it has some God given right to host the World Cup. 

In its renewed tilt for 2018 the FA has worked hard to dispel this perception and appear to be the humble servant of the global game. 

But things are starting to become unstuck. 

Last week the FA’s recently installed chairman, Lord Triesman, was a no show at the FIFA Congress. You can guess how that went down with the FIFA top brass. 

Triesman recently jettisoned its agreement with ECN, a consultancy firm extremely well connected with FIFA and specifically hired to advise the FA on bid strategy and how best to massage its relationship with the world governing body. 

And then there is the relentless, pathological anti-FIFA diatribe in the English press. 

Only yesterday (June 2) Martin Samuel of The Times, seven times English sports writer of the year, was spitting venom as he condemned the FA’s chief executive, Brian Barwick, for going along with Sepp Blatter’s ‘six plus five’ proposal at the Congress. 

He wrote: ‘As predicted, as far as the lick-spittle FA is concerned, anything Blatter says goes until the hustling for the right to host the 2018 World Cup finals is over. Blatter could lead a call to invade Poland and we would be first across the border.’ 

Granted it was a journalist writing it not a football official saying it. But one has to wonder how such Fleet Street talk, and there’ll plenty more of it, will endear Zurich to Soho Square, much less to the contention that a humble English World Cup will be good for football. 

England’s best chance of winning the bid is if UEFA president Michel Platini has his way of unifying Europe behind a solitary candidate and England becomes the chosen one. 

But that is a long way from being a reality. Other likely European bidders, like Russia, Spain and the Belgium/Netherlands tandem, and their committed governments, will have other ideas. 

That said I still believe that, at this still early stage, a European World Cup in 2018 is more likely than it is not. 

But that’s a long way from saying that the Australian bid is a lost cause or anywhere near it.


----------



## aaronaugi1

rover3 said:


> Oh yeah. The selection will revolve entirely around _your_ viewing habits, Carrera. hno:


your a tool rover...he was being sarcastic towards another members post complaining about the same thing.


----------



## ccfc-4-life

Carrerra said:


> After using Google translator I found out,
> 
> pero es la verdad -> but the truth is
> 
> the truth is what???? Maybe this has more meanings that can't be expressed just through translation tools?


Google translator only gives you the correct words in the selected language - It doesn't give you the correct vocabulary and context. However, seeing as i speak spanish aswell, I think I can help and give a mini lessonhave no fear 

"Pero es la verdad"

Pero = but
es = it is
la = the 
verdad = truth

"But it's the truth" is what was said...


----------



## rover3

*Redundancy*

^^ I already clarified that. See post #1817. R u a parrot? :nuts:


----------



## rover3

Irish Blood English Heart said:


> Italy voting for Australia is a worry, perhaps we'll see European nations voting for a non European nation so that they'll get a chance in 4/8 years time for themselves rather then waiting 12/16 years.


What are you talking about?? There is no Italian on the present 24-member FIFA Executive Board which will select 2018 and 2022. See list above. hno:


----------



## hngcm

Carrerra said:


> Americans are a inborn sci-fi writer. I respect your imaginations


I'm actually Mexican. 

Born in Guadalajara.


----------



## hngcm

www.sercan.de said:


> IMO
> 2010- South Africa
> 2014- Brazil
> 2018- England
> 2022- Australia
> 2026- Spain
> 2030- USA
> 2034- Russia
> 2038- Argentina and Uruguay
> 2042- Turkey
> 2046- India
> 2050-


A confederation has to wait two turns in order to host another WC. 

Therefore England 2018 and Spain 2026 is not possible.


----------



## rover3

hngcm said:


> A confederation has to wait two turns in order to host another WC.
> 
> Therefore England 2018 and Spain 2026 is not possible.


These people making those 40-50 year lists have way too much time on their hands. They're not EVEN going to be around after 5 WCs -- NOR would their picks be anything close to what FIFA will pick.


----------



## Benjuk

BobDaBuilder said:


> If there was a World War 3, Oz would probably be about the only place left on earth due to our isolation. The A-League would be the biggest league on the planet!


And we'd STILL end up importing jaded journeymen from Brazil.:lol:


----------



## theespecialone

hngcm said:


> A confederation has to wait two turns in order to host another WC.
> 
> Therefore England 2018 and Spain 2026 is not possible.





I agree with that list.


----------



## theespecialone

www.sercan.de said:


> IMO
> 2010- South Africa
> 2014- Brazil
> 2018- England
> 2022- Australia
> 2026- Spain
> 2030- USA
> 2034- Russia
> 2038- Argentina and Uruguay
> 2042- Turkey
> 2046- India
> 2050-






oops i meant this one except with China somewhere before 2034


----------



## www.sercan.de

does a confederation really have to wait 2 turns?
i thought rotaion is over?
2010- South Africa
2014- Brazil
2018- England
2022- Australia
2026- USA
2030- Spain
2034- Argentina and Uruguay
2038- India
2042- Russia
2046- China
2050- Canada
2054- Turkey


----------



## Gherkin

*Go-ahead for new Everton stadium* (thanks to _Brilliant _in the UK forums for posting)

By Roger Blitz and Tom Braithwaite 

Published: June 10 2008 04:03 | Last updated: June 10 2008 04:03

*Sir Terry Leahy, Everton fanatic and season-ticket holder, received the go-ahead on Monday to flaunt his love for the Premier League club by helping it fund a new 50,000-seater stadium.*

_The chief executive of Tesco, in partnership with Bill Kenwright, the theatre impresario and chairman of the Merseyside club, won the approval of Knowsley councillors for their joint £400m ($789m) development in Kirkby, five miles outside Liverpool. Knowsley is the fifth most deprived borough in the country.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Tesco under pressure from US union - Jun-04Tesco to buy RBS share in finance division - Jun-01Tesco wins Dobbies court case - May-15Shoppers ‘positive’ on Tesco’s US stores - May-12West Coast takes Tesco to court over Dobbies - May-12Tesco drops estate agency plans - May-01Tesco’s largesse amounts to more than £120m towards the £200m cost of the new stadium but it has signed away any rights to own the stadium or the club itself.

In return, the supermarket chain is allowed to build a 55,000 square metre store for a town with a captive market of 40,000 people. As Tesco finds building new supermarkets an ever more arduous task, given its dominant position in UK retail, it has turned to complex regeneration schemes to secure the support of local residents and councils.

It bought up the town centre from Development Securities in April and will develop a retail centre for 50 shops alongside its superstore. 

Some schemes have met opposition from local residents concerned at the scale of the plans and the likely local disruption from construction work. But in the case of the new Everton stadium, it is neighbouring councils such as Liverpool, concerned that a large retail development will draw away shoppers, that have protested loudest.

They want the plan to be “called in” by the government, a move that the club has warned ministers would delay the project by a year and thereby jeopardise it.

The project has plenty of other detractors, not least those Everton fans unwilling to sanction the club moving even a relatively short distance from Goodison Park in Liverpool, Everton’s home since 1892.

Sheena Ramsey, Knowsley Council’s chief executive, said opponents were failing to see the bigger picture. “This is much more than about a retail offer or the provision of Premier League football. This is about the fundamental regeneration of one of the most deprived areas in the country,” she said.

The club, whose main shareholders are Mr Kenwright, Robert Earl, founder of the Planet Hollywood restaurant chain, and Liverpool businessman Jon Woods, is stumping up £78m for the stadium costs through asset sales and borrowing.

Everton have visions of staging international finals at their new home and have a stadium design that allows for expanding the capacity.

Tesco has allied its supermarket building with sports stadia in the past, working with Wigan Warriors and Warrington Wolves rugby league clubs on two separate projects, and last month it secured approval to take part in a similar scheme in St Helens.

Michael Kissman from Tesco’s corporate affairs department insists that the Kirkby scheme is a “once-in- a-generation opportunity” for the town._






































:banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## rover3

www.sercan.de said:


> does a confederation really have to wait 2 turns?
> i thought rotaion is over?
> 2010- South Africa
> 2014- Brazil
> 2018- England
> 2022- Australia


Nearly 3 southern hemisphere WCs in a row? R u crazy? After 2010 and 2014, FIFA has met its obligation to stage it in the 5 continents. (And especially Oceania, by itself, 'no longer exists' since the 'Oceanic' countries now play in the Asian confederation.) So, Oz's chances for a WC I'd say would be starting in 2030. Not earlier.


----------



## RobH

That's a cracking design for a new stadium; 4 stands, enclosed. Perfect. I'd like to see Spurs build something like this (but a bit bigger!)

The "People's Club" thing on the side looks a bit naff though.


----------



## theespecialone

rover3 said:


> Nearly 3 southern hemisphere WCs in a row? R u crazy? After 2010 and 2014, FIFA has met its obligation to stage it in the 5 continents. (And especially Oceania, by itself, 'no longer exists' since the 'Oceanic' countries now play in the Asian confederation.) So, Oz's chances for a WC I'd say would be starting in 2030. Not earlier.



australia or china 2022


its inevitable.


----------



## larsul

Australia would be nice in 2022, it is a nice country and will develop the football passion in that area..


----------



## hngcm

larsul said:


> Australia would be nice in 2022, it is a nice country and will develop the football passion in that area..


I think FIFA would prefer to develop the football passion for 1 Billion people than for 20 million people...


----------



## rover3

hngcm said:


> I think FIFA would prefer to develop the football passion for 1 Billion people than for 20 million people...


after the fix their human wrongs record, have no epidemics every time they try to host something international; and maybe predict their devastating earthquakes with greater accuracy??


----------



## hngcm

Human rights? Then why are South Africa and Brazil getting World Cups...

And yeah... predicting earthquakes is so easy...


----------



## skyboi

rover3 said:


> after the fix their human wrongs record, have no epidemics every time they try to host something international; and maybe predict their devastating earthquakes with greater accuracy??


Shame on you ,until one day when there's natural disaster strikes on your Country then you will be sorry for what you said, just you wait...


----------



## en1044

skyboi said:


> Shame on you ,until one day when there's natural disaster strikes on your Country then you will be sorry for what you said, just you wait...


Hurricane Katrina???

New Orleans???


----------



## theespecialone

earthquakes arent exactly predicable.


----------



## rover3

theespecialone said:


> earthquakes arent exactly predicable.


Sure they are. Just watch the domestic animals.


----------



## Carrerra

rover3 said:


> Sure they are. Just watch the domestic animals.


Recent scientific study shows those animal behaviors have nothing to do with earthquake predicion.


----------



## Big Texan

en1044 said:


> Hurricane Katrina???
> 
> New Orleans???


If those arnt good examples of Natural disasters, then what is.

How about all the towns in the Central US that have been destroyed by floods and tornadoes?


----------



## masterpaul

Carrerra said:


> Recent scientific study shows those animal behaviors have nothing to do with earthquake predicion.


They pedicted a few large earthquakes in greece sucessfull lately, unfortunetly the local goverment has refused to let this information to the public, and thousands of lifes have been ruined in the Peloponeese.


----------



## rover3

Carrerra said:


> Recent scientific study shows those animal behaviors have nothing to do with earthquake predicion.


That's your loss.


----------



## theespecialone

doesn't really matter though because england will get 2018. 
and 2022 should go back to asia.


----------



## berkshire royal

i really want the 2018 world cup to come to england but as time goes on i more and more think we wont get it because we are being too ignorant in that we just plain and simply expect to get it. i believe this mentality is not helping us gain the world cup, you dont just deserve a world cup you earn it from proving that your world cup would be the best and it would be of most benefit going to your nation. and at the moment i can help but feel that england aren't doing either


----------



## EPA001

^^ Well England is the favorite to win it, but you right, they have to win it. They can not and should not lean backwards and think that it is in the bag already. Especially Spain is a fierce competitor. And the Belgium-Netherlands bid is, though to me an outsider, certainly not without a chance.

So if they work hard to win it, they might get it. If they assume they have already won it, they could be surprised in a nasty way!


----------



## RobH

berkshire royal said:


> i really want the 2018 world cup to come to england but as time goes on i more and more think we wont get it because we are being too ignorant in that we just plain and simply expect to get it. i believe this mentality is not helping us gain the world cup, you dont just deserve a world cup you earn it from proving that your world cup would be the best and it would be of most benefit going to your nation. and at the moment i can help but feel that england aren't doing either


I get that impression from some English people, but the bid team will not go about things in an arrogant way; especially after the 2006 bid. And luckily, they're the ones who matter when it comes to our chances, not the loudmouths who go around saying "we invented the game, it'd be an injustice if it's not given to us".


----------



## rover3

theespecialone said:


> and 2022 should go back to asia.


WRONG!! 2022 will go to the USA. I'll bet your grandchildren on that.


----------



## Qaabus

Good thing you're not betting your own grandchildren, cause the US will not get an WC until 2030 at least. The least amount of time between planned WCs in the same country has been 34 years, and Germany added the East during that time so it could be argued it wasn't even the same country.


----------



## Big Texan

Qaabus said:


> Good thing you're not betting your own grandchildren, cause the US will not get an WC until 2030 at least. The least amount of time between planned WCs in the same country has been 34 years, and Germany added the East during that time so it could be argued it wasn't even the same country.


It does not matter how much time has been between host countries in the past. In 2022, if the USA puts together the best bid and the FIFA officials remember how much revenue they made on the 94 Cup, then the USA will get it.


----------



## RobH

Unless China bids against them, in which case it's very hard to call. '94 could work for or against the USA in that scenario (for because it was a huge financial success, against because their main rival won't have hosted before).


----------



## rover3

Qaabus said:


> Good thing you're not betting your own grandchildren, cause the US will not get an WC until 2030 at least. The least amount of time between planned WCs in the same country has been 34 years, and Germany added the East during that time so it could be argued it wasn't even the same country.


Uhmm... 
Men's WC - Mexico 1970 - 1986 -- 16 years?
Women's WC - USA 1999 - 2003 - 4 years?

hno:

Also, need I remind you that Los Angeles and Seoul were the IOC's 2 back-up cities for 2004 when it appeared that Athens might not make its deadlines. Not a very well-know fact but insiders know. That is a strong statement in itself.

So, you were saying?


----------



## en1044

rover3 said:


> Uhmm...
> Men's WC - Mexico 1970 - 1986 -- 16 years?
> Women's WC - USA 1999 - 2003 - 4 years?
> 
> U were saying? hno:


he said planned world cups...Mexico in '86 and the US in '03 were replacement hosts, they were supposed to go to other countries


----------



## rover3

en1044 said:


> he said planned world cups...Mexico in '86 and the US in '03 were replacement hosts, they were supposed to go to other countries


But it doesn't matter. The fact is that FIFA went back to 2 countries after a short period of time. If Qaabus' theory that 'Not going back to a country so soon after" stands up, then maybe FIFA would have abandoned the 1986 and 2003 WCs if that notion were so fixed, rather than returning to a previous host. It's NOT -- so his whole argument just doesn't wash.


----------



## RobH

Sorry, but ideally FIFA wouldn't have necessarily gone back to those countries so soon. Their hand was forced to an extent.

If we're going by who is awarded the world cup (i.e. who FIFA wanted to host, not back up plans) then Qaabus' figures are correct and indisputable.

The Question is though, can we project what's happened in the past to what's going to happen in the future? I'm not sure we can really. The USA could host in 2018 if their bid is good enough so ruling out the 2020s based on past gaps seems unrealistic to me. I'm fairly confident we'll see another USA world cup before 2030.


----------



## rover3

RobH said:


> Sorry, but ideally FIFA wouldn't have necessarily gone back to those countries so soon. Their hand was forced to an extent.
> 
> If we're going by who is awarded the world cup (i.e. who FIFA wanted to host, not back up plans) then Qaabus' figures are correct and indisputable.
> 
> .


I understand that. But it's NOT always a perfectly planned world, is it? There are always contingencies, and indeed hands are forced. But that doesn't make my counter-argument any less valid -- and it doesn't erase where the (changed) WCs eventually took place. Innsbruck is the Official 1976 Winter Host even though it was awarded to Denver initially. So the record books name them the 2nd Innsbruck Games -- not the Oh-what-could've-been-Denver I-games-but-given-to-Innsbruck-instead-Games, are they?


----------



## theespecialone

they'll probab;y gert in 2026.


----------



## Wezza

rover3 said:


> China? :lol: :lol: After a few epidemics and earthquakes, and they can't even get past Iraq for the 2010 WC? Please.
> 
> Do you really think FIFA is that stupid? :lol:
> 
> Oh, BTW, the US had its first WC qualifying. It just beat Barbados *8 - 0!! The highest score for a WC qualifying for the USA.*


Lol, Barbados! :lol:


----------



## Benjuk

rover3 said:


> China? :lol: :lol: After a few epidemics and earthquakes, and they can't even get past Iraq for the 2010 WC? Please.
> 
> Do you really think FIFA is that stupid? :lol:
> 
> Oh, BTW, the US had its first WC qualifying. It just beat Barbados *8 - 0!! The highest score for a WC qualifying for the USA.*


By way of comparission, in 2002 Australia failed to qualify for the World Cup despite beating *America*(n Samoa) 31-0, and Tonga 22-0, in the qualifiers. 

Moral - results against sh*t sides don't count.


----------



## rover3

Wezza said:


> Lol, Barbados! :lol:


Well, you don't get to choose your opponents you know. It may seem funny at first but do you think if it were Argentina-v-the Falklands or Germany-v-Maldives, the powers would let up any? Of course not. A drubbing is a drubbing in the Beatiful Game.

Also by way of comparison, *the USA and Argentina blanked each other 0-0* in a friendly in New York the week before.


----------



## Carrerra

Benjuk said:


> By way of comparission, in 2002 Australia failed to qualify for the World Cup despite beating *America*(n Samoa) 31-0, and Tonga 22-0, in the qualifiers.
> 
> Moral - results against sh*t sides don't count.


To the extent of my knowledge the Australia VS American Samoa match was the one where the biggest goal difference happened in A-match history.


----------



## Carrerra

rover3 said:


> Well, you don't get to choose your opponents you know. It may seem funny at first but do you think if it were Argentina-v-the Falklands or Germany-v-Maldives, the powers would let up any? Of course not. A drubbing is a drubbing in the Beatiful Game.
> 
> Also by way of comparison, *the USA and Argentina blanked each other 0-0* in a friendly in New York the week before.


Hi, rover3. Nice to meet you again.


----------



## rover3

*reply...*



Carrerra said:


> Hi, rover3. Nice to meet you again.


Hi Carrerra,

Oh, I'll be around. Doncha worry...


----------



## theespecialone

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

wow barbados!


----------



## rover3

theespecialone said:


> :
> wow barbados!


Yeah, and your candidate China couldn't even get past the Iraqi team -- and you think they're fit to host a WC? hno: 

Duh!!


----------



## Benjuk

rover3 said:


> Yeah, and your candidate China couldn't even get past the Iraqi team -- and you think they're fit to host a WC? hno:
> 
> Duh!!


That'll be the same Iraqi team that is currently the Asian Federation champions, and contain the Asian Player of the Year?


----------



## Benjuk

Carrerra said:


> To the extent of my knowledge the Australia VS American Samoa match was the one where the biggest goal difference happened in A-match history.


Biggest score in World Cup history, I believe.


----------



## Big Texan

^^ How many years ago was that and what relevance does it have to a possibility of the USA hosting the 2018 World Cup?


----------



## theespecialone

iraqi are the asian champions

and they are an extremely talented team; they beat australia 1:0

so losing to iraq is no shame.


----------



## Mo Rush

*GOOOOOO ENGLAND!!*


----------



## Samacado

theespecialone said:


> :laugh::laugh::laugh:
> 
> wow barbados!


USA has been barbaric against barbados


----------



## Aquarius

muahhaaaaaaaaaaaaa  my masterplan with 10 stadiums over 40.000


----------



## kamilo

RobH said:


> Don't be so certain. Technically China would be fine, it's whether FIFA will want all the politics that comes with a Chinese hosting that could be the real problem.


one of the main tenets of FIFA is to avoid any kind of political position. That's why FIFA has mas more members than the United Nations, including countries like North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran, Zimbabwe....

therefore that won't affect too much Fifa's decision regarding who should host the 2022 world cup.


----------



## Carrerra

Aquarius, your photoshop skills are really great!


----------



## rover3

*uhmmm....*



kamilo said:


> one of the main tenets of FIFA is to avoid any kind of political position. That's why FIFA has mas more members than the United Nations, including countries like North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran, Zimbabwe....
> 
> therefore that won't affect too much Fifa's decision regarding who should host the 2022 world cup.


It's not that FIFA is going to take a political stand or try to change a political system; it is just to be aware of the type of gov't it will be dealing with for seven+ years in giving its most prized tournament to a particular country, and to see to it that the initial terms of the awarding ofthe prize ARE satisfactorily carried out. And that includes free access to citizens AND press of all FIFA members countries, including those that certain countries deem 'unfriendly' (i.e., the great number of Arab nations' non-acceptance of Israel).


----------



## Benjuk

Big Texan said:


> ^^ How many years ago was that and what relevance does it have to a possibility of the USA hosting the 2018 World Cup?


It was in 2000/01 and has absolutely no relevance at all to any bid for the 2018 WC- it was posted in response to an earlier post referencing the USA's thumping victory against Barbados, which also has no relevance to any bid for the 2018 WC.

I maintain that 2018 will be in Europe, 2022 will be the mother-of-all bid battles between the USA and China. Both have very good and strong claims, both would stage a magnificent tournament - for purely selfish reasons I'd rather the US won hosting rights, because there are more places I'd like to visit in the US.


----------



## Big Texan

why doesn't Australia host a tournament?


----------



## bigbossman

RobH said:


> Very few countries could pull off a world cup without at least one stadium with an athletics track so FIFA banning them for bidding nations would be a bad idea.
> 
> But, a China bid with many stadiums with running tracks up against an England bid where all of the stadiums are built for football will be at a disadvantage venues-wise.
> 
> Of course, we all know that it's not just venues that determines who wins, so China could easily win despite having inferior sightlines in their stadiums.


thats why you build new football only ifrastructure, if you can't support that you have no right holding the world up or euro champs as you are clearly not a football loving nation!

-Spain
-italy would build football only grounds for a new tournament, only reason they did so for italia 90 was coz the governement financed the majority of the stadiums and stressed it
-germany could, yes they had nuremburg and berln at the last world cup, but they left out 50,000 plus stadiums like monchengladbach and dusseldorf
-France
-South africa
-mexico
-holland/belgium


and loads of further countries can sustain football only infrastructure

russia, turkey, greece, all of former yugoslavia, poland, ukraine, scandinavia etc

only reason teams refurbish athletics stadiums is coz they can, and its cheap, most teams would rather play in a football stadium, no doubt and if rules came in , it would spurthem into action!


----------



## Benjuk

eomer said:


> OK for 2018 Europe, 2022 USA and 2026 China.
> But 2030 will be Argentina and Uruguay (oppening and final matchs in Montevideo): the world cup centenial.


I've heard this before, but it'll take a lot of planning. FIFA will have to ensure that no South American bid goes in for 2026, to make sure that Argentina/Uruguay are free to bid for 2030. They'll have to 'rig' the voting system, or simply change the rules, to make sure that no one puts in a better bid for 2030.

Personally, I see no reason for the centenial to be played (partly) in Uruguay just because the first finals were there... I find it hard to imagine 3 finals in a row outside of Europe, but if the 2030 we're to be outside, I'd rather have the monster-of-all finals tournaments held in the USA (the only nation capable of supporting the kind of event I'd like to see), with 64 rather than 32 nations taking part, across 16 host cities. A real WORLD cup, a full month long carnivale of football... Rather than an Argentine world cup, with a couple of token venues tossed to Uruguay in order to maintain the subterfuge that they are co-hosts.

By all means, Argentina/Uruguay for 2026.


----------



## theespecialone

32 teams is enough already
64 simply dilutes the quality
and how would u find extra time to play them? the players barely have a break before they get back to theit clubs


----------



## theespecialone

england is almost a surity for 2018

china will probably get 2022

despite those athletic tracks they'll definitely have nough money to build football only stadiums


----------



## Carrerra

theespecialone said:


> england is almost a surity for 2018
> 
> china will probably get 2022
> 
> despite those athletic tracks they'll definitely have nough money to build football only stadiums


If China joins the race for WC bids, I think it will go for half with tracks half without tracks, considering 2002 bid case where exactly half of all host venues had athletics tracks. In that case, I assume, two to three 30K+ stadias like Teda Stadium(36,360) will get enlarged into 40K+ and another one to two stadias with athlectics tracks like Shanghai Stadium(80,000) will get turned into football only stadiums, together with one newly built stadium to compose of 5 football only stadiums which are half of the entire stadium list. FYI, the number of host venues for WC is regulated to be from a minimum of 8 to a miximum of 10 by FIFA.


----------



## theespecialone

no doubt that they will use some stadiums with athletic tracks 

the stadiums in beijing, guangzhou and maybe shanghai are too good to waste


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> 32 teams is enough already
> 64 simply dilutes the quality
> and how would u find extra time to play them? the players barely have a break before they get back to theit clubs


You'd play the group games 6 per day instead of 3 per day - kick off at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 Eastern (the later kick offs would be played in the West). So the group stages would be finished by in the same number of days as they were in Germany.

Then you'd squeeze one extra knock-out round in, adding around 3 or 4 days to the duration of the tournament.

Not a huge inconvenience for the centenial tournament.

64 probably is too many... 48?


----------



## lpioe

Carrerra said:


> If China joins the race for WC bids, I think it will go for half with tracks half without tracks, considering 2002 bid case where exactly half of all host venues had athletics tracks. In that case, I assume, two to three 30K+ stadias like Teda Stadium(36,360) will get enlarged into 40K+ and another one to two stadias with athlectics tracks like Shanghai Stadium(80,000) will get turned into football only stadiums, together with one newly built stadium to compose of 5 football only stadiums which are half of the entire stadium list. FYI, the number of host venues for WC is regulated to be from a minimum of 8 to a miximum of 10 by FIFA.


I don't think you can have atheltic tracks on half of the stadiums in 2018.
Yes in 2002 half of the stadiums had them and in 1990 even 75%, but the goal of FIFA is definately to get more and more real football stadiums.

That doesn't mean that China hasn't got a chance to get the WC.
They can use the 2-3 best athletic stadiums and expand current footballstadiums or get rid of the track in some of the other athletic stadiums.


----------



## Carrerra

lpioe said:


> I don't think you can have atheltic tracks on half of the stadiums in 2018.
> Yes in 2002 half of the stadiums had them and in 1990 even 75%, but the goal of FIFA is definately to get more and more real football stadiums.
> 
> That doesn't mean that China hasn't got a chance to get the WC.
> They can use the 2-3 best athletic stadiums and expand current footballstadiums or get rid of the track in some of the other athletic stadiums.


Althoug I said the half-half combination, one or two more football specific stadiums would not be a big problem to China if they really mean to host WC.


----------



## berkshire royal

lets be honest if china have to build a few football specific stadiums to win the WC then they will it doesnt matter to them whether ther are a complete white elephants if that is what it takes dont be suprised to see a whole waive of new football specific stadiums being built


----------



## theespecialone

berkshire royal said:


> lets be honest if china have to build a few football specific stadiums to win the WC then they will it doesnt matter to them whether ther are a complete white elephants if that is what it takes dont be suprised to see a whole waive of new football specific stadiums being built


that's true

but as china get richer the people will probably take more time to attend games


----------



## GunnerJacket

Re: Running tracks

I don't think anyone is going to slight the issues of necessity and cost savings in this debate, but we should also recall the standard that FIFA and the countries are aspiring to. All parties agree that general athletic stadiums can be perfectly acceptable, but under ideal circumstances a match is played in a pure football stadium without an athletics track around the field. The most telling aspect of this is not the comfort angle but the money side. Teams playing in general athletic facilities are less likely to be in control of the venue and, more importantly, the revenues. FIFA, UEFA and everyone else associated with professional and national football would by far prefer that everyone had their own football specific facilities so that they could have ownership of their schedules and resources, rather than be dependent (and look subservient to) municipal athletic interests.

Bottom line - Stadiums with tracks are acceptable _when there is not a more pure, comparably-sized football facility available_. As such...



sativ said:


> Now let us look at the ECC final.


Yes, lets.

*2009 Roma *- No large, modern football stadium in the city

*2008 Moscow *- No large, modern football stadium in the city

*2007 Athens* - No large, modern football stadium in the city

*2005 Istanbul* - No large, modern football stadium in the city

*2002 Glasgow* - Hampden seats more than Ibrox, while Celtic Park is not considered as modern (sub-par suites, seats with obstructed views, etc.)

If UEFA restricted the event to cities with large, modern football only facilities the list of eligible candidates would be remarkably small, especially in terms of countries. The same amount of forgiveness should apply to the World Cup, but the ideal should be to avoid general athletic facilities when possible.

Historically general athletics venues were the largest in the country, but that's changing rapidly. So just as you indicate China should be considered under the notion that things in the future won't be the same as today, that same adage applies to other countries and cities as well. Istanbul will have worthy football grounds in the future instead of needing to use Ataturk. Rome and Moscow may also see new worthy football grounds in the near future. Bottom line, there's an abundance of new football-specific facilities recently completed or inprogress that over time I suspect the number of general athletic facilities hosting the event will decrease. Look at the venues now vying to host in the future: Bernabeau, Wembley, Allianz, Valencia, Da Luz...


Re: China in general

*Women world cup 1991*
Tales abound about the sub-par conditions the players were subjected to. Granted, much of this is also attributed to the low level of interest the event held around the globe, but it also indicated a low level of respect from the host nation. At the least, this isn't something to be glorified from the host's perspective.

*Asian cup 2004/Asian games 2010 *
Regional event with less competition

*Women world cup 2007*
Loss due to health scare complicated by issues with medical infrastructure

*Olympic 2008*
Compared to World Cup, a compact event localized in a singular area with fewer tourists for a smaller period of time. It's much more difficult to control World Cup crowds versus Olympic Games crowds.

I'm not trying to debunk a Chinese bid and would love nothing more than to see their Olympics be a success. I simply think the concept of their bid being a "sure thing" is anything but sure, regardless of political issues.


----------



## GunnerJacket

berkshire royal said:


> lets be honest if china have to build a few football specific stadiums to win the WC then they will it doesnt matter to them whether ther are a complete white elephants if that is what it takes dont be suprised to see a whole waive of new football specific stadiums being built


I'd like to think FIFA would take such actions into account and would choose not to be party to such public fleecings. But given FIFA's track record and current leadership I wouldn't bet against it. Sadly. hno:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Benjuk said:


> 64 probably is too many... 48?


You're asking a lot of the host countries, here: More tourists, more events, etc. Might be too much and could inadvertently reduce the number of eligible hosts. Besides, you're simply diluting the talent brought to the finals while simultaneously weakening the appeal and urgency of the regional qualifying games. The only need to increase the field would be to increase revenues, and I don't think this would substantially increase media interest for what is already the biggest TV event going.

32 is simply too harmonious a format for the tournament. :cheers:


----------



## rover3

GunnerJacket said:


> You're asking a lot of the host countries, here: More tourists, more events, etc. Might be too much and could inadvertently reduce the number of eligible hosts. Besides, you're simply diluting the talent brought to the finals while simultaneously weakening the appeal and urgency of the regional qualifying games. The only need to increase the field would be to increase revenues, and I don't think this would substantially increase media interest for what is already the biggest TV event going.
> 
> 32 is simply too harmonious a format for the tournament. :cheers:


^^ Sensible postings, gunner, compared to the hallucinogenic China prognostications of carrera and theordinaryone. The one reassuring thing about their _'China is sure for this or that' _is that they aren't on the FIFA board so they can cause no actual harm. :lol:


----------



## massp88

theespecialone said:


> england is almost a surity for 2018
> 
> china will probably get 2022
> 
> despite those athletic tracks they'll definitely have nough money to build football only stadiums


I think you may be right to an extent. I think it will play out like this:

2010: South Africa
2014: Brazil
2018: England
2022: United States
2026: China or Australia


----------



## berkshire royal

^^
i would say that is a pretty good guess but it would be foolish to go any further down the line becuase who knows what will happen between now and 2030 or whatever year a decision is made on where the finals are going to be held.


----------



## Aka

> *Federação espanhola só avança para o Mundial 2018 com Portugal*
> 
> Angel María Villar, presidente da Federação Espanhola de Futebol, afirmou que, caso a Espanha avance com uma candidatura para a organização do Mundial de 2018, a mesma será em conjunto com Portugal.
> 
> Em declarações à Antena 1, Angel Villar disse ser uma «grande ideia» a organização conjunta, até por considerar que Portugal reúne todas as condições para se concretizar uma boa candidatura.
> 
> «Se dizemos que sim e avançamos em conjunto é porque achámos que se trata de uma boa ideia. Portugal é grande como país, mas também no que diz respeito aos cidadãos e pessoas é positivo», adiantou o presidente.
> 
> O presidente da Federação Espanhola de Futebol admitiu, porém, que a candidatura à organização do Mundial 2018 ainda é apenas uma ideia e que para avançar terá que partir dos governos dos dois países, os principais responsáveis pela organização.
> 
> _in_ Mais Futebol


The President of the Spanish FA Angel Villar said that Spain will only bid for the World Cup with Portugal. He also said that Portugal is great as a country and also its citizens.


----------



## SkyLerm

WTF i can't see the USA hosting another WC, too early to get another,...


----------



## rover3

SkyLerm said:


> WTF i can't see the USA hosting another WC, too early to get another,...


well, the early bird gets the worm. Better wake up.


----------



## Carrerra

rover3/When it comes to football, you have all enemies around you. Where are your friends? I hope you to realize that what you see here is what people in the world feel when they see USA try to host WC.


----------



## rover3

*xxx*



Carrerra said:


> rover3/When it comes to football, you have all enemies around you. Where are your friends? I hope you to realize that what you see here is what people in the world feel when they see USA try to host WC.


So what? You think that'll intimidate us? We have the anti-venom to survive a nest of vipers. 

Yeah, and the vipers will start biting and each other up. :lol:


----------



## rover3

Carrerra said:


> hno: What about black mamba which is considered to be the most venomous in the world? Do you think you will survive their nest? :lol:


So who is the black mamba in this group? You? :lol: Theordinaryone? :lol:

P.S. There is an antidote for a black mamba bite.


----------



## miguelon

2018 is a must for England, they can have have the world cup 2 months from now, they have the stadiums, the time zone (very important for tv), the fans, history, the $$, airports, hotels, etc....

others that deserve a world cup in 2022 may be spain or italy, but i dont see fifa giving back to back european world cups. business-wise would be ideal to have a chinesse or american bid.


----------



## RobH

rover3 said:


> So the USA is a 'middling' soccer country -- well, *what about South Africa*? Why are they hosting 2010?


*But SA has never hosted before*. My point wasn't that middling football nations shouldn't host it at all, but that they shouldn't expect to host it relativley frequently imho; something the USA would be doing if they won 2018 or 2022. I thought that was fairly clear from my post.


----------



## GunnerJacket

SkyLerm said:


> ^^That's what i pretended to say, USA is NOTHING when it comes to football... too early 24 years...


While I agree there are other nations that could be considered more deserving for sentimental reasons, the bid process will bear our whether or not that matters to FIFA. However, to say the US is nothing to football is beyond opinion and blatantly incorrect. It's a fact the nation has hosted 1 men's and 2 women's world cups, all with great success, and since then football has only grown as a professional league and as a commodity to average fans. Witness the mostly sold-out exhibition games played by the likes of ManU, Celtic, Barca, etc.

Are there nations with a deeper and richer football heritage than the US? Definitely. Is the US "nothing" when it comes to football? Definitely not.



Carrerra said:


> USA is NOTHING when it comes to everything... except one thing, to call other nations an axis of evil and invade them.


It amazes me how many people automatically equate singular political idioms to the group-thinking of an entire nation of 300M people. But for what it's worth, even the feeble UN has cited the governments of those nations as among the worst violators of human rights and worthy of scrutiny. I'm not advocating war, but it's not as if the US was throwing jabs at Denmark.

Just saying.



rover3 said:


> welll, you're entitled to your opinion -- and I know you're wrong.
> 
> ...
> 
> 2022 will go to the US. That's why FIFA is awarding 2018-2022 in tandem -- 2018 for the UK; and lock in 2022 for the US. But some of you are so blindsided, you wouldn't know if a soccer ball hit you in the face. hno:


So one's opinion is wrong, yet you're certain about the US bid? Any suggestions for my lottery picks then...



sativ said:


> Moreover, Australia's population of less than 20 million, so in a World Cup host country, is clearly too little.Those less than 10 million people in the town, they need a stadium of 40,000 + ?


I fail to see the connection here. Surely there's no formal requirement that a host nation have a population of X people, so if the hosts show that they can cater to the volume of tourists expected than that's all that matters. Just as you've tried to illustrate with regards to China.



sativ said:


> These stadium can also upgrade to meet World Cup standards.


IMO, those are MUCH better options than the athletics stadiums shown before. I'd rather see a bid centered around those stadiums.



sativ said:


> I believe that, now do not have a country to host the World Cup, will be widely used in the construction of the stadium 10 years ago. China has sufficient capacity for the World Cup to build a new stadium. I have given so many sports venues, only to show that China has sufficient The ability to build the World Cup Stadium.
> ...
> 
> Temporarily to statistics, China spent four years on the construction of six 60,000 + stadium. In 2022 before the construction of 10 no runway 60,000 + stadium is absolutely no problem.


Assuming English isn't your first language, I give you credit for your efforts to contribute to the conversation. As for your assumptions, these are not special. By that I mean there's a long list of countries that could also build the number of required new stadiums if that's where they choose to invest the money. Most are wise enough to understand, however, that sometimes the costs of sporting facilities doesn't always yield a good financial or social return. And from what I know of China's other social and infrastructure woes, more brand new stadiums should be near the bottom of their priorities. (Granted, this is true for many countries, but I digress.)

The bottom line is that all things being equal a Chinese bid will not have anything so grand or unique (ie: they won't be a lock) when compared to other nations _UNLESS_ they spend outrageous amounts of money. The kind of money that makes the rest of the world suspicious that the government is merely trying to distract the world from social problems elsewhere. I'm not saying they can't make a nice bid, I just don't think it's more perfect compared to other options.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Carrerra said:


> rover3/When it comes to football, you have all enemies around you. Where are your friends? I hope you to realize that what you see here is what people in the world feel when they see USA try to host WC.


Quick check reveals 294 different users have posted in this thread. Even assuming all of them except me and rover are not from the US, I think it's safe to say that 292 opinions on an architectural message board doesn't equate to a consensus of US football.  



Carrerra said:


> hno: What about black mamba which is considered to be the most venomous in the world? Do you think you will survive their nest? :lol:


I think the appropriate joke would be that the US would run over the mamba in our SUV. :banana:



This is all light-hearted fun, right? :cheers:


----------



## Carrerra

GunnerJacket said:


> Quick check reveals 294 different users have posted in this thread. Even assuming all of them except me and rover are not from the US, I think it's safe to say that 292 opinions on an architectural message board doesn't equate to a consensus of US football.
> 
> I think the appropriate joke would be that the US would run over the mamba in our SUV. :banana:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all light-hearted fun, right? :cheers:


To zoololgists, my joke would be appropriate enough because Black Mambas are hundreds of times more venomous than ordinary vipers :lol:


----------



## Big Texan

I just try to avoid venomous snakes all together.

So The USA cant host a game because all the European countries have not gotten it on the European rotations of the Bids, but you know, when it comes time for the Americas to bid, there arnt that many countries to bid against the USA. So if Fifa decides in 2022 to give it to the USA, then get over it! because i dont have a a vote, but nether do any of you!


----------



## Kobo

Carrerra said:


> USA is NOTHING when it comes to everything... except one thing, to call other nations an axis of evil and invade them.


What on Earth is your problem against Americans!!! And what has this got to do with Stadiums and architecture? Absolutly nothing! You have done this many times before with your anti-american and xenophobic attitude. If you have a problem with Americans might I suggest you find another forum to post your views or go protest outside the US Embassy in Seoul.

I too shall now report this message you have posted.

Please can we all try to stick to the subject.


----------



## Benjuk

melbstud said:


> What a load of shit that Australia doesnt have the infastructure, let me remind people that they hosted the best Olympics and Commonwealth Games EVER quote, by both IOC and ICC presidents. Australia has awesoem potential and it isnt anyfurther than Aregntina or anyother place for that matter. They have an awesome A league and I think yawn to USA and China. I think its time that Australia have it, Football isnt only loved in Europe and South America, lets not forget many Australians are migrants and come from football loving countries. If South Africa can host it then Australia has no prob what so ever people.


Here's the key - the Olympics and Commonwealth Games require ONE city to be in magnificent shape. Easy for Sydney and Melbourne. Top cities, excellent facilities, and plenty of demand for more... However, outside of those two, plus Brisbane (the only cities with venues suitable for a world cup at the moment) - how many population centers in Australia could actually match up to all of FIFA's requirements with regard to transport, accomodation and facilities? How many population centers can justify a 40k 'soccer' suitable stadium? Maybe Perth and Adelaide (both have plans, I know).

I'm dubious about the plans for Adelaide to be honest - can they really use a 40k soccer specific venue with their A-League club averaging well under 1/3 of that figure? Would venues in Newcastle, Townsville, Canberra or over in Tassie represent any better value for money?


----------



## Benjuk

GunnerJacket said:


> You're asking a lot of the host countries, here: More tourists, more events, etc. Might be too much and could inadvertently reduce the number of eligible hosts. Besides, you're simply diluting the talent brought to the finals while simultaneously weakening the appeal and urgency of the regional qualifying games. The only need to increase the field would be to increase revenues, and I don't think this would substantially increase media interest for what is already the biggest TV event going.
> 
> 32 is simply too harmonious a format for the tournament. :cheers:


All true - BUT - when have FIFA ever allowed common sense to get in the way of an opportunity to make more money and/or for the president to gain more votes from the 'struggling' countries by assuring them of more spots at the finals.

As to the dilution of talent/quality at the finals - would the 5th and 6th best teams from South America, or the 14th and 15th best teams from Europe represent any less quality than, for example, the 5th team from Asia (who WILL be at WC2010), or the 4th team from Central/North America?


----------



## theespecialone

in australia, football is #2 after afl
league and union are dying.


----------



## hngcm

OK

Worst case scenario for the US.

2018 Goes to England (mortal LOCK)
2022 goes to China
2026 goes to the USA

Due to FIFA's new rotation policy (confederation has to wait two turns after hosting), the 2026 bid would be between the Americas and Africa. And you must be out of your mind to think that any african country would be considered over the USA (especially with no more joint-bids). The only countries that could even be mentioned would be Canada, Mexico, and Argentina, and they both would need A LOT of work to get SOMEWHAT close to the CURRENT stadium infrastructure in the USA.


----------



## www.sercan.de

*Please no off-topic discussions!*


----------



## theespecialone

hngcm said:


> OK
> 
> Worst case scenario for the US.
> 
> 2018 Goes to England (mortal LOCK)
> 2022 goes to China
> 2026 goes to the USA
> 
> Due to FIFA's new rotation policy (confederation has to wait two turns after hosting), the 2026 bid would be between the Americas and Africa. And you must be out of your mind to think that any african country would be considered over the USA (especially with no more joint-bids). The only countries that could even be mentioned would be Canada, Mexico, and Argentina, and they both would need A LOT of work to get SOMEWHAT close to the CURRENT stadium infrastructure in the USA.



an argentina-uruguay wc for 2030 would be very sentimental


----------



## Benjuk

hngcm said:


> OK
> 
> Worst case scenario for the US.
> 
> 2018 Goes to England (mortal LOCK)
> 2022 goes to China
> 2026 goes to the USA
> 
> Due to FIFA's new rotation policy (confederation has to wait two turns after hosting), the 2026 bid would be between the Americas and Africa. And you must be out of your mind to think that any african country would be considered over the USA (especially with no more joint-bids). The only countries that could even be mentioned would be Canada, Mexico, and Argentina, and they both would need A LOT of work to get SOMEWHAT close to the CURRENT stadium infrastructure in the USA.


Sounds about right to me. 

That will make 2030 bidding very interesting. Sentimental centenial in Uruguay (and Argentina), or back to Europe (perhaps a finals in FIFA's 'home', Switzerland (sharing with Italy).


----------



## sativ

GunnerJacket said:


> While I agree there are other nations that could be considered more deserving for sentimental reasons, the bid process will bear our whether or not that matters to FIFA. However, to say the US is nothing to football is beyond opinion and blatantly incorrect. It's a fact the nation has hosted 1 men's and 2 women's world cups, all with great success, and since then football has only grown as a professional league and as a commodity to average fans. Witness the mostly sold-out exhibition games played by the likes of ManU, Celtic, Barca, etc.
> 
> Are there nations with a deeper and richer football heritage than the US? Definitely. Is the US "nothing" when it comes to football? Definitely not.
> 
> It amazes me how many people automatically equate singular political idioms to the group-thinking of an entire nation of 300M people. But for what it's worth, even the feeble UN has cited the governments of those nations as among the worst violators of human rights and worthy of scrutiny. I'm not advocating war, but it's not as if the US was throwing jabs at Denmark.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> So one's opinion is wrong, yet you're certain about the US bid? Any suggestions for my lottery picks then...
> 
> I fail to see the connection here. Surely there's no formal requirement that a host nation have a population of X people, so if the hosts show that they can cater to the volume of tourists expected than that's all that matters. Just as you've tried to illustrate with regards to China.
> 
> IMO, those are MUCH better options than the athletics stadiums shown before. I'd rather see a bid centered around those stadiums.
> 
> Assuming English isn't your first language, I give you credit for your efforts to contribute to the conversation. As for your assumptions, these are not special. By that I mean there's a long list of countries that could also build the number of required new stadiums if that's where they choose to invest the money. Most are wise enough to understand, however, that sometimes the costs of sporting facilities doesn't always yield a good financial or social return. And from what I know of China's other social and infrastructure woes, more brand new stadiums should be near the bottom of their priorities. (Granted, this is true for many countries, but I digress.)
> 
> The bottom line is that all things being equal a Chinese bid will not have anything so grand or unique (ie: they won't be a lock) when compared to other nations _UNLESS_ they spend outrageous amounts of money. The kind of money that makes the rest of the world suspicious that the government is merely trying to distract the world from social problems elsewhere. I'm not saying they can't make a nice bid, I just don't think it's more perfect compared to other options.


I am sorry, my English not well, I hope you can see that. 

Australia and China the situation different. China can put all the competition on more than 5 million population of big cities hosting, and the Australian Competition will be on the 100,000 population of the town host. Availability of these small town of hotel, transport Tools, police » 

The Chinese government is willing to invest to build the stadium, this is not the things you need to worry about. Olympics greater investment than the World Cup, but will benefit from the World Cup less than the Chinese people can accept the Olympic Games, the same can accept the World Cup. 
Chinese people's enthusiasm for the World Cup do not need to doubt. During the World Cup, tens of millions of Chinese fans will get up at 3:00 in the morning watching the game. Even in the absence of the Chinese team. In 2002 China and Brazil World Cup match China has 250 million fans watched the game. I do not know that other countries have no such record. 
Please note that China will soon become the world's third economic power, GDP more than 4 trillion U.S. dollars, China has sufficient ability to hold the World Cup.


----------



## melbstud

To be honest I think that if you havnt been to Australia dont pull shit ouf your arse. If Australia was to get it then upgrades and etc would be made. When we got the Olympics all major stadiums including in Canberra were upgraded. Perth and Adelaide and upgrading and Perth is actually bu8ilding a new Stadium with Melbourne actually building a new SOCCER ONLY stadium which will be home to local teams and one from Greece as Melbourne has the highest population of people from Greece outside of Athens. I thnk Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adfelaide can pull it off. Australis is no worse than South Africa, it would be stupid to assume Joburg, Capetown and Durban would have better stadiums and hotels to cater for than Australia. When it was in South Korea how many South Korean cities had Soccer games? Its time to spread the love of Soccer to other countries outside of South America and Europe. 
In relation to the comment that the Olympics you need ONE city to be amazing is a crock of shit as Melbounre, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth had events not as many as Sydney but ebents, i.e a soccer or hockey game so the love was shared. Australia is a sporting nation and a nation in which revellers can feel safe, unlike South Africa. I thinm that it would defintely be good for the sport.


----------



## melbstud

Originally Posted by sativ 
Moreover, Australia's population of less than 20 million, so in a World Cup host country, is clearly too little.Those less than 10 million people in the town, they need a stadium of 40,000 + ? 



Another thing to the ignorent poster Australia's population is 22 million not under 20 million. Melbourne has 4 million and it has 2 with one more major being built stadiums with the MCG having more than 100,00 seats and the other 50 and 65 ,000 and over, so no problems for seating!


----------



## rover3

hngcm said:


> OK
> 
> Worst case scenario for the US.
> 
> 2018 Goes to England (mortal LOCK)
> 2022 goes to China
> 2026 goes to the USA
> 
> .


I don't see it that way. It's

2022 - USA (that's a lock too.) 

2026 - China -- after their public relations/human wrongs mess earlier this year; maybe a few epdemics and killer earthquakes down the line, I can definitely see 2026 as the earliest for China. 

Ignore theordinaryone and carrerra. Ignorant trolls.


----------



## Mo Rush

www.sercan.de said:


> *Please no off-topic discussions!*


it happens when you allow "general sports discussion" in a stadium and arena section.

the next thread im opening, "possible 2098 world cup bids."


----------



## sativ

melbstud said:


> Originally Posted by sativ
> Moreover, Australia's population of less than 20 million, so in a World Cup host country, is clearly too little.Those less than 10 million people in the town, they need a stadium of 40,000 + ?
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing to the ignorent poster Australia's population is 22 million not under 20 million. Melbourne has 4 million and it has 2 with one more major being built stadiums with the MCG having more than 100,00 seats and the other 50 and 65 ,000 and over, so no problems for seating!


I am sorry, it is clerical error. I mean, Australia does not have sufficient number of large cities, leading Australia to the 200,000 population in the town of organized competition.


----------



## sativ

melbstud said:


> To be honest I think that if you havnt been to Australia dont pull shit ouf your arse. If Australia was to get it then upgrades and etc would be made. When we got the Olympics all major stadiums including in Canberra were upgraded. Perth and Adelaide and upgrading and Perth is actually bu8ilding a new Stadium with Melbourne actually building a new SOCCER ONLY stadium which will be home to local teams and one from Greece as Melbourne has the highest population of people from Greece outside of Athens. I thnk Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adfelaide can pull it off. Australis is no worse than South Africa, it would be stupid to assume Joburg, Capetown and Durban would have better stadiums and hotels to cater for than Australia. When it was in South Korea how many South Korean cities had Soccer games? Its time to spread the love of Soccer to other countries outside of South America and Europe.
> In relation to the comment that the Olympics you need ONE city to be amazing is a crock of shit as Melbounre, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth had events not as many as Sydney but ebents, i.e a soccer or hockey game so the love was shared. Australia is a sporting nation and a nation in which revellers can feel safe, unlike South Africa. I thinm that it would defintely be good for the sport.


I am very interested to know that, if England was assigned to the Canberra match, Canberra how to more than 200,000 England fans to provide adequate hotels, restaurants, transport, police »


----------



## theespecialone

2018-England
2022-China
.....
2098-New Zealand


----------



## melbstud

It wouldnt be assigned to Canberra clearly its like saying what if a Brazil game was to be lets say Leeds or some other small city, it wouldnt. However, Canberra does have facilites might I add, the Australian Institue of Sport is based there with many facilities aswell as facilities from the Olympics, thats where our stars are created. Lets us not forget if we do get it, changes will be made our stadium for the Olympics was in operation a year before the games started unlike Athens. 

Why are people assuming based on what is at present, clearly things will be made and accomodated for, Australia has the means to do so.


----------



## Benjuk

melbstud said:


> To be honest I think that if you havnt been to Australia dont pull shit ouf your arse. If Australia was to get it then upgrades and etc would be made. When we got the Olympics all major stadiums including in Canberra were upgraded. Perth and Adelaide and upgrading and Perth is actually bu8ilding a new Stadium with Melbourne actually building a new SOCCER ONLY stadium which will be home to local teams and one from Greece as Melbourne has the highest population of people from Greece outside of Athens. I thnk Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adfelaide can pull it off. Australis is no worse than South Africa, it would be stupid to assume Joburg, Capetown and Durban would have better stadiums and hotels to cater for than Australia. When it was in South Korea how many South Korean cities had Soccer games? Its time to spread the love of Soccer to other countries outside of South America and Europe.
> 
> In relation to the comment that the Olympics you need ONE city to be amazing is a crock of shit as Melbounre, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth had events not as many as Sydney but ebents, i.e a soccer or hockey game so the love was shared. Australia is a sporting nation and a nation in which revellers can feel safe, unlike South Africa. I thinm that it would defintely be good for the sport.


I've lived here for 8 years, mate. I'm well aware of the facilities.

With regard to the Olympics - one city was required to meet all standards, all of the other cities that hosted smaller, satelite events had upgrades - but nothing even close to the standards required by FIFA. There's a massive difference between fitting extra seats and press facilities at Aussie Stadium in Canberra, and upgraded a facility to 40k seats (with roof).

"I thnk Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adfelaide can pull it off."

Not under FIFA rules we can't. 8 venues over 7 cities, MINIMUM, possible that the number is now officially up to 10 over 9 cities. Either way, that still leaves 'white elephant' stadiums required in Townsville or Canberra.

With regard to the comparrison with South Africa's bid - you have to remember that FIFA actively changed the rules in order to get an African host. They will not be changing the rules to get an Aussie finals.

"When it was in South Korea how many South Korean cities had Soccer games?"

Having started your rant by saying "if you haven't been... dont pull shit ouf your arse", you should do a little research before putting Korea up as an example we can compare ourselves to... 

South Korea provided 10 stadiums (42k was the smallest) over 10 cities, hosting over 30 games between them (in addition to the 9 venues Japan put up).




melbstud said:


> Another thing to the ignorent poster Australia's population is 22 million not under 20 million. Melbourne has 4 million and it has 2 with one more major being built stadiums with the MCG having more than 100,00 seats and the other 50 and 65 ,000 and over, so no problems for seating!


As stated above... It's all well and good saying that Melbourne with it's 4 million population has three stadiums, etc., the fact is that it could only use 2 of them in a world cup bid - and even then only if Sydney only used 1 of it's 2 world class facilities.


----------



## hngcm

rover3 said:


> I don't see it that way. It's
> 
> 2022 - USA (that's a lock too.)
> 
> 2026 - China -- after their public relations/human wrongs mess earlier this year; maybe a few epdemics and killer earthquakes down the line, I can definitely see 2026 as the earliest for China.
> 
> Ignore theordinaryone and carrerra. Ignorant trolls.


That's how I see it too, but I'm just saying that the worst case scenario would be the 2026 WC, unlike how carrerra doesn't think the US will get the WC again anytime this century.


----------



## Iain1974

Well it's pretty hard to be accurate with predictions. I feel that 2018 will be in Europe with England most likely. After that Europe is out for 2022.

I suppose USA/China/Australia are contenders for 2022 and 2026 is likely to be back in Europe, shall we say Spain for the sake of argument and then 2030 will be 'open'.

If China hosts a great Olympics then they might feel they can step up to the main event with a World Cup in 2022. Who knows?


----------



## theespecialone

An Australian bid would have:

sydney-telstra stadium
melbourne-new rectangular stadium + MCG
brisbane-lang park
townsville-dairy farmers' stadium (upgrade)
gold coast-skilled stadium (expansion)
perth-new stadium
adelaide-new stadium
newcastle-EAS (expanded)
canberra

that's 10

if you classify telstra stadium as being in parramatta and tell fifa that it is a separate city, you could also have the SFS so there's 11 already.


----------



## hngcm

Iain1974 said:


> Well it's pretty hard to be accurate with predictions. I feel that 2018 will be in Europe with England most likely. After that Europe is out for 2022.
> 
> I suppose USA/China/Australia are contenders for 2022 and 2026 is likely to be back in Europe, shall we say Spain for the sake of argument and then 2030 will be 'open'.
> 
> If China hosts a great Olympics then they might feel they can step up to the main event with a World Cup in 2022. Who knows?


If 2018 goes to England, Spain would have to wait until 2030 for a World Cup.


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> An Australian bid would have:
> 
> sydney-telstra stadium
> melbourne-new rectangular stadium + MCG
> brisbane-lang park
> townsville-dairy farmers' stadium (upgrade)
> gold coast-skilled stadium (expansion)
> perth-new stadium
> adelaide-new stadium
> newcastle-EAS (expanded)
> canberra
> 
> that's 10
> 
> if you classify telstra stadium as being in parramatta and tell fifa that it is a separate city, you could also have the SFS so there's 11 already.


I doubt that FIFA would fall for the concept of the Sydney Olympic Stadium not being in Sydney...

Hard to imagine the financial justification in expanding Townsville, Canberra, even Gold Coast, to 40k. Not sure if any of them would be likely to experience those sorts of crowds outside of maybe an Australian international side playing their once every year or two.

As for the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne, a true white elephant if they take it up to 40-50k. They already have TelstraDome and the MCG in the large stadium catagory, MRS was conceived for the specific purpose of filling the mid-sized stadium catagory, to expand it for the sake of a world cup (I know the foundations are in place for the extension) seems a total waste of tax-payers money.

I'd love it to happen, but I can't see it - not with the competition... We're scrambling around figuring out which stadiums we can justify expanding, hoping that the game will take off in order that they won't sit half-empty for the next 20 years... Meanwhile, by the time the bids go in the USA, China, Spain and England will all have more than the required number of stadiums in action, and being filled on a regular basis. As I've said before - it's not about meeting the minimum standards - it's about putting in a better bid than your rivals.


----------



## Mo Rush

Benjuk said:


> With regard to the comparrison with South Africa's bid - you have to remember that FIFA actively changed the rules in order to get an African host. They will not be changing the rules to get an Aussie finals.


Fortunately South Africa was able to bid with a solid set of existing venues that were already in good use.

Soccer City 70,000
Loftus Versfeld 50,000
Newlands 50,000
Kings Park 55,000
Vodacom Park 38,000
Rustenburg 36,000


----------



## melbstud

I think what BenjiUK is saying Australia cant pull it off, again more crap. FIFA busted balls to get an African Host but is South Africa really that better for hosting a World Cup in compasrison to Australia? I dont think so, London will have the Olympics in 2012 so in 2018 to have the World Cup is unjustifiable. Australia and Australians would support and make the needed changes to support a FIFA world cup, thank God your not on the committee as the world just doesnt revolve around Europe and the UK " MATE". 

In terms of putting in a better bid Homebush never existed prior to the games and neither did the SCG refurbishment. Excuses Excuses Excuses. 

Don't for theespecialone, Melbourne also has Telstra Dome, Telstra Dome can alter seating plans to vary from 12000 to 74000 for sporting and other event.


----------



## hngcm

FIFA doesn't care about who had the Olympics, Mexico and Germany both had world cups 2 years after an Olympics. 

Nobody is saying that Australia can't pull off the World Cup, we're saying that they're unlikely to win against England/USA/China since those countries would have much better bids that don't just meet the minimum requirements.


----------



## theespecialone

melbstud said:


> I think what BenjiUK is saying Australia cant pull it off, again more crap. FIFA busted balls to get an African Host but is South Africa really that better for hosting a World Cup in compasrison to Australia? I dont think so, London will have the Olympics in 2012 so in 2018 to have the World Cup is unjustifiable. Australia and Australians would support and make the needed changes to support a FIFA world cup, thank God your not on the committee as the world just doesnt revolve around Europe and the UK " MATE".
> 
> In terms of putting in a better bid Homebush never existed prior to the games and neither did the SCG refurbishment. Excuses Excuses Excuses.
> 
> Don't for theespecialone, Melbourne also has Telstra Dome, Telstra Dome can alter seating plans to vary from 12000 to 74000 for sporting and other event.


2 stadiums per city, so i excluded it


----------



## Benjuk

melbstud said:


> I think what BenjiUK is saying Australia cant pull it off, again more crap. FIFA busted balls to get an African Host but is South Africa really that better for hosting a World Cup in compasrison to Australia? I dont think so, London will have the Olympics in 2012 so in 2018 to have the World Cup is unjustifiable. Australia and Australians would support and make the needed changes to support a FIFA world cup, thank God your not on the committee as the world just doesnt revolve around Europe and the UK " MATE".
> 
> In terms of putting in a better bid Homebush never existed prior to the games and neither did the SCG refurbishment. Excuses Excuses Excuses.
> 
> Don't for theespecialone, Melbourne also has Telstra Dome, Telstra Dome can alter seating plans to vary from 12000 to 74000 for sporting and other event.


MelbSTUD,
I'm not saying Australia CAN'T pull it off, I'm saying that whilst I would LOVE Australia to pull it off, I can't see us putting in a BETTER bid than England, Spain, China or the USA.

You've mentioned the Olympics a few times... Some cities can support a huge stadium - the lure of an Olympics is certainly justification to build such a stadium, as you can have a degree of confidence that the venue will be regularly filled afterward... You can't say the same thing for 40k venues in Canberra, Townsville, Newcastle, on the Gold Coast, in Tasmania, even in Adelaide... Thus building them at vast expense for the sake of 4 world cup games each is a total blowout.

Again, as I've been saying for the last couple of years - I dearly hope the A-League continues to grow, that Australia qualifies for 2010 and the game takes another step up, and that attendances reach the point that, as in the larger footballing nations in Europe, crowd sizes demand the clubs build larger stadia... I'd love Australia to host the world cup - I simply look at the facts from a more detached point of view.


----------



## woozoo

please answer me this:

IS IT TWO STADIUMS PER CITY, OR IS IT ONLY ONE CITY THAT IS ALLOWED TO USE TWO STADIUMS, THE REST ALLOWED TO ONLY USE ONE.

Where did you find these regulations?


----------



## hngcm

One city with two stadiums, the rest with only one.


----------



## woozoo

thanks man


----------



## kamilo

^^keep dreaming


----------



## Carrerra

Australlia also has fantastic stadias.


----------



## hngcm

kamilo said:


> ^^keep dreaming


Dreaming?

The USA could easily host it right now without building any new stadiums, while China and Australia would have to build a lot of new stadiums just to even get close to the USA's bid. The USA already has 32 top-of-the-line stadiums with at least 60,000 seats. I'm sorry, but, the USA has the 2022 world cup.


----------



## Iain1974

Nor 2002

So England could 'get away' with 8 cities / 10 stadiums

London - Wembley/Emirates plus
Manchester - Old Trafford/COMS or Liverpool - Stanley Park / Kirkby

Manchester United/Old Trafford, strictly speaking, isn't in Manchester. It's in the City of Salford.

Or how about just a London world cup? 

Wembley - 90,000
Twickenham - 82,000
Olympic - 80,000
Emirates - 60,000
Chelsea - 42,000 (new build likely ~65,000)
Upton Park - 35,000 (new build likely ~60,000)
White Heart Lane - 35,000 (new build possible ~50,000)
The Valley - 27,000 (planned 40,000 expansion)


----------



## Carrerra

2002 WC was the first (and most likely last) co-hosted tournament. So the criteria about number of city & stadium has no room to be applied to.


----------



## woozoo

> I would rather have the world cup hosted in the same half dozen countries over and over in the largest and best facilities, than moved to a country with smaller stadiums and lesser facilities for the sake of it.


Thats your opinion, but when FIFA wants and NEEDS to grow the sport in other regions for it's own sake, rules will be bent or broken or changed to allow the tournament to be hosted in other countries which don't fully fit the criteria.



> The criteria is that the number of stadiums is a minimum of 8, a maximum of 10 with only one city having two host stadiums possible. But none of them was met in 2006 WC.


Alas, the proof is in the pudding.

Like I said, when it comes to certain issues such as safety or infrastructure etc, some criteria will not be ignored. But when it comes to less important criteria like stadiums per city, if the city is large enough to support to mass of fans, and has the infrastructure to cope, I don't see it missing out for solely that reason.



Carrerra, where did you get the information about the criteria if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Iain1974

Brazil has proposed 18 stadiums for 2014


----------



## Carrerra

woozoo said:


> Thats your opinion, but when FIFA wants and NEEDS to grow the sport in other regions for it's own sake, rules will be bent or broken or changed to allow the tournament to be hosted in other countries which don't fully fit the criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, the proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Like I said, when it comes to certain issues such as safety or infrastructure etc, some criteria will not be ignored. But when it comes to less important criteria like stadiums per city, if the city is large enough to support to mass of fans, and has the infrastructure to cope, I don't see it missing out for solely that reason.
> 
> 
> Carrerra, where did you get the information about the criteria if you don't mind me asking?


This is a part of what Wikipedia says about 2014 WC stadiums...

*According to current FIFA practice, no more than one city may use two stadia, and the number of host cities is limited between eight and ten. The Brazilian Confederation already requested permission to assign twelve cities hosting World Cup Finals *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup


----------



## www.sercan.de

Are there already? any off. bids or statements of a country to host 2022?


----------



## woozoo

> I'm sorry, but, the USA has the 2022 world cup.


 :nuts:

FIFA doesn't care if new stadiums need to be built or renewed. I don't think there has been any tournament in recent history which hasn't redeveloped at least some of it's stadiums, or built new ones (Including Germany and England).
Brazil is redeveloping all of it's stadiums, and South Africa built several new ones.

FIFA is desperate to grow the sport in Asia, as this is pretty much the last only region that isn't saturation point in terms of football (apart from USA). The sport is very popular in most of the countries, but isn;t number one in many. The leagues and national sides need developing, and having a world cup in the region is the best possible promotion. FIFA tried to do the same thing for USA in 94, but it seemed to fail to grow the sport in any real terms in America. The MLS is pretty poor for a country of America's side.

To get match times at a suitable time for television viewers in East Asia, the only countries that could host the tournament are in East Asia. Having the tournament in Brazil in 2014 gives TV viewers in all of North and South America prime time match times. 
There are 4 billion people in Asia, and *2 billion * in East Asia which is in the similar time zones as China/Australia, a third of the world's population. This is compared to 523 million in North America, 371 million South America, total under 1 billion. Basically Asia has a lot more viewers than the Americas, resulting in higher ratings for FIFA.

CONCACAF has hosted the tournament 3 times, Asia has only hosted it once.




USA has a really good bid. Stadium and Infrastructure are second to none. No doubt they will get the tournament soon, maybe 2026, maybe not.

It all comes down to this. 
In 2022 it will be 28 years since USA hosted it's last world cup. That is extremely soon in terms of hosting a world cup.
The only country to have it sooner was Mexico, and that was only because Colombia, which was awarded the cup, declared it could not afford to host the cup.
Apart from that it's Germany, which which despite having all the stadiums, infrastructure, a national team which regularly finishes extremely well and passionate support, had to wait 32 years. 

If football was the number one sport in USA (rather than number 5), or if 94 did more to boost the national team and MLS, (if the national team consistently finished very well in world cups, the US would have more of a chance. But thats not the case, so I think USA will have to wait a bit longer.


----------



## Carrerra

To FIFA, China has much more attractions than USA does in terms of economic potential, football fever, time zone for Asian football fans who take the biggest share in WC viewing. 

As for stadiums, US friends here always boast that they have world-best stadium infrastructure but most of them have too small width to host WC because they are originally designed for Ameican football whose pitch dimensions are much narrower than those of association football. 

China has, of course, some problem with their stadiums. It has many state-of-the-art and large stadiums but most of them have athletics tracks. But that problem can be easily solved out by turning some of them into football specific stadiums or enlarging some 30K+ stadias to 40K+


----------



## woozoo

> I don't see why the entire continent of Africa is ruled out for lack-of-facilities...


Sorry, compared to facilities in Asia (China, Australia), they are very poor. South Africa already had 7 stadiums over 40K, many of them under 25 years of age. Apart from Egypt which built a stadium in 2006, the countries you mentioned all have only a couple of stadiums, all ranging between 30 and 50 years old.
Apart from the stadiums, infrastructure and safety is also an issue.
The African countries also have no where near the economic resources to invest in stadiums and infrastructure as China/Australia. 


Also, more importantly, Africa had the cup in 2010, so it's gonna be coming to Asia before it goes back there.



As far as the UAE hosting a cup, that is a very very long way off. With a population of under 5 million, and only one stadium over 40k, built in 1979, they have A LOT of ask kissing to do. Even though they have lots of money, I don't think FIFA would be happy for them to build 8 stadiums which will sit *completely* empty after the cup.


----------



## hngcm

woozoo said:


> :nuts:
> 
> FIFA doesn't care if new stadiums need to be built or renewed. I don't think there has been any tournament in recent history which hasn't redeveloped at least some of it's stadiums, or built new ones (Including Germany and England).
> Brazil is redeveloping all of it's stadiums, and South Africa built several new ones.
> 
> FIFA is desperate to grow the sport in Asia, as this is pretty much the last only region that isn't saturation point in terms of football (apart from USA). The sport is very popular in most of the countries, but isn;t number one in many. The leagues and national sides need developing, and having a world cup in the region is the best possible promotion. FIFA tried to do the same thing for USA in 94, but it seemed to fail to grow the sport in any real terms in America. The MLS is pretty poor for a country of America's side.
> 
> To get match times at a suitable time for television viewers in East Asia, the only countries that could host the tournament are in East Asia. Having the tournament in Brazil in 2014 gives TV viewers in all of North and South America prime time match times.
> There are 4 billion people in Asia, and *2 billion * in East Asia which is in the similar time zones as China/Australia, a third of the world's population. This is compared to 523 million in North America, 371 million South America, total under 1 billion. Basically Asia has a lot more viewers than the Americas, resulting in higher ratings for FIFA.
> 
> CONCACAF has hosted the tournament 3 times, Asia has only hosted it once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA has a really good bid. Stadium and Infrastructure are second to none. No doubt they will get the tournament soon, maybe 2026, maybe not.
> 
> It all comes down to this.
> In 2022 it will be 28 years since USA hosted it's last world cup. That is extremely soon in terms of hosting a world cup.
> The only country to have it sooner was Mexico, and that was only because Colombia, which was awarded the cup, declared it could not afford to host the cup.
> Apart from that it's Germany, which which despite having all the stadiums, infrastructure, a national team which regularly finishes extremely well and passionate support, had to wait 32 years.
> 
> If football was the number one sport in USA (rather than number 5), or if 94 did more to boost the national team and MLS, (if the national team consistently finished very well in world cups, the US would have more of a chance. But thats not the case, so I think USA will have to wait a bit longer.


No doubt that China is the USA's main competitor, whichever doesn't get 2022 probably will get 2026.


----------



## Gherkin

It all depends on whether England or Spain get the bid for the 2018 World Cup. If they don't, it'll go to Europe in 2022... And I don't think there will be any official bids until the decision on the 2018 WC is made. 2011 I think?


----------



## fidalgo

China - 14 stadiums







Beijing1 91.000







Guangdong 80.000







Shangai 80.000







beijing2 72.000 redeveloped for the olympics







Shenyang 70.000







Nanjing 60.000







Tianjin 60.000







Wuhan 60.000







Tianhe 60.000







Yizong 60.000







chonqing 58.000







Changsha 55.000







henan 50.000







Huanglong 50.000


----------



## Irish Blood English Heart

Such a shame China has built all its stadiums with athletics tracks. I think a lot will depend on how the Olympics go, Ive heard all sorts of problems with foreign spectators not being able to obtain visas, so assume Fifa will be watching with interest.


----------



## Kaiser

Go Australia!


----------



## theespecialone

china's economy could be as big if not bigger than the usa economy so it could easily build a few football specific stadiums


----------



## Nneznajka

By that time Russia will have all stadiums needed to host World cup 2022 !

I vote for *RUSSIA* ! :cheers:


----------



## skaP187

Iain1974 said:


> Or how about just a London world cup?
> 
> Wembley - 90,000
> Twickenham - 82,000
> Olympic - 80,000
> Emirates - 60,000
> Chelsea - 42,000 (new build likely ~65,000)
> Upton Park - 35,000 (new build likely ~60,000)
> White Heart Lane - 35,000 (new build possible ~50,000)
> The Valley - 27,000 (planned 40,000 expansion)


If it doesn´t go to Benelux I prefer this one!


----------



## woozoo

> When FIFA wants and needs to grow the sport in other regions they will look to go to the largest countries with the strongest growing markets. Such countries, like South Africa for example, have growing economies and populations which can support the required stadium infrastructure - which is why FIFA is interested in the first place.


Australia doesn't have an increasing population or economy?
Population growth rate: 0.801% (2008 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 3.9% (2007 est.)

South Africa:
Population growth rate: -0.501% (2008 est.) (Notice the negative? I think the HIV AIDS epidemic is having a profound effect).
GDP - real growth rate: 5.1% (2007 est.) (Lets remember, South Africa is an as emerging market, and hence it would be expected for it to have significantly better economic growth figures than developed nations, so this figure is not really as good as it looks).




> Why bend the rules to include Australia (for example) with it's small 22m (?) population, when you can use stronger rules to push the finals toward China with it's 1.2b population?


In the Chinese national football league, the teams near the top of the table consistently gets good crowds in the tens of thousands. But mid-table teams can only attract a hardcore 3000 to 8000 while yo-yos and relegation battlers can manage just about 1000.
The Australian league has several teams which regularly have attendance in tens of thousands, but only Perth Glory has an average attendance at less than 10,000 (7,596 2008).

This, combined with China's league being almost completely fixed and corrupt, resulting in skepticism from fans, hardly puts China in a better position of filling stadiums in the future than Australia. Australia also has three other sporting codes which get significant crowds and would use the grounds, resulting in high overall yearly attendance for stadiums.
A stadium in China will be used by it's resident football team, which will almost never fill the ground, and for other sporting events (considering all the current stadiums have a running track around the ground). Either way, most grounds will only be filled a couple of times per year AT BEST. 

There are other arguments why Australia MAY be more suited.
I still think China has more of a chance, but there are many problems in China. 

Either way the thread more about a China vs Australia vs USA is http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=654977


----------



## woozoo

> Can hardly say that England is among the countries that has done “extremely well” in the World Cup.


Well they've won once. which only a handfull of countries has managed to do. And they have participated in 12, which is as many as France and Spain.

Either way, The sport is HUGE in England, they have arguably the best league (definately in the top three, far, far ahead of USA) and England has significant importance to FIFA.


----------



## Mo Rush

Benjuk said:


> Didn't mean to imply that one MUST have 8 over 7, just that 8 over 7 is the minimum, 8 over 8, 9 over 8 or 9, 10 over 9 or 10, etc., are all within the desired range as well.
> 
> 
> 
> When FIFA wants and needs to grow the sport in other regions they will look to go to the largest countries with the strongest growing markets. Such countries, like South Africa for example, have growing economies and populations which can support the required stadium infrastructure - which is why FIFA is interested in the first place. Why bend the rules to include Australia (for example) with it's small 22m (?) population, when you can use stronger rules to push the finals toward China with it's 1.2b population?
> 
> 
> 
> 18 stadiums have been put forward, they will narrow the selection down closer to the finals.


South Africa also taps into the entire African market of billions, thats the level of influence while perhaps Australia could argue that it taps into Asia but then again Asia has hosted..leaving NZ and Taz. Not exactly a breakthrough?

Please dont confuse this with questioning Australias ability to host. After some major work to prepare each host city it certainly would be capable.


----------



## Mo Rush

Iain1974 said:


> Brazil has proposed 18 stadiums for 2014


Of which 8 or 10 will be used. South Africa I think bid with 13, using a bunch of existing venues and decided to build 2 new venues once the bid was won.


----------



## en1044

Index_LT said:


> The reason i wouldn't like USA to host WC is it's time zone. If the game is played at casual time, it would be broadcasted at late night here in Europe (Largest football market). You know that noone watches recordings here. It wouldn't be a problem if the game is played at the mid of day, but you must get air condisioned stadiums. I would go for Qatar. Time zone is OK and they could afford to get all their stadiums air condisioned.
> 
> p.s. In US noone play nor watches football. You will have to wait untill you get latino majority.


wow, many flaws in your argument. Go learn something about the US before you post, then try again. Bet you didnt know that soccer is the biggest youth sport over here did you? Everyone grows up playing it. I guess its gonna suck when Brazil hosts it, and im sure you were pained about the times in 2002. Point is, although Europe is a big market for the game FIFA is going to want to spread it out. What, do you want every WC in Europe? The world doesnt revolve around you. Maybe you should have just said "I hate the US so i dont want the WC to be there."


----------



## Carrerra

en1044 said:


> yeah, and what about your pointless argument to try and tell everyone LP Field was too small too...do you realize how dumb that is.
> 
> And i just hope you do remember that Giants Stadium was too small during the last WC too, they just made an exception


Why don't you list up and show us the stadiums which definately seem to have more than 8.5 meters on the sides in association football configuration?


----------



## Carrerra

Index_LT said:


> The reason i wouldn't like USA to host WC is it's time zone. If the game is played at casual time, it would be broadcasted at late night here in Europe (Largest football market). You know that noone watches recordings here. It wouldn't be a problem if the game is played at the mid of day, but you must get air condisioned stadiums. I would go for Qatar. Time zone is OK and they could afford to get all their stadiums air condisioned.
> 
> p.s. In US noone play nor watches football. You will have to wait untill you get latino majority.


USA Worldcup is especially detrimental to Asian football fans who are the biggest audience group of FIFA Worldcup. If a football match is held in the evening there, it's broadcasted in the time zone when people are already in workplace or school in Asia. This would cause severe damage to TV viewing figures because any employers or teachers would not let their employees or students watch Worldcup during work or class.


----------



## Kuvvaci

Nneznajka said:


> By that time Russia will have all stadiums needed to host World cup 2022 !
> 
> I vote for *RUSSIA* ! :cheers:


can you show us Russian projects that will be realize till 2022?

By the way, Russia is an European country wich belongs to UEFA. So, 2022 is impossible for an European country wich is UEFA member.


----------



## Carrerra

en1044 said:


> wow, many flaws in your argument. Go learn something about the US before you post, then try again. Bet you didnt know that soccer is the biggest youth sport over here did you? Everyone grows up playing it. I guess its gonna suck when Brazil hosts it, and im sure you were pained about the times in 2002. Point is, although Europe is a big market for the game FIFA is going to want to spread it out. What, do you want every WC in Europe? The world doesnt revolve around you. Maybe you should have just said "I hate the US so i dont want the WC to be there."


The world doesn't revolve around USA either. As for spreading football out, China or India would be much more attractive choice than USA to FIFA in terms of growth potential.


----------



## Index_LT

en1044 said:


> wow, many flaws in your argument. Go learn something about the US before you post, then try again. Bet you didnt know that soccer is the biggest youth sport over here did you? Everyone grows up playing it. I guess its gonna suck when Brazil hosts it, and im sure you were pained about the times in 2002. Point is, although Europe is a big market for the game FIFA is going to want to spread it out. What, do you want every WC in Europe? The world doesnt revolve around you. Maybe you should have just said "I hate the US so i dont want the WC to be there."


No I don't hate US. In fact, i'm from one of most pro-american states in Europe  . The thing i don't like id the broadcasting time (When WC would be held in ANY states near date change line). The first game would start between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. This means a month with football instead of sleep :nuts: . It isn't good for health you know. Of course there wouldn't be any problem if football is played in air conditioned indoor arenas so the game could be played in daytime.



en1044 said:


> Bet you didnt know that soccer is the biggest youth sport over here did you? Everyone grows up playing it.


That was a surprise. Never heard of any american player in major football clubs. Maybe soon i will.



en1044 said:


> ...and im sure you were pained about the times in 2002.


 It was painful for players. They played at daytime, climate was extremely hot and players were already exhausted at the start of the game.

Do you have many stadiums like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Superdome ? Can the football be played in them? 

p.s. Sorry for my bad english.


----------



## hngcm

Index_LT said:


> The reason i wouldn't like USA to host WC is it's time zone. If the game is played at casual time, it would be broadcasted at late night here in Europe (Largest football market). You know that noone watches recordings here. It wouldn't be a problem if the game is played at the mid of day, but you must get air condisioned stadiums. I would go for Qatar. Time zone is OK and they could afford to get all their stadiums air condisioned.
> 
> p.s. In US noone play nor watches football. You will have to wait untill you get latino majority.


The Americas woke up at 2am to watch games in 2002, Europe can do the same.


----------



## hngcm

Carrerra said:


> Why don't you list up and show us the stadiums which definately seem to have more than 8.5 meters on the sides in association football configuration?


Dallas, New Cowboys Stadium (80k-100k)









Chicago, Soldier Field (61.5k)









Los Angeles, Rose Bowl (92k)









Denver, Invesco Field (76k)









Phoenix, UoP Stadium (63k-73k)









San Francisco, 49ers new stadium (80k)









Boston, Gillette Stadium (69k)









Houston, Reliant Stadium (71.5k)









Seattle, Qwest Field (67k)









Washington DC, Fedex Field (92k)









New York City, New Meadowlands Stadium (82.5k)









Miami, Dolphin Stadium (75k)









Most of these stadiums were built with soccer in mind, which includes detachable stands in order to incorporate the larger soccer field. Most of these stadiums have held FIFA sanctioned matches like the CONCOCAF Gold Cup. This doesn't account of the numerous stadiums in their planning stages that will probably be build before 2022. 

The USA has no shortage of WC soccer-capable stadiums.


----------



## Carrerra

Where are photos of football mode? The only case is Gillette Stadium, but do you see that it has more than 8.5 meters *at all points of sidelines*? 

Don't say that those stadias have held FIFA-sanctioned matches, so they won't have dimensional problems. Worldcup is not like any of continental championships or matches controlled by each confederation. Even if they are sanctioned by FIFA, stadium requirements of each confederation are not exactly same with those of FIFA. For example, UEFA requires that stadiums hosting European football championship have at least 6 meters on the sides, 7.5 meters on the ends, but FIFA requires 8.5 meters on the sides, 10 meters on the ends!

hngcm, don't be so sure about the matter hno:hno:hno: Do you know what dimensions those stadiums had for playing pitch and auxiliary area around it when they hosted, as you called, FIFA santioned matches?


----------



## Kobo

Index_LT said:


> The reason i wouldn't like USA to host WC is it's time zone. If the game is played at casual time, it would be broadcasted at late night here in Europe (Largest football market). You know that noone watches recordings here. It wouldn't be a problem if the game is played at the mid of day, but you must get air condisioned stadiums. I would go for Qatar. Time zone is OK and they could afford to get all their stadiums air condisioned.
> 
> p.s. In US noone play nor watches football. You will have to wait untill you get latino majority.


Actually if you had been bothered to do little bit of research, you would have realized that when The United States last hosted the World Cup the kick off times were arranged to play for the European TV market. An example the opening match between Germany and Bolivia kicked off in Chicago at 2.05pm Central Daylight Time (the time in Chicago), this would have been 9.05pm in Germany and most of Europe, and 4.05pm in Bolivia. In fact many of the matches kicked off at around mid day (including the final) so to fit for the appropriate TV market. I would expect that if America were to host again, it would use a similar kick off time structure.

To your second comment that nobody plays football in the USA,.... well again you didn't do your research, over 20 million Americans play football. And as for them not watching, during the 2002 world cup when I was living in New York, I recall many times their being huge queues of people going around the block at 6am to get into the sports bars to watch the games before work!


----------



## GunnerJacket

Can we all please put a few things to rest...

- No matter where the WC is held, some audience is going to be screwed by the game times! But assuming we're all fans, we make it work out and FIFA knows this. The host isn't selected with the intention of p***ing off one continent or the other.

- In lieu of the above, please stop insinuating the time zone issue is solely a "USA" problem. It would apply for any games held in Mexico or Latin America, and it will be realized when Brazil hosts, albeit not as egregiously. 

- Regarding Asia's huge population: Uh, yeah, we get it. But until we hear that FIFA is mandating a certain year for an Asian WC then this is a non-issue, because if Asia doesn't get the WC in '18 or '22, chances are they'll get one of the next two. It's not as if these will be the last games ever played.

Similarly, fans for a US bid needn't panic if they miss out as the Americas will get their chance in due time as well.

- Anyone being pithy about US stadiums is simply being that - pithy. Unless I've missed it the US Soccer Association has not yet made their bid official, but they have confirmed the nation has more than enough stadium that meet FIFA requirements that have also expressed an interest in hosting, including most NFL facilities. They're in an exploratory phase right now to determine the bid feasibility, comparison against other potential bids, etc. Bottom line, maybe not all of the new NFL stadiums will be included, but enough will be available for the bid to be top rate.


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> Why don't you list up and show us the stadiums which definately seem to have more than 8.5 meters on the sides in association football configuration?


 Carrerra, no one cares about your anti americanism agenda anymore...give up


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> The world doesn't revolve around USA either. As for spreading football out, China or India would be much more attractive choice than USA to FIFA in terms of growth potential.


i never said the world revolves around us ya big goof...i just said it doenst revolve around europe


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> Where are photos of football mode? The only case is Gillette Stadium, but do you see that it has more than 8.5 meters *at all points of sidelines*?
> 
> Don't say that those stadias have held FIFA-sanctioned matches, so they won't have dimensional problems. Worldcup is not like any of continental championships or matches controlled by each confederation. Even if they are sanctioned by FIFA, stadium requirements of each confederation are not exactly same with those of FIFA. For example, UEFA requires that stadiums hosting European football championship have at least 6 meters on the sides, 7.5 meters on the ends, but FIFA requires 8.5 meters on the sides, 10 meters on the ends!
> 
> hngcm, don't be so sure about the matter hno:hno:hno: Do you know what dimensions those stadiums had for playing pitch and auxiliary area around it when they hosted, as you called, FIFA santioned matches?


there are not photos of soccer mode, but it doesnt matter...they all have been designed to host it when the time comes


----------



## Carrerra

en1044 said:


> there are not photos of soccer mode, but it doesnt matter...they all have been designed to host it when the time comes


Keep dreaming until you die


----------



## en1044

Carrerra said:


> Keep dreaming until you die


carrerra, you dont know anything about this country...i live here, and am a stadium enthusiast like everyone else. I keep an eye out for these things. I follow stadium development. Why are you arguing with me? I know for a fact that those stadiums have been designed to host international soccer. This is not an arguable point, and the fact that you continue to do just shows you cant admit to being wrong.


----------



## Joop20

Skyline_FFM said:


> We are talking about a distant future! And until then, football may be promoted in Canada. Is China a football nation? Or South Korea? They had nothing to do with football some decades ago, but they are more and more intersted...


Canada has only 2 or 3 stadiums that are suitable for a world cup at the moment, and they have only 1 team in the MLS. 

It's really going to have to change its sporting leagues if it ever wants to get on a WC level stadium wise. There are probably many ways of growing the CFL beyond the 8 cities that are in it now. Regarding soccer, they either have to set up their own professional soccer league and stop being so dependent on the USA for their sport leagues, or they get more teams in the MLS.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

In other words: Canadians aren't even interested in changing the situation. What a pitty. Would like to see a WC in Canada, which has so many great cities to show!


----------



## hngcm

RobH said:


> More important to the future in FIFA's eyes would be China, just because their population is almost 20 times that of Australia's; I think even most Australians would agree with that.


Try 62x Australia's population.


----------



## woozoo

> Well then, why does it return to Europe every 8 or every 12 years? Why should it return to Asia 16 or 20 years? Why is that acceptable for Asia, but 28 years is too 'soon' for the USA? Your reasoning does NOT compute.; but your 'bias' does.


Ummmm, the USA is one country, you are mentioning continents.

On Europe,
Firstly, and most importantly, Europe is where the overwhelming majority of FIFA's tv money comes from. 500 million rich people who *all* watch the sport compared to 300 million rich people which only a percentage watch the game.
Secondly, UEFA has 13 teams participating in the world cup, thats over a third, by rights they should get to host every third cup.
Thirdly, Europe is the main bread basket of football, the 6 biggest leagues, the most support, the most money.

On Asia vs USA:
If another CONCACAF country could host the cup, it may have had a stronger chance, but no such country exists. Canada has no facilities. Mexico has already hosted twice, and has many other problems.
South America had to wait 36 years from 1978 Argentina to 2014 Brazil despite having 2 of the best football nations in the world and incredible support for the game. If a continent does not have adequate hosts, then it has to wait.

28 years is too soon for USA.
The MLS is shit. It barely rates a mention on highlight shows and in the news. Soccer is the fifth sport after football, hockey, basketball and baseball. USA does not have entrenched support for the game.
USA national team is poor, especially when compared to the countries which have hosted the cup twice (Italy, France, England, Brazil have all won at least once, Like ive said, Mexico only got it twice because of default the second time.)




So, enough about USA.

*Who will win out of China vs Australia?*

This is the way I see it.
*
Stadiums:*

China:
Currently all have a running track around them, disapproved of by FIFA.
Could probably build several new rectangular stadiums, but the Chinese league has very very small attendances (top teams average several tens of thousands, middle teams between 3 - 8 thousand, bottom teams around 1 thousand), so FIFA may disapprove of new stadiums getting built which will sit empty after the cup.

Australia:
Has several purpose built rectangular stadiums, but several are in the same city, which will mean they cannot be used unless the 1 stadium per city rule is waived - unlikely.
Many of its larger stadiums are oval shaped, and despite having movable seating, are not preferred by FIFA.
Building big stadiums in small towns such as Townsville with projected population of 200,000 may not be viable.
*
China's pros:*
FIFA wants to grow the sport in the biggest nation in the world. There is MASSIVE room to grow in China. This is extremely important in my view.
*
China's cons:*
Pollution - Very bad in some cities. Australian Olympic team is not participating in opening ceremony so that athletes spend as little time as possible in Beijing due to pollution. This problem may be even bigger in the future.]

National team is worse than Australian (ranked 10 in Asia).

National league is dismal. Totally corrupt and fixed.

Altitude of some venues.

VISA problems for visitors. Visitors to the 2008 Olympics are having trouble obtaining Visas to attend the game. This would seriously have to be fixed for China to host the world cup. 

Tibet issue. May flare up again. I recently read of an ethnic Tibetan, British citizen being arrested and deported from China after living in Beijing legally for two years. She was arrested on her way to work, taken to her house, allowed to pack one suitcase, her passport and mobile phone were taken, and she was taken by convoy to the airport, put on a plane and sent to London. Such crack downs on civil liberties would be frowned upon by FIFA.

*Australia's pros:*
Better fan atmosphere, more touristy, more civil liberties.
Has hosted many international sporting events in various parts of the country.
Overall I can imagine Australia hosting a better world cup, with a better atmosphere for the several million traveling fans. This is still important to FIFA. They do not want the world cup to turn solely into a promotion tool. FIFA wants its world cups to be enjoyable for the players, spectators and viewers alike.

*Australia's cons:*
New stadiums need to be built. Their viability is questionable. How many times would a 40,000 seat stadium be filled in a city of 300,000 residents?

Can some of the smaller cities host so many touring fans? 

Is Australia's public transport infrastructure capable of moving several million visitors?




As you can see, i pretty much think that Australia would host a better world cup. I think it would be be much more enjoyable for the touring fans, and overall would have a better atmosphere. I also think staging the cup in Australia would be less risky. China still has many problems in terms of pollution, civil liberties and the like. How Chinese police would react to millions of (drunk) traveling Europeans used to their rights is questionable.

However, this does not mean it will get the cup. There is so much potential of football in China, FIFA may have too much to gain from hosting the cup in China.


----------



## Kuvvaci

^^ wonderful post kay:


----------



## theespecialone

India also has potential

too bad that they're sooooo crap at football


----------



## rover3

uhmmm. woozoo...as I posted previously but either you missed or purposely played 'blind' to...

"Well, think about it. Mexico's already had it twice. Canada's soccer prowess? Uhmmm, I think 2 or 3 Caribbean/Central American nations could beat them by a mile. But no Carib/Central American nation that can handle WC sporting demands, comes to mind. 

So, realistically, it's only the US can logistically, sportingly, and financially handle a WC the way it is today. So, why even beat around the bush? "

As for Mexico's hosting a 2nd time by default --so what? The fact and records still indicate that the 1986 WOrld Cup was played in Mexico. The 'default' thing DOES NOT take that away from history. 

So you say about a weak US team? Well, what about China? Australia? Enough about China and Australia. 

Anyway, your 'bias' is still blatantly showing. 

And yours is only 1 opinion. Our is equally valid, if not more so, than yours. So let me say you ARE WRONG!!


----------



## Kuvvaci

China or Australia will get it!


----------



## Overground

Part of the problem in regards to Canada hosting is infrastructure. Canada's main sport is ice hockey and arguably the best in the world at it, with the best facilities for that sport. The problem is that they are covered ice hockey arenas that hold 20k people, and we've got heaps of those to boot. The money that goes into this sport kills on anything else. Canada's other traditionally main sport is Canadian football or CFL. Unfortunately due to cost, most or all of these stadia are old and need replacing or completely refurbished. Not an impossible task though.


The thing about Australia, a smaller country then Canada by a third in population is their main sports are grass sports obviously and their stadia can support cricket, rugby, football - oblong and round, and rugby. Cut most of those in half and replace them with ice rinks and you get the idea. 

Football is very popular in Canada and the sport maintains the most registered players than any other. Football in Canada is competing with mainly ice hockey, CFL, basketball, American grid-iron, and everything else under the sun. But the interest is there especially with the popularity of Toronto FC. It's just going to take awhile for it to get bigger.


----------



## rover3

Kuvvaci said:


> China or Australia will get it!


Yeah, in 2026 or 2030!! :lol: :lol:


----------



## theespecialone

no, rover3, they will get the world cup in 2022.


----------



## Kuvvaci

rover3 said:


> Yeah, in 2026 or 2030!! :lol: :lol:


why? the logical resul is China or australia for 2022

read the post of woozoo once more please. You can understand better.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=22530404&postcount=80


----------



## woozoo

> Kuvvaci wonderful post


Thanks 



> As for Mexico's hosting a 2nd time by default --so what? The fact and records still indicate that the 1986 WOrld Cup was played in Mexico. The 'default' thing DOES NOT take that away from history.


You don't understand. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I will explain again.
Yes, Mexico held it twice, therefore the records indicate it held it twice. Thats why it won't get it for a very very long time to come.
The reason I mentioned it was by default was because Mexico held the cup twice with a space of 16 years. The only reason Mexico could hold the cup twice in such a short period of time was because it was by default.


> So you say about a weak US team? Well, what about China? Australia? Enough about China and Australia.


Come on man, this is not rocket science. China and Australia would be hosting the cup for the first time, not the second like the US.
FIFA has given the hosting privileges to weaker countries in the past: South Africa, Japan/Korea, Columbia, Sweden. 
It has only awarded the cup to powerful football antions a second time.



> Anyway, your 'bias' is still blatantly showing.


So is yours. At least I'm being realistic and am backing up my arguments with facts.



> And yours is only 1 opinion. Our is equally valid, if not more so, than yours. So let me say you ARE WRONG!!


Your "plural" opinion? Is there 2 or 3 of you sitting behind that computer screen putting your heads together to rebut my arguments?
How is your opinion more valid?





I have had a look at Canada's stadiums. Like you said, not enough grass pitch stadiums that have the capacity. Also, not enough demand for those stadiums. Grass pitch sports don't have the spectator following needed in Canada. Canada could probably build them, but FIFA wouldn't allow it if they stay empty after the cup.


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

I absolutely agree with woozoo's posts


----------



## Benjuk

Best change for Australia would be if FIFA were to relax the rule on the number of stadia per city... If Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne were each allowed 2 stadiums, with Perth and Adelaide chipping in one each, then they'd only need one more (probably Newcastle, which is already being extended), or maybe a heavilly revamped Aussie Stadium in Canberra.

Unfortunately, this doesn't match up to FIFA's desire to 'spread the game either geographically (no stadium in North Queensland, the NT, or Tassie), or in terms of stadium developement, or in terms of Australia's limited population.

I doubt that there's any question, even in the most anti-Aussie minds, that the country itself would be excellent hosts for the finals (so long as faclities are in place).


----------



## Kuvvaci

I don't think FIFA will change its rules.


----------



## Iain1974

I doubt FIFA will change their rules for the convenience of one nation of 20M who have a minimal interest in football. If that make them 'anti-Aussie' then so be it.


----------



## Kuvvaci

not only for this. If FIFA will give the WC to Australia they will want the interest to football in australia must be increase. And for this FIFA wants a nation wide tournement.


----------



## www.sercan.de

As rover said, after 2010 and 2014 again (2022) a WC in the Southern hemisphere?

But i would prefer Australia before USA and China.


----------



## Benjuk

Iain1974 said:


> I doubt FIFA will change their rules for the convenience of one nation of 20M who have a minimal interest in football. If that make them 'anti-Aussie' then so be it.


Don't missunderstand me, I'm not saying that FIFA not changing the rules, or people preferring other venues, is 'anti-Aussie', all I'm saying is that few would deny that IF the finals were awarded to Oz, it would do a great job.

I'm also not suggesting that FIFA should change the rules - merely saying that the best chance Aussie would have would be if the rules were changed... I simply can't see us getting it any other way - there are too many other countries who can meet the required standards more effectively.

I'm not anti-Aussie, or pro-Aussie, just very realistic. Which is why I still believe it will be England in 2018, followed by either China or the USA in 2022, with 2026 being in somewhere like Argentina (unless FIFA change the rules again in order to have 2026 in Europe and free up 2030 for Uruguay/Argentina).


----------



## hngcm

^^I think 2026 will go to either China or the USA, whichever doesn't get 2022


----------



## woozoo

> I'm also not suggesting that FIFA should change the rules - merely saying that the best chance Aussie would have would be if the rules were changed...


I agree. Australia already has, or is building the stadiums needed to host the world cup, but Melbourne and Sydney have 3 and 2 respectively, meaning some of the countries best stadiums cannot be used. 



> I simply can't see us getting it any other way - there are too many other countries who can meet the required standards more effectively.


I think we have established that realistically, the 2022 host is either going to be China or Australia, or arguably the USA (Most non American's don't see this happening).
Therefore Australia is not competing with other countries and their facilities, but with China.

Melbourne and Sydney's stadiums which will not be used.

Telstra Dome 53,000.









Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Currently under construction. 33,000 with plans and foundations to upgrade to over 50,000 if Australia get world cup.









and Sydney Football Ground 45,000










These three would be unused during a world cup.

However, thanks to docker, the first page of this thread has a post which shows possible stadiums to be used.

1) MCG Melbourne. 100,000.









2) Telstra stadium Sydney. 83,000.









3) Perth new stadium. 60,000. Building to start in 2009.









4) Sucorp stadium Brisbane. 57,000.









5) Skilled park Gold Coast. 27,000. Easily upgradeable to 40,000 as The regions population increases dramatically (around 500,00 today. Estimated between 706,000 - 833,000, most likely 807,000 by 2022).









6) Adelaide new stadium. 60,000. Serious talks of a new stadium have been going on for a couple of years now. The world cup would surely push the government and other bodies to build the stadium.

7) Energy Australia stadium. Newcastle. 33,000 with current proposed redevelopment. Built with option of increasing capacity to 40,000 for world cup.









8) Bruce Stadium Canberra. Currently 25,000. Would need redevelopment to 40,000. The current ground sells out on occasions, and is too small to be used for big international matches. Having a bigger stadium wold allow Canberra to host international matches of football and two rugby codes after the world cup. With a projected population of just under 400,000 by 2022, a stadium of this size may be viable. Building the stadium with removable seating is another possibility. 









9) Perth rectangular stadium, to be used by Perth Glory football club, Western Force Rugby Union club and proposed Perth Rugby League club, as well as hosting those three sports international matches, after the world cup.
Either that or one of the three stadiums from Melbourne or Sydney could be used as the second stadium per city venue.

Australia has the capability of providing the venues needed for a world cup. What you guys think?


----------



## en1044

woozoo said:


> I think we have established that realistically, the 2022 host is either going to be China or Australia, or arguably the USA (Most non American's don't see this happening).


Youre damn right Americans dont see that happening, because the idea has not been established.


----------



## woozoo

Chinas current stadiums:
Bejing Olympic stadium 91,000:

















Guangzhao 81,000 (Damn this looks good):









Shanghai 80,000:









Sheyang 70,000 (This looks impressive too):

















Najing 60,000 (theyre all pretty impressive):

















Tianjin 60,000:









Wuhan 60,000:









Quindao 60,000:









Chonqing 58,680:


















I have shown the most modern venues. None are more than 20 years old. There are about another 5 or 10 stadiums above 40,000 in China which are older so I haven't shown them. As far as I can tell they all have running tracks around them.

China could certainly build several purpose built rectangular stadiums as the country has only several clubs in the national league which regularly have attendances in the tens of thousands.


----------



## Kuvvaci

woozoo said:


> Chinas current stadiums:
> Bejing Olympic stadium 91,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guangzhao 81,000 (Damn this looks good):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shanghai 80,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheyang 70,000 (This looks impressive too):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najing 60,000 (theyre all pretty impressive):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tianjin 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuhan 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quindao 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chonqing 58,680:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown the most modern venues. None are more than 20 years old. There are about another 5 or 10 stadiums above 40,000 in China which are older so I haven't shown them. As far as I can tell they all have running tracks around them.
> 
> China could certainly build several purpose built rectangular stadiums as the country has only several clubs in the national league which regularly have attendances in the tens of thousands.


I think they can use 5 of them because of the athletic tracks. But in 2002, the stadia with tracks were 7.


----------



## aussiescraperman

i don't see why the wouldn't change the rule about having 1 stadium per city for Australia's bid....we don't have many cities? all of our 5 major cities would still be represented, so what's all the fuss about?


----------



## rover3

Who cares about all these beautiful stadia? Brazil and South Africa had rundown stadia, and they got WCs. 

The Arab states can probably put up 20 state-of-the-art stadia overnight; that doesn't mean the World Cup is going their way any time soon. 

So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia *don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22.* Only a few of you are so enamored of this idea. But it's all a pipe dream.


----------



## woozoo

> So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22.


Why?


----------



## www.sercan.de

*Stop beeing aggressive and insulting other user*


How is the infrastructure in the Chinese stadiums? 
although they have very moden and beautiful, its about Football.
They definitely need more football stadiums


----------



## theespecialone

rover3 said:


> Who cares about all these beautiful stadia? Brazil and South Africa had rundown stadia, and they got WCs.
> 
> The Arab states can probably put up 20 state-of-the-art stadia overnight; that doesn't mean the World Cup is going their way any time soon.
> 
> So all these pics of Chinese and Aussie stadia *don't mean a whole lot -- because they are weak candidates for 2018 and '22.* Only a few of you are so enamored of this idea. But it's all a pipe dream.



chinia and australia are stronger candidates than the usa.


----------



## en1044

theespecialone said:


> chinia and australia are stronger candidates than the usa.


no. The only knock against the US is the time between hosting the WC. The US is stronger than China and Australia in every other way. You just dont like the US, as you have made it clear.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

Kuvvaci said:


> not only for this. If FIFA will give the WC to Australia they will want the interest to football in australia must be increase. And for this FIFA wants a nation wide tournement.


I think there are already Water-Closets in Australia,.... :lol:


----------



## aaronaugi1

Kuvvaci said:


> not only for this. If FIFA will give the WC to Australia they will want the interest to football in australia must be increase. And for this FIFA wants a nation wide tournement.


Australia does have a national football league. It has been in motion for 15 years or so now and has recently been reconfigured and has grown largely in the last 2-3years. Average attendance for the league has lifted from around 10,500 to around 15,000 including finals/play-offs with some clubs attracting 25,000+fans per game on average. Thats more than EPL clubs (or former clubs) such as Charlton, Bolton and Middlesborough, more than Italian club Lazio or Bordeaux in France


----------



## GunnerJacket

aaronaugi1 said:


> Australia does have a national football league. It has been in motion for 15 years or so now and has recently been reconfigured and has grown largely in the last 2-3years. *Average attendance for the league has lifted from around 10,500 to around 15,000 including finals/play-offs with some clubs attracting 25,000+fans per game on average.* Thats more than EPL clubs (or former clubs) such as Charlton, Bolton and Middlesborough, more than Italian club Lazio or Bordeaux in France


I'm quite appreciative of how well the A League has progressed recently, but... Change your _some_ to _one_: The Melbourne Victory have surpassed 26k the past two seasons, but no one else has surpassed 17k for the regular season. (I don't have post-season data at my fingertips.)


I do think it's time FIFA end the stadiums-per city rule, or at least amend it to allow greater flexibility. Otherwise many worthwhile countries would be left out of the process or at least find it all the more difficult. I've no problem with FIFA keeping that measure as a preference and even voting in favor of nations employing that standard, as it's a good way to encourage investment in the game. But for nations like England, Australia, Argentina and others that feature fewer major metro areas but several with worthy facilities, than why arbitrarily force conditions that could yield a weaker event? If Everton and Liverpool both feature new facilities of 55k or greater size, surely the games and the nation would be better using both those stadiums as opposed to mandating a 40k in some other community like Ipswich.* Wouldn't FIFA appreciate this flexibility as it might yield more bids and ultimately increase the field of potential applicants?

*= This selection was completely spontaneous and arbitrary on my part. I've nothing against Ipswich and assume they're perfectly capable of successfully hosting some WC games, and unless hearing otherwise I'll presume the people of Ipswich and the surrounding areas are perfectly lovely citizens.


----------



## rover3

woozoo said:


> Why?


Jeez, do I REALLY have to spell it out? hno:

*#1 - China*:

- They missed out on the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup. That had to go to the US to save the tournament. 

- Their human rights/wrongs record has really made a mess of things for the IOC this year. Do you really think FIFA would want to go thru the trials and tribulations again of 2008 (unless China quickly became less of a paranoid, honestly democratic society?) 

- They can barely clean the pollution for one city now (Beijing), what about 8 or 9 other cities when it's their turn? hno:

- Does not have a very healthy soccer culture. 

*#2 - Australia*

As has been noted before, but I guess it has to be SPELLED OUT again.

- SMALL COUNTRY. What good is a 20mil market for FIFA's global partners and sponsors when they have a 500 mil (North America & the Caribbean) market available as an alternative? 

- 3rd SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE WC in 4 or 5 rounds? Highly unlikely. 

*#3 - The USA:*

- bigger country; 

- better infrastructure 

- the US has a proven record or good organization (why else would FIFA have moved Women's 2003 w/ less than a year's notice?); so FIFA will not have to go thru the trials and threats it is now issuing to South Africa in the light of the Port Elizabeth stadium delays...

- if the dollar still weak, therefore a great bargain for Euro fans 

- active up-and-coming football culture; in the 13 years since MLS was founded, there are *14*, count 'em, franchises now. That's a little more than one a year! _*What league has developed that fast? *_ The women's football program/culture is the strongest in the world. 

- And you do know that organizations like FIFA and the IOC are not above occasionally recognizing past favors done to them or for exceptionally good work performed for their cause? 

- still holds the BIGGEST ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF ANY WORLD CUP and that was when it was only a *24-team *tournament!! Can you imagine the reception and success for a *32-team *tournament?? 

[Besides, with China and Australia both belonging to the Asian confederation, only 1 -- *NOT BOTH *-- can hope to host 2026! The other (probably Australia) will have to wait another 24 years for them to host. So, consecutively, DUH!! hno: ]

Therefore, to me, in simple logic, 2022 points to a stronger USA suit than either of those two other countries.


----------



## Skyline_FFM

And you can already go from any European mid-size airport to a lot of different American cities! And vice-versa!


----------



## Gherkin

I'd like to see China or Australia but 2022's pretty much guaranteed for the USA unless England fail their bid for 2018. We won't now that until 2011 though.


----------



## aaronaugi1

rover3 said:


> *#2 - Australia*
> 
> As has been noted before, but I guess it has to be SPELLED OUT again.
> 
> - SMALL COUNTRY. What good is a 20mil market for FIFA's global partners and sponsors when they have a 500 mil (North America & the Caribbean) market available as an alternative?
> 
> - 3rd SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE WC in 4 or 5 rounds? Highly unlikely.


Small country population wise but still the 14th largest economy in the world and considering its low base, huge growth potential in the market. 

Also, i though it read that Australia was bidding for 2018 and China was bidding for 2022. My understanding is FIFA is awarding the hosts of 18 and 22 at the same time and a single country can only bid for one. The AFC outlined they didn't want Australia and China going head-to-head and thus Australia was going to bid in 2018 against England and the US, while China would attempt 2022...?


----------



## Benjuk

One of the ideas behind the minimum standards for stadiums, and the number of locations for stadiums, is to try and encourage the expansion of the game. If you tell England that they can use 4 stadia in London, 2 each in Manchester and Liverpool, etc., there would be no growth in the country due to the world cup - on the other hand, if you say that the rules stay in place, and there must be a spread of venues around the country, you increase the likelihood of top quality venues being built in the South East/South Coast area, and in the Yorkshire area, due to suitable top class venues not being available (possibly East Anglia as well). This was the case in Germany, is the case in South Africa, and looks set to be the case in Brazil as well.

The construction of major stadiums ensures top class facilities for football in the future. The general guideline about reducing the number of running tracks appears to be based on the idea that if the stadiums are football specific it increases the need for them to be used for major football events.

On similar lines, deep down, I suspect FIFA would still have a major problem with having the World Cup Final played at the Melbourne CRICKET Ground.


----------



## Benjuk

aaronaugi1 said:


> Small country population wise but still the 14th largest economy in the world and considering its low base, huge growth potential in the market.
> 
> Also, i though it read that Australia was bidding for 2018 and China was bidding for 2022. My understanding is FIFA is awarding the hosts of 18 and 22 at the same time and a single country can only bid for one. The AFC outlined they didn't want Australia and China going head-to-head and thus Australia was going to bid in 2018 against England and the US, while China would attempt 2022...?


China and Australia couldn't host 2018 and 2022 as they are in the same footballing federation. If Australia gets 2018, China would have to wait until 2030, and vice versa.


----------



## Sagaris

rover3 said:


> *#3 - The USA:*
> 
> - bigger country;
> 
> - better infrastructure
> 
> - the US has a proven record or good organization (why else would FIFA have moved Women's 2003 w/ less than a year's notice?); so FIFA will not have to go thru the trials and threats it is now issuing to South Africa in the light of the Port Elizabeth stadium delays...
> 
> - if the dollar still weak, therefore a great bargain for Euro fans
> 
> - active up-and-coming football culture; in the 13 years since MLS was founded, there are *14*, count 'em, franchises now. That's a little more than one a year! _*What league has developed that fast? *_ The women's football program/culture is the strongest in the world.
> 
> - And you do know that organizations like FIFA and the IOC are not above occasionally recognizing past favors done to them or for exceptionally good work performed for their cause?
> 
> - still holds the BIGGEST ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF ANY WORLD CUP and that was when it was only a *24-team *tournament!! Can you imagine the reception and success for a *32-team *tournament??
> 
> Therefore, to me, in simple logic, 2022 points to a stronger USA suit than either of those two other countries.[/SIZE]


Your "simple logic" is flawed. Yes, USA is big but China is just as big in land and bigger in populace. If the US dollar being weak makes things cheaper for Europeans, then what does a really weak Yuan do? And how do the americans have a up-and-coming football culture? The sport is nothing there, it doesnt get a sniff beside Basketball, American Football, Baseball, even Hockey, Golf and oval auto racing. Football is one of the most popular sports in China, along with Basketball.

You also didnt mention how the chinese economy is growing rapidly and the American economy isnt. China is getting better at almost everything so in 2022, alot of your points against china may be illegitimate.


----------



## hngcm

That's funny because the MLS has a much higher average attendance than China's league. 

Just because soccer it's the USA's fifth (soon the 4th) sport doesn't mean much, as the USA is fully capable of having 5 healthy leagues competing with each other.


----------



## kamilo

Benjuk said:


> China and Australia couldn't host 2018 and 2022 as they are in the same footballing federation. If Australia gets 2018, China would have to wait until 2030, and vice versa.


that's why i think the chinese were very smart, there's no way Australia is going to beat england for the 2018 WC.


----------



## rover3

Sagaris said:


> 1. The sport is nothing there, it doesnt get a sniff beside Basketball, American Football, Baseball, even Hockey, Golf and oval auto racing. Football is one of the most popular sports in China, along with Basketball.
> 
> 2. You also didnt mention how the chinese economy is growing rapidly and the American economy isnt. China is getting better at almost everything so in 2022, alot of your points against china may be illegitimate.


1. Nothing? I sure didn't hear ONLY the biggest, most charismatic name in the sport saying that when he left a lucrative Real Madrid contract to sign with a, *NOT a CHINESE team, but, God forbid*, a US team. hno: Why don't you tell that to David Beckham? 

Oh, I forgot, Beckham is going to Beijing -- NOT to play but to appear for London 2012!! I guess football in China isn't all that attractive. :lol: 

And pssst, if you don't know it already, the US is big enough to support and accommodate many sports -- including cockfighting!! 

2. China, China, China. Well, will it be more democratic? If the IOC had to probably chose another host for 2008, knowing what they know now, they would've given it to Toronto instead. If anything, China's economy may be more vibrant but that also means *dirtier and more polluted. Not only in Beijing but in all their top cities. * 

Next...


----------



## aaronaugi1

rover3 said:


> 2. China, China, China. Well, will it be more democratic? If the IOC had to probably chose another host for 2008, knowing what they know now, they would've given it to Toronto instead. If anything, China's economy may be more vibrant but that also means *dirtier and more polluted. Not only in Beijing but in all their top cities. *
> 
> Next...


The IOC chose Beijing by a landslide. The vote only made it to the 2nd round and they did so knowing what the pollution would be like and the possible rights issues; let alone all the other cooperation issues the IOC and media are having with the Chinese government.

They chose something they knew would be difficult, wouldn't generate as much dollars as Toronto and would have far more problems along the way. They all knew it, yet they did it. For the sake of Olympism, culture and diversity.

It's unlikely FIFA will do the same. They're pretty much in it for the money and as you mention rover, the US is full of it. They've had their growth spurt in South Africa and will no doubt look back to Europe over the next decade or so. Eitherway, i think FIFA should take a leaf out of the IOC's book and go for the hosts that are more daring, passionate and more "diverse", starting with England.

As for football being the 5th (soon to be 4th) arguement you put forward rover, it is (by attendance) the 3rd largest sport in Australia and the 2nd in China. Domestic attendances dont justify a world cup. Australia's league averages around 15,000/game compared to the MLS (in a country 10x larger in population) of around 16,000 in 2006/2007.


----------



## woozoo

> Jeez, do I REALLY have to spell it out?


Yes. I have been explaining my reasoning several times on this thread. It's about time you start doing the same.



> On similar lines, deep down, I suspect FIFA would still have a major problem with having the World Cup Final played at the Melbourne CRICKET Ground.


Personally I don't like the stadium for soccer, and prefer Telstra Dome.
However the German final was played at the Olympic stadium.
The Japan final was played at the Olympic stadium.
The France final was played at the Olympic stadium, 
The Italy final was played at the Olympic stadium.

While a rectangular stadium would be preferable, I think the fact it fits 100,000 may mean they end up using it. There are no regulations on spectators distance from field, just guidelines.


> 1. Nothing? I sure didn't hear ONLY the biggest, most charismatic name in the sport saying that when he left a lucrative Real Madrid contract to sign with a, NOT a CHINESE team, but, God forbid, a US team.


The fact that the US league needs to buy retired European footballers for the sport to even rate a mention on TV shows how poorly supported the league is.


----------



## rover3

woozoo said:


> The fact that the US league needs to buy retired European footballers for the sport to even rate a mention on TV shows how poorly supported the league is.


Well, that's one sourpuss' POV. No one in America is complaining. 

Besides, what do you care? No one is forcing you to watch MLS. 

If it's good enough for people who pay the tickets, then that's all that matters. Opinions of outside kibitzers like yourself are really inconsequential and irrelevant.


----------



## aaronaugi1

rover3 said:


> Well, that's one sourpuss' POV. No one in America is complaining.
> 
> Besides, what do you care? No one is forcing you to watch MLS.
> 
> If it's good enough for people who pay the tickets, then that's all that matters. Opinions of outside kibitzers like yourself are really inconsequential and irrelevant.


Want to give a reason? Football in the USA has seen Pele, Beckham and Beckenbauer among others and still is no bigger than domestic leagues in countries where it sits in similar stature within the sporting culture.


----------



## theespecialone

Most oval stadiums are fine for football including the MCG and its 100000 capacity will make FIFA accept it regardless of the guidelines


----------



## rover3

aaronaugi1 said:


> Want to give a reason? Football in the USA has seen Pele, Beckham and Beckenbauer among others and still is no bigger than domestic leagues in countries where it sits in similar stature within the sporting culture.


Because unlike certain peoples, Americans are NOT a one-sport people. That's why. If a 'balance in life' reason isn't good enough for you, then I can't help you.


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> Most oval stadiums are fine for football including the MCG and its 100000 capacity will make FIFA accept it regardless of the guidelines


Not so much a case of FIFA being bothered by the shape of the stadium, more the name of the place - that it is named specifically for a sport other than football. Olympic Stadiums are different - not named for a specific sport, more named for an organisation which represents an 'ideal'.


----------



## hngcm

^^ Yeah there's a reason Twickenham won't be used in an English world cup even though it's the 2nd largest stadium in London.


----------



## theespecialone

Benjuk said:


> Not so much a case of FIFA being bothered by the shape of the stadium, more the name of the place - that it is named specifically for a sport other than football. Olympic Stadiums are different - not named for a specific sport, more named for an organisation which represents an 'ideal'.


I dont think FIFA has encountered such a situation before so nobody knows how they would react to the name


----------



## woozoo

> Besides, what do you care? No one is forcing you to watch MLS.


I don't care. I'm just saying that FIFA has only awarded the cup twice to countries where football is the number one sport, with huge support and where it is on TV, radio and newspapers all year round. Even these countries had to wait at least 32 years.


I can't imagine having the word cricket in the name having and REAL significance. Just seems stupid to me.
The Final in 94 was played at the Pasadena Rose *Bowl* (a term meaning college American football game).




On another point:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24025045-5001021,00.html

The Beijing organising committee has also restricted the size of national flags to 1m by 2m to ensure spectators do not block the vision of nearby fans.

Bans have also been slapped on musical instruments, whistles, long-handle umbrellas, animals - other than guide dogs - loudspeakers, radios and food and drink.

Drunkenness, nudity and gambling are also banned from Olympic venues.

China has already issued a range of restrictions on foreigners during the Games, including a ban on protests and sleeping outside during the Olympics.

It has also slashed the number of visas - and visit duration limits - to tourists.

Foreign journalists have also been warned they will not be permitted to interview members of the public without first lodging a form with officials.




Apparently Bibles are also going to be banned, though I don't see how they are going to do this, and this might be just the media blowing up the story because it seems a bit far fetched to me.





The banners and t-shirt ban is bad enough, but along with the restrictions on tourist visa's, FIFA would be seeing this as a major negative for hosting a world cup in China.


----------



## Gherkin

Is anyone on here responsible for The 2018 World Cup page on Wikipedia? Apparently Qatar are officially bidding... hno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_bids


----------



## Mateus_

^^ It's like a bad joke...


----------



## rover3

woozoo said:


> The Final in 94 was played at the Pasadena Rose *Bowl* (a term meaning college American football game).


So what? U seem so stuck on semantics.

If it was so objectionable to FIFA, then they would have said no. It seems to me that it's only prissy minds who can't think outside of a traditional stadium who are having a hard time with this. These fans, yourself includied, should just get over it.


----------



## aCidMinD81

*Spain may bid for 2018 World Cup*

MADRID (AFP) — Spain may compete with England to stage the 2018 World Cup, Spanish media said Thursday, a day after a meeting of the country's football federation.

The head of the federation, Angel Maria Villar, suggested Spain's candidature during the meeting, and was backed by Secretary of State for Sport Jaime Lissavetzky as well as the president of Barcelona football club, Joan Laporta.

The next World Cups are to take place in South Africa in 2010 and in Brazil in 2014.

Only England has so far announced its candidature for 2018. But Belgium and The Netherlands have shown interest in a joint bid, and Russia, Australia and the United States have also been mentioned.

World football's governing body, FIFA, is to announce its choice in 2011.

FIFA President Joseph Blatter in April urged Spain to present its candidature, possibly in a joint bid with Portugal.

Portugal has said it is interested, and the head of the country's football federation, Gilberto Madail, said in May he would raise the issue with Spanish authorities.

A joint Spanish-Portuguese bid was not mentioned during Wednesday's meeting in Madrid.

Spain, which won the Euro 2008 tournament this month, staged the World Cup in 1982.

Link


----------



## Gherkin

Portugal's recent hosting of Euro 2004 will surely affect a joint Portugese/Spanish bid so Spain are better off bidding alone. They've already got some decent stadia and have another ten years to improve before the tournament.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Gherkin007 said:


> Is anyone on here responsible for The 2018 World Cup page on Wikipedia? Apparently Qatar are officially bidding... hno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_bids


so what ? you are not the one thats losing there money, let us try our luck... we will just keep bidding again and again...


----------



## Chimaera

mavn said:


> China will build 12 brand new football specific stadiums. It's not as if they've got a lack of space, money and have to fight local opposition...


A few days ago I did a bit of research, just in case the WC would be taken away from South Africa, but I think and hope that will NOT happen.
But, just in theory, China could be a back-up plan. It has plenty of big stadiums, brand new, spectacular ones but older ones as well that have been renovated. Unfortunately practically all of them have a track. As far as I know Hong Kong Stadium is the exception.

And you're right, space and money are not a problem, neither is local opposition. If it does appear, they simply bulldoze it away...

Concerning 2018: well, obviously I support a Benelux bid  Belgium still has a long way to go however... Although, I guess "long" is quite relative: all it needs is a bit of political decisiveness to get started with those new stadiums.


----------



## GunnerJacket

theespecialone said:


> china would put in a greater effort than they did for the olympics


So says you, and you're entitled to your opinion but lets recall that's all it is. Compared to the World Cup, the Olympics are a concentrated effort that involves (essentially) one metro area and a shorter time period. Success in one does not necessarily translate into success in the other, and we've yet to call this Olympics a success. Sure, the Birds Nest looks fantastic, but there's more at stake than foisting a concrete monument.


> i'd hate to see some of their exceptional athletics stadiums go to waste though


Considering these facilities you're referencing were constructed before China even considered a bid for the World Cup, then it's safe to assume the government had plans for them. If they're going to waste then it's not the fault of FIFA but myopia on the part of the Chinese government. Further, others are suggesting China would build a host of new facilities, which could only compound the problem of white elephants across the country. Perhaps the Chinese government should consider investing their wealth in something other than obese sports arenas? :sly:


----------



## rover3

GunnerJacket said:


> If they're going to waste then it's not the fault of FIFA but myopia on the part of the Chinese government. Further, others are suggesting China would build a host of new facilities, which could only compound the problem of white elephants across the country. Perhaps the Chinese government should consider investing their wealth in something other than obese sports arenas? :sly:



Ah, whadaheck? It's only billions of yuans. If Korea and Japan went on a spree of building 17 new stadia, what's to stop China from doing the same? Why should that spell of madness be limited to Japan and Korea, much smaller countries? China can BUILD 50 new stadia if it wanted to!! Build 'em, China, and the crowds will come... or NOT!! :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

The serious answer is at least Korea and Japan have the standard of living and demand that such facilities see some use and, more importantly, there's not as dire a need for investment in things like utilities, schools, infrastructure, etc.

Playing along, I think the answer is obvious: China wouldn't be satisfied merely mimicking the Japanese - They'd have to top them! Every stadium would thus feature retractable roofing, conversion from athletics to football, and removable fields! After which, the Chinese league could bring Zidane out of retirement, purchase Ronaldinho...


----------



## Benjuk

Having seen the backwards and forwards, form filling, visa chasing, passport waving, etc., that a workmate of mine has had to go through in order to get from Australia to China, with a 2 day trip to Mongolia (just for the hell of it), I would suspect that the biggest barrier between China and a world cup will be the concept of them handling hundreds of thousands of football fans wanting to travel from city to city, congragate en mass to watch games on big screens, sing, drink, wear their colours, etc. Would imagine the authorities having a meltdown as they tried to figure out how to maintain order.


----------



## rover3

Benjuk said:


> Having seen the backwards and forwards, form filling, visa chasing, passport waving, etc., that a workmate of mine has had to go through in order to get from Australia to China, with a 2 day trip to Mongolia (just for the hell of it), I would suspect that the biggest barrier between China and a world cup will be the concept of them handling hundreds of thousands of football fans wanting to travel from city to city, congragate en mass to watch games on big screens, sing, drink, wear their colours, etc. Would imagine the authorities having a meltdown as they tried to figure out how to maintain order.


That's why I don't understand why certain nano-geniuses here INSIST China get the first available WC. hno:


----------



## woozoo

Firstly Benjuk, thankyou for replying and outlining your ideas.


> China will build 12 brand new football specific stadiums. It's not as if they've got a lack of space, money and have to fight local opposition...


No. China's league is too poor to build so many stadiums.
It has a couple of teams which have crowds in the tens of thousands, most teams have crowds of 3,000 to 8,000, bottom teams have crowds of less than 1,000.

FIFA would not allow China to build stadiums that will sit completely empty after the cup.
FIFA wasn’t happy about the white elephants in Japan and Korea. And at least those countries have leagues with much greater support than the Chinese League. Japan also has interest in Rugby and American Football which are played in some of the grounds. The ONLY use for the stadiums in China is 16 games a year in the soccer league per stadium, and several home internationals spread between the grounds.
The extremely high level of poverty in China would also mean that FIFA would not be happy with new stadiums being built for no purpose other than the World cup.



> In footballing terms we are not a significant country.


In footballing terms Australia is number 1 in Asia. Japan is number 2. China is number 10. Yes, *10* in Asia.



> In population terms we are way down the list. We may have one of the larger economies, but compared to China and the USA, our most likely rivals for a non-European world cup, we are tiny.


Yes, but what does this have to do with Australia hosting a good world cup? Other than the much greater promotion of football in the host countries by having the world cup in China and USA.
I know it’s a long way back, but Chile, Sweden and Switzerland have hosted the cup. Much smaller than Australia. If a small country can provide the stadiums, facilities and infrastructure needed, whats holding it back?



> Geographically we're in a horrendous position - not so much our time-zone, more our distance from even our neighbours. And it's a big country too - not great for mass transportation of supporters. I'll never forget the feeling, the first I came here, when the pilot told us "we are now entering Australian airspace... We'll be landing in Melbourne in approx 3 hours."


This is a problem. As it is in China and USA. The intercity transport infrastructure is adequate in Australia.


> With China there is talk that they would build 10-12 new venues instead of using the existing (predominently athletics based) venues.


Not unless their shit league explodes in the next few years. Very unlikely as it is completely fixed and corrupt, and has been since it began.



> With the USA, you can perm any 10 from 40 venues.


Yes. USA has better stadiums than Australia.
But England had better facilities than Japan/Korea 2002, South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014, and it had to wait to get the cup a second time. Because FIFA wants to spread the cup around the world, rather than host it in the same countries over and over.



> With Japan you could have a dozen state of the art, football suitable venues.


Two things are certain.
1) Only football powerhouse nations with very well performing national teams which have won the cup at least once have hosted the cup twice.
2) The shortest period of time between two hostings was 32 years for Germany.
Why would FIFA all of a sudden change its set in stone unwritten policy and give the cup to Japan after 20 years if there are strong bids from Australia and China?



> With several European nations you'd have options of this stadium or that one...


Australia isn't really bidding against European nations, but against CONCACAF and Asian nations.

Firstly if by chance FIFA were to ease its rules for stadiums per city, Australia has fantastic stadiums for the cup.
Unlike most other countries with large population spread around the country, Australia's population is centered around several cities, which would all host games. Almost half the country lives in Melbourne and Sydney. Add to that Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle and Canberra and you have about 70% of the population represented. Every state except Tasmania (population less than 500,000) would games. Every city with metropolitan a population over 300,000 would have a game.

Secondly, even if the rule isn't relaxed, no one has to squeeze games into 7 or 8 stadiums.
1) Perth.
2) Perth.
3) Adelaide.
4) Melbourne.
5) Canberra.
6) Sydney.
7) Newcastle.
8) Gold Coast.
9) Brisbane.
10) Townsville.

Plus other cities you mentioned.



> Out of interest - what is Australia's strong case for hosting the cup? So far as I can say, having been here for the last 8 years, we can say we've hosted the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, and other than a mechanical break-down in the opening ceremony and the (very) late completion of the aquatic centre they both went very well...


I think, as do most other people, that 2022 and 2026 will go to Asia and CONCACAF.
I think that Asia would get it first for two reasons.
1) I can’t see European delegates giving the cup to USA after 28 years. It would bed a major dent in their pride, to have the US, a footballing minnow with little interest in the sport, being the nation with the shortest period of time between hosting the tournament. Lets face it, there is a lot of that sort of feeling around Europe, that the sport definitely belongs to them more than the USA.
2) There are more possible host nations in Asia than CONCACAF. After USA, who will host the next CONCACAF cup? Only possibility is Mexico, who have already hosted twice and don’t have the facilities. 
In Asia, China and Australia area already bidding. You have mentioned UAE, India and Japan as other possibilities. Korea is another possibility in the future.
By giving the cup to Asia first, it allows the cup to return to Asia sooner, and opens up many more nations from Asia to bid sooner.

As far as China is concerned, there are MAJOR issues about hosting the cup there.
Pollution. Billions has been spent to clean up the air for the Olympics, without success. Factories have been closed or moved but air quality is still terrible. With more coal powered power stations being built, and car ales through the roof, pollution will only increase. While industry in Beijing can slow down while the Olympics are in town, there is no way China is going to close down 10 or 12 of its biggest cities for a month while the tournament is on. It would simply cripple the economy.
A large section of the Australian sports team is not participating in the opening ceremony so as to reduce the amount of time spent in Beijing.

Tibet Issue. The Tibet issue is not likely to go away. It has already been troublesome before the Olympics, it is interesting what will happen while they are on.

Civil rights. There have been many reports of mass arrests. Many more will surely be reported after the Olympics take place. Mosques have been shut down for no apparent reason. Journalists have already been given guidelines on what they can and can’t report, and who they can and can’t interview.

Visitors. As you have mentioned, there are MAJOR problems in obtaining a VISA. If there are problems for a couple of hundred thousand visitors for they Olympics, I can’t imagine the situation when several million want to turn up for the cup.

Visitor restrictions. What will the millions of visitors do for the days they are not watching football? What will hundreds of thousands of fans do when they don’t get tickets to the match they want to see? China is placing restrictions on numbers of visitors allowed to popular tourist destinations during the games. How will the Chinese authorities cope for hundreds of thousands of boisterous football fans used to having civil rights?

Stadium restrictions. As I wrote in another thread:


> The Beijing organising committee has also restricted the size of national flags to 1m by 2m to ensure spectators do not block the vision of nearby fans.
> 
> Bans have also been slapped on musical instruments, whistles, long-handle umbrellas, animals - other than guide dogs - loudspeakers, radios and food and drink.
> 
> Drunkenness, nudity and gambling are also banned from Olympic venues.
> 
> China has already issued a range of restrictions on foreigners during the Games, including a ban on protests and sleeping outside during the Olympics.
> 
> It has also slashed the number of visas - and visit duration limits - to tourists.
> 
> Foreign journalists have also been warned they will not be permitted to interview members of the public without first lodging a form with officials.
> 
> Apparently Bibles are also going to be banned, though I don't see how they are going to do this, and this might be just the media blowing up the story because it seems a bit far fetched to me.


As far as Australia’s strong case for hosting the cup?

Adequate stadiums a real possibility.
Great atmosphere for fans. Adequate restaurants, pubs and touristy things for visitors to do.
Adequate infrastructure (Intercity Transport, City transport, Hospitals, 5 star accommodation, low end accommodation).

Huge experience in hosting major events.
I think most people will agree the Sydney Olympics were the best in recent times, arguably behind Barcelona.
Commonwealth Games were also very well run.
World youth day (several hundred thousand vistors to Australia and Sydney over a couple of days).
Rugby world cup.


----------



## rover3

3 of 4 or 5 WCs in the Southern Hemisphere? Bring 'em on!!


----------



## SeñorGuillermo

I want Mexico to host a world cup whitin the next 20 years.
USA hosted the cup on 1994 and Mexico on the 86th.
So it would be fair if we go before the USA.

Cheers.


----------



## SeñorGuillermo

Mexico can easly host a World Cup whit stae of the art stadiums.
Currently we have 5 new stadiums under contruction all of them over 32,000 seats.
And some whit over 65,000.
Others are 45,000.
All under construction.

*And I think the shortest time line between a country hosting a cup was Mexcio 1970 and 1986.

Cheers.


----------



## hngcm

There's no way Mexico will get the World Cup a third time before the USA gets it a second time. 

What 5 stadiums?

I can only name the new Chivas stadium and the Ciudad Juarez one. I also know of the Santos stadium but that's only 25,000.


----------



## theespecialone

woozoo said:


> Secondly, even if the rule isn't relaxed, no one has to squeeze games into 7 or 8 stadiums.
> *1) Perth.
> 2) Perth.*
> 3) Adelaide.
> 4) Melbourne.
> 5) Canberra.
> 6) Sydney.
> 7) Newcastle.
> 8) Gold Coast.
> 9) Brisbane.
> 10) Townsville.


you're from perth


----------



## theespecialone

2022 is Asia's turn


----------



## woozoo

I'm from Melbourne.
It would be easier if Perth hosted an entire group. It would save players and fans traveling across the Nullabor. 

For this to occur it would need two stadiums.


----------



## theespecialone

don't think perth has the demand for 2 stadiums

how long does it take to travel between perth and adelaide?


----------



## woozoo

Several hours by plane.

It has demand for a rectangular stadium. 
Mostly for the rugby union team there, but also for the proposed Rugby league team.

Perth Glory crowds are too small at present for such a ground.

A rectangular ground also means Perth could host:
Rugby Union internationals.
Rugby league internationals.
Soccer internationals, which so far are absent from Western Australia due to no suitable ground.


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> Firstly Benjuk, thankyou for replying and outlining your ideas.


No problem, I'm always happy to answer and will never hide behind silence.



woozoo said:


> China's league is too poor to build so many stadiums.
> It has a couple of teams which have crowds in the tens of thousands, most teams have crowds of 3,000 to 8,000, bottom teams have crowds of less than 1,000.


To be perfectly honest, I had never even bothered to look up attendances for football in China, I wasn't aware that they were so poor, but I'm not all that surprised. That said, if the authorities over there TELL the people to go, the people will go... If you know what I mean.



woozoo said:


> FIFA would not allow China to build stadiums that will sit completely empty after the cup.
> FIFA wasn’t happy about the white elephants in Japan and Korea. And at least those countries have leagues with much greater support than the Chinese League. Japan also has interest in Rugby and American Football which are played in some of the grounds. The ONLY use for the stadiums in China is 16 games a year in the soccer league per stadium, and several home internationals spread between the grounds.


Cuts both ways though, doesn't it? How often would a 'football specific' stadium anywhere other than the big 5 cities in Oz be used to anywhere near a 40k capacity..? Even in Perth and Adelaide, honestly, how often would more than 20k seats be required?



woozoo said:


> The extremely high level of poverty in China would also mean that FIFA would not be happy with new stadiums being built for no purpose other than the World cup.


Frankly, for all their talk of urban regeneration, FIFA couldn't give a stuff about poverty levels - all that means to them is that they won't be selling any merchandise to those people.



woozoo said:


> In footballing terms Australia is number 1 in Asia. Japan is number 2. China is number 10. Yes, *10* in Asia.


In terms of the world rankings, Australia is number 1, yes - but the fact is that Oz has only qualified for 2 world cup finals tournaments, and we got knocked out of the Asian Cup last year without much more than a whimper.



woozoo said:


> what does this [population] have to do with Australia hosting a good world cup? Other than the much greater promotion of football in the host countries by having the world cup in China and USA.
> I know it’s a long way back, but Chile, Sweden and Switzerland have hosted the cup. Much smaller than Australia. If a small country can provide the stadiums, facilities and infrastructure needed, whats holding it back?


Once again, it doesn't stop us hosting a great world cup - but it puts our bid behind other more attractive bids.

Forget Chile, Sweden and Switzerland - as you said, it's a long way back in a different age. FIFA didn't suss out commercialisation until just before Blatter took over. So, yes, it comes down to market expansion...

Europe gets regular finals to keep them happy - this makes sense, because if UEFA split away from FIFA, FIFA would be screwed, the only big draws they'd have would be Brazil and Argentina.

South Africa got it, and as a result gets to promote the game to the whole of Africa - Africans, by and large, appearing to take almost as much pride in being African as they do in their own individual nationality (I say that as an outsider, any Africans feel free to tell me I'm talking out my arse - I often do)

Australia's small population, and our lack of real connection with Asia (and distance from even our close neighbours), works heavily against us in this respect.



woozoo said:


> This is a problem. As it is in China and USA. The intercity transport infrastructure is adequate in Australia.


Exactly, so our bid is no better than an American bid in this respect, although a lot better than a Chinese bid.



woozoo said:


> Yes. USA has better stadiums than Australia.
> But England had better facilities than Japan/Korea 2002, South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014, and it had to wait to get the cup a second time. Because FIFA wants to spread the cup around the world, rather than host it in the same countries over and over.


England vs Japan/Korea in 2002, South Africa in 2010 and Brazil in 2014 is a red herring as England wasn't able to bid for any of these finals - 2002 was designation as non-European after France 98, 2010 was designated to Africa, and 2014 was designated to South America. The only country England has bid against for a second world cup was Germany, who got THEIR second world cup (and beat England principally because England stuffed up politically by supporting Blatter against Johansen a few years before the voting that UEFA had tied up).



woozoo said:


> Two things are certain.
> 1) Only football powerhouse nations with very well performing national teams which have won the cup at least once have hosted the cup twice.
> 2) The shortest period of time between two hostings was 32 years for Germany.
> Why would FIFA all of a sudden change its set in stone unwritten policy and give the cup to Japan after 20 years if there are strong bids from Australia and China?


Whilst I accept that Mexico were awarded their second World Cup by default, it still remains that they hosted twice in 16 years and have never won the world cup.

As for FIFA changing it's unwritten policy... They change their written policies regularly enough, so the unwritten ones should be a problem. Japan saved FIFA's blushes in 2002, picking up the slack that Korea couldn't handle. They've hosted half a world cup. They represent the biggest market in terms of cashed up populace in Asia. There are lots of commercial sponsorship possibilities for FIFA in Japan (in terms of major corporations based in the country). They already have better facilities than most other countries in Asia. It would be enormously tempting for FIFA to say 20 years is long enough.



woozoo said:


> Australia isn't really bidding against European nations, but against CONCACAF and Asian nations.


True enough, but the title of this thread refers to 2018. Which will involve bidding by European nations.



woozoo said:


> Firstly if by chance FIFA were to ease its rules for stadiums per city, Australia has fantastic stadiums for the cup.
> Unlike most other countries with large population spread around the country, Australia's population is centered around several cities, which would all host games. Almost half the country lives in Melbourne and Sydney. Add to that Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle and Canberra and you have about 70% of the population represented. Every state except Tasmania (population less than 500,000) would games. Every city with metropolitan a population over 300,000 would have a game.


The NT would also be lacking representation... And couldn't many other smaller population countries say the same thing - that most of their population lives in a few big cities so can they double up on stadia per city?



woozoo said:


> Secondly, even if the rule isn't relaxed, no one has to squeeze games into 7 or 8 stadiums.
> 1) Perth.
> 2) Perth *white elephant*.
> 3) Adelaide.
> 4) Melbourne.
> 5) Canberra. *white elephant*
> 6) Sydney.
> 7) Newcastle.
> 8) Gold Coast.
> 9) Brisbane.
> 10) Townsville. *white elephant*
> 
> Plus other cities you mentioned.
> 
> I think, as do most other people, that 2022 and 2026 will go to Asia and CONCACAF.
> I think that Asia would get it first for two reasons.
> 1) I can’t see European delegates giving the cup to USA after 28 years. It would bed a major dent in their pride, to have the US, a footballing minnow with little interest in the sport, being the nation with the shortest period of time between hosting the tournament. Lets face it, there is a lot of that sort of feeling around Europe, that the sport definitely belongs to them more than the USA.
> 2) There are more possible host nations in Asia than CONCACAF. After USA, who will host the next CONCACAF cup? Only possibility is Mexico, who have already hosted twice and don’t have the facilities.
> In Asia, China and Australia area already bidding. You have mentioned UAE, India and Japan as other possibilities. Korea is another possibility in the future.
> By giving the cup to Asia first, it allows the cup to return to Asia sooner, and opens up many more nations from Asia to bid sooner.
> 
> As far as China is concerned, there are MAJOR issues about hosting the cup there.
> Pollution. Billions has been spent to clean up the air for the Olympics, without success. Factories have been closed or moved but air quality is still terrible. With more coal powered power stations being built, and car ales through the roof, pollution will only increase. While industry in Beijing can slow down while the Olympics are in town, there is no way China is going to close down 10 or 12 of its biggest cities for a month while the tournament is on. It would simply cripple the economy.
> A large section of the Australian sports team is not participating in the opening ceremony so as to reduce the amount of time spent in Beijing.
> 
> Tibet Issue. The Tibet issue is not likely to go away. It has already been troublesome before the Olympics, it is interesting what will happen while they are on.
> 
> Civil rights. There have been many reports of mass arrests. Many more will surely be reported after the Olympics take place. Mosques have been shut down for no apparent reason. Journalists have already been given guidelines on what they can and can’t report, and who they can and can’t interview.
> 
> Visitors. As you have mentioned, there are MAJOR problems in obtaining a VISA. If there are problems for a couple of hundred thousand visitors for they Olympics, I can’t imagine the situation when several million want to turn up for the cup.
> 
> Visitor restrictions. What will the millions of visitors do for the days they are not watching football? What will hundreds of thousands of fans do when they don’t get tickets to the match they want to see? China is placing restrictions on numbers of visitors allowed to popular tourist destinations during the games. How will the Chinese authorities cope for hundreds of thousands of boisterous football fans used to having civil rights?


On the whole - 
Agree regarding 2022 being an Asian year... 
Agree that China has terrible problems in terms of civil rights, polution... However, FIFA have proven in the past that they don't care about civil rights (Blatter negotiating with leaders of countries with abysmal civil rights records at the same time that the rest of the world is shunning them for example). 



woozoo said:


> As far as Australia’s strong case for hosting the cup?
> 
> Adequate stadiums a real possibility.
> Great atmosphere for fans. Adequate restaurants, pubs and touristy things for visitors to do.
> Adequate infrastructure (Intercity Transport, City transport, Hospitals, 5 star accommodation, low end accommodation).
> 
> Huge experience in hosting major events.
> I think most people will agree the Sydney Olympics were the best in recent times, arguably behind Barcelona.
> Commonwealth Games were also very well run.
> World youth day (several hundred thousand vistors to Australia and Sydney over a couple of days).
> Rugby world cup.


All of the above events were run brilliantly - but the number of people travelling around the country shouldn't be underestimated. A few hundred thousand hitting a huge city for a one or two week event is one thing, several hundred thousand arriving and then bouncing around from city to city for a month is another. However, as I've said before, and will continue to say, Australia would host perfectly well.

I travel on Connex everyday, so forgive me for s******ing at the comment about city transport. ;-)
(love the over zealous censorship there, don't you? ^^^)



woozoo said:


> I'm from Melbourne.
> It would be easier if Perth hosted an entire group. It would save players and fans traveling across the Nullabor.
> 
> For this to occur it would need two stadiums.


Hosting an entire group doesn't solve the transport issue. I went to Germany in 2006 and spent the whole fortnight zig-zagging around the country because I had tickets for random fixtures rather than to follow specific teams (basically, I had what I could get). Imagine the nightmare of going to Townsville or a game, then having to jet over to Perth the next day, then get back to Sydney for the day after... Although I totally accept the argument that this is a lot easier for a few supporters than for 8000 followers of Sweden or Holland, for example... For the record, I suggested Perth being the two city venue on another thread some time ago.

Oh, and let's not do the point-by-point thing again, it's exhausting trying to remember where quotes start and stop, etc. ;-)


----------



## Mo Rush

woozoo said:


> FIFA would not allow China to build stadiums that will sit completely empty after the cup.
> FIFA wasn’t happy about the white elephants in Japan and Korea.


I'm not sure FIFA care very much. As long as venues are built and meet FIFA requirements. FIFA only considers a proposal. A "legacy" obsessed FIFA would not have allowed 20 stadia to be used in 2002 in the first place.


----------



## rover3

Benjuk said:


> Oh, and let's not do the point-by-point thing again, it's exhausting trying to remember where quotes start and stop, etc. ;-)



I know. So much copy for an Oz 2018 /2022 that is NOT going to happen. 

I mean, surely you guys have better things to do? :nuts:


----------



## MoreOrLess

Benjuk said:


> Having seen the backwards and forwards, form filling, visa chasing, passport waving, etc., that a workmate of mine has had to go through in order to get from Australia to China, with a 2 day trip to Mongolia (just for the hell of it), I would suspect that the biggest barrier between China and a world cup will be the concept of them handling hundreds of thousands of football fans wanting to travel from city to city, congragate en mass to watch games on big screens, sing, drink, wear their colours, etc. Would imagine the authorities having a meltdown as they tried to figure out how to maintain order.


Getting a Visa isnt any harder than anywhere else in my expereince providing you don't visit areas like Tibet. I'd guess one of China's big strenghts besides the possibility of being a large market would be organisation and infrastructure compaired to other devolping countries.


----------



## Benjuk

rover3 said:


> I know. So much copy for an Oz 2018 /2022 that is NOT going to happen.
> 
> I mean, surely you guys have better things to do? :nuts:


:dunno: Not really.

It's an interesting enough debate for those of us who live in Oz and would like a World Cup here. It's good to discuss WHY something will or will not happen. It's good to read and listen to the opinion of others (unlike some on this board I take in what others have to say, and as a result of the recent back and forth with my learned colleague I'm now less sure of China's chances for 2022 - although no more confident of Australias, but that's just my inbuilt negativity coming through).


----------



## woozoo

> I know. So much copy for an Oz 2018 /2022 that is NOT going to happen.
> 
> I mean, surely you guys have better things to do?


Nope. I'm on holidays from uni and have a cold, so I divide my daytime hours between this forum and FIFA 08 pretty much.

I'm sorry I don't respond to comments with stupid simplistic one liners like yourself.

As for Benjuks response, I know this thread name is about 2018, but it has grown to be about world cup bids in general. What you have written in this thread and others indicates you don't believe the world cup will be coming to Australia anytime soon, and I wanted to discuss this with you.
Basically Australia is competing against other Asian countries, agreed? I just can't imagine the cup going to Japan in 2022/2026. The only reason the cup went to Mexico a second time after 16 years is because it had to be played in the Western hemisphere, and Brazil or Argentina didn't put their hands up. Mexico was light years ahead of any other CONCACAF team in terms of football quality. Basically, as well as getting the cup by default, there was no real competition for Mexico in 1986. Japan has strong contenders.

So I see the competition is between China and Australia

As far as I see it, China has three advantages:
*Slightly closer to Europe (but not any closer to South America). However for a month long tournament, a few more hours on the plane won't make that much of a difference. I'm guessing the players would rather spend a few more hours on a plane than breath in smog for a month.
*More "Asian" than Australia, but I doubt countries like Vietnam, Korea or Japan would rather have the cup in China, a long time adversary, than in Australia (there were riots after the 2004 AFC final when Japan bet China in Beijing).
*The big one, much more potential for growth.

Thats all it has over Australia.
I have written the negatives I see about China previously. The biggest ones I see are trouble getting Visa's, and over the top rules for fans which would put a major downer for the millions of fans which would go to the cup. FIFA still wants its cups to be joyous festivals, which so far all of them have been.

We are in agreement that Australia would do a good job in hosting the cup. As far as the stadium thing goes, Perth and Adelaide are planning to build oval grounds with movable tiers, so they will be packed each week for AFL. A second rectangular stadium in Perth is a dream, but would at least get use by the Rugby team there. If that stadium didn't go ahead, one of Melbourne or Sydney's other stadiums could be used. 40K stadiums in Gold Coast, Canberra and Newcastle would allow international games in both Rugby codes and soccer to be played, as well as the occasional state of origin match. 
Those grounds could host at least 2 or 3 of those games a year each, pretty much guaranteeing a full house.
I find it poor that the nations capital is void of any international games in the 3 sports.
When not hosting big matches, the grounds would be used by at least two teams from different codes, guaranteeing regular use throughout the year.

Either way Australian stadiums would get more use than Chinese ones. While the Chinese government can force its people to go to World Cup games, I fail to see the point of forcing people to league soccer games when they don't want to go.

China has only been in one world cup, lost all its games, and scored no goals.
Japan has never progressed beyond the group stage.

As far as the one stadium per city rule, every other country which has hosted the cup has a wider spread of its population amongst different regions and cities than Australia. Australia is truly in a very rare situation where almost all of the population lives in a handful of cities. It is extremely rare for a country to have so few metropolitan areas with a population over 500,000. Despite having 19 interested cities, Brazil isn't going to play any games deep within the amazon because no one lives there.
But we would only be guessing that FIFA would relax this rule, so I don't like playing around with this idea too much.

Basically, I just think you haven't been giving Australia's bid enough credit, overall. The country would do a fantastic job. You talk about white elephant stadiums as if they are a problem in Australia, but then dismiss the problem when talking about Japan and China. Comparing Australia's facilities to European countries is pointless, because it is only competing against Asian nations. Japan to host Asia's first *and* second world cup? I highly doubt it. Only if there were no other bids, and still it would be more than 20 years in between. As for China vs Australia, it basically comes down to how much FIFA is willing to have a crap world cup in China, in return for the promotional value of hosting it there.


----------



## theespecialone

woozoo said:


> Several hours by plane.
> 
> It has demand for a rectangular stadium.
> Mostly for the rugby union team there, but also for the proposed Rugby league team.
> 
> Perth Glory crowds are too small at present for such a ground.
> 
> A rectangular ground also means Perth could host:
> Rugby Union internationals.
> Rugby league internationals.
> Soccer internationals, which so far are absent from Western Australia due to no suitable ground.


would the distance between Perth and Adelaide be too much further than between townsville and brisbane? On a map, they look very similar


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> would the distance between Perth and Adelaide be too much further than between townsville and brisbane? On a map, they look very similar


you need to get a better map



woozoo said:


> Basically Australia is competing against other Asian countries, agreed? I just can't imagine the cup going to Japan in 2022/2026. The only reason the cup went to Mexico a second time after 16 years is because it had to be played in the Western hemisphere, and Brazil or Argentina didn't put their hands up. Mexico was light years ahead of any other CONCACAF team in terms of football quality. Basically, as well as getting the cup by default, *there was no real competition for Mexico in 1986*.


One could argue that USA could have stepped in, as they still could today, and hosted at the drop of a hat. Argentina had hosted in '78 so even if they had puit up their hands Mexico would have had the inside track. Brazil, no idea why they didn't put their hands up - possibly a financial decision as (at the time) the world cup didn't generate as much money and Brazil's finances weren't so good (if I remember correctly).

With regard to travelling distances... Many supporters only come out for 2 weeks, if you take a fortnight off work in Europe to travel to Oz, the return trip alone eats up 3 days. It's not just the time on the plane, it's also the additional cost involved... That said, FIFA doesn't really care about the supporters, just the VIPs who'll be travelling 1st class anyway.

With regard to new stadiums - the general argument in (for) Australia seems to be that 40k rectangular stadiums in Gold Coast, Canberra, Townsville and Newcastle, etc., would be filled 2 or 3 times a year for internationals... My question would have to be "how many rugby/'soccer' internationals can Australia play each year?" If we've got stadiums on the Gold Coast, and in Canberra, Townsville and Newcastle, AS WELL AS those in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, AND the multipurpose venues in Perth and Adelaide not wanting to be left out - that means we'd need 18-27 fixtures per season to give each venue 2-3 games. That's a lot of 'big' internationals, you run the real risk of supporter fatigue.

As for the regular use throughout the season - whilst it's not as depressing as seeing a 40k stadium sitting empty, there's not many sights (and sounds) as dissapointing as a 10-15k crowd in a 40k venue - which realistically is what we can expect for most football/rugby fixtures played at league level over here.

With regard to Brazil - Manaus is way out in the Amazon region...

With regard to white elephants - I only mention them because the subject was raised when talking of China. That and the fact that, unlike China, MY taxes will be used to build the white elephants here (and at the end of the day I'm a selfish c**t).

As for me giving Australia's bid enough credit... My point, on all threads, is that Australia would do a great job, but that it will struggle to put together a MORE ATTRACTIVE bid than everyone else. We still talk in terms of minimum bids, of whether stadiums could be filled more than once or twice a year (I accept that the latter is true for China, Japan, and any number of other countries as well) - and we still pin our hopes on FIFA having an unofficial rotation policy that will bring the finals back to Asia, despite them scrapping the rotation in favour of miss-two-finals-then-bid-again scenario.

Morocco bid for 2010 remember, being beaten 14-10 by South Africa in the bidding - they'll be able to bid again for 2022, and the location would be very popular with Europeans - close enough to fly over for a couple of days, etc. And before anyone says that FIFA won't go back to Africa just 12 years after South Africa, if they don't want to do it, why did they amend the rules to make it possible?

Here's hoping, crossing fingers, etc., that Australia CAN put a superb bid together. I certainly want them to, and I look forward to seeing what Lowy and the boys come up with... But I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that we are the favourites in a two horse race.


----------



## MoreOrLess

White Elephant wise I don't think its unreasonible to think China has more potential for quick growth in attendances since there really isnt an existing sport/s football would be in competision agenst. When I don't think you can underestimate the effect that can have on the growth iof a sport, a fan who doesnt already regularly watch another sport is far more likey to stick around long term IMHO.


----------



## woozoo

Trip to China/USA eats up 2 days return.

Currently there are about 10 rugby Union internationals each year in Australia. Instead of playing 3 games in Brisbane and Sydney each as happens now, 2 games could be played in Newcastle/Gold Coast/Canberra. The team that misses out gets the State of Origin game thats not played in Sydney or Brisbane.
One or two Rugby League internationals could be spared per year for one of the smaller cities.
7 Socceroos matches per year allowing 2 to be played in regional centers.

Newcastle knights average 20,000.
ACT Brumbies average 17,000 (down from 22,000 a couple of years ago when form was good).
Titans average 17,000.

Either way, it seems white Elephants aren't a problem for FIFA. As far as your tax dollar, the world cup will pretty much pay for the stadiums. Look up economics of world cup on wikipedia. There is so much money to be made, a country could build 5 new stadiums from scratch and still make money.

Manaus has a population of 1.6 million, bigger than Adelaide or Perth. Apart from here, the millions of square kilometers of Amazon either side of the city will be void of any world cup matches.

Australia's bid is Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiles ahead of Morrocco's in every way apart from distance to Europe (They have 3 stadiums over 40K, all with running tracks around them, 1 fifty years old. And very little money to invest in new stadiums/infrastructure/hospitals etc.) Either way I'm guessing most Europeans would rather have the safety and reliability of Australia than the closeness of Morocco. Poland Ukraine EURO 2012 seems doomed to failure, and they are more advanced than Morocco.

We are going to start going round in circles, so lets agree to disagree.

I would be very very surprised if 2022/2026 didn't go to Asia and USA. Europe prevented from bidding. Too much growth potential, money and people in Asia. No real candidates in Africa (come on, lets be realistic). Asia's bids are better than anything South America can come up with. Australia's and China's bids are too good to justify Japan having a crack two times in a row.


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> We are going to start going round in circles, so lets agree to disagree.


The thing is mate, I don't disagree. I'm merely exploring every alternative I can think of - making sure I keep a realistic level of expectation.


----------



## C.M.

woozoo said:


> While the Chinese government can force its people to go to World Cup games, I fail to see the point of forcing people to league soccer games when they don't want to go.
> 
> China has only been in one world cup, lost all its games, and scored no goals.
> Japan has never progressed beyond the group stage.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Firstly what an ugly troll you are, do you know for a fact that football will not grow in China to be the number one sport? Do you know for a fact that people will be "forced" to attend matches at gun point as you presume?
> 
> Secondly get your facts right before posting rubbish here, where did Japan finish in the FIFA 2002 WC? As far as I know they did progress past the group stages and as a matter of fact they topped their group.
> 
> Thirdly I cannot see why any FIFA confederation (read the African, Asian, South American) will vote for Australia ahead of China - go read up on the voting FIFA process if you do not know what I mean.
> 
> And finally as far as I know China will only bid to host the FIFA 2022 WC not 2018 which strangely is the title of this thread.


----------



## theespecialone

don't see why the likes of townsville and canberra can't build temporary stands that fit in aesthetically.
Places like newcastle could probably accomodate a 40 000 seat stadium, even though they wont be full all the time. The capital cities can definately accomodate expanded stadiums.


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> don't see why the likes of townsville and canberra can't build temporary stands that fit in aesthetically.
> Places like newcastle could probably accomodate a 40 000 seat stadium, even though they wont be full all the time. The capital cities can definately accomodate expanded stadiums.


I held out hopes for this - however, I've been informed (on this forum) that FIFA frowns on temporary stands. I have no reason to doubt that information as it appears to fit in with FIFA's reasoning... Otherwise I'd advocate London Olympic style 70-80k (in terms of size) venues for 4 or 5 cities around Oz, to be reduced London style to 25k after the finals.


----------



## woozoo

> woozoo....don't worry about rover3-he's just an insecure troll. He threatened to bash me (over the internet lol) after i suggested that america won't get the 2022 World Cup.


Believe me, I'm not. What a tool.


> Firstly what an ugly troll you are, do you know for a fact that football will not grow in China to be the number one sport? Do you know for a fact that people will be "forced" to attend matches at gun point as you presume?


:lol::lol:
I didn't presume people will be force to attend games. I said it won't happen. 
I'm sure football will grow in China, but for now its league is dismal, crowds are very poor and the national team is extremely weak. From what I have read on wikipedia the league is very corrupt and suffers from a lot of fixed matches. 



> Secondly get your facts right before posting rubbish here, where did Japan finish in the FIFA 2002 WC? As far as I know they did progress past the group stages and as a matter of fact they topped their group.


My bad. Crucify me.



> Thirdly I cannot see why any FIFA confederation (read the African, Asian, South American) will vote for Australia ahead of China - go read up on the voting FIFA process if you do not know what I mean.


Thats what we're discussing here. Who would be likely to get more votes. I already wrote many times what I believe is wrong with Chinas bid, and hence why countries would vote for Australia instead of China.

I would love to read up about the FIFA voting process. Please post a link so I can relieve myself of my ignorance.
Seriously.


> And finally as far as I know China will only bid to host the FIFA 2022 WC not 2018 which strangely is the title of this thread.


China has expressed interest in placing a bid. Either way this thread has expanded from just the 2018 bid to other future world cup bids in general.



> The thing is mate, I don't disagree. I'm merely exploring every alternative I can think of - making sure I keep a realistic level of expectation.


But you do disagree, on many issues.

I'm exploring every alternative also, and trying to be realistic.
Realistically theres no country in Africa that could host the cup anytime soon. Why? Unlike South Africa, theres no infrastructure. No stadiums. No money to invest in stadiums. No history in staging such events. FIFA gave Africa a cup, and it won't coming back for a while. Agree or disagree?
Realistically it would be very odd for FIFA to give a country hosting privileges twice in a row in a particular confederation, when there are strong bids from other countries.


----------



## woozoo

> I held out hopes for this - however, I've been informed (on this forum) that FIFA frowns on temporary stands. I have no reason to doubt that information as it appears to fit in with FIFA's reasoning... Otherwise I'd advocate London Olympic style 70-80k (in terms of size) venues for 4 or 5 cities around Oz, to be reduced London style to 25k after the finals.


In the past I was concerned about Australia needed white elephant stadiums to get the cup. But now, the white elephant issue doesn't seem to be that important.

Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Melbourne/Sydney/Perth, Sydney, Brisbane wouldn't be white elephants.
All the stadiums already exist apart from Perth where the decision to build a new movable tier stadium has already been made, and Adelaide where discussion has been brewing for several years and a new stadium is inevitable.

Newcastle And Gold Coast are large enough to support a 40K stadium.

So really, if any the only white elephant stadiums will be Canberra and Townsville. 

It doesn't seem FIFA would care all too much about two white elephants, which will still get regular use after the tournament (ACT Brumbies, Canberra Raiders, New Aleague club/Cowboys, NCFC).


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> In the past I was concerned about Australia needed white elephant stadiums to get the cup. But now, the white elephant issue doesn't seem to be that important.
> 
> Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Melbourne/Sydney/Perth, Sydney, Brisbane wouldn't be white elephants.
> All the stadiums already exist apart from Perth where the decision to build a new movable tier stadium has already been made, and Adelaide where discussion has been brewing for several years and a new stadium is inevitable.
> 
> Newcastle And Gold Coast are large enough to support a 40K stadium.
> 
> So really, if any the only white elephant stadiums will be Canberra and Townsville.
> 
> It doesn't seem FIFA would care all too much about two white elephants, which will still get regular use after the tournament (ACT Brumbies, Canberra Raiders, New Aleague club/Cowboys, NCFC).


Now this is just me being me, not totally serious - understanding where you are coming from, etc... BUT... If Gold Coast can support a 40k stadium, why didn't they build one, rather than capping their new venue at 27k (IIRC)?


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> Thats what we're discussing here. Who would be likely to get more votes. I already wrote many times what I believe is wrong with Chinas bid, and hence why countries would vote for Australia instead of China.
> 
> I would love to read up about the FIFA voting process. Please post a link so I can relieve myself of my ignorance.
> Seriously.


Go out and get a copy of FOUL! by Andrew Jennings. A top class read that reveals all too much about FIFA's selection process and corruption. I guarentee it will change the way you feel about whether logic will interfere with World Cup venue selection.



woozoo said:


> But you do disagree, on many issues.
> 
> I'm exploring every alternative also, and trying to be realistic.
> Realistically theres no country in Africa that could host the cup anytime soon. Why? Unlike South Africa, theres no infrastructure. No stadiums. No money to invest in stadiums. No history in staging such events. FIFA gave Africa a cup, and it won't coming back for a while. Agree or disagree?
> Realistically it would be very odd for FIFA to give a country hosting privileges twice in a row in a particular confederation, when there are strong bids from other countries.


I see the alternative and I state it - that doesn't automatically mean that I 'believe' it.

With regard to the 'realistic' hopes of other countries in Africa - as I said before, Morocco got 10 of the 24 votes for 2010, which would indicate that a large portion of the voters believed that they could get everything in order within a decade... I don't imagine that things have got particularly worse in Morocco since then - so who's to say they couldn't still do all the things they were planning on back then?

FIFA won't give hosting privileges to any federation twice in a row - 2010 to 2022 isn't twice in a row, it's twice in 12 years. 2018 will, quite simply, be the best bid not involving South America or Africa (probably a European one, England or Spain), and 2022 will be the best bid not including Europe or South America (meaning that Africa having had it in 2010 will have no relevence at all - if an African country puts in a better bid than the rest, they'll win it).


----------



## CharlieP

woozoo said:


> Currently there are about 10 rugby Union internationals each year in Australia.


More like 6 - three in the Tri-Nations and two or three against touring international sides.


----------



## theespecialone

Benjuk said:


> Go out and get a copy of FOUL! by Andrew Jennings. A top class read that reveals all too much about FIFA's selection process and corruption. I guarentee it will change the way you feel about whether logic will interfere with World Cup venue selection.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the alternative and I state it - that doesn't automatically mean that I 'believe' it.
> 
> With regard to the 'realistic' hopes of other countries in Africa - as I said before, Morocco got 10 of the 24 votes for 2010, which would indicate that a large portion of the voters believed that they could get everything in order within a decade... I don't imagine that things have got particularly worse in Morocco since then - so who's to say they couldn't still do all the things they were planning on back then?
> 
> FIFA won't give hosting privileges to any federation twice in a row - 2010 to 2022 isn't twice in a row, it's twice in 12 years. 2018 will, quite simply, be the best bid not involving South America or Africa (probably a European one, England or Spain), and 2022 will be the best bid not including Europe or South America (meaning that Africa having had it in 2010 will have no relevence at all - if an African country puts in a better bid than the rest, they'll win it).



africa won't bid in 2022 nor in 2026..if they do they have no chance because 16 years is not a very long time between tournaments unless its europe where the game is virtually based


----------



## Benjuk

theespecialone said:


> africa won't bid in 2022 nor in 2026..if they do they have no chance because 16 years is not a very long time between tournaments unless its europe where the game is virtually based


Whether they have a chance of not depends on what deals they can make with the rest of the footballing world. 
If the African Confederation can make deals to back a US finals in 2026, and a European finals for 2030 (huge bunfight for the Centenial Finals is likely between South America, hosts of the first finals, and Europe 'home of the game'), they may be able to garner enough votes to get them beyond the rest.


----------



## woozoo

> More like 6 - three in the Tri-Nations and two or three against touring international sides.


This year its 3 tri nations and 6 in the bundaberg rum series. Dont see why other years would be any less.



It 2022 Gold Coast will have a population of 800,000. Thats big enough for a 40K stadium. If it weren't for the world cup there would maybe be less purpose for upgrading, but with the world cup in town it provides reason to increase capacity.

If you think Morrocco has more chance of hosting the world cup in 2022 or 2026 than Australia your delusional. It got 10 votes against South Africa, not against any country with a sound bid. Poland/Ukraine are struggling to put together euro 2012, and thats two industrialised countries with a combined population of 90 million. FIFA isnt going to risk giving hosting rights to Moroco.

By twice in a row i meant giving Japan the world cup hosting rights twice in a row in terms of the confedaration.


----------



## JohanSA

Just to put one thing straight. To all the biggots that stated that South Africa only got 2010 because it had to be in Africa and wouldnt have stood a chance in normal bidding you are forgetting that for the 2006 bid Germany only beat us by one vote in the final round of voting. This is after the New Zealand representative ignored orders from New Zealand to vote for South Africa and didnt cast a vote. It would have ended in a tie.

Puts things into perspective doesnt it.


----------



## Weebie

JohanSA said:


> Just to put one thing straight. To all the biggots that stated that South Africa only got 2010 because it had to be in Africa and wouldnt have stood a chance in normal bidding you are forgetting that for the 2006 bid Germany only beat us by one vote in the final round of voting. This is after the New Zealand representative ignored orders from New Zealand to vote for South Africa and didnt cast a vote. It would have ended in a tie.
> 
> Puts things into perspective doesnt it.


Shuttup you fool.

You only got it because of FIFAs promise for Africa and already 2 years out your world cup is turning into a joke. SA is the only african country that might be able to host a world cup.

Ocieana got screwed again and again so its best thing was not to vote.

You weren;t ready in 2006 to host the world cup so blatter used his vote get over it


----------



## woozoo

I get ya bro, there is a lot of politics, and we cant be SURE of anything, but I'm just being realistic, looking at facilities, infrastructure, and past decisions, to have an idea of Australia Getting hosting rights.

Stop being so cynical and negative.

Yes there are secret handshakes, but looking at it with a clear perspective, with a knowledge of FIFA's history and past choices, it can only be sensibly concluded that the 3 countries with most chance of hosting 2022 is China, Australia and USA. 2026 is likely to be either CONCACAF or Asia as well.


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> I get ya bro, there is a lot of politics, and we cant be SURE of anything, but I'm just being realistic, looking at facilities, infrastructure, and past decisions, to have an idea of Australia Getting hosting rights.
> 
> Stop being so cynical and negative.
> 
> Yes there are secret handshakes, but looking at it with a clear perspective, with a knowledge of FIFA's history and past choices, it can only be sensibly concluded that the 3 countries with most chance of hosting 2022 is China, Australia and USA. 2026 is likely to be either CONCACAF or Asia as well.


Looking at FIFA's history and past choices will reveal very little other than "nobody knows anything".

Read "FOUL!" and try to be anything but cynical and negative about anything to do with FIFA.


----------



## Demetrius

Guys, IMO, WC is too big of a "bite" for Australia's mouth. Aussies get carried away because of Sydney 2000 and the post-olympic "success syndrome" they still have not gotten over with.
The major reason, should this competition is ever awarded down under would be politics and nothing more. Even market-wise, Aussie potential football market cannot be compared with the likes of USA or Korea+Japan, to mention just two tournaments that were awarded because of politics/market potential development.
SA is another story, it was "politics with a cause" and a good mix of sentiment (Mandela, post apartheid era, etc). And of course SA is the cornerstone of sub-saharian Africa in all aspects and the only "African" country that could really carry such a burden efficiently and represent the continent. 
They 'll make it in the end, although it will be tight!


----------



## Benjuk

Demetrius said:


> Guys, IMO, WC is too big of a "bite" for Australia's mouth. Aussies get carried away because of Sydney 2000 and the post-olympic "success syndrome" they still have not gotten over with.
> The major reason, should this competition is ever awarded down under would be politics and nothing more. Even market-wise, Aussie potential football market cannot be compared with the likes of USA or Korea+Japan, to mention just two tournaments that were awarded because of politics/market potential development.
> SA is another story, it was "politics with a cause" and a good mix of sentiment (Mandela, post apartheid era, etc). And of course SA is the cornerstone of sub-saharian Africa in all aspects and the only "African" country that could really carry such a burden efficiently and represent the continent.
> They 'll make it in the end, although it will be tight!


Also true...

... Although I'd argue the getting carried away because of 2000 bit - down here there tends to be a lot of pride in the ability to host international events, we do it very well. I do think, no disrespect to any of the Aussies here, that there is a degree of under-estimation of just how big the World Cup is, and comparrisons with the Olympics (7-9 cities verses 1, etc.)


----------



## Mo Rush

Demetrius said:


> They 'll make it in the end, although it will be tight!


What will be tight?


----------



## Benjuk

Mo Rush said:


> What will be tight?


The media appears to be hyping up stadium delays - particularly the one that won't be ready for the Confeds Cup... Although they continually fail to point out that the Confeds Cup is 12 MONTHS prior to the World Cup. In other words, the media are panic-mongering, inferring that the stadiums being ready a mere 10-11 months prior to the tournament is cutting it a bit close.

I'm not worried. I'd book my tickets today if I could!


----------



## woozoo

> no disrespect to any of the Aussies here, that *there is a degree of under-estimation of just how big the World Cup is*, and comparrisons with the Olympics


Thats why Australia is way in front of any African country, and even Argentina (in terms of infrastructure).




Has there been any major sporting event where the media hasn't made a story about how some of the venues won't be ready on time? I'm getting pretty tired of it....


----------



## Demetrius

Mo Rush said:


> What will be tight?


The race of SA against time, in order to be prepared for 2010 WC. 
It's looking good right now, but you guys have to keep it up that way.

As for Aussie W.C., well infrastructure may not be a problem, down under's kinda rich anyway, they can find funds and somehow make them have even ROI, but for better or for worst, FIFA does not decide only based ont that. What is more important for FIFA is also the potential a tournament can exploit in a specific continent/area/market and the political messages Blatter (and before him Havelange) want to spread, regarding football. That's were the main problem of Aussie is: They are realtively a small market (even with the addition of NZ) even as an Oceania continent and politically Australia is seen by SE Asian players as an "outside" factor (not directly related in cultural or political level that is) compared with the likes of China, Japan, or Indonesia, Thai, Malaysia, e.t.c. 
For example, in South America, a country like Argentina may be poorer on infrastructure or money than Australia, but a WC tournament in Argentina could be seen as a "new" boost in a large traditional football market spreading from the Magellan Straits to the Gulf of Mexico, plus a good way to attract much needed investement with plausible ROI projection, much like Brazil 2014 is anticipated to be.


----------



## woozoo

Asia is very important for FIFA, two thirds of viewers of 2022 WC were in Asia (due to hosts being in good time zone for prime time viewing). Australia sits in good time zone for Asia. FIFA gives ticket makings to hosts, but keeps all TV revenue for itself, so this is where most its money comes from.

I really cant see Japan hosting the first, AND second WC in Asia. So that leaves China as competition. After the recent difficulties before the Olympic games, FIFA will have its doubts. 
Also, I doubt countries such as Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, who have a very strained relationship with China, would rather see the WC there than Australia.
After the 2004 Asian Cup final in Beijing, where Japan won, there were riots in the city (Chinese fans weren't happy there long time rival lost).

Australia only really has a chance in 2022 or possibly 2026 where there isn't competition from other nations with strong bids.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=654977


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> Chinas current stadiums:
> Bejing Olympic stadium 91,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guangzhao 81,000 (Damn this looks good):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shanghai 80,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheyang 70,000 (This looks impressive too):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Najing 60,000 (theyre all pretty impressive):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tianjin 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuhan 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quindao 60,000:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chonqing 58,680:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown the most modern venues. None are more than 20 years old. There are about another 5 or 10 stadiums above 40,000 in China which are older so I haven't shown them. As far as I can tell they all have running tracks around them.
> 
> China could certainly build several purpose built rectangular stadiums as the country has only several clubs in the national league which regularly have attendances in the tens of thousands.


The other alternative, which I am sure would be considerably cheaper than most alternatives, would be for the Chinese to bring in the earth-movers and dig out the athletics bowl, leaving room for another 10 rows of seating around an underground pitch. Thus - no running tracks and all stadium capacities increased by approx 7-10k.

That said, I'm not aware of whether any of the above stadia have suitable land/structures to allow such digging.


----------



## woozoo

The trouble with that is, these stadiums were built for a reason, which is to hold athletics events. Why would the Chinese government now redevelop these stadiums into a new format which doesn't allow for their original use, for which there is obviously demand.

Of course, after the tournament they could revert the stadiums to have running tracks, but wouldn't this be the same as building stadiums with temporary seating only for the cup?


I don't think China's main problem is its stadiums. I would list its issues as this:
Difficulty getting Visa's
Restrictions on what visitors can do (Fun Police)
Pollution
Terrorism
Protests about Tibet and Human rights



I have just read that Argentina plans to bid for the 2030 WC with Uruguay (joint bid). They are the only country capable of hosting a WC in South America, pretty much meaning that 2022 and 2026 will be between Asia, Africa and CONCACAF.

http://albicelestes.com/news/702-Argentina-and-Uruguay-to-host-World-Cup-2030-


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> I have just read that Argentina plans to bid for the 2030 WC with Uruguay (joint bid). They are the only country capable of hosting a WC in South America, pretty much meaning that 2022 and 2026 will be between Asia, Africa and CONCACAF.
> 
> http://albicelestes.com/news/702-Argentina-and-Uruguay-to-host-World-Cup-2030-


I suspect FIFA will want their centenery (at least part) in Uruguay - thus 2030 Argentina/Uruguay is a very strong shot... Only problem is - if the system remains the same, then Europe having most likely hosted in 2018 wouldn't be allowed to bid for 22 or 26, would miss out on 30 to Arg/Uru, which would mean a 16 year wait for the finals... UEFA simply won't allow to happen... So I guess we have FIFA to change AGAIN in order to allow Europe to bid for 2026. Meaning it's CONCACAF, Asia and Africa all being in the running for 2022.

It seems unfair that Europe would have everything 'set up' for 18 and then 26, but that's the reality of FIFA - and as was evidenced when Europe and South America teamed up to shaft Oceana for 2006 qualification, those two federations are very pally and will do everything they can to help each other.

As for the dig down idea in China - I know what you're saying, and I don't dissagree, 'twas just a thought regarding budget.

Agree regarding Visas for China, by the way, it's hilarious trying to imagine the authorities trying to apply their Olympic rules (no groups of people with the same t-shirts can meet up in any place, etc) to 10000 Dutch football supporters... Or trying to process travel docs to allow 20000 English fans to go from Chongqing to Beijing in the same week!!


----------



## dmscopio

woozoo said:


> The trouble with that is, these stadiums were built for a reason, which is to hold athletics events. Why would the Chinese government now redevelop these stadiums into a new format which doesn't allow for their original use, for which there is obviously demand.
> 
> Of course, after the tournament they could revert the stadiums to have running tracks, but wouldn't this be the same as building stadiums with temporary seating only for the cup?
> 
> 
> I don't think China's main problem is its stadiums. I would list its issues as this:
> Difficulty getting Visa's
> Restrictions on what visitors can do (Fun Police)
> Pollution
> Terrorism
> Protests about Tibet and Human rights
> 
> 
> 
> I have just read that Argentina plans to bid for the 2030 WC with Uruguay (joint bid). They are the only country capable of hosting a WC in South America, pretty much meaning that 2022 and 2026 will be between Asia, Africa and CONCACAF.
> 
> http://albicelestes.com/news/702-Argentina-and-Uruguay-to-host-World-Cup-2030-



All of these issue you mentioned are the same ones for this Olympic. I think we can look at the beijing olympic as a test for the world cup bid. if the beijing olympic is held successfully, i think we can believe that China is able to host a successful world cup in the future as well.


----------



## hngcm

woozoo said:


> Asia is very important for FIFA, two thirds of viewers of 2022 WC were in Asia


Somehow I doubt that, with all the fans in South America and Europe.


----------



## woozoo

I just checked my magazine. I got my numbers muddled up. It was *one* third in *2006*.

But I do remember reading two thirds in 2002, somewhere, a while ago. Though I may be wrong.

But it does seem reasonable. Asia has over one third of the worlds population, and with the games being played suitable for prime time viewing in Asia, these people could comfortably watch the games. Europeans and South Americans had to wake up in the middle of the night, meaning they would likely only watch there own country play, rather than watch several games.

The fact that so many Asians watched the 2006 cup, despite themselves having to wake up in the night, shows there is a lot of interest in the sport.

Football is the national sport of most countries in Asia, and where it isn't number one, its almost always a very close second with strong interest.


----------



## buildmilehightower

If beijing host world cup 2022, can they use olympic stadium or does the world cup stadium have to be 100% football stadium without tracks and etc?


----------



## woozoo

> Only problem is - if the system remains the same, then Europe having most likely hosted in 2018 wouldn't be allowed to bid for 22 or 26, would miss out on 30 to Arg/Uru, which would mean a 16 year wait for the finals


I miscounted somehow and thought that it was only two world cups that Europe was missing out on.
I agree there is a serious problem here. I don't think Europe can go that long without a WC. Fingers crossed (for me and Australia) UEFA may see this as a once off thing and FIFA doesn't change the rule, but I have serious doubts.



> All of these issue you mentioned are the same ones for this Olympic.


Well China promised that there would be no restrictions for journalists, and that the internet wouldnt be filtered. Both promises have been broken, which already will make FIFA think twice about trusting China.
As far as Visas go, the Olympics can expect a couple hundred thousand visitors, while the WC is at least 3 million.


----------



## señor cara de papa

buildmilehightower said:


> If beijing host world cup 2022, can they use olympic stadium or does the world cup stadium have to be 100% football stadium without tracks and etc?


it´s preferable to use only football stadiums, but remember germany 06, the final was held in an olympic stadium


----------



## buildmilehightower

^^ Thanks I never actually realised that because I was paying so much attention to the match being played than the stadium.


----------



## Benjuk

Re: China vs Australia for 2022...

All of the empty seats at various Olympic events, and some of the either inept or simply dumb marshalling of crowds, so far, in Beijing will be doing damage to Chinese hopes. Good news for Australia. Will be interesting to see if the Chinese learn over the next couple of weeks, or if the complaints mount up higher.


----------



## Iain1974

I was very surprised by large numbers of empty seats as well. There's over a billion people on the doorstep, so to speak, who would love to get into an event.


----------



## Sea Toby

Frankly. football doesn't have a large following in East Asia. In Japan, Korea, and Taiwan its baseball, something the Europeans have no love for. In fact the love is so low, during the London Olympics baseball won't be a sport. 

While most of the venues at Beijing will be empty, I fully expect to see sold out baseball games. The only problem is that the European television won't show the baseball games at all, or if they do it will be during the wee hours of the morning.


----------



## Iain1974

Baseball lost it's Olympic status full-stop. Nothing to do with it being in London.


----------



## cornelinho

*:bash:*

hy all new one here i overherd your posts and i wana say sometig to

1) i don't think that england will get 2018,in the last periode fifa and uefa selected mid-size or smal contries for organising suce turnaments, they whant to also improve infrastructure in that contrie and so on (south africa)... and england dosen't need that ... so contries like russia would be favored  (not mid size but could use a better infrastucture)

2) if the dolar is smaler then the euro then asian contries suffer ... so european fans would be atracted...but what abaut the asian americans or african supporters? ...fifa wants to extend football over the planet not juest europe...hno:

3) abaut the trak and field stadiums... fifa dosent care abaut that..but supporters say they suck... so a solution would be diging up... or covering them  like austria and switzerland at euro 2008 :banana:

but fifa has no problem... many finals wave been on a olympic stadium... 2002 had 7 because they ore 20 stadia, 2006 had 4 ,12 stadia.

but personaly i don't like the usa stadia... they are for american fotbal not soccer and they don't have roofs..a think they are ugly...

4)china over usa, because china never had a world cup, usa had one in the 94 + asia only had one fifa world cup... concacaf had 3 if i remember 2 mexico and 1 usa.

5)by moral thigs argentina-uruguay is favored for 2030... but fifa will decide.we live in hard cruel world so aniting is posible...hno:

6) uefa will get 2018 so 2022-2026 wil be devided in this order asia then probably concacaf. or if uefa is demanding...one european contrie , because of what the other guy sad abaut the long periode .:bash:

7) i knwo my englis is horuble but i amnot an english speaker just an english user.


----------



## MGM

buildmilehightower said:


> If beijing host world cup 2022, can they use olympic stadium or does the world cup stadium have to be 100% football stadium without tracks and etc?


sure it can be an olympic stadium!

many world cup final matches took place in olympic stadiums:

berlim 2006
rome 1990
buenos aires 1978
munich 1972
london 1966


----------



## ExSydney

MGM said:


> sure it can be an olympic stadium!
> 
> many world cup final matches took place in olympic stadiums:
> 
> 
> buenos aires 1978


????.....Nope


----------



## en1044

cornelinho said:


> but personaly i don't like the usa stadia... they are for american fotbal not soccer and they don't have roofs..a think they are ugly...


because you are new here, ill just tell you that this is one topic you shouldnt bring up, its been discussed to death. To sum up, we dont want roofs, we dont like roofs, we have absolutely no need for roofs, they are a waste of money to us, so we dont build them.


----------



## matthemod

en1044 said:


> because you are new here, ill just tell you that this is one topic you shouldnt bring up, its been discussed to death. To sum up, we dont want roofs, we dont like roofs, we have absolutely no need for roofs, they are a waste of money to us, so we dont build them.


I can understand that, I think the majority of people on here understand that American Football doesn't require roofs, but in relation to them being used to host the Fifa Football World Cup, a proper Football (soccer) Stadium should have a roof.


----------



## en1044

^oh i understand that, i just didnt want someone to point out the roof issue with the wrong intention and basically hijack the thread


----------



## rantanamo

matthemod said:


> I can understand that, I think the majority of people on here understand that American Football doesn't require roofs, but in relation to them being used to host the Fifa Football World Cup, a proper Football (soccer) Stadium should have a roof.


proper? There's nothing in FIFA's language that requires this.


----------



## matthemod

rantanamo said:


> proper? There's nothing in FIFA's language that requires this.


I said that a proper football stadium should have a roof. And it's true they should, anyone who likes and watches football will tell you that. That guy earlier said he wouldn't like the World Cup in America because they don't have roofs. And he has a point! The stadium's themselves might be amazing, they would probably suffice to following most of the FIFA regulations in regards to holding the world cup, but they are not proper football stadiums.

Now the Red Bulls new one, and the ones i've seen for D.C. united, they're good examples, but of course they would be being "soccer specific".

And no i'm not attempting by using the word proper to start an argument over Football being more "proper" than American Football.


----------



## Benjuk

Sea Toby said:


> Frankly. football doesn't have a large following in East Asia. In Japan, Korea, and Taiwan its baseball, something the Europeans have no love for. In fact the love is so low, during the London Olympics baseball won't be a sport.
> 
> While most of the venues at Beijing will be empty, I fully expect to see sold out baseball games. The only problem is that the European television won't show the baseball games at all, or if they do it will be during the wee hours of the morning.


Stacks of empty seats at the softball a couple of nights back - Japan vs Australia.

Empty seats at just about every event so far. Athletics appears to be full, but it's hard to tell from the camera angles and the darkness of most of the stands.

Human rights fiascos (labour camps for non-disirables & not one protest allowed in the specially set up 'protest parks').

Supporters being told to "move on" during the road cycling and the marathon.

I hope FIFA are watching.

(of course, those are negatives, a friend of mine is over there and says the locals are very welcoming & excited and the food and hotel are great).


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean

hngcm said:


> Dreaming?
> 
> The USA could easily host it right now without building any new stadiums, while China and Australia would have to build a lot of new stadiums just to even get close to the USA's bid. The USA already has 32 top-of-the-line stadiums with at least 60,000 seats. I'm sorry, but, the USA has the 2022 world cup.


u.s. is gonna' get it.....easily. kay:


----------



## Benjuk

There's a body of opinion that the two things that scuppered England's bid in 2006 were arrogance and poor political skills, mainly caused by the arrogance of assuming we'd get the finals.

I wonder if there are any other arrogant nations believing they are sure to get the finals?


----------



## woozoo

> The USA already has 32 top-of-the-line stadiums with at least 60,000 seats. I'm sorry, but, the USA has the 2022 world cup.


Who gives a shit. Certainly not FIFA. Every single world cup hosting nations builds stadiums for world cups.

France 98 - several stadiums built and redeveloped
Japan Korea - most stadiums built from scratch some redeveloped
Germany 2006 - several stadiums built and redeveloped
South Africa 2010 - almost all stadiums built from scratch or redeveloped
Brazil 2014 - all stadiums built from scratch or seriously redeveloped

Thats *part* of the whole thing about spreading the cup around the world, and spreading the games around the host countries cities. To develop football infrastructure in various parts of the world.


----------



## en1044

woozoo said:


> Who gives a shit. Certainly not FIFA. Every single world cup hosting nations builds stadiums for world cups.
> 
> France 98 - several stadiums built and redeveloped
> Japan Korea - most stadiums built from scratch some redeveloped
> Germany 2006 - several stadiums built and redeveloped
> South Africa 2010 - almost all stadiums built from scratch or redeveloped
> Brazil 2014 - all stadiums built from scratch or seriously redeveloped
> 
> Thats *part* of the whole thing about spreading the cup around the world, and spreading the games around the host countries cities. To develop football infrastructure in various parts of the world.


 :bash:
first of all, not every country hosting builds stadiums. USA '94? No stadiums built. If we host it in '16, no stadiums built. 
your statement doesnt make any sense. im pretty sure the key is to NOT spend ridiculous amounts of money. Im sure the fact that the US has so many stadiums already built will play a LARGE part in the selection process. And of course, the fact that the US was selected to host the 2003 womens cup on short notice had nothing to do with all the stadiums that already existed here. Nope, FIFA doesnt care at all.


----------



## Vermeer

I think everything is depending on the development of the professional league in the US. If it once again is a failure, the finals will never be played in the US. If it develops properly and they also get a professional second league I think US will have a fair chance, because FIFA can’t resist your money.


----------



## Knitemplar

Vermeer said:


> I think everything is depending on the development of the professional league in the US. If it once again is a failure, the finals will never be played in the US. If it develops properly and they also get a professional second league I think US will have a fair chance, because FIFA can’t resist your money.


If? Since Major League Soccer was launched in 1995, there are now 14 franchises. *So that's a little more than one new team a year.* I would say that's a great success.


----------



## woozoo

For the stadium thing, USA 94 is the *only* WC where stadiums weren't built. Obviously (its staring you in the face) it doesnt matter for FIFA. Like you said, if a country needs to build 10 stadiums from scratch which will sit empty after the cup, FIFA wouldnt like that, but as far as redeveloping existing stadiums and building one or two new ones, thats part of what the WC has become. Why do you think there is the one stadium per city rule? Its so stadiums are built in regions of host countries which have in the past missed out on major football infrastructure.
Just look at what has happened with *EVERY* other WC, new stadiums are built and existing ones upgraded.

As for the MLS, as far as world football leagues are concerned, its shit. For a nation of USA's size, the crowds are pathetic, the quality is poor, overall FIFA was expecting a lot more from the MLS
The league still* PAYS *for matches to be broadcast on TV.

What other league in any sport in any country PAYS tv channels to broadcast its matches???

Its still well behind the other big 4 leagues in the USA. It barely rates a mention on highlight shows, and still requires retired European stars on exorbitant unsustainable wages (Beckham) to get talked about.


----------



## woozoo

Oh, look at the A league in Australia, its three years old and has EIGHT teams. And two more franchises are entering next year.

Thats like... 2.5 franchises a year... which is like,... way better.


----------



## berkshire royal

Sea Toby said:


> Frankly. football doesn't have a large following in East Asia. In Japan, Korea, and Taiwan its baseball, something the Europeans have no love for. In fact the love is so low, during the London Olympics baseball won't be a sport.
> 
> While most of the venues at Beijing will be empty, I fully expect to see sold out baseball games. The only problem is that the European television won't show the baseball games at all, or if they do it will be during the wee hours of the morning.


Actually football does have a large following in East Asia. In Korea football is considered the most popular sport in the country. The Professional football league in Korea gets 5,000 more than its equivalent in Baseball and is the oldest professional league in Asia. In Japan the pro baseball league averages 2000 more than the pro football league and yes baseball is more popular but the gap is becoming slimmer all the time and in time Football probably will overtake Baseball. In China despite the national team not being up to much football still is one of the most popular sports and is more popular than any North American Sport, viewing figures for the EPL are astonishing with figures getting as high as 400million for one game. And it is only in Taiwan where football has very little following and in all honesty it would be hard to find anywhere else in Asia where football has such a small following. I'm sure FIFA and AFC will work on that market at some point and i'm sure that when they do their efforts will be rewarded with a much greater following.


----------



## Vermeer

Knitemplar said:


> If? Since Major League Soccer was launched in 1995, there are now 14 franchises. *So that's a little more than one new team a year.* I would say that's a great success.


Do you call that great success. You have been trying for the last 30 years to develop profesional football and so far you have franchises. For a European Franchises and football has nothing to do with each other. Maybe one day you will manage do form real profesional football clubs.


----------



## GunnerJacket

woozoo said:


> As for the MLS, as far as world football leagues are concerned, its shit. For a nation of USA's size, the crowds are pathetic, the quality is poor, overall FIFA was expecting a lot more from the MLS
> The league still* PAYS *for matches to be broadcast on TV.
> 
> What other league in any sport in any country PAYS tv channels to broadcast its matches???
> 
> Its still well behind the other big 4 leagues in the USA. It barely rates a mention on highlight shows, and still requires retired European stars on exorbitant unsustainable wages (Beckham) to get talked about.


a) Beckham wasn't retired. I think he should've been, but that's besides the point.

b) In return for the "paying to be aired" approach you're referring to MLSTV gleans the advertising revenue. Thus far it's an approach that has garnered the league more air time and regular increases in revenue. Right now they know what they're getting for exposure, and it's a hell of a lot more than the NHL and light years beyond what soccer was getting before MLS.

c) For a nation of USA's size it rates poorly. But if you're gonna go that route then where the hell do China and India rate? 

d) How the f*** do you know what FIFA was expecting?! hno:

- - - -

Compared to what pro soccer had prior to MLS, and considering the obstacles it has to maneuver around in those other big sports, MLS has made tremendous strides. 
Is it perfect? Hardly, but no one else out there is. 
Is it Top 10? No, and no one's pretending it is. But the teams are operating with budgets that put them among the top 20 leagues in the world, they're building new facilities and following business models that have helped the league grow better each year. Clearly the sponsors have noticed or they wouldn't be getting the 9 figure contracts from Nike or Adidas.

You want to hate, by all means have at it. They'll get along fine without you, thank you very much. Probably moreso.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Vermeer said:


> Do you call that great success. You have been trying for the last 30 years to develop profesional football and so far you have franchises. For a European Franchises and football has nothing to do with each other. Maybe one day you will manage do form real profesional football clubs.


The business model traditionally known as the club will in all likelihood never be allowed here as the leagues won't have promo/releg rules and the start-up costs will dictate wealthy owners. That doesn't mean the operation can't be first rate. 

US isn't hurting for the business end, it's simply lacking becuase the sport rates so low on the sporting radar.


----------



## coexist

In terms of average attendance, the MLS is the 11th ranked football (soccer) league on Earth, and the 9th ranked top flight league on Earth. That's not bad for a nation in which football is our 5th sport and really did not get much attention before 1994. Plus, there's a ton of football fans that pay no attention whatsoever to the MLS in the US - I'd say the number of football fans that don't pay attention to the MLS and don't attend/watch their games outnumbers the number of football fans who do pay attention to the MLS. So there really are a lot of football fans in the US, even if most of us follow leagues across the Atlantic from us.


----------



## Iain1974

But the point people are trying to make is that there are just a handful of teams in MLS and attendances had been relatively stagnant, even taking into account the free tickets to boost crowds.
Of course, I accept, that many potential supporters may live too far from the nearest team to be able to make regular trips.

The figure of 3.27M isn't bad, but compared to population it's about 1%. Compare this to England ,58% Scotland, 79% both for league only and you must try to understand why overseas folks are underwhelmed by MLS.

FYI
Baseball ~ 25%
College Football ~ 12%
College Basketball ~ 9%
NBA ~ 7%
NHL ~ 7%
NFL ~ 5%


----------



## Knitemplar

woozoo said:


> For the stadium thing, USA 94 is the *only* WC where stadiums weren't built. Obviously (its staring you in the face) it doesnt matter for FIFA. Like you said, if a country needs to build 10 stadiums from scratch which will sit empty after the cup, FIFA wouldnt like that, but as far as redeveloping existing stadiums and building one or two new ones, thats part of what the WC has become. Why do you think there is the one stadium per city rule? Its so stadiums are built in regions of host countries which have in the past missed out on major football infrastructure.
> Just look at what has happened with *EVERY* other WC, new stadiums are built and existing ones upgraded.
> 
> As for the MLS, as far as world football leagues are concerned, its shit. For a nation of USA's size, the crowds are pathetic, the quality is poor, overall FIFA was expecting a lot more from the MLS
> The league still* PAYS *for matches to be broadcast on TV.
> 
> What other league in any sport in any country PAYS tv channels to broadcast its matches???
> 
> Its still well behind the other big 4 leagues in the USA. It barely rates a mention on highlight shows, and still requires retired European stars on exorbitant unsustainable wages (Beckham) to get talked about.


*IRRELEVANT.* 

It's good enough for the US, so outside kibitzer's opinions, like yours, *are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT* to the matter. 

Why don't you first try getting your house in order before offering these total AMATEUR views no one is paying you for?


----------



## en1044

woozoo said:


> For the stadium thing, USA 94 is the *only* WC where stadiums weren't built. Obviously (its staring you in the face) it doesnt matter for FIFA. Like you said, if a country needs to build 10 stadiums from scratch which will sit empty after the cup, FIFA wouldnt like that, but as far as redeveloping existing stadiums and building one or two new ones, thats part of what the WC has become. Why do you think there is the one stadium per city rule? Its so stadiums are built in regions of host countries which have in the past missed out on major football infrastructure.
> Just look at what has happened with *EVERY* other WC, new stadiums are built and existing ones upgraded.
> 
> As for the MLS, as far as world football leagues are concerned, its shit. For a nation of USA's size, the crowds are pathetic, the quality is poor, overall FIFA was expecting a lot more from the MLS
> The league still* PAYS *for matches to be broadcast on TV.
> 
> What other league in any sport in any country PAYS tv channels to broadcast its matches???
> 
> Its still well behind the other big 4 leagues in the USA. It barely rates a mention on highlight shows, and still requires retired European stars on exorbitant unsustainable wages (Beckham) to get talked about.


hmmmm...



woozoo said:


> So it's between China and Australia.


because they have the strongest leagues in the world right?

Contradiction much?


----------



## Iain1974

Goodness, this thread has deteriorated. I've just killed half and hour at least reading from page 4 onwards.

Realistically, 2022 will go to the US. Aus is a non-runner because of the lack of facilities. The US bid isn't flawless but likely to be better than China's. The 2008 facilities becoming white elephants would count against them quite strongly. On the plus side, there are no age restrictions on competitors in the World Cup.

Beyond 2022 I'm not sure how viable a World Cup will be. The super-rich clubs are not exactly fond of international games as it is and I can forsee some kind of legal challenge in the not too distant future.


----------



## Knitemplar

Iain1974 said:


> But the point people are trying to make is that there are just a handful of teams in MLS and attendances had been relatively stagnant, even taking into account the free tickets to boost crowds.
> Of course, I accept, that many potential supporters may live too far from the nearest team to be able to make regular trips.
> 
> The figure of 3.27M isn't bad, but compared to population it's about 1%. Compare this to England ,58% Scotland, 79% both for league only and you must try to understand why overseas folks are underwhelmed by MLS.
> 
> FYI
> Baseball ~ 25%
> College Football ~ 12%
> College Basketball ~ 9%
> NBA ~ 7%
> NHL ~ 7%
> NFL ~ 5%


I agree with what you're saying. But why are u Euros holding US to only one sport? 

* We have many choices; we are not a one-sport nation. We have such a diversity on our palette to suit any taste. 

* We are pretty much inclusive, and those MLS attendances are not really a measure to go by because the 1994 World Cup's all-time attendance figures still have to be topped. 

* So that doesn't mean the US can't hold ANOTHER record-breaking tournament. 

I just sense a lot of insecurity and envy from the pooh-poohing parties.


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean

Knitemplar said:


> If? Since Major League Soccer was launched in 1995, there are now 14 franchises. *So that's a little more than one new team a year.* I would say that's a great success.


truly.....


----------



## theespecialone

Iain1974 said:


> Goodness, this thread has deteriorated. I've just killed half and hour at least reading from page 4 onwards.
> 
> Realistically, 2022 will go to the US. Aus is a non-runner because of the lack of facilities. The US bid isn't flawless but likely to be better than China's. The 2008 facilities becoming white elephants would count against them quite strongly. On the plus side, there are no age restrictions on competitors in the World Cup.
> 
> Beyond 2022 I'm not sure how viable a World Cup will be. The super-rich clubs are not exactly fond of international games as it is and I can forsee some kind of legal challenge in the not too distant future.


the world cup will stay for a very long time. I think China will host 2022.


----------



## hngcm

woozoo said:


> The league still* PAYS *for matches to be broadcast on TV.
> 
> What other league in any sport in any country PAYS tv channels to broadcast its matches???


That's no longer true.


----------



## rantanamo

What is the fucking problem some of you have with the US? This board is becoming tiresome and quite frankly insulting to read. The US wants to host like any other nation does, so what?


----------



## Iain1974

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the development and commitment of the US to football.

Don't be so sensitive. You're acting like a Chinese security officer.


----------



## woozoo

> $100m upgrade for AAMI
> June 01, 2008 01:20pm
> 
> THE South Australian Government will provide $100 million for the redevelopment of AAMI Stadium, it was announced today.
> 
> It will also provide $2.5 million each for the state's two AFL clubs in this week's state Budget.
> 
> The Government's contribution to the stadium's redevelopment will help to enhance the roof to provide greater shelter and improve dining and toilet facilities.
> 
> It will also build a new convention centre and western grandstand upgrade, improve stadium entrances, build new corporate suites and expand administration offices.
> 
> Premier Mike Rann said the government was supporting the redevelopment because it was the only venue in the state that could seat more than 50,000 for a range of sporting and major events.
> 
> "This redevelopment will bring AAMI Stadium up to international standard," he said in a statement.
> 
> "It will not only enhance the experience for spectators and users of AAMI Stadium, it will put us in a stronger position to compete for major events such as World Cup soccer matches."
> 
> State treasurer Kevin Foley said it was the view of the SANFL, the AFL and both the AFL clubs that "a redevelopment of AAMI Stadium is the best result for football in South Australia".
> 
> SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker welcomed the announcement.
> 
> "This redevelopment is indeed the logical solution for providing the South Australian community with a symbolic, world class sports and entertainment stadium," he said in the statement.
> 
> Recreation and Sport Minister Michael Wright said the state government was also supporting Port Adelaide and the Crows by matching a commonwealth commitment of $2.5 million to each club.
> 
> "AAMI Stadium draws over one million spectators every year and most of those are Port Adelaide or Crows supporters," he said in the government statement.
> 
> "It makes sense for us to support the teams who attract the majority of patrons through the gates."


There goes any chance of Australia hosting the WC.

I cant imagine WC games at AAMI stadium. Too shit, too big (Field not capacity), too far out from the city. Without Adelaide there is no WC in Australia.


----------



## Knitemplar

woozoo said:


> There goes any chance of Australia hosting the WC.


I could've told you that long ago.


----------



## cornelinho

evrybody says usa..australia..china... aniting else?
wikipedia says that the candidates are :

Confirmed Unconfirmed 
Australia Canada
Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg China
England Japan
Portugal/Spain Mexico
Qatar United States
Russia Israel

mexico,russia,portugal/spain(if the rule on co-biding expires) nothing? whay would the not have a equal chance?
suporters will shurely come... and fifa would be pleased...


----------



## hngcm

If Europe wins in 2018, then Europe can't do it in 2022:

That leaves...

Australia
Canada (doesn't have the stadia)
China
Japan (too soon after 2002)
Mexico (stadia are lacking, would be its third WC)
Qatar (ok seriously)
USA

So that leaves Australia, China, and the US


----------



## aaronaugi1

hngcm said:


> If Europe wins in 2018, then Europe can't do it in 2022:
> 
> That leaves...
> 
> Australia
> Canada (doesn't have the stadia)
> China
> Japan (too soon after 2002)
> Mexico (stadia are lacking, would be its third WC)
> Qatar (ok seriously)
> USA
> 
> So that leaves Australia, China, and the US


At this stage Australia and the US are bidding for 2018. So if 2018 goes to Europe then 2022 will almost certainly go to China or another bidder due to FIFA's new concurrent awarding system. 

IMO Australia and England will fight it out for 2018 with 2022 going to either the US (who will, in time, remove themselves from any 2018 commitments) and China. 

It would probably be better for the US having Australia win 2018 in that regard assuming there are no major European contenders in 2022.


----------



## hngcm

Mo Rush said:


> I know. I want Jerome to answer.


I'm sure he's reading this thread right now.


----------



## www.sercan.de

According to DSF Spain will bid for 2018.
They new elected Fed. President said it.


----------



## Vicman

Excellent threat. I think this:

Europe South America and Africa are out for 2018, inspite of Germany South Africa and Brazil 06 10 and 14 respectiely. Now I agree with Australia, USA and China, butttt look: China and Australia are in Asian Federation and the last asian host were Korea and Japan in 02. So USA or...CONCACAF is the option.

Why??? Obviously is the shift of the area. CONCACAF only has organized 3 times the worl cup (70,86 and 94), I´m not against Australia and China, in fact i´d like to see a world cup in those fantastic countries, great economies and infrastructure, as same as Spain, England, Holland, Morocco etc... BUT, 2018 must be here. The doubt is which country; Mexico has organized 2 excellent tournaments with no problem, USA got 1. Canada could be a perfect option in order to organize thE cup but they have no good infrastructure in soccer stadiums. Central America as I said in other threat, is interested in do it with Guatemala, Costa Rica Honduras ...but I don´t think central america has a good soccer infrastructure as Canada. FIFA must turn to CONCACAF area and I support United States or Mexico as perfect options for ´18 worl cup. 

If FIFA doesn´t give the host to CONCACAF I´d love to see Australia.:banana:


----------



## KiwiBrit

The problem with your post Vicman is that CONCACAF can't keep using the same countries for it's proposals. Mexico has hosted two tournaments in just over 38 years and the USA had the WC only 14 years ago. 

Both countries have hosted great WC's in the past, but it's hardly spreading the beautiful game globally is it?


----------



## Vicman

KiwiBrit said:


> The problem with your post Vicman is that CONCACAF can't keep using the same countries for it's proposals. Mexico has hosted two tournaments in just over 38 years and the USA had the WC only 14 years ago.
> 
> Both countries have hosted great WC's in the past, but it's hardly spreading the beautiful game globally is it?




OK I agree with you but, that´s no problem!!! FIFA´s considerations are: Infrastructure and capacity. Only US and Mex have this requirements; I know what you´re talking about kiwi I support U hehe. But reallity is neither Canada nor Central America have good stadiums we´ll be honest, of course they can build in 10 years. I don´t insult this countries but this is the truth. 

It´s hard but can be possible, Mexico is very interested in this. Whatever CONCACAF should be organize it. 

By the way where do you from fella?? US?


----------



## Vicman

I insist...It´s not a problem that Mexico had organized twice the tournament. In 86, was an emergent country cuz Colombia decline...and whyyy???...because Mex had, has and will have cities with excellent infrastructure, and FIFA knows it. 

I don´t see "A PROBLEM"!!! that Mexico will be the first country in the world in organize a third world cup. Germany, France or Brazil can think the same

Just think this: 22 years ago, and for 2018 will be 32 years later, same years as Germany 74 and 06.

Mexico 2018!!! Mexico city, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Pachuca, Torreon, Morelia, Aguascalientes.


----------



## JimB

Vicman - I believe that FIFA have all but abandoned the idea of strict rotation.

There are only, I'd guess, three countries that have the infrastructure (stadiums and general) to be able to host a World Cup in the CONCACAF region. Likewise Africa.

By contrast, there are as many as ten potential European hosts and six or seven in Asia.

Which would mean, under a strict rotation policy that the USA or Mexico would be chosen as World Cup host three times more regularly than England or Italy.

And that just wouldn't be right.

I think it more likely, in future, that CONCACAF and CONMEBOL (South America) will be considered as one entity in terms of winning the right to stage the World Cup. It would certainly make good sense.


----------



## RobH

To go from every other world cup in Europe as it was throughout much of the twentieth century, to one on four or five world cups in Europe would be a shift too far. A strict continental rotation looks fair on paper but wouldn't be in reality for the reason's JimB has suggested. It'd end up with the USA hosting 4 times as many tournaments as footy mad nations in Europe.

Every third world cup should be in Europe imho. This would reflect the fact that there are areas in the world where football is becoming bigger whilst recognising that the powerbase is still Europe. JimB has it spot on.


----------



## RobH

Are Mexico bidding?

Against China, the USA and a host of strong European countries including England, that'll be a tough one for them to win. The fact that such a relatively small country has also hosted twice already will not work in its favour either.


----------



## Vicman

Yeah that´s correct, Conmebol and CONCACAF must be joined. Ok i got you guys, but I want a cup again jejeje (lol). :nuts:


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> Are Mexico bidding?
> 
> Against China, the USA and a host of strong European countries including England, that'll be a tough one for them to win. The fact that such a relatively small country has also hosted twice already will not work in its favour either.


To be fair, Mexico is a considerably bigger country than most European countries - both in terms of area and population!


----------



## Vicman

Just Italy Spain England Germany France and Portugal are countries which can organize the cup. Mexico could have a lower soccer level but it´s better than Korea, Japan, China, Australia, USA, even most of southamerican countries. Mexico has experience in this tournaments and for me, it´s not fair you say strong European countries....strong in what? level only, and some stadium designes.


----------



## woozoo

> Every third world cup should be in Europe imho.


This is basically whats happening now, and what will happen in the future. Hence the rule that after a confederation has hosted, it cannot bid for another 2 WC's. That basically means Europe, with the most amount of countries with strong capabilities of hosting, can host every third WC. The other confederations can battle it out, with no strict rule about rotation, but Im sure the future WC's will be spread around the Americas, Asia and every now and then Africa (unfortunately the countries there have poor infrastructure).


----------



## cmc

just showing some support...


----------



## hngcm

Vicman said:


> Mexico 2018!!! Mexico city, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Pachuca, Torreon, Morelia, Aguascalientes.


Let's see...

MC: Azteca needs a major facelift, the new estadio azul needs 2k more seats after it's done to meet the 40k, although i wish it the stands were closer to the field (looks like it has an athletic track?). Also could use el Estadio Olimpico, although it has an ugly athletic track..

GUA: Nuevo estadio de las Chivas is looking good, don't know why they didn't go for a higher capacity, especially with the WC in the back of their minds

MON: Hopefully Monterrey or Tigres get a new 40k+ stadium in the future, probably will.

PUE: Estadio Cuauhtemoc meets the capacity requirement, but it also needs a major facelift.

PACH: Estadio Hidalgo would need a 10k expansion, which will be costly since the would need to get rid of the roof plus add the new stands. 

TORR: Estadio Nuevo Corona would need a 10K expansion, but unlike Hidalgo, it would be easy as they would just need to add the stands. Although Santos wouldn't never be able to fill it up.

MOR: Estadio Morelos would need a 10k expansion. 

AGUA: Estadio Victoria would need a 15k expansion, Necaxa doesn't need all those extra seats. 

other possibilities...

TIJ: Estadio Caliente would just need a 7K expansion, but Tijuana doesn't even have a pro team.

CiuJ: If they get their stadium done, there's no doubt it will be a host city, a new 45k dome stadium is too good to pass up, despite being in a dangerous city.

QUE: 40k Estadio La Corregidora would be perfect with a slight upgrade.

VER: Luis Pirata Fuente would need a 10k expansion. And a top-flight team.
____

So with a lot of work, they can meet the minimum requirements. 

But why award the WC to a country that can just meet the minimum requirements with a lot of work when there's a country just to the north of it that can EXCEED the requirements TODAY, and eclipse those requirements in ten years time?


----------



## SIC

RobH said:


> Every third world cup should be in Europe imho. This would reflect the fact that there are areas in the world where football is becoming bigger whilst recognising that the powerbase is still Europe. JimB has it spot on.


Oh look everyone, a self-entitled Englishman/European when it comes to Football.
*shocker*

Hey, you realize that colonialism is dead and Europe isn't the center of the world right? But I guess every 3rd world cup instead of every other World Cup is mighty generous of you, we should be grateful.


----------



## Mo Rush

SIC said:


> Oh look everyone, a self-entitled Englishman/European when it comes to Football.
> *shocker*
> 
> Hey, you realize that colonialism is dead and Europe isn't the center of the world right? But I guess every 3rd world cup instead of every other World Cup is mighty generous of you, we should be grateful.


whats wrong with that? RobH is sensible person and I agree. Not like Africa can host every third world cup.


----------



## woozoo

SIC said:


> Oh look everyone, a self-entitled Englishman/European when it comes to Football.
> *shocker*
> 
> Hey, you realize that colonialism is dead and Europe isn't the center of the world right? But I guess every 3rd world cup instead of every other World Cup is mighty generous of you, we should be grateful.


You do realise that over a third of the teams that participate in WC finals are from Europe, and that two thirds of the best national teams are from Europe?

Europe has also by far the most countries which are suitable to host a WC, the best leagues, and where FIFA makes most of its money. 

It is, by far and away, the home of football.

The fact that WC's are getting spread around is a credit to FIFA, a more blatantly money hungry organisation may have never made the move to make sure Africa or Asia get to host.


----------



## woozoo

Im from Australia, not Europe by the way.


----------



## woozoo

Bcoz USA hosted in 94, just 14 years ago. Mexico isnt really suitible either bcoz they hosted twice, as recently as 22 years ago.

If Canada can get its act together and get a decent national team in the next few years they should get to host. My opinion only of course. And yeah I doubt they will have a good national team by then so I guess they are all in the running from CONCACAF.


----------



## JimB

SIC said:


> Oh look everyone, a self-entitled Englishman/European when it comes to Football.
> *shocker*
> 
> Hey, you realize that colonialism is dead and Europe isn't the center of the world right? But I guess every 3rd world cup instead of every other World Cup is mighty generous of you, we should be grateful.


Time for you to remove that enormous chip from your shoulder, pal.

It's clearly weighing you down.

All RobH was saying is that, as things stand, it would be wrong for continents like North America and Africa to be awarded the World Cup on a strict rotational basis. The reason for that is that there are far fewer countries within N America and Africa that are currently capable of hosting a World Cup. Consequently, if strict rotation was enforced, countries like South Africa, USA or Mexico would be awarded the World Cup three or four times more regularly than countries like, Spain, Italy or England.

Surely, despite that gigantic chip on your shoulder, you can see that that wouldn't be right?


----------



## Alx-D

^ We have a good national team, they just have a poor coach who has alienated all of our good players. Stadiums are the big problem, as in we have no currently existing WC quality stadiums. They'd all need major work or to be built from scratch. BC Place will become the best stadium in the country, but it'll still have artificial turf.

Besides, the CSA would screw it all up somehow


----------



## RobH

SIC said:


> Oh look everyone, a self-entitled Englishman/European when it comes to Football.
> *shocker*
> 
> Hey, you realize that colonialism is dead and Europe isn't the center of the world right? But I guess every 3rd world cup instead of every other World Cup is mighty generous of you, we should be grateful.


Go **** yourself, I didn't deserve that response to my post. hno:

If you can't argue against me properly, don't bother ok?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Having discussed this on BigSoccer it helps to establish the list of nations capable of hosting, and those that have bona fide potential in the near future.

*Asia/Oceana*
Korea
Japan
China
Australia (Potential)

*Africa*
South Africa
Egypt (Potential)
???

*Concacaf*
USA
Mexico
Canada (Potential)

*Conmebol*
Brazil
Argentina (Potential)
Columbia (Potential)

That's 8-13 possible hosts to choose from, with obviously limited potential in Africa at the moment. Whereas Europe offers

England
Spain
Italy
Germany
France
Benelux (Netherlands/Belgium for those so inclined) (Potential)
Russia (Potential)

So nearly half the nations that could host a WC (under current standards) in two years are located in Europe, and at least 1/3 if you count all potential nations. Allowing co-hosting doesn't change the ratio's much, either, for as you open the door to the likes of Morocco/Algeria and Ecuador/Peru you also invite Scandanavia, Poland/Ukraine and possibly others in Europe.

It would appear that so long as we (FIFA and the fans) are intent on keeping the scale of the event so large it will restrict the number of viable options, and many of them are within Europe.


----------



## GunnerJacket

It does appear Canada could use a massive reinvestment in their stadium infrastructure. It would be nice if many of the CFL venues could be upgraded and configured for optimum opportunity for soccer. I think the FIFA U-20 WC did spur interest in the higher levels of the sport across the country, but understand the logistics of sustaining teams throughout more of the "hinterlands" of the Canadian landscape. There's also the difficulty of competing directly with the CFL during the warmer months. (Just need to ramp up that global warming a bit more, eh?!:colgate Perhaps if soccer interests and CFL interests could find more cooperative arrangements such ideas would come to light.


----------



## ryebreadraz

GunnerJacket said:


> Having discussed this on BigSoccer it helps to establish the list of nations capable of hosting, and those that have bona fide potential in the near future.
> 
> *Asia/Oceana*
> Korea
> Japan
> China
> Australia (Potential)
> 
> *Africa*
> South Africa
> Egypt (Potential)
> ???
> 
> *Concacaf*
> USA
> Mexico
> Canada (Potential)
> 
> *Conmebol*
> Brazil
> Argentina (Potential)
> Columbia (Potential)
> 
> That's 8-13 possible hosts to choose from, with obviously limited potential in Africa at the moment. Whereas Europe offers
> 
> England
> Spain
> Italy
> Germany
> France
> Benelux (Netherlands/Belgium for those so inclined) (Potential)
> Russia (Potential)
> 
> So nearly half the nations that could host a WC (under current standards) in two years are located in Europe, and at least 1/3 if you count all potential nations. Allowing co-hosting doesn't change the ratio's much, either, for as you open the door to the likes of Morocco/Algeria and Ecuador/Peru you also invite Scandanavia, Poland/Ukraine and possibly others in Europe.
> 
> It would appear that so long as we (FIFA and the fans) are intent on keeping the scale of the event so large it will restrict the number of viable options, and many of them are within Europe.


I think Japan and Korea would need to be co-hosts again. I'm not so sure they could host alone. Japan possibly, but not S. Korea.


----------



## GunnerJacket

ryebreadraz said:


> I think Japan and Korea would need to be co-hosts again. I'm not so sure they could host alone. Japan possibly, but not S. Korea.


_Each_ nation built/renovated 10 stadiums of greater than 40k capacity. South Korea featured 2 in the 50k range and 2 in the 60k range, including the best of the lot, IMO, in Seoul's WC Stadium.









Don't known why that's what they did, and arguably spreading the games out across that many venues was one contributor to the frustrations with that event. Nevertheless, each nation now has the means to host independently.


----------



## ryebreadraz

GunnerJacket said:


> _Each_ nation built/renovated 10 stadiums of greater than 40k capacity. South Korea featured 2 in the 50k range and 2 in the 60k range, including the best of the lot, IMO, in Seoul's WC Stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't known why that's what they did, and arguably spreading the games out across that many venues was one contributor to the frustrations with that event. Nevertheless, each nation now has the means to host independently.


Korea has the stadiums, but they only hosted half of the matches, meaning only half the fans. They also only hosted half of the media and not even the media for the final. I don't think the airports, hotels and other infrastructure could host a WC by itself. Japan I think could, but not Korea.


----------



## JimB

ryebreadraz said:


> Korea has the stadiums, but they only hosted half of the matches, meaning only half the fans. They also only hosted half of the media and not even the media for the final. I don't think the airports, hotels and other infrastructure could host a WC by itself. Japan I think could, but not Korea.


You may be right.

But it would take very little for S Korea to meet all the requirements. Certainly, infrastrucure wouldn't be a barrier to S Korea bidding as exclusive hosts.


----------



## Vicman

cmc said:


> just showing some support...



Thanks friend!!! I´m sure you´re from Mexico jeje for your logo CORONA.:cheers: 

Guys c´mon, 2018 is for CONCAFAF and it´s not fair you say Europe deserve every 3rd world cup, FIFA xplain all the continents will organize the cup in base to the rotation, not everything is focused in Europe. Someone of U said in Europe FIFA earns much money, you should live in Mexico, here football is more expensive than other place in the world.


----------



## Vicman

hngcm said:


> Let's see...
> 
> MC: Azteca needs a major facelift, the new estadio azul needs 2k more seats after it's done to meet the 40k, although i wish it the stands were closer to the field (looks like it has an athletic track?). Also could use el Estadio Olimpico, although it has an ugly athletic track..
> 
> GUA: Nuevo estadio de las Chivas is looking good, don't know why they didn't go for a higher capacity, especially with the WC in the back of their minds
> 
> MON: Hopefully Monterrey or Tigres get a new 40k+ stadium in the future, probably will.
> 
> PUE: Estadio Cuauhtemoc meets the capacity requirement, but it also needs a major facelift.
> 
> PACH: Estadio Hidalgo would need a 10k expansion, which will be costly since the would need to get rid of the roof plus add the new stands.
> 
> TORR: Estadio Nuevo Corona would need a 10K expansion, but unlike Hidalgo, it would be easy as they would just need to add the stands. Although Santos wouldn't never be able to fill it up.
> 
> MOR: Estadio Morelos would need a 10k expansion.
> 
> AGUA: Estadio Victoria would need a 15k expansion, Necaxa doesn't need all those extra seats.
> 
> other possibilities...
> 
> TIJ: Estadio Caliente would just need a 7K expansion, but Tijuana doesn't even have a pro team.
> 
> CiuJ: If they get their stadium done, there's no doubt it will be a host city, a new 45k dome stadium is too good to pass up, despite being in a dangerous city.
> 
> QUE: 40k Estadio La Corregidora would be perfect with a slight upgrade.
> 
> VER: Luis Pirata Fuente would need a 10k expansion. And a top-flight team.
> ____
> 
> So with a lot of work, they can meet the minimum requirements.
> 
> But why award the WC to a country that can just meet the minimum requirements with a lot of work when there's a country just to the north of it that can EXCEED the requirements TODAY, and eclipse those requirements in ten years time?



YES but the world cup sill be in 10 years. Is a perfect time in order to remodel all the stadiums. 

Mexico is gonna be the host for U17 World Cup. Let´s see.


----------



## Vicman

WILL BE....sorry i change the W jeje. Cheeeeeersssss jaja


----------



## JimB

Vicman said:


> Guys c´mon, 2018 is for CONCAFAF and it´s not fair you say Europe deserve every 3rd world cup, FIFA xplain all the continents will organize the cup in base to the rotation, not everything is focused in Europe. Someone of U said in Europe FIFA earns much money, you should live in Mexico, here football is more expensive than other place in the world.


It's not that Spanish, English or German people believe that they should host the World Cup *more* often than Mexico. They just want their countries to be able to host the World Cup *as* often as Mexico.

And since, as has been explained, there are so many more European countries that are capable of hosting the World Cup, it would be unfair if FIFA implemented a strict rotation policy.

There are currently only 3 countries in the CONCACAF region that (with a little work) could host a World Cup. There are probably 10 in the UEFA region that (with a little work) could host the World Cup.

Let's make it graphic for you: if FIFA insisted on strict rotation and if CONCACAF was awarded the 2018 World Cup, the schedule could eventually look something like this:

2006 - Germany
2010 - S Africa
2014 - Brazil
2018 - *Mexico*
2022 - China
2026 - *England*
2030 - Egypt
2034 - Argentina
2038 - USA
2042 - Australia
2046 - Russia
2050 - Tunisia / Morocco??
2054 - Peru / Colombia??
2058 - Canada
2062 - India
2066 - Spain
2070 - S Africa
2074 - Chile
2078 - *Mexico*
.....
.....
2086 - Holland / Belgium
.....
.....
2098 - USA
.....
.....
2106 - Italy
.....
.....
2118 - Canada
.....
.....
2126 - Turkey
.....
.....
2138 - *Mexico*
.....
.....
2146 - Poland / Ukraine
.....
.....
2158 - USA
.....
.....
2166 - France
.....
.....
2178 - Canada
.....
.....
2186 - Portugal
.....
.....
2198 - *Mexico*
.....
.....
2206 - Germany
.....
.....
2218 - USA
.....
.....
2226 - *England*

As you can see, a UEFA country like England would have to wait 200 years between World Cups. A CONCACAF country like Mexico would have to wait only 60 years.

In other words, if you had your way, every generation of Mexicans would get to see a World Cup on their soil but only one in three or four generations of English would have the same honour.

Thankfully, that will not happen. FIFA have abandoned the idea of strict rotation for a far fairer and more pragmatic approach.


----------



## Bobby3

Speaking of Mexico and World Cups, does Estadio Neza 86 just sit there?


----------



## KiwiBrit

Vicman said:


> ...Someone of U said in Europe FIFA earns much money, you should live in Mexico, here football is more expensive than other place in the world.


How much does it cost to see a game in Mexico Vicman?


----------



## woozoo

Yes, Europe does deserve every third world cup.

Like I said, more than a third of the teams in a WC are from Europe. By rights a third of all world cups should be hosted in the continent which provides a third of the teams. 

And like everyone else has been saying, Europe provides the countries which are actually able to host a WC.


----------



## SIC

JimB said:


> It's not that Spanish, English or German people believe that they should host the World Cup *more* often than Mexico. They just want their countries to be able to host the World Cup *as* often as Mexico.
> 
> And since, as has been explained, there are so many more European countries that are capable of hosting the World Cup, it would be unfair if FIFA implemented a strict rotation policy.
> 
> There are currently only 3 countries in the CONCACAF region that (with a little work) could host a World Cup. There are probably 10 in the UEFA region that (with a little work) could host the World Cup.
> 
> Let's make it graphic for you: if FIFA insisted on strict rotation and if CONCACAF was awarded the 2018 World Cup, the schedule could eventually look something like this:
> 
> 2006 - Germany
> 2010 - S Africa
> 2014 - Brazil
> 2018 - *Mexico*
> 2022 - China
> 2026 - *England*
> 2030 - Egypt
> 2034 - Argentina
> 2038 - USA
> 2042 - Australia
> 2046 - Russia
> 2050 - Tunisia / Morocco??
> 2054 - Peru / Colombia??
> 2058 - Canada
> 2062 - India
> 2066 - Spain
> 2070 - S Africa
> 2074 - Chile
> 2078 - *Mexico*
> .....
> .....
> 2086 - Holland / Belgium
> .....
> .....
> 2098 - USA
> .....
> .....
> 2106 - Italy
> .....
> .....
> 2118 - Canada
> .....
> .....
> 2126 - Turkey
> .....
> .....
> 2138 - *Mexico*
> .....
> .....
> 2146 - Poland / Ukraine
> .....
> .....
> 2158 - USA
> .....
> .....
> 2166 - France
> .....
> .....
> 2178 - Canada
> .....
> .....
> 2186 - Portugal
> .....
> .....
> 2198 - *Mexico*
> .....
> .....
> 2206 - Germany
> .....
> .....
> 2218 - USA
> .....
> .....
> 2226 - *England*
> 
> As you can see, a UEFA country like England would have to wait 200 years between World Cups. A CONCACAF country like Mexico would have to wait only 60 years.
> 
> *In other words, if you had your way, every generation of Mexicans would get to see a World Cup on their soil but only one in three or four generations of English would have the same honour.*
> 
> Thankfully, that will not happen. FIFA have abandoned the idea of strict rotation for a far fairer and more pragmatic approach.


yeah, except that for most of those years you'd be within 1-2 hour plane flight of all those UEFA world cups.
Meanwhile a 2 hour flight won't even get someone in Tijuana time to get to Mexico City. Let's not even talk about the US.
The fact is a strict rotational policy would notindeed be the fairest way to go, but thats not convenient to an organization based in Zurich. But every third world cup seems like a bitch much.

I bet theres some guy from some country who would kill to have a world cup, even every 200 years.

Also theres no way in hell England goes 200 years without a world cup. I mean...really, some other country would be screwed over...but England would get it's cup.

It's called the WORLD CUP. Not the every 3rd team is European plus others Cup.


----------



## larsul

Bobby3 said:


> Speaking of Mexico and World Cups, does Estadio Neza 86 just sit there?


yes, now it seats there.. the club that was playing in there, Toros Neza was bankrupt and sold...


----------



## hngcm

woozoo said:


> Bcoz USA hosted in 94, just 14 years ago. Mexico isnt really suitible either bcoz they hosted twice, as recently as 22 years ago.
> 
> If Canada can get its act together and get a decent national team in the next few years they should get to host. My opinion only of course. And yeah I doubt they will have a good national team by then so I guess they are all in the running from CONCACAF.


Canada needs A LOT more work than Mexico...


----------



## hngcm

Every third WC for Europe is fair enough. Hell, it used to be every second WC. 

Europe, The Americas, Rest of The World, Europe, The Americas, Rest of The World, etc;

IMO, the next couple of WC's should be like this:

2010- South Africa
2014- Brazil
2018- England
2022- USA
2026- China/Australia
2030- Spain
2034- Mexico/Argentina
2038- Australia/China
2042- Italy
2044- Argentina/Mexico

So worst case scenario, Mexico gets a World Cup in 2044, within my lifetime. Hopefully Mexico plays a game in Tijuana so I can just go across the border to see them play lol.


----------



## Gherkin

:banana::banana::banana: 55,000-60,000 capacity stadium planned for Tottenham Hotspur, North London.



RobH said:


>





JimB said:


> LATEST NEWSClub reveals first images of proposed new stadiumThe Club today revealed the first images of the Club's proposed new stadium design, part of the Northumberland Development Project.
> 
> Designs for the new home of the Club have been developed by KSS, leaders in stadia design.
> 
> Commenting on the release of the images, Club Chairman Daniel Levy said:
> 
> "The brief I gave the architects was to design an iconic stadium that would be one of the best in Europe. My over-riding priority is to re-create the terrific atmosphere we have at the current stadium, within a world class stadium that offers state-of -the-art facilities.
> 
> "This means designing a stadium which has supporters as close as possible to the field of play and not simply looking to chase headline capacity. Our fans will find themselves closer to the pitch than at any other comparable stadium in the UK. This design puts fan experience first.
> 
> "In addition to the stadium, we are designing great facilities within the overall masterplan that will add positively to the local environment and locality, components that can play a role in the regeneration of the wider area."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Keirle, Chairman of KSS, outlined the strategy behind the stadium design:
> 
> "The key driver has been to deliver the best possible fan experience on all levels.
> 
> "The visuals of the new stadium show that it's really seen as a building which responds to the brand, which we see as representing style and flowing lines of football.
> 
> "We have spent a great deal of time looking at different roof formations. The roof has been designed to focus the noise back onto the crowd and onto the pitch. All seating is enclosed, there are no open corners, so everything is focused back onto the pitch and the acoustics will maximise the impact of the vocal support from fans. The stadium will have a roof that allows us to have four large screens up in the top corners, which means every spectator will be able to see a whole host of information.
> 
> "The plans we have produced will result in close proximity for the fans to the pitch, we are going to be metres closer than other stadiums of comparable size. We are fine tuning the plans and these will ultimately determine the final capacity."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new stadium will also benefit from a Club museum, shops and homes, new facilities for the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation and important public space.
> 
> The plans will enable the team to remain at the current site throughout construction.
> 
> Daniel Levy added:
> "Development projects on this scale take a long time from the initial starting point to final completion. Any new stadia we have seen recently would have been designed at least eight to ten years ago. We are designing for our future and this stadium design has been described as the first of the next generation of stadia.
> 
> "This development is more than just somewhere where the team can play football. The Northumberland Development Project will deliver substantial investment for the future of the Borough and will benefit the community.
> 
> "It's about leaving a legacy for this great Club and, once delivered, I hope all our fans around the world will be very proud."
> 
> An interview with Daniel Levy and David Keirle will be available shortly on Spurs TV Online and all free-to-view areas...



more info:


JimB said:


> Indeed. That was one of the most important design criteria for me. I'm also pleased that the upper tier at each side and end will be distinct from the others. Should give the place more character than your standard bowl design:
> 
> Insight into stadium designDavid Keirle, chairman of KSS, gives us an insight into the thinking behind the designs of the new stadium.
> 
> 1. When you were initially approached to design the new stadium, what was the brief you were given by the Club and do you feel these aims have been achieved?
> 
> We were given a very clear brief by Daniel, and that was to provide fantastic atmosphere. There are a number of things people criticise the existing stadium for, but one thing it does have is fantastic atmosphere, that intensity and proximity of the fans to the pitch. Daniel made it clear he wanted a world class stadium, but he wanted to do things slightly differently. We wanted to give fans the best possible experience and recreate the atmosphere at the current stadium, and that's been the single most important factor as we've gone along.
> 
> As to whether we've achieved it, I think that's for others to judge, but I am very excited about what we've done. We've spent a long time getting this right, and Daniel's pushed us extremely hard on the design. Designing a big stadium is always complicated, and there are many factors to judge and balance, but I'm really excited about what we've done and I think it's something that will really separate us from other clubs.
> 
> 2. Talk us through the design of the stadium.
> 
> We wanted to design a stadium that really reflects the Spurs brand. Fans will know that we've had a reputation over the years for flowing football, so we've tried to reflect these flowing lines. The whole architecture has responded to that concept and it is a flowing design that really picks up on that. We've focused on major entrances in the corners so fans can see them and it's obvious where they are with big video screens outside. It's a single entity that can be seen from a great distance, most of north London, particularly at night when the roof will appear to float above the stadium because we've got a wonderful screen of glass that links the two. We're intending to clad the building in aluminium shingles because it's a very complex shape, and it will allow us to shape the elevations of the building. That in itself will lift it above any other stadium and make it look so great. We've had a positive response from everyone we've shown it to, from all the various local governments and authorities, and I think it's a very exciting design.
> 
> 3. The Club has been looking at options for several years now in respect of a new stadium - can you elaborate on this?
> 
> We were initially commissioned about five years ago to look at options for the existing stadium and looked at what it might be possible to do with the east and west stands and to upgrade north and south. But those proved very limiting and came nowhere near to the quality of fan experience or overall capacity the board at that time were considering was appropriate for Spurs. So that was reasonably quickly put to one side and we were then asked to look at other potential sites in north east London. We came up with about 18 or 20 sites that had the potential to manage a stadium of this size. But for one reason or another, they were all either undeliverable, not viable or nowhere near transport. All of those fell away and we started looking at a new stadium two years ago, and that was looking at options for the existing site and whether we could play away for a couple of seasons. It was about that time that we started expanding the site and looking at what those options are. A few months ago re-developing on the existing site became viable and deliverable.
> 
> 4. What considerations did you take into account when designing the new stadium with respect to fans and local residents?
> 
> Designing a stadium like this is a whole myriad of geometric requirements and fan experience requirements, but there were some very key aspects to it. The first one was that Daniel really wanted a world class stadium that truly reflected the Spurs brand and that was materially different from other stadiums. Clearly many stadiums are following a common theme these days, but we were really looking at doing things differently. That meant we had to look at delivering the best possible fan experience and that was across a range of different levels, but most importantly that would replicate the intense atmosphere and viewing experience of our current stadium. I'm a Spurs fan who goes to a lot of stadium, and while the existing stadium has many faults as a stadium behind the scenes, it has the best atmosphere of any stadium in the Premier League, it's just stunning. Everything that we have done since we started this has been aimed at recreating that intense atmosphere. We're not chasing a headline capacity.
> 
> The other issue is that when it proved impossible to relocate sufficiently far away from the existing site to build a whole new stadium, and looking to vacate a ground for a number of years proved in no way viable or attractive as an option, the next thing was to look at designing a stadium that could be phased so that we could build approximately two thirds of it while we are still playing at home and then knock down the existing stadium, completing the new one the following season - so that we're always playing at our home. It was also a great opportunity to maintain the terrace of listed buildings to the north.
> 
> We wanted the stadium to be part of a much wider development with the new supermarket, housing and new public space. It is important that this sits comfortably within the locality, contributes to the area and provides enough reasons and facilities for the fans to arrive earlier, depart later and enjoy a total matchday experience.
> 
> Those are the real key design drivers that then lead on to maximising the fan experience, atmosphere and the facilities we want within the concourse. Anyone that knows the current stadium knows the concourse is very tight and it's difficult to get a drink and food at half-time, there aren't as many toilets as there should be because it's the design of a different era. We're looking at providing the best facilities and I think the Club wanted the stadium that would sit as a single object in its public realm and we'd look at it and think it's amazing, it's different to anything that's gone before.
> 
> 
> 5. How does this design differ from other new stadiums we have seen in recent years?
> 
> We focused on providing a much better atmosphere, a much better environment and intense relationship between fans and players than exists elsewhere. For instance, the distance set between the first row of seats and the pitch is something that's been criticised in many larger stadiums because, in complying with all the requirements in terms of safety, sight lines and everything else, it's much easier when you start further away from the pitch. We've turned that on it's head and said we're going to be metres closer than other comparable stadiums. So we've started from the point of view that we want people to have a similar kind of experience going to the new stadium as they do at the current stadium in terms of where they sit. The one thing you'll notice is that, in some places, we're four and a half metres closer to the pitch than at most other stadia.
> 
> It's not just about being closer to the action, it's also about being related to what's back-of-house. We've been looking at the offer on various concourses and executive levels to give a great relationship between where you sit and watch and what you can do there, how you can get in and out of the stadium.
> 
> We've looked at really trying to emphasise the public realm outside the stadium so that fans have got somewhere to meet. We're embedding video screens into the external envelope of the building so what we can build up the atmosphere outside, and providing the right facilities within the stadium enables people to arrive earlier. We want fans there an hour and a half before kick off so that fans can really enjoy the experience. The other big thing we've really worked on is keeping the noise within the stadium.
> 
> We have spent a great deal of time looking at different roof formations. The roof has been designed to focus the noise back onto the crowd and onto the pitch. All the seating is enclosed, there are no open corners, so everything is focused back onto the pitch and the acoustics will maximise the impact of the vocal support from fans. The stadium will have a roof that allows us to have four large screens up in the top corners, which means every spectator will be able to see a whole host of information.
> 
> So the overall spectator experience will be a million miles away from the current back-of-house, and very close to what happens on the pitch once you're in your seat. That's a balance that hasn't really been struck at many other stadiums that have been built in the last few years, I see that from a fans perspective. When you see the visuals of the new stadium, again it's really seen as a building which responds to the Spurs brand, which we see as representing style and flowing lines of football. We've tried to design something that reflects that and we've really achieved that.
> 
> 6. How will the great atmosphere synonymous with Spurs home games be maintained within this new stadium?
> 
> It's about getting close to the pitch but it's also about keeping the atmosphere and noise within the stadium itself. The roof has been designed to focus the noise back onto the crowd and onto the pitch. It's not just about having a great atmosphere for the fans, it's about having an intense atmosphere for the opposition to come to and be intimidated by. There are no open corners so everything is focused back onto the pitch.
> 
> One of the things we've spoke about is how we get the fans to sing together when they go to the new stadium. One of the problems with new stadiums is fans moving from their historic home where they all sing together, so we'll be working with fan groups and asking where they'd like to be so it compares and really try to recreate this intense group of supporters. It's not just a design issue, it's a question of how the crowd works.
> We also want to make sure the atmosphere isn't just about sitting in your seat; it's that you learn about the lineage that's imbedded within the building, and we're doing the same thing with the training ground and picking up on the heritage and the lineage of what's gone before and what's to come with the new players coming through the system. You will be able to learn about the heritage on the concourse and that builds it up. We went to look at some American stadia in the summer and we looked at how baseball teams picked up on their heritage and built up the atmosphere through great pictures and images on video screens throughout the stadium. That builds up to the moment you get in your seat and you realise how close you are considering this is a big stadium.
> 
> 7. Fans have commented that having distinct stands is important. The new stadium is a bowl, how will that cover this point?
> 
> I am aware of the discussions regarding separate stands, but it's important to note that the current stadium is a bowl and does not have separate stands, almost all stadia are bowl designs for a very good reason. If we did separate the stands, you would have gaps in between them where the atmosphere can leak out, which we don't want. The current stands wrap around into a nice round bowl, but what they do have is distinct personalities. Park Lane is very different from Paxton Road and The Shelf, so what we've looked at is creating a very tight wrap-around bowl that gives the opportunity for different personalities because each of the upper tiers will be distinct and separate. So you will actually get the tight feel of a bowl, but also the feeling that each stand has it's own personality.
> 
> The bowl design means good sight lines from every single seat and also means, with the design of our tiers, that every fan will have a view of all the fans in the stadium.
> 
> 8. What is the expected capacity?
> 
> The Chairman has been quite clear in his brief to us - it's not about chasing headline capacity, it about atmosphere and fan experience. The key issue is that we're going to have the best atmosphere of any Premier League stadiums both now and afterwards, so everything relates back to that.
> 
> We're going to be somewhere between 55,000 and 60,000. It's getting the balance right between proximity to the pitch, seat width, leg room, sight lines, all of those combined. We could give everyone a much bigger capacity but everyone will be further away from the pitch. We think that being closer, and we've talked to fan groups and a lot of people at the club, gives you that intensity.
> 
> 9. What excites you most about this project?
> 
> I think we have the chance to see something a bit different. We've been involved in a number of stadium projects over the years, but as a Spurs fan and a football fan, the opportunity to be able to design a total piece of architecture sitting in this urban block, which seeks to reflect everything about Spurs, is exciting. It's not just about architecture, it's about fan experience. It's a wonderful challenge to be given as a stadium architect.
> 
> 10. Would you say this is a stadium of the future?
> 
> I think it really is a stadium of the future. You have to remember these projects take a long time from start to finish, so any of the new stadiums we have seen recently would have been designed at least eight to ten years ago. Now we've had the opportunity to look at the best in the world and we've taken all the tips and brought them together, so it's a real opportunity for us to design something which is. Having shown a number of people the design, somebody recently said to me that they thought this was the first of a brand new generation of stadia.


----------



## woozoo

^^ Why did you post this in this thread?
Wembley would be the stadium used for London, so this would not affect a WC bid.

Nice stadium for Hotspur! _Almost_ as nice as Emirates


----------



## matthemod

woozoo said:


> ^^ Why did you post this in this thread?
> Wembley would be the stadium used for London, so this would not affect a WC bid.
> 
> Nice stadium for Hotspur! _Almost_ as nice as Emirates


As far as I can tell, I thought you were allowed two stadium's in one city for the World Cup.

Basically I think what he was suggesting by putting up Spur's new ground is that it's not necessarily going to go to being Wembley and the Emirates.


----------



## hngcm

well London can use two stadiums, although I think the Emirates' higher capacity would put it over this stadium


----------



## PaulFCB

If London will use 2 stadiums, the second will be Emirates for sure unless they would refuse to bid. And plus...till then it might be possible for Emirates to extend.


----------



## Mo Rush

Paul the Gunner said:


> If London will use 2 stadiums, the second will be Emirates for sure unless they would refuse to bid. And plus...till then it might be possible for Emirates to extend.


Maybe Im dumb but where are you going to expand emirates? you going to life the roof? knock the whole thing down to add 10000 seats?


----------



## PaulFCB

The stadium has a specific architecture on the 3 rd tier in wave shape, those spaces can be filled up and added seats.


----------



## Benjuk

With Emirates, the new Spurs ground and potential new venues for West Ham and Chelsea, the decision on the second London stadium looks like it will most likely come down to location (specifically the space around the location for sponsors, etc.) and transportation.

I still think it's a crying shame that Twickenham is likely to be ruled out due to it's rugby heritage. Fantastic venue. Much bigger than Emirates or Spurs (82k).


----------



## flierfy

Ashburton Grove might be the second biggest football ground in London. However, with an Olympic Stadium being built which has better transport links, has a greater capacity and is surrounded by a park rather than a residential area, it can be questioned whether AG will be the second pick in London.

Yes I know the Olympic Stadium is intended to be down-sized to an 25.000 seater athletic stadium. But in case that England is going to host the 2018 World Cup, that 6 years after the London Olympics, the remodelling might be postponed to 2018 or even revoked.


----------



## RobH

A stadium with an athletics track is terrible for football. If London was that desperate to have two 80,000+ stadiums they'd find some way of using Twickenham. But they're not and a 90,000 and 60,000 seater will do just fine.


----------



## PaulFCB

Depends on the stadium, if your talking about a soviet type stadium like Luzhniki or the demolished Lia Manoliu in Bucharest yes, it's kinda crappy and a 60.000 football stadium is to choose between one like that that would be 20.000 seats bigger.
But i had no problems at all on Barcelona's Olympic stadium at a Espanyol game and also other Olympic stadiums seems to have a good view at least on the 2nd and 3rd tier.
The best of the best are English stadiums like old Highbury, West Hams or others the new one's seem less steep and the first seats are not as close to the pitch.


----------



## NavyBlue

FFA: Cup bid to boost tourism



> FIFA's executive committee that convenes in Tokyo this week to decide on the ground rules for the bidding process is also expected to confirm that the 2018 and 2022 tournaments be voted on at the same time.
> 
> *Should a bidder for 2018 be unsuccessful then it would be able to enter the vote for 2022 to be held immediately afterwards as long as the 2018 hosts are not from the same continent.*
> 
> *Which means that if the 2018 event goes to Europe, Australia's chances of getting the 2022 tournament would soar because it won't have any Europeans to contend with.*
> 
> The country winning the right to stage the 2018 World Cup will have the right to host the Confederations Cup in 2017. A decision is expected before June 2011.


Great news for those that miss out on 2018 providing they're not from the same confederation.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mo Rush said:


> Maybe Im dumb but where are you going to expand emirates? you going to life the roof? knock the whole thing down to add 10000 seats?


Anything is possible with money and space. As we've discussed elsewhere, alterations to one end and portions of the roof could add 3-8k, but at notable costs-per seat. Given that, a one time expansion all around, expanding the top tier, could yield (layman's guess) about 17k more seats. Done in phases so as to minimize impacts on existing roof frame, this wouldn't severely impact capacity during the season. This would require permission to surpass current height restrictions, however, and require additional ventilation and artificial lighting for growing the pitch. Won't be considered until Highbury is sold off, however. 


Benjuk said:


> With Emirates, the new Spurs ground and potential new venues for West Ham and Chelsea, the decision on the second London stadium looks like it will most likely come down to location (specifically the space around the location for sponsors, etc.) and transportation.


Unlikely West Ham will have a viable option. Even if they can match s**** fanbase (I don't know), they lack the finances to make such a significant evolution. Chelski, meanwhile, would be hard pressed as well considering the club is unable to pay back RA the $1B owed and I doubt he'd "gift" them another $400M to compete with Emirates or the new WHL.



> I still think it's a crying shame that Twickenham is likely to be ruled out due to it's rugby heritage. Fantastic venue. Much bigger than Emirates or Spurs (82k).


I sincerely doubt the FA will want to use venues outside the clubs' stadiums. This is supposed to be a showcase for the "most popular league in the world," a veritable commercial for the brands that make so much money. Even if 60k is the best available for #2 in London, seeing as it's still a state-of-the-art venue and they'll be making $ hand over fist, there's little point going outside the existing soccer venues.



flierfy said:


> Yes I know the Olympic Stadium is intended to be down-sized to an 25.000 seater athletic stadium. But in case that England is going to host the 2018 World Cup, that 6 years after the London Olympics, the remodelling might be postponed to 2018 or even revoked.


IMO, foolish. In addition to the reasons I posted above you're suggesting the use of athletics venue, one designed to be disassembled because something so large isn't necessary or viable long-term, the temporary sections for which have already been programmed for use elsewhere. Postponing that restructuring just to host at best 6 games would be borderline shameful considering the venues available throughout the city. 

As a Gooner I'd rather see the s**** new home host the games than the olympic stadium. Now if that doesn't tell you something... :nuts:


----------



## flierfy

GunnerJacket said:


> IMO, foolish. In addition to the reasons I posted above you're suggesting the use of athletics venue, one designed to be disassembled because something so large isn't necessary or viable long-term, the temporary sections for which have already been programmed for use elsewhere. Postponing that restructuring just to host at best 6 games would be borderline shameful considering the venues available throughout the city.
> 
> As a Gooner I'd rather see the s**** new home host the games than the olympic stadium. Now if that doesn't tell you something... :nuts:


You miss the point that the stadium itself isn't enough for the FIFA. They also call for the area surrounding the ground. Furthermore is transportation an issue that the FIFA takes much more serious than the FA and English authorities do.

There's no need for you to fear that new WHL is favoured over Ashburton Grove. The latter has more capacity, is closer to the city centre, has better transport links and most importantly Woolwich has the better connections to decision makers in London, England and the FA.

I'd say that one 90'000 seater is actually enough. I don't see the point in using two grounds in one city. Play all the London games in Wembley and you'll be able to provide more tickets and get more money in return.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> You miss the point that the stadium itself isn't enough for the FIFA. They also call for the area surrounding the ground. Furthermore is transportation an issue that the FIFA takes much more serious than the FA and English authorities do.


I'm not disagreeing with you that such things are a factor, but with as much certainty as can be said just shy of fact I know the FA, the clubs and the English fans want this to be a showcase of their venues, their hallowed grounds as it were. This is the land that birthed organized football, home of the wealthiest league and clubs in the world! Pilgrims are flocking to worship in temples of Old Trafford and the homes of Liverpool, Villa, etc. To think that London could be home to 4 top-rate venues of 40k (possibly 50k) or more by that date yet suggest they'd need to use the Olympic stadium would be tantamount to an embarassment. Many grow irate the moment you hint at using Cardiff instead of a smaller venue at, say, Bristol because they want this to be about English football. As such, if they use a second venue in London that isn't home to a Premier club, I will be completely shocked.

As to your space allotment around the ground, there'll be plenty of organized gathering spots around the city to help with this. FIFA can't expect every facility to come equipped with acres of car-parks usable for vending, and they'll surely make accommodations considering the size and quality of the venues that will be available to them in England.


> There's no need for you to fear that new WHL is favoured over Ashburton Grove. The latter has more capacity, is closer to the city centre, has better transport links and most importantly Woolwich has the better connections to decision makers in London, England and the FA.


No hubris involved here, I assure you. I'll trust the bid makers to choose the right football ground, and if they feel another is better than so be it.


> I'd say that one 90'000 seater is actually enough. I don't see the point in using two grounds in one city. Play all the London games in Wembley and you'll be able to provide more tickets and get more money in return.


Possible but I truly think they'll spread the wealth. As I said, use the event to showcase their feature stadiums and to invest in new/improved grounds as needed.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I Love FIFA WC!! Best~!

I Think... If I like

FIFA WC
History
1930-Uruguay
1934-Italy
1938-France
1942-missed(war world)
1946-missed(war world)
1950-Brazil
1954-Switzerland
1958-Sweden
1962-Chile
1966-England
1970-Mexico
1974-West Germany
1978-Argentina
1982-Spain
1986-Mexico (2nd times)
1990-Italy (2nd times)
1994-USA
1998-France (2nd times)
2002-Korea/Japan
2006-Germany (2nd time)

Hope
2010-South Africa
2014-Brazil (2nd times)
2018-Mexico
2022-Belgium/Netherlands
2026-China
2030-Uruguay (2nd times)
2034-Spain (2nd times)
2038-USA/Canada (USA 2nd times)
2042-Eygpt
2046-England (2nd times)
2050-Argentina (2nd times)
2054-Australia
2058-Portugal
2062-Nigeria/Ghana
2066-Colombia
2070-Mexico (3rd times)??
2074-Russia
2078-Japan (2nd times)
2082-New Zealand
2086-Chile (2nd times)
2090-Sweden/Norway (sweden 2nd times)
2094-Canada (2nd times)
2098-Brazil (3rd times)
2102-Mar (new mars vs old earth) in future!! hehe... 
I'm so crazy...


----------



## Benjuk

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> 2102-Mar (new mars vs old earth) in future!! hehe...


Surely that would be like playing the European Cup in Brazil?


----------



## marcoman

hola!!.. he seguido este tread durante su inicio, la verdad para mexico es muy dificil organizar unmundial por la situacion economica almenos en los proximos 20 años.

despues de Brasil 2014 seguramente el mundial regresara a europa, y ahi España tiene grandes posibilidades, ya que actualmente estan construyendo como 5 estadios de exelente nivel, ademas que por el momento es el mas capacitado para organizarlo si sudafrica no lo puede hacer en el 2010.

mis pronosticos viendo situaciones economicas, estadios actuales y posibilidades de construccion de estadios es la sig:

2010 - Sudafrica
2014 - Brazil
2018 - España
2022 - Australia
2026 - U S A
2030 - Marruecos
2034 - Europa ( Belgica/Holanda-Inglaterra )

QUE PASEN UNA FELIZ NAVIDAD Y UN EXELENTE AÑO NUEVO!!!


----------



## hngcm

2030 ira a Europa o a Argentina/Uruguay. 

16 años entre copas en europa es demasiado

la unica razon que no fuera en europa es por el centenario de la primera copa del mundo (uruguay 1930)


----------



## www.sercan.de

English please.


----------



## larsul

No way mexico will host another worldcup in the next 20 years.. 
even if we have nice stadiums.. it would not be fair for other countries that have the capacity and never had it before..


----------



## Benjuk

Just a quick post to note that FIFA have confirmed that 2018 & 2022 bidding will take place at the same time. Applications to be sent out in Jan 2009, vote to be made in Dec 2010.

The race begins...


----------



## RobH

"Should a 2018 bid fail it now means countries can enter the 2022 vote straight after, as long as 2018's hosts are not from the same continent."


----------



## Príncipe

My predictions :

2018 - England (well it seems obvious to me now, there's a lot of buzz on this bid)

2022 - catfight between the U.S and Australia , for me Australia deserves it because has never hosted a WC and the US hosted in 1994 , but we know that FIFA would be very pleased with another WC in America , for financial reasons. But my vote goes to Australia.


----------



## Aka

> *Madaíl esteve reunido com Villar*
> *SEGUNDO AVANÇA O JORNAL ESPANHOL "MARCA"*
> 
> O presidente da Federação Portuguesa de Futebol, Gilberto Madaíl, esteve reunido na semana passada com o homólogo espanhol, Miguel Angel Villar, para preparar uma candidatura conjunta ao Mundial'2018, noticia na sua edição de sábado o diário desportivo espanhol "Marca".
> 
> De acordo com o jornal de Madrid, a Espanha seria a líder do projecto, com oito cidades a acolherem encontros, o dobro do que Portugal teria.
> 
> O encontro de abertura da prova seria em Lisboa e a final em Madrid, revela a "Marca", que diz ainda que não foi falada uma possível candidatura para 2022.
> 
> O presidente da FIFA, Joseph Blatter, revelou, entretanto, que o organismo anunciará, em conjunto, no final de 2010, quais os países organizadores dos Mundiais de 2018 e 2022.
> 
> Blatter voltou a reforçar que a Inglaterra seria uma "forte candidata", mas referiu outras possibilidades "muito fortes", como a Espanha. A nível europeu, Blatter falou ainda de uma candidatura conjunta entre a Bélgica e a Holanda ou da possibilidade de a Rússia avançar.
> 
> Japão, China, Qatar, México, Estados Unidos, Austrália e Canadá foram outros dos países dos quais o presidente da FIFA falou como potenciais interessados em avançar com propostas.
> 
> Data: Sabado, 20 Dezembro de 2008 - 15:54
> 
> Source: http://www.record.pt/noticia.asp?id=816677&idCanal=488



This means that, according to the Spanish newspaper Marca, the Portuguese and Spanish FA presidents have met last week to discuss the joint bid for the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Spain would have 8 cities while Portugal just 4 - yes, they said cities, not stadiums. The opening match would be in Lisbon and the final in Madrid.


----------



## PaulFCB

I still think that as long as England is in the race they won't give anybody a chance.


----------



## Capital78

2018 England, China or Canada. 

It seems logically that England has to be a host, they have a good infrastructure. But the problem could be Olympic games and later financial problems because of recesion.

China has at the moment the best sports infrastructure. Money won't be a problem as China is getting a strong economic player.

Perhaps Canada wouldn't be a bad choice. Safe country and they have never organized a big soccer tournment.


----------



## Capital78

The forth possiblity could be Australia.


----------



## Aka

Paul the Gunner said:


> I still think that as long as England is in the race they won't give anybody a chance.


Most likely.


----------



## RobH

Capital78 said:


> 2018 England, China or Canada.
> 
> It seems logically that England has to be a host, they have a good infrastructure. But the problem could be Olympic games and later financial problems because of recesion.
> 
> China has at the moment the best sports infrastructure. Money won't be a problem as China is getting a strong economic player.
> 
> Perhaps Canada wouldn't be a bad choice. Safe country and they have never organized a big soccer tournment.


I can't see how London 2012 is relevent in practical or financial terms. Unless some delegates think the UK has had enough sporting events, it shouldn't have any effect.


----------



## Mo Rush

Australia is capable of hosting great events but I'm not gonna put money on their bid or their chances of winning. Unless FIFA give Townsville Dairy Farmer stadium the thumbs up!


----------



## Benjuk

Capital78 said:


> 2018 England, China or Canada.
> 
> It seems logically that England has to be a host, they have a good infrastructure. But the problem could be Olympic games and later *financial problems because of recesion.*
> 
> China has at the moment the best sports infrastructure. Money won't be a problem as China is getting a strong economic player.
> 
> Perhaps Canada wouldn't be a bad choice. Safe country and they have never organized a big soccer tournment.


I would think the recession would play into England's hands as they'd be able to host without any particularly huge investment in infrastructure. If you take the existing stadia and the plans that exist for new stadia whether they get the hosting rights or not, there's no need to build white elephant stadiums, or to 'over-extend' existing stadia. Transport is good, accomodation is already there, etc.


----------



## aaronaugi1

Mo Rush said:


> Australia is capable of hosting great events but I'm not gonna put money on their bid or their chances of winning. Unless FIFA give Townsville Dairy Farmer stadium the thumbs up!


There is room for improvement yes, but i don't think venues would be a telling factor as to why the Australian bid succeeds or not.


----------



## aaronaugi1

Benjuk said:


> I would think the recession would play into England's hands as they'd be able to host without any particularly huge investment in infrastructure. If you take the existing stadia and the plans that exist for new stadia whether they get the hosting rights or not, there's no need to build white elephant stadiums, or to 'over-extend' existing stadia. Transport is good, accomodation is already there, etc.


Actually, countries who have low debt or are willing to spend may be more attractive options. The government spending helps drive the economy in a time when private investment would be low.

In that regard, i think FIFA may have a few big spending bids thrown at them. EVen in a time of global recessions.


----------



## hngcm

RobH said:


> "Should a 2018 bid fail it now means countries can enter the 2022 vote straight after, as long as 2018's hosts are not from the same continent."


I don't really like this idea. 

Countries should be able to change their bids after failing for 2018. 

Given a couple more years, we can get a lot better bids for 2022.


----------



## Benjuk

aaronaugi1 said:


> Actually, countries who have low debt or are willing to spend may be more attractive options. The government spending helps drive the economy in a time when private investment would be low.
> 
> In that regard, i think FIFA may have a few big spending bids thrown at them. EVen in a time of global recessions.


Excellent! My one reservation about an England bid would be the lack of new stadia to feed my addiction.


----------



## Walbanger

> Australia is capable of hosting great events but I'm not gonna put money on their bid or their chances of winning. Unless FIFA give Townsville Dairy Farmer stadium the thumbs up!


There's no way an Australian bid would include a patched up Dairy Farmers Stadium. Townsville will be fighting other small regional cities like Cairns and Hobart for a hosting position. A total rebuild or new modern stadium would be needed either at the current location or closer to the city proper. That goes for most of Australia's venues such as the Sydney Football Stadium, which already has a lack of Corporate Suites and will be 30 years old by 2018.

Like Germany and South Africa, venues will be put forward then replaced by new Stadium proposals as the bid matures and / or wins. Such as Munich originally proposing a renovated Olympic Stadium, Capetown with Newlands and Durban with a renovated Kings Park.


----------



## Wezza

Mo Rush said:


> Australia is capable of hosting great events but I'm not gonna put money on their bid or their chances of winning. Unless FIFA give Townsville Dairy Farmer stadium the thumbs up!


Lol, just remember the state of stadia in your country before the winning WC bid was announced. 



Walbanger said:


> There's no way an Australian bid would include a patched up Dairy Farmers Stadium. *Townsville will be fighting other small regional cities like Cairns and Hobart for a hosting position.*


And what do you suppose those new stadiums in Cairns &/or Hobart would be used for after the WC? At least a revamped DF Stadium in Townsville will have a use after the WC.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Benjuk said:


> Just a quick post to note that FIFA have confirmed that 2018 & 2022 bidding will take place at the same time. Applications to be sent out in Jan 2009, vote to be made in Dec 2010.
> 
> The race begins...


Should we merge the 2018 and 2022 threads?


----------



## Mr.Underground

Please could anyone say the bidders for 2018?

I don't want to read so many pages.


----------



## Mr.Underground

Is a 5 horse race between 

1. England
2. Spain
3. China
4. U.S.A.
5 Australia

or is changed the situation?

Thx.


----------



## RobH

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_world_cup



> *Confirmed bidders:*
> Australia
> Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg
> England
> Portugal/Spain
> Russia
> 
> *Unconfirmed bidders:*
> Canada
> Japan
> China
> Mexico
> USA


There's been a lot of talk about China, but so far no indications they will bid as far as I know.


----------



## woozoo

Townsville wouldn't need to be used. Canberra could be the 9th city to host matches, with SFS stadium as a reserve ground.

Aren't three of the host cities populations under 400,000? Or do you guys calculate city populations differently (metro/urban/city)?
Rustenburg - 395K
Polokwane - 302K
Nelspruit - 221K

Just out of curiosity, what are average attendance figures for SR premier league games? On one source i found they were very high but on another very low so I have no idea?


----------



## Mo Rush

Wezza said:


> Lol, just remember the state of stadia in your country before the winning WC bid was announced.
> 
> .


Regarding the state of stadia in South Africa.
Are you referring to the 7 existing well used stadia that formed the foundation of our bid for 2006 and 2010.

You know the Ellis Park, Newlands, Kings Park, Soccer City, Loftus Versfeld, Royal Bafokeng, Free State Stadium that have been used all these years to host Rugby World Cup matches and Tri Nations and International Test Matches and Super 12/14. Are these the ones you are referring to?

pfft..state of your stadia.


I said Australia is capable but that IMO, i.e. my personal opinion I dont think they are going to win 2018 or 2022. That's not saying Australia is incapable or would not have the required infrastructure.

Votes win a world cup bid. It is my opinion i.e. personal opinion i.e. ignoring infrastructure, that Australia will not get enough votes to beat England for 2018 or a China or USA for 2022.


----------



## Mo Rush

woozoo said:


> Townsville wouldn't need to be used. Canberra could be the 9th city to host matches, with SFS stadium as a reserve ground.
> 
> Aren't three of the host cities populations under 400,000? Or do you guys calculate city populations differently (metro/urban/city)?
> Rustenburg - 395K
> Polokwane - 302K
> Nelspruit - 221K
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what are average attendance figures for SR premier league games? On one source i found they were very high but on another very low so I have no idea?


Premier League Soccer Matches don't pull in the crowds. Its the rugby matches that do, hence the stadium sharing agreements. Ellis Park, Loftus Versfeld, Royal Bafokeng, Kings Park, Newlands and Free State Stadium are used by both rugby and soccer. In some cases football clubs have now got part ownership of these stadia.

Polokwane and Nelspruit would only host four first Round Matches.

For OZ, I'd stick with a 7 city 8 stadium bid. Sydney hosting matches at two venues.


----------



## woozoo

Cheers 



Mo Rush said:


> I said Australia is capable but that IMO, i.e. my personal opinion I dont think they are going to win 2018 or 2022. That's not saying Australia is incapable or would not have the required infrastructure.
> 
> Votes win a world cup bid. It is my opinion i.e. personal opinion i.e. ignoring infrastructure, that Australia will not get enough votes to beat England for 2018 or a China or USA for 2022.


I have always been interested in the infrastructure possibility of Australia hosting a WC, rather than the politics (which is much more difficult to accurately analyse). Im in agreement with you, Infrastructure wise Australia is capable (Stadiums need work), but it is unlikely to get the votes.

That said Im sure the current voting system is likely to throw in some surprises (which isn't difficult with so many bids coming from such a varied array of countries).


----------



## ChryZ

Japan has confirmed bid for 2018 or 2022:

http://11freunde.de/newsticker/116700/japan_will_wm_2018_oder_2022_ausrichten

Sorry, only in German.


----------



## lpioe

They do have the stadiums but it's too early after 2002 imo.


----------



## RobH

Far, far too early. I think even for the US, a much bigger country who hosted 8 years previously, 2018 is too soon. Japan is just being greedy.


----------



## PaulFCB

Mexico 1986-1970 = 16 years
USA 2022-1994 = 28! Even in 2018 with 24 years seems way enough! But that's for England anyway. In the case Europe would have taken 2014 i think USA could have taken 2018, maybe moving the main action from the west to the east coast could have been a nice idea.


----------



## RobH

Mexico stepped in for Columbia for 1986. Saying Mexico had it twice within a 16 year period is not an argument in favour of Japan.


----------



## Mr.Underground

lpioe said:


> They do have the stadiums but it's too early after 2002 imo.


I agree with you.

I'd like to see WC 2018 in Russia or like second choice in Spain/Portugal.


----------



## Samacado

Portugal/Spain seems logical, but spain does not need Portugal to host it.

So I asked myself if a Portugal/Morocco bid would make sense, it convinced my other me. Both are to small to host it alone, but together they would bring along a decent combination as both theoretically should be able to host a 16 team tournament and surely they do so.

What other interconfederationals bids are thinkable. Maybe Egypt/Saudi Arabia.


----------



## PaulFCB

Samacado said:


> What other interconfederationals bids are thinkable. Maybe Egypt/Saudi Arabia.


 Greece/Turkey seems to most possible for a eventual Euro...geographicly speaking since Turkey has only a small part of its country in Europe.


----------



## JimB

Mr.Underground said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> I'd like to see WC 2018 in Russia or like second choice in Spain/Portugal.


I think England deserves its turn ahead of Spain. England last hosted in 1966. Spain, as recently as 1982.

Russia, however.....yes, it's possible to make a very good case (even better than England's) for them to host the World Cup. They've never had that honour before.


----------



## woozoo

Samacado said:


> What other interconfederationals bids are thinkable. Maybe Egypt/Saudi Arabia.


Australia New Zealand? (Australia is part of Asian confederation, NZ is Oceania) Though this won't happen.

I thought FIFA was against two countries hosting from separate confederations?


----------



## Benjuk

woozoo said:


> Australia New Zealand? (Australia is part of Asian confederation, NZ is Oceania) Though this won't happen.
> 
> I thought FIFA was against two countries hosting from separate confederations?


They've said something along the lines of "so long as it was ONE bid from one organizing committee" they woulnd't be so bothered. The chief problem with Korea/Japan was that it was two bids smashed together, and both parties constantly felt like they were getting the bad end of the deal.


----------



## Benjuk

Mo Rush said:


> For OZ, I'd stick with a 7 city 8 stadium bid. Sydney hosting matches at two venues.


For me, the biggest political and practical issue for an Aussie bid will be the 'second venue' situation.

Melbourne (3.8 mill) and Sydney (4.3 mill) both have population reasons for wanting two venues. Both have excellent facilities and it's very easy to put an argument forward for either city to get a brand new football stadium for a world cup (a real beauty fit for a final). Due to the rivalry between the two cities, there would also be political trouble from whichever city lost out.

However Melbourne has no 'local' likely World Cup venues, whilst Sydney has Newcastle less than 100 miles away, Wollongong less than 50 miles away.

From a practical issue, Perth is so far from everyone else (the next closest venue to them would be in Adelaide - well over 2000 miles away!) that it would almost make sense for them to have a second venue so that World Cup games could be played 'geographically' with a group in Perth. I suppose one way around that would be to build a venue in Perth and another in Fremantle.

As I've said before - I think the success of an Aussie bid (in terms of it's benefits to Aussie sports and the population) would be reliant on the building of 'working' multi-purpose venues in most major cities as part of a larger than 'just' the world cup program. I'm sure that rugby, cricket, AFL AND football would all be delighted if a dozen new stadiums were built in places like Perth, Fremantle, Adelaide, Geelong, Hobart, Canberra, Wollongong, Newcastle, Townsville, and even Darwin. (Please note - not all would have to be to world cup scale - Darwin for example would be a 20k, but constructed in order that the NT didn't get left out).


----------



## ChryZ

I also think that 2018 or 2022 is too early for Japan. But one of these or the 2026 WC should be hosted by an AFC-country (China or Australia).

My proposed venues:

2018 England
2022 Canada or USA
2026 China or Australia

I don't think that another european country has a real chance against England.


----------



## cornelinho

china is a growing contrie...bla bla... is a big economic power..bla bla....

ok...and it has to showoff... and demonstrate ther importance and capability... and i am shure that they will bid for every wc until they get it...


----------



## Wezza

Mo Rush said:


> Regarding the state of stadia in South Africa.
> Are you referring to the 7 existing well used stadia that formed the foundation of our bid for 2006 and 2010.
> 
> You know the Ellis Park, Newlands, Kings Park, Soccer City, Loftus Versfeld, Royal Bafokeng, Free State Stadium that have been used all these years to host Rugby World Cup matches and Tri Nations and International Test Matches and Super 12/14. Are these the ones you are referring to?
> 
> pfft..state of your stadia.
> 
> 
> I said Australia is capable but that IMO, i.e. my personal opinion I dont think they are going to win 2018 or 2022. That's not saying Australia is incapable or would not have the required infrastructure.
> 
> Votes win a world cup bid. It is my opinion i.e. personal opinion i.e. ignoring infrastructure, that Australia will not get enough votes to beat England for 2018 or a China or USA for 2022.


My point was, South Africa can build all of these new stadia to host a WC. So can we..... TBH, there really wasn't anything too great stadium wise in South Africa before the winning WC bid, but that's all changing now.


----------



## Aka

> EL PRESIDENTE DE LA RFEF ABOGA POR UNA APUESTA CONJUNTA
> 
> *Villar: "La candidatura de España para el Mundial'18 debe ser con Portugal"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El presidente de la Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF), Angel María Villar, consideró que el año 2008 "ha sido sensacional y pasará a la historia del deporte español", al tiempo que de cara a los objetivos de futuro abogó por que España presente una candidatura para albergar el Mundial de 2018 "con Portugal".
> 
> "El año 2008 ha sido sensacional, pasará a la historia de nuestro deporte y en especial por haber ganado el campeonato de Europa, brillantemente conquistado por la selección española", destacó Villar en la tradicional comida navideña con los medios de comunicación.
> 
> Aprovechando que su discurso concluyó a las 12 de la noche, Villar brindó por el feliz cumpleaños del seleccionador nacional, Vicente Del Bosque, que este 23 de diciembre de 2008 cumple 58 años.
> 
> En su discurso, Villar valoró el "gran éxito" del título conquistado en Austria y Suiza, y se congratuló "de la reacción espontánea de millones de personas, hecho que demuestra la trascendencia de este deporte". "Estamos esperanzados en seguir consiguiendo éxitos similares en el futuro", recalcó el máximo mandatario, que recordó la trascendencia que supone que España lidere el ranking mundial de la FIFA.
> 
> Villar, que volvió a agradecer al fútbol español haberle reelegido como presidente, expresó sus deseos para el futuro 2009. "Lo primero, clasificarnos para la fase final del Mundial de 2010, después tratar de ganar la Copa de las Confederaciones *y presentar una candidatura fuerte, consistente y ganadora para el Mundial de 2018", enumeró. "Personalmente, opino que debe ser con Portugal. También nos hace falta un Gobierno dispuesto a ello, porque ni una Federación ni un Gobierno sólo pueden conseguirlo", consideró.*
> 
> El mandatario, que confía en poder ver a España organizando un Mundial, desveló otros dos objetivos para el año entrante: la celebración del centenario de la Real Federación Española de Fútbol y la inauguración de un museo del fútbol español, que se está preparando en la propia Ciudad del Fútbol de Las Rozas.
> 
> Source: http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/futbol/seleccion/es/desarrollo/1194390.html





> *Villar anuncia candidatura ibérica ao Mundial'2018*
> *PORTUGAL E ESPANHA CORREM JUNTOS*
> 
> O presidente da Federação espanhola, Angel Villar, anunciou ontem oficialmente durante o jantar de Natal do organismo a que preside a apresentação de uma candidatura conjunta com Portugal à organização do Mundial’2018.
> 
> Villar disse ainda ir iniciar as negociações do apoio oficial do governo espanhol no início de 2009.
> 
> Source: http://www.record.pt/noticia.asp?id=816985&idCanal=488



Well, it's official: Spain will bid with Portugal, that's Villar's wish. Now they're trying to convince their respective governments.


----------



## EPA001

^^ That is going to be a very, very fierce competitor to the possible England bid. I also think that unfortunately this bid outclasses the Belgium-Netherlands bid as well. But it is not only on pints that you win the right to host the WC Football, so maybe "we" still have a chance.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Why with Portugal?
Spain has got so many big stadiums.
12 stadia and 3 Portugal and 9 Spain?


----------



## Mo Rush

IMO Spain would be better off without Portugal. Not that Portugal is not a great country, but any hint of a binational bid would suggest that Spain is not capable on its own. In addition FIFA would just prefer a single bid.


----------



## EPA001

www.sercan.de said:


> Why with Portugal?
> Spain has got so many big stadiums.
> 12 stadia and 3 Portugal and 9 Spain?


^^ 

A reason could be to strengthen the economy on the whole of the Iberian peninsula and to spread some of the organisation costs. And with Porto and Lisbon they add another cities which are situated at the coast line. That always makes for nice pictures, and all are nice cities to stay in. The expected weather is also a bonus compared to Engeland or Belgium-Netherlands.

Madrid would be the exception of course since it is the central city on the Iberian peninsula. But would the final go to the renovated and expanded Camp Nou with a possible 106.000 seats?


----------



## RobH

It gives the bid an element of being able to say "well, this country hasn't hosted before." England will not be able to say that. Spain on its own vs England would be a 1982 host vs a 1966 host and the balance would be firmly in favour of England. Adding Portugal into the mix shakes things up a bit. I'm sure that has more to do with it than the Spanish being benevolent towards their neighbours!


----------



## www.sercan.de

Good point RobH

1. Barcelona 98,000-106,000 (although IMO they will just modernize camp cou. so maybe 95,000)
2. Madrid 80,000
3. Madrid 73,000
4. Valencia 75,000
5. Sevilla 64,000
6. Lisbon 65,000
7. Lisbon 50,000
8. Porto 50,000
9. Bilbao 58,000
10. Zaragoza 50,0000
11. ?
12 ?


----------



## krzysiu_

Australia FTW, England must be kidding with this bid imo..


----------



## RobH

Why?


----------



## pedro_sousa

I am from Portugal and I am totally against this bid with Spain... We have so many problems and now we will spend money in this ridiculous World Cup that will bring nothing good to the country... hno:


----------



## JimB

krzysiu_ said:


> Australia FTW, England must be kidding with this bid imo..


???

Not sure what you're trying to say. Why must England be kidding?


----------



## RobH

pedro_sousa said:


> I am from Portugal and I am totally against this bid with Spain... We have so many problems and now we will spend money in this ridiculous World Cup that will bring nothing good to the country... hno:


Surely you have the stadiums in place from Euro 2004. Spain will provide the biggest stadiums. I can't see anything other than a profit coming from this tournament from Portugal's perspective; surely the costs will be far outweighed by the visitors, media, global attention etc. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## www.sercan.de

pedro_sousa said:


> I am from Portugal and I am totally against this bid with Spain... We have so many problems and now we will spend money in this ridiculous World Cup that will bring nothing good to the country... hno:


I think with a WC a country makes profit?!?!


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> It gives the bid an element of being able to say "well, this country hasn't hosted before." England will not be able to say that. Spain on its own vs England would be a 1982 host vs a 1966 host and the balance would be firmly in favour of England. Adding Portugal into the mix shakes things up a bit. I'm sure that has more to do with it than the Spanish being benevolent towards their neighbours!


Good point. A joint bid helps to redress the balance in Spain's favour in terms of when they last hosted the World Cup.

It also probably guarantees Spain / Portugal the Latin vote (in Europe as well as South America). But they would most likely have won that anyway.

However, I believe that a joint bid also has the potential to weaken their position. FIFA accepts that, on occasion, joint bids may be necessary. But they far prefer bids to be made by just one country. Prime reason being that whenever there are two World Cup finals hosts, there will inevitably be one less qualifying place.

That's bad for any continent but especially bad for Europe, which provides so many of the best teams.

I suspect that some key FIFA votes will be lost because of the joint bid. As many as those votes that will be gained? That's the $64,000 question.


----------



## pedro_sousa

RobH said:


> Surely you have the stadiums in place from Euro 2004. Spain will provide the biggest stadiums. I can't see anything other than a profit coming from this tournament from Portugal's perspective; surely the costs will be far outweighed by the visitors, media, global attention etc. Correct me if I'm wrong.


The problem is Portugal "rulers"! The corruption is devastating this country and this WC will nothing more that an excuse to "recover some stadiums", money to publicity, money to new hotels, money to new roads.... And this would be ok, the problem is if the "projected" cost is 300 million euros, the final cost will be 700 million euros!!! 

This will be a big excuse to the Portuguese "elite" "stole" more money and we already have a huge "black hole" in our finance! It is always happening: Euro 2004, Expo 98, all big events that bring huge debts to the country and only a few new buildings as result.... The country is closing hospitals, schools, social support facilities because it has no money, but we will have money to this!


----------



## www.sercan.de

"Euro 2004, Expo 98, all big events that bring huge debts to the country "

I always thought that a country makes profit which such events?


----------



## RobH

krzysiu_ said:


> Australia FTW, England must be kidding with this bid imo..


why?


----------



## pedro_sousa

www.sercan.de said:


> "Euro 2004, Expo 98, all big events that bring huge debts to the country "
> 
> I always thought that a country makes profit which such events?



The "company", Portuguese State propriety, responsible for the Euro 2004 in the end had a profit of 4 million euros. That is nice, but they "forget" to put on the "calculations" the 400 million euros that the State spent on new stadiums :nuts:

Even the tourism didn´t improve. The Portuguese hotels occupations rates are the same, and in some places like Algarve even drop....


----------



## Aka

www.sercan.de said:


> Why with Portugal?
> Spain has got so many big stadiums.
> 12 stadia and 3 Portugal and 9 Spain?


They decided 8-4.


----------



## Aka

RobH said:


> It gives the bid an element of being able to say "well, this country hasn't hosted before." England will not be able to say that. Spain on its own vs England would be a 1982 host vs a 1966 host and the balance would be firmly in favour of England. Adding Portugal into the mix shakes things up a bit. I'm sure that has more to do with it than the Spanish being benevolent towards their neighbours!


Clever.  And I guess it will be easier for Spain to get votes from countries like Brazil.


----------



## Aka

Pedro, what gives debts to Portugal are the Portuguese themselves. And people are as corrupt as the «'rulers'».


----------



## Aka

JimB said:


> That's bad for any continent but especially bad for Europe, which provides so many of the best teams.


You have a point, but it would be worse if those two countries were ones that hardly qualify for anything.


----------



## pedro_sousa

Aka said:


> Pedro, what gives debts to Portugal are the Portuguese themselves. And people are as corrupt as the «'rulers'».


No question: the rulers are the "mirror" of the portuguese... And that´s why I have no doubt that many portuguese wil suport this bid, but gueess what: the same portuguese will complaint about the heavy taxes! 

But it is not the average Portuguese that will decide what "friend" company will have the contract to recover a stadium...


----------



## Aka

pedro_sousa said:


> But it is not the average Portuguese that will decide what "friend" company will have the contract to recover a stadium...


Will that be needed?


----------



## pedro_sousa

Aka said:


> Will that be needed?


You have doubts? 

Sporting, I don´t know, because they have already sold partially all the "outside space" of the stadium :lol:, but Benfica is desperately trying to recover the "outside" image of the stadium and have extra box's to the cars.. Porto is now constructing a new sport arena... They will do everything to catch new public funding to do that "upgrades in the stadiums".

And, as we know, the Portuguese government and the construction lobby is very "easy corrupted" with this "requests"...


----------



## www.sercan.de

Aka said:


> They decided 8-4.


Lisbon
Lisbon Porto
and?


BTW when we have 2x Lisbon than 2x Madrid isn't possible?!?1


----------



## pedro_sousa

www.sercan.de said:


> Lisbon
> Lisbon Porto
> and?
> 
> 
> BTW when we have 2x Lisbon than 2x Madrid isn't possible?!?1



I would bet, and I am totally against this, but I think it would be:

Lisbon - 65k - Stadium of Light (SL BENFICA)
Porto - 50k(?) - Dragon Stadium (FC PORTO)
Guimaraes - 30k (VITORIA GUIMARAES)
Coimbra - 30k (AA COIMBRA)

I would bet in this stadiums: North and Center of Portugal represented.


----------



## www.sercan.de

you need +40k stadium


----------



## pedro_sousa

www.sercan.de said:


> you need +40k stadium


:lol::lol::lol:

What a great news you are giving... There are only 3 stadiums "plus 30k" in Portugal! So if Portugal will have 4 stadiums, it means one will be "recovered".. more money, more money...hno:


----------



## JimB

Aka said:


> You have a point, but it would be worse if those two countries were ones that hardly qualify for anything.


Indeed.

However, the point remains that FIFA are loathe to dilute the principle of all countries - great and small, whatever their World Cup history - having to prove their worthiness by qualifying for the finals. I therefore suspect that, since Spain could quite easily host the World Cup on its own, many in FIFA will frown upon Spain's decision to team up with Portugal. They will see it as a cynical ploy to get around the fact that 2018 isn't really Spain's turn.

And I suspect that a large number will consequently vote for whichever bid from a single nation they most prefer.


----------



## pedro_sousa

www.sercan.de said:


> you need +40k stadium


After some "thinking" I came to the conclusion that the stadium that "can have the "upgrade" is the Coimbra stadium....










The "lower" stand, partially seen in the picture, can be easily changed, and it is already prepared for that.


----------



## Aka

pedro_sousa said:


> I would bet, and I am totally against this, but I think it would be:
> 
> Lisbon - 65k - Stadium of Light (SL BENFICA)
> Porto - 50k(?) - Dragon Stadium (FC PORTO)
> Guimaraes - 30k (VITORIA GUIMARAES)
> Coimbra - 30k (AA COIMBRA)
> 
> I would bet in this stadiums: North and Center of Portugal represented.


I would easily bet in Algarve instead of Guimarães. Why? Two reasons:

1- It's easier to add 10.000 seats and remove them latter.
2- Tourism.


----------



## Aka

pedro_sousa said:


> The "lower" stand, partially seen in the picture, can be easily changed, and it is already prepared for that.


I don't know if it has sufficient space, since now there's Dolce Vita and Studio Residence.


----------



## Aka

JimB said:


> Indeed.
> 
> However, the point remains that FIFA are loathe to dilute the principle of all countries - great and small, whatever their World Cup history - having to prove their worthiness by qualifying for the finals. I therefore suspect that, since Spain could quite easily host the World Cup on its own, many in FIFA will frown upon Spain's decision to team up with Portugal. They will see it as a cynical ploy to get around the fact that 2018 isn't really Spain's turn.
> 
> And I suspect that a large number will consequently vote for whichever bid from a single nation they most prefer.


Many if FIFA could, yet they're not the ones who vote.

But that doesn't really matter. Even I think that England already won.


----------



## pedro_sousa

Aka said:


> I would easily bet in Algarve instead of Guimarães. Why? Two reasons:
> 
> 1- It's easier to add 10.000 seats and remove them latter.
> 2- Tourism.


Algarve Stadium: The Euro 2004 "White Elephant" :crazy:

Probably the worst public investment in Portugal history. But you might be right.


----------



## pedro_sousa

Aka said:


> I don't know if it has sufficient space, since now there's Dolce Vita and Studio Residence.


Good call. I didn't remember the Dolce Vita...


----------



## Aka

www.sercan.de said:


> Lisbon
> Lisbon Porto
> and?
> 
> 
> BTW when we have 2x Lisbon than 2x Madrid isn't possible?!?1


Just to end some misconceptions of Portugal.

Portugal and Spain are quite different in terms of population organization. Spanish cities are more concentrated and surrounded by fields. Portuguese cities are not that well organized and it's easy to find populations here and there.

In red you'll see the Portuguese region of Centro. In Centro you'll find cities like Coimbra, Aveiro, Viseu, Leiria, etc.










This region has an area of 28.405 km² and it's population in 2007 was around 2.385.911.

Now let's compare it with Galicia in Spain, were you'll find Vigo, Coruña, Santiago de Compostela, etc.:










Area: 29.574 km²
Population: 2.783.100

And now with Aragon, also in Spain, were you'll find Zaragoza:










Area: 47.719 km²
Population: 1.277.471

Also Asturias, were you'll find Oviedo, Gijón,...:










Area: 10.604 km²
Population: 1.076.896


As you can see, the distribution in total is very similar. If the Portuguese population distribution was like in Spain you would probably have Coimbra with 500.000 inhabitants. And I don't think anyone would complain if Zaragoza or Vigo or Coruña were venues for a World Cup.

So, even if the Portuguese stadiums can't sold out, the truth is that there is a sufficient population to fill stadiums during a World Cup in other parts of the country that aren't Lisbon or Porto.


----------



## Stifler

We have been hearing rumours about this and finally we have something official, although it is only the wish of the president of the Spanish Federation.

I think it's a mistake. Spain is able to host a WC on its own and 8-4 is not fair for a country that is 4 times bigger.

Spain should have let England host WC2018, get EC2016 (being favourites) and then bid alone for WC2030 (being favourites again).

With this joint bid, the project has as many chances as England (stadia are great, political influence is big...) but 4 host cities seem way too many for me, especially taking into account that Portugal wn't invest too much maney in stadiums after the Euro. 9-3 would have created a better bid.

Let's see what happens in the future.



www.sercan.de said:


> Good point RobH
> 
> 1. Barcelona 98,000-106,000 (although IMO they will just modernize camp cou. so maybe 95,000)
> 2. Madrid 80,000
> 3. Madrid 73,000
> 4. Valencia 75,000
> 5. Sevilla 64,000
> 6. Lisbon 65,000
> 7. Lisbon 50,000
> 8. Porto 50,000
> 9. Bilbao 58,000
> 10. Zaragoza 50,0000
> 11. ?
> 12 ?


Málaga, Palma de Mallorca, Murcia and La Coruña seem the other likely host cities


----------



## Aka

Stifler said:


> especially taking into account that Portugal wn't invest too much maney in stadiums after the Euro. 9-3 would have created a better bid.


Why should we do it twice? No it's your turn to do it.


----------



## RobH

I happen to think small, wealthy countries see this as a PR opportunity in some ways. The amount of news coverage the world cup bidding process will get could easily justify the cost of putting forward a bid even if you didn't think you could win. Given that likely bidding nations include England, the US, Spain and China all with huge media markets and millions of potential tourists, this might be quite a relativley cheap way of getting Quatar and Doha in the forefront of people's minds.


----------



## *England*

i dont think spain care if they win the bid or not, they see losing the bid as a way of helping them winning a bid for euros instead and by getting portugal with them it shares the cost of a costly failed WC bid, spain could host it on their own but they had it not too long ago and have racial issues the country is oblivious towards, so teaming up with portugal may remove them 2 problems, portugal will get nothing from it, and because europe will have england portugal/spain and russia bidding, it will just help a country like china australia or usa win the bid because the euro votes are being wasted on 3 different parties allowing someone like china to pip everyone to the post!

i dont even know why people say england are the faves, if fifa wasn't so corrupt yes we would be, but when the likes of blatter and warner have votes, no one is favorite, the whole of europe knows england is fave to host it yet they still bid for it, that says it all on its own.

i'd prefer a euro championship every 2 years and have nothing to do with fifa.


----------



## RobH

Does anyone know how the vote works? Are delegates whose nation is submitting a bid allowed to vote, do they sit the vote out completely, or do they, like in the IOC, only vote once their nation is eliminated?


----------



## aCidMinD81

*England* said:


> i dont think spain care if they win the bid or not, they see losing the bid as a way of helping them winning a bid for euros instead and by getting portugal with them it shares the cost of a costly failed WC bid, *spain could host it on their own but* they had it not too long ago and *have racial issues the country is oblivious towards*, so teaming up with portugal may remove them 2 problems, portugal will get nothing from it, and because europe will have england portugal/spain and russia bidding, it will just help a country like china australia or usa win the bid because the euro votes are being wasted on 3 different parties allowing someone like china to pip everyone to the post!
> 
> i dont even know why people say england are the faves, if fifa wasn't so corrupt yes we would be, but when the likes of blatter and warner have votes, no one is favorite, the whole of europe knows england is fave to host it yet they still bid for it, that says it all on its own.
> 
> i'd prefer a euro championship every 2 years and have nothing to do with fifa.


*FA urged to take action after racist taunts aimed at Middlesbrough's Mido*

* The Football Association have been called on to take action against Newcastle United over the racist abuse hurled at Middlesbrough striker Mido. *



By Rob Stewart 
Last Updated: 8:55AM GMT 02 Dec 2008









Target of taunts: Middlesbrough's Mido, seen here celebrating a league goal,
was subjected to racist terrace taunts from a section of Newcastle fans
Photo: GETTY IMAGES 


The Egyptian international was briefly targeted by a section of visiting supporters during Saturday's Tyne-Tees derby for the second consecutive season, prompting an FA investigation. 
Piara Power, director of Let's Kick Racism Out of Football, told _T_he Daily Telegraph: "The FA investigated last time this happened and there were no charges but this time I don't think they'll have any option but to bring charges against Newcastle, which is absolutely right. 
"That's what we are pressing for. We would like the FA to charge Newcastle and then for the police to make sure they are doing everything they can by using CCTV footage and seeing what other reports they possess that are actionable. 
"We need Cleveland Police to take this by the scruff of the neck because it's a criminal offence." 
Power claimed that charging Newcastle with failing to control their supporters would avert a repeat of the taunts. 
"A charge sends out a very strong message and mobilises those who might otherwise sit around not being too worried about it," Power said. 
"We are working with Newcastle as well and we will be pressing home the need to step up and perhaps target some of the work they are doing and look at the issue of Islamophobia. 
"One of the ways we have been able to change behaviour inside stadiums is through peer pressure. Somebody stands up, says something and other fans say 'shut up, you're not representative of the club and you'll get us into trouble'." 
Power added: "The first time this happened and the Sol Campbell abuse at Portsmouth by Spurs fans, initially the police response was that we can't do anything. 
"But subsequently Hampshire Police started looking at CCTV footage and they will uncover individuals and bring them to court and the same thing needs to happen here." 
Meanwhile, Obafemi Martins has apologised for storming down the Riverside tunnel after being substituted by Joe Kinnear in the 0-0 draw at Middlesbrough. 
"Like any other player, I am always most disappointed when I am substituted," the Nigerian said. "But I am sorry if what I did was a problem and, in hindsight, perhaps it was wrong for me to go into the dressing rooms and not go on the bench."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ts-aimed-at-Middlesbroughs-Mido-Football.html


----------



## bigbossman

aCidMinD81 said:


> *FA urged to take action after racist taunts aimed at Middlesbrough's Mido*
> 
> * The Football Association have been called on to take action against Newcastle United over the racist abuse hurled at Middlesbrough striker Mido. *
> 
> 
> 
> By Rob Stewart
> Last Updated: 8:55AM GMT 02 Dec 2008
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Target of taunts: Middlesbrough's Mido, seen here celebrating a league goal,
> was subjected to racist terrace taunts from a section of Newcastle fans
> Photo: GETTY IMAGES
> 
> 
> The Egyptian international was briefly targeted by a section of visiting supporters during Saturday's Tyne-Tees derby for the second consecutive season, prompting an FA investigation.
> Piara Power, director of Let's Kick Racism Out of Football, told _T_he Daily Telegraph: "The FA investigated last time this happened and there were no charges but this time I don't think they'll have any option but to bring charges against Newcastle, which is absolutely right.
> "That's what we are pressing for. We would like the FA to charge Newcastle and then for the police to make sure they are doing everything they can by using CCTV footage and seeing what other reports they possess that are actionable.
> "We need Cleveland Police to take this by the scruff of the neck because it's a criminal offence."
> Power claimed that charging Newcastle with failing to control their supporters would avert a repeat of the taunts.
> "A charge sends out a very strong message and mobilises those who might otherwise sit around not being too worried about it," Power said.
> "We are working with Newcastle as well and we will be pressing home the need to step up and perhaps target some of the work they are doing and look at the issue of Islamophobia.
> "One of the ways we have been able to change behaviour inside stadiums is through peer pressure. Somebody stands up, says something and other fans say 'shut up, you're not representative of the club and you'll get us into trouble'."
> Power added: "The first time this happened and the Sol Campbell abuse at Portsmouth by Spurs fans, initially the police response was that we can't do anything.
> "But subsequently Hampshire Police started looking at CCTV footage and they will uncover individuals and bring them to court and the same thing needs to happen here."
> Meanwhile, Obafemi Martins has apologised for storming down the Riverside tunnel after being substituted by Joe Kinnear in the 0-0 draw at Middlesbrough.
> "Like any other player, I am always most disappointed when I am substituted," the Nigerian said. "But I am sorry if what I did was a problem and, in hindsight, perhaps it was wrong for me to go into the dressing rooms and not go on the bench."
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ts-aimed-at-Middlesbroughs-Mido-Football.html


what the... you bring up an isolated incident that didn't happen easily as a retort to a comment an englishman made about spains obvious problems with racism in football... we in england don't howl @ players till they are forced to leave the pitch, yeah there are idiots but they are dealt with swiftly and heavily frowned upon, how the hell can you compare us!


----------



## Benjuk

The key element here is that the Mido abuse was 'humorously' linked to terrorism (oh, those Mag fans, so witty), and the Sol Campbell abuse mentioned later was more about him being considered a traitor by Spurs fans than it was about his race. A taunt (again, Spurs fans being 'witty') about Campbell swinging from a tree has been taken as being a reference to lynching, when it was in fact clearly (when taken in context) a reference to Judus.

Meanwhile, Spanish fans non-stop monkey chants and booing at Emile Heskey, Rio Ferdinand, etc., during England's last visit to Spain was clearly racist.

That said, I wouldn't expect the issue to have any baring at all on who hosts the finals in 2018.


----------



## JimB

Benjuk said:


> The key element here is that the Mido abuse was 'humorously' linked to terrorism (oh, those Mag fans, so witty), and the Sol Campbell abuse mentioned later was more about him being considered a traitor by Spurs fans than it was about his race. A taunt (again, Spurs fans being 'witty') about Campbell swinging from a tree has been taken as being a reference to lynching, when it was in fact clearly (when taken in context) a reference to Judus.
> 
> Meanwhile, Spanish fans non-stop monkey chants and booing at Emile Heskey, Rio Ferdinand, etc., during England's last visit to Spain was clearly racist.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't expect the issue to have any baring at all on who hosts the finals in 2018.


The Mido chant is actually all about Mido's supposed physical resemblance to Richard Reid - the "shoe bomber". Nothing to do with racism.

And, as you say, the Campbell song also has nothing to do with racism. It refers to a specific incident, when Campbell went missing for a few weeks and it was feared by some that, in his troubled mental state, he might commit suicide.


----------



## RobH

*This will not be an issue.* Spain has much bigger problems than England in this regard, but the footballing authorities would be massive hypocrites to use this as an argument after awarding 2012 to Poland:

A video on racism in football in Poland from the BBC:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x500y1_bbc-inside-sport-poland-football-ra_sport


----------



## Capital78

RobH said:


> Does anyone know how the vote works? Are delegates whose nation is submitting a bid allowed to vote, do they sit the vote out completely, or do they, like in the IOC, only vote once their nation is eliminated?



Delegates from candidate countries are not allow to vote. The main deciding body is FIFA's 24-man executive committee. Of course we all agree that England is the biggest favourite. But, Southamerican members have 3 votes in this committee and they will surely give their votes to Spain/Portugal.


----------



## RobH

Thank Capital.

So, the European block is halved from 8 votes to 4! The members from Russia, England, Belgium and Spain are out of it.

The USA's member may also be out of it and the Quatari member is also out if rumours are to be believed.

That means as few as 18 people could decide where the cup goes in 2018!

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/exco.html


----------



## Mad2012

RobH said:


> *This will not be an issue.* Spain has much bigger problems than England in this regard, but the footballing authorities would be massive hypocrites to use this as an argument after awarding 2012 to Poland:
> 
> A video on racism in football in Poland from the BBC:
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x500y1_bbc-inside-sport-poland-football-ra_sport


You must be an ignorant. I have lived in England, and I have to say that the problem with the racism is equal in Spain or England, Do you know the latin day in England? 3 points to punch a Spaniard, 2 points Italian and 1 point Frenchman.
Did you watch the racial problems with the asian community a few years ago? or perphaps you only read the stupid sensationalist newspapers like The Sun or Daily Mirror.
Please...


----------



## JimB

Mad2012 said:


> You must be an ignorant. I have lived in England, and I have to say that the problem with the racism is equal in Spain or England, *Do you know the latin day in England? 3 points to punch a Spaniard, 2 points Italian and 1 point Frenchman*.
> Did you watch the racial problems with the asian community a few years ago? or perphaps you only read the stupid sensationalist newspapers like The Sun or Daily Mirror.
> Please...


Latin day??

Not quite sure what you're on about.

I'm sure that you are right that there are just as many racists in England as there are in Spain. But the relevant issue to this discussion is that, compared to England, Spain has not done a great deal to eradicate racism within football.

There can be no denying that fact. But let's leave it at that, shall we? This thread is about World Cup 2018 bids.


----------



## RobH

> You must be an ignorant. I have lived in England, and I have to say that the problem with the racism is equal in Spain or England, Do you know the latin day in England? 3 points to punch a Spaniard, 2 points Italian and 1 point Frenchman.
> Did you watch the racial problems with the asian community a few years ago? or perphaps you only read the stupid sensationalist newspapers like The Sun or Daily Mirror.
> Please...



Excuse me, but I haven't heard racist chanting at an English football game in the last decade on the scale the England team had to put with in Spain. That's a fact. And monkey chants? I'm sorry, but those haven't been heard in England in my lifetime (or if they have , I certainly can't remember them)! And before you say that was an isolated incident, it wasn't - England's U21s faced the same treatment in Spain.

Nor has an English sports minister felt the need to _apologise_ to an opposing team and their fans because of racism. Nor has Britain been threatened with the loss of its Grand Prix in Formula 1 because of pockets of racist chanting towards a black driver. Nor did London's Olympic bid have concerns that racism inherent in sections of its nation's sports fans could affect their chances of winning.

Even the head of Spanish football's anti-racism campaign has admitted they're years behind England in this regard. That's from someone who knows, so don't tell me _I'm_ being ignorant. He also said that racist behaviour could be seen at football matches “every week and all over the country.” The same can certainly not be said about England where racism in football grounds is now incredibly rare. Unless you're suggesting the head of the anti-racism campaign in Spain is lying or can somehow prove to me that, like Spain, “every week and all over the country” racism is heard in English grounds, then I suggest your notion that there is no difference between fans' behaivour in England and Spain is rubbish.

Isolated race riots in places like Bradford - terrible as they were - have no bearing on the subject of racism in sport so bringing them up does your argument no good and for your information I read the Independent; so that's another dumb assumption you've made that is way off the mark. Just a little note, if you're going to get much further than 5 posts here, don't accuse people whose opinions you don't agree with of being ignorant and being Sun readers. You won't last long if you do.


----------



## waf

*Latin day*



Mad2012 said:


> You must be an ignorant. I have lived in England, and I have to say that the problem with the racism is equal in Spain or England, Do you know the latin day in England? 3 points to punch a Spaniard, 2 points Italian and 1 point Frenchman.
> Did you watch the racial problems with the asian community a few years ago? or perphaps you only read the stupid sensationalist newspapers like The Sun or Daily Mirror.
> Please...


As an asian guy living in england since birth.... this is a completely new one on me! I have never heard of such rubbish. The racial problems with the asian community were gang related in the north of england, completely isolated incidents.
There are problems with race as there are in every country but compared to other places in Europe, England must be THE most tolerant place to live in. All you have to do is come and spend a few days in London my friend to really understand what a melting pot really feels like and just to experience one of the most diverse places on earth.

As jim Royle would say : " Latin day, my arse"


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Mad2012 said:


> You must be an ignorant. I have lived in England, and I have to say that the problem with the racism is equal in Spain or England, Do you know the latin day in England? 3 points to punch a Spaniard, 2 points Italian and 1 point Frenchman.
> Did you watch the racial problems with the asian community a few years ago? or perphaps you only read the stupid sensationalist newspapers like The Sun or Daily Mirror.
> Please...


You're clutching at straws, i've never even heard of this Latin Day and i have some latin blood in me.

Please lets not compare Racism in English Football to that of Spain :lol:

Spain's Racism problem (or maybe its just ignorance) is very obvious, to think what they did to Lewis Hamilton.... uke:

England is the most active country in stamping racism out of football whereas in countries like Spain the authorities bury their heads in the sand :bash:

As Waf said London is probably the most multicultural city in Europe and could never be a success if it wasn't so tolerant.


----------



## Stifler

Do you really think this is gonna be a key aspect to decide the host of WC2018?

If you think so, you can keep the 'who is more racist' contest.

If not, please go back on topic.


----------



## RobH

> Do you really think this is gonna be a key aspect to decide the host of WC2018?
> 
> If you think so, you can keep the 'who is more racist' contest.
> 
> If not, please go back on topic.



No, and I said as much earlier:



RobH said:


> *This will not be an issue.* Spain has much bigger problems than England in this regard, but the footballing authorities would be massive hypocrites to use this as an argument after awarding 2012 to Poland:
> 
> A video on racism in football in Poland from the BBC:
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x500y1_bbc-inside-sport-poland-football-ra_sport


But I'm not going to keep quiet while someone accuses me of ignorance whilst coming out with tosh of their very own.

Anywho, before we got mired in this Capital78 raised a very good point; half of the European deleagtes will not be eligable to vote and South America have a good number of members in the commitee who you'd think would vote for Spain's bid. It could end up being an interesting bout between the Europeans.


----------



## berkshire royal

^^
I cant remember exactly where I heard it, but I do remember someone at UEFA saying they would like there to be a vote among UEFA nations to decide which nation will represent Europe and bid for the World Cup so that it maximises the chances of that bid winning the rights. It's a good idea I think and I think it could be important, the bidding for the 2018 and 2022 world cup are the most competitive in recent times and I think it's not a furlong conclusion that 2018 will be in Europe.


----------



## JimB

berkshire royal said:


> ^^
> I cant remember exactly where I heard it, but I do remember someone at UEFA saying they would like there to be a vote among UEFA nations to decide which nation will represent Europe and bid for the World Cup so that it maximises the chances of that bid winning the rights. It's a good idea I think and I think it could be important, the bidding for the 2018 and 2022 world cup are the most competitive in recent times and I think *it's not a furlong conclusion* that 2018 will be in Europe.


Ahem....I'm quite sure that something about that sentence didn't look quite right to you!

Does "foregone conclusion" look any better? Excuse the pedantry.


----------



## Mo Rush

JimB said:


> Ahem....I'm quite sure that something about that sentence didn't look quite right to you!
> 
> Does "foregone conclusion" look any better? Excuse the pedantry.


isnt there a singer called john furlong?


----------



## Benjuk

Capital78 said:


> Delegates from candidate countries are not allow to vote. The main deciding body is FIFA's 24-man executive committee. Of course we all agree that England is the biggest favourite. *But, Southamerican members have 3 votes in this committee and they will surely give their votes to Spain/Portugal*.


As with all voters, they will vote for the bid which is best for them. It won't be about heritage or cultural similarities, it will be about deals.


----------



## PaulFCB

Its AlL gUUd said:


> You're clutching at straws, i've never even heard of this Latin Day and i have some latin blood in me.
> 
> Please lets not compare Racism in English Football to that of Spain :lol:
> 
> Spain's Racism problem (or maybe its just ignorance) is very obvious, to think what they did to Lewis Hamilton.... uke:
> 
> England is the most active country in stamping racism out of football whereas in countries like Spain the authorities bury their heads in the sand :bash:
> 
> As Waf said London is probably the most multicultural city in Europe and could never be a success if it wasn't so tolerant.


 Now what would you have wanted? The British to do the same thing to they're own driver? Let's see the difference, Lewis is born in England and represents the British flag in that competition while the Spaniards had they're reason to attack Lewis because of the rivalry with Alonso, so i don't see no reason to take it like they just woke up suddenly. Also with that match, Spain-England as much as i remember there was a reason why the whole stadium started to attack Cole and Wright-Philips because they played pretty though on the Spanish players. The British had they're problems with the immigrants and stuff ( thing mentioned in some very known movies ) , the thing just passed and now the situation is more under control even though it's clear racists are everywhere and it's normal for countries like Spain to have more of them since they aren't that used to having black immigrants like England or France. 
And about Poland, i don't know if they're problem is with the African players in the France team ( for example ) as much as the one's who play for them, I don't think there would be any big problems of this kind at the Euro, I think they're problem is more with the ones who play for them and live over there. Comparing to Romania, I didn't hear anything like this when Romania played France or The Netherlands but when there are some african players at they're own team, the fans sometimes use this as a revenge for they're mistakes or simply because they consider them low class players that have nothing to do at the team.


----------



## carlspannoosh

I doubt very much that racial issues would be an argument raised against either a Spain or England bid. End of discussion as far as I am concerned.


----------



## JimB

Paul the Gunner said:


> Now what would you have wanted? The British to do the same thing to they're own driver? Let's see the difference, Lewis is born in England and represents the British flag in that competition while the Spaniards had they're reason to attack Lewis because of the rivalry with Alonso, so i don't see no reason to take it like they just woke up suddenly. Also with that match, Spain-England as much as i remember there was a reason why the whole stadium started to attack Cole and Wright-Philips because they played pretty though on the Spanish players.


Certainly, there is a rivalry - an enmity, even - between Hamilton and Alonso. But that doesn't excuse any of the racist abuse that Hamilton receives from Spanish motor racing crowds. Anyway, this is a discussion about football. More than that, it is a discussion about World Cup bids and not racism, so probably best to stop stirring the pot.

As to Wright Phillips, I presume you meant "played pretty *rough* on the Spanish players"? In which, case, I suggest that you can't have seen Wright Phillips play very often! He is five foot nothing and just about the least rough player you could ever hope to face!


----------



## PaulFCB

Well, maybe i made a confusion about Wright-Philips, though it doesn't matter the stature when you slide very ugly, but i guess not him. That match was an England Shame more, most players on the pitch were rough with the Spaniards and I think it's normal when you play like that not to wait for applauses from the stands.
Another case is Eto'o when he wanted to leave the pitch, even though other black players including coach Rijkaard ( who also had some bad incidents with Voller, spitting him and running away like nothing happened ) wanted to convince him to ignore them. After all Eto'o isn't too clean himself when he spitted at a Bilbao player, things like these will attract attention anywhere and force incidents like that.

But anyway, I strongly think racism won't be put in discussion when choosing the host of the 2018 WC . Mostly because if you give it to much importance, you can only aggravate the situation IMO. And thats what Eto'o did and is always in the middle of they're attention while other black players in La Liga passed over it and aren't suffering.


----------



## RobH

> Also with that match, Spain-England as much as i remember there was a reason why the whole stadium started to attack Cole and Wright-Philips because they played pretty though on the Spanish players....That match was an England Shame more





> the Spaniards had they're reason to attack Lewis because of the rivalry with Alonso


Oh, so the England team played rough and Lewis Hamilton was Alonso's rival! I'm glad you explained that! How silly of me for thinking the people making racist noises didn't have a good reason for it! Keep up the monkey chanting, I apologise, I obviously didn't realise quite how _solid_ those fans' motives were!

:nuts:


----------



## *England*

so as long as the teams playing spain dont tackle and just let them score, all should be fine! wouldn't want a rivalry in a world cup now would we.


----------



## PaulFCB

Yeah, as long as there's no difference between a tackle and a nasty foul, wouldn't want a thing like that in a world cup now would we.


----------



## Aka

Did you know that for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups the minimum capacity to host the opening match or the final is 80.000?

Now... that ruins a lot of things to a lot of people...


----------



## Mo Rush

its not a ridiculous requirement.


----------



## Joop20

Aka said:


> Did you know that for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups the minimum capacity to host the opening match or the final is 80.000?
> 
> Now... that ruins a lot of things to a lot of people...


Why's that? All bidding countries have at least 1 stadium with this capacity, or are planning to build one. It's a pretty decent requirement if you ask me. And I think this is only for the final match, not the opening?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Aka said:


> Did you know that for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups the minimum capacity to host the opening match or the final is 80.000?
> 
> Now... that ruins a lot of things to a lot of people...


Dou you have a pdf file for the other new requirements?

80k is really a lot


----------



## Aka

www.sercan.de said:


> Dou you have a pdf file for the other new requirements?


I don't, sorry.


--------

It's a decent requirement?

Now you tell me: which countries have at least one stadium with 80.000 seats? With this FIFA is reducing the number of countries with possibilities drasticly.

What about the Netherlands and Belgium?

Or Portugal and Spain... The opening and the final will have to be both in Spain... and that means Camp Nou...


The 2006 FIFA World Cup would have been impossible.

And what's the point of having both matches at the same stadium?


The truth is: FIFA wants money.


----------



## witn88

Aka said:


> I don't, sorry.
> 
> 
> --------
> 
> It's a decent requirement?
> 
> Now you tell me: which countries have at least one stadium with 80.000 seats? With this FIFA is reducing the number of countries with possibilities drasticly.
> 
> *What about the Netherlands and Belgium?*


Feyenoord will build a new stadium with a capacity of 80.000. The opening will probably be in Brussels (new 65.000 stadium)


----------



## www.sercan.de

But you need a 80k stadium for the opening ceremony


----------



## Aka

www.sercan.de said:


> But you need a 80k stadium for the opening ceremony


That's my point.

That wouldn't be a problem for England though, since they'll want both matches at Wembley.


----------



## www.sercan.de

England: Wembley (and maybe OT)
Spain: Camp Nou and Bernabeu
Benelux: New Rotterdam


----------



## Aka

sercan, what about lowering the field, adding a temporary stand with 15.000 seats and afterwards return to the original format?    There is plenty of space!


----------



## Aka

My oh my... Blatter can't hide it: FIFA just wants money!



> Sepp Blatter expects tough competition for the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, the FIFA president said on Saturday.
> 
> "We already have 10 potential bidders," Blatter told a news conference during the opening of the CIS Cup, an annual tournament involving the club champions from the 15 former Soviet republics.
> 
> "If we go from west to east we have Mexico, United States, Spain alone or together with Portugal, England, a joint bid from the Netherlands and Belgium, *I do hope Russia (will bid)*, Japan, Qatar, China and Australia."
> 
> South Africa will host the 2010 World Cup and Brazil is due to stage the 2014 edition.
> 
> Turning to Russian soccer chief Vital Mutko, *Blatter said: "I definitely expect Russia to be a candidate to host the World Cup either in 2018 or 2022."*
> 
> Alexei Sorokin, general director of the Russian FA, said officials had yet to make up their mind about submitting a formal bid.
> 
> "We haven't sent an official letter to FIFA yet as we're still waiting for the government to formally endorse our bid," Sorokin told Reuters.
> 
> This week world soccer's ruling body set a Feb. 2 deadline for potential bidders to formally express their interest.
> 
> For the first time FIFA will have a simultaneous bidding process for the two events, which will be awarded to the successful candidates in December 2010.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Aka said:


> sercan, what about lowering the field, adding a temporary stand with 15.000 seats and afterwards return to the original format?    There is plenty of space!


But +15k? 
IMO more like 5-7k.


----------



## www.sercan.de

So Australias Bid is official?

If yes i would prefer this combination

2018 England
2022 Australia

I do not like joint bids


----------



## bigbossman

Paul the Gunner said:


> Supposing I read it on the Internet, probably I would have read it from a journalist who knows what he's talking about and that saw the game so what a hell of a difference it makes?
> And yes, I saw that game and IMO Egypt were way over Ivory Coast even if they games would have finished 2-1 or 3-1...
> 
> But whatever, I see you kinda have nothing to do else then expanding a off topic discussion, maybe *go to school*/work in this precious time? :nuts:


Learn to read if i said i was barely 1 in 1986, do you think that makes me of school age, jeez!

thanks for proving me right... end of discussion!


----------



## PaulFCB

Paul the Gunner said:


> But whatever, I see you kinda have nothing to do else then expanding a off topic discussion, maybe go to *school/work* in this precious time? :nuts:


 The if you're born in 1985 and you're 23 it means you can still be studying and/or working hno:


----------



## bigbossman

Paul the Gunner said:


> The if you're born in 1985 and you're 23 it means you can still be studying and/or working hno:


i specifically only highlighted your *SCHOOL* comment as that was relevant to my point...

*SCHOOL*, not college, university or work, *SCHOOL*. In england *SCHOOL* runs from the age of 4 to the 18... so how on earth can a 23 year old still be at *SCHOOL*...

just stop please... this is descending into the special olympics...


----------



## PaulFCB

Then mind you're own business and prepare for the Paralympics ffs. You are really constipated, I wrote school/work is it so hard to get the point, do i need to draw you a scheme to understand? ( not like I give a damn if you're in primary school, college or working on the shipyards or if you're in the Chamber of Commons ) so then just shut it as you said in you're previous post if you don't have anything on topic to say.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Enough already. **** sake.


----------



## Gherkin

_sercan _may I ask why these threads were merged? Thanks for keeping me as the thread starter, but it doesn't appear in my "threads started by gherkin007" in my "stats" area of my profile. Do you know why this is?


----------



## cornelinho

Paul the Gunner said:


> Then mind you're own business and prepare for the Paralympics ffs. You are really constipated, I wrote school/work is it so hard to get the point, do i need to draw you a scheme to understand? ( not like I give a damn if you're in primary school, college or working on the shipyards or if you're in the Chamber of Commons ) so then just shut it as you said in you're previous post if you don't have anything on topic to say.


Paralympics :lol::lol::lol: thats a good one :lol:

but seriously kids don't you people have something better to do then insult yourselves in a public forum... you can very well argue by messages and leave everybody out of this...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Gherkin007 said:


> _sercan _may I ask why these threads were merged? Thanks for keeping me as the thread starter, but it doesn't appear in my "threads started by gherkin007" in my "stats" area of my profile. Do you know why this is?


im guessing it was merged since bids for both World Cups will be contested at the same time and hosts will be announced together in December 2010.


----------



## Dasher39

www.sercan.de said:


> So Australias Bid is official?


Bloody oath it is!

The Federal Government has committed $45.6m towards the bid (which incidentally is more than the British Govt has given The FA).


----------



## JYDA

Is China in yet? If they pass and 2018 goes to Europe then I think 2022 will be between USA and Australia.


----------



## matthemod

JYDA said:


> Is China in yet? If they pass and 2018 goes to Europe then I think 2022 will be between USA and Australia.


Has the US even given any intention of entering the race? I hear a lot on here about it being "between the US" and such and such but as far as I can tell, they don't even plan on entering.


----------



## ryebreadraz

matthemod said:


> Has the US even given any intention of entering the race? I hear a lot on here about it being "between the US" and such and such but as far as I can tell, they don't even plan on entering.


I don't have time to look up links, but Sunil Gulati, head of the USSF, has stated they're looking at making a bid for 2018/2022 and are extremely interested in hosting a WC in the near future. He said they're researching the details of a bid and that it looks like they're going to bid. There have also been multiple reports stating that Gulati has spoken to a number of FIFA executives to gauge their interest in a US bid.


----------



## Bobsi

Oh no, a fans nightmare.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Actually i din't merged the threads.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=654977

But will it do it later


----------



## cmc

From the Mexico bid, the FEMEXFUT president has said the 2022 is more realistic than the 2018 for CONCACAF, since Brazil will host the 2014....


----------



## ryebreadraz

cmc said:


> From the Mexico bid, the FEMEXFUT president has said the 2022 is more realistic than the 2018 for CONCACAF, since Brazil will host the 2014....


I agree. Add in the fact that Europe will have not hosted the last 2 WC's and I can't see Europe not getting 2018. I expect the US to make a deal with the FA, agreeing to back out of 2018 and support England's bid in exchange for England's support for their 2022 bid.


----------



## *England*

mexico wasting their time, 2018 will go to someone in europe and theres no way they'll choose mexico over australia china usa for 2022, if mexico want it so bad then they should of bid against brazil instead of handing it to them on a plate.
the days of mexico getting it every so often are long gone now, theres too many better options now and before there wasn't, my guess is mexico wont get a world cup again til at least the 2040s or even later.


----------



## ryebreadraz

*England* said:


> mexico wasting their time, 2018 will go to someone in europe and theres no way they'll choose mexico over australia china usa for 2022, if mexico want it so bad then they should of bid against brazil instead of handing it to them on a plate.
> the days of mexico getting it every so often are long gone now, theres too many better options now and before there wasn't, my guess is mexico wont get a world cup again til at least the 2040s or even later.


Mexico couldn't bid against Brazil. FIFA used the rotational system and only teams from South America were eligible to bid.


----------



## larsul

*England* said:


> mexico wasting their time, 2018 will go to someone in europe and theres no way they'll choose mexico over australia china usa for 2022, if mexico want it so bad then they should of bid against brazil instead of handing it to them on a plate.
> the days of mexico getting it every so often are long gone now, theres too many better options now and before there wasn't, my guess is mexico wont get a world cup again til at least the 2040s or even later.


As we said before, even us mexicans know we will not get that worldcup..
with australia, us and china bidding for 2022, i dont see any chance for us to get it.. even in the next couple of years following 2022..
so dont worry, nobody will argue with you about that..


----------



## Wezza

PaulFCB said:


> Isn't it North Korea actually?


That would be interesting! 

USA would have to play their games somewhere else. :lol:


----------



## cmc

Basing it on History and if all goes according to plans,,,

1998-France..........Europe
2002-Korea/Japan..Asia
2006-Germany......Europe
2010-S.Africa........Africa
2014-Brazil...........S.America

2018-?????............*Europe*, basing it on what the Euros are used to, on getting the WC every 8 yrs, would have been 12 yrs since 06 hosted in Germany. And plus the influence they have over FIFA.

2022-????.............*N.America or Asia*, who else? by that time it would be 28 yrs since CONCACAF last hosted and 20 for Asia.


----------



## tollfreak

*Peter Butler: If Indonesia Puts Its House In Order, It Could Host A Great World Cup
Ex-West Ham midfielder Peter Butler has coached all around Asia. That stint included two years in the Indonesian league. The Englishman was thrilled to learn that the nation wants the 2022 World Cup but warns that widespread corruption in the game needs to be eradicated...*

The thought of Indonesia bidding for a World Cup has me thinking how positive it could be for the game there. After spending two years of my coaching career in the hurly-burly world of Indonesian Football I learned a few things. 

Anybody reading this thinking it’s a footballing backwater should take my advice: get on a plane and go to Indonesia to watch a game. The atmosphere at one of the top games will blow you away - big crowds week in, week out, full houses of 40- 50,000 are not uncommon.

Apologies to my Australian friends but if you go to a top game in the A-League, all you will probably hear for 90 minutes is ‘Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie, Oi Oi Oi !!!’ 

Go to Indonesia and you will get an atmosphere to rival anywhere in Asia. They are fanactical. Last season I was at Arema Malang for a game. Those fans are without doubt the best fans in Indonesia. There were over 45,000 in the stadium, constantly singing and dancing on the terraces.

I have always said and believed Indonesian football is the jewel in the crown of Asian Football. It will only get bigger and better and go forward if they can drive out the corruption which exists in the game there. 

Sadly, corruption is rampant within the sport and the Asian Football Confederation and FIFA need to get a grip of it because it is out of control.

I myself am owed over $45,000 by my ex-club, Persiba Balikapapan, and over 50 players are presently fighting their cases with FIFPro at FIFA to receive what they are owed.

There is no protection for coaches and players, and sadly many club officials manipulate the system for their own personal gain, sack coaches and players at will and refuse to pay what is owed on their contracts. The Indonesian FA turn a blind eye. 

I have had players on my doorstep and crying on the phone to me begging for help because their club will not pay their contract and they have a wife and kids to feed. The AFC are not interested. 

People will always ask if Indonesia is safe to hold such a major event. All I can say is: I have never had a problem in Indonesia in my time and have always felt safe. The people in Jakarta are wonderful people, and Indonesians in general are wonderful. They are so vibrant. 

2022 is a long way away and I would love for the hopes and dreams of Indonesian football, and the wonderful people of Indonesia, to come true and that they get a chance to host the tournament. It would be fantastic for a nation of genuine football lovers. 

After all the tragic events which have happened in recent years it would be a dream come true for my Indonesian friends to see the spectacle of world football take place there, and I hopefully will be there with them watching England win the trophy at the Gelora Bung Karno. Dreams sometimes do come true!

Peter Butler

taken from:http://www.goal.com/en/news/1649/wc...onesia-puts-its-house-in-order-it-could-host-


----------



## Wuppeltje

dacrio said:


> A spokesman told Reuters Monday that FIFA would consider joint bids from countries who were not capable of hosting a World Cup on their own.


This would be good news for the Netherlands and Belgium. Both countries aren't able to host a WC on their own without leaving empty stadiums behind.


----------



## PaulFCB

Wezza said:


> That would be interesting!
> 
> USA would have to play their games somewhere else. :lol:


 There actually was a rumor some time ago that they will bid :lol:
Probably U.S.A. wouldn't participate just like in 1980 at the Olympic Games.


----------



## Aka

fifa.com, February 3rd:



> *Remarkable interest in 2018 & 2022*
> 
> FIFA has received a total of 11 formal expressions of interest to bid for the 2018 and/or the 2022 FIFA World Cups™ by the established deadline of 2 February 2009. The member associations that have confirmed their interest in hosting FIFA's flagship competition are, in alphabetical order: Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Korea Republic, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Spain and Portugal, and the USA.
> 
> "It is remarkable that so many high-quality contenders have expressed an initial interest in hosting our flagship competition," said FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter. "Our world is one that is rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their basic rights, or have to deal with the daily realities of conflict. FIFA now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.
> 
> "The current worldwide economic crisis has brought another dimension of uncertainty into the lives of many people around the world. Football has an extraordinary power to unite people, as well as an ability to inspire emotions of hope, passion and joy.
> 
> 
> "This is even more true when it comes to the FIFA World Cup, a truly global competition. For this reason, FIFA has asked the potential bidders to ensure that this power of football is used to urge solidarity and achieve positive change in the world; an opportunity to contribute to making a difference to people's lives, in line with our claim: For the Game. For the World.
> 
> "The bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be keenly contested and FIFA is eager to ensure that fair play prevails. For that reason, the FIFA Ethics Committee will be involved in the proceedings."
> 
> FIFA will now send the Bid Registration form on 16 February to the member associations which have formally expressed their interest to bid for the 2018 and the 2022 FIFA World Cups.
> 
> More details about the bidding process itself, the calendar and the conditions can be found in the circular letter, which can be accessed through the link on the right-hand panel of this article.



So... where's Egypt?


----------



## www.sercan.de

OK. Added a poll.
Although its a Multiple Choice Poll, please just vote for just one 2018 / 2022.


----------



## Mr.Underground

Is official the race without Egypt?


----------



## PaulFCB

My votes.

England - 2018
Japan - 2022


----------



## Mr.Underground

My votes:

2018 Russia
2022 Australia

It could be interesting for every bids to make a realistic list of the cities.

For example which cities for Australia bid? Sidney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Perth and then?

And about Russia?


----------



## RobH

England 2018

Australia 2022


----------



## potipoti

spain and portugal 2018

portugal and spain 2022

XD


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

If England where to get the nod to host in 2018 then from the list remaining the only viable option at this moment in time would be Australia to host in 2022. I would've said China but they aren't bidding.


----------



## lpioe

England 2018

Not so sure about 2022, I think it will be between USA, Australia and (hopefully) Indonesia.
I hope for Australia or Indonesia, USA only had it in 1994 and the two other countries could profit much more from it.


----------



## PaulFCB

Mr.Underground said:


> My votes:
> 
> 2018 Russia
> 2022 Australia
> 
> It could be interesting for every bids to make a realistic list of the cities.
> 
> For example which cities for Australia bid? Sidney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Perth and then?
> 
> And about Russia?


 If you can choose 6 Australian cities you can surely have enough Russian cities for a World Cup since it's, damn, one big country :moods::

1.Moscow
2.Saint Petersburg
3.Novgorod 
4.Yekaterinburg
5.Kazan
6.Omsk
7.Novosibirsk
8.Samara
9.Rostov
10.Perm

Of course, I only have examples of 10 cities with population over 1 million in the city limits. There are some of them that don't have football teams in the Russian Premier League since some of them are in smaller cities, though, Vladivostok would be a nice "democratic" one since it played some time in they're 1st Division :-D. 
Then, I don't know how those Russian people appreciate football outside of Moscow and S.Petersburg, except these 2 cities I have heard nothing about other teams and they're fans and of course...7 of the 16 teams are in Moscow.


----------



## Gherkin

www.sercan.de said:


> OK. Added a poll.
> Although its a Multiple Choice Poll, please just vote for just one 2018 / 2022.


Thanks for adding that to the thread. I voted wrong but it doesn't really matter...

I've "exceeded my bandwidth" on Photobucket so most of my photos on this thread have been deleted. I'd like to re-do the first post of this thread but it'll take about a day - sounds like a challenge!


----------



## larsul

is the poll list the official Fifa list?


----------



## Wezza

RobH said:


> England 2018
> 
> Australia 2022


x2


----------



## ryebreadraz

England 2018

USA 2022


----------



## ryebreadraz

Why the US will host in 2018 or 2022 (likely 2022). $$$$$$$$$. Right or wrong, money usually plays the biggest factor in FIFA's decisions and SoccerNet.com's Steve Davis explains the riches awaiting FIFA in the US.



> At some point, this bid process is all about the facilities. (Well, really, it's about money. Because finances are inextricably linked to facility size, by extension, these bids are about physical structures.) The United States enjoys a stadium situation unrivaled in the rest of the world, thanks mostly to the country's love of American football and need to stack the racks with money-waving fans.
> 
> More seats mean more money for FIFA. It's that simple.
> 
> .....
> 
> Consider this: A World Cup today could be scattered quite easily around a roster of fabulous stadiums that didn't even exist when the United States hosted World Cup 1994.
> 
> Let that sink in. That's how deep the selection of stadiums is here.
> 
> And, of course, venerable facilities such as the Rose Bowl, which hosted the 1994 final, remain in play. That one also holds 100,000-plus fans.
> 
> The 1994 World Cup smashed previous records for attendance; the 52-game tournament averaged 68,991 fans, a mark that still stands. The next one here will easily surpass that record.
> 
> ......
> 
> There's also a matter of sponsorship. Here, too, FIFA has reason to purr over prospects of a second World Cup in the United States.
> 
> "From a sponsorship perspective, the two countries that advertisers currently covet most are the United States and China, and this will probably continue to be the case in 2018 and beyond," said John Alper, vice president of Premier Partnerships, a national sales and marketing firm specializing in revenue generation for facilities, events and properties. "Obviously, FIFA considers a variety of factors for this decision. However, from a sponsorship perspective, having the USA as the host nation is definitely a plus."
> 
> And by "definitely a plus," he means more cash for the FIFA kitty. Ka-ching!
> 
> The 1994 World Cup was a rousing success, at least in terms of attendance and revenue. And soccer's profile has risen substantially in the United States in the 15 years since. That means hosting a World Cup in 2018 or 2022 would be a colossus.
> 
> The World Cup in Germany averaged 52,491 spectators per contest. Given the scale of the new facilities available to the U.S.' bid, the average crowd for a World Cup in the United States could climb to 75,000. That's an extra 22,000-plus fans for 64 matches. With an average ticket price of $140 or so (the World Cup in South Africa next year will charge an average of $139, so that is a very conservative estimate), that's an additional $197 million just in ticket revenue.
> 
> ......
> 
> One more thing: Facilities in other countries, nice as some are, aren't designed with luxury boxes in mind. Not to the extent U.S. stadiums are, at least. Those opportunities for premium sales generate good money, too. Ka-ching, again.
> 
> Money talks. FIFA listens. Another World Cup is headed to the United States in your lifetime, and Feb. 2 is the day it all officially started.


----------



## *England*

usa want it for $$$$$$$
rest of the world want it for football

England 2018
Australia 2022


----------



## JYDA

Ummm no, FIFA would want it for $$$$$$$$


----------



## hngcm

Europe will get 2018 for sure, most likely England. 

With China dropping out of 2022 bidding, it seems like a lock for the USA. China was the only country capable of matching what the USA can offer, as well as the potential to spread soccer through out the country. Australia just can't match up to the USA. The USA now can host the cup with 12 stadiums all over 70,000 and all less than 10 years old. Australia would have to build 40k stadiums that will be half empty most of the time after the WC. Also, would FIFA prefer to market the game to a country with 300 million people, or to one with 20 million people?


----------



## igors

2018: Russia
2022: Indonesia


----------



## icracked

igors said:


> 2018: Russia
> 2022: Indonesia


^^ That would shock the world.


----------



## gladiatori

My favorites for WC 2018/2022 England and Australia, because they already have two championship outside Europe and because Australia is a country that has nothing to show


----------



## Wezza

gladiatori said:


> My favorites for WC 2018/2022 England and Australia, because they already have two championship outside Europe *and because Australia is a country that has nothing to show*


That's a great reason for us to get it! :lol:


----------



## RobH

EDIT: decided to post my response to ryebread's article in the USA thread since he put it in both threads (why??)


----------



## invincible

tollfreak said:


> *Peter Butler: If Indonesia Puts Its House In Order, It Could Host A Great World Cup
> 
> Apologies to my Australian friends but if you go to a top game in the A-League, all you will probably hear for 90 minutes is ‘Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie, Oi Oi Oi !!!’ *


*

Yeah, ok. *


----------



## Steel City Suburb

When is the final decision made?


----------



## Michael_23

I think that England will get it. They haven't been hosting anything for many years (since EURO 1996) and they have much to say in FIFA.


----------



## RobH

December 2010


----------



## Benjuk

*England* said:


> usa want it for $$$$$$$
> rest of the world want it for football
> 
> England 2018
> Australia 2022


I think you'll find that the German government bankrolled the 2006 finals in order to reap the financial benefits of hosting (and promote Germany as a tourist destination).

The Aussie government has already stated that the $45m pledged to the 2018/2022 bid is nothing compared to the financial benefits the country will gain if we win the bid.


----------



## Treasure

Michael_23 said:


> I think that England will get it. They haven't been hosting anything for many years (since EURO 1996) and they have much to say in FIFA.


London olympics?


----------



## dacrio

Treasure said:


> London olympics?



ja, england can't win. it has already won the olympic. russia will win.

nobody of you has voted for qatar? :lol:


----------



## Wezza

dacrio said:


> ja, *england can't win. it has already won the olympic.* russia will win.
> 
> nobody of you has voted for qatar? :lol:


Pretty sure the Olympics will have no bearing on weather England gets it or not.


----------



## G.C.

The Olympics has nothing to do with FIFA.


----------



## -Corey-

The FIFA would rather see the World Cup in the US of 305 millions than in a big Island of 20 millions.


----------



## Wezza

^^
Well we'll see, won't we? I wouldn't get too far ahead of myself if i were you.


----------



## *England*

-Corey- said:


> The FIFA would rather see the World Cup in the US of 305 millions than in a big Island of 20 millions.


someone like blatter would maybe, but even he would want it in a country like australia where footie is growing more and more, i dont think the voters will give a stuff how many millions are in oz compared to the usa, if that was so important why didnt china even bother bidding?
australia is probably why china didn't bother!


----------



## Wezza

A big :| for this article..... hno:

*U.S. likely to host a World Cup in 2018 or 2022* 
By Steve Davis, ESPNsoccernet 

Feb. 2, 2009, will own a historic place in U.S. soccer history. It's the date U.S. Soccer officials joined the race to host a World Cup tournament and officially announced their intention to pursue either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. 

Reliant Stadium in Houston is one of many modern facilities the U.S. can boast. 
And they'll get one of them. Book it. 

Want to know why? The answer is in the whir of construction cranes encircling suburban Dallas, where the Cowboys' new behemoth of a stadium is rising. And it's in the shadow of Giants Stadium, where yet another futuristic NFL stadium is going up. And it's in all the other fabulous, mammoth athletic facilities that dot the country. 

The stadium outside Dallas will have the ability to accommodate perhaps 100,000 fans for special events. The $1.3 billion project in New Jersey will seat 82,500. 

Beautiful, recently opened buildings in Philadelphia, Seattle, Denver, Houston and elsewhere also will brace the bid. These are grand in scale, monuments to the place where architecture, imagination and capitalism collide. No other country is so sophisticated in exploiting sales and sponsorship opportunities inside these modern arenas. 

At some point, this bid process is all about the facilities. (Well, really, it's about money. Because finances are inextricably linked to facility size, by extension, these bids are about physical structures.) The United States enjoys a stadium situation unrivaled in the rest of the world, thanks mostly to the country's love of American football and need to stack the racks with money-waving fans. 

More seats mean more money for FIFA. It's that simple. 

Yes, there are nice (and nicely sized) venues scattered throughout the world. Some countries have a respectable volume of facilities with impressive capacities. England, probably the front-runner for the 2018 World Cup, can get into the conversation, at least. But even England can't come close to matching the glut of structural riches available to FIFA by awarding one of the future World Cups to the United States. 

Consider this: A World Cup today could be scattered quite easily around a roster of fabulous stadiums that didn't even exist when the United States hosted World Cup 1994. 

Let that sink in. That's how deep the selection of stadiums is here. 

And, of course, venerable facilities such as the Rose Bowl, which hosted the 1994 final, remain in play. That one also holds 100,000-plus fans. 

The 1994 World Cup smashed previous records for attendance; the 52-game tournament averaged 68,991 fans, a mark that still stands. The next one here will easily surpass that record. 

The 2006 World Cup was a wonderfully well-received tournament, generally spilling out without a hitch and to everyone's pleasure. Germany is a modern country with several contemporary arenas. And yet, tournament organizers still needed to employ stadiums in Kaiserslautern, Nuremberg, Leipzig, Hanover and Cologne, all of which hold 46,000 spectators or fewer. There probably won't be a single bid from a stadium in the U.S. with a capacity so small. Everybody loves all those swell U.S. soccer-specific stadiums that have done so much for the game in our country, but you don't send a boy to do a man's job, so to speak. 

There's also a matter of sponsorship. Here, too, FIFA has reason to purr over prospects of a second World Cup in the United States. 

"From a sponsorship perspective, the two countries that advertisers currently covet most are the United States and China, and this will probably continue to be the case in 2018 and beyond," said John Alper, vice president of Premier Partnerships, a national sales and marketing firm specializing in revenue generation for facilities, events and properties. "Obviously, FIFA considers a variety of factors for this decision. However, from a sponsorship perspective, having the USA as the host nation is definitely a plus." 

And by "definitely a plus," he means more cash for the FIFA kitty. Ka-ching! 

The 1994 World Cup was a rousing success, at least in terms of attendance and revenue. And soccer's profile has risen substantially in the United States in the 15 years since. That means hosting a World Cup in 2018 or 2022 would be a colossus. 

The World Cup in Germany averaged 52,491 spectators per contest. Given the scale of the new facilities available to the U.S.' bid, the average crowd for a World Cup in the United States could climb to 75,000. That's an extra 22,000-plus fans for 64 matches. With an average ticket price of $140 or so (the World Cup in South Africa next year will charge an average of $139, so that is a very conservative estimate), that's an additional $197 million just in ticket revenue. 

And don't forget that every person who passes through a turnstile is a candidate to buy T-shirts, hats, silly foam fingers and such. The way a typical stadium deal works, the facility keeps parking and most concession revenues. But all the merchandise money goes to the event organizers, which in this case is FIFA. So the extra 22,000 or so per match adds up further considering the multiplier, whatever that is. Let's say the foam-finger factor is $10 per customer. The extra 22,000 customers can potentially generate up to an additional $220,000 per match, or an additional $14 million for the tournament. 

As they say: Pretty soon, you're talking about real money. 

These are very basic formulas. The actual accounting will be far more complex, of course. But you get the point. Suffice to say, if FIFA can pour more customers into stadiums during the monthlong tournament, the financial payload will expand significantly. 

There could be one potential road hump. Each of these grand, new U.S. facilities comes with a lucrative naming-rights deal already in place. And that's not part of FIFA's financial template. Because world soccer's governing body doesn't already have its hand in that pie, it demands a blank slate in terms of venue sponsorship, and that includes naming rights. That's why the AOL Arena in Hamburg became, officially speaking, the World Cup Stadium in Hamburg for 2006. 

Will this pose an issue? Not likely, Alper said. First, FIFA is such a global heavyweight that it can demand a blank slate. Most existing stadium contracts have clauses that cover opportunities to host extraordinary events. Plus, Alper says a FedEx or an AT&T or whatever corporate sponsor won't jeopardize important relationships and risk a firestorm of bad publicity by saying no to a chance to host World Cup games. 

One more thing: Facilities in other countries, nice as some are, aren't designed with luxury boxes in mind. Not to the extent U.S. stadiums are, at least. Those opportunities for premium sales generate good money, too. Ka-ching, again. 

Money talks. FIFA listens. Another World Cup is headed to the United States in your lifetime, and Feb. 2 is the day it all officially started. 

Other countries that have expressed interest in bidding for either the 2018 and 2022 World Cup: 

*Australia:* Officials there hope FIFA's desire to grow the game in Asia and the Pacific Rim can enhance the chances. Although Australia has hosted other major events (such as the 2000 Olympics in Sydney), the odds here appear long. 

*England:* The country's effort received a significant boost when FIFA rulers shot down the notion of joint bids. So the Spain-Portugal effort and a bid from the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) went kaput before they even got started. Thus, England is the clear front-runner if FIFA is to return the tournament to Europe. 

*Indonesia:* The world's fourth-most-populated country (237 million) has seen its economy and political scene stabilize significantly since the turbulent 1960s. Although Indonesia might be considered a strong national team in southeast Asia, its relative weakness in the world soccer structure is a detriment. 

*Japan:* Japan has the stadiums, the infrastructure and organizational might to pull it off, but proximity to the 2002 World Cup (which the Japanese co-hosted with Korea) hurts. 

*Mexico:* Several new stadiums are going up in Mexico. But the U.S. neighbor would become the first country to host three World Cups, a factor that probably will work against it. 

*Qatar:* The oil-rich Arab emirate has the world's highest GDP per capita, according to some estimates. Although money isn't an issue, physical size could be. Qatar occupies only about 4,400 square miles, roughly the size of Pennsylvania. 

*Russia:* Talk of a bid from the world's largest nation (by area) sounded much better a year ago, before falling oil prices and ongoing crisis in the Russian financial markets crunched the nation's economy. 

Steve Davis is a Dallas-based freelance writer who covers MLS for ESPNsoccernet. He can be reached at [email protected] 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=615735&sec=us&root=us&cc=3436


----------



## Vermeer

I am convinced England will be the host in 2018. 2022 is more open. I doubt the Anglo American world will host two WC in a row, so I rule out Australia and the US.


----------



## hngcm

^^ Do you really think that Indonesia/Qatar/Japan/Korea can beat the USA and Australia? 

No way.


----------



## hngcm

*England* said:


> someone like blatter would maybe, but even he would want it in a country like australia where footie is growing more and more, i dont think the voters will give a stuff how many millions are in oz compared to the usa, if that was so important why didnt china even bother bidding?
> australia is probably why china didn't bother!


It's growing in the USA as well, and again there are 300 million here instead of just over 20 million. 

The population of China is the main reason they would have been the front-runner for 2022. FIFA would have been DROOLING at the chance to expand the sport in a country of 1.3 billion.


----------



## isaidso

Russia in 2018
Indonesia in 2022


----------



## Benjuk

dacrio said:


> ja, england can't win. it has already won the olympic. russia will win.


(1) The two organisations are unrelated - hosting a major competition in one city has nothing to do with hosting a major competition across an entire nation.

(2) Theory also disproved by this - USA World Cup '94, Atlanta Olympics '96; Mexico Olympics '68, Mexico World Cup '70.

As for Russia... I'm very interested to see how they'd cope. I know we're talking about 9 years in the future, but they really struggled to handle two sets of English fans coming over for a one off Champions League match - I don't know how they'd cope with supporters from all over the world arriving in droves and wanting to travel around from host city to host city, etc.



*England* said:


> someone like blatter would maybe, but even he would want it in a country like australia where footie is growing more and more, i dont think the voters will give a stuff how many millions are in oz compared to the usa, if that was so important *why didnt china even bother bidding*?
> australia is probably why china didn't bother!


I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.

They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.


----------



## flierfy

hngcm said:


> It's growing in the USA as well, and again *there are 300 million here* instead of just over 20 million.


Of which just 20 million care.


----------



## ryebreadraz

Benjuk said:


> I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.
> 
> They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.


China was considering bids for the Winter Olympics in 2018 or 2022 as well as a World Cup bid. They weren't going to bid on both and by the looks of it, they've decided to bid on the Olympics.


----------



## RobH

Well, considering the Beijing Olympic Stadium is to become a shopping mall, one would have to wonder what several large purpouse build football stadiums would be put to use for after the world cup in China when their top league matches only average around 12,000.

There is the potential for a massive league out there, but the same was true of the states and whilst the MLS has grown steadily since '94, it's still a minority sport. Huge potential doesn't always equal huge success and growing a football league in a country where it isn't the national sport is tricky. The US is very lucky in many ways in that the promise to have a national league (and indeed a world cup) could be fulfilled with fewer problems because one of their national sports happened to use stadiums and pitch sizes similar to soccer.

China, for its population has a terrible attendence record and a very poor national league. They don't have large stadiums from another sport they can borrow for a world cup bid either, unlike the US. On top of that, their national team is already out of the reckoning for qualification for the 2010 world cup and has recently slipped to its lowest over FIFA world ranking of 104!

All in all, China is probably right to focus on a Winter games.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> Of which just 20 million care.


Don't confuse the general ambivalence towards soccer with the appreciation for the World Cup as an event. Many games from the last World Cup and even 2 of last year's Euro matches scored higher TV ratings than most MLB telecasts, and even pundits who usually pan soccer, like Frank Deford and Colin Cowherd, like the nationalism and social event behind the World Cup. Lastly, say what you want about the US lacking a large fervent fanbase, but it's growing both in size and status. To wit...



RobH said:


> There is the potential for a massive league out there, but the same was true of the states and whilst the MLS has grown steadily since '94, it's still a minority sport. Huge potential doesn't always equal huge success and growing a football league in a country where it isn't the national sport is tricky.


MLS will likely never be on par with the MLB, NBA and NFL, nor will it be considered among the highest echelon of soccer leagues in the world. It can be very good and profitable, however, and is light years ahead of its US predecessors. The investment into a league and development infrastructure, complete with club-owned/managed stadia is HUGE, and the fact that lay people even know there is a stable league is a step forward. Those that debunk the sport at least begrudgingly accept that it's here to stay, and now young American's can dream of playing at home at the professional level. Give it another generation or two to ingrain this league in our culture and US soccer won't be the punch line it was two decades ago. The MLS, meanwhile, will also achieve a decent level of profitability and I truly expect the league will have an international presence and appeal. (might be a small one, but it will be there! :cheers: )


----------



## dacrio

*Evaluation phase for euro 2016*
The third phase will involve evaluation, with the European body making official visits to the various bidders from March 2010. The UEFA administration and experts appointed by UEFA will then examine the bid dossiers and prepare a written report on each one, before passing these to UEFA's National Team Competitions Committee, with a final decision expected by the UEFA Executive Committee at the end of *May 2010*

so if, for example, euro 2016 goes to scotland , england can't win the bid process for the world cup 2018

it's more probable that euro 2016 will not awarded to scotland, because england is candidated for the world cup


----------



## RobH

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I was just using it as an example showing how countries like the US and China can't, without a lot of work, become instant cash-cows or footballing big-guns in the sport off of the back of one world cup. The US may get there eventually, but it's a bottom-up rather than a top-down process.

People speak of China getting a world cup (and always point out they have a population of 1.2bn) as if the biggest league in the world will suddenly spring up out of the ether. The reality is, like the Olympics, things will be back to the way they were afterwards, China would have had another moment in the spotlight, but Chinese football will still probably be a rather small deal.


----------



## GunnerJacket

dacrio said:


> *Evaluation phase for euro 2016*
> The third phase will involve evaluation, with the European body making official visits to the various bidders from March 2010. The UEFA administration and experts appointed by UEFA will then examine the bid dossiers and prepare a written report on each one, before passing these to UEFA's National Team Competitions Committee, with a final decision expected by the UEFA Executive Committee at the end of *May 2010*
> 
> so if, for example, euro 2016 goes to scotland , england can't win the bid process for the world cup 2018
> 
> it's more probable that euro 2016 will not awarded to scotland, because england is candidated for the world cup


WTF?? Even if this is true as you're presenting it it doesn't make sense. Why would a confederation want to hamstring themselves this way? Why would FIFA let regional events dictate WC locations? Something doesn't sound right, here. 


RobH said:


> People speak of China getting a world cup (and always point out they have a population of 1.2bn) as if the biggest league in the world will suddenly spring up out of the ether. The reality is, like the Olympics, things will be back to the way they were afterwards, China would have had another moment in the spotlight, but Chinese football will still probably be a rather small deal.


Oh, I know and I agree, but both markets remain ripe for increased merchandising from existing product lines. Sponsors will sell more WC merchandise in the host nation than elsewhere, hence the appeal of hosting in populous nations with lots of money. A WC may not yield improvements league-wise, but they could increase general appeal for soccer programming, youth participation, selling of global merchandise, etc. To be sure, the US and Asia are hotbeds for creating thousands of bandwagon pose-, er _fans_, for the likes of Chelsea, Meeeeelan, Real... :|


----------



## nomarandlee

Benjuk said:


> I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.
> 
> They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.


 That is the only reason I can think of as well. Though I am sure the idea was attractive for the CCP to show their people they can deliver another stage prize I think the Olympics made them a bit more guarded about jumping at the bit for another one. A world cup means a lot more people (foreigners especially) moving all over the country, more spotlighting of domestic policies etc. Having an Olympics in one city in a sense makes things more manageable and contained to to speak and those are aspects the CCP puts high priority on. 

Plus perhaps it didn't feel like its national team would b very good by then (unlike the Olympics) and don't want to put up a dud for the home fans. Also I wonder how much Chinese fans would have interest in other teams other then their own.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Benjuk said:


> imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.


Especially when you consider it might be closer to 40k from the Dutch alone, to say nothing of Argentines, Brazilians, Germans... Scots! :banana:

Hey, I can dream! :cheers:


----------



## fajarmuhasan

One city allowed to use two stadiums only, this is may be only suggestion in order to the games separate to anothers city.


----------



## Wuppeltje

Wezza said:


> *England:* The country's effort received a significant boost when FIFA rulers shot down the notion of joint bids. So the Spain-Portugal effort and a bid from the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) went kaput before they even got started. Thus, England is the clear front-runner if FIFA is to return the tournament to Europe.


_A spokesman told Reuters Monday that FIFA would consider joint bids from countries who were not capable of hosting a World Cup on their own.

"Countries capable of staging the event alone should do so," added the spokesman in a clarification that will increase pressure on Spain to ditch its planned partnership with Portugal._

Don't rule out the Benelux, both the Netherlands and Belgium can't host the event on their own. And it will have 1 organisation, pretty simulair as the Euro 2000 (which was in every aspect very successful) only bigger. During the bidding for Euro 2000 it was also said that the Benelux wasn't allowed to host by members of the UEFA.


----------



## co_cool

My vote is

2018 England
2022 between Australia and Indonesia
It is a little bit strange for Indonesia, they never held a such big event but i think they still have a chance,....because they have really fanatic fans, and they just build some big stadium ( of course not such a big as in Europe or US but still more than 50.000 spec )

Just like World Cup 2010 South Africa, all people not sure about that,...but it happen...


----------



## superkambing

co_cool said:


> My vote is
> 
> 2018 England
> 2022 between Australia and Indonesia
> It is a little bit strange for Indonesia, they never held a such big event but i think they still have a chance,....because they have really fanatic fans, and they just build some big stadium ( of course not such a big as in Europe or US but still more than 50.000 spec )
> 
> Just like World Cup 2010 South Africa, all people not sure about that,...but it happen...


Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta can hold up to 88,000 people, it was used during the 2008 AFC Asian Cup. Indonesia also has another big stadiums, Palaran stadium and Jakabaring stadium can hold up to 60,000 and 40,000 people respectively. Indonesia is also building several other modern stadiums accross the country. I think they'll be ready to host it in 2022, not in 2018.


----------



## =NaNdA=

vote Indonesia for 2022....


----------



## =NaNdA=

Indonesian National Anthem @ Gelora Bung Karno Stadium 



r4d1ty4 said:


> Indonesia Raya @ Indonesia vs Australia


i will post the reason why i choose Indonesia for 2022 later..


----------



## hngcm

Please do cuz I'd love to hear it...as well as australia's case


----------



## =NaNdA=

Indonesian BIG Stadium so far ( there's many more but the capacity is too small )

Jakarta = represented by Gelora Bung Karno Stadium ( Host for Final Match AFC Cup 2007 )
















Palembang = Jakabaring Stadium ( Host for 3rd place AFC Cup 2007 )









Samarinda = represented by Palaran Stadium ( Our best stadium so far )









Malang = represented by Gajayana Stadium ( U/C )









Sleman = represented by International Stadium of Sleman ( U/C )









Pekanbaru = represented by PON 2012 Stadium ( Proposed )









Tenggarong = represented by Perjiwa Stadium ( proposed )









Bandung = represented by Gede Bage Stadium ( Propsed )









Dompak Island = represented by Dompak Stadium ( Proposed )









Surabaya = represented by Gelora Bung Tomo Stadium ( U/C )









To become host World Cup 2022, i hope some stadium will be modify until meet the maximum capacity..
let's say around 50.000 - 70.000 seats.. 

2022 is a long way journey.. and i hope Indonesia will be the next host WC in 2022
i think we will be ready..


----------



## RobH

Athletics tracks everywhere :down:


----------



## =NaNdA=

^^ except one.. 

as i said above, some Stadium needs to be modified..


----------



## ryebreadraz

=NaNdA= said:


> ^^ except one..
> 
> as i said above, some Stadium needs to be modified..


What about infrastructure? How are the airports? Are they large enough and are they in all the major cities? How's travel from city to city? Roads, trains, etc.? How about hotels and open areas to watch matches on large screens? Obviously the country won't have all of this right now, but do they have the money to build all of this and not go into major debt? Do they have the money for all the stadium upgrades? I doubt FIFA will fund much of it with other options in the region. It's not like S. Africa where any African country needed FIFA help so they;re going to have to fund things themselves.

(Sorry if this sounds pessimistic and doubtful. I'm just asking questions because frankly, I know next to nothing about the country)


----------



## =NaNdA=

^^ about infrastructure.. you can visit our Indonesian Forum..

we are constructing soma new airports...and enlarge the old one.. 
and this year will implemented Bus Rapid Transportation System in some cities...
and subway for Jakarta, Proposed Mega Bridge to connect Java-Sumatra island.. 
bullet Train in Java island, etc etc

I think 2022 all that massive projects will be completed.. i hope.. :angel:

We also host Visit Indonesia Year 2008 and 2009
so many hotels you can search from Google.. 
let's hope many more hotels built in 2022.. 

it's okay to be pessimistic, me too... 
but when we succeed to host Asian Cup..
why we can't try for a bigger one.. it's World Cup..


----------



## Kobo

This is what I think will happen. England 2018, and USA 2022. But I think Indonesia is wild card for 2022.


----------



## mahatirm

ryebreadraz said:


> What about infrastructure? How are the airports? Are they large enough and are they in all the major cities? How's travel from city to city? Roads, trains, etc.? How about hotels and open areas to watch matches on large screens? Obviously the country won't have all of this right now, but do they have the money to build all of this and not go into major debt? Do they have the money for all the stadium upgrades? I doubt FIFA will fund much of it with other options in the region. It's not like S. Africa where any African country needed FIFA help so they;re going to have to fund things themselves.
> 
> (Sorry if this sounds pessimistic and doubtful. I'm just asking questions because frankly, I know next to nothing about the country)


Hi... just for sharing, 2022 is a long time and i think it is realistic for indonesia chasing infrastructure to meet wc requirements. Actually the cost for proposed stadiums posted by Nanda are coming from regional government them self and another fact that maybe will make you surprise that the development plan in regional are even better than jakarta. 

As example in my hometown, palembang is really different from the time i move to jakarta. They have international stadium: jakabaring, international hotel:aston,horizon, and coming more, they have international airport, they have lots of shoping mall, they start to build MRT (starting with busway), and manymore underconstruction and upcoming project. And other good news are those developments are planned well.


----------



## tollfreak

with the exclusion of mass transit..other infrastructures such as airports are a fast fix for the Indonesian government. Jakarta's Soekarno Hatta's new terminal 3 which will accommodate A380's and Low Cost Carriers is in it's finishing stages and slated to be open in two months. Makassar,South Sulawesi has a brand new airport in operation. A new International Airport in Medan, North Sumatera called Kuala Namu is in its planning stages and is expected to be completed in 2014. As for the fans, just to let most soccer/football fans around the world to know, the first Manchester United Cafe in Asia opened in Indonesia. Those Athletic tracks are there for the National Olympics, which are held every four years, and the host city usually constructs a new stadium for it. 

-It's a wild card, but not impossible in my opinion:cheers:


----------



## ~MELVINDONESIA~

Nothing is Imposibble...

*VOTE FOR INDONESIA 2022!*


----------



## marcoman

Deduciendo llegue ala siguiente conclucion, europa tendra 12 años sin un mundial, por lo tanto 2018 practiamente sera el europa.

La final para elegir la sede del mundial de 2006 fue Alemania e Inglaterra... por lo tanto los ingleses tienen deceos de ser sede de ya hace un buen tiempo, Blatter ha dicho en varias ocaciones que es mas favorable una sola sede que dos, por lo tanto Bel-Hol y Esp-Por quedarian fuera...

los unicos serian Inglaterra y Rusia.

Para el mundial del 2022, obviamente todos los paises europeos quedaran descalificados, quedando asi, USA, Mexico, Indonesia, Japon, Korea, Qatar y Australia.. 

Japon y Corea fueron los ultimos paises en organizar un mundial en asia, ademas su mundiale s muy reciente..

Qatar e Indonesia a apesar de ser poderosos economicamente son paises que no son futboleros, por lo cual las entradas serian muy bajas.. Qatar es un pais chico y batallaria para sacar las sedes. Ademas estos paises no tienen el potencial de Australia..

USA y Mexico, tienen a futuro estadios de buen nivel, capacidad hotelera y ya han rganizado mundiales, aunque el ultimo pauis en ser anfitrion fue USA..

por lo tanto Mexico y Australia serian los que para mi tendrian mas oportunidades de ser sede..

Mexico fue el 2do pais que mas venta tuvo en el mundial 2006, Mexico fue el pais con mas ventas durante el mundial del 2006..

este es mi punto de vista sobre las elecciones para mundiales del 2018 y 2022..

saludos de monterrey mexico...


----------



## RobH

Erm, this is an English language forum.


----------



## paradyto

Indonesia for South East Asian!!! 2022! kay:


----------



## =NaNdA=

- edited -


----------



## Carrerra

Personally it's a pity that China didn't bid. It's the strongest candidate for WC 2022


----------



## Carrerra

=NaNdA= said:


> ^^ :?


At least in football, English is not the only official language. Spanish, Portugese and French are also official languages. You can see it in FIFA official reports. They are not written only in English. They don't fail to have another version with the same content but in different languages.


----------



## ~MELVINDONESIA~

England 2018..
and Indonesia/USA 2022!


----------



## co_cool

Carrerra said:


> At least in football, English is not the only official language. Spanish, Portugese and French are also official languages. You can see it in FIFA official reports. They are not written only in English. They don't fail to have another version with the same content but in different languages.


^^
but this is international forum,....as we know official international language is English,.....
hno:hno:hno::nuts::nuts::nuts:


----------



## Aka

This forum language is English.

And think about it: what would be the point of this forum if everybody started to write in their own language? Would you like me to call you 'son of a bitch' without you noticing at all?


----------



## miguelon

2018 England is a must....

I think 2022 will go for USA, for me is great because Mexico will be like the local team ( we get 60,000 or more fans every international friendly... imagine that on a world cup)

but what I dont like about a USA WC, is that when there is a big event, security is so tight, that fans cant "enjoy" I mean, no big flags on stadiums, not a lot of beer, usually police spreads crowds celebrating in the streets, a big headache the US migration (a lot of fans having trouble for a US visa). Still we will seee again huge crowds.

And I say this because, I have been able to attend big US events (baseball world series, collage football bowl games, Indy racing, NFL playoffs, etc), and they just dont let the fans do stuff, amercian fans are so use to a lot of security that dont even seem to bother.


----------



## co_cool

JimB said:


> If FIFA start pandering to terrorists, then you effectively rule out India; Pakistan; England; Spain; Peru; Colombia; Indonesia and a whole host of other Muslim countries. Probably a whole host of other European countries too.
> 
> Therefore, I very much doubt that FIFA will go down that route. They will simply ensure that security provisions for any bid are as thorough as they possibly can be.
> 
> Only if there is an unacceptable level of risk (ie war or civil war) would FIFA refuse to consider a bid.


^^
i didnt said about terrorist 
but we talk about fans all over the world.....

just for example
i think before we go to stadium we must have more than 3 security control, and maybe beer is not allowed to enter stadium because of too dangerous, or maybe not allowed to bring big flag because too dangerous,...or brought a bag is not allowed to enter the stadium,...etc...etc.....

and i am sure if USA to be host, they will have really and extreme2 tight security control start from their embassy where u apply a visa.... ( the most difficult country to get visa is still USA ) and as a fans that will be a really big problem.

better Australia or other country as a host,...they are a little bit "open"....


----------



## nandofutbolero

yeah I'm sure the security will be pretty tight !!!!! no flags no beer"cerveza gallo,corona" haha no nothing !!!oh man!!! could be.


----------



## JimB

co_cool said:


> ^^
> i didnt said about terrorist
> but we talk about fans all over the world.....
> 
> just for example
> i think before we go to stadium we must have more than 3 security control, and maybe beer is not allowed to enter stadium because of too dangerous, or maybe not allowed to bring big flag because too dangerous,...or brought a bag is not allowed to enter the stadium,...etc...etc.....
> 
> and i am sure if USA to be host, they will have really and extreme2 tight security control start from their embassy where u apply a visa.... ( the most difficult country to get visa is still USA ) and as a fans that will be a really big problem.
> 
> better Australia or other country as a host,...they are a little bit "open"....


I've travelled to the USA and within the USA frequently.

I've never experienced 3 hour security delays - at sporting events, at concerts or even at airports. I have, however, suffered appalling delays and been subjected to disgraceful treatment by police when entering stadiums in continental Europe.

You say that we may not be allowed to take beer into a stadium in the US.....where on earth *can* you take beer into a stadium? Never, in all my years of going to football matches have I been able to do that.

As to big flags, I have rarely, if ever, seen them at World Cup finals. They are usually only ever seen at club matches - not international matches. So things will be no different in the USA.

And bags? I'm sure that bags would be allowed but, as is always the case in England at least (and probably elsewhere), bags will be checked. It's not a problem.

And yes, the US strictly monitors the distribution of visas. But it's not so very different from other countries in that respect - Russia, for instance and China, to name but two. So long as you are sufficiently organised and don't leave it to the last minute, you will be able to get your visa.

Finally, you should remember that any security measures are in place for the benefit of the fans. So why complain?

I'm quite certain that, whatever other reasons there may be for FIFA not to award a particular World Cup to the US, security issues will not be among them.


----------



## RobH

FIFA do not allow alcohol to be sold at venues for competitive internationals anywhere. I found this when I went to Wembley to watch England in one of their World Cup qualifiers last year. They do sell beer at Wembley but couldn't at this match as it was under FIFA's juristication (for want of a better word).

Security will be just as tight anywhere because FIFA will be overseeing it and making sure it's up to their standards. And as JimB said, if I had a choice between the Spanish and the US police, I'd go for the yanks every time; policing football on parts of the continent is something they really need to improve.


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> FIFA do not allow alcohol to be sold at venues for competitive internationals anywhere. I found this when I went to Wembley to watch England in one of their World Cup qualifiers last year. They do sell beer at Wembley but couldn't at this match as it was under FIFA's juristication (for want of a better word).
> 
> Security will be just as tight anywhere because FIFA will be overseeing it and making sure it's up to their standards. And as JimB said, *if I had a choice between the Spanish and the US police, I'd go for the yanks every time*; policing football on parts of the continent is something they really need to improve.


The behaviour (and lack of organisation) of Italian police for football matches also leaves much to be desired.


----------



## RobH

Yeh, but the Italians aren't bidding, that's why I didn't mention them.


----------



## -Corey-

miguelon said:


> 2018 England is a must....
> 
> I think 2022 will go for USA, for me is great because Mexico will be like the local team ( we get 60,000 or more fans every international friendly... imagine that on a world cup)
> 
> but what I dont like about a USA WC, is that when there is a big event, security is so tight, that fans cant "enjoy" I mean, no big flags on stadiums, not a lot of beer, usually police spreads crowds celebrating in the streets, a big headache the US migration (a lot of fans having trouble for a US visa). Still we will seee again huge crowds.
> 
> And I say this because, I have been able to attend big US events (baseball world series, collage football bowl games, Indy racing, NFL playoffs, etc), and they just dont let the fans do stuff, amercian fans are so use to a lot of security that dont even seem to bother.


So what?? That's not an excuse, i preffer that than not having safety.


----------



## =NaNdA=

even in other countries.. Security check is a must... :yes:

remember, you enter a stadium with 50.000 people, and there is one person
want to do same chaos?? oh no.. hno:


----------



## ced_flanders

I don't understand why everyone is focussing on the stadiums so much, we're talking about 2018 and 2022 here! You can easily build new stadiums in that time, and the ones that are modern now will be old fashioned by then.

Personally I think The Netherlands deserves to host, they are the biggest footballing country that has never hosted the World Cup. (A very big World Cup history and a current fifa ranking of #3) but I don't think they will get it.


----------



## marching

2002 for Japan and Korea, my feeling on 2022 for amazing island.... Indonesia.
They have a good theme for this event... I heard from TV, "GREEN WORLD CUP 2022"kay:


----------



## tollfreak

marching said:


> 2002 for Japan and Korea, my feeling on 2022 for amazing island.... Indonesia.
> They have a good theme for this event... I heard from TV, "GREEN WORLD CUP 2022"kay:


*Indonesia upbeat to host `green' World Cup
*


Tony Hotland , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Tue, 02/10/2009 2:40 PM | Sports

The Soccer Association of Indonesia (PSSI) is moving to kick off its campaign to host the 2022 World Cup, its chairman Nurdin Halid said.

PSSI is campaigning for the heart of world's soccer ruling body FIFA by sounding out its World Cup host country proposal to FIFA members and hosting the FIFA president next month.

In a presentation Monday, Nurdin said he believed Indonesia stood a chance to win FIFA's approval to host the 2022 World Cup, despite the relatively poorer infrastructure, coupled with the low quality of the national squad compared to other candidates.

He said Indonesia had proposed a "Green World Cup 2022", hoping to capitalize on the current green and global warming movement worldwide.

"Our deforestation rate has contributed much to world pollution. By hosting the World Cup, we wish to build infrastructure and facilities that are environmentally friendly so we can give more to the planet," he said.

The PSSI, he said, would send its proposal this week to FIFA members to give them an idea of what Indonesia was offering.

Nurdin added that FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter would pay a visit to Indonesia "sometime in March", but declined to disclose the agenda.

He also said the construction of 10 new stadiums across the country, ranging in capacity from 40,000 to 50,000 spectators, were expected to be completed by 2015.

These stadiums are in Surabaya, Makassar, Medan, Tangerang, Yogyakarta and Gianyar.

Indonesia currently has three stadiums - Gelora Bung Karno in Jakarta, Gelora Sriwijaya in Palembang and Palaran in Samarinda.

Other countries also bidding for the 2022 World Cup are Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands (as co-hosts), England, Japan, Russia, Mexico, the United States, South Korea, Qatar and Spain and Portugal (as co-hosts).

State Minister for Sports and Youth Affairs Adhyaksa Dault said the government was upbeat about the proposal and would "provide assistance in all aspects".

"What needs to be remembered is that all efforts must be integrated and coordinated," he said.

Adhyaksa also pointed out that Mexico and Brazil, which he said were not well-off countries, had twice played host to world soccer's showpiece event.

"Hoping that we'll be better in 2022, I think we could be a good host," he said.

FIFA is scheduled to announce the 2022 host on Dec. 10, 2010.

Indonesia has hosted a number of international conferences and sporting events, including the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference and last year's inaugural Asian Beach Games.

However, critics have snubbed the proposal, saying Indonesia needs to improve the quality of its national squad first (currently ranked 144th in the world) before seeking to hog the world stage.

Despite the sport's wide popularity here, soccer is barely an industry yet, while thousands of clubs are still rated amateur.

In addition, fanaticism among local soccer fans has led to several chaotic incidents that have resulted in fatalities and financial losses.


----------



## RobH

ced_flanders said:


> I don't understand why everyone is focussing on the stadiums so much, we're talking about 2018 and 2022 here! You can easily build new stadiums in that time, and the ones that are modern now will be old fashioned by then.
> 
> Personally I think The Netherlands deserves to host, they are the biggest footballing country that has never hosted the World Cup. (A very big World Cup history and a current fifa ranking of #3) but I don't think they will get it.


Countries like England, Spain and the US with advanced sports infrastucture will not be doing much building work before a world cup. The focus is therefore on the current stadiums, what can be expanded and what's needed.

What else do you suggest we focus on?


----------



## marching

All bid countries has a same chance... nothing is possible, and economic crisis still continue..


----------



## Bezzi

When the Bid Books with stadiums plans will be released??? I'm curious.


----------



## GunnerJacket

ced_flanders said:


> I don't understand why everyone is focussing on the stadiums so much, we're talking about 2018 and 2022 here! You can easily build new stadiums in that time, and the ones that are modern now will be old fashioned by then.


Maybe it's because this is an architectural based forum and stadiums are needed to host sporting events. 

I don't know, I could be wrong.



Bezzi said:


> When the Bid Books with stadiums plans will be released??? I'm curious.


I can't find an exact timeline but I don't think we'll have anything like an official draft for each bid until next year. The decision is made in late 2010, and between now and then the bidding nations will be doing internal feasibility studies to identify candidate cities and venues for FIFA to consider. If Brazil is a valid model then we're looking at about 14-18 candidates per host, and it will take several months for various nations to identify the serious contenders for those spots. Yes, most allocations are already assured but there's going to be a lot of discussion about the options for the last 3-4 sites. I'm guessing between now and December we'll also see 1-2 bids withdrawn or "scaled back" once they realize the return on investment isn't there and/or they realize they're unlikely to win. 

I'd imagine that about this time next year is when we see the potential venue improvements for candidate cities, in time to build hype for both their bid and for the fans of the local clubs heading into the close of season.


----------



## Pelha

*Only Portugal and Spain, England and USA meet preliminary requirements of FIFA*

The alliance Iberian Portugal / Spain, England and the United States are the only three projects that the official interest in organizing the world of football in 2022 or 2018 that meet the initial requirements of FIFA. 

In the preliminary draft circulated to all members for consideration to compete for the two editions, FIFA said that the hosts will offer 12 levels with minimum capacity of 40,000 seats to be able to enter a race that will be completed in December 2010, when will announce the two winners. 

In this lot, at least one of the premises must have a capacity less than 80,000 seats, requirement for the opening and final games. 

The same letter stated that the technology of telecommunications, television broadcasts, information, transport and accommodation were the "last generation". 

The February 02 deadline for closing the official from FIFA intends to enter the race twice and the list closed on 11 suitors: Portugal / Spain, England, Russia, Holland / Belgium, Australia, Mexico, United States, Japan, South Korea , Qatar and Indonesia. 

As for sports facilities, only Iberian, British and American answer at this time, the requirements of FIFA, with overwhelming area of the United States, which have an offer that "destroy" all the competition, with over a hundred stages of "eligible". 

Given that after a 76-year history, which account for 18 editions between 1930 and 2006, the World will first move away from Europe in two consecutive editions (South Sul'2010 and Brasil'2014) is almost certain that the "Old Continent" to return to competition in the dual route of choice in late December of next year. 

Thus, according to the determinations of FIFA, only Portugal / Spain and England meet the requirements of European suitors, beating Russia and Holland / Belgium with regard to the stages available. 

On the proposal Iberian Portuguese, Stadium of Light (65,000), Dragon (52,200) and Alvalade (50,000) have recent experience of Euro2004 and meet the manning proposal by FIFA, but none of them is capable, according to the number of minutes to the two games of media World. 

In this chapter, Camp Nou (98,945) in Barcelona, and Santiago Bernabeu (80,354), Madrid, beyond the "minimum" for opening and final, adding to the Spanish list seven stages with the ability to host the remaining games. 

La Cartuja (72,000), Ruiz de Lopera (55,500) and Pizuan Sanchez (55,000), three in Seville, Vicente Calderón (57,500), Madrid, Montjuic (56,000) in Barcelona, mestalla (53,000) in Valencia, and San mames (40,000), in Bilbao, are the other places that may be included in the application Iberian. 

Spain has yet to move projects to five stages, one set to be inaugurated by mid year, the new stadium of Valencia, with a capacity of 75,000 seats. 

The Olympic Stadium La PEINETA, which usually serve to evidence of athletics, will also be renovated to adapt to football and should be occupied by Atlético de Madrid so that the work ends in 2012.Concluídos the work, the Madrid enclosure to accommodate almost 74,000 people . 

They are also still envisaged the construction of the new stadium San mames (with capacity for 56,000 seats, with completion expected by 2013) in Bilbao, Nou Sarria (41,000) in Barcelona, and New Romareda (42,500), in Zaragoza, although the latter remains embargoed since 2007, unknown when the work will resume. 

As Portugal and Spain, also in England currently has 12 stadiums with 40,000 or more seats, but can only provide one with greater capacity to 90,000 seats, the new Wembley Stadium for. 

If you also count the geographical constraint of a maximum of two levels per city - a principle violated only in the first 18 editions, in Uruguay, in 1930, concentrated on editing Montevedeo) - English reduces the supply is only 10 to 12 stages since four of them are in London. 

As part of the Spanish Iberian project has three venues in Seville, the tradition of the World also eliminate one of them, but even so, with one more available to the English stage. 

As in Spain, England also has some projects on paper, as the New Anfield, the new home of Liverpool, with 61,000 seats, and The Valley, a venue that will serve the Charlton, London, and will have capacity for 40,600 people . 

Although competition between Europe, the other two suitors, Russia and Holland / Belgium, are clearly losing the bid on this. 

The Russians have only two places that meet the requirements, curiously both capable of opening and final, the Luzhniki Stadium (84,745) in Moscow and the Kirov Stadium (80,000) in St Petersburg, the city has also planned to Gazprom Arena , future hall of FC Zenit, for 62,200 seats. 

After the victorious alliance for the organization of Euro2000, the Netherlands and Belgium again new challenge together, this time on a global scale, although a range of small enclosures meet the requirements of FIFA. 

The 40,000 seats of the bar is only fulfilled by the Amsterdam Arena (51,324), the Feyenoord Stadium (51,180) in Rotterdam, and King Baudouin Stadium (50,024), Brussels, and there is no capacity equal to or greater than 80,000. 

In the "paper" is also the new historical stage of Anderlecht, with the same name, Constant Vanden Stock, but 12,000 seats (28,000 to 40,000).


----------



## =NaNdA=

so, the final decision is going to those 4 countries?


----------



## -Corey-

Yes ^^ so the probability that the US is going to host the WC in 18/22 are 50% :banana:


----------



## JimB

=NaNdA= said:


> so, the final decision is going to those 4 countries?


I don't think so.

It just means that, at things stand, only USA, England and Spain / Portugal already comply with FIFA requirements. In other words, they have at least one stadium of 80,000+ and at least 12 stadiums of 40,000+.

But the vote will not be held until December 2010. So each of the bidders has 22 months to finalize their plans - including plans for the building of new stadiums or the expansion of existing stadiums.

That article is rather amusing, though. It seems to be a translation and I rather suspect that it is a translation from Spanish or Portuguese. It implies that the English bid is compromised by the fact that it only has one stadium with a capacity of 90,000+ and that it is further compromised by the fact that four of its stadiums are in London.

The article neglects to mention the fact that Spain / Portugal also has only one stadium with a capacity of 90,000+. It also neglects to mention that it has cited 3 stadiums in Seville, 3 in Madrid, 3 in Barcelona and 2 in Valencia!


----------



## flierfy

Europe doesn't just pay more in total. Broadcasting rights in individual countries are more worth than in the USA.
According to this source Disney pays $425m for every FIFA tournament in 8 years including the 2010 and 214 World Cups.
In Germany alone the TV rights for 2010 World Cup have been sold apparently in excess of €180m [source].
It's not particular difficult to figure out that the interest in football in the USA is lukewarm at best.


----------



## Aka

Today FIFA officially accepted Portugal and Spain bid. I don't know about Belgium and the Netherlands.


----------



## woozoo

ryebreadraz said:


> The USA pays FIFA the most money of any country for the TV rights to the WC. 2018 is going to Europe, but money is not the reason why. *1994 was one of, if not the most profitable WC's ever* and when it comes back here, it will be the most profitable ever. They're going back to Europe in 2018 because there's a wealthy country with a strong bid in England and there are far more countries and voters in Europe than any other continent. England 2018, USA 2022.


I read somewhere it was the most profitable. 
But I think that means most profitable for the host nation, not FIFA. The host nation keeps all revenue from ticket sales, FIFA keeps the revenue from tv rights. Considering 94 had by far the highest attendance, it wouldn't surprise me it was most profitable, but that wouldn't sway FIFA as most of the TV money comes from Europe.


----------



## woozoo

Aka said:


> Today FIFA officially accepted Portugal and Spain bid. I don't know about Belgium and the Netherlands.


WTF? hno:hno: FIFA hno:hno:

Im happy about the bid, just dismayed at FIFA's constant backflipping.


----------



## Jizzy

just because its the most 'profitable' doesnt mean its the best world cup. its about the football, not the money. itll be remembered for the FOOTBALL.

gosh, you ..... it comes to prioritising in the worlds most beautiful game. to you idiots, its all about money money money isnt it. prats.

"Inappropriate Language"


----------



## JimB

Jizzy said:


> just because its the most 'profitable' doesnt mean its the best world cup. its about the football, not the money. itll be remembered for the FOOTBALL.
> 
> gosh, you ..... it comes to prioritising in the worlds most beautiful game. to you idiots, its all about money money money isnt it. prats.
> 
> "Inappropriate Language"


Calm down. No need to work yourself into a tizzy, Jizzy.

We're only discussing money because money will inevitably play a significant part in deciding which countries are chosen by FIFA to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.


----------



## GEwinnen

Jizzy said:


> just because its the most 'profitable' doesnt mean its the best world cup. its about the football, not the money. itll be remembered for the FOOTBALL.
> 
> gosh, you ..... it comes to prioritising in the worlds most beautiful game. to you idiots, its all about money money money isnt it. prats.


 kay: kay: kay:

How many people celebrated the world cup in the streets of the host cities 1994? I guess none, the modern world cup with thousnds of celebrating football fans in the streets of the host cities started in 2006 and will be continued in REAL football nations in the future!


----------



## *England*

Sebastian Coe has been appointed as a non-executive board member of England's 2018 World Cup bid team. 

Lord Coe will continue to chair the London Organising Committee for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

But he has agreed a leave of absence from his position as chairman of Fifa's ethics committee.


----------



## en1044

Jizzy said:


> just because its the most 'profitable' doesnt mean its the best world cup. its about the football, not the money. itll be remembered for the FOOTBALL.
> 
> gosh, you ..... it comes to prioritising in the worlds most beautiful game. to you idiots, its all about money money money isnt it. prats.
> 
> "Inappropriate Language"


Well, based on your logic, they should just play the Cup in my backyard. If it should only be remembered for the play of the game instead of other factors then it really doesnt matter where you play it right? No, it doesnt work that way.


----------



## =NaNdA=

BIG 3 Polling Results @ SSC for 2022 

Australia - 54
Indonesia 37
USA - 32


----------



## isaidso

I hope 2018 goes to Russia. Then it would be nice to see the WC return to America. Mexico would be my preferred choice in America followed by Canada.


----------



## Benjuk

Is it December 2010 yet? I want to know what's going to happen!


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> I hope 2018 goes to Russia.


May I ask "why?" Sure appears an uphill battle in regards to facilities and the volume of attractive host communities.


----------



## Nneznajka

You should give world cup to countries where the peoples interest and countries achievements in football is streemly growing!(like Euro 2008 & UFA cup) . I am For Russia !
And that will solve the problems with stadiums too


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> May I ask "why?" Sure appears an uphill battle in regards to facilities and the volume of attractive host communities.


Sure, if it's the 'World's Game', as often gets bandied about, it should be shared with the world. Give it to a country that hasn't had it before. Not only has Russia never hosted, but it's a major sporting nation of the world. 

Attractive? That's all a point of view. I'm sure a big powerful nation like Russia is more than capable of meeting the challenge of a World Cup. Russia may not be popular in certain parts of the world, but that can be said for almost any nation.

Western Europe seems to have this notion of entitlement when it comes to soccer. The list of reasons why Western European locales are the best choices is never ending. The word 'share' seems to be a new concept with many in that region.

I don't mind if it goes to Australia or Indonesia either, but I think Russia has fielded many good teams over the years. Let Russia have it.


----------



## bigbossman

so you'd give it to indonesia over england?

You lump western europe together like it is one place. England hasn't hosted the world cup since 1966. 52 years by then. Hosting in France is as good as hosting it in Timbuktoo, England fans travel anywhere. So saying we've had it close means nothing, we haven't had it though have we!!


----------



## MoreOrLess

I just get the feeling these bids are a bit too early for Russia. Maybe I'm wrong but they just don't seem like a nation thats going to spend billions of public money on stadiums(I'd guess we'd be taking more western prices than chinese/african ones) these days. The leagues been growing largely on private funding and in 5-10 years it may have have alot of the stadiums that would be needed but will everything be planned and worked out in a couple of years?


----------



## bigbossman

geographical spread would be a nightmare, away games to vladvostock and tomsk must've been a nightmare last season


----------



## JimB

isaidso said:


> Sure, *if it's the 'World's Game', as often gets bandied about, it should be shared with the world. Give it to a country that hasn't had it before*. Not only has Russia never hosted, but it's a major sporting nation of the world.
> 
> Attractive? That's all a point of view. I'm sure a big powerful nation like Russia is more than capable of meeting the challenge of a World Cup. Russia may not be popular in certain parts of the world, but that can be said for almost any nation.
> 
> Western Europe seems to have this notion of entitlement when it comes to soccer. The list of reasons why Western European locales are the best choices is never ending. *The word 'share' seems to be a new concept with many in that region*.
> 
> I don't mind if it goes to Australia or Indonesia either, but I think Russia has fielded many good teams over the years. Let Russia have it.


Such a big show of championing fairness and sharing.............yet you are backing a World Cup in Mexico in 2022???

Hardly a choice consistent with your stated principles! Mexico has already hosted the World Cup twice and you want it to host the World Cup a third time before the vast majority of countries have even hosted it twice?


----------



## en1044

JimB said:


> Such a big show of championing fairness and sharing.............yet you are backing a World Cup in Mexico in 2022???
> 
> Hardly a choice consistent with your stated principles! Mexico has already hosted the World Cup twice and you want it to host the World Cup a third time before the vast majority of countries have even hosted it twice?


I was thinking the exact same thing


----------



## ryebreadraz

I haven't looked at all of these, but the US page lists a stadium that will be torn down in a year as well as three that aren't wide enough for a FIFA sized field so I wouldn't trust this too much.


----------



## ~MELVINDONESIA~

GO INDONESIA!!


----------



## bigbossman

no chance^^


----------



## en1044

ryebreadraz said:


> I haven't looked at all of these, but the US page lists a stadium that will be torn down in a year as well as three that aren't wide enough for a FIFA sized field so I wouldn't trust this too much.


very true


----------



## -Corey-

Please dont go to those sites, because it has a virus :S


----------



## woozoo

> THE "No Worries" World Cup — that is the simple idea driving Australia's pursuit of the largest prize in world sport. After a tender process involving submissions from 50 companies, a handful have been selected to drive Australia's proposal — bankrolled to the tune of $46 million by the Federal Government.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/soccer/no-worries-world-cup/2009/03/11/1236447306023.html


----------



## kichigai

And from that same article...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/soccer/no-worries-world-cup/2009/03/11/1236447306023.html?page=2

STADIUMS

A consortium will carry out detailed work around infrastructure planning, architectural design and stadium modifications required for a successful bid. It will assess what changes are needed to existing stadiums and what new facilities would have to be built to meet FIFA bid criteria. This group includes HOK Sport Architecture and Cox Architects & Planning — already responsible for the redevelopment of Suncorp Stadium and design of the new Wembley and Swan Street stadiums.

For Melbourne, the new Swan Street stadium, which is under construction, would need to be expanded from its current capacity of 32,000 to seat 40,000. Small changes, mostly improvements to corporate facilities, also would be needed at the MCG, which would expect to host larger-drawing matches, including a semi-final and, possibly, final.

Planning is also required for the event "precinct" around match venues. Located between the two stadiums, Melbourne Park would be the preferred location for a massive media and broadcasting centre to host the world's press.

FIFA will not release its stadium criteria for the 2018 and 2022 bids until next month. Only then will nations bidding for the event know how many venues are needed. The current criteria requires at least 10 compliant venues. These would most likely be drawn from a possible pool, including Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium, the Gold Coast's Skilled Park or Carrara, the redeveloped Energy Australia Stadium in Newcastle, the Sydney Football Stadium, ANZ Stadium, Canberra Stadium, MCG, Swan Street Stadium and new venues in Adelaide and Perth. Launceston's Aurora Stadium is also under consideration.

State governments would be required to foot the bill for new facilities or stadium refurbishments. Buckley is meeting with all state premiers to inform them of the changes likely to be needed.


----------



## bigchrisfgb

I think England have it sawn up already, weather or not it will be 2018 or 2022 is open for debate.

I'm sure Canada made a bid, didn't they?, if they did I would love for them to get it.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

England don't have it sewn up at all - the bid team cannot afford to take the foot off the gas. Just look at the 2012 Olympic bid, Paris was overwhelming favourites yet London pipped it at the finish line.


----------



## Bobby3

bigchrisfgb said:


> I think England have it sawn up already, weather or not it will be 2018 or 2022 is open for debate.
> 
> I'm sure Canada made a bid, didn't they?, if they did I would love for them to get it.


Canada would require South Africa-esque building.

Right now one stadium, Edmonton, meets requirements...barely. I guess SkyDome and the Olympic Stadium would with grass installled.

Edmonton, Commonwealth Stadium - 60,081 (Grass)
Vancover, BC Place - 60,000 (Art. turf) - being renovated
Montreal, Olympic Stadium - 66,038 (Art. turf)
Toronto, SkyDome - 45,000 (Art. turf)

Another possibility is if Hamilton gets their PanAmerican Games stadium.

I guess Quebec City and Ottawa would also be included, I'm not sure who else though.

The other stadiums leave a lot to be desired.


----------



## marching

It's time to ASIAN!!!! :banana:


----------



## Mo Rush

Bobby3 said:


> Canada would require South Africa-esque building.


???

South Africa in some cases chose to build new venues rather than use existing venues.

We bid with 7 existing venues.


----------



## Bobby3

Mo Rush said:


> ???
> 
> South Africa in some cases chose to build new venues rather than use existing venues.
> 
> We bid with 7 existing venues.


Canada could do that as well, but they're going to require at least 4 from scratch. Unlike England, the US, or Japan.


----------



## =NaNdA=

Indonesia submits bid to host World Cup :cheers:
1 day ago-March 14

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesia has submitted its bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, a bid official said Saturday.

The deadline for submissions of final bids is March 16, and Nugraha Besoes, secretary general of the All Indonesia Football Association, confirmed the nation's bid was sent on Tuesday to FIFA, soccer's governing body.

Indonesia is among nine countries that signaled their intention to bid in February, and is considered an outsider among that group.

The other countries that announced intentions to bid were: South Korea, Australia, Japan, England, Russia, Qatar, Mexico and the United States. South Africa will host in 2010 and Brazil in 2014.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## Jizzy

2018 will go to England, this gets more obvious each passing day.

2022 - i would LOVE for this to go to Australia, its an interesting thought to see football go down under in a new country. its like another step into the unknown. and Oz has some good stadiums there. fingers crossed Ozzy gets 2022


----------



## kamilo

im going for either Russia or Indonesia for the 2022 world cup.


----------



## Pimpmaster

Australia stadiums that could host the world cup games

MCG - capacity 100,000










ANZ Stadium - capacity 83,500










Telstra dome - capacity 56, 500










Suncorp Stadium - capacity 52,500 










Aussie Stadium - capacity 45,500










*These Stadium's could be easily upgraded to 40k-50k*

Skilled Park - current capacity 27,400










Energy Australia Satdium - current capacity 26,100










Dairy Farmers Stadium - Current capacity 25,000










these are just a few that can be upgraded


----------



## dacrio

the joint bid? sp/po and benelux
are accepted?


----------



## woozoo

Those joint bids have been accepted yes, but FIFA retains the right to reject them, whatever that means.


----------



## Mr_Dru

Fifa won't accept a joint bid of the Benelux. However the *Euro2000 Benelux *was verry succesfull. Benelux don't make a chance for hosting the WC'18, the Netherlands has 20 modern stadiums but they are to small for hosting a World Cup. Yeah and Belgium has even no stadiums at all. But the Dutch were succesfull for hosting the *Fifa U19 '05 *and *Uefa U21 '07*.

Engeland and Australia make a good chance to host the WC'18


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

woozoo said:


> Those joint bids have been accepted yes, but FIFA retains the right to reject them, whatever that means.


if there are countries able to host by themselves then FIFA would feel more inclined to reject Joint bids, its always a hinderence having to give away two automatic qualification spots to host when you can just give away one.


----------



## tollfreak

Sandy Pramuji-Jakarta Globe

*With Bid for 2022 World Cup Submitted, It’s Now Time for PSSI to Walk the Talk
*With its bid for the 2022 World Cup officially submitted, Indonesia now faces the hard part.

The deadline for submitting official bids to FIFA was on Sunday, and Indonesian Football Association, or PSSI, secretary general Nugraha Besoes said Indonesia’s proposal was in the world governing body’s hands.

“We’ve sent all the documents that are required by FIFA, and now we’ll wait for FIFA’s response to our intention,” Nugraha said on Monday. “This will be a long journey. We have to start the hard work and prove to the world we have the capabilities to stage the greatest event on earth.”

Australia, Russia and South Korea also submitted their proposals before Sunday.

The Asian Football Confederation initially said it wanted one strong bid from the region that would draw full backing from AFC members. It did not discourage multiple bids, though, and the Asian vote could be split among as many as five candidates.

One crucial part to a successful Indonesian bid will be improving its stadiums and infrastructure, including accommodation, transportation and training facilities. Indonesia co-hosted the 2007 Asian Cup, but it would need much more work to outdo its rivals as roads and sports venues have been neglected during years of tough economic times.

The PSSI has proposed renovating three stadiums and building 10 new venues before 2015, which will require between Rp 8 trillion to Rp 10 trillion ($674 million to $842.5 million).

With government backing, the PSSI believes the country has a fair chance of hosting the 2022 World Cup. “I don’t know how big our chance is,” Nugraha said. “What we need to do now is roll up our sleeves and believe in our dreams.”

Judging by the frequently shifting schedules in local competitions, one perceived weakness in the country’s ability to host is in its organizational skills.

But Nugraha rejected the notion, saying it has nothing to do with the country’s bid.


----------



## Wezza

Jizzy said:


> 2018 will go to England, this gets more obvious each passing day.
> 
> 2022 - i would LOVE for this to go to Australia, its an interesting thought to see football go down under in a new country. its like another step into the unknown. and Oz has some good stadiums there. fingers crossed Ozzy gets 2022


Here's hoping mate! :cheers:


----------



## Republica

I want England 2018 and either Australia or Indonesia for 2022.


----------



## *England*

as soon as england and russia show they are capable of showing they can host it on their own i expect the joint bids will be removed, harsh on holland but i think they should work on their stadiums and host something like 2030 on their own.
spain is only using portugal because they hosted it in the 80s and you can bet your house on it that spain will bid on their own the next time it comes around.


----------



## Aka

> *Confirmation of bids received*
> 
> The race to host the 2018 and the 2022 FIFA World Cups™ is still wide open following confirmation that all 13 member associations that had expressed their interest in February to bid for either one or both competitions have sent to FIFA their Bid Registration forms by the established deadline of 16 March.
> 
> The member associations that have sent the Bid Registration forms for both competitions are, in alphabetical order: Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and Portugal, and the USA. Meanwhile, Korea Republic and Qatar have sent a Bid Registration form for the 2022 FIFA World Cup only.
> 
> "We are very pleased about the fantastic level of interest in our flagship competition, with all initial bidders confirming their candidature. The diversity and quality of the contenders will make this a very interesting selection process. This shows the importance of the FIFA World Cup as a truly universal event and the global power of this competition to help achieve positive change, in line with our claim: For the Game. For the World," said FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter.
> 
> The next step of the process will come in the month of April, when FIFA will send the Bidding Agreement to these associations. The Bidding Agreement will set forth in detail the agreements and information that must be included in the Bid Book. The deadline for the associations to submit the signed Bidding Agreement to FIFA is 11 December 2009.
> 
> _Source:_ fifa.com


. . .


----------



## HasseVonHammarby

I hope and believe that Belgium/The Netherlands will be the host in 2018. I can’t see any problems for these two rich countries to construct stadiums at the same size and the same quality as England, Australia and other bidders. The Netherlands is one of the greatest football countries in the world, far better than England, and co-hosting is the only way they can become a host.

Discussing the stadiums they have to day is completely nonsense. Wait until they official bid is presented. Then we can discuss the stadiums they are planning to build.


----------



## RobH

> The Netherlands is one of the greatest football countries in the world, far better than England


I assume you're basing that analysis on our national teams rather than our League systems (which do not compare, England wins hands down).

In terms of national teams, I'd say that historically England and Holland, along with Spain actually, can all consider themselves just below the very top group of national football teams which, for me, only includes Germany, Italy and Brazil. 

In fact, the two nations' records in international competition are very similar. Often quarter and semi-finalists with a few DNQs. Both only have one trophy to their name; in England's case a World Cup, in Hollands a European Championship.

To say that the Netherlands is "far better than England" as a footballing nation is stretching it, even if you limit it to only talking about our national teams. Throw the Premiership and the Football League and the FA Cup etc. etc. into the equation and your statement falls apart. Holland is not far better than England when all is taken into account. I wouldn't even say it's better.


----------



## Joop20

Mr_Dru said:


> Fifa won't accept a joint bid of the Benelux. However the *Euro2000 Benelux *was verry succesfull. Benelux don't make a chance for hosting the WC'18, the Netherlands has 20 modern stadiums but they are to small for hosting a World Cup. Yeah and Belgium has even no stadiums at all. But the Dutch were succesfull for hosting the *Fifa U19 '05 *and *Uefa U21 '07*.
> 
> Engeland and Australia make a good chance to host the WC'18


If you're gonna write such nonsense you might as well not react at all...


----------



## bigbossman

RobH said:


> I assume you're basing that analysis on our national teams rather than our League systems (which do not compare, England wins hands down).
> 
> In terms of national teams, I'd say that historically England and Holland, along with Spain actually, can all consider themselves just below the very top group of national football teams which, for me, only includes Germany, Italy and Brazil.
> 
> In fact, the two nations' records in international competition are very similar. Often quarter and semi-finalists with a few DNQs. Both only have one trophy to their name; in England's case a World Cup, in Hollands a European Championship.
> 
> To say that the Netherlands is "far better than England" as a footballing nation is stretching it, even if you limit it to only talking about our national teams. Throw the Premiership and the Football League and the FA Cup etc. etc. into the equation and your statement falls apart. Holland is not far better than England when all is taken into account. I wouldn't even say it's better.


First 16 million vs 50 millon

the netherlands have made 2 WC finals and 1 semi. More than England and in less world cups. England hasn't even made the finals of the euros.

No brainer if Holland was a 50 million country it would dominate, because as a 16 million country it is ahead, and it's done it all since 1974. compare the records from then.

ON the World cup it's annoying that there are so many good European Bids, i would like to rule spain out because i don't like the co hosting with portugal, of course however i want England to win it, but a Benelux bid wouldn't be displeasing


----------



## RobH

It's a great nation for its size but that's not relevent. On that evidence Greece is a "far better footballing nation" than England as well.


----------



## bigbossman

RobH said:


> It's a great nation for its size but that's not relevent. On that evidence Greece is a "far better footballing nation" than England as well.


how'd you work that out? by their 3 euro and 1 world cup appearances??

remember holland went professional nearly 100 years after england

i know it's not relevant but you said england and holland were comparable, when i'd say holland are doing much better.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bigbossman said:


> No brainer *if* Holland was a 50 million country it would dominate, because as a 16 million country it is ahead, and it's done it all since 1974. compare the records from then.


as Rob has suggested you can't use an arguement like that. As good as Holland and its football is, fact is England is a bigger footballing nation(including its history, leagues, EPL, FA Cup etc). You can't go on about if another country had more people it would do far better, it is a smaller nation but thats the way it is and we can go on and on about IFs and BUTs forever on any topic. But we can only go by whats there.

Its not relevant


----------



## bigbossman

Its AlL gUUd said:


> as Rob has suggested you can't use an arguement like that. As good as Holland and its football is, fact is England is a bigger footballing nation(including its history, leagues, EPL, FA Cup etc). You can't go on about if another country had more people it would do far better, it is a smaller nation but thats the way it is and we can go on and on about IFs and BUTs forever on any topic. But we can only go by whats there.
> 
> Its not relevant


The "if" was a small part of what i said. 

I quite clearly stated that holland is above England without having as great a population.

Relatively Holland is a bigger football nation by far.


----------



## MoreOrLess

bigbossman said:


> The "if" was a small part of what i said.
> 
> I quite clearly stated that holland is above England without having as great a population.
> 
> Relatively Holland is a bigger football nation by far.


More sucessful at national level perhaps but in terms of overall importance within the game its clearly not larger than England. 

Size also presents its own problems, you could argue that the greater power in the club game that size brings to the England, Spanish and Italian leagues has actually hampered there national sides.


----------



## soy chiva y que.....

I want *ENGLAND 2018 and MÉXICO 2022*


----------



## Mr_Dru

Joop20 said:


> If you're gonna write such nonsense you might as well not react at all...


I only say what Blatter said. He isn't a fan for a dual-hosting by NL-B or Esp-Por, because he wasn't satisfi about the WC2002 organisation.


----------



## bigbossman

MoreOrLess said:


> More sucessful at national level perhaps but in terms of overall importance within the game its clearly not larger than England.


Do you mean importance to the footballing world?? Football with out the dutch would be far worse than without us i reckon.. devil's advocate slightly



> Size also presents its own problems, you could argue that the greater power in the club game that size brings to the England, Spanish and Italian leagues has actually hampered there national sides.


I agree to a point, however England clearly has an inferior national side to the other two. The greater wealth of the premier league has caused problems because there isn't the talent available in England. Or we haven't tried to produce it...

I wouldn't say it has ever hindered italy. 4 world cup finals, 2 semis (78 was kinda a semi) and 1 Euro champs with 1 semi is a much better return than england since 1966.

Spain is a diffferent kettle, the regional differences etc Although they banned foreigners in the same period as Italy.




Like i said we seem to be saying we should get the world cup for historical reasons only. Like we are football, we invented, we are best culture etc. Which i thought after Hungary in 1953 we had got over, obviously not. We should try and produce a better bid, with stadiums better than they are now, not saying the stadiums we have aren't great, but we should be looking to dominate with a bd so far ahead of everyone else it isn't close. Not resting on our laurels... "we have wembley, we should win"


----------



## Joop20

Mr_Dru said:


> I only say what Blatter said. He isn't a fan for a dual-hosting by NL-B or Esp-Por, because he wasn't satisfi about the WC2002 organisation.


What Bladder says doesn't mean that that's the official point of view of the FIFA. I think there's a pretty big chance the Benelux bid will be accepted, considering there will be only one organization (unlike the Japan/Korea world cup, where they each had there own organization), and considering neither country would be able to host the WC on it's own. 

Regarding the stadiums, plenty of posts have been made about that in this thread I think. Holland can have a pretty good collection of stadiums by 2018, with the new Kuip (80,000 seats), an Amsterdam Arena with a 3rd tier (60,000 - 70,000 seats), enlarged stadiums in Alkmaar, Heerenveen, Enschede, and Eindhoven (all possibly around 40,000 seats). 

Regarding Belgium, they seem to be screwing up their stadium projects right now, but I'm sure that when they put their noses in the same direction, they will have new stadiums in Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels and Liege by 2018.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bigbossman said:


> Relatively Holland is a bigger football nation by far.


England is a bigger football nation its pretty obvious, i know your basing it mostly on national sides(even then i can't see how this statement is so obvious). But football is much more then that as has already been explained.

However being a big football nation doesn't warrant you the WC on a plate. England has to work hard on its bid to win the accolade, i don't think the bid team just expects to win it. i can't see them being over confident when there is such strong competition from other countries. History and footballing culture is only part of the bid along with stadia and logisitics. But out of all the bids England wins hands down on history and football culture and it doesn't do too bad on Stadia either. But lets face it most of it is down to Politics and not always the best bid.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Joop20 said:


> What Bladder says doesn't mean that that's the official point of view of the FIFA. I think there's a pretty big chance the Benelux bid will be accepted, considering there will be only one organization (unlike the Japan/Korea world cup, where they each had there own organization), and considering neither country would be able to host the WC on it's own.
> 
> Regarding the stadiums, plenty of posts have been made about that in this thread I think. Holland can have a pretty good collection of stadiums by 2018, with the new Kuip (80,000 seats), an Amsterdam Arena with a 3rd tier (60,000 - 70,000 seats), enlarged stadiums in Alkmaar, Heerenveen, Enschede, and Eindhoven (all possibly around 40,000 seats).
> 
> Regarding Belgium, they seem to be screwing up their stadium projects right now, but I'm sure that when they put their noses in the same direction, they will have new stadiums in Bruges, Antwerp, Brussels and Liege by 2018.


i guess the main problem FIFA have with joint bids are the two automatic qualification spots taken by the hosts.


----------



## woozoo

Its AlL gUUd said:


> England is a bigger football nation its pretty obvious, i know your basing it mostly on national sides(even then i can't see how this statement is so obvious). But football is much more then that as has already been explained.
> 
> However being a big football nation doesn't warrant you the WC on a plate. England has to work hard on its bid to win the accolade, i don't think the bid team just expects to win it. i can't see them being over confident when there is such strong competition from other countries. History and footballing culture is only part of the bid along with stadia and logisitics. But out of all the bids England wins hands down on history and football culture and it doesn't do too bad on Stadia either. But lets face it most of it is down to Politics and not always the best bid.


As bossman pointed out, in terms of national sides, the Netherlands are more successful than England in recent times. Uruguay were quite dominant around the 30s 40s and 50s, but that dont count for shit because its so long ago.

While leagues count to a degree, for a national football team competition, national football teams are more important.

The dutch have massive respect around the world, from many quarters for what they have brought to the game, and their small size is taken into consideration.


----------



## RobH

You're not wrong there. I just don't agree with the point, which was made earlier in this thread, that they're a far greater footballing _nation_ than England (he didn't say national side he said nation).

As a whole, I don't think any nation is _far_ greater than England when it comes to football and I found that statement a little disrespectful to be honest.


----------



## Aka

Its AlL gUUd said:


> i guess the main problem FIFA have with joint bids are the two automatic qualification spots taken by the hosts.


Blatter said recently that the thing he hates about co-hosting is the fact that that means double costing for FIFA, like what happen in 2002 with two cost centres (Wow! Money! What a surprise...).

The thing is that neither Belgium and the Netherlands nor Spain and Portugal will do the thing the same way. There will be only one organizing committee and only one cost centre, which is totally different from what Blatter was fearing. In fact, Madaíl said that in the Spanish and Portuguese case they've already tranquillize FIFA about that situation.


----------



## bigbossman

Its AlL gUUd said:


> England is a bigger football nation its pretty obvious, i know your basing it mostly on national sides(even then i can't see how this statement is so obvious). But football is much more then that as has already been explained.
> 
> However being a big football nation doesn't warrant you the WC on a plate. England has to work hard on its bid to win the accolade, i don't think the bid team just expects to win it. i can't see them being over confident when there is such strong competition from other countries. History and footballing culture is only part of the bid along with stadia and logisitics. But out of all the bids England wins hands down on history and football culture and it doesn't do too bad on Stadia either. But lets face it most of it is down to Politics and not always the best bid.


Yo make as if Football isn't as big in Holland as it is in England. The only reason it's domestic league is relatively weak is because of it's population. It has some very well supported clubs, clubs with fanbases that can rival many English clubs. And the technique and tactical awareness of footballers they produce is far greater than us. The only reason it took till the mid 1960s for their clubs to immerge, and the 70s for their national team is professionalism.

If we harnessed our potential within football we could be the power we maybe should be, but we punch at a lesser weight than countries with smaller populations. And our league relies heavily on imports to be a success. Strip it down to the bones and we are not doing what a so called football crazy nation of 50 million people should be doing. Maybe less emphasis on commitment and more on technique.

Like i said this arrogance may be our undoing with our bid. We think we have a divine right to stage the world cup when we don't. We need to prove it, the stadiums now are great make them better and bigger etc etc


----------



## HasseVonHammarby

RobH said:


> I assume you're basing that analysis on our national teams rather than our League systems (which do not compare, England wins hands down).
> 
> In terms of national teams, I'd say that historically England and Holland, along with Spain actually, can all consider themselves just below the very top group of national football teams which, for me, only includes Germany, Italy and Brazil.
> 
> In fact, the two nations' records in international competition are very similar. Often quarter and semi-finalists with a few DNQs. Both only have one trophy to their name; in England's case a World Cup, in Hollands a European Championship.
> 
> To say that the Netherlands is "far better than England" as a footballing nation is stretching it, even if you limit it to only talking about our national teams. Throw the Premiership and the Football League and the FA Cup etc. etc. into the equation and your statement falls apart. Holland is not far better than England when all is taken into account. I wouldn't even say it's better.


Maybe I am stupid, but I thought World Cup was about National Team. If you have basic knowledge about statistics, you will easily find out that Holland has had a far better team than England since 1966.

I agree that England today has a far better league than the Netherlands, but Premier League can only be called an English league because their stadiums happen to be located in England. The club owners and the best players are as far as I know from other countries. Before money really took over football there was no major difference in quality of Dutch and English leagues.


----------



## RobH

Yeh, but you didn't say that; you saud nation, not national side.


----------



## HasseVonHammarby

RobH said:


> Yeh, but you didn't say that; you saud nation, not national side.


??????????????????????:bash::bash::bash:


----------



## RobH

Good response. Clearly only written because I'm right about your original post.


----------



## HasseVonHammarby

RobH said:


> Good response. Clearly only written because I'm right about your original post.


Go and find a hobby


----------



## Mo Rush

England is the greatest football nation
So Holland does well at World Cups..good for them.


----------



## GEwinnen

Joop20 said:


> Regarding the stadiums, plenty of posts have been made about that in this thread I think. Holland can have a pretty good collection of stadiums by 2018, with the new Kuip (80,000 seats), an Amsterdam Arena with a 3rd tier (60,000 - 70,000 seats), enlarged stadiums in Alkmaar, Heerenveen, Enschede, and Eindhoven (all possibly around 40,000 seats).


What will happen to this huge stadiums in Amsterdam and Rotterdam after a world cup in the Netherlands?
Do you want white elephants?
Regard the average attendences:

Ajax: 2008= 49,000 2007=48,000 2006=47,000 2005=48,000
Feyenoord: 44,000 41,000 40,000 38,000 
Alkmaar: 16,000 16,000 8,000
Enschede: 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bigbossman said:


> Like i said this arrogance may be our undoing with our bid. We think we have a divine right to stage the world cup when we don't. We need to prove it, the stadiums now are great make them better and bigger etc etc


you obviously haven't read my post properly hno:. i've stated that England shouldn't be complacent with their bid, it'll be a tough campaign and no one has a divine right. please read it again.


----------



## bigbossman

Its AlL gUUd said:


> you obviously haven't read my post properly hno:. i've stated that England shouldn't be complacent with their bid, it'll be a tough campaign and no one has a divine right. please read it again.



the last paragraph which you referenced wasn't in reference to your post. It was my opnions on the bid. The other two paragraphs were with regard to your post, as i was referring to your opinion that England is a superior footballing nation...


----------



## Jizzy

i wouldnt say england lacks talent. more like..the talent is there, its just constantly pushed aside or not considered by these impatient rich fucks who're looking for that quick fix in finding a big name in world football and bringing them to their team to win trophies and money. case in point, arsenal.

also, the premiership has evolved into a big business now..people from around the world wants to play here, its the capital of the footballing world. this closes doors on opportunity for domestic talent to shine through. and i do believe england HAS talent, regardless what the ignorant nay-sayers think, otherwise we wouldnt have rooney, gerrard, lamps and theo walcott who's a hot prospect for the future.

i wish fabio capello can publicly speak and say the english teams try and use english players rather than rushing out and getting big names from abroad (like man city and kaka). premiership teams should quit being so fucking selfish and take some responsibility and help the country win the world cup again.

1966..true it may be a long time, but considering the number of countries who won it..i'd say we're still one of the best in the world. jealous naysayers can go kill themselves.


----------



## Wuppeltje

GEwinnen said:


> What will happen to this huge stadiums in Amsterdam and Rotterdam after a world cup in the Netherlands?
> Do you want white elephants?
> Regard the average attendences:
> 
> Ajax: 2008= 49,000 2007=48,000 2006=47,000 2005=48,000
> Feyenoord: 44,000 41,000 40,000 38,000
> Alkmaar: 16,000 16,000 8,000
> Enschede: 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000


The Amsterdam ArenA is considered too small with a capacity of 51,628. Most matches are sold out. Commercially it is highly successful though and an example for other stadiums. Ajax has about 2.190.000 supporters (Voetbal International 2008) in the Netherlands. 

The Feijenoord Stadium is too old for future use and they are building a new and bigger stadium without a WC. The average attendances are strange, because they have to leave a lot of seats empty due to security reasons (which can be different). Feyenoord has 1.210.000 supporters (Voetbal International 2008), and are considered to have one of the most loyal supporters. Amsterdam and Rotterdam were in 2007-08 ranked 16 and 20 in number of average attendances of European football clubs. Considering that many matches are sold out, this number could have been higher now.

The Grolsch Veste in Enschede had a capacity of 13.250 (rounded down this makes 13.000), recently expanded to 24.000. They have plans to expand to 34.000 very soon (thinking of 2010, but might be later due to the crisis). Just a few more to make it WC ready. 

Alkmaar probably won't be a WC city. AZ will be most likely the new dutch Champion. They are the only one with the fear that they might be building a commercial bad stadium (the owner has his own bank that didn't need any help). They have plans to expand to 30.000 with absolutely no intentions to be a WC city. 

*Many Dutch clubs have plans to expand or are expanding their stadium, even without a WC*. If a WC 2018 will be held in the Netherlands it will boost to have all the expansions ready before 2018.


----------



## bigbossman

Jizzy said:


> i wouldnt say england lacks talent. more like..the talent is there, its just constantly pushed aside or not considered by these impatient rich fucks who're looking for that quick fix in finding a big name in world football and bringing them to their team to win trophies and money. case in point, arsenal.


HOw do you work out case in point Arsenal?? since when do we spend big bucks on players?? We bring through our own talent, and as you can see now it's largely english, because Wenger has taken this long to sort the academy out to foreign standards.

The talent isn't there, high end talent that is. What it is, is that average foreign players play instead of average english players because they are cheaper, this is wrong. When most teams were filled with Englishmen our national team was still "shit", because we have never had the talent in all reality.



> also, the premiership has evolved into a big business now..people from around the world wants to play here, its the capital of the footballing world. this closes doors on opportunity for domestic talent to shine through. and i do believe england HAS talent, regardless what the ignorant nay-sayers think, otherwise we wouldnt have rooney, gerrard, lamps and theo walcott who's a hot prospect for the future.


What four players, Rooney is overrated massively and theo walcott has proved nothing.

The fact is when serie a was the "best" league in the world, they were still getting to world cup finals and producing top end players. Out of the italy regular back 4 from 1994 3 of them were youth team players at Milan and the other joined milan when he was 20 (yes i know 2 of them were suspended for the final).

Basically money doesn't force talent out, lack of faith and lack of ability does.

Look at the gushing talent Italy, Germany, France and Spain have coming through, these are supposed to be our level, but they have all one bundles of trophies since we last won anything, even since we last got to a semi final, they've all won something.



> i wish fabio capello can publicly speak and say the english teams try and use english players rather than rushing out and getting big names from abroad (like man city and kaka). premiership teams should quit being so fucking selfish and take some responsibility and help the country win the world cup again.


I'm sorry no one in there right mind would choose any english player over Kaka if they had the chance to sign him. Bad example. Capello probably isn't saying anything because he has seen that the situation is deep routed like a rotting apple core, and it needs an overhaul. All these UEFA/FIFA measures will be a start, but things won't happen over night, it takes time.



> 1966..true it may be a long time, but considering the number of countries who won it..i'd say we're still one of the best in the world. jealous naysayers can go kill themselves.


England wouldn't have won the world cup if it wasn't in England simple as (I know ifs and buts). So many controversial things happened during that world cup to Englands rivals. But obviously the propaganda machine is working LOL.

You just prove that we are indeed an arrogant nation who thing we are better than everyone. Even when everyone consistently beats us for decades, and even when the rest of the world proves they can largely play our brand of football better than we can, hence why the premier league is stuffed with foriegners. We need to sort this out, this is why our bid can't just be the shit we are proposing now, expand the emirates, expand old trafford etc etc


----------



## Jizzy

why you being so anti-english? you a yank lover or something?


----------



## Bobby3

The England players are more concerned with watches and cars than football. Except Peter Crouch, he's class.


----------



## bigbossman

Jizzy said:


> why you being so anti-english?


I dislike the way every international tournament is over hyped by the bloody English media making us think we are anywhere near the best team in the world. It's unbearable. Euro 2008 was refreshing and objective and exciting.



> you a yank lover or something?


Where in my post do i declare my love for yankees? a eurocentric maybe but i dislike americans as much as the next man, mainly down to their ignorance with regards to Football!


----------



## Outcaster

Russia - 2018
i wanna see world cup in my city 
But in FIFA very many politicians & they give WC England, Indonesia or Australia (coz only in Australia continent hasn't WC)


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bigbossman said:


> As you hoped kiwibrit pointed out hno:. Your population example was dumb, because *you* *based it on the fact that if a country wins the world cup it makes there culture superior.* I based it on the fact that if a lesser country in terms of population consistently punches harder than a superior country, there is more to it than just coincidence. As is the case with England and The netherlands


you haven't read my post again hno: i don't know where u get these assumptions from.


----------



## bigbossman

aka said:


> Don't you think this is becoming too much off-topic?


In a way it's relevant because surely size of football culture should be a major determining factor when deciding where the world cup is hosted??



Its AlL gUUd said:


> you haven't read my post again hno: i don't know where u get these assumptions from.


I get the assumptions from the fact that you implied that my example was based upon winning tournaments, and you used the USA winning the world cup as an example of thiss. When the crux was about countries with smaller populations punching above their weight, thus indicating luck or a superior football culture. The USA was totally irrelevant to the nature of the debate and you brought them in.



> Yet i would still say England is a big football nation, bigger then Holland. Performance of the national team alone doesn't determine that. I'd say even before Spain won the Euros Spain was a bigger footballing nation then Holland even tho Holland had a better record at international level. *Its like saying if USA won the next world cup they would be a bigger Football nation the England which is obviously not true*


----------



## antigoon99

i hope it goes the Belgium/The Netherlands, the UK already has the olympic 2012, that should be enough...


----------



## Aka

bigbossman said:


> In a way it's relevant because surely size of football culture should be a major determining factor when deciding where the world cup is hosted??


I don't know. To be honest all of you seem to be discussing who has the bigger dick.


England? The Netherlands? Italy? Germany? Spain? The US? The biggest football nation is Brazil and that's it.


----------



## seattle92

bigbossman said:


> England wouldn't have won the world cup if it wasn't in England simple as (I know ifs and buts). So many controversial things happened during that world cup to Englands rivals. But obviously the propaganda machine is working LOL.


Come to mind that great semi final against Portugal, that was supose to be played in one city, but was changed at the last minute by the organization. They made the portuguese team to cross the country by train in the day of the match. So that England could stay and rest in London.

:lol:

That way is easy to win things...


----------



## bigbossman

seattle92 said:


> Come to mind that great semi final against Portugal, that was supose to be played in one city, but was changed at the last minute by the organization. They made the portuguese team to cross the country by train in the day of the match. So that England could stay and rest in London.
> 
> :lol:
> 
> That way is easy to win things...


I thought it was the quarter final against argentina, it might've been both games actually. 

But yeah it's amazing how things are swept under the carpet


----------



## bigbossman

Aka said:


> I don't know. To be honest all of you seem to be discussing who has the bigger dick.


lol well i'm English, so i am slating my own "dick"



> England? The Netherlands? Italy? Germany? Spain? The US? The biggest football nation is Brazil and that's it.


agreed, closely followed by the argies


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

bigbossman said:


> *I get the assumptions from the fact that you implied that my example was based upon winning tournaments*, and you used the USA winning the world cup as an example of thiss. When the crux was about countries with smaller populations punching above their weight, thus indicating luck or a superior football culture. The USA was totally irrelevant to the nature of the debate and you brought them in.


no, u made that assumption by yourself way before my posts. I never stated England is a bigger footballing nation compared to Holland because they won more trophies(or lack of) at international level, that would be you who keep bringing this up. i've suggested national team performance alone doesn't determine footballing culture. England is a bigger football nation for many other reasons.

but like i said some of the English media are trash, you shouldn't read The Sun. Suggesting England are world beaters with lazy and incompetent journalism and then slaughtering them quite ridiculously (e.g personal attacks on players) at every opportunity. But i don't expect any less from trash like that.

oh and im not fully English.


----------



## JYDA

Jizzy said:


> why you being so anti-english? you a yank lover or something?





bigbossman said:


> i dislike americans as much as the next man, mainly down to their ignorance with regards to Football!



Well thanks for proving your yank-hating worthiness to the troll


----------



## Aka

seattle92 said:


> Come to mind that great semi final against Portugal, that was supose to be played in one city, but was changed at the last minute by the organization. They made the portuguese team to cross the country by train in the day of the match. So that England could stay and rest in London.


Liverpool.

Portugal had the right to play at their headquarters since they had won more points than England (4-0-0 against 3-1-0).


----------



## cmc

just this simple..

2018- England, Spain, or Russia
2022- US, Mexico, or Australia


----------



## en1044

cmc said:


> just this simple..
> 
> 2018- England, Spain, or Russia
> 2022- US, *Mexico*, or Australia


That doesnt seem simple to me.


----------



## =NaNdA=

^^ No chance for Asian Countries? :?


----------



## larsul

=NaNdA= said:


> ^^ No chance for Asian Countries? :?


Except for maybe Indonesia Japan and Korea have it very difficult since they hosted in 2002..
So yes, no chance for asian countries..


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

2018 - England, 2022 - USA, 2026 - Russia, 2030 - Australia 

Let's be real... 

Half of those proposals in poll is completely unreal.


----------



## Shumbi

2018 - England. Can't see FIFA going elsewhere tbh.
2022 - Australia has a real chance as it has never hosted before and is in the Asian confederation & time zones. The main challenge comes from $USA$ as Mexico won't be given a 3rd world cup any time soon.
2026 - USA if they don't get '22 or Argentina who last hosted in '78.
2030 - Spain will be the obvious choice with 1982 their last time.


----------



## Ecological

Aka said:


> Liverpool.
> 
> Portugal had the right to play at their headquarters since they had won more points than England (4-0-0 against 3-1-0).


It is not controverisal. England would always play thier home games at the national stadium. It would have always been changed to Wembley if England made it that far. 

England has had some terrible luck in major footballing tournaments but also some very fortunate luck as have all major international teams. Bigbossman by all accounts is a bit off an idiot. I mean the most famous off all time is Maradona's hand of god.


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> It is not controverisal. England would always play thier home games at the national stadium. It would have always been changed to Wembley if England made it that far.


It's a world cup with fixed venues you don't change grounds during to suit your needs FFS



> England has had some terrible luck in major footballing tournaments but also some very fortunate luck as have all major international teams. Bigbossman by all accounts is a bit off an idiot.


LOL, thanks, in my stride




> I mean the most famous off all time is Maradona's hand of god.


A handballed goal is no different to any other goal with an infringement, be it offside, through diving to get a penalty, or a not given foul. The only reason people blow that out of proportion is because it was so blatant. We should really stop going on about maradona in England and recognise him for the talent he was!


----------



## bigbossman

Its AlL gUUd said:


> no, u made that assumption by yourself way before my posts. I never stated England is a bigger footballing nation compared to Holland because they won more trophies(or lack of) at international level, that would be you who keep bringing this up. i've suggested national team performance alone doesn't determine footballing culture. England is a bigger football nation for many other reasons.


The point was that the debate was about national teams, if you look through my posts i did also mention other aspects, such as better standard of players and fan culture etc. However this is just going down in circles, it seems we're just not on the same page, so lets leave it at that. 



> but like i said some of the English media are trash, you shouldn't read The Sun. Suggesting England are world beaters with lazy and incompetent journalism and then slaughtering them quite ridiculously (e.g personal attacks on players) at every opportunity. But i don't expect any less from trash like that.


LOL you make as if i read the English gutter press... the problem is a massive percentage of England do and live there life by it. And it will never change.



> oh and im not fully English.


What does that mean??


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

^^ lol we'll leave it that


----------



## Aka

Ecological said:


> It is not controverisal. England would always play thier home games at the national stadium. It would have always been changed to Wembley if England made it that far.


That's not true. But that's OK. I don't care.


----------



## Ecological

It is true. England would always play in there national stadium. Especially in a World Cup semi-final. Reason ... More people get to watch. 

Bigbossman you clearly aren't English. I find it strange why you hide under that affiliation. Scottish? Welsh?


----------



## Ecological

bigbossman said:


> A handballed goal is no different to any other goal with an infringement, be it offside, through diving to get a penalty, or a not given foul. The only reason people blow that out of proportion is because it was so blatant. We should really stop going on about maradona in England and recognise him for the talent he was!



You will find no other country apart from his homeland that rates Maradona as highly as the English. The fact hes legend is downgraded was because he never did apologise for it or admit to what he did. Ala CHEATING. Football was always about sportmanship. 










"Hodge – who swapped shirts with Maradona after the game – tried to hook the ball clear but miscued it. The ball screwed off his foot and into the penalty area, toward Maradona, who had continued his run. England goalkeeper Peter Shilton came out of his goal to punch the ball clear, with his considerable height at 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m), making him clear favourite to beat Maradona at 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m) to it. However, Maradona reached it first, with the outside of his left fist. The ball went into the goal, and the referee (Tunisian Ali Bin Nasser), not having seen the infringement, allowed the goal.

Maradona later said, "I was waiting for my teammates to embrace me, and no one came... I told them, 'Come hug me, or the referee isn't going to allow it.'"
"

It was 4 years after the Falklands war between, at the time ... the two best footballing nations. World cup quarter final infront of 114,000 people. Maradona knew perfectly well his goal was illegal but to this day fails to apologise although he admits he knew what he was doing. He's second goal that match was voted BY ENGLISH FANS as the goal off the century. England lost 2-1. Argentina went onto lift the World Cup. England has had just as much bad luck as we've had luck so your comments seem a little bit one sided nor correct.


----------



## woozoo

Der, well obviously he isnt English. Hes probably not even Welsh or Scottish. His one eyed, biased anti English views and drivel surely make him a Frenchman, or possibly a Jew or a Nazi.

How can any Englishman have a different view regarding England being the supreme footballing powerhouse/GOD of the universe??


----------



## carlspannoosh

Maradona is along with Pele, the greatest player of all time. Argentina deservedly beat & outplayed England in 1986, and thoroughly deserved to win the World Cup.
I hope England's bid is succesful and they get the Finals in 2018.:cheers:


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> It is true.


It's not true, it's a world cup, England moved the game from Liverpool, the game was always scheduled to take place there, it's not as if England lost their seeding path, they were due to play there if they finished top of their group which they did. 



> *England would always play *in there national stadium. Especially in a World Cup semi-final. Reason ... More people get to watch.


England didn't always play in "their" national stadium. Many games between 1923 and 1966 were played at club grounds rather than Wembley. Take the 1934 italy game for instance played at highbury and the 1935 game against Germany at white hart lane for instance



> Bigbossman you clearly aren't English. I find it strange why you hide under that affiliation. Scottish? Welsh?


You assume just because i don't "support" the England national football team that doesn't make me English. I support this country in any pursuit except football (and rugby around world cup time) the media puts me off (The same media that hate my beloved Arsenal coincidently). It is clear you are massively blinkered and are atypical of the spoonfed "England is better than everyone else and the most noble nation on this planet" generation. We can be worse than yanks at times!

As a Londoner (born and raised) we can appreciate the rest of the world, are you northern by any chance??


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> You will find no other country apart from his homeland that rates Maradona as highly as the English.


What through all the documentaries about him being a cheating scumbag, and revelling in the fact that he *WAS* a fat drug addicted dead beat... 



> The fact hes legend is downgraded was because he never did apologise for it or admit to what he did. Ala CHEATING. Football was always about sportmanship.


Why would or should he?? It was the referee's mistake not his, only a fool would say: "No sorry I handballed it, fine me, punish me, throw the book at me!" 

Did Michael owen apologise for diving against the argies twice?? 

No, because football is about winning, and to many people that includes the realms of any means necessary, whether you do it by cheating or not. If you can't live with yourself through cheating then don't do it.

Many people have done what maradona did some have got away with it, many haven't but there is no way if they had they'd say anything. Whats more in many countries around the world see "cheating" as nothing more than cleverness. Which in many ways it is, if you can con the referee into believing something that isn't true then surely you are a "clever". 



> Maradona later said, "I was waiting for my teammates to embrace me, and no one came... I told them, 'Come hug me, or the referee isn't going to allow it.'"


Clever man, *PLAY TO THE WHISTLE!*



> It was 4 years after the Falklands war between, at the time ...


I bet you screamed with delight when the Belgrano went down



> *the two best footballing nations*. World cup quarter final infront of 114,000 people.


Woah there nelly!!



> Maradona knew perfectly well his goal was illegal but to this day fails to apologise although he admits he knew what he was doing.


Like i said why would he?



> He's second goal that match was voted BY ENGLISH FANS as the goal off the century.


Not voting it that, is akin to denying the holocaust. So means nothing.



> England lost 2-1. Argentina went onto lift the World Cup.


My days, spouted some factual information



> England has had just as much bad luck as we've had luck so your comments seem a little bit one sided nor correct.


So has everyone else, that's what you fail to understand.


----------



## Ecological

It seems you fail to be productive in anything you write. How can you not support your national team because of the press? Are you that insecure that you cant back your team to the hill and back? Does it matter what they write? Surely if you had your own will you would ignore it and get behind your team no matter what? 

You fail to miss the points so many people have highlighted to you. We cant change your ignorance so I see this as a lost cause. You say you dont support England at football, nor at Rugby during the world cup ... is this because you dont support England full stop? Your aim is clearly to wind up other people. You have no real productive debate, just downgrading any thing to do with England. Pretty childish if you ask me. Maybe a reason debate with positives and negatives might gain you a few extra fans because reading through this thread and a few others its no suprise the majority of people dont like you and find you slightly abrupt and dis-honest in your views. 

Still ... your views are noted. It's good pub chat. Definately share a few laughs over some off your statments this friday :cheers:


----------



## carlspannoosh

I actually enjoyed Euro 2008 because England didn't qualify. The hype when England qualifies is unbearable. Does anyone remember the "ACHTUNG SURRENDER" headlines when England last managed to get to a major semi final? It was utterly embarrassing and surprise surprise the Germans duly knocked England out and won the competition.


----------



## bigbossman

carlspannoosh said:


> I actually enjoyed Euro 2008 because England didn't qualify. The hype when England qualifies is unbearable. Does anyone remember the "ACHTUNG SURRENDER" headlines when England last managed to get to a major semi final? It was utterly embarrassing and surprise surprise the Germans duly knocked England out and won the competition.


Agree whole heartedly, Euro 2008 was immense and full of balanced viewpoints (for the most part), the games were enjoyable. Everyone i know agreed, England weren't missed.



Ecological said:


> It seems you fail to be productive in anything you write. How can you not support your national team because of the press?


I don't support England as i am neutral in international football. Of course i have a team i'd prefer to win, but when England plays it is rarely England because the media and fans are unbearable.



> Are you that insecure that you cant back your team to the hill and back?


I back Arsenal to the hilt. I don't know what being insecure has to do with not backing anyone.



> Does it matter what they write?


Of course it does, because it influences people. If the sun told us that saddam hussein was alive and well in Croydon half it's dimwited readers would believe it!



> Surely if you had your own will you would ignore it and get behind your team no matter what?


I love how you are turning this into a me vs the media debate. The fact is (i hope you are intelligent enough to know) that the media influence people's views. And hinders balanced debate and/or coverage.



> You fail to miss the points so many people have highlighted to you. We cant change your ignorance so I see this as a lost cause.


ok... i'll think you'll find most of the debate has been subjective. Everything you have said has been objectively proved wrong however.



> You say you dont support England at football, nor at Rugby during the world cup ... is this because you dont support England full stop?


Yeah i am a closet member of the IRA... Seriously you sound like some BNP sympathiser. 

"Anyone who doesn't support mother England in everything she does, is wrong"



> Your aim is clearly to wind up other people. You have no real productive debate, just downgrading any thing to do with England.


That's why i support our world cup bid is it, and have said so on many occasions, good one! 

I am not downgrading England, England doesn't begin and end with her national football (and rugby) team.



> Pretty childish if you ask me. Maybe a reason debate with positives and negatives might gain you a few extra fans because reading through this thread and a few others its no suprise the majority of people dont like you and find you slightly abrupt and dis-honest in your views.


You are the one with views sir, the one who feels Maradona should offer and apology and thinks it was right to rearrange the 1966 world cup semi final during the tournament.

And it's why you have taken to personal insults since all your points have been disproved.



> Still ... your views are noted. It's good pub chat. Definately share a few laughs over some off your statments this friday :cheers:


Wow, I reiterate are you nothern??


----------



## RobH

I enjoyed Euro 2008 because the quality of the football was the best I remember in an international tournament for ages. England not being there made me more relaxed watching it, but no tournament is quite the same without Enland, no matter which way you slice it.

There was something missing; and I'm not only saying that as an Englishman. Several footballers, managers and rival fans said they'd miss England's presence and it wouldn't quite be the same without us. That's not to do down Croatia or Russia who rightly qualified ahead of our shambolic team. But I think we give ourselves a hard time sometimes - _despite_ the history of hooliganism and the hyperbole regarding our chances, our team and the huge contingent of fans we take to every tournament are generally well liked for the money they bring in tourism, their passion inside the stadium and outside of it etc.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ Rob when you say you missed England what do you mean?? 

Do you mean I was watching Austria vs Poland and wondered why this shite was there and not England or do you mean I wish we had been part of this excellent spectacle of football??


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

RobH said:


> That's not to do down Croatia or Russia who rightly qualified ahead of our shambolic team. But I think we give ourselves a hard time sometimes - _despite_ the history of hooliganism and the hyperbole regarding our chances, our team and the huge contingent of fans we take to every tournament are generally well liked for the money they bring in tourism, their passion inside the stadium and outside of it etc.


 And other teams didn't bring all that with them? Croatia alone had more visiting fans than England would have (200k+ by some reports on the match day). Sorry to say but latest generations of English fans are considered more as a joke by others than as some rivals. Shouting England and singing God save the Queen few times per match isn't really some exceptional support and show of passion.


----------



## RobH

I didn't say other teams didn't bring that.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

RobH said:


> I didn't say other teams didn't bring that.


Whats so special then about England missing out on the tournament? Believe me... no one had England on mind during the tournament


----------



## Ecological

Again Bigbossman. You fail to see the points and much prefer to argue rather then debate. 

On the Euro 2008 spectacle. Its daft to say England weren't missed. If England weren't involved in international football competitions we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also McHaggis I very much doubt Croatia took 200k to a game


----------



## Ecological

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> And other teams didn't bring all that with them? Croatia alone had more visiting fans than England would have (200k+ by some reports on the match day). Sorry to say but latest generations of English fans are considered more as a joke by others than as some rivals. Shouting England and singing God save the Queen few times per match isn't really some exceptional support and show of passion.


Are we talking home fans? or away fans? Because if you had to pay English prices I very much doubt you would get the hardcore supporters through the doors not to mention the FA accomodating the prawn sandwich brigade at £300 a head before the lower class fans like myself. Away travel ... thats when you see the true fans and to this day and forever more, we shall still remain the best


----------



## Ecological

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Whats so special then about England missing out on the tournament? Believe me... no one had England on mind during the tournament


Austrian landlords certainly did. But would anybody miss anyone at a European championships if they didnt qualify? Very much doubt it.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Ecological said:


> Are we talking home fans? or away fans? Because if you had to pay English prices I very much doubt you would get the hardcore supporters through the doors not to mention the FA accomodating the prawn sandwich brigade at £300 a head before the lower class fans like myself. Away travel ... thats when you see the true fans and to this day and forever more, we shall still remain the best


 I'm talking about visiting fans on big tournaments (Euro, World Cup).


----------



## RobH

^^ China isn't bidding for either tournament so you can rule them out. 

Welcome to SSC


----------



## Fizmo1337

RobH said:


> ^^ China isn't bidding for either tournament so you can rule them out.
> 
> Welcome to SSC


I must have missed the news on that 
Ignore the China part


----------



## RobH

Here you go ^^

_Nine individual nations registered their intention to bid with FIFA by the February 2009 deadline: Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Additionally Belgium and the Netherlands registered to bid together, as have Portugal and Spain.

FIFA confirmed the list of bidders in March, with South Korea and Qatar bidding for 2022 only._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I like ....is

2018 Belgium/the Netherlands
2022 USA or Mexico

2026 China
2030 Uruguay (100years ago in 1930)

2034 England (patient)!! ^_^


----------



## Ecological

Do you think England and Britain in general have a disadvantage simply because of spite. It seems jealously is high on the agenda off many peoples minds and on internet forums its easy to portray it without feeling an ounce of guilt. I wish some would grow up.


----------



## Ecological

seattle92 said:


> It's insane to say it's normal for a home nation to change the venues just because... they want to. I hope for your sake you don't propose that to FIFA for your 2018 bid... or else you wont have a chance. We're not in 1966 any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're just being a liar or an ignorant... hno:


Would you like to prove to me your statement? Also it was put forward by England due to the number of supporters and safety. The governing head off world football had to decide, England didn't just move it willy nilly. 

In 1970, controversy surrounded the world cup before a ball was even kicked. For England, the build-up to the tournament took a bizarre turn when their captain was accused of theft. While England were in Colombia for a pre-tournament friendly, Bobby Moore was arrested for allegedly stealing a bracelet from a jeweller's shop. He was released on bail to allow him to appear in the World Cup finals, and the charges were later quietly dropped.


----------



## Mo Rush

No venues change.

FIFA sets out match schedule.
Match schedule is followed.


----------



## Ecological

Mo Rush said:


> No venues change.
> 
> FIFA sets out match schedule.
> Match schedule is followed.


NOW! 

People learn from mistakes which is what FIFA did. They moved the game to a greater capacity stadium. Like it or not thats the way the cookie crumbles. It takes 3 or so hours to get to Liverpool from London. Not exactly a hard ship and considering the majority of England players at the time played in the north west where ever they played it would've been the same out come. Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up then go and put the two greatest teams at the time in a stadium with space for only 50,000 people when 100,000 will pay to watch it? There must be a little bit of common sense trawling these boards somewhere from abroad.


----------



## Mo Rush

Ecological said:


> NOW!
> 
> Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up[ /QUOTE]
> 
> Match schedule is tweaked
> 
> e.g. you wont see many F1 vs F2 or C1 vs C2 matches at smaller venues.
> You also won't see smaller venues hosting anything beyond the first round matches.
> 
> Once the match schedule is set major planning takes place around those venues, from seat number to transport to operations of security, crowd control, road closures.
> 
> 
> We're not in 1966.
> 
> South Africa is also not playing its 3 world cup matches i.e. first round matches, at the largest stadia. Its playing Jhb, 91,000 and in Bloem 46,000 and in Pretoria 50,000.


----------



## Ecological

Mo Rush said:


> Ecological said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOW!
> 
> Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up[ /QUOTE]
> 
> Match schedule is tweaked
> 
> e.g. you wont see many F1 vs F2 or C1 vs C2 matches at smaller venues.
> You also won't see smaller venues hosting anything beyond the first round matches.
> 
> Once the match schedule is set major planning takes place around those venues, from seat number to transport to operations of security, crowd control, road closures.
> 
> 
> We're not in 1966.
> 
> South Africa is also not playing its 3 world cup matches i.e. first round matches, at the largest stadia. Its playing Jhb, 91,000 and in Bloem 46,000 and in Pretoria 50,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I think we've confused each other. :cheers:
> 
> I wasn't refering to South Africa 2010. I was talking about 1966. And for reasons beyond anyones wildest dreams the movement off a game wasn't just for a leg up. It was for specific reasons, most noteably safety. We all know what happened at Hillsborough. Now imagaine 100,000 trying to cram into Goodison park.
Click to expand...


----------



## seattle92

Ecological said:


> Now imagaine 100,000 trying to cram into Goodison park.


You're talking about the 66 fans like some kind of animals... hno:


Your story about 1970 doesn't change the fact that in 66 some strange things happened. Things that helped England win the tournment (not that you didn't have a great team).


----------



## RobH

Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight). If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.

Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all. And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.


----------



## bigbossman

You are seriously a deluded fool



Ecological said:


> Would you like to prove to me your statement? Also it was put forward by England due to the number of supporters and safety. The governing head off world football had to decide, England didn't just move it willy nilly.


See this has been answered by me and others, but you just ignore it, because you know your argument is weak. And what's more you change it, one minute it's to allow more fans to watch it, the next minute it is safety, sort it out.

Please learn how to spell *of* it's getting on my nerves now



> In 1970, controversy surrounded the world cup before a ball was even kicked. For England, the build-up to the tournament took a bizarre turn when their captain was accused of theft. While England were in Colombia for a pre-tournament friendly, Bobby Moore was arrested for allegedly stealing a bracelet from a jeweller's shop. He was released on bail to allow him to appear in the World Cup finals, and the charges were later quietly dropped.


That has nothing to do with the organisation of the tournament and is totally irrelevant. 



Ecological said:


> NOW!
> 
> People learn from mistakes which is what FIFA did. They moved the game to a greater capacity stadium.


I have proven that they don't so don't lie, read back and learn. The next world cup had a near identicle case handle differently.



> Like it or not thats the way the cookie crumbles. It takes 3 or so hours to get to Liverpool from London. Not exactly a hard ship and considering the majority of England players at the time played in the north west where ever they played it would've been the same out come.


Hotels, training ground. You are talking tosh. 



> Why would you play two teams who noboyd could give a flying tuppence about at Wembley with space for 100,000 people and only have 30,000 turn up then


In your opinion only 30,000 would turn up. But i proved to you the worst attended game at wembley was 61,000. The apathy for foreign teams was in the north not the south.



> go and put the two greatest teams at the time in a stadium with space for only 50,000 people when 100,000 will pay to watch it?


50,000 when the stadium had a crowd of 62,000 during the world cup, and had crowds of over 70,000 in the seasons prior. 



> There must be a little bit of common sense trawling these boards somewhere from abroad.


you are unbelievable.

i don't expect you to reply, and even if you do it probably will just be a rehash of the same *lies*. But we can't have you spreading all this crap, you are wrong you know you are wrong, so stop it!


----------



## bigbossman

RobH said:


> Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight).


Home advantage was a much bigger issue in those days than it is now, i think you are under estimating how much impact this might've had. I'm sure they took it with good grace but inside they were probably bitter.



> If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.


Inclined to agree, i think it is more mental. They were prepared for goodison, they had trained for it, then there preparations were distrupted. Remember Wembley had a bigger pitch etc etc



> Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all.


I wouldn't underestimate the power organisation has on disrupting a good thing.



> And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.


It's not flaming, it's an opinion. What is it, if it is not cheating?? I am not saying it is, but what is it?? You are gaining advantage by changing the rules, that's against the principles of fair competition, thus what is that other than what it sounds like??

I don't expect you to answer, you never do.


----------



## RobH

It's cheating if the intention is to cheat. I don't believe for a second that was the case.

An indirect effect may have been a small advantage to England but that wasn't the _reason_ for the move. A subtle but important difference.

BTW, I answer most questions here. I don't spend hours writing essays detailing every point addressed to me and nor, may I point out, do I send aggresive sounding PMs if someone doesn't answer a post within twenty minutes like yourself. You're clearly very knowledgable about football but you need to change your attitude if I and others are to continue debating with you.


----------



## bigbossman

RobH said:


> It's cheating if the intention is to cheat. I don't believe for a second that was the case.


fair enough, i look at the shady character at the head of FIFA and beg to differ. i am not blaming the england team in anyway.



> An indirect effect may have been a small advantage to England but that wasn't the _reason_ for the move. A subtle but important difference.


So they say, i'm not gettting all conspiracy theory, but negative alterior motives can be disguised behind good natured acts.



> BTW, I answer most questions here. I don't spend hours writing essays detailing every point addressed to me and nor,


Nor do i, i like to meticulously answer posts is all, it takes time and effort, but not as much as you think and it is a way of keeping the old grey matter ticking. 



> may I point out, do I send aggresive sounding PMs if someone doesn't answer a post within twenty minutes like yourself.


i don't think it was necessary to bring that up. To me it wasn't aggressive and i apologised if you thought it was. I just wondered why you had ignored my post and answered someone elses was all...



> You're clearly very knowledgable about football but you need to change your attitude if I and others are to continue debating with you.


I don't mean to come on condescending, but if i think something isn't right i like to say. Being opinionated shouldn't be a hinderance to debate surely.

Anyway lets crack on


----------



## Ecological

bigbossman said:


> You are seriously a deluded fool


You really do contradict yourself.





> See this has been answered by me and others, but you just ignore it, because you know your argument is weak. And what's more you change it, one minute it's to allow more fans to watch it, the next minute it is safety, sort it out.


Err, both are related. The more fans the bigger the safety issue. 



> Please learn how to spell *of* it's getting on my nerves now


Apologies




> That has nothing to do with the organisation of the tournament and is totally irrelevant.


Do you think it didn't disrupt the team and thier preperations though? After all apparently playing a game in a different city in the same country (which is what football is all about) apparently disrupted Portugal immensly. So much so according to some off you its cheating? Cry me a river darling.





> I have proven that they don't so don't lie, read back and learn. The next world cup had a near identicle case handle differently.


You have proven that people and FIFA didn't learn from thier mistakes? I believe they did.





> Hotels, training ground. You are talking tosh.


Yes because in those days London has terrible hotels and poor footballing facilities. 





> In your opinion only 30,000 would turn up. But i proved to you the worst attended game at wembley was 61,000. The apathy for foreign teams was in the north not the south.


Infact only 38,000 people did watch the other semi-final. Why would you not play a match which had such demand in the largest stadium avaliable? was it feasible to play it at a ground that could handle only half the number of supporters as the main stadium?





> 50,000 when the stadium had a crowd of 62,000 during the world cup, and had crowds of over 70,000 in the seasons prior.


SAFETY





> you are unbelievable.
> 
> i don't expect you to reply, and even if you do it probably will just be a rehash of the same *lies*. But we can't have you spreading all this crap, you are wrong you know you are wrong, so stop it!


There is no wrong. The game was moved because off numerous reasons. To call it cheating is nothing but petty and ignorant. If anything you are being extremely childish about it.


----------



## seattle92

RobH said:


> Helped....arguably...though I wouldn't say to an extent where it made any difference to the outcome (Portugal put up a good fight). If a train ride is enough to take it out of super-fit athletes aiming to reach a World Cup final, as you claim, then they're probably not worthy of being in a final anyway. As it is, I doubt it would have made much difference.
> 
> Poor organisation which may have given England a tiny advantage; that's all. And no, it's not normal and I wouldn't like to see such changes again, but using words like "cheating" as you did earlier is nothing but flaming in my opinion. There's no place for it in this thread.



First of all, i didn't say Portugal lost the game because of that incident.

But of course it had some impacts in the team, physical, and mentaly. A trip by train in 1966 from Liverpool to London, few hours from the beginning of a game as to have some effects.



Cheating seems to strong for you? Ok sorry. But it seems that if one changes the rules to have some adavantage... yeah, that seems cheating to me. 

Of course there are worse kinds of cheating...


Even so, the episode is still remembered in Portugal as a trick made by the english to get advantage. The english wc organization didn't stay well in the picture.

Of course those were other days... and today this would be impossible.


----------



## Ecological

seattle92 said:


> First of all, i didn't say Portugal lost the game because of that incident.
> 
> But of course it had some impacts in the team, physical, and mentaly. A trip by train in 1966 from Liverpool to London, few hours from the beginning of a game as to have some effects.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheating seems to strong for you? Ok sorry. But it seems that if one changes the rules to have some adavantage... yeah, that seems cheating to me.
> 
> Of course there are worse kinds of cheating...
> 
> 
> Even so, the episode is still remembered in Portugal as a trick made by the english to get advantage. The english wc organization didn't stay well in the picture.
> 
> Of course those were other days... and today this would be impossible.



Err it was still a FIFA organised event. England were just playing host. It wasn't the English FA that changed the venue. They may have applied for it, but as far as we know it might have been decided before hand that should England make the semi-final after the draw was made the tie would switch venue. Portuguese dont seem to mind but some teenage yank does? Crazy world. ANything would've been reviewed by FIFA and any decision would've been made by FIFA.

And for christ sake, they didnt travel down on the day of the game. Where have you got this from? Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> You really do contradict yourself.


ok




> Err, both are related. The more fans the bigger the safety issue.


They may be related but they are different points.

Demand will exceed supply no matter where you play it, so that is a weak excuse.



> Apologies


accepted



> Do you think it didn't disrupt the team and thier preperations though?


Yes of course, but it was nothing to do with the organisers or the other teams. It was unrelated to football



> After all apparently playing a game in a different city in the same country (which is what football is all about) apparently disrupted Portugal immensly.


You obviously have no grasp of psychology, I have explained this so many times, these things affect mentality.



> So much so according to some off you its cheating? Cry me a river darling.


It’s gaining an advantage to the detriment of your competition, by changing the rules. That’s cheating in anyone’s book regardless of the size of advantage.

*OF*



> You have proven that people and FIFA didn't learn from thier mistakes? I believe they did.


The wording of that reply was slightly misleading. I was referring to your logic.

The mistakes that you say occurred aka staging games at stadiums too small were repeated at further world cups and far more to the extreme. By your logic it hasn't actually learnt from its mistakes.

When in reality they have. They don't move games, that is learning from your mistakes



> Yes because in those days London has terrible hotels and poor footballing facilities.


You obviously didn't understand that. They had a set up and they had to disrupt it because of the change of venue. The littlest things are unsettling, especially in high pressure situations



> Infact only 38,000 people did watch the other semi-final.


Something established long ago. The point that highlights is the apathy for the world cup in the North West of England. No game in London had a lower crowd, regardless of the opposition. And the crowd would’ve most likely been significantly higher in London.



> Why would you not play a match which had such demand in the largest stadium avaliable?


Because that defeats the point of making a *fixed* draw beforehand. And would mean in anything we don't make decisions to the last minute which is ludicrous a well run tournament should be planned in advance.



> was it feasible to play it at a ground that could handle only half the number of supporters as the main stadium?


65-70% isn't half. It was clearly feasible. They wanted to accommodate more fans, everyone else makes do with the decisions they make.

Based on your logic, I take you agree with the FA staging FA cup semi finals at Wembley.



> SAFETY


:lol:, the stadium held 60,000+, there were no laws making it hold less than that. It was considered safe to do the job, that is *your* excuse, and it's very weak. 



> There is no wrong. The game was moved because off numerous reasons.


Yes there may have been no wrong doing, but when you way up the *facts*, the reasons are weak, and don't mask the fact that there were many other benefits which would (be far more logical) to a single minded host nation intent on winning the world cup on home soil. I expect no nation in this world to be any different. 



> To call it cheating is nothing but petty and ignorant.


No being ignorant is to shove your head in sand, believe what you are told and not examine the facts that are presented to you. 

Being petty is make an issue out of something small, the world cup semi final is hardly a small issue.



> If anything you are being extremely childish about it.


OK, that was relevant to the debate. But you scored a point, good for you!


----------



## hngcm

That's dumb though....

Not much of a difference between a soccer pitch and a football pitch, most stadiums have removable seats upfront to easily convert between the two. 

Now using an Oval for soccer though...


----------



## woozoo

bigbossman said:


> I'd personally advocate 100% pure football and if you can't sustain that then you aren't a football country and don't deserve the world cup.


Yes, lets limit the possible WC hosting nations to England and ahhh.... England (France used stade de France, Germany used Berlin, Japan used Yokohama (most stadiums used in Japan were athletics stadiums, just under half in Korea were athletics) etc etc etc etc).

Frankly, there are very few countries with that many football specific stadiums. Spain, Germany and a few other European nations could sustain that, and throw in Brazil with its planned infrastructure upgrades for 2014, but apart from that it just isnt realistic. 
What a Euro centric view of the world. FIFA is rightfully interested in spreading the game, both on moral and economic grounds.



bigbossman said:


> exactly, many MLS clubs can get bigger crowds and in the future if the sport grows they should be looking at 40,000+ stadiums, in areas of well over 2 million people. This isn't basketball where small capacities are desireable.


Great atmosphere in a stadium when the average 17,000 turn up to watch a game in a 40K stadium. This is the exact reason why the soccer clubs are moving _out_ of the bigger football grounds and into smaller soccer stadiums.

hngcm is right, big NFL grounds are perfectly suitable for WC matches.



Realistically Benjuk, I dont think multi purpose stadiums are going to be built all over Australia, there simply isnt a need when the centers you mentioned already have stadiums required for the most popular code in that region. Most probably the grounds used in Australia would be these:
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=121 *Olympic* stadium with movable lower tier for football and Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=71 *Oval*. I hate this ground for soccer, but realistically it will be part of the plan. 
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=120 Etihad stadium. *Oval with movable lower tier for football and rugby. Would probably only be used if MCG gets knocked back.*
Adelaide new multi purpose stadium. *Oval with movable lower tier* for football and rugby.
Perth new multi purpose stadium. *Oval with movable lower tier* for football and rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=279 Rectangular ground Melbourne. Football and Rugby League.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=28 Canberra stadium. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=9 Sydney football stadium. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=46 Energy Australia stadium. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=110 Suncorp. Rugby and football.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=280 Skilled park. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=40 Dairy farmers. Rugby.
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=92 Members Equity. Rugby football.

*Bascially, there will be at least one Olympic stadium with a movable lower tier, two oval grounds with movable lower tiers, and one oval ground. The rest will be rectangular.*


----------



## woozoo

Qaabus said:


> I have some serious doubts about Australia's ability to host a World Cup. First there is the matter of transportation. How can 50000 fans move from one city to the next in a matter of days? By air seems the only option. But can small airports even handle that traffic flow? Are there even enough aircraft?
> 
> How can small towns like Geelong, Darwin, Townsville, Hobart house 50000 people? Where are they going to sleep? In other countries there always is another city nearby that can handle the overflow, not so in Australia. Also, it's not like sleeping outside is going to be fun, it is the middle of winter after all. Temperatures in the southern cities will come pretty close to freezing at night. Even during the day it won't be comfortable in just a t-shirt.


Sydney - Melbourne is about the 4th busiest air route in the world. Along with this, train lines exist between all major centers. 8 hours from Sydney to Melbourne is a bitch, but the same can be said for travel in USA and Brazil for a WC.

Most of the cities you stated would not be used in a WC. Only Townsville is a possible venue and I admit, is a big problem. I imagine they could use it to host games with historically have a small number of touring fans (African and Caribbean countries), though I really dont know how it would all work.


----------



## invincible

Qaabus said:


> I have some serious doubts about Australia's ability to host a World Cup. First there is the matter of transportation. How can 50000 fans move from one city to the next in a matter of days? By air seems the only option. But can small airports even handle that traffic flow? Are there even enough aircraft?


For a brief example, the air route between Melbourne and Sydney is/was the third busiest in the world and a flight departs every 15-30 minutes in each direction on a normal day. I seem to recall that during the Sydney Olympics, 747s were placed on domestic service, although the airline Ansett collapsed a year later.

Oh, and Geelong is less than an hour away from the Melbourne CBD by train (Newcastle, Wollongong and Gold Coast are similar) and the other small cities in the north of the country have strong tourism markets and would easily be able to temporarily accommodate an influx of visitors. No Australian city regularly gets temperatures close to freezing unless you head to higher altitudes either.

Also, people need to stop thinking that soccer is in competition with the other football codes. There is actually some amount of cooperation between the various ruling bodies here in Australia. For example, for the upcoming WC qualifier between Australia and Japan, the AFL agreed not to schedule any matches at the MCG over a two week period. It seems illogical to build stadiums to suit only one sport when it would be sitting around underutilised over the winter. Besides, the stadiums are funded by the government and as a taxpayer and voter, I expect that they aim to maximise the benefits to any investment into infrastructure they make.


----------



## tjwonderboy

PaulFCB said:


> Mexico 1986-1970 = 16 years
> USA 2022-1994 = 28! Even in 2018 with 24 years seems way enough! But that's for England anyway. In the case Europe would have taken 2014 i think USA could have taken 2018, maybe moving the main action from the west to the east coast could have been a nice idea.


This was possible as Colombia retracted from hosting the WC, Mexico stepped up as it already had the infrastructure and the fans...


----------



## bigbossman

woozoo said:


> Yes, lets limit the possible WC hosting nations to England and ahhh.... England


How does it limit the nations, if u can't sustain football stadiums you aren't a football country. Portugal built, what 10 new stadiums for Euro 2004 (1 was non football), but they showed where there is a will there is a way.

If Countries had to they would, most rarely hold non football events anyway. 



> (France used stade de France, Germany used Berlin, Japan used Yokohama (most stadiums used in Japan were athletics stadiums, just under half in Korea were athletics) etc etc etc etc).


Stade france is passable, like i said i referring to athletics and oval stadiums

japan/korea was an awful world cup from the fact they had too many stadiums, to the fact that too many of them weren't football. To the results on the pitch.

Germany used three athletics stadiums. One is being converted into a football stadium (stuttgart), Nuremberg i remember hearing plan they want to go football specific too, and Hertha want to build their own stadium. 

You shouldn't be using past examples, because if the rules were different they would've altered their bids.



> Frankly, there are very few countries with that many football specific stadiums. Spain, Germany and a few other European nations could sustain that, and throw in *Brazil with its planned infrastructure upgrades for 2014*, but apart from that it just isnt realistic.
> What a Euro centric view of the world.


Germany re/built 8 in the run up to world cup 2006, previously all but Dortmund played in athletics stadiums. Crowds have gone up, and demand is sky high. You don't need football specific stadiums, you need a reason to build them. AKA the world cup. It's incentive.

currently

Spain, Germany, England, Portugal, Holland-Belgium, Nordic countries, Turkey, Japan (which has enough football stadiums), USA, Mexico have the relevant infrasture

Many of the countries in the running for the next world cups could sustain it also. How many countries are realistically in the running to hold a world cup?? I bet all but Australia could sustain football specific stadiums.



> FIFA is rightfully interested in spreading the game, both on moral and economic grounds.


Of course, but morally they would be wrong to encourage countries to build and use infrastructure not suitable for football, when another country who has or is willing to have them is overlooked.



> Great atmosphere in a stadium when the average 17,000 turn up to watch a game in a 40K stadium. This is the exact reason why the soccer clubs are moving _out_ of the bigger football grounds and into smaller soccer stadiums.


I don't think you got the point. Clubs like Toronto, LA are filling their ggroudn avery week and have large waiting lists for season tickets, it only makes sense to increase capacity. I was not referring to every club.



> hngcm is right, big NFL grounds are perfectly suitable for WC matches.





hngcm said:


> That's dumb though....
> 
> Not much of a difference between a soccer pitch and a football pitch, most stadiums have removable seats upfront to easily convert between the two.
> 
> Now using an Oval for soccer though...


I never said anything about that, i said it would make sense for MLS to develop grounds as demand grows. I never said the USA shouldn't hold games at NFL grounds. Biggest suitable venues possible.


----------



## bigbossman

What about Perth, it would be a bitch having to travel to and from games, there especially for the teams. There is no other city near by, so teams travelling there after 3 days rest are gonna have their preparation destroyed.


----------



## woozoo

^^ So was travelling to Dallas, so will be traveling to Manaus, and so will be traveling to some of the venues in Russia and China when they finally get to host.

Preparations won't be destroyed. Its a 3 hour flight not a 3 week sail across an ocean. Teams will have prior knowledge and can _prepare_. I would say traveling first class in a plane is no more traumatic than sitting in a bus for 5 hours.


----------



## woozoo

> Portugal built, what 10 new stadiums for Euro 2004


Europe.

Academia has average crowds of 6K and plays in a 30K stadium. Largest crowd in 07/08 season was 19K
Boavista has a 5K average, 30K stadium and 17K highest attendance. 
Not one team in portugal filled its stadium to capacity in that season. The average attendance is about half of capacity.
There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.

The Brazilian league has an average attendance of about 16K, Argentinian has about 20K, and doubtfully truly need that many 40K stadiums. Are they not footballing nations?



> You shouldn't be using past examples, because if the rules were different they would've altered their bids.


Why not? Its not like im using the 1962 WC. These are the three most recent WCs. Im just going on the precedent.
As far as I know the rules havent changed much regarding stadiums.



> Portugal, Holland-Belgium, Nordic countries, Turkey, Japan (which has enough football stadiums), Mexico have the relevant infrasture.


None of those countries have the required stadiums for a WC. Turkey has only 3 over 40K, and 2 of them are athletics. Only two of Japans 13 over 40K are rectangular. www.worldstadiums.com (Im looking for full time work atm. I have a lot of time lol.)



> Many of the countries in the running for the next world cups could sustain it also. How many countries are realistically in the running to hold a world cup?? I bet all but Australia could sustain football specific stadiums.


Lets focus on 2022 because 2018 is realistically going to Europe. Japan and Korea have the required stadia, but for both, at least half are athletics. The average attendance for their leagues doesnt warrant further stadium expansion so soon after 2002 and with so many white elephants after that tournament. 
As we have been informed in another thread, Qatar is "football crazy" and hence is in with a real chance.lol.
Indonesia doesnt have and doesnt need so many stadiums. Though it has a few at around 30K so expansion is possible (though a lot would be athletics).
Mexico doesnt have the stadiums but only needs to upgrade capacity in a few to meet requirements.
USA has the best sporting infrastructure of any country by far and dont need to do much at all.


> Of course, but morally they would be wrong to encourage countries to build and use infrastructure not suitable for football, when another country who has or is willing to have them is overlooked.


The problem is that there arent many countries which fulfill the requirements - especially if they were as strict as you suggest. Its about getting the balance right between having a good WC with good venues and making sure that the tournament doesnt rotate between a small handful of countries over and over again - which is morally wrong.



> I don't think you got the point. Clubs like Toronto, LA are filling their ggroudn avery week and have large waiting lists for season tickets, it only makes sense to increase capacity. I was not referring to every club.


I thought you were saying EVERY stadium has to be football specific. That means there would have to be at least 8 40K plus stadiums, and 2 60K plus stadiums, which is clearly unsustainable when only one or two teams sell out smaller venues.



At the end of the day, Im hearing less and less about the proposed stadiums in Perth and Adelaide. You would think that we would be hearing more as the deadline draws closer. Maybe the FFA is holding out to reveal its plans closer to the date, or maybe the premiers are waiting for the GFC to blow over to minimize any public discontent, but time is running out. I still hold out hope, and think that with those two grounds and some realistic upgrades to the other grounds I mentioned Australia is capable of holding the event and is in with a big chance.


----------



## bigbossman

Why are you selectively quoting...



woozoo said:


> Europe.


Yeah so?? 



> Academia has average crowds of 6K and plays in a 30K stadium. Largest crowd in 07/08 season was 19K


As you can see by the image below, they play in the one athletics stadium built










And they have filled there stadium in the past and averaged higher in the past. It is easy to selectively pick out stats.



> Boavista has a 5K average, 30K stadium and 17K highest attendance.
> Not one team in portugal filled its stadium to capacity in that season. The average attendance is about half of capacity.


What, you are doing a sample of attendances for one season...

guimaraes averaged 20,000 and filled their ground on at least one occasion. Braga averaged 15,000 and have filled their ground many times. 

Boavista have filled their ground in the past, when the stadium was built they were winning and competing for titles, the capacity was deemed enough and they *have* filled it.

Beira mar have filled their ground, in the past but aren't in superliga atm. 

Your stats were massively selective



> There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.


No they are not, 7 get filled, when needs be. 1 is an athletics stadium, and farense have dissapeared off the earth.



> The Brazilian league has an average attendance of about 16K, Argentinian has about 20K, and doubtfully truly need that many 40K stadiums. Are they not footballing nations?


You accept stats from Brazil and Argentina as accurate?? it is common knowledge that clubs give out free tickets to some fans. 

Of course they truly need these sized stadiums for the big games, of which there are many they are full. And most clubs play in stadiums much larger than 40,000 as we stand. 

I'd even advocate colombia if it wasn't for the security.



> Why not? Its not like im using the 1962 WC. These are the three most recent WCs. Im just going on the precedent.
> As far as I know the rules havent changed much regarding stadiums.


The reason why is because there were no rules in place preventing it, if there were then things would've been different. And that's why in the instance of a rule change the past can't be a baring. 

Italy only put athletics tracks in their stadiums because they were municipal. Once again most rarely get used!!



> None of those countries have the required stadiums for a WC. Turkey has only 3 over 40K, and 2 of them are athletics. Only two of Japans 13 over 40K are rectangular. www.worldstadiums.com (Im looking for full time work atm. I have a lot of time lol.)


The point wasn't that they had the required stadiums now, it's that they have enough football stadiums in place, and they had the demand to expand them. Which all the countries i listed do, all will have in the future.

On japan, there were 4 at the world cup out of 10 http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/tournaments/worldcup2002.shtml, and toyata wasn't used. 



> Lets focus on 2022 because 2018 is realistically going to Europe. Japan and Korea have the required stadia, but for both, at least half are athletics. The average attendance for their leagues doesnt warrant further stadium expansion so soon after 2002 and with so many white elephants after that tournament.


It can be argued that the clubs with the higher attendances, play in the football stadiums... The point is football and fans benefit from venue specific to it.



> As we have been informed in another thread, Qatar is "football crazy" and hence is in with a real chance.lol.


:lol:



> Indonesia doesnt have and doesnt need so many stadiums. Though it has a few at around 30K so expansion is possible (though a lot would be athletics).


I would not allow indonesia anywhere near the world cup until they qualify



> Mexico doesnt have the stadiums but only needs to upgrade capacity in a few to meet requirements.


Exactly my point in most of the countries you wrote off earlier



> USA has the best sporting infrastructure of any country by far and dont need to do much at all.


Except grow some fans



> The problem is that there arent many countries which fulfill the requirements - especially if they were as strict as you suggest.


That's in your opinion. As i have shown most of the countries who are bidding now with a realistic chance, could fulfill the requirements. Only Oz couldn't.

All realistic countries in the americas could (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and USA) , all realistic countries in Europe could. Japan and South korea could. Who else are you advocating?? Morrocco?? There aren't that many potential hosts as it is. 

These stadiums aren't full for athletics and rarely stage meetings!!



> Its about getting the balance right between having a good WC with good venues and making sure that the tournament doesnt rotate between a small handful of countries over and over again - which is morally wrong.


I'd rather we didn't give the world cup to indonesia etc thanks. 

It's about giving the WC to countries with a football following who can sustain the venues required. Who have a track record of qualifying for world cups etc. Not allow any tosh to hold it. If Europe has to relinquish the rights to every other tournament. The bids better be good, and non football stadiums aren't good!!



> I thought you were saying EVERY stadium has to be football specific. That means there would have to be at least 8 40K plus stadiums, and 2 60K plus stadiums, which is clearly unsustainable when only one or two teams sell out smaller venues.


Of course every stadium in the MLS has to be football specific in the long run, what's your point?

I repeat i neve said that MLS stadiums should be used for world cup games. *Read what i say!!*



> At the end of the day, Im hearing less and less about the proposed stadiums in Perth and Adelaide. You would think that we would be hearing more as the deadline draws closer. Maybe the FFA is holding out to reveal its plans closer to the date, or maybe the premiers are waiting for the GFC to blow over to minimize any public discontent, but time is running out. I still hold out hope, and think that with those two grounds and some realistic upgrades to the other grounds I mentioned Australia is capable of holding the event and is in with a big chance.


It is capable yes, but in unsuitable venues in remote places. It is the weakest of all the major candidates.


----------



## bigbossman

woozoo said:


> ^^ So was travelling to Dallas, so will be traveling to Manaus, and so will be traveling to some of the venues in Russia and China when they finally get to host.


Russia?? Russia has 75% of it's population west of the Ural mountains, in European russia. European Russia has 1/3 the area of america, I doubt they'll place stadiums in Asian Russia so it won't be a problem

Who says manaus will be chosen as a venue by brazil?



> Preparations won't be destroyed. Its a 3 hour flight not a 3 week sail across an ocean. Teams will have prior knowledge and can _prepare_. I would say traveling first class in a plane is no more traumatic than sitting in a bus for 5 hours.


What? how many teams have driven for 5 hours to get to a game in the world cup? 

a three hour flight isn't desirable in the slightest. And how cheap are domestic flights in Oz for the average fan?


----------



## woozoo

If not Manaus then Fortazela then, or one of the other cities which arent in the South East which will most probably be used to keep the people of those regions happy.

As far as plane travel in Australia, I bought a last minute ticket from Newcastle to Melbourne for 79 dollars a few weeks ago. Thats about 30 pound or 40 Euro. Pre booked in advance tickets to Perth from Melb your lookion at 200 bucks - 100 Euro.


----------



## woozoo

> Your stats were massively selective


Yes. I selected the two most extreme examples of a 16 team league. But to have an average attendance which barely 1/6 fills a stadium is ridiculous. That needs to be selected and pointed out. 

Im using stats from last season. Which season would you like me to use?

I also pointed out that none of the clubs sold out any home games last season, and that the average attendance is about half of average capacity (I just guessed that looking at the figures, didnt actually use a calculator). I dont think I was being selective there.

Anyway, its not overly relevant.


> You accept stats from Brazil and Argentina as accurate?? it is common knowledge that clubs give out free tickets to some fans.


Actually every source I have found has come up with pretty much the same figures, so I would say they are reliable.
Free tickets are given out to increase their attendance figures ie: they count whoever walks through the gates, not who pays for tickets.



> The point is football and fans benefit from venue specific to it.


Only if they get regular use and good average crowds. Otherwise they end up costing money to maintain rather than making money for anyone. Its got to be a balance. Building 12 soccer specific stadiums for a country with no demand isnt helping anyone.

In Australias case, the Perth and Adelaide stadiums are old, of relatively poor standard, not well located and not suited to Rugby or soccer matches. New, large multi purpose venues would provide maximum benefit for fans of all codes in those cities (Currently they miss out on any National team games despite being 4th and 5th largest population centers).



> Exactly my point in most of the countries you wrote off earlier


Mexico needs modest capacity (though significant quality) upgrades to its stadiums to meet requirements. this is a perfect case of how a nation can benefit - new and better infrastructure with little change in attendance to capacity ratio. But why should Mexico benefit *again*, if its already had the benefits of two world cups?



> The point wasn't that they had the required stadiums now, it's that they have enough football stadiums in place, and they had the demand to expand them. Which all the countries i listed do, all will have in the future.


Most of those countries currently have poorer or relative stadium infrastructure to Australia. Japan and Korea have a lot of stadiums, but most are athletics which you dont like. 
Attendance wise the Australian league performs similar or better than Korea, Norway, Sweden and Turkey. Australia also has the National Rugby League and Super 14 Rugby Union competition with even higher attendance. population wise it is similar to the nordic countries combined, and not much less than benelux.
I dont see why, lets say Turkey or the Nordic countries, are so much better suited to hosting a WC infrastructure wise than Australia.


> As i have shown most of the countries who are bidding now with a realistic chance, could fulfill the requirements. Only Oz couldn't.


As far as who is bidding, if Europe wins 2018, 2022 is between USA, South Korea, Japan, Qatar and Indonesia.

2 things about Japan and Korea.
1) They hosted the first Asian WC 7 years ago. Do you propose one of them host the second Asian WC as well, only 20 years after it hosted its first event?
2) Both countries underrtook a massive stadium infrastructure upgrade before 2002. I doubt either country is keen to invest a similar amount on new football specific stadiums so soon.
Even if it does, what happens with the athletics stadiums which will be just 20 years old - They just sit empty with no tenant at all costing millions annually in maintenance???? I cant see it happening, if it does they are crazy.



> Read what i say!!


Chill. You wrote a lot. 



> It is capable yes, but in unsuitable venues in remote places. It is the weakest of all the major candidates.


If USA didnt host in 94, Mexico hadnt hosted twice - most recently 86, and Japan and Korea hadnt hosted in 2002 then I would say yes.
Australia is the only serious candidate which hasnt hosted before. All the other serious candidates have hosted recently which mixes everything up.

I dont know why you say unsuitible venues. The only questionable venue I have proposed is the MCG, but that could be replaced with Etihad stadium. 
1 Olympic stadium with retractable seating, and three oval grounds with retractable seating is no worse than the previous two world cups. Im going on precedent, what else is there to go on?


----------



## hngcm

MCG will be a venue FOR SURE for an OZ bid, no way it gets replaced. 

Australia is behind only the USA as far as bidding for 2022 goes, all other bids either suffer from hosting too soon (Japan, Korea), too much (Mexico), or not serious contenders (Indonesia, Qatar). 

And please, no ovals...


----------



## bigbossman

woozoo said:


> Yes. I selected the two most extreme examples of a 16 team league. But to have an average attendance which barely 1/6 fills a stadium is ridiculous. That needs to be selected and pointed out.
> 
> Im using stats from last season. Which season would you like me to use?


You should know 1 season does not make a fair sample. There are many mititgating scircumstances. The only way to truely evaluate is to see if the stadiums have ever been filled or worthwhile and that takes look at the bigger picture, not just capturing last season and saying look it proves my point. When all it proves is last season crowds were bad.

By your logic, sporting, Benfica and porto are playing in stadiums to big for themselves... when they clearly aren't. They are just too big for the average liga game. But the big games they are full domestically and in Europe and that is the point!



> I also pointed out that none of the clubs sold out any home games last season, and that the average attendance is about half of average capacity (I just guessed that looking at the figures, didnt actually use a calculator). I dont think I was being selective there.


Like i said 1 season doesn't tell a story. It's just a capture of an ever moving cycle of events. 



> Anyway, its not overly relevant.


It is as you said a country couldn't sustain venues, and you used the example of portugal claiming they didn't sell out, basing this on one seasons worth of stats.



> Actually every source I have found has come up with pretty much the same figures, so I would say they are reliable.


It's not that the figures are incorrect, it's that the amount of people turning up is probably twice as many at some clubs. 



> Free tickets are given out to increase their attendance figures ie: they count whoever walks through the gates, not who pays for tickets.


What i have heard is that, they give free tickets to the "hooligans" to stop them causing trouble, the "hooligans" then sell the tickets on. So everyone in the ground has paid for it, except the hools that keep the tickets. It's not because no one would turn up otherwise. Modern venues, with greater security will attract average fans into the stadiums. 



> Only if they get regular use and good average crowds. Otherwise they end up costing money to maintain rather than making money for anyone. Its got to be a balance. Building 12 soccer specific stadiums for a country with no demand isnt helping anyone.


Only you doesn't think there is a demand in Brazil or Argentina. When there clearly is. These are football crazy countries. 

I actually can't even believe you don't think cities in Argetina and Brazil could sustain a 40,000 seater football stadium.

I think you fail to understand just because clubs don't come close to filling their grounds every week, it doesn't mean there is no demand for that capacity. It's just how it is in football, in some countries ticketless games are still common place. It was the same in England until the 90s, hence why in England clubs didn't fill their grounds even in the good old days.



> In Australias case, the Perth and Adelaide stadiums are old, of relatively poor standard, not well located and not suited to Rugby or soccer matches. New, large multi purpose venues would provide maximum benefit for fans of all codes in those cities (Currently they miss out on any National team games despite being 4th and 5th largest population centers).


So the 4th and 5th largest centres of England and France do also. 

I don't see the problem in you guys building temporary 40,000 stadiums and scaling them back after the world cup.



> Mexico needs modest capacity (though significant quality) upgrades to its stadiums to meet requirements. this is a perfect case of how a nation can benefit - new and better infrastructure with little change in attendance to capacity ratio. But why should Mexico benefit *again*, if its already had the benefits of two world cups?


Why shouldn't Mexico benefit, if they can host it, then let them. I'm not in the lets include everyone business and have a shit world cup. We do that by letting the likes of Trinidad and Tobago qualify, lets not do it in hosting as well.



> Most of those countries currently have poorer or relative stadium infrastructure to Australia. Japan and Korea have a lot of stadiums, but most are athletics which you dont like.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the concept of these stadiums aren't used for athletics don't you understand?? Football is what pays the bills!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attendance wise the Australian league performs similar or better than Korea, Norway, Sweden and Turkey.
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey doesn't publish attendance figures. Sercan said all those figures on the internet are wrong.
> 
> are you seriously comparing a 20m country with 8 teams who play 90 games to countries with half and a quarte your population and double the amount of games??
> 
> Sweden's biggest city is smaller than your fifth biggest city and it has 3 teams in it. LASt season attendances went down by 25%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia also has the National Rugby League and Super 14 Rugby Union competition with even higher attendance. population wise it is similar to the nordic countries combined, and not much less than benelux.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do persist with this comparison??
> 
> Australia has what 4 super 14 teams? Each in major population centres.
> And the NRL is a closed league, you can't compare it to a country with a proper sports system. And that's by the by, it's not football.
> 
> If you combined total of the average attendances in the nordic countries and benelux for professional clubs. You would see that more people watch professional football in these countries than watch sport in your country. If these places had 8 teams a piece you think they'd get the poxy crowds you are championing in australia?? Sydney has 4m people and you are celebrating averaging 20,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see why, lets say Turkey or the Nordic countries, are so much better suited to hosting a WC infrastructure wise than Australia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they have more football fans per head of the population. Thus could sustain crowds long after
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as who is bidding, if Europe wins 2018, 2022 is between USA, South Korea, Japan, Qatar and Indonesia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd give it to Japan or the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 things about Japan and Korea.
> 1) They hosted the first Asian WC 7 years ago. Do you propose one of them host the second Asian WC as well, only 20 years after it hosted its first event?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the way the cookies crumbles then yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Both countries underrtook a massive stadium infrastructure upgrade before 2002. I doubt either country is keen to invest a similar amount on new football specific stadiums so soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as i know Japan is planning to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it does, what happens with the athletics stadiums which will be just 20 years old - They just sit empty with no tenant at all costing millions annually in maintenance???? I cant see it happening, if it does they are crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rebuild and refurbish. Not all were built for the world cup you know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If USA didnt host in 94, Mexico hadnt hosted twice - most recently 86, and Japan and Korea hadnt hosted in 2002 then I would say yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could care less if they have hosted before, if they are the best candidate. 20 years is long enough time for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia is the only serious candidate which hasnt hosted before. All the other serious candidates have hosted recently which mixes everything up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm i'd say many countries in europe and the americas would have something to say about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know why you say unsuitible venues. The only questionable venue I have proposed is the MCG, but that could be replaced with Etihad stadium.
> 1 Olympic stadium with retractable seating, and three oval grounds with retractable seating is no worse than the previous two world cups. Im going on precedent, what else is there to go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because it's no worse than the previous world cups, doesn't mean it shouldn't get better in the future. Football is powerful enough to not have to accommodate other sports...
> 
> Anyway, i can't be bothered anymore, Football should be played in Football only stadiums, space between the stands and the pitch, harm the atmosphere and views for fans. If you can't sustain that then you should look inside yourself and realise that you are not a football country, and being so have no place holding the world cup. If you are lucky like the USA and have stadiums which are large enough and able to hold football, then that's just luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## seattle92

woozoo is right.

Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.

Portugal is mad about football but people don't go to the stadiums as much as other european countries. It's a more like a pub/home fans. I think that there are to main reasons:
- Ticket prices a bit high
- Everybody is a Benfica, Sporting or Porto fan (even in cities far from Lisbon or Porto)


Benfica, Sporting and Porto's stadiums have the capacity they should have. They are not always full, but in the big games they usually are, and no one as ever heard someone talking about "how big the venues are", or something like that.

Braga and Guimarães also should have a 30.000 stadium. It's the same story, they are only full in the big games. But those 2 clubs are growing in terms of fans and associates, so they have the stadiums ready for the future.

I talked about 5 stadiums. And that's it. 


Boavista colapsed since the 2004. If in 2000 i could say about Boavista what i said about Braga and Guimarães, the reality is that the club is now in the second division and with many problems to stay "alive".

Leiria is in the second division and it's a city that clearly doesn't support it's home team. Some of the seats were temporary and the stadium now has 20.000. Even so it's to much. Maybe when they return to the first league.

Coimbra deserved a good stadium but it should have been made with temporary seats. A 20 or 15.000 venue would be good for the club.

Algarve should never had a stadium in the Euro. They only did it because it's THE tourism zone in Portugal. But at the time everyone knew that Farense (local team) was going to end or play in the 3th or 4th division.

Aveiro should never had a stadium in the Euro. Beira-Mar was one of the weakest teams in the first division. They have been in the second division for 2 years since 2004. The city people clearly don't suport the team enough to have a stadium like that.


So it was to much for the country, everybody knows that. But wait a second. I'm talking about this season (or the previous one) where 3 of those teams are in the second division and where one as even ended (think Farense as a junior team now, and maybe in 5 years they'll be back to the league). 

The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimarães) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.


----------



## GunnerJacket

seattle92 said:


> woozoo is right.
> 
> Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.
> 
> ...
> 
> The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimarães) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.


I don't think the issue is the volume of stadiums. Some of the new venues, though not as used/full as desired, were sorely needed. The Euro's simply gave Portugal the excuse to do the construction at the time, and at least it appears they did a fine job with the opportunity. 

Their problem as it relates here is comparable to that for most smaller countries: Modest total population and few large metro population centers. Scotland is a more extreme example of this but Portugal is also hampered by this. The hope was that the new facilities would spur interest but in the end it's tough for smaller clubs to sustain challenges against established giants on limited budgets and with smaller fan bases to pull from. Long term hope remains, but until they can inspire the locals to support clubs in ways much like we see in the Netherlands there'll be little impetus for the fans of Guimaraes and Coimbra to pack the stands.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ The Netherland has a higher population, and is a lot denser than Portugal. There are more "cities" in Netherlands as well. I think it's the case as what seattle said, the TV culture has hit the game in it's growth period when otherwise those people would be going to watch games in the stadiums. I think The Netherlands has the same mentality to football on TV as we (England) do, no real substitute.



seattle92 said:


> woozoo is right.
> 
> Portugal shouldn't have built 10 stadiums. Everyone in the country says that. Things are even worse when we know that UEFA could picked the bid with only 8 stadiums.
> 
> Portugal is mad about football but people don't go to the stadiums as much as other european countries. It's a more like a pub/home fans. I think that there are to main reasons:
> - Ticket prices a bit high
> - Everybody is a Benfica, Sporting or Porto fan (even in cities far from Lisbon or Porto)
> 
> 
> Benfica, Sporting and Porto's stadiums have the capacity they should have. They are not always full, but in the big games they usually are, and no one as ever heard someone talking about "how big the venues are", or something like that.
> 
> Braga and Guimarães also should have a 30.000 stadium. It's the same story, they are only full in the big games. But those 2 clubs are growing in terms of fans and associates, so they have the stadiums ready for the future.
> 
> I talked about 5 stadiums. And that's it.
> 
> 
> Boavista colapsed since the 2004. If in 2000 i could say about Boavista what i said about Braga and Guimarães, the reality is that the club is now in the second division and with many problems to stay "alive".
> 
> Leiria is in the second division and it's a city that clearly doesn't support it's home team. Some of the seats were temporary and the stadium now has 20.000. Even so it's to much. Maybe when they return to the first league.
> 
> Coimbra deserved a good stadium but it should have been made with temporary seats. A 20 or 15.000 venue would be good for the club.
> 
> Algarve should never had a stadium in the Euro. They only did it because it's THE tourism zone in Portugal. But at the time everyone knew that Farense (local team) was going to end or play in the 3th or 4th division.
> 
> Aveiro should never had a stadium in the Euro. Beira-Mar was one of the weakest teams in the first division. They have been in the second division for 2 years since 2004. The city people clearly don't suport the team enough to have a stadium like that.
> 
> 
> So it was to much for the country, everybody knows that. But wait a second. I'm talking about this season (or the previous one) where 3 of those teams are in the second division and where one as even ended (think Farense as a junior team now, and maybe in 5 years they'll be back to the league).
> 
> The reallity is that everyone's hopes are that this teams grow (just like Braga and Guimarães) and that people in those cities start paying attencion to their own teams and forget about Benfica, Porto and Sporting. It is possible, Braga was knowned as the second Benfica house some years ago. In a matter of 5 years things have changed a lot and i think the new stadium helped.


Why do people never read what you write on the internet??

*That's what i said not woozoo.* He said all the stadiums built in Portugal were inadequate.



woozoo said:


> There was a will, and now they are left with 10 stadiums which are inadequate.


I said Porto, Boavista, Braga, Guimaraes, Sporting and Benfica were the right size when they were built. 

I never said anything about aveiro or beira-mar


----------



## woozoo

bigbossman said:


> Why do people never read what you write on the internet??


Bcoz its the internet, not a written humanities exam.



bigbossman said:


> That's what i said not woozoo. He said all the stadiums built in Portugal were inadequate.


Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully. The point I was trying to get across, is that in Portugal's case, the big increase in stadiums is not necessarily a completely good thing. Even for some of the larger clubs, it could be argued that the grounds are slightly excessive at this point in time. As Seattle said, for the others they are well and truly too big.

Building a whole lot of big stadiums is not going benefit every club in every country.


----------



## seattle92

Ok, i was saying woozo was right in the posts where he said the atendences were very low when comparing to the size of the venues.

The 5 stadiums i said are not big enough woozo (Benfica, Sporting, Porto, Braga and Guimarães). 
Even if in the last season the averages weren't that good. In many games during the last seasons the venues were full or close to it. And in Guimarães and Braga's case, everyone is expecting the fan base to grow even more (just like it's hapenning every year).

And you have to take in mind that the older stadiums were even bigger. It was not very good to Benfica's ego for example to go from a 85000 stadium to a 65000 one. It could never be smaller than that. Same for Sporting and Porto, it would be impossible to build stadiums smaller than 50000.

A good deal for Euro 2004 should have been 8 stadiums:
Benfica 65000
Sporting 55000
Porto 55000
Braga 30000
Guimarães 30000
Academica 30000 (with 10000 temporary)
Boavista 30000 (with 10000 temporary. But even so, no one expected the club to colapsed  )
Leiria 30000 (with 15000 temporary)


Euro 2004 was a big success, everybody says that. Uefa even said it had been the best ever (and didn't repeat that in the last one). But it could have been made with lower cost. And we're not exactly that rich


----------



## Madman

arsmoriendi said:


> So this is not enough for England, the European Champioship ?


No, nor was it for the French who hosted Euro 84 and the World Cup 14 years later, and then Germany who hosted Euro 88 and the World Cup 18 years afterwards, who in addition have hosted it twice since England were the hosts in 1966.


----------



## Qaabus

woozoo said:


> In Australia:
> NRL: 3,332,648
> A league: 1,382,000 (expanding to 10 teams next season, 12 teams the following season so this will increase by about 50%)
> Super 14: Roughly 420,000
> TOTAL: 5,134,648
> 
> AFL: 7,084,759
> GRAND TOTAL: 12, 219,407 (this figure is just under total attendance for the premier league. K league is 2,489,491. Japans total for league 1 and 2 is 7,899,063).
> 
> Attending sport is HUGE pass time in Australia.


I know Australia is a small nation of 21 million souls, but even when taking that into consideration those figures aren't that remarkable. 

The Netherlands and Belgium with a combined population of 27 million easily match that number using just association football league attendance, without having to count the numerous cup competitions, end of season playoffs, European matches, or other popular outside sports like field hockey.

Eredivisie: 6m
Eerste divisie: 1,25m
Hoofdklasse: 0,7m
Eerste Klasse: 3,5m
Tweede Klasse: 0,8m
Total: 12,25m

Scotland is the country with truly HUGE sports attendance, considering they only have 5 million people.


----------



## Ecological

seattle92 said:


> Funny how this kind of stuff only happens with english fans...
> 
> 
> Needless to say that the only hooligan problem we had in the tournment was also caused by english fans in Algarve


Yes. funny isn't it. Its not our porblem England take 200,000+ fans to a major tournament. I mean we even outnumbered Portugal fans in thier national stadium forthe quarter final. It wasn't that we caused any trouble. It was the fact that we were ushered to the stadium at a specific time creating a crush like scenerio. It was appaling. After that first match they were alot more organised and it was a great tournament. 

I dont think there was a hooligan element to the tournament at all. English fans were very well behaived considering we took so many and any flair ups were away from the games by drunk tourists and not the fans.

Anyway cheeky ****.

One of my fellow Wolves fans was killed at Euro 2004. Stabbed in the heart while sitting down drinking by a Local man. 

Did England fans in anyway whatsoever retaliate against the locals? No. 










We were impeccable.

If it wasn't for English fans either half the other matches would'nt have even had been half full. The amount of England fans that went to watch the other games was incredible. WAS THERE ANY TROUBLE? 

NO!

You cant moan about English fans for being passionate and travelling in numbers.


----------



## en1044

arsmoriendi said:


> So this is not enough for England, the European Champioship ?


Hell no.

It may be important to host a European Championship, but thats no World Cup. Its nowhere near the same.

If you do think its the same then thats a pretty Eurocentric point of view.


----------



## Aka

Ecological said:


> One of my fellow Wolves fans was killed at Euro 2004. Stabbed in the heart while sitting down drinking by a Local man.
> 
> Did England fans in anyway whatsoever retaliate against the locals? No.


It wasn't a local. It was an Ukrainian.

You should at least read your own papers, dammit! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/england-fan-killed-in-lisbon-733127.html


German vs Polish fans fight during the last World Cup? What about those English fans attacking some Portuguese fans who didn't do anything?


P.S.: By the way, what do you have to say about these peaceful drunk mates? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article450039.ece


----------



## Wezza

Qaabus said:


> I know Australia is a small nation of 21 million souls, but even when taking that into consideration those figures aren't that remarkable.


It is considering we have 4 different football codes competing against each other.


----------



## Walbanger

> Well, apparently during the 2006 renovations for the commonwealth games, the lower tier was designed so that temporary seating can be attatched halfway down the bottom tier, extending the stand 25 meters onto the field. I read that from another forumer in the ozscrapers subforum, and dont know how true this is though.
> 
> Lowering the pitch wouldnt happen I thiink, as it would take too long and the AFL, the main user of the stadium, would have to play its games in interstate stadiums, which they wouldnt agree to.


I wrote that on the Austadiums site. It was never planned, I just CAD draw it to satify my own curiosity. Being done I don't see it as an option. The additional seats would raise capacity to over 120 000 which is not needed and more importantly the seating rake would not be suitable considering the current ground tier is only raked at 12 degrees, adding another 25 rows of seating at that rake or less (to preserve sitelines it couldn't be more) would be retarded, like the ground tier of the Maracana.


----------



## seattle92

Ecological said:


> One of my fellow Wolves fans was killed at Euro 2004. Stabbed in the heart while sitting down drinking by a Local man.
> 
> Did England fans in anyway whatsoever retaliate against the locals? No.


It was an ucranian immigrant.

Yeah, i wouldn't mind if you guys had throw certain immigrants away from Portugal... :lol:


----------



## christos-greece

For
2018: Qatar
2022: Belgium/Netherlands


----------



## en1044

christos-greece said:


> For
> 2018: Qatar
> 2022: Belgium/Netherlands


what?


----------



## inzane

Wezza said:


> It is considering we have 4 different football codes competing against each other.


^^
exactly


----------



## Benjuk

Walbanger said:


> I wrote that on the Austadiums site. It was never planned, I just CAD draw it to satify my own curiosity. Being done I don't see it as an option. *The additional seats would raise capacity to over 120 000* which is not needed and more importantly the seating rake would not be suitable considering the current ground tier is only raked at 12 degrees, adding another 25 rows of seating at that rake or less (to preserve sitelines it couldn't be more) would be retarded, like the ground tier of the Maracana.


Not that we're being serious about this, but I'm not sure the capacity would go up by that much. Surely many of the extra seats gained by continuing the upper tier down to pitch-side would be cancelled out by the loss of a massive swathe of seating in the now obscured 'corners'.


----------



## Benjuk

seattle92 said:


> If you want to keep the context and understand the debates, you'll see that we were talking about Euro2004.
> 
> But in the my last post i said what i think about the english hooliganism problem. Go read it if you want... or keep talking alone.


I was reacting to the sweeping statement, "Funny how this kind of stuff only happens with english fans." It wasn't an attack on you, but on the general and oft repeated (not by you) belief that English supporters are trouble.


----------



## parcdesprinces

My Choice:

2018: England (of Course !!)
2022: Spain/Portugal or Australia


----------



## flierfy

en1044 said:


> Hell no.
> 
> It may be important to host a European Championship, but thats no World Cup. Its nowhere near the same.
> 
> If you do think its the same then thats a pretty Eurocentric point of view.


This isn't eurocentric, but just realistic. A Euro is a World Cup without Argentina and Brazil. You play one round less which means tough opponents right from the start.
In fact the difference between both tournaments are marginal. The qualifying round is pretty much the same and the finals itself are a bit different, not much though.


----------



## parcdesprinces

flierfy said:


> This isn't eurocentric, but just realistic. A Euro is a World Cup without Argentina and Brazil. You play one round less which means tough opponents right from the start.
> In fact the difference between both tournaments are marginal. The qualifying round is pretty much the same and the finals itself are a bit different, not much though.


I agree, especially with a UEFA Euro with 24 teams against 32 for FIFA world cup !
This is much more difficult to win Euro than World cup, because there is not "small nations" like Togo or Trinidad & Tobago.... !!

Past World cup Finals (Europeans in blue) :

2006 Italy 1 - 1 France
2002 Brazil	2 - 0 Germany
1998 France 3 - 0	Brazil
1994 Brazil	0 - 0	Italy
1990 West Germany 1 - 0 Argentina
1986 Argentina 3 - 2 West Germany
1982 Italy 3 - 1 West Germany
1978 Argentina 3 - 1 aet Holland
1974 West Germany 2 - 1 Holland
1970 Brazil	4 - 1 Italy
1966 England 4 - 2 aet West Germany
1962 Brazil	3 - 1 Czechoslovakia
1958 Brazil	5 - 2	Sweden
1954 West Germany 3 - 2 Hungary
1950 Uruguay 2 - 1 Brazil
1938 Italy 4 - 2 Hungary
1934 Italy 2 - 1 aet Czechoslovakia	
1930 Uruguay 4 - 2 Argentina


----------



## HUSKER

flierfy said:


> This isn't eurocentric, but just realistic. A Euro is a World Cup without Argentina and Brazil. You play one round less which means tough opponents right from the start.
> In fact the difference between both tournaments are marginal. The qualifying round is pretty much the same and the finals itself are a bit different, not much though.


Well, taking that in mind the "Copa America" is a World Cup without Italy, France and Germany.- 
From my point of view it is eurocentric., Spain, Greece, Denmark, Rusia, etc., all of them have won or lost in the final of the Euro, but come world cup time, they don't do anything much., When you take into game different tipes of soccer styles they sometimes nulify themselfs.- Colombia's slow tempo, Ghana's whiplash offense, Japan's combativness and deceptive speed, Paraguay's defensive block, Australia's solid british mutation style, etc., In a WC only the (now) 5 big ones are allways considered as favorites: Brasil, Italy, Germany, Argentina and France., In a second tier England and Netherlands., and then it's very close between all the second tier europeans (Coatia, Greece, Portugal, etc), the Americans (US, Mexico, Paraguay, etc), the always presents Japan, Korea, Australa and the best African teams of the specific moment (Ghana, Morroco, Camerun, etc)., Come WC time the soccer world order always gets itself wright.


----------



## parcdesprinces

8 European nations played a Final against 3 For the rest of the World !!!


----------



## RobH

Somewhere in between I think.

I think it's probably harder to get out of the group stage of a European Championships, but the knockout stages of a World Cup are harder.


----------



## HUSKER

Yes, but from 1982 to date only 3 euro's have played vs. 2 southamericans., Also from Italy 1934 to England 1966 the WC was a tournament played with more than 70% of the teams from Europe, not the 40% that stands today.


----------



## HUSKER

RobH said:


> Somewhere in between I think.
> 
> I think it's probably harder to get out of the group stage of a European Championships, but the knockout stages of a World Cup are harder.


Totally agree with that.


----------



## ~MELVINDONESIA~

My hope...
2018:England/USA
2022:Indonesia/Australia


----------



## parcdesprinces

HUSKER said:


> Yes, but from 1982 to date only 3 euro's have played vs. 2 southamericans., Also from Italy 1934 to England 1966 the WC was a tournament played with more than 70% of the teams from Europe, not the 40% that stands today.


So, we all agree: FIFA world Cup is a UEFA Euro with Brazil & Argentina !!!!


----------



## HUSKER

parcdesprinces said:


> So, we all agree: FIFA world Cup is a UEFA Euro with Brazil & Argentina !!!!


Not quite., Fifa's WC is a 5 team dominated tournament (3 Euros y 2 Southamericans) were 40% of the participants are european., The Uefa Euro is an all european team tournament with NO DOMINANT ONE (last 6 tournaments have had different champ).

Using your frame of mind in the vague hypothesis that neither Germany, France, Italy or (in fact) Brazil or Argentina would classify to the WC, the tournamant would still be dominated (entirely) be european teams. That seems highly improbable., The Euro has more quality overall because there a fewer blowout games (as a hypothetical Portugal vs. Trinidad and Tobago) (also there are fewer games), but to advance beyond the 1/8 round stage is vastly more difficult in a WC.


----------



## parcdesprinces

HUSKER said:


> Not quite., Fifa's WC is a 5 team dominated tournament (3 Euros y 2 Southamericans) were 40% of the participants are european., The Uefa Euro is an all european team tournament with NO DOMINANT ONE (last 6 tournaments have had different champ).
> 
> Using your frame of mind in the vague hypothesis that neither Germany, France, Italy or (in fact) Brazil or Argentina would classify to the WC, the tournamant would still be dominated (entirely) be european teams. That seems highly improbable., The Euro has more quality overall because there a fewer blowout games (as a hypothetical Portugal vs. Trinidad and Tobago) (also there are fewer games), but to advance beyond the 1/8 round stage is vastly more difficult in a WC.


Don't forget Euro will be played with 24 Nations from 2016 and maybe 32 (as the World cup) in 2020 or 2024.........So we will see !!

For us in Europe, Euro is like the World cup, in term of TV audiences and fans in the host country !

Anyway I love world cup too, especially if France plays the Final Game !	:banana::banana:


----------



## woozoo

Walbanger said:


> I wrote that on the Austadiums site. It was never planned, I just CAD draw it to satify my own curiosity. Being done I don't see it as an option. The additional seats would raise capacity to over 120 000 which is not needed and more importantly the seating rake would not be suitable considering the current ground tier is only raked at 12 degrees, adding another 25 rows of seating at that rake or less (to preserve sitelines it couldn't be more) would be retarded, like the ground tier of the Maracana.


So something like this be would not be possible at the MCG? I got this from the biggest indoor arenas thread. Its a football ground (Ford Field, Detroit) with temporary seating added for a basketball game.


----------



## Walbanger

^ Yes it could be done but the rake would be appalling. A current rake of 12 degrees on the ground tier. A temp job like above would leave the ground tier with such a grade that it would be almost safe for a wheelchair ramp.


----------



## en1044

Walbanger said:


> ^ Yes it could be done but the rake would be appalling. A current rake of 12 degrees on the ground tier. A temp job like above would leave the ground tier with such a grade that it would be almost safe for a wheelchair ramp.


Not only that, but the overall shape of the stadium would make it pretty difficult to do.


----------



## flierfy

HUSKER said:


> In a WC only the (now) 5 big ones are allways considered as favorites: Brasil, Italy, Germany, Argentina and France., In a second tier England and Netherlands., ...


Your classification needs to be revised. England's World Cup record is at least as good as the one of France and way better than the Dutch record.
Favourites for all World Cups are Brazil, Italy and Germany only. France, England and Argentina are too inconsistent to be among the other three.


----------



## parcdesprinces

Since 1998 France played 2 finals, just like Brazil !!


----------



## flierfy

parcdesprinces said:


> Since 1998 France played 2 finals, just like Brazil !!


And didn't qualify for the finals twice before 1998, unlike Brazil.


----------



## paradyto

hmmm ASIA!!! by confidence the global economy is recovering faster than expected!!! ASIA!!!!


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

paradyto said:


> hmmm ASIA!!! by confidence the global economy is recovering faster than expected!!! ASIA!!!!


 No way Asian country will get it in 2018.. not even in theory.


----------



## marching

Asia for Sure kay:


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

marching said:


> Asia for Sure kay:


 Are you guys really that ignorant about World Cup and how it works? How on earth is "Asia for Sure"?

2010 = Africa
2014 = South America
2018 = Europe
2022 = North America

Asia can only hope for 2026 games...


----------



## bigbossman

^^ i thought that they dropped the rotation policy


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

bigbossman said:


> ^^ i thought that they dropped the rotation policy


 It was never official policy but that's just how things work. Use some logic. No way that there will be 3 tournaments in a row outside of Europe (biggest market and most participants) and no way that they'll skip USA (for obvious reasons).


----------



## bigbossman

^^ don't get me wrong i agree. It should go back to every other tournament in Europe at least.


----------



## Wezza

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Are you guys really that ignorant about World Cup and how it works? How on earth is "Asia for Sure"?
> 
> 2010 = Africa
> 2014 = South America
> 2018 = Europe
> 2022 = North America
> 
> Asia can only hope for 2026 games...


Yanks can wait til 2026. **** em.


----------



## Fizmo1337

Bids from Qatar or Indonesia shouldn't even be considered seriously. I'm all for giving "new" countries a chance to host a WC or where football is developing but you can't expect to organise it when you don't even have a small history in football. You don't see a country like Russia organizing a WC cricket or Spain organizing a WC rugby, do you? 
It's just stupid, countries like these bidding and wanting to organize a WC. This has nothing to do with football anymore but only showing off their country, improve their image, attract tourists and money, etc... You don't need to have a league like in England but at least you should have a quite decent league (like in Australia or USA) and you should have at least qualified a few times for a WC to show that you care about football and invest in the sport.

And countries like Japan or Mexico should have the decency to wait (to bid) if they already organized 1 WC lately (Japan 2002) or even 2 WC's (Mexico). 

Don't forget that established countries like Spain or England with a football history of 100 years or more, organized it only once since the first one in '30.


----------



## Jizzy

we're still better than the likes of you bobby. you american ****.


----------



## haggiesm

hno:


----------



## Mo Rush

RobH said:


> England bid launched today
> 
> http://www.england2018bid.com/


logo inspired by london 2012


----------



## Ecological

Bobby3 said:


> England has recent football pedigree?
> 
> What do Cesc Fabregas, Cristiano Ronaldo, Jo, Nicolas Anelka, and Fernando Torres all have in common?
> 
> Since 1970, England is as successful as Scotland. In fact, less. Of Premier League winning managers: Two are Scots, none are English, unless you count Wenger since he carries a passport, his goalkeeper may well end up playing for England anyway.


JO? JO?

Are you taking the fucking piss :lol:

How low do people want to scoop to piss off English fans and forumers. Seriosuly troll. Bog off. 

JO? 

JO? ... 

I THINK I'VE JUST WET MYSELF.

JO?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh.And Ronaldo was pants the first 3 seasons in England. If it wasn't for a British coach he'll be a medicore JO now. 

Zidane and co know who the worlds best players are, likes of Shearer, Scholes and Gerrard. What do they have in common? 

Gerrard, Ronaldo and Messi are currently the best. Rooney is possibly the best player at being able to play anywhere and would undopoubtedly be the best striker in the game if Ferguson didn't need to use him as a utility man.


----------



## JimB

Bobby3 said:


> England has recent football pedigree?
> 
> What do Cesc Fabregas, Cristiano Ronaldo, Jo, Nicolas Anelka, and Fernando Torres all have in common?
> 
> Since 1970, England is as successful as Scotland. In fact, less. Of Premier League winning managers: Two are Scots, none are English, unless you count Wenger since he carries a passport, his goalkeeper may well end up playing for England anyway.


So what?

What has the success of a country's national team got to do with its suitability as a host for the World Cup? If it was in any way relevant, South Africa would not have been awarded WC 2010; Japan / S Korea would not have been awarded WC 2002; France would not have been awarded WC 1998; USA would not have been awarded WC 1994; Mexico (or before that, Colombia) would not have been awarded WC 1986; Spain would not have been awarded WC 1982; Argentina would not have been awarded WC 1978; Mexico would not have been awarded WC 1970; England would not have been awarded WC 1966; Chile would not have been awarded WC 1962; Sweden would not have been awarded WC 1958........

....I could go on but hopefully you've got the point by now.


----------



## hkskyline

*England's bid to host the World Cup, which will finally be launched at Wembley tomorrow, represents a golden opportunity for 14 cities - and one town*
David Conn
17 May 2009
The Observer

In a conference suite at Wembley Stadium tomorrow, the FA chairman Lord Triesman, expected to be accompanied by David Beckham, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a crowd of football and political dignitaries, will officially, finally, launch England's bid to bring home the World Cup in 2018 or 2022.

Among the invited guests, media and 50 local schoolchildren whose presence will signify the bid's ambition to enthuse a nation, will be representatives of 14 English cities that have declared an interest in hosting World Cup matches - plus one town, Milton Keynes.

Famed for its roundabouts, long scoffed at as a soulless new town, for some time a pariah of football following the controversial relocation of Wimbledon FC there, Milton Keynes views World Cup status as one more step in its long campaign to establish city status and a cultural identity. A cross-party delegation of local MPs and civic leaders will be at Wembley, led by Peter Winkelman, the music producer and professional Milton Keynes enthusiast, who pulled off the Wimbledon coup in 2002. Since then, he has overseen the development of the town's 21,500-seat stadium, opened by the Queen in November 2007, and as the chairman of MK Dons, steered the club to last season's promotion and the League One play-offs this season.

"We are hugely excited," Winkelman says. "We definitely want to throw our hat in the ring. It is fair enough now to say that [relocating Wimbledon] was a terrible way of bringing football to Milton Keynes, but we needed it, and it has given Milton Keynes an identity.

"We are looking to learn what we have to do to be involved in the World Cup, and I think we have proved we are a can-do place, and if we are chosen, we will deliver."

Not all in the football nation will unite with fervour around Milton Keynes being ordained as a World Cup venue. Kris Stewart, the founding chairman of AFC Wimbledon, the new club formed by the overwhelming majority of Wimbledon fans who refused to go to Milton Keynes, says: "That's hideous. We're proud of what we have achieved - promotion this season to the Conference - but that stadium in Milton Keynes is only there because our club was stolen from us."

Winkelman, six years on, would prefer the Wimbledon controversy to be consigned to history. He says that as both clubs have flourished "only good has come of it". It is a sign of his ambition, and that of Milton Keynes, that the town will take its place in the delegate seats tomorrow alongside representatives of England's great football centres: London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle.

The only question for those cities, besides how to accommodate hordes of supporters at matches and in "fan parks", is whether they will be allocated one stadium or more. Fifa requires countries to apply on the basis of host cities rather than football grounds, because of the wider need to provide for fans' safety and entertainment, but the final selection will be made in December 2010 by choosing the stadiums for the matches.

The official invitation to bid, sent out by Fifa's secretary-general, Jerome Valcke, on 15 January, stated that "approximately 12" stadiums will be required, all with at least 40,000 capacity. Of those, one - in England's case Wembley - must have 80,000 seats to host the opening game and the final. Two, for each semi-final, must seat 60,000 or more. Currently the only two stadiums besides Wembley that could host the semi-finals are Old Trafford (capacity 76,212) and Arsenal's Emirates Stadium (60,342).

Those three are certain to be among the 12 ultimately chosen if England were to beat off competition from the fancied challengers, Australia, the United States, Mexico and Russia. Anfield, Villa Park and St James' Park are also considered certainties to host matches, while Manchester City's former Commonwealth Games stadium at Eastlands, Sunderland's Stadium of Light, Stamford Bridge and even Twickenham, which now has an 82,000 capacity, are also considered strong contenders to host matches.

Yet the FA have widened interest beyond the traditional homes of football and major cities by saying they would prefer games to be played across a wide geographical spread, from north-east to south-west. Triesman made that clear when he addressed a meeting of the Football League's clubs - at MK Dons' stadium - in March.

"This is not the exclusive province of Premier League clubs," he promises. "I want to extend the opportunity to any region or club. This is a partnership that can be so important in our bid to win the right to host a World Cup tournament."

Unlike South Africa, where next year's tournament will be played, and Brazil, host country for 2014, England will not have to undertake any major stadium building programme. Whereas the London Olympics requires a huge injection of public funds, the World Cup bid would not and will highlight this as a major advantage. The stadium "revolution" that followed the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, and has continued since, has created a formidable number of stadiums already fit to host international games.

Still, some smaller cities and football clubs do see the World Cup as an opportunity to expand or build a new stadium. Derby County's Pride Park, Hull's KC Stadium, Leicester's Walkers Stadium, and stadium:mk in Milton Keynes are all recently built venues whose designs incorporate the possibility of expanding. Nottingham Forest are already planning a new pounds 100m, 50,000-seat stadium next to the Holme Pierrepont national watersports centre, while both Sheffield football clubs are committed to improving their grounds if theirs is chosen as a host city.

Bristol City are expecting to apply for planning permission at the end of this month for a new 30,000-seat stadium, costing pounds 60m, to open in August 2012, to be largely financed by the club's multi-millionaire owner Steve Lansdown. City's chief executive, Colin Sexstone, says the stadium designs cater for expansion to 42,000 if Bristol is chosen as a World Cup venue.

"We hope Bristol City will be in the Premier League by then and need 42,000 anyway," explains Sexstone, who will be at the Wembley presentation tomorrow.

"But the design will allow for temporary expansion. The roofs of two smaller stands at each end can be lifted off and stored, quality temporary seating and lightweight roofs added to increase the capacity for the World Cup matches, then removed afterwards and the permanent roofs put back on.

"We are very optimistic about the attractions of Bristol, and Bristol City, as a World Cup host."

The FA's "aspiration" for host cities around the country - for a bid that could claim the majority of the population are within an hour's drive of a venue - means Bristol, Hull and Portsmouth have extra reason to be cheerful. In Hull, the KC Stadium, currently 25,800 capacity, can be expanded to 45,000, with tem porary seating. Bristol is the one city in the south-west to have declared an interest, while Portsmouth is the only place south of London that will be at Wembley tomorrow.

Portsmouth's chief executive, Peter Storrie, says the club are going ahead with rotating Fratton Park's pitch 90 degrees and expanding the current ground to 30,000 seats by 2011-12, but will build a new 40,000 or 45,000-seat stadium at Port Solent if Portsmouth is selected as a World Cup host city.

"This will be great for the south of England," Storrie argues. "The city has great transport links, with Southampton and Gatwick airports close by, and there are great attractions in the wider area."

The commitment by the FA to a geographical spread could work even for Milton Keynes, which sits in a pocket with London to the south and the Midlands to the north. The FA are working closely with England's eight regional development agencies, and Milton Keynes is the only town or city in the East of England Development Agency region to have declared an interest.

In recent tournaments, Fifa have shown themselves keen on the odd wild-card entry in otherwise predictable lists of major venues. In France 98 there was Montpellier, which then had a small stadium and a ropey second division football club. The Koreans used Seogwipo, an island resort that did not even have a club, in the jointly hosted 2002 tournament; and the most recent World Cup featured Leipzig, whose home club played in the seventh level of German football.

For the cities, mostly without huge new stadiums or accommodation to build, the graspable prize is to be part of the great, glittering football tournament, be seen on television across the globe, and reap the revenues from fans flocking in. All cities will be required to show they can host fans' parks, with big screens, similar to those that became the big hit of the 2006 World Cup in Germany.

The financial structure of a World Cup ensures that Fifa sell and keep the income from broadcasting rights and sponsorship, while the home country's FA keep the revenue from selling tickets and the matches themselves.

In Germany, Fifa made pounds 1.7bn, of which pounds 944m came from television, while the German FA's organising committee earned about pounds 500m, which included a pounds 157m contribution from Fifa. The profit, shared with Fifa, was pounds 139m.

For the FA, the prestige, excitement and sense of national purpose are, as much as the money, reasons to be bidding. The process begins in earnest after tomorrow. The cities that are interested must have their formal bids worked up and submitted to the FA by early November.

In 2006, the huge numbers of visitors who descended on German host cities are estimated to have spent about pounds 1.8bn on accommodation, food, drink and shopping. It is for a share of that gold, as well as the chance to be seen on a global stage as part of a World Cup, that so many cities will be jostling for a front-row seat at Wembley tomorrow. Along with Milton Keynes.

20

Months to go before Fifa make their decision on both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. May 2010 is the deadline for submitting the bid.

6

Months for any English towns or cities other than the 15 listed here to bid to host matches

40,000

Minimum capacity for group games. It is 60,000 for the semi-finals, and 80,000 for the opening game and the final

12

Stadiums needed for the tournament - the same as Germany 06

32

The number of finalists at the tournament, which means 64 games

9

Countries bidding for the 2018 tournament, and 11 for 2022 (both hosts will be announced in December 2010). England are in for both. Their rivals - 2018: Spain/Portugal (joint), Holland/Belgium (joint), Russia; Australia, Japan, Indonesia; Mexico, United States. 2022: As above plus South Korea and Qatar


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mo Rush said:


> logo inspired by london 2012


... sadly. 
I get it, but I don't find it inspiring.



hkskyline said:


> Not all in the football nation will unite with fervour around Milton Keynes being ordained as a World Cup venue. Kris Stewart, the founding chairman of AFC Wimbledon, the new club formed by the overwhelming majority of Wimbledon fans who refused to go to Milton Keynes, says: "That's hideous. We're proud of what we have achieved - promotion this season to the Conference - but that stadium in Milton Keynes is only there because our club was stolen from us."


I'm afraid I have to agree, and no matter how nice the venue may be I think it'd be a smack in the face of fans and established clubs to so richly reward this particular club so quickly. Surely there are enough options that MK doesn't exactly make a huge difference in accommodating the geographic spread desired by FIFA.


> Nottingham Forest are already planning a new pounds 100m, 50,000-seat stadium next to the Holme Pierrepont national watersports centre,


Has anyone seen plans for this one? Would love to see Forest capable of hosting such.


> Portsmouth's chief executive, Peter Storrie, says the club are going ahead with rotating Fratton Park's pitch 90 degrees and expanding the current ground to 30,000 seats by 2011-12, but will build a new 40,000 or 45,000-seat stadium at Port Solent if Portsmouth is selected as a World Cup host city.


Curious. I hadn't heard about them going ahead with the rotation, and seems silly to do that if you'll know within 16 months (or less, likely) if you'll be just moving to the new, larger venue. Either way I'd be happy to see another "middling" club improving their ground.


----------



## Bezzi

Another horrible logo! :bash:


----------



## JimB

Bezzi said:


> Another horrible logo! :bash:


At this stage, it's only a bid logo.

It's possible - likely, even - that, should England be chosen to host WC 2018 or 2022, there will be an altogether different logo.


----------



## Aka

It's not easy to make a football with a name.


----------



## hngcm

It's nowhere near as bad as the 2012 logo...

Showing how good fellatio is to the world..


----------



## Schmeek

JimB said:


> At this stage, it's only a bid logo.
> 
> It's possible - likely, even - that, should England be chosen to host WC 2018 or 2022, there will be an altogether different logo.


I quite like it must admit.


----------



## cmc

Bezzi said:


> Another horrible logo! :bash:


Well the 2018/2022 is just for the bid, but the 2012 it's just a joke...oh and also the olympic stadium.


----------



## JimB

cmc said:


> Well the 2018/2022 is just for the bid, but the 2012 it's just a joke...oh and also the olympic stadium.


What the **** has the Olympic stadium got to do with this thread?

Stop trolling.


----------



## cmc

JimB said:


> What the **** has the Olympic stadium got to do with this thread?
> 
> Stop trolling.


^^:lol: On how fucked up England is organizing it's bids....


----------



## JimB

cmc said:


> ^^:lol: On how fucked up England is organizing it's bids....


Eh?

Given that London was a rank outsider for the 2012 vote, I'd say that they did a truly remarkable job to beat the odds on favourite, Paris. In what way can it possibly have been a "fucked up" bid, given that London won? Duh!

But I repeat, this thread is not about the Olympics so stick to 2018 / 2022 World Cup bids, please.


----------



## RobH

Ignore the ****.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'm trying to grasp the actual state of plans for several venue improvements that we'd consider crucial to these bids. Would someone mind filling me in on the status/veracity of the following:

Bernabeu - Renovations
Lopera & Pizjuan (Sevilla) - Renovations + Expansions
Villa Park - Renovations + Expansion

How many of these projects, if any, are dependent on a successful bid? If they are independent of the bid what's the actual status?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Since the FIFA decided that candidates must have 11 stadiums of 40000 seats and 1 with 80000 seats to host the World cup, I have concluded only rich and powerful could now host the event.
In each confedaration, I made a standing about if countries could host the World cup (with 12 stadiums):


Yes
Yes but
No

*AFC*
Yes: Japan, China, Korea, Australia
Yes but: India, Indonesia
No: all the rest

*CAF*
Yes: South Africa (of course), Morocco, Egypt
No: all the rest

*CONCACAF*
Yes: USA, Mexico
Yes but: Canada
No: all the rest

*CONMEBOL*
Yes: Brazil (of course)
Yes but: Argentina
No: all the rest

*OFC*
None

*UEFA*
yes: England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy
Yes but: Portugal, Russia, Turkey
No: others


----------



## NMAISTER007

Russia only has 3 stadiums xD hilarious


----------



## EPA001

hngcm said:


> Somehow I doubt FIFA will allow Sydney to have two stadiums. "West Sydney" is not going to cut it.


In a FIFA World Cup bid only one city is allowed to have two stadiums. That is what FIFA states in its rule book.


----------



## hngcm

EPA001 said:


> In a FIFA World Cup bid only one city is allowed to have two stadiums. That is what FIFA states in its rule book.


I'm aware of that and I'm assuming the two stadium city is going to be Melbourne.


----------



## Streuth

Here is the website for Australia's 2018-2022 bid. 

http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/

I don't think anybody is under the illusion that we are favourites to win the bid. However, we will put forward a very strong bid. They played the video (at the above website) at half time of the Australia Japan game. It looks like a bit of money has already been spent. It appears as if they are really pushing the tourism side of the bid in an attempt to overcome the tyranny of distance, which is a big weakness.


----------



## flavze

the other option is to rebuild Parramatta stadium into a 40k to be used by the western sydney a-league team and use that and Homebush stadium.

Parramatta is a city in it's own right, that would leave Melbourne to be the city to have 2 stadiums used.


----------



## Bump

magic_johnson said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXC9czlkMwM
> with the capacity to be able to uped to 70,000 aswell??


This is the proposed multi-purpose stadium to replace Subiaco Oval. Currently there is no guarantee that it will go ahead even though it seems the most logical solution. I believe it was proposed to be 60,000 with room to expand to 70,000.



krudmonk said:


> AFL venues suck for rectangular pitches. See also: Subiaco.





krudmonk said:


> Was that my point?


Your point might have been valid if you used an appropriate example. To say 'AFL venues suck for rectangular pitches' is fine if you back up your statement with an example. To provide Subiaco Oval as proof is incorrect as it is extremely unlikely to hold a FIFA World Cup game in its current form. This is a 'FIFA World Cup bid' thread isn't it. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the MCG or any other AFL venue likely to hold a FIFA World Cup game.








*MCG hosting a football match


----------



## Bump

Here are some technical requirements for the 2018/22 bids stated by Frank Lowy:
http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/news-updates_detail.aspx?view=3
Address by Mr Frank Lowy AC Chairman, Football Federation of Australia National Press Club, Canberra


> FIFA has stringent technical requirements which must be met. For the 2018 and 2022 bids, we have been advised that we must have:
> 
> • A minimum of 12 stadia, at least two of which must hold 80,000 fans
> • 10 stadia which must hold a minimum of 45,000 fans
> • Training facilities for 32 teams; and,
> • Five-star accommodation for a minimum of four teams, the FIFA organisation and match officials in every host city.


And this was reported by a media outlet, but I can't seem to find a direct quote from Mr Buckley:
http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=393


> Mr Buckley yesterday confirmed the FFA's preferred option is for Australia to have 12 World Cup venues, with no more than two venues in each city.


This seems to me that the 'only one city may have two stadia' rule may not be true. Can anyone provide a quote from FIFA on this?


----------



## magic_johnson

Streuth said:


> Here is the website for Australia's 2018-2022 bid.
> 
> http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/
> 
> I don't think anybody is under the illusion that we are favourites to win the bid. However, we will put forward a very strong bid. They played the video (at the above website) at half time of the Australia Japan game. It looks like a bit of money has already been spent. It appears as if they are really pushing the tourism side of the bid in an attempt to overcome the tyranny of distance, which is a big weakness.


Here be the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezCpmSZN_9g&feature=player_embedded


----------



## genkie456

Well Benelux 2018 is working intensively to influence the FIFA members. Ambassadors named: Christian Karembeu (French, good network in africa), Johan cruijf, Marco Van Basten, Ruud Gullit and frank rijkaard (probably also Guus Hiddink, but that's not sure concerning Russia 2018). Belgian ambassadors will be of course Jean marie pfaff, michel preud'homme and some other players.

new common site is launched: www.thebid.org


----------



## Joop20

flavze said:


> the other option is to rebuild Parramatta stadium into a 40k to be used by the western sydney a-league team and use that and Homebush stadium.
> 
> Parramatta is a city in it's own right, that would leave Melbourne to be the city to have 2 stadiums used.


True, technicaly speaking, Sydney City is only a small part of the Sydney metropolitan area. Even ANZ stadium (Auburn) and Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney City) are in different local government areas, so I'm wondering how strict FIFA is with the one stadium per city rule? Do they actually refer to local government areas, or to metropolitan areas?


----------



## bigbossman

Joop20 said:


> True, technicaly speaking, Sydney City is only a small part of the Sydney metropolitan area. Even ANZ stadium (Auburn) and Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney City) are in different local government areas, so I'm wondering how strict FIFA is with the one stadium per city rule? Do they actually refer to local government areas, or to metropolitan areas?


i think it's government area. although they like a wide geographical spread, hence why leipzig was chosen in Germany ahead of bigger built stadiums in Monchengladbach, Bremen and Dusseldorf (which iirc is Germany's media capital...


----------



## Jim856796

JYDA said:


> That's nice in theory but you're bidding with the crutch of having just hosted. If FIFA wants to go to Asia they're going to Australia unless South Korea can provide something unbelievable that's impossible for FIFA to overlook. Using past stadiums isn't going to cut it. You'll need an enormous showpiece venue like Soccer City type venue exceeding 90,000 to have any chance.


(Read every single word of this post and see what I mean.)

Then they should have built the Seoul WC stadium at an 80,000 capacity. For a WC at Korea, Seoul would be used as a two-stadium city (there is a requirement where only one host city can have two stadiums, and Seoul is the only city that can handle the role). Seoul WC Stadium and the Olympic Stadium would serve as the venues (the latter can host the final). Another requirement is that two of the host cities must have stadiums larger than an 80,000 capacity. Decrease the required capacity to 70,000. Daegu WC Stadium has a 68000 capacity and that may be very close to 70,000. So I needs to ask one question: Can Seoul even support these three stadiums (Olympic Stadium, WC Stadium, and the 80000 stadium)? Let me get this off my chest: There is no way in hell that South Korea can build an 80,000-seat stadium, not even for South Korea to host the World Cup alone. And if South Korea builds that stadium, then it will be left as a BIG white elephant. The Seoul Olympic Stadium was advertised during the 1988 Olympics as having a capacity of 100,000 even though it doesn't look like it has that capacity. So South Korea can either use the near 70,000-seat Olympic Stadium as the final venue for a South Korea WC, or it can never host the WC in our lifetimes!

And one last thing: if South Korea wants to build any new venues for a WC, then they can build a new soccer stadium in Yeosu. Yeosu is hosting the 2012 World's Fair.


----------



## Horatio Caine

*The Russia bid* 

What towns are we talking about? Sure, a finale at Luzshniki Stadium and a semi and bronze-game at Gazprom Stadium in St. Petersburg would be fantastic. But what about the other games? Where will they be played?


----------



## Slagathor

^^ Vladivostok. Take a train, bitch


----------



## Horatio Caine

Slagathor said:


> ^^ Vladivostok. Take a train, bitch


Haha, I would love that. 
And one on the Kuriles, one on Frans Josefs Land and one next to the Berings Strait. :banana:


----------



## poxuy

Horatio Caine said:


> *The Russia bid*
> 
> What towns are we talking about? Sure, a finale at Luzshniki Stadium and a semi and bronze-game at Gazprom Stadium in St. Petersburg would be fantastic. But what about the other games? Where will they be played?


+ *Kazan* (Stadium for Universiade 2013; 45000)
+ *Sochi* (Stadium for Olympic Games 2014; 40000)

"President of Russian Football Union and Minister of Sports, Vitaly Mutko, on the meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said the preliminary list of "football cities":

Moscow, St. Petersburg, cities of Moscow Region, Krasnodar, Yaroslavl, Kazan, Samara, Volgograd, Saransk, Ekaterinburg."

Better to wait official bid.

I marked this cities, + Sochi and Rostov-on-Don:










I hope there will be some kind of "South Cluster" with Sochi, Krasnodar, Rostov-on-Don, Volgograd, and possibly Novorossiysk (there are plans on 40,000 stadium) with constructed for OG-2014 and developed infrastructure.

Updated: General Director of RFU, Alexey Sorokin, has told that the Russian bid for WC 2018/2022 most likely will be represented by national team coach, Guus Hiddink.


----------



## flierfy

bigbossman said:


> ... Dusseldorf (which iirc is Germany's media capital...


You remember it incorrectly. Düsseldorf isn't even some kind of media capital in NRW.


----------



## Joop20

flierfy said:


> You remember it incorrectly. Düsseldorf isn't even some kind of media capital in NRW.


:nuts:? Düsseldorf is definately one of the German media capitals, and one of it's main economical centres! It didn't get any games because of it's proximity to Cologne, Gelsenkirchen and Dortmund. Anyway, geographical spread is much harder in Australia because it has far fewer cities with the required population. It would be great if Australia could get away with 2 stadiums in both Melbourne and Sydney, and have a 10 or 12 stadium bid.


----------



## flierfy

Joop20 said:


> :nuts:? Düsseldorf is definately one of the German media capitals, ...


Just because you insist on it to be doesn't make it true. There is a single newspaper published in Düsseldorf which is nationwide significant. That alone doesn't make it a media centre of the whole country.


----------



## limeyellow

I was wondering if there would be any chance of FIFA changing rules (specifically one city being able to have 2 venues to 3, or more than one city with 2 venues).

When were these rules made? And does FIFA usually change rules?


----------



## Mo Rush

When the situation arises I'm sure each case/host country will be considered in terms of only one city being "allowed" more than 1 venue.


----------



## woozoo

hngcm said:


> At first I thought Russia was annexing Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in order to have the best bid for 2018 lol


haha wouldnt surprise me


----------



## Wezza

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Im not sure why some of our Aussie friends are getting a bit overworked with regards to the Oz bid against the England Bid, they are not competing with eachother. England is competing with the European bids thats all, and technically if it was just the England Bid versus the Oz bid for 2018 then England walks all over Austrailia. England is one of the few bids with nearly all purpose built Football stadia. I can't see Austrailia win 2018 (and besides i doubt thats enough time to get ready), a European country should rightly host the 2018 (obviously i think its about time England got to host). Then i have no doubt most likely Austrailia will get 2022 (with help from China not bidding) and be a great host.


I'm Australian and i think England will get 2018. I'd rather we got 2022, it gives us more time to prepare.


----------



## magic_johnson

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Im not sure why some of our Aussie friends are getting a bit overworked with regards to the Oz bid against the England Bid, they are not competing with eachother. England is competing with the European bids thats all, and technically if it was just the England Bid versus the Oz bid for 2018 then England walks all over Austrailia. England is one of the few bids with nearly all purpose built Football stadia. I can't see Austrailia win 2018 (and besides i doubt thats enough time to get ready), a European country should rightly host the 2018 (obviously i think its about time England got to host). Then i have no doubt most likely Austrailia will get 2022 (with help from China not bidding) and be a great host.


Spot on.


----------



## ryebreadraz

It looks like FIFA is warming to the idea of joint bids:



> A joint World Cup bid by Belgium and the Netherlands to host either the 2018 or 2022 tournament will be considered by FIFA after all.
> 
> FIFA president Sepp Blatter said Monday that Belgian and Dutch officials assured him that their co-hosting candidacy would be run via a single organizing committee, not like the 2002 Japan-South Korea tournament, which posed a headache for football's governing body.
> 
> Blatter's comments appeared to reverse skeptical statements he made earlier this year, when he said joint bids will lose out in favor of a strong proposal from a solo host.
> 
> "After the World Cup 2002, the executive committee took a decision: never again a double candidature because it was absolutely wrong," Blatter said.
> 
> He said the way that tournament was run, with two organizing committees, different languages and budgets, made it too complex and cumbersome. But he said the Dutch-Belgian bid "is totally different," adding the bid was also a "sympathetic" one.
> 
> "The candidature like the Netherlands and Belgium shall be accepted because we have the evidence that there is only one organizing committee," Blatter said.
> 
> The two countries previously co-hosted for the 2000 European Championship, which was considered a success.
> 
> Blatter and other senior FIFA officials were invited for talks with Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and King Albert II at the royal palace on Monday to discuss the bid. Bid committee co-chair Alain Courtois said the candidacy "will answer all FIFA criteria."
> 
> Along with 10 other bids, Belgium and the Netherlands want to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. On top of about ?1 billion ($1.42 billion) for up to a dozen stadiums, the nations would also have to improve public access through airport and highway upgrades.
> 
> Belgium, with 10 million people, and the Netherlands, with 16.5 million, are counting on a sympathy vote of other small nations worldwide to clinch the right to organize the World Cup.
> 
> Blatter said the bid from the two was welcome "because we want to show that the World Cup can still be held in smaller countries."
> 
> He also welcomed a similar co-hosting bid submitted by Spain and Portugal, but Blatter said he had not yet visited Madrid or Lisbon to get a briefing on how they plan to organize their bid. A meeting in Spain is planned for October, Blatter said.
> 
> FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke said he was now examining all 11 preliminary bids, which also include applications by the United States, England and Russia. All candidates will have to submit a full bid book by next May.
> 
> The hosts will be chosen by the 24-member FIFA executive committee December 2010.


----------



## Horatio Caine

hngcm said:


> At first I thought Russia was annexing Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe in order to have the best bid for 2018 lol


Hush! Dont give them any ideas...


----------



## poxuy

Horatio Caine said:


> Hush! Dont give them any ideas...


Sell this story to media. They love it. Brainwashing working very good, as I see.:applause:


----------



## Horatio Caine

poxuy said:


> Sell this story to media. They love it. Brainwashing working very good, as I see.:applause:


Georgia yesterday, Poland tomorrow? 
Trust me, I'm from Sweden. We've dealt with russians before...


----------



## Wezza

EDIT


----------



## kossia

This is boolshit, yesterday Georgia? What Georgia, the fact that Georgia bombed Sout-Ossetia and that Shakashvili has said yesterday that he was wrong?!


----------



## poxuy

Horatio Caine said:


> Georgia yesterday, Poland tomorrow?
> Trust me, I'm from Sweden. We've dealt with russians before...


LOL "oh save us from evil Russia blablabla".. 11 months after bombing S.Ossetia some people still didn't hear about it) I can write you hundreds of facts, which you never heard in media. But for what? Stupid people will not change their vision even if facts will be before their nose. Also this theme was discussed thousand times and every time were proved documentary that Georgia attacked Tskinval in the night, killing civillians. This was documented even by OSCE British members; EU and UN accepted that Russia did right. I even don't say that it's RUSSIA which called for UN emergency meeting right after Georgia began to bomb civillians.

U.S. Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia
Documentary evidence against Saakashvili

Yes, brainwashing working very good, as I see.

But this is EXACTLY why this war was provoked - to blackmail Russia in any way, everywhere, by any pretexts.

At the same time US killing 150 civillians on wedding just in one "mistake" strike in Afghanistan, and no one cares. Pathetic.



kossia said:


> This is boolshit, yesterday Georgia? What Georgia, the fact that Georgia bombed Sout-Ossetia and that Shakashvili has said yesterday that he was wrong?!


I think such "uncomfortable" facts are hiding and censoring in Poland. It explains all.

Moderators, just delete this blablabla beginning from Horatio Caine message. Some kids still live in black/white reality.


----------



## Vermeer

Horatio Caine said:


> Georgia yesterday, Poland tomorrow?
> Trust me, I'm from Sweden. We've dealt with russians before...


As you dealt with the Nazis during WW2 (As friends I mean). With your history you should maybe keep a lower profile.


----------



## hkskyline

*INTERVIEW-Soccer-World Cup bid race is toughest yet - England *

BANGKOK, July 23 (Reuters) - Competition to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be the fiercest ever but the home of the Premier League is the ideal venue for the tournament, according to the head of England's bid.

Andy Anson said the soccer infrastructure and huge domestic passion for the game made England the perfect choice, but he warned against complacency with nine other countries bidding hard for the right to host the tournament.

"We believe we can put on an incredibly exciting World Cup, and we strongly believe we can win this bid," Anson told Reuters on Thursday during a visit to Thailand.

"We have a very compelling case to win but it's incredibly competitive, more than there has ever been for a World Cup. You can't afford to be complacent, we have a nine countries bidding very aggressively."

Australia, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the United States have bid for both the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, along with two joint proposals from Belgium and the Netherlands and Spain and Portugal.

South Korea, Indonesia and Qatar have confirmed their interest in staging the 2022 finals. FIFA will decide on the hosts in December 2010.

BIGGEST RIVALS

England has only hosted the World Cup once, in 1966, and the former commercial director of Manchester United would not be drawn on who the biggest rivals were.

"We can't talk about individual competitors, but that's helpful, because there's no point focusing on any one competitor," he said. "There are so many in the field, it makes you more determined to do a good job."

Although England has bid for both the 2018 and 2022 finals, Anson said the target was to stage the tournament as soon as possible.

"We want 2018 and are very focused on that, we feel we have the stadium, infrastructure and fans, we believe we can put on a great World Cup in 2018 so why would we want to wait until 2022?"

England had learned from the unsuccessful "football's coming home" bid to stage the 2006 finals, Anson said, and was travelling the world to listen to the opinions of FIFA member countries.

POLITICAL INFIGHTING

Despite rumours of political infighting between different sectors of the lucrative English game, Anson said all parties involved had fully backed the bid.

"We've made it our priority, we have to communicate heavily to everyone to make sure we're all in the loop and in the decision-making process," he said.

"I've not met anyone who doesn't want to be on board or support this bid. It's hard to see why England shouldn't have it, we now have to convince the rest of the world."

Fifteen cities are aiming to earn the right to stage matches, including lesser-known soccer outposts like Hull, Bristol, Derby and Milton Keynes, alongside the traditional strongholds of London, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle.

There will be a shortlist of 64 venues across the country, 32 of which will be selected as base camps for the teams. One aim is to spread the tournament to as many parts of the country as possible, he added.

Plans to build new stadiums for Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham Hotspur, in addition to established arenas of clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United and Newcastle meant the bid had more capital to channel into strengthening other areas.

"It's one of the attractions from this bid from an English point is we don't have to develop anything major," Anson said.

Anson said he also believed the 2012 London Olympics would serve as a launchpad.

"It's huge asset and the six years between is positive because of resources, skills and infrastructure," he said.

"We have a great showcase in the Premier League, great stadiums and fans who are committed and passionate. We have such a fantastic base to build a bid on."


----------



## JYDA

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=664089&sec=worldcup2010&cc=5901

Just found this piece that says Qatar would make 2022 a purely *indoor* World Cup.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ why does that matter it's not as if they are going to hold the world cup before hell freezes over is it?


----------



## boyerling3

If England won either bid, would they think about using venues in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, or possibly even Ireland? I know the differences between the areas, but does anyone think it would be considered a joint bid if they just had a couple venues outside what is technically England?


----------



## krudmonk

boyerling3 said:


> If England won either bid, would they think about using venues in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, or possibly even Ireland? I know the differences between the areas, but does anyone think it would be considered a joint bid if they just had a couple venues outside what is technically England?


They do that in rugby but England has enough huge football stadia that they wouldn't have to. Too many there would throw a fit if games were held at Millenium or Hampden Park.


----------



## bigbossman

krudmonk said:


> They do that in rugby but England has enough huge football stadia that they wouldn't have to. Too many there would throw a fit if games were held at Millenium or Hampden Park.


they do it in rugby to win votes, it wouldn't be allowed by FIFA me thinks anyway...


----------



## Lord David

Rugby for Europe that is allows say France to have some of it's matches held in neighbouring England, Wales and Scotland because of the fact that such nations are automatic hosts.

Should England want cities from say Scotland or Wales to be a part of the bid, then that wouldn't be allowed by FIFA, as it would be seen as a joint bid even if it's just from 1 or 2 cities and that they would be required to provide the other nations such as Scotland or Wales a place in the WC.


----------



## poxuy

Russia - Liechtenstein 3:0

Fans banner.












> MOSCOW – 5 September 2009 — The Russian Football Union is proud to officially announce Russia's unconditional commitment to compete to be named as Host Country for the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup. With the full backing of the national leadership, the organizational team is now in place to bring the FIFA World Cup to Russia for the first time in history and establish Russia as an international centre for football.
> 
> The privilege of hosting the World Cup will have a significant positive impact upon Russia and serve to:
> Leave a lasting legacy for football; not only in world class infrastructure but in coaching, training and administration experience;
> Establish football as a means of teaching both sport and life skills to millions of Russian youth;
> Stimulate and accelerate economic development and general infrastructure growth throughout Russia;
> Proudly welcome the world's football fans to the warmth and friendship of Russia.
> 
> Nationwide growth of the game at all levels is expected to continue. The bid is expressive of Russia's affection for football and builds off the Russian national team's strong 3rd place showing in the Euro 2008 tournament. The world's favourite sport is also Russia's favourite sport, and with more than 100 nationalities and 11 time zones stretching across the vast continent, no other country presents the chance to share this great event with so diverse a population. Russia has forever been at the crossroads of east and west. Its limitless and uniquely beautiful geography, and its ancient mixture of peoples, beliefs and customs have created a truly one-of-a-kind society in the world's largest country.
> 
> One of thirteen countries vying for a chance to host the tournament, Russia's first major milestone will be delivery of the bid book on 14 May 2010.


http://www.russia2018-2022.com/


----------



## Lord David

boyerling3 said:


> If England won either bid, would they think about using venues in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, or possibly even Ireland? I know the differences between the areas, but does anyone think it would be considered a joint bid if they just had a couple venues outside what is technically England?


No of course not, there's plenty of Venues already in England. And more being built. Any talk of using venues in neighbouring Wales, Scotland etc would constitute as a joint bid, or an excuse to use such high capacity venues without their teams having a secured place in the WC. It won't happen unless it were a joint bid. England can do it alone.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

MelbournesNT said:


> Australia with either Melbourne or Sydney to host final, preferably *Melbourne because they are the sporting capital of the world* and they have to biggest support of Football (soccer) in the country, not to mention the biggest stadium with the most history, but my guess is Sydney will get it because the FFA are fucking retards and they just want it in there own city, oh wellzz.


sure :doh:


----------



## GreenwichSE10

Its AlL gUUd said:


> sure :doh:


:nuts:self appointed capital of the sporting world..not even London would claim that and it has far more grounds and prominent sporting events.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

GreenwichSE10 said:


> :nuts:self appointed capital of the sporting world..not even London would claim that and it has far more grounds and prominent sporting events.


No doubt, London: Twickenham for Rugby, Wembley for Football, Wimbledon for Tennis, Lords for Cricket, the list goes on.
Melbourne: MCG for Cricket, MCG for rugby, MCG for Football, MCG for Athletics, Rod Laver Arena for Gymnastics, Rod laver Arena for Tennis, Rod Laver arena for Basketball. Oops the so called Sporting Capital has the same shi****g -place for everything.:nuts::nuts::nuts:


----------



## Dubai-Toluca

when will we know he countries which will host the world cup in 2018 and 2022


----------



## ryebreadraz

Dubai-Toluca said:


> when will we know he countries which will host the world cup in 2018 and 2022


December 2010


----------



## Escalabitano

Gherkin, when 2 countries participate in this events the names of the nation appear in alphabetic order...is: 
Portugal / Spain 
like Belgium / Netherlands 
Korea / Japan
Austria / Switzerland


----------



## Aka

Escalabitano said:


> Gherkin, when 2 countries participate in this events the names of the nation appear in *alphabetic order*...is:
> 
> *K*orea / *J*apan





You're right. But the alphabetic order is made in French, since it's FIFA's first official language (well, FIFA is also in French). And that's why it would be Spain/Portugal.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

Lord David said:


> New stadiums will not end up as white elephants. There's always a tenant to be found. It's all a matter of costs and if the government will commit to such costs.


Guys,
Do you wanna see the WC 2018/2022 played on Mars here is the venue which will dry out soon in a few decades due to climate change and inaction from the local government.







.
This will be the face of the hundreds of thousands of fans and worst of all the Football players in pain and breathing discomfort, if Sydney, OZ is to host the FIFA WC 2018/2022. Who knows this happened on 24-Sept-09, could very well happen in July/Aug 2018 & 2022. The climate change has lead to 9 yrs of drought around Sydney area in this decade degrading from 3 for every decade earlier. Sure, people would play in high altitude Mexico or some South American city than going to Mars.


----------



## Aka

I'm almost losing hope in Humanity...


----------



## Bobby3

I talked to a guy from Melbourne who doesn't support the bid because he thinks the FFA treats fans like crap.


----------



## Joop20

antriksh_sfo said:


> Guys,
> Do you wanna see the WC 2018/2022 played on Mars here is the venue which will dry out soon in a few decades due to climate change and inaction from the local government.
> 
> This will be the face of the hundreds of thousands of fans and worst of all the Football players in pain and breathing discomfort, if Sydney, OZ is to host the FIFA WC 2018/2022. Who knows this happened on 24-Sept-09, could very well happen in July/Aug 2018 & 2022. The climate change has lead to 9 yrs of drought around Sydney area in this decade degrading from 3 for every decade earlier. Sure, people would play in high altitude Mexico or some South American city than going to Mars.


Are you really such a retard or is this an attempt to be funny? Where are you from anyway? Stop trolling this thread and start making some constructive posts, or just go play with your barbies...


----------



## antriksh_sfo

Joop20 said:


> Are you really such a retard or is this an attempt to be funny? Where are you from anyway? Stop trolling this thread and start making some constructive posts, or just go play with your barbies...


Don' t take it in a derogatory way.
Sydney is a good city, but the truth is that if nothing is done with regards climate change, as the research predicts we may loose it as early as 2050. It is an attempt from my side to invigorate some response. As you know the degrading drought condition around Sydney and the stubborness of the OZ govt to acknowledge the same and implement some constructive environmental action rather than being adamant in the climate change talks.


----------



## woozoo

^^Rover3

The forumers who have been around a while will know who this guy is.

Welcome back you retard!


----------



## mvictory

antriksh_sfo said:


> No doubt, London: Twickenham for Rugby, Wembley for Football, Wimbledon for Tennis, Lords for Cricket, the list goes on.
> Melbourne: MCG for Cricket, MCG for rugby, MCG for Football, MCG for Athletics, Rod Laver Arena for Gymnastics, Rod laver Arena for Tennis, Rod Laver arena for Basketball. Oops the so called Sporting Capital has the same shi****g -place for everything.:nuts::nuts::nuts:


Its a bit rich calling anywhere the sporting capital of the world but at least give it a fair comparison.

Athletics: 
Melbourne, Olympic Park (18 000)
London, do they even have one? Temporary olympic stadium being built.

Cricket:
Melbourne, MCG (100,000)
London, Lords (29,000)

Rugby:
Melbourne, Olympic park (18,000)
London, Twickenham (80,000)

Football:
Melbourne, Etihad stadium (55,000)
London, Wembley (90,000)

Tennis:
Melbourne, Olympic park and Kooyong tennis club Rod laver arena (15,000) 
London, Wimbledon, Centre court (15,000)

Other stadiums in melbourne. Flemington racecourse (150,000), Vodafone arena, (11,000) retractable roof for tennis cycling basketball, Princes park (35,000), Victoria park, etc... State of the art Football, Rugby stadium currently being built, (32,000) 

Considering rugby and football are minor sports in melbourne with the main sport Australian football and the fact that melbournes population is only half of londons it can hardly be said that london outclasses Melbourne in terms of sporting Infrustructure.


----------



## SIC

antriksh_sfo said:


> I think the following wud b better than OZ in addition to US:
> i. Japan - Way ahead
> ii. S korea - Way Ahead
> iii. Belgium-Neth/Spain-Port - For the sheer passion n history
> iv. Russia - On par demographics wise? But football history n popularity better.
> iii. & iv wud b annuled if England wins 2018 (Most probably wud be the host)
> The states seem highly disconcerted. No doubt which state wud like to waste such huge amounts if these efforts end up white elephants?


Japan and Korea just co-hosted a bid. How would either of those countries be better than the US? If we're being fair.


----------



## SIC

Bobby3 said:


> Don't compare Japan to Bahrain. Japan is a tier above Bahrain.
> 
> No, Bahrain couldn't beat Mexico. Japan and Mexico are on the same tier. Japan looks worse because they don't kick the snot out of St. Kitts and Nevis all the time.
> 
> Fact is, CONCACAF teams run hot and cold. On their day Costa Rica would put Brazil to the sword, but they've also lost 4-0 to Honduras. Japan is consistently above average.


Err, Mexico was 3rd in the last Copa America. You know, CONMEBOL? That means they were better than anyone except Brazil and Argentina and they beat Brazil.

Which is a lot more than Japan has done recently, no offense to Japan. It's just hard to judge them because you only really see them play vs AFC opponents and then at the WC every four years.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

mvictory said:


> Its a bit rich calling anywhere the sporting capital of the world but at least give it a fair comparison.
> 
> Athletics:
> Melbourne, Olympic Park (18 000)
> London, do they even have one? Temporary olympic stadium being built.
> 
> Cricket:
> Melbourne, MCG (100,000)
> ..... hardly be said that london outclasses Melbourne in terms of sporting Infrustructure.


Buddy,
If the list of stadiums of London are given then it would be an epic, O2 Arena, Emirates Stadium, Stamford Bridge, *Crystal Palace National Sports Centre - For Your Enlightenment Athletics*,........

Moreover don't tell me that Melbourne Park ever hosted WC Rugby games in 2003. May be it is used for local league games and small friendlies.
If this is taken as a yard stick then every city in the world can boast of itself as a Sporting Capital, Guadalajara, Rio, Doha, Delhi, Singapore, Toronto etc with venues dedicated for each sport.

So let us stop this game of "Melbourne sporting capital - Approve/Disapprove" right here and move ahead.
Cheer Up


----------



## mvictory

antriksh_sfo said:


> Buddy,
> If the list of stadiums of London are given then it would be an epic, O2 Arena, Emirates Stadium, Stamford Bridge, *Crystal Palace National Sports Centre - For Your Enlightenment Athletics*,........
> 
> Moreover don't tell me that Melbourne Park ever hosted WC Rugby games in 2003. May be it is used for local league games and small friendlies.
> If this is taken as a yard stick then every city in the world can boast of itself to be a Sporting Capital, Guaddaljara, Rio, Doha, Delhi, Singapore, Toronto etc with venues dedicated for each sport.
> 
> So let us stop this game of "Melbourne sporting capital - Approve/Disapprove" right here and move ahead.
> Cheer Up


I never said it is the sporting capitol in fact I said the opposite, that there is no such thing as the sporting capital of the world. The only point i was trying to make is that it is a great sporting city up to the standard of London or anywhere else. And by the way rugby is tiny in Melbourne and Olympic park is the only stadium that is used for it reguarly because it houses the Melbourne storm. Docklands and the MCG are occasionaly used for a Rugby international or state of origin but neither can be called a rugby stadium.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

SIC said:


> Japan and Korea just co-hosted a bid. How would either of those countries be better than the US? If we're being fair.


Hey, I posted that these bids were better than AUSSIE bid not the US bid.
US can give two bids with two different set of Cities still posting record capacities and attendences.


----------



## Lord David

^^ They're not better as neither will win!  Even though they are technically better, they still have problems to Iron out. Korea is only bidding for 2022 and lacks the 80,000 needed for the final, Tokyo is hoping for a successful 2016 Olympics bid so it can build it's new 100,000 seater stadium, a stadium that won't go ahead if the Olympic bid is lost.

So technically the can host, but are in similar boats with Australia, only less troublesome (We lack the lower capacity venues, they got no 80,000+ stadiums).


----------



## boyerling3

What do y'all think about Indonesia's chances? They've got quite a bit of oil money. It would also be the first Muslim nation to host a WC.


----------



## -Corey-

I think 2018 will be for England and 2022 for the US.


----------



## hngcm

boyerling3 said:


> What do y'all think about Indonesia's chances? They've got quite a bit of oil money. It would also be the first Muslim nation to host a WC.


1 in 248958934895. 

USA and Australia are miles ahead in infrastructure.


----------



## Lord David

hngcm said:


> 1 in 248958934895.
> 
> USA and Australia are miles ahead in infrastructure.


True, yet The Age noted how even Indonesia, in spite of a lack of infrastructure, disregarding other concerns, has government approval for the construction of stadiums for the WC.


----------



## SASH

I hope and I think it will be Holland/Belgium!


----------



## TEBC

pool by year

2018
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=971028


2022
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=43945482#post43945482


----------



## hugenholz

I don't think England will get another big event next to the Olympics in such a short time. They have the best venues atm though. The WC 2018 should be held in the low countries. For the first time a world championship tournament in the Netherlands would be a great reward for the beautifull attacking football Holland showed in the last decade.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

hugenholz;43959198[B said:


> ]For the first time a world championship tournament in the Netherlands would be a great reward for the beautifull attacking football Holland showed in the last decade.[/[/B]QUOTE]
> 
> By your logic, then the WC should go for Cameroon/ Nigeria/ Ghana who have played the most attacking fooball. :banana::banana::banana:Grow up buddy.


----------



## danVan

hugenholz said:


> I don't think England will get another big event next to the Olympics in such a short time. .


Brasil just got them.


----------



## Ganis

Im changing my vote for England. It just seems proper that they get one in the modern age.


----------



## Prof_Von_Nuzzlebrush

england 2018
australia 2022


----------



## A340-500

antriksh_sfo said:


> By your logic, then the WC should go for Cameroon/ Nigeria/ Ghana who have played the most attacking fooball. :banana::banana::banana:Grow up buddy.


Yeah right, comparing the inventor of Total Football with 3rd world countries, come on.... The Netherlands national football team is ranked 2nd on both FIFA and Elo-rankings almost all the time. It's one of the best football countries around like Italy, Brazil, Germany, France, England, Argentina and Spain. Only difference, they never got the chance to organize a WC.

It's our turn now.


----------



## Livno80101

hugenholz said:


> I don't think England will get another big event next to the Olympics in such a short time. They have the best venues atm though. The WC 2018 should be held in the low countries. For the first time a world championship tournament in the Netherlands would be a great reward for the beautifull attacking football Holland showed in the last decade.


hahahaha, then Bosnia can be host, as best scoring country in current qualifiers alongside Spain (21 goals in 8 matches).................Holland will never get world cup, never, they are too small country and their chances are like Qatar's.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

The Netherlands is a part of Europe though. You can easily take a jet or train from England, France, or Germany amongst other European nations. It's not like Australia and sits all by its self in the middle of the ocean with the closest countries being Indonesia, New Zealand and PNG.

The Netherlands is quite capable of hosting a WC ~ I'm not sure of the current state of infrastructure, though as a highly competitive football nation I'm sure they would have some stadiums adequate of hosting a WC.


----------



## A340-500

Livno80101 said:


> hahahaha, then Bosnia can be host, as best scoring country in current qualifiers alongside Spain (21 goals in 8 matches).................Holland will never get world cup, never, they are too small country and their chances are like Qatar's.


Too small?!?!?

The BeNeLux (The Low Countries) is the 11th economy in the world with a population of only 27 million, just after Spain and before Canada. It could easily be the most wealthy region on this planet.

Qatar; 56th economy; population 0.8 million 

I rest my case.


----------



## omaro2266

Morocco x°)


----------



## mvictory

I don't know much about this but I remember a comment from Australias national coach, either Hiddink or Verbeek, doesn't matter which they are both from the netherlands that they hoped the Netherlands would not get the world cup because it would be bad for the national competition as it would create venues too large for the domestic league. would this be a problem?


----------



## A340-500

Not really, for instance, Feyenoord has proposed a new stadium because the Kuip is getting to old. Current capacity is about 50.000, the new stadium will be an 85.000 seater at least, at the banks of the Meuse, close to the city center. And they can easily fill that amount during regular competition matches, they have lots of fans.

Amsterdam Arena wants to expand too, from 52.000 to 75.000 or so. Even without a possible 2018 WC...

There is a demand for bigger stadiums, unregarded the 2018 WC. And don't forget; more capacity > more revenue for clubs. There are several other stadium developments in the Netherlands and Belgium, check the thread on this topic...


----------



## Wuppeltje

mvictory said:


> I don't know much about this but I remember a comment from Australias national coach, either Hiddink or Verbeek, doesn't matter which they are both from the netherlands that they hoped the Netherlands would not get the world cup because it would be bad for the national competition as it would create venues too large for the domestic league. would this be a problem?


Virtually all clubs in the highest competition in the Netherlands have plans to expand their stadium. Most of them aren't thinking about the World Cup. The teams that are thinking of the World Cup all want to expand without the World Cup. In all these cases both the teams and local city councils have the same ambitions, they are only ajusting their plans to fit in a future planning schedule and WC requirements.


----------



## JimB

hugenholz said:


> I don't think England will get another big event next to the Olympics in such a short time. They have the best venues atm though. The WC 2018 should be held in the low countries. For the first time a world championship tournament in the Netherlands would be a great reward for the beautifull attacking football Holland showed in the last decade.


Mexico City Olympic Games 1968, Mexico World Cup 1970.

Munich Olympics 1972, West Germany World Cup 1974.

USA World Cup 1994, Atlanta Olympics 1996.

Brazil World Cup 2014, Rio Olympics 2016.

All say that you are wrong - especially since there is a gap of only two years between each of the above and, by contrast, there will be a gap of six years between the London Olympics and World Cup 2018, if it comes to England.

As to Holland deserving the World Cup because of the style of football that they play, it's completely irrelevant, I'm afraid. The only relevant criteria are the relative merits of each of the bids and how well each of the bid countries plays the political game that is an inevitable part of the process.


----------



## hngcm

Belgium drags down the bid. 

No way any of the teams there need 40k+ stadiums.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

A340-500 said:


> Yeah right, comparing the inventor of Total Football with 3rd world countries, come on.......... Only difference, they never got the chance to organize a WC.
> 
> It's our turn now.


Everybody acknowledges the fact that NL is a gr8 team, but it does not mean that they need to host the Championship. Moreover why do u belittle saying III world countries, one of those won the 2016 Summer Games bid. Can u imagine Amsterdam even dreaming of the Summer bid in the real modern era, forget 1928. If Capetown, Delhi, Kualalumpur wish, they have the economic might and safe uninundated cities which are big and compact enough to host the games, *There needs to be a lot of soul searching to be done for NL which serves Food Beverages with drug/without drug in a la carte.*

So when u make comparisions pls be pragmatic, a FIFA WC is not presented to the one who was more attacking - stupid benchmark. Grow Up.
Don't belittle the rising might of the so called III world - FYI there is no III World techinically speaking pls google for the same.

*With due respect for NL, such superflous comments by a naivette guy like you really blows of the effort put in by the whole group into a questionable state. *


----------



## MoreOrLess

A340-500 said:


> Not really, for instance, Feyenoord has proposed a new stadium because the Kuip is getting to old. Current capacity is about 50.000, the new stadium will be an 85.000 seater at least, at the banks of the Meuse, close to the city center. And they can easily fill that amount during regular competition matches, they have lots of fans.
> 
> Amsterdam Arena wants to expand too, from 52.000 to 75.000 or so. Even without a possible 2018 WC...
> 
> There is a demand for bigger stadiums, unregarded the 2018 WC. And don't forget; more capacity > more revenue for clubs. There are several other stadium developments in the Netherlands and Belgium, check the thread on this topic...


My attitude to both of these is "i'll believe it when I see it".


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> My attitude to both of these is "i'll believe it when I see it".


Indeed.

I think it's a bit optimistic to suggest that Feyenoord would "easily fill" an 85,000 capacity stadium on a regular basis.

The current stadium has a capacity of 51,000 but Feyenoord's average attendances over the past ten years have ranged between 39,000 and 44,000. That's anything from 7-000 to 12,000 short of capacity.

Feyenoord could probably fill an 85,000 capacity ground for a few big games (Ajax, PSV) but, on the evidence of their current attendances, there would be huge swathes of empty seats for the less attractive games.


----------



## Wuppeltje

@JimB

*Feyenoord*
1. The old Feyenoord stadium needs to leave a huge amount of seats empty when there is a risk of supporters that want to fight (which never happens in the stadium itself, but they want to avoid that at all costs). This lowers the average attendances on structural base. 
2. Feyenoord records the number of seats that are occupied during the match. Tickets that have been sold, but where the supporter doesn't show up, is not counted. 

A match in the Kuip (Feyenoord stadium) can easily be sold out while thousands of seats are empty and therefor not recorded in the average number of attendances. Ajax does count all sold tickets.

*Average attendances*
Based on average attendances in 2008/2009 there are only 6 football competitions worldwide that have higher attendances than the highest competition (an Eredivisie match has an average of 19827 spectators) in the Netherlands. Are we combining the top 20 Dutch and Belgium teams than, the combined average attendances would be placed 5th (with 22013 spectators) worldwide. 

*Plans*
That more than half of the teams in the highest division in the Netherlands have serious plans to expand or building (those that haven't got the ambition to be a WC host stadium) a new stadium says a lot. Teams such as Feyenoord, Ajax, PSV, Twente and Heerenveen are making plans with the WC in mind, but they will also expand without a WC. Together virtually all teams have plans, because have waiting lists for supporters and/or facilities are old. 

*Popularity*
Football is very popular in the Netherlands, far more than most people seem to realise. In the Netherlands only there are 1.076.759 registered players (people that are training and playing matches every week for a club), as far as I know only Germany has the same amount of registered players per capita. In absolute numbers it still beats many nations. Clubs like Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV all have each more than a million supporters in the Netherlands. When the national team plays at a WC or an EC a huge amount of streets are turning orange in the Netherlands (and of course also the streets in the host cities) and many men and women are watching the game on TV (50% - 70% of the whole population watches live images with a market share up to 85%). 

*The Holland Belgium bid*
The bid itself based on the venues won't be the best based on the number of possible attendances for each stadium. England for example will have bigger stadiums. But the people in Belgium and the Netherlands are very motivated to host a WC. In 2000 we hosted together a succesful European Championship, for the first time 2 nations were hosting a major tournament, and the EUFA was very satisfied considering that Austria + Switzerland were allowed to host in 2008 and Poland + Ukraine in 2012. The Netherlands and Belgium are able to proof that 2 nations (as 1 organisation) are able to host a World Cup very succesful. We showed the EUFA that this can be done, and together we want to show that we can do it too for the FIFA. For many nations this can be very important, because many nations can't (at least not with white elephants) do it on their own.


----------



## JimB

Wuppeltje - I don't doubt the popularity of football in the Netherlands. Nor do I doubt the ability of the Benelux bid team to organize a fantastic World Cup, should they be given the opportunity.

I was merely casting doubt on A340-500's assertion that Feyenoord could "easily fill" an 85,000+ capacity stadium for every Eredivisie game. Feyenoord is indeed a well supported club but even taking into account the fact that the de Kuip cannot always be filled to capacity because of crowd segregation, there is a big variance in Feyenoord's average attendances over the past 10 years.

The de Kuip capacity is 51,000 but average attendances have varied between 39,000 and 44,000. Nothing wrong with that. It's still a very healthy attendance. But clearly, a significant number of games are not sold out. And since 39,000 is an average figure, it stands to reason that some games saw crowds of significantly less than that figure.

So it would seem rather optimistic to suggest that Feyenoord would suddenly be able to fill an 85K or 90K capacity stadium for every game. It's not a claim that is supported by the available facts.


----------



## Kobo

With Rio just winning the hosting rights for 2016 Olympics and already having the 2014 World Cup. Even though the 2 tournaments are not linked, with Rios win do you think that it limits the chances of England winning the right for the 2018 World Cup so to stop the next 2 Olympics and World Cups could be staged in the same 2 countries?


----------



## Wuppeltje

@JimB

As I told you before in case of the Kuip, the actual capacity is different from the capacity of the Kuip itself. The seamingly simple facts are misleading you. The capacity of the Kuip is 51.000, due to security reasons in combination of an old stadium seat layout 6.000 - 8.000 seats are left empty. The maximum capacity during many games is 43.000 - 45.000. If we are looking at the matches that are sold out, many of the matches are. Last season the average attendance was 44,044, which is pretty close to the absolutly maximum Feyenoord can have in the current stadium configurations and rols

Growing to 85.000 is a certain risk, but not unrealistic. Feyenoord supporters are considered as the most loyal supporters in the Netherlands and have a huge amount of supporters. I say that as supporter of Ajax (the biggest enemy). The number of supporters in general in the Netherlands is booming. 9 years ago the Eredivisie had an average attendance of 14.055, last season 19.789.


----------



## JimB

Wuppeltje said:


> @JimB
> 
> As I told you before in case of the Kuip, the actual capacity is different from the capacity of the Kuip itself. The seamingly simple facts are misleading you. The capacity of the Kuip is 51.000, due to security reasons in combination of an old stadium seat layout 6.000 - 8.000 seats are left empty. The maximum capacity during many games is 43.000 - 45.000. If we are looking at the matches that are sold out, many of the matches are. Last season the average attendance was 44,044, which is pretty close to the absolutly maximum Feyenoord can have in the current stadium configurations and rols
> 
> Growing to 85.000 is a certain risk, but not unrealistic. Feyenoord supporters are considered as the most loyal supporters in the Netherlands and have a huge amount of supporters. I say that as supporter of Ajax (the biggest enemy). The number of supporters in general in the Netherlands is booming. 9 years ago the Eredivisie had an average attendance of 14.055, last season 19.789.


Wuppeltje - let me say again, that I understand perfectly well that football is currently booming in Holland. And that's great.

But the facts don't lie. Over the past ten years, Feyenoord's average crowds have varied between 39K and 44K.

Even allowing for a maximum capacity of 44K for security reasons, it still means that some seasons, up to 5,000 sellable seats remain unsold on average. And because 5,000 is only an average figure, it means that there must have been significantly more than 5,000 unsold seats for some games.

I'm perfectly well aware that Feyenoord is a well supported club. And I'm more than ready to accept that they could sell out a new 60K stadium for most Eredivisie games or an 85K stadium for a few games. But I repeat: I refuse to accept A340-500's assertion that Feyenoord could "easily fill" an 85,000+ capacity stadium for every Eredivisie game. There is simply no evidence to support such a claim.


----------



## kichigai

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/...701061572.html

Stadium issue can be fixed: Ellis

Dan Silkstone
October 8, 2009

ALIVE and kicking. That was the verdict on Australia's World Cup bid from Sports Minister Kate Ellis yesterday.

Despite rumblings of discontent from within the soccer community that stadium deals upon which the bid hinges have failed to materialise amid state/federal funding wrangles, the Rudd Government's minister for sport said she was confident the apparent stalemate could be broken at the Council of Australian Governments meeting in early December.

''The Federal Government and every one of the state and territory governments through COAG signed up to support this bid and to work together to make sure we have the best bid going forward that is possible,'' Ellis said. ''And that's what we're all doing.''

At that meeting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is expected to insist on a deal with the states to finance the new stadiums and renovations needed to host the World Cup. How much - if any - of the tab the Federal Government is prepared to pick up remains a mystery.

With 12 stadiums required, each capable of holding 40,000 spectators, Australia is scrambling to find suitable venues in cities such as Perth, Adelaide, Canberra and Townsville.

Redevelopments of Subiaco and Adelaide Oval are among the likely solutions but with time running out the respective state governments are yet to commit to paying for them.

In the meantime, Australia's bid team is concentrating its lobbying efforts in Africa, with three trips scheduled to the continent in the coming three months. Football Federation Australia chief Ben Buckley will next week travel to Cairo, where FIFA delegates are gathered for the Under-20 World Cup. He will be in Nigeria next month for the Under-17 World Cup and will return to South Africa for the World Cup draw in December.

Part of the message will be about Australia's stadiums, attempting to reassure delegates that there will be no facilities problem and arguing to African delegates that a vote for Australia is a vote to further the development of the game.

If Asian and African votes can be harnessed by Australia - and it is a big if - that would leave the Australian bid with nine possible votes, given that Oceania's sole representative has already declared support. At least 13 votes are needed from the 24-member FIFA executive to win hosting rights but the multi-stage voting process means that surviving bids can pick up extra numbers as other options are eliminated.

In the lead-up to the December COAG meeting the FFA will also meet with all state premiers in coming weeks to make a last-ditch appeal for funding and to outline stadium options.

With stadium details needing to be included in a ''bid agreement'' submitted to FIFA by December 11, the Federal Government is likely to provide a guarantee to the sport's global governing body that stadium issues will be resolved.

But the issues must still be sorted out by the end of the year, to give German firm Abold - which is compiling the bid document - time to assemble a strong case.

Australia's hopes got another small nudge yesterday as FIFA powerbroker Jack Warner sharply criticised the rival English bid, saying it was not up to scratch compared with rival proposals.

There had been widespread nervousness that the US - aided by CONCACAF chief Warner - would horse trade with the English bid to share support and carve up the 2018 and 2022 events, excluding Australia.


----------



## kichigai

I don't like Australia's chances if they're thinking about including venues like the Adelaide Oval and Subiaco in their bid.


----------



## pazke

hngcm said:


> Belgium drags down the bid.
> 
> No way any of the teams there need 40k+ stadiums.


Oh I don't think that.
Teams like Anderlecht, Club Brugge and Standard (all current grounds around 30.000) need bigger grounds because they have already reached their cap. top, and have to disappoint thousand of fans not able to buy any season tickets.
Count also a new 'national' stadium in Brussel (rebuild Heyzel or next to it) and you will have already 4 stadiums with at-least +40.000 cap. urgently needed.

About the other cities (Genk-Antwerp-Charleroi-Gent) the +40.000 is very doubtfull, even 30.000 can suit in Genk and/or Antwerp, but not in Gent and Charleroi.

The Dutch/Belgian bid is already official, and these are the cities :

BELGIUM : Brussels (2?), Antwerp, Brugge, Charleroi, Gent, Genk and Luik.
HOLLAND : Eindhoven, Enschede, Heerenveen, Amsterdam (2) and Rotterdam (2)

Not sure if Brussels will have 1 or 2 new grounds.


----------



## pazke

HOL : Enschede - De Grolsch Veste - current 24.000 > plans for 40.000 expansion and maybe the requested 44.000 for WC2018









HOL : Heerenveen - Abe Lenstra Stadion - current 26.800 > plans for 40.000 or 45.000 expansion ready for WC2018









HOL : Eindhoven - Philips Stadion - current 35.000 > plans for 42.000 expansion or build a new one depending on the WC2018 bid









HOL : Amsterdam - Arena - current 51.628 > plans for 55.000 expansion by closing the corner gaps or 2 new stands behind the goal will give 65.000 
http://i44.tinypic.com/14e8dj8.jpg
or go for a third tier and 85.000 seats for WC2018









HOL : Amsterdam - ?new? - 90.000 cap? between A'dam and Almere

HOL : Rotterdam - De 'new' Kuip - 80.000 cap still to build









HOL : Rotterdam - De 'old' Kuip - 51.577 cap. will undergo a face-lift


----------



## Wuppeltje

^^

For Amsterdam the 2nd stadium that is proposed is a temperory expanded olympic stadium. Between 44.000 - 47.000.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Considering 2018 WC will go to Europe, It will have a competition between the US and Australia for 2022 WC.
Now Jack Warner is endorsing Australia, some crucial votes would go to Australia such as CAF and CONMEBOL members. Further more Bekhenbauer supports Australia. That is going to be bad for the US bid. It remains more than one year before the final decision, so everithing is possible.

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=32707

Australia can be considered as a new frontier to host a WC. The competition could be aggressive.


----------



## Gherkin

pazke said:


> HOL : Amsterdam - Arena - current 51.628...
> 
> or *go for a third tier and 85.000 seats for WC2018*



Do you have any idea of how difficult this would be!? It'd be hard enough in a lego stadium let alone the real thing! Unless a stadium is built in such a way that new stands can be added, it is extremely difficult, not to mention expensive, to extend stand sizes


----------



## Wuppeltje

^^

Difficult and expensive but possible. They won't make a full third tier though, because they think it will be too much for Ajax. For Ajax they are thinking about +/- 65.000 at the moment.


----------



## hugenholz

There are detailed plans for a third tier of the Amsterdam ArenA. 
Estimated costs: 250 milion Euro.
Developer: Arcadis

This was announced during the official presentation of the WC 2018 candidacy cities in Eindhoven november 9th.

Realistic? No. But still possible


----------



## Big Cat

*My prediction:*

1. The 2018 bid will go to Europe - *Russia*.

2. The 2022 bid will go to *Australia*.


----------



## mattec

Big Cat said:


> *My prediction:*
> 
> 1. The 2018 bid will go to Europe: *England or Russia.*
> 
> 2. The 2022 bid will go to *Australia or Indonesia*.


Indonesia??

first time I've heard that one


----------



## Big Cat

I know, I am just making a bold shot


----------



## poxuy

Big Cat said:


> *My prediction:*
> 
> 1. The 2018 bid will go to Europe: *England or Russia.*
> 
> 2. The 2022 bid will go to *Australia or Indonesia*.


I practically agree, but with all respect to Indonesia, they are not "ready" to host biggest football event in 2022. Not because of infrastructure or finances. But because they are not among football nations on that moment (#127 in FIFA rating). But it doesn't mean that they will not host WC later. Australia, as I think, is 99% winner.


----------



## Big Cat

Ok, I am making the final correction to my prediction: 

1. The 2018 bid will go to Europe - *Russia*.

2. The 2022 bid will go to *Australia*.


----------



## mattec

I wouldn't be suprised if the US and England work out some backroom deal to get england 2018 and the usa 2022


----------



## Kjello0

2018: England (Even if they don't have the best bid, they got the most support)
2022: Australia or US
2026: US or Australia
2030: Uruguay/Argentina
2034: Europe
2038: Asia
2042: Africa 
2046: Americas
2050: Europe

With Europe hosting every third world cup, Europe would have gotten 2018 and then 2030. But the fact that it will be 100 years since the first world cup will give Uruguay the world cup in 2030. And lead Europe to wait until 2034. I also think the fact that Uruguay will need Argentina as cohosts opens for joint bids on a regular basis. And hence that either BeNeLux or Iberia will host in 2034. And with joint bids being regular I think that three way bids will be allowed under the right circumstances after a while.


----------



## hngcm

I don't think that Uruguay and Argentina combined can build 12 WC worthy stadiums...

Only 3 stadiums can be used between Buenos Aires and Montevideo.


----------



## Aka

Kjello0 said:


> With Europe hosting every third world cup


Na. There'll be a World Cup in Europe every 8 years.


----------



## bigbossman

Aka said:


> Na. There'll be a World Cup in Europe every 8 years.


as it should be...!!


----------



## Kjello0

Aka said:


> Na. There'll be a World Cup in Europe every 8 years.


FIFA has already stoped that. As you know the rules now is that no country can bid if the confederation has hosted one of the past two world cups. Meaning no confederation can host the world cup more often than every 12 years. However, as I think Uruguay/Argentina will get 2030, it will be 16 years between two world cups in Europe.


----------



## Aka

With time I believe even that will end, the same way as the rotation system.


----------



## Kjello0

hngcm said:


> I don't think that Uruguay and Argentina combined can build 12 WC worthy stadiums...
> 
> Only 3 stadiums can be used between Buenos Aires and Montevideo.


The World Cup can be hosted with 10 venues. Just like in South Africa next year. 
Uruguay can host 4 venues, while Argentina take 6 or 8 venues. And when was the last time any country didn't have to renovate or build new stadiums to host the World Cup? Even Germany used 6,6 billion $ on their stadiums.


----------



## Kjello0

Aka said:


> With time I believe even that will end, the same way as the rotation system.


The only reason the rotation system was stoped was becouse Brazil became the only bid for 2014. With the current system that won't happen as there are always three confederations allowed to bid. Compared to only one confederation with the rotation system.


----------



## hngcm

Kjello0 said:


> The World Cup can be hosted with 10 venues. Just like in South Africa next year.
> Uruguay can host 4 venues, while Argentina take 6 or 8 venues. And when was the last time any country didn't have to renovate or build new stadiums to host the World Cup? Even Germany used 6,6 billion $ on their stadiums.


Uruguay has no need for even 4 45k+ stadiums. 

Besides the Centenario, the next largest is a 30k stadium, followed by a couple of 25k stadiums...


----------



## Kjello0

And does South Africa need 10 venues of 40 000 plus?
Does Poland and Ukraine need 4 venues each of 30 000 plus?
Did Switzerland and Austria need 4 venues each of 30 000 plus?
Did Portugal need 8 venues of 30 000 plus?
Did Japan and South Korea need 10 venues each of 40 000 plus?
The answer is probably no to all those questions. 

If every country hosting the World Cup or Euro should need stadiums of that size on a regular basis we are limiting the number of possible hosts to a minimum. 

Anyways, Uruguay and Argintina is preparing a joint bid for 2030. The bid is supported by CONMEBOL and FIFA has stated that they are positive to a such idea. And if they actually end up bidding that will probably give Uruguay the World Cup in 2030 no matter what the needs are afterwards.


----------



## SSE

Kjello0 said:


> And does South Africa need 10 venues of 40 000 plus?
> Does Poland and Ukraine need 4 venues each of 30 000 plus?
> Did Switzerland and Austria need 4 venues each of 30 000 plus?
> Did Portugal need 8 venues of 30 000 plus?
> Did Japan and South Korea need 10 venues each of 40 000 plus?
> The answer is probably no to all those questions.
> 
> If every country hosting the World Cup or Euro should need stadiums of that size on a regular basis we are limiting the number of possible hosts to a minimum.
> 
> Anyways, Uruguay and Argintina is preparing a joint bid for 2030. The bid is supported by CONMEBOL and FIFA has stated that they are positive to a such idea. And if they actually end up bidding that will probably give Uruguay the World Cup in 2030 no matter what the needs are afterwards.


To the nearest million:

South Africa - 49 m
Poland - 38m
Ukraine - 46m
Switzerland - 8m
Austria - 8m
Portugal - 11m
Japan - 128m
South Korea - 49m

Uruguay - 3m (of which 1m is in the capital)

There is certainly more likelihood of the stadiums being supported in the the countries you mentioned, whereas in Uruguay that's not the case.

A joint bid is certainly the only way forward, even then I imagine the bid will be quite Argentina heavy.


----------



## Kjello0

I'm of course aware of the size of the population in the different countries. But it still doesn't mean they need such big stadiums. And who says Uruguay will keep the stadiums that big afterwards? You know it's possible with temporary stands during a World Cup. It's no problem to build a 45 000 seat stadium and only keep 20 000 afterwards. Hell, London Olympic Stadium will only keep 25 000 out of 80 000 after the 2012 Olympics.

Stadiums won't be a problem for Uruguay regarding hosting a World Cup. Accomidation however, that will be a bigger problem.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ well switzerland has proven it does, Young boys, Zurich and Basel get healthy crowds especially for big games. Same for Salzburg in Austria.

Ukraine and Poland have the population to suggest they do, and given the fact that the crowsds for the three clubs with newish stadiums in ukraine have shot up it's safe to say they needed them.

In Portugal the big 3 needed them, so you can argue did Braga, Guimaraes and boavista at the time. The rest not really.

South korean and japan should never have been given the world cup and South Africa does have a football culture and big games get very big crowds!


----------



## Big Cat

*2018 World Cup bidders present cases in Cape Town*

*The nations bidding to host the 2018 World Cup have been busy promoting their campaigns in Cape Town ahead of the draw for the 2010 tournament.*

England is among the countries keen to persuade Fifa delegates that they have what it takes to stage the 2018 event.

David Beckham, a key part of England's bid team in South Africa, told the BBC: "So far it has gone well.

"The meetings I have had with delegates and officials have been very positive, but we need to carry on working hard."

Midfielder Beckham, who is hoping to be part of England manager Fabio Capello's squad for next year's finals, added: "It's just about keeping it going and not being arrogant, which is a big thing.

"Just because we are England, it does not mean that we are automatically going to get the World Cup.

"We realise that there is a lot of hard work to be done and we have to be prepared to do that."

Beckham, who admitted to being "star-struck" after meeting with Uefa president Michel Platini, added: "It would mean so much to get it.

"To have the World Cup in our country, to take my sons to the World Cup would be special and I think there are many fathers that will be thinking that."

Italian Capello also threw his weight behind the 2018 campaign, saying: "I think England is the best place to have the (2018) World Cup.

"It has fantastic stadiums and people who love football - it's the home of football."

England are one of nine bids for either the 2018 or 2022 tournaments, along with Russia, Australia, the USA, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia and joint bids from Portugal-Spain and Netherlands-Belgium. Qatar and South Korea are also making bids solely for the 2022 staging.

But there was controversy when the arrival of Luis Figo, ambassador for the Portugal-Spain campaign, interrupted the USA's video presentation of their bid.

It led to a rush of reporters and photographers leaving the USA's video right in the middle of the presentation.

"It was totally ruined," Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber said. "I think there's an element of fair-play in our sport. That was bad form."

The Portugal-Spain bid later apologised with a spokesman saying: "We are very sorry - this was not intended."

According to former Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein, England's bid remains strong despite a recent series of "own goals".

"There's a year to go," Dein told BBC Sport. "We still have a great chance."

While Beckham has brought plenty of glitz to England's bid, Dein could yet to play a key role in helping to deliver vital Fifa executive committee votes, despite not having an official role at present.

Last month Dein, who has a network of worldwide contacts, travelled to Nigeria for the Under-17 World Cup - a competition where six Fifa executive members were in attendance - following an invitation from Fifa and Confederation of African Football member Amos Adamu.

And Dein, who has been attending the Soccerex conference in South Africa, signalled that he would be willing to take on a more active role if asked by the Football Association.

"Talks are ongoing and I'm ready to help my country if called upon to do so," said Dein, who was a director of Arsenal for more than 20 years.

England's 2018 bid has suffered with its public relations and internal feuding at board level, hence Dein's reference to "own goals."

The 2018 bid team has been criticised for purchasing luxury handbags, one for the wife or partner of each of the 24 Fifa voters, with Fifa vice president Jack Warner returning the gift, describing his wife as "sacrosanct".

And Premier League chairman Sir Dave Richards resigned from the board just weeks after six other board members stood down, while Karen Brady, one of those to quit her post, has stated the bid could be derailed by "infighting".

"What's going on is heavy politics and that needs to be resolved," said Dein, who in the past has been on the Football Association's main board as well its international committee.

"It's not an easy situation. There have been a lot of changes and sadly a few own goals scored.

"It's important we start rowing to the same beat, but there are still a lot of goals to score against the opposition.

Fifa's 24-member ruling executive will choose the hosts next December. 

Link


----------



## ormey

hugenholz said:


> I don't think England will get another big event next to the Olympics in such a short time. They have the best venues atm though. The WC 2018 should be held in the low countries. For the first time a world championship tournament in the Netherlands would be a great reward for the beautifull attacking football Holland showed in the last decade.


brazil 2014 wc and rio 2016 olympics so dont rule it out


----------



## Kenni

*Los Angeles, California USA*

*For City Council World Cup is the Goal*
*LA could bend it like Beckham in 2018*
By ANNIE GEFFROY 

The *City of Angels* may have lost the competition to host the Olympics, but for the City Council an international sporting event is still the goal. 

This week the Budget and Finance Committee will motion for a bid to host the FIFA World Cup in either 2018 or 2022.

If the U.S. is chosen as the host country, approximately ten different venues will be selected to actually host matches. FIFA is currently considering 27 U.S. cities.

The last time the World Cup was in Los Angeles was in 1994 at the Rosebowl in Pasadena.

But even if *FIFA* moves on to greener fields, LA still wants a piece of the action. 

Council members would also like to be the host of the International Broadcast Center if the World Cup comes to the U.S. This would mean thousands of reporters, cameras and crew members would be in town covering matches across the nation.

Media? In LA? What else is new?

If the World Cup comes to LA, locals will have more to be excited about than the invasion of soccer superstars like David Beckham. The city of Los Angeles would see millions in much needed revenue from the tournament.

The next two World Cup tournaments are set to be South Africa (2010) and Brazil (2014).
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/sports/For-City-Council-World-Cup-is-the-Gooooal-78152287.html



*LA to submit bid to host World Cup in 2018 or 2022*

*LOS ANGELES* — The City Council has voted to submit a bid for Los Angeles to become a host city of the FIFA World Cup in 2018 or 2022.

The council voted Tuesday to submit an application but FIFA would have to choose the United States to be a host country first.

Britain, Russia and Qatar are also hoping to host world soccer's showcase event.

FIFA, the sport's international governing body, will make a decision by June 2011.

Councilman Tom LaBonge, who sponsored the motion, says Los Angeles has a great record of hosting international sporting events, including the Olympics in 1932 and 1984.

The Rose Bowl in Pasadena and Stanford Stadium in Northern California were two of six stadiums used nationwide for the 1994 World Cup.


*
Soccer Capsules: CONCACAF endorses U.S. bid to host World Cup*

November 24, 2009 12:16 AM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

*NEW YORK* — The U.S. bid to host the World Cup again in 2018 or 2022 has been endorsed by CONCACAF, football's governing body for North and Central America and the Caribbean.

Mexico withdrew its bid in September, leaving the United States as the lone contender from the Americas.

"The United States can count on the full support of CONCACAF," CONCACAF president Jack Warner said Monday.

Warner is a member of FIFA's 24-man executive committee, which will decide the 2018 and 2022 hosts in December 2010.

Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Netherlands-Belgium, Russia, and Spain-Portugal have also bid to host both World Cups, and Qatar and South Korea bid for 2022 only. England and Spain are viewed as the leading contenders to host in 2018, while the United States is viewed among the top candidates for 2022.

Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/sports/york-105456-endorses-bid.html


----------



## Kenni

^^^^ In L.A. the City Council is talking of either refurbishing/renovating the existing stadiums or building a new one.


The race is on!


----------



## OperateOnMe

Well, England definately don't need to build a new stadium and quite a few football clubs simultaneously will be able to fill them. Spain possibly too.

I am hoping Russia, don't get a look-in cause that artificial turf is rubbish and they will try and cheat the World Cup if they get it and don't rip-it-out and replace it with grass. It's a disgrace they use it to win against other nations by having an unfair advantage now and it would be less than 'fair-play' if they tried to use it to win a World Cup.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ WTF :crazy:


----------



## Bobby3

Kjello0 said:


> Did Japan and South Korea need 10 venues each of 40 000 plus?


Japan actually makes use of all but one (Miyagi) venue. Sendai won't move to Miyagi because they like their little stadium.

South Korea on the other hand...


----------



## r0w84

After a bit of crowd trouble in the West Ham and Milwall match everyonesays that would severly damage england's WC Bid. Well check this out from Brazil after a team gets relegated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqRXNKxDoTw are Brazil not holding the WC in 4 years nah?


----------



## ryebreadraz

r0w84 said:


> After a bit of crowd trouble in the West Ham and Milwall match everyonesays that would severly damage england's WC Bid. Well check this out from Brazil after a team gets relegated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqRXNKxDoTw are Brazil not holding the WC in 4 years nah?


There was a rotational policy and no competition for 2014. England is facing fierce competition, but even so, I said at the time that West Ham/Milwall wouldn't affect the bid much.


----------



## magic_johnson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9obunaoJvOo
A good vid, showcasing Australia's bid


----------



## Ceefee

magic_johnson said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9obunaoJvOo
> A good vid, showcasing Australia's bid


ah cool the one with nicole kidman. finally its on youtube!


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

^Love it! Kept giving me the shivers down my spine.


----------



## Ceefee

keep it in the commonwealth!!!
*eng 2018* (i think has it so far although sportugal and russia might prove tough but eng has it for sure you would think)
*aus: 2022* (only USA could take it away from aus well have to see how it all works out but looks like aus has gotten through the 'other football codes' battle with the anz stadium upgrade and possible new stadiums in campbelltown (NSW-4th location probable this will then be used for west tigers keeping NRL happy), perth and melbourne e-gate (rumours?)).

btw should someone remove mexico from the vote i thought their bid was canned...


----------



## Roland Brew

antriksh_sfo said:


> Hey Hey Hey cool down buddy,
> Does Melbourne have a greater than 12K indoor Swimming complex?
> 
> For Hockey, Melbourne does not have 15K main pitch.
> 
> The indoor arena at Melbourne are sufficient enough only for CWG level, cos u expect, Volleyball, Gymnastics, Basketball, Handball all greater tha 10K for finals, Note: No clubbing of venues till prelims for these events. May be u can use the indoor Velodrome for Handball finals but not the rest.
> 
> What Melbourne did in 2006 was use the Exhibition Complex thoroughly and the available Indoor arena. But for the rest of Olympic Indoor events; Judo, Taekwondo, Karate, fencing, boxing etc they need good infrastructure.
> 
> What if T20 Cricket is included in 2020 or 2024, will MCG host the Track & field events in the evening with the pitch covered and have the Cricket event in the mornings?
> 
> U could have avoided the London epic hearing, as I already warned you.
> 
> So pls don't mislead the forum by meretricrious statements. Agreed that Melbourne has good sports infrastructure, but surely not to the extent of hosting Summer Games with very low Stadium investment.
> 
> *Guys, Can we go back to the original intention of the thread FIFA WC 2018/2022.*
> Don't seem to hear anything about the European bids for a while, anyone there?


Jesus, in all my times in visiting this forum I've read a fair bit of stupid s**t but never as much as seems to come out of you. What's more, you have the same tones and tactics as the republicans, ha ha - You cockily insult people in a matter-of-fact, just telling it how I see it kind of a way, while at the same time you bend the truth for your own purposes. 

Right then, let's start debunking your bull***t. The hypothesis was that Melbourne would be able to hold the Olympic games tomorrow if it had to.

You disagree with this premise. No wait, to disagree would actually be polite and that's not like you. You slam this notion. But you don't actually point out why nor BACK UP any of your claims with that little thing called evidence. You throw words around as if you know what you're talking about, i.e. "*The indoor arena at Melbourne* are sufficient enough only for CWG level, cos u expect, Volleyball, Gymnastics, Basketball, Handball all greater tha 10K for finals...". 

Which Melbourne Arena are you referring to exactly? Maybe one of these:

The MCG. Capacity: 100,000









Etihad Stadium. Retractable roof. Capacity: 56,347









Olympic Park Stadium. Capacity: 18,500









Melbourne Rectangular Stadium. Capacity: 31,500. To be completed 2010. It'll look like this:









So far it looks like this:









Rod Laver Arena. Retractable roof. Capacity: 16,820









Vodafone Arena. Retractable roof. Capacity: 11,000. 









I should say at this point that this is where the Basketball finals for the Commonwealth Games (held in Melbourne in 2006) were played. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Commonwealth_Games) 

At the 2012 olympics the basketball and handball finals will be held at the Basketball Arena: 12,000 capacity. Only 1000 people more than Melbourne(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2012_Summer_Olympics_venues)

Here' a look at Melbourne Sports Precinct. As you can see most of the venues are walking distance from each other. And from the CBD.




















> Does Melbourne have a greater than 12K indoor Swimming complex?


The Melbourne Aquatic Centre includes seating for around 5,000 with temporary seats boosting the total capacity to over 10,000 as was the case for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

By the way, where did you get 12k figure from? Did you just pull that figure out of your ars*? What does it matter anyway if 10k would be more than enough. 

The Aquatics Centre in London, which will host diving, swimming, synchronised swimming and water polo and will have a spectator capacity of 17,500 for swimming and diving. After the games it'll go back to 2.500 seats.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatics_Centre_(London))



> For Hockey, Melbourne does not have 15K main pitch.


Neither does London. London's Olympic Hockey Centre will be built in the Olympic Park at Stratford in East London. It will have two venues for the Olympic hockey competition at the 2012 Summer Olympics with capacities of 15,000 and 5,000 respectively. After the games the hockey centre will be scaled down to a 5,000 seat arena and a training pitch and moved north to Eton Manor. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Hockey_Centre_(London).

For the commonwealth games hockey was played at the State Netball and Hockey Centre, Melbourne. The main Hockey pitch is surrounded by seating areas which can accommodate temporary seating for up to 8,000 spectators.

(source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Netball_and_Hockey_Centre#Commonwealth_Games)



> What Melbourne did in 2006 was use the Exhibition Complex thoroughly and the available Indoor arena. But for the rest of Olympic Indoor events; Judo, Taekwondo, Karate, fencing, boxing etc they need good infrastructure.


Says who? Why?

(For the London Olympics) The ExCeL Exhibition Centre [will be used] for boxing, fencing, judo, table tennis, taekwondo, weightlifting, and wrestling. Four separate arenas will be used with capacities between 6,000 and 10,000.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2012_Summer_Olympics_venues)

Mm... I guess using an Exhibition Centre is not such a bad idea. Certainly, if it's good enough for London then it's good enough for Melbourne...

Melbourne Exhibition Centre.











> What if T20 Cricket is included in 2020 or 2024, will MCG host the Track & field events in the evening with the pitch covered and have the Cricket event in the mornings?


Oopsy, Daisy... Now you've done it. Yep, by being so preocuppied with coming across like a person who knows what he's talking about, you've actually let the cat out of the bag, ha ha...

Out of all the cities in the world, there's probably no better city prepared to host multiple, repeat, multiple cricket matches in first rate venues with large seating capacities than Melbourne. I guess you don't know that Australian football (AFL) which was created and has its spiritual home in Melbourne is actually played on cricket ovals. 

Idiot.



> So pls don't mislead the forum by meretricrious statements. Agreed that Melbourne has good sports infrastructure, but surely not to the extent of hosting Summer Games with very low Stadium investment


Mm... I guess you mean meretricious. But you know what's funny about you using that word? Check out the dictionary definition:

mer⋅e⋅tri⋅cious  /ˌmɛrɪˈtrɪʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mer-i-trish-uhs] 

adjective 

1. alluring by a show of flashy or vulgar attractions; tawdry. 
2. based on pretense, deception, or insincerity. 
3. pertaining to or characteristic of a prostitute 

Sounds like a perfect description of you. I couldn't have put it better myself.



> Guys, Can we go back to the original intention of the thread FIFA WC 2018/2022


The only thing that you wrote that comes close to making any sense.




My apologies, I know that this post is a little off topic but this dude has been talking sh*t for so long that I just had to reply.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

^^ and a good reply at that!

Anyway, why do people feel the need to compare London to Melbourne? London should have greater sporting infrastructure then Melbourne when it comes to sport. Population of 12,875,000 vs. that of 3,892,419. Last I checked, Melbourne was still the sporting capital of the world, and held the first summer games in Australia, and the Southern Hemisphere.


----------



## Ceefee

BACK TO THE BIDS!!! anyone know what the fifa regards as too close for previous cups i ask in terms of the usa bid as it hosting the 1994 cup is supposedly a major detriment to its bid proposal????


----------



## RobH

Of course it's the biggest hurdle to the USA. 24 years for a country where football is the fourth sport at best seems close for many. The USA and their bid has a huge amount going for it, but without a convincing answer as to why they should get the chance again, so soon, it might flounder.


----------



## eomer

- 2018: must be in Europe (England or UK ?)
- 2022: North America (USA ? Canada ?)
- 2026: Australia 
- 2030: Uruguay/Argentina
But 3 World Cups outside Europe.....


----------



## 1772

RobH said:


> Of course it's the biggest hurdle to the USA. 24 years for a country where football is the fourth sport at best seems close for many. The USA and their bid has a huge amount going for it, but without a convincing answer as to why they should get the chance again, so soon, it might flounder.


- The best stadiums
- The biggest amount of people will be able to see it
- Best accomodations
- Best communications 
- Souring market for the game

I actully can't think of a better host.


----------



## Ceefee

eomer said:


> - 2018: must be in Europe (England or UK ?)
> - 2022: North America (USA ? Canada ?)
> - 2026: Australia
> - 2030: Uruguay/Argentina
> But 3 World Cups outside Europe.....


china??? surely they would get the WC if and when they wanted it i heard they were thinking 2026... depends on where 2018/2022 go.

also on 1772 post, yes USA is a very good bet but isnt it part of fifa's 'vision' to expand the game and seeing as they will get huge money from the next few cups due to proximity to european timezone and the income from a probable european bid they will be able to overlook the financial gains of the tournament and look out to bring the game to new people in 2022. really comes down to money or spread the game? usa or aus???


----------



## Capital78

I'm not sure about 2018, but 2022 has to be organized in Australia.


----------



## RobH

1772 said:


> - The best stadiums
> - The biggest amount of people will be able to see it
> - Best accomodations
> - Best communications
> - Souring market for the game
> 
> I actully can't think of a better host.


Yes, that's all very well and that will _always_ be true of the US. But that misses the point I was trying to make. The US could've said the same if they bidded for 2010, but everyone would obviously consider that too soon after '94.

Showing 2018/22 is _not_ too soon is a question the US has to answer, not avoid, and they need to invoke more than technical criteria in answering this question. The IOC passed up a US bid (Chicago 2016) that was offering all the things you mentioned. Who's to say FIFA won't be charmed by the Ozzies for 2022, a first time host in a reasonably exotic location? Who's to say intangibles, the spirit of a world cup Down Under, won't trump the US' technical offerings? The US has a great technical base to build on, but that mightn't be enough on its own.

As for saying "I can't think of a better host", well, plenty can. Better, best etc are all very subjective.

'94 is a hurdle as well as, of course, a huge plus. The US needs to prove 2018/22 is not too soon to host again, and merely citing its technical strengths, such an obvious given for any US sporting bid, doesn't do this. Not for me anyway.


----------



## hngcm

2022 is 28 years after 1994, I don't think that's too close. 

I think a China bid could easily trump the USA's bid, but an OZ bid full of barely 40k stadiums and a bunch of ovals...


----------



## Shumbi

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 China
2030 Argentina/Uruguay

2018 is definitely going to Europe and is between England and Russia with England strong favorites.
China 2026 is huge and if they decide to bid for it then USA will be given 2022 by FIFA over Australia to allow China to host 2026. If China doesn't want 2026 then Australia has a chance of getting 2022 otherwise FIFA will love the lucrative prospect of hosting in USA followed by China guaranteeing huge profits.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Here's my thinking:

2018 Belgium/Netherlands (to the shock of many!)
2022 Australia
2026 Russia or Turkey
2030 Argentina/Uruguay (this would be more about the celebration of football than about money!)


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 Australia
2022 Russia
2026 Egypt
2030 Argentina/Uruguay


----------



## Ahmad Rashid Ahmad

England 2018
&
Australia 2022


----------



## Shumbi

As lucrative as European world cups are, FIFA wants to grow the game and consolidate new markets with USA and Asia as the final obstacles to world domination. Returning to Europe every 8 years is not good for the growth strategy. I see the present hosting rules persisting for a long time. Europe every 12 years. 

USA hosting in 2022 will do wonders for the development of the game there. China in 2026 gives them time to improve the national team with under 10's today in training to lift the trophy for China. India may become a target in the 2030's but cricket is the oxygen of the average Indian. 

Would love to see Australia get 2022 but that would piss off USA who might be placated with 2026 but China wouldn't be able to bid until 2034. Can't see FIFA doing all this for Australia's tiny market.


----------



## Ceefee

^^yeah it really comes down to china's decision for 2026 ,even though i havent heard much news from them as being interested as yet, although for the 2000 olympics it came down to beijing and sydney and as you (should) know sydney won so the little guy can overcome huge odds.


----------



## Capital78

I wouldn't put Argentina and Uruguay together. I think more realistic option is Argentina and Chile as joined candidature.


----------



## Selcuk

2018 EUROPE - England
2022 ASIA - China
2026 NORTH AMERICA - USA
2030 EUROPE - Russia or Spain
2034 OCEANIA - Australia
2038 SOUTH AMERICA 
2042 EUROPE
2046 AFRICA
2050 ASIA
2054 EUROPE


----------



## 1772

USA FTW!


----------



## GunnerJacket

Capital78 said:


> I wouldn't put Argentina and Uruguay together. I think more realistic option is Argentina and Chile as joined candidature.


I think the notion is purely sentimental, since Uruguay held the first 2 World Cups but otherwise could never host the modern event on their own. Thus, allow them a venue (or two) and some publicity as kind of an honorarium for their role in the history of the event.


----------



## RobH

Selcuk said:


> 2018 EUROPE - England
> *2022 ASIA - China*
> 2026 NORTH AMERICA - USA
> 2030 EUROPE - Russia or Spain
> 2034 OCEANIA - Australia
> 2038 SOUTH AMERICA
> 2042 EUROPE
> 2046 AFRICA
> 2050 ASIA
> 2054 EUROPE


That's clever, China is not bidding for this event!


----------



## paradyto

Balaputradewa said:


>


yeah!! hope 2022 for Indonesia!!:cheers:


----------



## Wezza

Shumbi said:


> 2018 England
> 2022 USA
> 2026 China
> 2030 Argentina/Uruguay
> 
> 2018 is definitely going to Europe and is between England and Russia with England strong favorites.
> China 2026 is huge and if they decide to bid for it then USA will be given 2022 by FIFA over Australia to allow China to host 2026. If China doesn't want 2026 then Australia has a chance of getting 2022 otherwise FIFA will love the lucrative prospect of hosting in USA followed by China guaranteeing huge profits.


China would need to get their butt into gear if that is to be the case, the 2018/2022 bid winners are announced at the end of this year. China hasn't shown any interest in bidding for 2026 thus far.


----------



## Joop20

Chimbanha said:


> If FIFA wants Europe in 2026, they'll change the rules, they have already done it twice this decade. Otherwise, whoever loses 2022 (U.S. or Australia) gets 2026.
> 
> We've been having the Uruguay x Argentina discussion in another forum, they can't do it. Specially if FIFA does not change the rules and 2030 may go to Europe. Argentina would have to evolve A LOT in one decade in order to be able to defeat the European bids and be elected hosts. And Uruguay is a country of 3 million, they would probably have only one host city (Montevideu), and they would have to turn Centenário into a world-class 80,000 seater. They'd have more than a full plate with just that much.
> 
> In my opinion, joint bids should always be balanced. Poland and Ukraine? Great. Colombia and Peru? Good. Argentina and Uruguay? No way. I don't have an argument for this though, it's just that it's weird :nuts:


Don't agree with you that Uruguay / Argentina 2030 can't be done. It's still 20 years from now! I mean, Brazil isn't ready for its world cup yet by any means at the moment, they still have to do most of the work, and they have a lot less then 20 years. 

Like you say, there's no argument for joint bids having to be balanced  I don't see a problem with Argentina having 8 or 10 stadiums and Uruguay only having 2 stadiums in a world cup bid.... And I'm sure Uruguay could manage upgrading Centenario stadium!


----------



## Shumbi

Wezza said:


> China would need to get their butt into gear if that is to be the case, the 2018/2022 bid winners are announced at the end of this year. China hasn't shown any interest in bidding for 2026 thus far.


Not China's style to make their intentions known to everyone. They may well have already made their intentions clear to the decision makers in FIFA with regards to a 2026 bid. This is however pure speculation and hopefully not the case. My hope is that FIFA gives Australia 2022 and 2026 goes to USA. China can bid for 2034.


----------



## hngcm

My hope is that China announces their intention to bid for 2026 before FIFA makes a decision on 2018/2022.


----------



## Wezza

Not gonna happen. China will not bid for 2026.


----------



## hngcm

Wezza said:


> Not gonna happen. China will not bid for 2026.


Umm why not?


----------



## Wezza

hngcm said:


> Umm why not?


Because i said so, that's why.


----------



## Hersenschors

FC Twente bid for Worldcup 2018...


----------



## Wezza

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 USA
> 2022 England
> 2026 Japan
> 2030 Uruguay/Argentina
> 2034 Canada
> 2038 Egypt
> 2042 Russia
> 2046 Mexico
> 2050 Brazil
> 2054 South Africa
> 2058 China
> 
> Australia will never get it. It just not poular and im an Australian saying that. 75% of all Australian don't whant it it just Kevin Rudd whants it. Soccer sadia avage cap is 25,000 and most of the time it's have empty AFL is the best sport in Australia Go the Western Bulldogs.


LOL, give me a break. :lol: :nuts: Take your anti-football & pro AFL agenda elsewhere.


----------



## Walbanger

Mate don't bother. Matthew Lowry is just having a bit of pointless fun, he's doing the same thing in the Olympics thread.
As for the AFL it's pretty clear that you don't care for the code Wezza but many of its fans such as myself would love to host the FIFA WC. Hell in WA, hosting the WC would probably be the only thing that gets us a new stadium. WA is the richest state in the nation and all we ever hear is that the State Gov can't afford a new Stadium.


----------



## reda2casa

CaliforniaJones said:


> Look at this !
> http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...99/74/80/20182022invitationtobidcirculare.pdf
> 
> It's the rule from FIFA.
> Morocco would have lots of works to do.


i believed you! yet it seems to me exaggerated ! thanks Gadiri for bringing more details !
since we're in africa and if the bid will take account again on the continent aspect, we'll get it for sure ! its' to other africans (maybe egypt, nigeria or algeria, tunisia, angola) to do a lots of works in order to compete.


----------



## Wezza

Walbanger said:


> Mate don't bother. Matthew Lowry is just having a bit of pointless fun, he's doing the same thing in the Olympics thread.
> As for the AFL it's pretty clear that you don't care for the code Wezza but many of its fans such as myself would love to host the FIFA WC. Hell in WA, hosting the WC would probably be the only thing that gets us a new stadium. WA is the richest state in the nation and all we ever hear is that the State Gov can't afford a new Stadium.


Well there should be more like you. It's just a pity that alot of AFL fans & management are doing their best to bring down our bid. hno:


----------



## cesar 15




----------



## cesar 15

nuevo de las chivas


----------



## cesar 15




----------



## cesar 15

casi terminado


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 USA
2022 England
2026 South Korea
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Canada
2038 South Africa
2042 Italy
2046 Australia
2050 Mexico


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 USA
> 2022 England
> 2026 South Korea
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Canada
> 2038 South Africa
> 2042 Italy
> 2046 Australia
> 2050 Mexico


Canada before Australia? :lol: South Africa another time before Australia? :lol: Korea again, yet no China? :lol:


----------



## jarkti

Wezza said:


> Well there should be more like you. It's just a pity that alot of AFL fans & management are doing their best to bring down our bid. hno:


Theres plnety like him, I've loved AFL my whole life, and would love for Australia to host the WC, and if that means missing out of a whole season of AFL wouldnt bother me.

I dont just want it so Perth gets another stadium, theres so much that comes out of it, Id much rather Perth get a 45,000+ seat rectangle stadium then an oval one that gets converted. 



Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 USA
> 2022 England
> 2026 South Korea
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Canada
> 2038 South Africa
> 2042 Italy
> 2046 Australia
> 2050 Mexico


Are you all there? :lol:
ps. your team sucks (Y)


For me
2018: England
2022: Australia


----------



## rus

Gadiri said:


> Next country in Africa will be Morocco. We have 3 new stadiums up 45 000 opened in 2010 (Agadir, Marrakech, Tangier extainable to 69 000). And 3 stadiums already built. Casablanca 65 000, Rabat 60 000, and Fes 45 000.
> 
> International airport in each cities, highways between each cities, good hotels, and speed french train TGV (320km/h) between Tangier, Rabat and Casablanca in 2015, and planified until 2030 between all world cup cities.
> 
> We just need 3 new stadiums, and more modern hospitals.


Enough with Africa, rest 100 years of football. Your wuzuvels after the Confederations Cup at all in the liver. Center of football in Europe, so every second World Cup we should have:
2018 RUSSIA (Great football country (the first European champion in 1960, vice-champion of Euro 64, 72, 88, 3 place EURO 2008, 4 th Euro 68 and 4 th place at World Cup 1966 in England) had not yet taken WC
2022
2026 England
2030
2034 Spain
2038
2042 Italy
2046
2050 Germany
2058
2062 Scandinavia(Swenen, Norway and Danmark)
2066
2070 Ucraine
2074
2078 Nederlands\Belgium
2082
2086 Bulgaria\Romania
2090
2094 Poland
2098 ...Africa


----------



## love-qatar

Indoneisa is out of the bid


----------



## -Corey-

jarkti said:


> Theres plnety like him, I've loved AFL my whole life, and would love for Australia to host the WC, and if that means missing out of a whole season of AFL wouldnt bother me.
> 
> I dont just want it so Perth gets another stadium, theres so much that comes out of it, Id much rather Perth get a 45,000+ seat rectangle stadium then an oval one that gets converted.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you all there? :lol:
> ps. your team sucks (Y)
> 
> 
> For me
> 2018: England
> 2022: Australia


Australia before the US. I doubt it.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

love-qatar said:


> Indoneisa is out of the bid


Do you have the link please ?
Is Indonesia retiring from the race ?

I know Indonesia bid have problems.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

-Corey- said:


> Australia before the US. I doubt it.


Me too.
Australia should resolve the problem with rival leagues about stadiums in the bid. The have not announced their list.

Let's wait the bid books on may.


----------



## love-qatar

CaliforniaJones said:


> Do you have the link please ?
> Is Indonesia retiring from the race ?
> 
> I know Indonesia bid have problems.


i have it in arabic from the news paper but i dont any english link sorry


----------



## RobH

It's as good as dead:
*
Government denies backing Indonesia World Cup bid*
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/171918/government-denies-backing-indonesia-world-cup-bid


----------



## Oceano

There are also problems with Portugal gov't.
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/122550,minister-critical-of-portugals-efforts.aspx


----------



## GunnerJacket

Oceano said:


> There are also problems with Portugal gov't.
> http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/122550,minister-critical-of-portugals-efforts.aspx


A weak journalistic effort, IMO. 1-2 comments from a Spanish official suggesting his Portuguese counterparts aren't as enthusiastic combined with a line about Portugal not committing to upgrading their stadiums is hardly a row among factions. Frankly the only venues Portugal have worthy of the event are already as suitable as they'll ever need to be; Further sprucing up some venue like Braga or Alaves would be a bad investment. 

The Spanish should instead focus on their own concerns. Valencia's new home will obviously be completed someday but some of the other proposals are beginning to take on the same ethereal nature as Liverpool's Stanley Park proposal - Great ideas with limited realities at this moment. :bash:


----------



## Aka

Oceano said:


> There are also problems with Portugal gov't.
> http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/122550,minister-critical-of-portugals-efforts.aspx


The Portuguese Government was very clear since the beginning: not even a cent spent on stadiums.

So what's the problem now? Especially from an asshole who said "FIFA are not interested in a cold World Cup". Now that's a good way of getting sympathy. Won't those guys ever learn why their Euro 2004 bid lost?


----------



## Walbanger

> Especially from an asshole who said "FIFA are not interested in a cold World Cup"


Agreed, so Russia won't be as warm as Iberia, who cares. Say 16 to 20 degrees in a Russian Summer, thats awesome for Soccer. Does that guy realise that this years WC is being played in the host Country's winter?


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 USA
2022 England
2026 South Korea
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Australia
2038 Russia
2042 Canada


----------



## Oceano

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 USA
> 2022 England
> 2026 South Korea
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Australia
> 2038 Russia
> 2042 Canada


Why do you write it every day?


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

rus said:


> Enough with Africa, rest 100 years of football. Your wuzuvels after the Confederations Cup at all in the liver. Center of football in Europe, so every second World Cup we should have:
> 2018 RUSSIA (Great football country (the first European champion in 1960, vice-champion of Euro 64, 72, 88, 3 place EURO 2008, 4 th Euro 68 and 4 th place at World Cup 1966 in England) had not yet taken WC
> 2022
> 2026 England
> 2030
> 2034 Spain
> 2038
> 2042 Italy
> 2046
> 2050 Germany
> 2058
> 2062 Scandinavia(Swenen, Norway and Danmark)
> 2066
> 2070 Ucraine
> 2074
> 2078 Nederlands\Belgium
> 2082
> 2086 Bulgaria\Romania
> 2090
> 2094 Poland
> 2098 ...Africa


2098.......?? I'm older..... over...!!


----------



## bigbossman

Walbanger said:


> Agreed, so Russia won't be as warm as Iberia, who cares. Say 16 to 20 degrees in a Russian Summer, thats awesome for Soccer. Does that guy realise that this years WC is being played in the host Country's winter?


It gets a lot hotter than that in Russia. the average high in Moscow is around 23 degrees with it getting as high as the mid 30s. It gets cold in winter but very hot in summer.

They have stadiums in even hotter areas, Sochi is subtropical in the summer nudging 40, 27 on average, Samara hits those sort of temperatures too, as do a few other cities. 

These temperatures are higher than London (probably the warmest city in England's bid) which doesn't ever get that hot or that cold.


----------



## 1772

Is it really that hot in Russia in june/beginning of july? Isn't that more of a problem in august?


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 USA
2022 England
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Russia
2038 Canada


----------



## RobH

^^ Apart from Canada, that's not a bad list - though I'd swap 2018 and 2022 around.


----------



## bigbossman

3 "Anglo Saxon" World Cups in a row... I think not


----------



## 1772

bigbossman said:


> 3 "Anglo Saxon" World Cups in a row... I think not


Why would that matter?


----------



## zezin

For me football is business, and for those who do not know the crown of France (1999) Brazil lost the final in order to get this job so (dreamed) to host the cup in 2006, as then, the Brazil tava from bad to worse economically , men bad, FIFA and Ricardo Teixeira (president CBF) dreams also one day be president of FIFA (one of the greatest directors corrupt I've heard.)
ordered to the directors of the FIFA 2014 World Cup would be required in countries of South America (thus opening up an arrow to Brazil) I believe that in 2010 Brazil Cup lift her legs to get the title at home in 2014.

What I mean by that? men who run world football just want money and this race for the 2018 crown, who will be able to put more money in the bank this corrupt world.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 USA
2022 England
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Russia
2038 Mexico


----------



## Oceano

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 USA
> 2022 England
> 2026 Australia
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Russia
> 2038 Mexico


OMG... 2018 will be in Europe..


----------



## Chimbanha

1772 said:


> Why would that matter?


I think it matters. If FIFA didn't value diversity we wouldn't have the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.


----------



## 1772

Chimbanha said:


> I think it matters. If FIFA didn't value diversity we wouldn't have the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.


South Africa is more about having it on all the continents. 
But to judge a country because is happened to share the same culture as another seems far fetched.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ err South Africa is about Sepp Blatter pandering to the block vote that keeps him power


----------



## matthemod

Also, calling the U.S. an "Anglo-Saxon" nation is just hilarious. Yeah at one point, about 300 years ago.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ It's about culture not an ethnicity. England is hardly ethnically homogenous.


----------



## kerouac1848

The whole Anglo-Saxon thing is overblown by the media and government. The US and UK are very different from each other, although if you only spent 2 weeks in London or Florida you wouldn't really notice that much. IMO, the countries culturally and socially closest to Britain are Ireland, Australia, NZ and France, probably in that rough order (don't laugh at the last one). Canada and Germany at a push. 

I think it was Churchill (could be wrong) who said no two nations which speak the same language are as different as Britain and America.


----------



## hngcm

RobH said:


> The IOC comes in for much criticism over its bid process, but compared to FIFA's theirs is slick and efficient and well managed. Why can't FIFA manage something like this? Why do they move the goalposts halfway through?
> 
> I'm personally of the opinion that this particular change won't make a huge difference as I've always seen this as a race between Europe and a race between the others. But it's poor that FIFA can't stick to their own rules.


I think it's to make the voting process easier. 

Cuz otherwise you'll need like 239848 rounds to get a winner.


----------



## UTOPIA_07

My vote England and Australia...


----------



## clnense

2018 Australia
2022 England
2026 Mexico
2030 China


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay and Argentina. Uruguay to mark the 100th year of the FIFA world cup
2034 Russia
2038 Mexico
2042 Africa
2046 Italy
2050 Brazil
2054 China


----------



## Hansadyret

2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 Russia
2030 USA
2034 China


----------



## qwersdf

2018 Russia
2022 Indonesia


----------



## 1772

qwersdf said:


> 2018 Russia
> *2022 Indonesia*


Seriously?


----------



## RobH

Indonesia won't get it qwersdf. They have ZERO government guarantees. These are required by FIFA.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/12/2818589.htm


----------



## catarzynca

2018: England
2022: Quatar (first Arabic country, but it's not too small? Only 1 mln people, it's better doing it with Saudi Arabia) or Indonesia
2026: Australia
2030: Mexico
2034: Poland & Czech Republic
2038: Egypt
2042: China
2046: Argentina
2050: Italy
2054: USA


----------



## 863552

^^

The US won't wait that long.


----------



## kerouac1848

Personally, I prefer it if the WC goes to football countries, so I wouldn't really want the US or Australia to get it at this stage (if things change then that is different). However, they appear the only capable hosts for 2022 (assuming it is a choice between non-European nations) so I’m backing Australia since the US had it as recently as 1994. It would be a joke having it there again in less than 30 years. Oh and Mexico wasn’t meant to have ’86, Colombia was before someone mentions that.


----------



## plph56

I can't wait for the World Cup to start.


----------



## magic_johnson

> http://m.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/...0301-pdnm.html
> Geelong could be in cup mix
> PETER KER March 02, 2010
> AUSTRALIA'S bid for the soccer World Cup should ignore Etihad Stadium and instead take matches to a freshly expanded Skilled Stadium in Geelong, according to the Victorian Government.
> After months of controversy over the availability of stadiums for Australia's 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids, the Brumby Government has called for Skilled Stadium to be renovated to international standards and expanded to hold 44,000 spectators.
> The plan follows months of heated exchange involving AFL boss Andrew Demetriou, Etihad Stadium's Ian Collins and Football Federation Australia.
> The proposal, which crucially does not come with a promise of funding from the Brumby Government, would result in Skilled Stadium complementing the MCG in hosting World Cup matches in Victoria, leaving Etihad to host AFL matches.
> The State Government's submission is one of many that will be taken on board by FFA, which will finalise its World Cup bid for FIFA later this year.
> If FFA adopts the Geelong proposal and Australia is awarded hosting rights for the World Cup, various stakeholders would then begin talks over how to pay for the Skilled Stadium upgrades. The World Cup is held during June and July, meaning the Australian bid must juggle clashes with AFL and rugby codes for use of stadiums such as Etihad.
> Etihad boss Collins could not be contacted yesterday, but last month said his stadium would honour its agreement with the AFL rather than pursue the World Cup. ''Our major tenant is the AFL and they have pre-emptive rights on scheduling,'' Collins said. He said the contract with the AFL would mean Etihad Stadium would be off-limits if Australia hosted the World Cup.
> Demetriou has also said if Etihad Stadium was used for World Cup matches alongside the MCG, the football season would have to be cancelled, costing the AFL hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. A World Cup in Australia would require the MCG to be closed for other sports for up to 16 weeks.
> Soccer's governing body FIFA requires all World Cup stadiums to hold at least 44,000 spectators, meaning significant funds would be required to upgrade Skilled Stadium from its current capacity of 30,000. Premier John Brumby said there were strong arguments for Geelong's inclusion.
> ''Geelong boasts transport, accommodation and links to world-class tourist destinations like the Great Ocean Road, making it an ideal location for a World Cup event,'' he said.
> But he also emphasised that the plan would be ''a great outcome for AFL clubs and AFL fans in Melbourne'', as it would allow the football season to continue at Etihad throughout the World Cup.
> The plan could also have political boons for the Government, which holds a number of vulnerable seats around Geelong. Among them is the electorate of South Barwon, held by former Geelong and Subiaco footballer Michael Crutchfield.
> AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said the league had not yet seen full details of the proposal, but was ''extremely supportive'' of Australia's World Cup bid, particularly if it could leave a legacy for the AFL in the form of improved stadiums.
> Geelong Football Club chief executive Brian Cook said the proposal was exciting for the city, even if it meant the club could be forced off its home ground for a season during construction.
> Skilled Stadium will hold 30,000 spectators this year and the club is already trying to interest stakeholders in a ''stage three'' expansion to 35,000 by 2018. Cook said he hoped to keep the existing stage-three discussions separate from any subsequent plans to take the stadium to 44,000 seats.
> Brumby was at Melbourne's new rectangular stadium yesterday, inspecting the newly laid turf. The first match at the venue is planned to be a rugby league Test between Australia and New Zealand on May 7.
> The $267.5 million stadium will host soccer, league and rugby union, but is not big enough to host World Cup games and would be used as a training venue if Australia won the cup bid.


Geelong is a city of 200,000 people an hour away from Melbourne. Skilled Stadium is currently is an oval that holds 30,000, and regularly sells out Geelong Cats AFL matches.

The far "unusual" stand in the picture is already there, and about 1/5 of the main stand.


----------



## 863552

^^

That is awesome. Though I think Etihad would be better.


----------



## magic_johnson

Solopop said:


> ^^
> 
> That is awesome. Though I think Etihad would be better.


But it does solve the problem that only one city can have two stadiums.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay/Argentina
2034 Russia
2038 Mexico


----------



## 863552

magic_johnson said:


> But it does solve the problem that only one city can have two stadiums.


I suppose and it wouldn't be as bad for the AFL.

Could the AFL use Visy Park?


----------



## PaulFCB

I hope they change the at least once every 3 tournaments/continent rule:

2018 England
2022 USA - Final New York!
2026 Spain with or without Portugal ( do they really need'em? )
2030 Argentina & Uruguay - Final at Montevideo
2034 Russia since they seem to trying hard
2038 Iran-Iraq :lol: / China / Egypt-Libya / Morocco-Algeria / Algeria-Tunisia / Australia


----------



## Ceefee

in the news i read the quote 'stats showing travellers are deterred from travelling long distances to fifa WC..decisions will need to be made'. would this seriously hinder the AUS bid?? although not all media reports are always a true indicator. however i cant/dont want to see one's geographical location hindering their bid,


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2018 England
2022 USA - Final Los Angeles
2026 China / Japan / Korea / Australia
2030 Spain / Italy
2034 Argentina
2038 Egypt / Morocco

Six bids have chosen their bid cities: England, Belgium/Netherlands, the United States, Russia, Japan and Korea. They are preparing their bid book now.
Spain/Portugal, Qatar and Australia have not chosen their bid cities. They should go hurry because it leaves two months before may 14th.
Indonesia's bid seems to be in jeopardy without government support. It's the weakest bid.


----------



## RobH

GlobeTrotter, I presume


----------



## SeñorGuillermo

2018 Australia
2022 England
2026 Mexico
2030 Argentina
2034 Russia
2038 USA

* I really hope Mexico get's to host a World Cup really soon.
Mexico has the infraestructure and the economy to do so.

Cheers.


----------



## dacrio

2018 Russia
2022 Australia

I'm sure.


----------



## ayomaju

2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 USA
2030 Russia
2034 Morocco


----------



## GunnerJacket

PaulFCB said:


> 2018 England
> 2022 USA - Final New York!
> 2026 Spain with or without Portugal ( do they really need'em? )
> 2030 Argentina & Uruguay - Final at Montevideo
> 2034 Russia since they seem to trying hard
> 2038 Iran-Iraq :lol: / China / Egypt-Libya / Morocco-Algeria / Algeria-Tunisia / Australia


I'm surprised at how many people are placing Russia amongst their projections for future hosts, yet they're ignoring another Netherlands/Belgium bid which on its face is more feasible than the Russian offering. True, in time Russia may indeed have more viable stadiums but as of today the Netherlands/Belgium bid is more realistic, more financially viable for both the governments and the fans, and the leagues stand to make better use of the finished products. To say nothing of the rabid local support.

Seriously, unless England can confirm some of the proposed improvements and new developments (Stanley Park, Elland Road, etc) then it sure seems like the quality of their bid isn't so far out of reach for the other European bids. To wit, the folks in Amsterdam, Rotterdam et al are quite deserving if they can pull off the visions for their facilities.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ceefee said:


> in the news i read the quote 'stats showing travellers are deterred from travelling long distances to fifa WC..decisions will need to be made'. would this seriously hinder the AUS bid?? although not all media reports are always a true indicator. however i cant/dont want to see one's geographical location hindering their bid,


I don't think it's so much location as it is costs vs perceived value. According to my friends in Sam's Army (US MNT supporters club) the whole of South Africa simply doesn't have the tourism appeal for how much it's going to cost them to spend 2+ weeks traveling. Cape Town is an attractive destination, but beyond that the global appeal factor drops quickly. As of last month it costs about as much to travel to Australia as it does South Africa from here in Atlanta (USA), and I feel certain that given that fact everyone I know would readily pick a trip to Australia over SA.

Yes, much of this is perception and the fine folks in South Africa is using this event (and the investment building up to same) as a chance to change this perception, but especially in this economy that's a big ask of the tourist.

Besides, didn't you see _District 9_? Who'd want to be near all those rioting aliens?!!!


----------



## RobH

_Hong Kong aspires to host the 2026 World Cup, according to Hong Kong Football Association Chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak.

Leung returned from talks with Beijing officials yesterday and told Apple Daily that a Hong Kong team will be participating in the China Football Association Super League as soon as next year. *Beijing is also gearing up to bid for the 2026 World Cup to be hosted by China.*

"We hope there's something in it for Hong Kong," said Leung.

*If Beijing is successful in its bid for the 2026 World Cup, Leung said it is highly likely that Hong Kong will become one of the hosting cities where some of the final matches can take place.* The Hong Kong Football Association is currently planning a youth championship between Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and mainland China_

http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/hong-kong-wants-host-2026-world-cup-985980#ixzz0hzDJpIhq

----------------------------------

The suggestion in this article that China is looking to bid for the 2026 tournament could really affect the 2022 race. If their intention to bid becomes clear before December, there might be a few worried Australians and a few happy Americans.

China announcing a 2026 bid would really put the cat amongst the pigeons for 2022. And if China is serious about getting a world cup, they'd be stupid to keep quiet about their intentions and let Australia nab 2022.

Watch this space I suppose.


----------



## Chimbanha

^^ Exactly. If China wants to have a chance in 2026, they have to get the word out right now, so that Australia doesn't get 2022. 

The Americans don't actually have much to worry about. If they don't get 2022, they'll get 2026. The Australians, however, should go all-in in 2022 since they'd have to fight China for the 2026 tournament.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

China has lots of stadiums which are capable to host a WC. Furthermore, there is a very big market to reach for FIFA.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/asia/countries/china.shtml


----------



## hngcm




----------



## Ceefee

cmon china take the winter olympics and run!!! leave the world cup for Australia please!!!!

OWJ!


----------



## Gadiri

PaulFCB said:


> I hope they change the at least once every 3 tournaments/continent rule:
> 
> 2018 England
> 2022 USA - Final New York!
> 2026 Spain with or without Portugal ( do they really need'em? )
> 2030 Argentina & Uruguay - Final at Montevideo
> 2034 Russia since they seem to trying hard
> 2038 Iran-Iraq :lol: / China / Egypt-Libya / *Morocco-Algeria */ Algeria-Tunisia / Australia


For the moment, Algeria-Morocco border is closed. 
It will never have a both candidature. hno:

In 2010, we will have 6 stadiums up 45 000 seats. Tangier (extainable to 69 000), Agadir and Marrakesh will open this year.
Fes (45 000), Rabat (55 000) and Casablanca (65 000) are ready. But all our stadiums have track :bash: like the majority of Japanese stadium in 2002 (Oita, Yokohama ...).

But they are all agreed by FIFA and IAAF.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

Australia in 2038 is the perfect one.
Provided the security is good for all the nations and Melbourne people get civilised by then.
Seeing Australia's dismal track record on racism, things will be against Australia leave alone for sporitng reasons.


----------



## woozoo

^^ Prime example of what happens when not so clever people believe tabloids and trashy current affairs programs.


----------



## 863552

antriksh_sfo said:


> Australia in 2038 is the perfect one.
> Provided the security is good for all the nations and Melbourne people get civilised by then.
> Seeing Australia's dismal track record on racism, things will be against Australia leave alone for sporitng reasons.


!?

I'm assuming the media have brainwashed you!? :nuts:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Figures. I looked at their sig. Enough said


----------



## adamsputnik

antriksh_sfo said:


> Australia in 2038 is the perfect one.
> Provided the security is good for all the nations and Melbourne people get civilised by then.
> Seeing Australia's dismal track record on racism, things will be against Australia leave alone for sporitng reasons.


That's alright, we know all about India's exemplary human rights record and treatment of various minorities. Top-notch caste system you have there


----------



## RobH

Yes, not many nations are in positions to throw stones, let's stick to stadiums.


----------



## magic_johnson

Biggest beat up over nothing. Who the hell goes on a walk through a park at night anyway??? Same goes for the western subburbs' train stations. They're not safe, for Australians and Indians alike.


----------



## pixel2008

England - 2018
Mexico - 2022
Australia or Qatar- 2026


----------



## Oceano

pixel2008 said:


> England - 2018
> Mexico - 2022
> Australia or Qatar- 2026


Mexico isn't even bidding..


----------



## massp88

Oceano said:


> Mexico isn't even bidding..


Aside from the prestige and benefit of hosting a WC in their own country, a USA WC is pretty much like playing at home for Mexico. There are millions of Mexicans in the USA and even more will make the short trip to see their team play.


----------



## RobH

FIFA says Indonesia out of 2022 World Cup race

*Indonesia was dropped from the race to host the 2022 World Cup on Friday after failing to provide government guarantees to FIFA.*

"We have informed Indonesia that because they have failed to provide a number of documents and guarantees .... Indonesia is not any more a candidate for 2022," FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke said.

Indonesia was always considered the outsider among the 11 original candidates that applied to host the tournament in 2018 or 2022.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2010-03-19-1487812731_x.htm


----------



## Ceefee

thats disappointing...hope they bid for future cups


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Russia
2038 Mexico


----------



## Hansadyret

RobH said:


> _Hong Kong aspires to host the 2026 World Cup, according to Hong Kong Football Association Chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak.
> 
> Leung returned from talks with Beijing officials yesterday and told Apple Daily that a Hong Kong team will be participating in the China Football Association Super League as soon as next year. *Beijing is also gearing up to bid for the 2026 World Cup to be hosted by China.*
> 
> "We hope there's something in it for Hong Kong," said Leung.
> 
> *If Beijing is successful in its bid for the 2026 World Cup, Leung said it is highly likely that Hong Kong will become one of the hosting cities where some of the final matches can take place.* The Hong Kong Football Association is currently planning a youth championship between Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and mainland China_
> 
> http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/hong-kong-wants-host-2026-world-cup-985980#ixzz0hzDJpIhq
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> The suggestion in this article that China is looking to bid for the 2026 tournament could really affect the 2022 race. If their intention to bid becomes clear before December, there might be a few worried Australians and a few happy Americans.
> 
> China announcing a 2026 bid would really put the cat amongst the pigeons for 2022. And if China is serious about getting a world cup, they'd be stupid to keep quiet about their intentions and let Australia nab 2022.
> 
> Watch this space I suppose.


Interesting. And there has been earlier reports that China plans bidding for the 2026 tournament.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

It was not surprised Indonesia could not go until the end of the process.
It remains two months before the submitting of the candidats' bids. Spain/Portugal could be considered as a deception because Spain should have gone alone, Portugal didn't accept to build another stadiums or add more places to its stadiums and the website is "under construction".


----------



## nomarandlee

What are the odds of a back to back 2018/2022 European WC's? I'm starting to lean more towards the idea of a Russian or Dutch/Belgian 2020 behind a 2018 UK bid would be a good choice.


----------



## Lord David

antriksh_sfo said:


> Australia in 2038 is the perfect one.
> Provided the security is good for all the nations and Melbourne people get civilised by then.
> Seeing Australia's dismal track record on racism, things will be against Australia leave alone for sporitng reasons.


We're one of the most multicultural nations in the world. It's only the handful of idiots out there that are racist. We're civilized (Melbourne that is), perhaps more so than other Australian cities, let alone other cities around the world which are part of other nations' bids.

Australia is a safe place to be in, and as with every major sporting event, there will be the necessary security.

Don't believe everything that your told, we'll be a great place to host.


----------



## Lord David

pixel2008 said:


> England - 2018
> Mexico - 2022
> Australia or Qatar- 2026





Oceano said:


> Mexico isn't even bidding..


And Qatar is an absurd choice as host. If it were a choice between Australia and Qatar, then Australia wins definitely.

How can you possibly think Qatar would make a good choice for the World Cup?


----------



## RobH

nomarandlee said:


> What are the odds of a back to back 2018/2022 European WC's? I'm starting to lean more towards the idea of a Russian or Dutch/Belgian 2020 behind a 2018 UK bid would be a good choice.


Zero, unless FIFA does a complete and massive u-turn, which will upset everyone outside of Europe which in turn will seriously undermine Sepp Blatter's presidency (many of those keeping him in power are from the non-powerhouse federations).

The bids which are on the same continent as the elected 2018 host, will not be forwarded into the 2022 election. That's the rules of this election, and as I said, only if Sepp Blatter wants to commit career suicide will he change them in the way you're suggesting at this very late stage.

N.B. It's an England bid, not a UK bid. And there's no world cup in 2020, though I guess that was a typu.


----------



## nomarandlee

RobH said:


> N.B. It's an England bid, not a UK bid. And there's no world cup in 2020, though I guess that was a typu.


One was a brain fart and one was a typo. :cheers:


----------



## pixel2008

Lord David said:


> And Qatar is an absurd choice as host. If it were a choice between Australia and Qatar, then Australia wins definitely.
> 
> How can you possibly think Qatar would make a good choice for the World Cup?


I didn't know that soccer is that big in Australia. Anyway, if it was up to me I would choose Australia over Qatar. 
That does not mean Qatar doesn't deserve to host the World Cup. For one, it could afford to make the World Cup really spectacular. Not to mention that the WC is a GLOBAL tournament and shouldn't be held only by major countries.


----------



## Ceefee

pixel2008 said:


> I didn't know that soccer is that big in Australia. Anyway, if it was up to me I would choose Australia over Qatar.
> That does not mean Qatar doesn't deserve to host the World Cup. For one, it could afford to make the World Cup really spectacular. Not to mention that the WC is a GLOBAL tournament and shouldn't be held only by major countries.


yeah soccer is growing massively in Australia. you should have seen A-league grand final last night. Sydney vs. Melbourne =Awesome!!!!!!!!


----------



## pixel2008

Ceefee said:


> yeah soccer is growing massively in Australia. you should have seen A-league grand final last night. Sydney vs. Melbourne =Awesome!!!!!!!!


Way to go! kay:


----------



## AUboy

A-League GF, Etihad Stadium, Melbourne


----------



## Lord David

pixel2008 said:


> I didn't know that soccer is that big in Australia. Anyway, if it was up to me I would choose Australia over Qatar.
> That does not mean Qatar doesn't deserve to host the World Cup. For one, it could afford to make the World Cup really spectacular. Not to mention that the WC is a GLOBAL tournament and shouldn't be held only by major countries.


Yes indeed, but not for a country with the population of just over 1 million, whose largest stadium is currently only 50,000. 

What with weather concerns and having like 5 stadiums alone in Doha... it's highly unlikely, stick to the Olympics, they have a better chance of getting that.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

*QATAR 2018*

Qatar could have tried as a joint bid with UAE, Bahrain.
Dubai - 1
Abu Dhabi - 2
Sharjah - 1
Al Ain - 1
Doha - 2 
Rest of Qatar - 2
Manama - 1
Any way the Gulf Countries are already exploring the GCC Passport and Visa which could rather lead to greater support for the joint bid.
Missed opportunity.
Still Qatar's effort is laudable, atleast they have a massive expat population still without stories of violent racial discrimination.
Primarily their Law & order is stronger and swifter.


----------



## Wezza

pixel2008 said:


> I didn't know that soccer is that big in Australia. Anyway, if it was up to me I would choose Australia over Qatar.
> That does not mean Qatar doesn't deserve to host the World Cup. For one, it could afford to make the World Cup really spectacular. Not to mention that the WC is a GLOBAL tournament and shouldn't be held only by major countries.


The Qatar bid is absurd IMO. What major cities are there other than Doha?


----------



## Basincreek

The USOC has announced the USA will _not_ bid for the 2020 Olympics making landing the World Cup now *the* major sporting initiative of the nation.


----------



## Walbanger

> atleast they have a massive expat population still without stories of violent racial discrimination.
> Primarily their Law & order is stronger and swifter.


Shows what you know.


----------



## The Game Is Up

^^I thought he was talking about that TV show that is still inexplicably on the air after a few decades. 

Anyway, I have my doubts about China and 2026. They already had their "coming out party" in the Olympics. And I'm not alone in thinking this. Their footballing is even more behind than we were back in '94. That's how far they need to catch up.

I still stick by my opinion that 2022 is Australia's to lose.


----------



## VileTorture

What's the deal with people thinking Mexico might have a bid for a future WC?

As of right now, they can offer only infrastructure and economy, but they cannot guarantee security. Government and law enforcement in that country is so far from corrupt is not even funny.

As for USA, they can offer everything, but they can't offer the spirit of the game, the MLS and other soccer tournaments here are so underappreciated that I wouldnt be surprised if they decide to give less funds to the MLS; however, FIFA can care less about spirit since money is worth more than spirit alone.

Objectibly, and from what I've seen in the news about possible INTERESTED candidates, I do believe and support England - 2018 and Australia - 2022.

As for later candidates, 2026 could make a comeback to South America. Colombia recently annouced a possible bid for it and FIFA's Vice-President gave it his support if infrastructure and security keeps improving as it has been during the past decade.
Argentina would be a great candidate for its history, infrastructure and security (need major improvements in economy). 

If not any of these two countries, then I would support a USA bid.


----------



## love-qatar

FIFA president Sepp Blatter speaks during a press conference in Doha Saturday, April 24, 2010. Blatter is in Doha for a two-day visit. FIFA president Sepp Blatter said the Arab world deserves to stage a World Cup, boosting Qatar's bid to host the tournament in 2022. Blatter, in Doha to meet with Qatar's football officials, praised the bid's infrastructure on Saturday and said the government's successful hosting of the 2006 Asian Games showed it was capable of organizing big international events.


----------



## carlosfng

VileTorture said:


> What's the deal with people thinking Mexico might have a bid for a future WC?
> 
> As of right now, they can offer only infrastructure and economy, but they cannot guarantee security. Government and law enforcement in that country is so far from corrupt is not even funny.
> 
> As for USA, they can offer everything, but they can't offer the spirit of the game, the MLS and other soccer tournaments here are so underappreciated that I wouldnt be surprised if they decide to give less funds to the MLS; however, FIFA can care less about spirit since money is worth more than spirit alone.
> 
> Objectibly, and from what I've seen in the news about possible INTERESTED candidates, I do believe and support England - 2018 and Australia - 2022.
> 
> As for later candidates, 2026 could make a comeback to South America. Colombia recently annouced a possible bid for it and FIFA's Vice-President gave it his support if infrastructure and security keeps improving as it has been during the past decade.
> Argentina would be a great candidate for its history, infrastructure and security (need major improvements in economy).
> 
> If not any of these two countries, then I would support a USA bid.


I agree with the England/Australia prediction for 2018/2022. About 2026, I think it is already too far away in time to tell (we haven't even had the 2010 WC yet!). What I can say is that sadly I don't see South America being able to host even in 2026. Colombia has the same problems in security as Mexico, and its economy and infraestructure are clearly inferior (at least today). Argentina may have history and widespread security and infraestructure, but the latter is severely outdated and their economy is never a sure thing. Perhaps Chile holds some hope, since they have somewhat good infraestructure and their economy is going well. The rest of the countries can't host on their own: even though Venezuela spent a lot of money on the last Copa America and has some good infrastructure, the country's very unstable in every other way; the others are too small or poor. Oh, and joint bids are not going to happen, not only because lingering grudges but mostly because customs and borders are a huge mess in these countries (especially in the Andes region).

Oh, and I'd never count out Mexico going for a bid right now, because soccer over there is very commercialized and wants to get everywhere sponsors are. Stadia infrestructure is already the most up-to-date in Latin America, and their FA and clubs are almost corporations. This can be shown by the fact that Mexican clubs already play in South America's Libertadores and Sudamericana cups for the sake of money, and if the country hasn't officially joined the CSF it's because it wouldn't have a place guaranteed in the World Cup then. Looking at that, it is clear that a(nother) World Cup is very much the ultimate goal of the Mexican businessmen that run soccer over there, and that's why I think that Mexico will bid (in fact, I'm surprised it hasn't done so already) even if chances are it won't be successful.


----------



## hngcm

VileTorture said:


> What's the deal with people thinking Mexico might have a bid for a future WC?
> 
> As of right now, they can offer only infrastructure and economy, but they cannot guarantee security. Government and law enforcement in that country is so far from corrupt is not even funny.
> 
> As for later candidates, 2026 could make a comeback to South America. Colombia recently annouced a possible bid for it and FIFA's Vice-President gave it his support if infrastructure and security keeps improving as it has been during the past decade.
> Argentina would be a great candidate for its history, infrastructure and security (need major improvements in economy).


Colombia's security is worse than Mexico's...


----------



## Wezza

love-qatar said:


> FIFA president Sepp Blatter speaks during a press conference in Doha Saturday, April 24, 2010. Blatter is in Doha for a two-day visit. FIFA president Sepp Blatter said the Arab world deserves to stage a World Cup, boosting Qatar's bid to host the tournament in 2022. Blatter, in Doha to meet with Qatar's football officials, praised the bid's infrastructure on Saturday and said the government's successful hosting of the 2006 Asian Games showed it was capable of organizing big international events.


Don't get too excited, Blatter is reknowned for his lip service.


----------



## love-qatar

i dont think so, we will support our son Mohammed bin Hamam


----------



## love-qatar

Translated via google translate, mistakes in translation might be there...
*Qatar reveal 2022 World Cup stadiums *



The Commission file of Qatar World Cup 2022 through the exhibition "Sport Accord Dubai" the world's largest Sport exhibition, unveiled details on a number of Stadiumss in addition to the use of technology and carbon-free for the first time in order to cool playgrounds and areas reserved for fans and training sites. 

It was unveiled today three new Stadiums are characterized by a high level of quality, namely: 

*• Al-Shamal Stadium:* accommodates 45120 spectators, is located in the north of Qatar, on the edge of the Arabian Gulf. This stadium was designed in the form of a sailboat inspired by the maritime heritage of the region. And 10% of spectators that will attend the stadium will arrive via the friendship bridge between Bahrain and Qatar, which will be the longest free-standing bridge in the world. 

*• Khor Stadium:* accommodates 45330 spectators, is located in the north-east of Qatar, and the design of this stadium ision the form of a shell, a design inspired by the marine environment of the area where will be able to some onlookers to see the Gulf from their seats, while the it will benefit players by having a flexible roof which will provide shade on the pitch. 

*• Al Wakra Stadium:* Stadium to accommodate 45 thousand spectators is located in the south of Qatar within a park that includes a center for activities and water sports facilities, shopping center and gardens.

The announcement was made today by the Committee of Qatar 2022 that will expand the two stadiums are, if Qatar won the right to stage the World Cup football and two stadiums. -Rayyan coupling capacity to be 44 740 seats by the addition of seats in the upper layer of the stadium will be full of the outer part from the field in the form of a giant screen to show the latest footage, game, commercials and other information about the tournament. 

The pitch second is the private club Gharafa will double absorb also 44 740 spectators through the addition of seats in the upper layer of the stadium and would be a facade pitch colored all the countries that qualify for the World Cup Qatar 2022, symbolizes friendship, tolerance and respect, knowing that football enhances these values.

*Cooling Technology*



Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Chairman of the Commission file Qatar 2022: "The disclosure today football high quality we have and cooling technology innovation as the latest step in our quest to bring World Cup football to the Middle East for the first time in 2022 ". 

"The World Cup football in Qatar will leave a legacy of strong, bringing together nations and cultures through our joint football. These plans show how serious we are and our innovation and our determination to host the World Cup, which would provide a great experience for the players and the fans and the media and the Our stadiums will be equipped with a modern way, where the cooling equipment will contain a carbon-neutral through the use of solar energy technology, so as to ensure that there is no temperature higher than 27 degrees Celsius, which will provide the best conditions for playing. " 

"As the technology itself is environmentally friendly, carbon-free will ensure that the training places and areas of the fans also cool and comfortable. What we uncovered about today is something to be submitted for the first time in the world and as part of Qatar's commitment to providing a historical legacy which you want to move this leading technology to the rest of the world. "

*Transport network*



Hassan al-Thawadi, Chief Executive of the file Qatar 2022, said: "will be linked to all the stadiums of high quality system of underground" Metro "with a new transport links the year, which allows fans to travel to watch the games easily and see more games in the one-day stay in housing over the same period of the championship. "

He added "We designed the stadiums so that it reduces capacity after the World Cup to suit the needs of local football and we can transfer those additional seats to other countries to take advantage of them permanently. That what we unveiled today is only the profile plans for the wider and that we will to disclose them in the near future. "

Qatar aims to host the World Cup football in the Middle East, for the first time in the history of the tournament. And will vote in the FIFA Executive Committee to choose the host for the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 on 2 December 2010, in Zurich.


----------



## love-qatar

Found some Renders :banana:

*Al-Shamal Stadium*



*Al-Gharrafa Stadium*






*Al-Khor Stadium*






*Al-Wakrah Stadium*





Al-Rayyan Stadium






There is Khalifa Stadium which is ready

Stadiums of Qatar SC, Al Arab SC, Al-Ahli SC,and Al Sadd SC which are going to be expand as well


----------



## RobH

And after the world cup what will happen to these?


----------



## love-qatar

RobH said:


> And after the world cup what will happen to these?


We have the (QSL) the league and another 2 cups every year

Qatar will bid to host the Summer Olmpic games after last faild

In addition to Gulf cub and host other championships i.g Asian cup which we will host it in Qatar next year 2011

also the interest in the Women sport so they will need the Stadiums for all of this to completion there vision of sport for health

BTW we got all the 11 Stadiums at the moment but they will expansion them for the world cup and the summer olympic games


----------



## Inferious

RobH said:


> And after the world cup what will happen to these?


they we be left empty to be filled up with sand from the desert


----------



## Wezza

love-qatar said:


> i dont think so, we will support our son Mohammed bin Hamam


I can tell you right now, Qatar will not be hosting the 2022 World Cup.


----------



## Lord David

Wezza said:


> I can tell you right now, Qatar will not be hosting the 2022 World Cup.


Yep, let the Qataris just aim for another Olympics, one they will not win if they insist on October and the current Qatari Olympics record is a negative as well.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Thank you love-qatar for reposting my posts from the Qatar forums to here, All stadiums WILL BE AIR-CONDITIONED TO 27 degrees Celsius, and the stadium WILL BE DOWNGRADED after the tournament finishes from 40k to 20k to suit local needs, but not all of them.


WEATHER WILL NOT BE AN ISSUE ANYMORE


And may we please have the Qatar 2022 bid thread unlocked ? its about time and the bid file will be submitted in a matter of days.


----------



## love-qatar

no problem Qatar Son 333 and thanks

well let them say what they want and think how they think i excused them because they do know little about Qatar, they have geographical ignorance and ignorance in the lack of information so whatever they say do not bother, if you think there is a serious question we are ready to answer and give/correct the information

Thanks for who involves and we will support our candidature for a moment the announcement of the winner


----------



## Wezza

love-qatar said:


> no problem Qatar Son 333 and thanks
> 
> well let them say what they want and think how they think i excused them because they do know little about Qatar, *they have geographical ignorance and ignorance in the lack of information so whatever* they say do not bother, if you think there is a serious question we are ready to answer and give/correct the information
> 
> Thanks for who involves and we will support our candidature for a moment the announcement of the winner


Lol. What other major cities are there outside Doha & what is their populations?


----------



## decks67

Quata doesnt seem to be a big enough country to make a single bid. it should teem up with UAE


----------



## Kazurro

Qatar is too small for bidding for the World Cup. A Gulf Persian countries bid would be interesting by the way.

And furthermore those stadia must be the smallest in the bid. You need some 70000 or 80000 stadia. Are there in Qatar?
Why is not China bidding? I think Blatter would giv'em the WC surely if they want...

And if they dont choose my nation I vote

2018: Russia
2022: US
2026: China
2030: England


----------



## RobH

If we don't get the world cup Holland/Belgium would be a good fun. I love the way they've gone about everything with such good humour. Their presentation video was hilarious as well.


----------



## Bezzi

GideaParkHammer said:


> *Wembley - London*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Emirates - London*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Olympic Stadium - London*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New Tottenham Stadium - London*


It seems the London World Cup. There is a limit on how many stadiums can be chosen by city? When Brazil became a candidate FIFA said it would only accept one stadium in each city. So the Olympic Stadium in Rio was not submitted because the Maracana.


----------



## RobH

They're just giving FIFA options at this stage. As a Brazilian you'll also know FIFA decides the final list of stadiums. They'll choose from the list England gives them if we win the world cup bid.


----------



## anze

I like Wembley so much


----------



## Lord David

hugenholz said:


> The Dutch presentation last friday was really original with Cruijff en Gullit on bikes presenting the "Green World Championship Bid":


They bike rode from Netherlands to Switzerland?


----------



## Lord David

RobH said:


> They're just giving FIFA options at this stage. As a Brazilian you'll also know FIFA decides the final list of stadiums. They'll choose from the list England gives them if we win the world cup bid.


Exactly, which is why they won't be getting Etihad from Melbourne, especially since it's not being proposed!


----------



## The Game Is Up

London could just ditch the club grounds and still have a good number of seats available.


----------



## Walbanger

> By the way, is there again a UK-OZ partnership?
> Similar to the one clinched Sydney(Manchester combine) against Beijing for the 2000 Olympics.


Don't know but there very well could be. Both nations have obvious close relations.


----------



## TEBC

*2018/2022 FIFA World Cup "Live" Poll*

Since many things changed, some countries left competition and others decided just for 2022, who should win 2018 WC?


----------



## TEBC

*New 2022 WC pool*

Since many things changed since they all bid who do you think will host 2022 WC.

Like blatter said, Europe probably will get 2018, so 2022 will resume to Asia x USA.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

I voted England.


----------



## TEBC

I voted for Australia.

Why?

USA hosted last time in 94. Too early.

Australians like soccer a lot.

They never hosted.

Would be first time in Oceania.

Would have great stadiums.


----------



## TEBC

I havent decided yet.

I prefer Australia for 2022 and like all the European bids.

but I think Russia would be great or Spain/Portugal


----------



## 863552

2018; England
2022; Australia


----------



## 863552

2018; England
2022; Australia


----------



## 863552

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/05/16/2-8-billion-of-infrastructure-promised-in-world-cup-bid/

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/05/17/fa-chairman-resigns-bid-role-over-bribe-claims/


----------



## Fobos2030

Russia cuz it is my country, and cuz we can make it great!!!:cheers:


----------



## Lord David

Although a US WC would be dramatically different to 1994, Australia is a new frontier and has much more to offer (even if legacy is a weak point in term of post WC stadium use) than the Yanks do.


----------



## Lord David

Spain/Portugal is a disaster, especially for Portugal, which is not getting much out of the bid and more importantly, can be seen as dragging Spain down.


----------



## Wezza

Lord David said:


> Although a US WC would be dramatically different to 1994, Australia is a new frontier and has much more to offer (even if legacy is a weak point in term of post WC stadium use) than the Yanks do.


It's not as though the WC will leave a legacy in the USA either because all of their stadiums are American football stadiums.


----------



## fizicki neradnik

Solopop said:


> 2018; England
> 2022; Australia


Exactly!


----------



## Fobos2030

Because 2018 WC will be in Europe i hope that 2022 WC will be in Australia


----------



## pawel19-87

England


----------



## pawel19-87

Australia


----------



## tolstii_dj

F..ck England!


----------



## Steel City Suburb

England.

Not been biased or anything, but everyone knows that the WC in England would be VERY special.


----------



## Lacrim'ka

*only RUSSIA ! *


----------



## carlspannoosh

I would choose England of course. As others have said it would be a special atmosphere but I suspect The Daily Mail have irreversibly damaged England's chances. If that is the case I choose Russia.


----------



## salgovernale

ENGLAND:cheers:

russia is a horrible bid.hno:


----------



## RobH

England are obviously my favourites.

After that I'd probably choose the Holland/Belgium bid, then Russia, and lastly the wonky bid that is Spain/Portugal.

Non-European bids don't really have a shot at 2018.


----------



## jandeczentar

England gets my vote if their bid team can sort themselves out. The stadiums are high quality and would be full after the World Cup (like Germany in 2006). The infrastructure is good and the distances are manageable. National enthusiasm would also be high. 

A World Cup in Spain and Portugal would also be nice. However, if the Spanish and Portuguese economies go the same way as Greece (which I hear is a possibility) then that will screw up their chances. If that ceases to be a problem then good stadiums, good infrastructure and guarenteed enthusiasm make this a strong bid, though I don't know why Spain needed Portugal. They could've bid by themselves and had just as much, if not more, chance of success.

The Russian bid is stymied by 3 basic problems. 1 - Large distances even with clustered venues. 2 - No one wants to go to Russia. 3 - Russian domestic football does not justify building many 40,000+ stadiums (the 2009 average attendance in Russia's top division was 12,517). Poland and Ukraine have a similar problem, building large stadiums that will almost never be more than half full after Euro 2012 when domestic teams are playing in them.

The joint Dutch/Belgian bid has a similar problem to Russia in that there is little need for that many large scale venues there. Who, aside from Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV, needs a 40,000+ stadium?

The USA might have the best stadium infrstructure in the world but they lack much collective enthusiasm for football. It is maybe the 5th most popular team sport in North America. Plus it has Russia's problem with distances and it held the World Cup in 1994. Though it was a financially successful tournament (which will count in the current bids favour) it did little to enhance football's standing in the country. The big European TV markets (who supply most of the TV money) will also be forced to show games in the middle of the night which will cut down on their advertising revenue, and that won't be popular.

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the Australian bid. I didn't think football was that big a deal there. I thought Aussies were more into Aussie Rules, Cricket and Rugby so I'm not sure how much national enthusiasm there would be. Plus, the distance issue comes up again. However, the stadium infrastructure is good though some will need some work.

To conclude, England would get my vote it they can get their bid team sorted out. Or failing that, Spain & Portugal.


----------



## Landanar

jandeczentar said:


> 2 - No one wants to go to Russia..


I don't want to go to fucking England. It's country of self-confident nonentyties. And what? It isn't e reason.
Also britain economics is a soupy bubble. Contry didn't produse anything. Now we see the end of stupid western world. Their system crash down. Now England and Spain have great economic problems and their owners from USA too.
PS From this topic understood that propaganda is very good n Europe.


----------



## RobH

Landanar said:


> I don't want to go to fucking England. It's country of self-confident nonentyties.


I see you haven't bothered reading the forum rules. Please do so before you post again. hno:

Shame we only got to 16 posts before the idiots came along really.


----------



## carlspannoosh

tolstii_dj said:


> F..ck England!





salgovernale said:


> russia is a horrible bid.hno:





jandeczentar said:


> 2 - No one wants to go to Russia.





Landanar said:


> I don't want to go to fucking England.


How about we all calm down and have a nice cup of tea.


----------



## jandeczentar

Landanar said:


> I don't want to go to fucking England. It's country of self-confident nonentyties. And what? It isn't e reason.
> Also britain economics is a soupy bubble. Contry didn't produse anything. Now we see the end of stupid western world. Their system crash down. Now England and Spain have great economic problems and their owners from USA too.
> PS From this topic understood that propaganda is very good n Europe.


...And all of that bullshit has what to do with staging the World Cup in 2018? I see no points about stadiums, infrstructure, logistics, national enthusiasm for the tournament or anything else that goes into staging a successful World Cup. All I see is a pile of Russian nationalist crap. This is not the first time I have encountered Russians sensitive to criticism of their country on this site. I wonder why that is.


----------



## Fobos2030

tolstii_dj said:


> F..ck England!





Lacrim'ka said:


> *only RUSSIA ! *


Guys please, show respect...


----------



## Landanar

Fobos2030 said:


> Guys please, show respect...


Зачем? У этих иностранных ублюдков полностью промыты мозги. Тупые русофобы. Особенно английская часть пишуших.


----------



## Fobos2030

carlspannoosh said:


> How about we all calm down and have a nice cup of tea.


+ 1000, with cookies:cheers:


----------



## Landanar

Fobos2030 said:


> + 1000:cheers:


"How about we all calm down and have a nice cup of tea."
Как это переводится?


----------



## Fobos2030

Landanar said:


> "How about we all calm down and have a nice cup of tea."
> Как это переводится?


Перевод: Давайте все успокоимся и выпьем чаю.

Давай не будем на русском все таки международка.




*2all: Excuse us please...*


----------



## dacrio

surely 2022 is Australia.

2018 Russia or England, I voted for Russia


----------



## Landanar

English - very mean and unprincipled people. They cam betray and lie for their aims. They disdain all other counries and natioins except their owners from USA. They have just blamed Russia, Catar and Spain in corruption. Of course they hadn't any evidences. Also they blamed many members of FIFA. ...
I can talk very long about their abomination...
I hope that worls cup will be in Russia. But if Russia loses, i can support some other country except England and USA.


----------



## RobH

Are you 5?


----------



## jandeczentar

Landanar said:


> English - very mean and unprincipled people. They cam betray and lie for their aims. They disdain all other counries and natioins except their owners from USA. They have just blamed Russia, Catar and Spain in corruption. Of course they hadn't any evidences. Also they blamed many members of FIFA. ...
> I can talk very long about their abomination...
> I hope that worls cup will be in Russia. But if Russia loses, i can support some other country except England and USA.


And what of the Russian bid to stage the World Cup relative to the bids of England and the USA? You say that you support the Russian bid yet you offer no reasons why it is better than any of the others, including those of England and the USA. So why should anyone else support it?


----------



## fat-ben-made-poop

I vote Russia
Because they havn't host world cup

2022 will good in Australia  (hope not Qatar)


----------



## Alemanniafan

My personal preference goes to Belgium and the Netherlands in 2018, because the stadia there are even closer to where I live now (in Germany but very close to BE and NL) than the stadia in the 2006 WC in Germany were. I'm sure it would be a really great party summer here in the local region again then, fun and enthusiasm swapping over here from the two neighbouring countries.


----------



## fat-ben-made-poop

Indonesia 2018 got 361 vote LOL

It shame Indonesia canceled bid


----------



## fat-ben-made-poop

I vote Australia 

Why USA, Japan and South Korea want host world cup again


----------



## stangen




----------



## AILD

This is epic.

RFU still hasn't received any official apologies from Britain.

Again UK press is disturbing facts.


----------



## Scoots71

jandeczentar said:


> The USA might have the best stadium infrstructure in the world but they lack much collective enthusiasm for football. It is maybe the 5th most popular team sport in North America. Plus it has Russia's problem with distances and it held the World Cup in 1994. Though it was a financially successful tournament (which will count in the current bids favour) it did little to enhance football's standing in the country. The big European TV markets (who supply most of the TV money) will also be forced to show games in the middle of the night which will cut down on their advertising revenue, and that won't be popular.


The 94 WC did wonders for American Soccer. It was the catalyst for a whole new league that is starting to gain international respect (not in terms of greatness, but rather viability and legitimacy as a real soccer league). Yes, it's not a premier league in the world, but it is growing. A World Cup would potentially be a catalyst this time to make the MLS one of (or on the level of) the "Big 4 sports" in the USA. 

That being said, I think England will get 2018, with USA edging out Australia for 2022. Showing matches in the middle of the night won't be a problem for Europe, cause everyone will watch regardless, but it will help the Western hemisphere TV because the matches will be at a watchable time. It is not the area where everyone will watch the early morning/ late night matches.


----------



## AILD

Landanar said:


> English - very mean and unprincipled people. They cam betray and lie for their aims. They disdain all other counries and natioins except their owners from USA. They have just blamed Russia, Catar and Spain in corruption. Of course they hadn't any evidences. Also they blamed many members of FIFA. ...
> I can talk very long about their abomination...
> I hope that worls cup will be in Russia. But if Russia loses, i can support some other country except England and USA.


And England still didn't send official apologies to Russia for Triesman absurd.

2018 Russia
2022 Australia


----------



## RobH

AILD said:


> This is epic.
> 
> RFU still hasn't received any official apologies from Britain.


Apologies were faxed yesterday and the man who made the allegations (in private, I might add) has resigned from both of his roles - as head of the FA and head of the 2018 bid. 

I don't know what more you expect.


----------



## RobH

They were faxed yesterday according to every paper and according to England's bid team. Unless you have a link suggesting otherwise why should I believe you?

And why are you quoting a troll?


----------



## Xenobite

2018 - Russia
2022 - Australia


----------



## AILD

RobH said:


> They were faxed yesterday according to every paper and according to England's bid team. Unless you have a link suggesting otherwise why should I believe you?
> 
> And why are you quoting a troll?


Bid Director Sorokin an hour ago said that. They have 2 assumptions - technical problems in UK or early press rumours.
But they don't make a big drama about it. Just a statement of fact. I assure UK will fix it fast.


----------



## fat-ben-made-poop

Xenobite said:


> 2018 - Russia
> 2022 - Australia


^^
:cheers:


----------



## rus

Only Russia and Spartak!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2018: England
2022: United States


----------



## rus

Welcome to Moscow in WC 2018
http://fratria.org/english/spartak/moscow/


----------



## Landanar

AILD said:


> And England still didn't send official apologies to Russia for Triesman absurd.


Sure. People with imperial pride. They think that they can everything.


----------



## RobH

How many Georgians have you brutally killed today Landanar?

Oh I'm sorry, does that offend you? What a shame. I thought we were playing a game of making sweeping assumptions about people based on their nation's history.

Mo, could you tidy this thread up and send this idiot to the SSC Gulag? Thanking you kindly.


----------



## fizicki neradnik

Why not? Mexico hosted 2 times.


----------



## rus

Kenguru!


----------



## RobH

AILD said:


> Bid Director Sorokin an hour ago said that. They have 2 assumptions - technical problems in UK or early press rumours.
> But they don't make a big drama about it. Just a statement of fact. I assure UK will fix it fast.


Hopefully yes. 

I don't think anyone in the UK agrees with his comments (unless they're later proven true which is unlikely), and I think that's pretty clear from the fact he resigned so quickly from both his jobs. But I suppose it is in Russia's interest to make as much hay of this as they can; I'm sure England would be if the roles were reversed.

I can't believe for a second England 2018 hasn't tried sending an apology to Russia and Spain, so perhaps technical problems are an explanation for Sorokin's comments. Who knows?

What I do know is that I'd hate England to lose the bid because of this. I'd have no problem with England losing to Russia if that happens in December, but if it's because of an own goal on our part that'll be a bitter pill to swallow.


----------



## rus

RobH said:


> How many Georgians have you brutally killed today Landanar?
> 
> Oh I'm sorry, does that offend you? What a shame. I thought we were playing a game of making sweeping assumptions about people based on their nation's history.
> 
> Mo, could you tidy this thread up and send this idiot to the SSC Gulag? Thanking you kindly.


And how many millions of Russian killed georgian Stalin?:bash:


----------



## Landanar

RobH said:


> How many Georgians have you brutally killed today Landanar?



:lol::lol::lol::lol:
I was right. English - very stupid nation.
Which georgians, idiot? I live in Moscow. There are many georgians. I studied with georgian in my class. I like FC Lokomotive. There are georgian defender. One of the bset in russian championship.
I can say that propaganda in Britain really great... That stupid people really believe that we killed them. Some europeen organizations recognized that Saakashvili attacked Osetia. But stupid english people want to believe that Russia - angry enemy of all. 
You brains had washed very well.
Also i can ask some questions
1) What for you attacked Yugoslavia?
2) Did you find chemical weapon in Irak?
3) Do you know that english creat first Internments in world during Boer Wars?


----------



## RobH

> I was right. English - very stupid nation.


Only one person in this thread is being stupid enough to have his account deleted and he ain't English mate.

I couldn't get away with with post you've just written and I've been here for three years. Let's see how far your 18 posts and your week old account get you when the mods read this thread eh? I'd wager you're not going to be sticking around here much longer.

Can we get back on topic now please. If you want to give reasons why you're supporting Russia's bid that's fine, if you want to slag off England you won't be here long.


----------



## Landanar

RobH said:


> Only one person in this thread is being stupid enough to have his account deleted and he ain't English mate. If you don't get that hint you're dumber than I thought.


Try to read all reply. And ask my questions. I asked your. So do it too, please.


----------



## RobH

No, this thread is about the world cup. Stay on topic or go away.


----------



## AILD

> *FIFA Ethics Committee to Investigate Triesman Comments*
> 
> FIFA confirmed it has launched an investigation into statements made by former England 2018 chairman David riesman about two of the country's rivals in the World Cup bid race.
> 
> "FIFA can confirm that FIFA secretary general Jérôme Valcke has requested the FIFA Ethics Committee to examine the alleged statements made by Lord Triesman in relation to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups," said a statement by world football's governing body.
> 
> "In addition, FIFA has sent a letter to The Football Association asking The FA to provide a report on this matter, including Lord Triesman's position.
> 
> "FIFA will not make any further comment on this matter until it has been dealt with by the FIFA Ethics Committee."
> 
> Yesterday, Triesman was forced to resign his chairmanship of the bid and the Football Association following a story that appeared in the Mail on Sunday, a British tabloid. It reported disparaging remarks made to a “friend” about Spain and Russia that were covertly recorded in a newspaper sting operation.
> 
> The newspaper quoted Triesman saying that Spain would try to buy Russia’s help to “bribe” referees in this summer’s World Cup in return for its withdrawal from the running to host the 2018 finals.
> 
> FIFA rules prohibit negative campaigning about bid rivals.
> 
> Triesman's resignation came less than 48 hours after he accompanied an England 2018 delegation, including David Beckham, to Zurich for the hand over of the World Cup bid book to FIFA president Sepp Blatter.
> 
> World Football Insider understands that Triesman's replacement Geoff Thompson, a FIFA vice president, today held a meeting with England 2018 bid CEO Andy Anson and director of communications Simon Greenberg to hammer out a new bid strategy.
> 
> England 2018 hope Thompson's swift appointment will retain FIFA president Sepp Blatter's confidence in the bid committee and provide assurances to members of the FIFA executive committee that it is not fatally flawed.
> 
> Thompson will have the chance to help get the England 2018 bid campaign back on course when he meets with other FIFA and UEFA executive committee members at the Champions League final this Saturday. Inter Milan and Bayern Munich contest the final at Madrid's Santiago Bernabeu stadium.


http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33285


----------



## RobH

> "In addition, FIFA has sent a letter to The Football Association asking The FA to provide a report on this matter, including Lord Triesman's position.


Not much to report really is there? It wasn't negative campaigning in any sense as he thought he was having a private conversation with a friend. It was a stupid thing to say but it'd be stretching it to claim this breaks the rules.

And he's not involved with the bid or the FA now.

I suppose FIFA must go through the protocol of investigating things like this, but I can't really see anything coming of it.


----------



## Landanar

RobH said:


> No, this thread is about the world cup. Stay on topic or go away.


Sure. But.
It was very stupid step, when you wrote about Georgia. Russians - very peace-loving nation. And also Russia was multicultural during 500 years. For example, Kazan city. There are mosque and church into Kremlin. Russians always had tolerance to other nations. Also, there are 3 Georgians streets in Moscow, which was built 300 years ago.
Don't write what you don't know.

You typical english... You want to change theme, when you understand that can answer questions.


----------



## RobH

Nothing about the world cup in that post either I notice?


----------



## Landanar

RobH said:


> Nothing about the world cup in that post either I notice?


How much information about world cup in this post?


*"How many Georgians have you brutally killed today Landanar?

Oh I'm sorry, does that offend you? What a shame. I thought we were playing a game of making sweeping assumptions about people based on their nation's history.

Mo, could you tidy this thread up and send this idiot to the SSC Gulag? Thanking you kindly. "*

World cup is mainest football competition. It's about worls cup, so don't be so angry.


----------



## RobH

I made that post to make a point about the xenophobia you've displayed in this thread.

I'm not arguing any further, I'll let the mods deal with you. You're clearly here to troll around and I hope to see your account deleted quickly. Bye.


----------



## AILD

Big offtop, can't ignore it. Don't read if you want.
UK installed communism in Russia. They financed bolshevicks in 1917 and orchestrated revolution, which killed all Emperor's family.
Gulags were created by Trotskysts (Leo Trotsky - agent of british intelligence, revolutioner), so again by UK. 454,000 were died in Gulags 1934-1952 (not 60 millions, dumb myth of mass propaganda).
UK banks helped Hitler's rise to power (Bank of England).
UK directed Hitler against USSR (first he wished to go into India, UK colony).

No wonder that Russians don't like UK. It's a source of tragedies, which killed probably more than hundred of millions of Russian people, and which totally changed the way of Russian history in 1917, when "communism" was imported in Russia by UK agents.

David Icke is right. UK (so USA and all "western democracies") is controlled by reptilians from London City. Queen's family is also a main drug dealer (opium wars, Afghanistan today). More than 50% of Afghan drugs are transported in Russia through Manas base -> a weapon against Russia's youth generation.

You, people, even can't imagine what's going on in the world. And so shocked that some people hate UK. Of course, they hate, because of exact deals which went to millions of tragedies, mostly in Russia.

If not UK, Russia would ne no communistic in 1917-1991, without Gulags, Hitler's attack in 1941, without half of European part destroyed by fascists, and with 300 millions of people.

Just a big offtop to explain the real reasons of bashing.


----------



## jlch1987

Jjjajaja, this people is crazy, what the #$%& have to do the georgians, comunism, The Queen, USA or Stalin with the WC? 

This is now officially a MINE IS BIGGER, YOURS IS SHORTER THREAD... shame for both...:bash:


----------



## boyerling3

> *FIFA seek answers over 'bribe' claims*
> Soccernet staff
> 
> FIFA has requested the English Football Association to provide a report over alleged statements made by former FA chairman Lord Triesman in relation to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups.
> 
> Triesman, who quit amid the controversy on Sunday morning, allegedly told a former aide that Spain were planning to bribe referees at this summer's World Cup and offer their support to Russia's bid for the 2022 World Cup if they were to help.
> 
> The England 2018 World Cup bid team faxed letters of apology to both associations as they attempted to minimise the damage caused, while FA board members David Sheepshanks and Roger Burden have been drafted in as acting joint chairmen of the national governing body.
> 
> But now FIFA, world football's governing body, is to intervene after the chief of Russia's bid, Aleksey Sorokin, called for ''appropriate measures" to be taken.
> 
> A FIFA statement read: "FIFA can confirm that FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke has requested the FIFA ethics committee to examine the alleged statements made by Lord Triesman in relation to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups.
> 
> "In addition, FIFA has sent a letter to The Football Association asking the FA to provide a report on this matter, including Lord Triesman's position.
> 
> "FIFA will not make any further comment on this matter until it has been dealt with by the FIFA ethics committee."


 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/788157/ce/uk/?cc=5901&ver=us


----------



## jlch1987

fizicki neradnik said:


> Why not? Mexico hosted 2 times.


Because Colombia, the original host couldn't afford the preparation...hno:


----------



## AILD

salgovernale said:


> to be fair its not just russians who are dullards with no sense of humour, its all eastern europeans:lol:


OMG. Brainwashed zombies are real. Overwatched Holyshitwood films?

How is it to say about things which you don't know anything about?

Don't answer, troll.


----------



## Rekarte

I would prefer Russia
but I think will that England


----------



## Landanar

3SPIRES said:


> They said it was very unusual to see a Russian smile.


If you smile very often, it's mean that you are an idiot. I hate your hypocritical smiles.


----------



## Landanar

Great theme. I made sure that english - angry dullards, who live in world of stupid stereotypes...


----------



## Fobos2030

Alemanniafan said:


> PS: Now honestly and seriously, what you talk about there most probably has far more to do with your friends and their behavior than with the people living in Moscow. I've visited Russia and I've experienced very warmhearted, friendly, welcoming and convival people nearly everywhere I went.


Thank you:cheers:


----------



## 3SPIRES

Landanar said:


> If you smile very often, it's mean that you are an idiot. I hate your hypocritical smiles.


 Is that the official WC Russia 2018 slogan? :lol:


----------



## Landanar

3SPIRES said:


> Is that the official WC Russia 2018 slogan? :lol:


Is that famous english humour?


----------



## 4miGO!!!

No, its not, its just a russian troll. Zip your lip up, buddy, i tell you. Sure, if you are eagerly willing to get taken down forever at the ssc, you can keep your gaga on. 
Pee.Ezz. Guys, weve got a normal sence of humour. 
Pee.Ezz.Ezz. Why do yall think that the championship is to be won by England? The country has got everything to run the event, moreover, there are already some amount of soccer fans that is not to change for much if the WC will go to the country. Why do you think FIFA needs to just flip over a WC having no development of the sport? And now lets imagine the situation Russia gets the WC. The auditory of the people watching the matches would raise for lots of millions fans, and after the competition FIFA would get the millions to have better gain. Sooo, your points of view now?


----------



## RobH

Unchanged. If FIFA wants to develop the game in Russia then they've got that option. If they want to go for a very safe bet in England they've got that option also.

I think too much can be made of the notion that FIFA, above all else, wants to open up to new markets. Germany, don't forget, beat South Africa to the 2006 world cup when everyone predicted the opposite. And FIFA will already have had two "new frontier" hosts in a row prior to 2018. Will they be hungry for a third or go back to their more traditional stomping grounds? Who knows?

England and Russia offer very different but possibly equally compelling reasons to host. Before the faux pas from Treisman I wouldn't have wanted to call it either way. Since that happened I think Russia now has the edge. Whether England can claw back some momentum will be interesting to see.


----------



## Stona

Russia? 
Why? Coz England don't need it as much as Russia.


----------



## 4miGO!!!

RobH, completely right. Though, ehm, ive got like a tiny objection over the fact that if FIFA changes Russia to host 2018, itll be safe not less than Englands bid would be. Lets be honest, the authorities of Russia differ from former ukrainian authorities, ours do what they promise. 2012, 2013 and 2014 will acknowledge my words.


----------



## RobH

I didn't mean to imply Russia's would be unsafe, just riskier because they've got a lot more to build. Russia would undoubtedly get it all built (as they are with the Sochi 2014 venues which I've been watching go up on this forum). But England, of course, offers a bid where most of the stadiums are already there so the focus (and money) can be shifted to really getting things like fan-parks right and putting on events around the world cup; and indeed on the world footballing fund England has promised to set up. FIFA may decide that's preferable. Because of this, an England world cup would also have a different focus to a Russian one.


----------



## 4miGO!!!

Well, anyway, if we havent got enough fans, required by FIFA, we can bring our bears to our idiot boxes for the Association to have auditory. You cant. :lol:


----------



## Maxi_Moscow

Wow this thread is a mess!!!!!!

So much BS. 

Soccer is a great game, does not matter where you play it. 

Everyone wants their nativ country to win. Whats there to add? England can host this event with ease. Their infrastructure is ready. We can start in a week if it comes down to it. Yet Russia is something new. If they put as much effort into WC such as they did with EuroVision, it would be one hell of an event. Spain and Portugal have a great climate and they are just interesting places.

So everyone has something special. 

Dudes, chilax and vote.

Peace


----------



## RobH

Maxi_Moscow said:


> Wow this thread is a mess!!!!!!
> 
> So much BS.
> 
> Soccer is a great game, does not matter where you play it.
> 
> Everyone wants their nativ country to win. Whats there to add? England can host this event with ease. Their infrastructure is ready. We can start in a week if it comes down to it. Yet Russia is something new. If they put as much effort into WC such as they did with EuroVision, it would be one hell of an event. Spain and Portugal have a great climate and they are just interesting places.
> 
> So everyone has something special.
> 
> Dudes, chilax and vote.
> 
> Peace


:applause:


----------



## Helem

If the FIFA World Cup held in Russia and build new stadiums.
That the Russian Football League will be the strongest in Europe.
FIFA is profitable .


----------



## eMKay

England is overdue.


----------



## Filipe710

Stop fighting and relax. What you win here by fighting? The country you want will get WC? It means you are better than the others?
This is about Football and about the country we support for WC 2018 but in the end our support doesn't mean nothing cuz we will not vote for the official choice. 

Ps: Someone said that Portugal/Spain is really out... What to say about South Africa (2010) and Brazil (2014)? I preferee to see match in that kind of condition that be frezzing. That's why I not support Russia. The low temperatures don't help.


----------



## AILD

Filipe710 said:


> Ps: Someone said that Portugal/Spain is really out... What to say about South Africa (2010) and Brazil (2014)? I preferee to see match in that kind of condition that be frezzing. That's why I not support Russia. The low temperatures don't help.


It is HOT in summer in Russia. It has continental climate which means colder winter and warmer summer than average, bigger differencies. Not colder summer, as you think.
European part of Russia doesn't have mountains on the north (natural barrier), so cold air is easily blowing from the arctic ocean, that's why it is colder in the winter. Europe is warmer because there is Golfstream (warm stream in Atlantic ocean), which is rising temperature on ~5-10 degrees every winter. The same with Eastern part of USA. But now Golfstream is losing its power (cyclic process), because ice is melting on the north and Golfstream can't "beat" to the Europe because of fresh water. That's why we see extraordinary winters in England, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, ... all Europe. And we will see colder and colder winters in upcoming years. And, oppositely, warmer weather in the East of Russia.

In south cluster temperature in june is even like in Turkey.

LOL elementary things are so hard to understand? This is what propaganda of "freezing dark Russia" did with brains (last film I remember is "Iron Man 2" with, of course, dark cold ugly Moscow and hot glamourous USA LOL).


----------



## Livno80101

Russia is getting this


----------



## love-qatar

:cheer:Russia


----------



## igor_carlos

2018 - Russia or England
2022 - Australia


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

USA and Australia are only serious bids. Japan and Korea are doing mainly PR here because they know as well that its too soon and Qatar is simply too small.

My vote goes to USA, it has large European communities (i know that Australia has as well, but numbers and variety is on USA side) and it would be like playing at home for many teams. That's basically only reason for me. Stadium and infrastructure wide both bids would be awesome.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Both Russia and England bids are good. Whoever wins it will do great job.


----------



## kosova-fener

why the hell is south korea in it? they hosted it in 2002 with japan. get the hell out of here.

2018 should be england
2020 usa or qatar


----------



## davidhas77

2018 - china
2022 - USA


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

davidhas77 said:


> 2018 - china
> 2022 - USA


2018 is reserved for Europe


----------



## Wezza

davidhas77 said:


> 2018 - china
> 2022 - USA


What rock have you been living under? China isn't even bidding for 2018. :lol:


----------



## SASH

2018 Holland/Belgium
2022 Australia
:cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

Enough with the cultural/national stereotypes. These may be offensive and eventually cause chaos.

Lets move on.

Thanks.


----------



## corredor06

Aussie


----------



## Walbanger

2018: Don't really care so either Australia flukes it or Holland/Belgium

2022: Australia


----------



## Lord David

Mo Rush said:


> Enough with the cultural/national stereotypes. These may be offensive and eventually cause chaos.
> 
> Lets move on.
> 
> Thanks.


Indeed. FIFA won't get Etihad! :lol:


----------



## Lord David

Wezza said:


> What rock have you been living under? China isn't even bidding for 2018. :lol:


Maybe he thinks China will FORCE FIFA to give it to them or will have ruled the world by then. :nuts:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2018 England
2022 United States


----------



## Mo Rush

Lord David said:


> Indeed. FIFA won't get Etihad! :lol:


AFL vs FIFA. Good Luck!


----------



## Snorky33

I wonder if FIFA will punish England for their botched bid?


----------



## RobH

There won't be official sanctions in my opinion, and nor should there be. Even an organisation like FIFA wouldn't legislate against a bid because someone who used to be involved in it made some crazy comments in what he thoght was a private conversation. If he'd said such things publically then of course England 2018 would be in trouble with the ethics committee. As it is though, I don't think they'll sanction England 2018 for what has happened.

Whether it'll affect the vote though we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Alemanniafan

RobH said:


> There won't be official sanctions in my opinion, and nor should there be. Even an organisation like FIFA wouldn't legislate against a bid because someone who used to be involved in it made some crazy comments in what he thoght was a private conversation. If he'd said such things publically then of course England 2018 would be in trouble with the ethics committee. As it is though, I don't think they'll sanction England 2018 for what has happened.
> 
> Whether it'll affect the vote though we'll have to wait and see.


Now, what does this statement here tell us:


http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33285 said:


> FIFA can confirm that FIFA secretary general Jérôme Valcke has requested the FIFA Ethics Committee to examine the alleged statements made by Lord Triesman in relation to the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups," said a statement by world football's governing body.
> 
> "In addition, FIFA has sent a letter to The Football Association asking The FA to provide a report on this matter, including Lord Triesman's position.
> 
> "FIFA will not make any further comment on this matter until it has been dealt with by the FIFA Ethics Committee."


It tells us that the FIFA ethics committee asked for a report on the matter and for Lord Triesman' position his allegations and accuisations.
And it also says the matter will be dealt with.

What it doesn't specify is that the FIFA Ethics Commitee most likely doesn't only do this just because it investigates agains Triesman but as I expect also because they have to investigate in the matter concerning the accuisations themselves that were made by Triesman in order to clarify how if there is possibly any truth to those allegations against Spain and Russia.
Of course they won't say it openly and publically, but I surely expect that now, where they have been informed by Triesman (accidentally) through the press by his statements that he accuses Spain and Russia of possibly manipulating games Games or the WC bid or bribery... they will of course also have to investigate if there is any truth to that, at least if they do what they ought to do and if only to clarify for sure there is really absolutely no truth to them. 
Who knows theoretically this might even have a much bigger impact on the whole bid than most here expect. the outcome is probably extremely unpredictable for non insiders like us here whithout any solid information facts etc. The possible outcome might theoretically of course be sanctions against or a lot of trouble for England leading to virtually no chance to win the bid or England even cancelling the bid, but theoretically it might also just as well be revealing a gigantic manupilation skandal between Spain and Russia with unimaginable consequences, or all of that or none of it.... who knows? We all here surely don't, unless there are some people around who do in fact have inside information, which I seriously doubt of course.
But luckily we just have to be a little patient and then will see what the outcome of this or these investogations from the FIFA Ethics Committee is.


----------



## Fobos2030

love-qatar said:


> :cheer:Russia


Thank you


----------



## Luke80

Saw an article in Metro today saying that the ethics committee are fast tracking the investigation to prove this allegations wrong.

That last bit was a quote not opinion. Completely wrong - they should be investigating the root cause of the allegations not trying to sweep them under the carpet because you never know - whoever informed Triesman could have been on to something.


----------



## RobH

> Who knows theoretically this might even have a much bigger impact on the whole bid than most here expect. the outcome is probably extremely unpredictable for non insiders like us here whithout any solid information facts etc.


Unless there is evidence that Spain and/or Russia have been doing underhand dealings (which I think is extremely unlikely) I think it's easy to predict that nothing will come of this investigation.

Spain and Russia will almost certainly be cleared of any wrongdoing, and England will at most get a slap on the wrist and told to be more careful. I don't see how it could be any other way.


----------



## Alemanniafan

RobH said:


> Unless there is evidence that Spain and/or Russia have been doing underhand dealings (which I think is extremely unlikely) I think it's easy to predict that nothing will come of this investigation.
> 
> Spain and Russia will almost certainly be cleared of any wrongdoing, and England will at most get a slap on the wrist and told to be more careful. I don't see how it could be any other way.


Yes that's a very likely outcome, of course and I would also guess it's probably just going to be exactly that in the end.

But, if you look at it like this:
-Why would Triesman tell someone else in a purely private conversation (thats what he thought it was) that Spain and Russia are doing underhand deals?

There are basically two diferent reasons: 
- a) he just made it all up, just like that, for whatever reason, who nows why ...to impress or because he is upset about something or whatever reason why people would tell dirty lies to disgrace other contetstants.
or 
-b) because there are rumours spreading around internally in the organisation that these things are in fact happening.

If a) is the case then it's rather likely this private conversation was not the only time he mentioned things like that and then it probably shouldn't be all to difficult to get enough evidence or indications that Triesman or maybe even also other FA members or officials have been running kind of a little dirt-campaign against the other contestants Spain and Russia. And that could in fact really lead to trouble for the english bid if anything like that were revealed in thorough investigations.
If b) were the case then those ongoing rumours within the FIFA would have to be investigated and who knows what results that might bring up then. And if the rumors should in fact really do have some true background, then it's probably not even all that unlikely that someone hands over documents or information to the press or the FIFA Ethic Committee. It wouldn't be anything unusual if more came up in that case, if there were some truth to Triesman's allegations.

Of course it would also depend on how thoroughly all this is being investigated. And who knows what the FIFA Ethic Committee would really like to find out and what rather not? It could be that like Luke80 suggests they might just be trying to sweep it under the carpet quickly, so no harm to the FIFA is done. Might on the other hand also be the case that they take these things extremely seriously and investigate very throroughly and they just don't want to say anything wrong or misinterpretable in public before they have any rock solid evidences. 
It's all pure speculation at this point basically. Fun yes, but basically just kinda like fortune telling from what we have here so far.


----------



## Lord David

Mo Rush said:


> AFL vs FIFA. Good Luck!


If FIFA is serious about getting the WC in Australia, then they will respect us, acknowledge the constraints and accept the other venues on offer.

After all, it's the AFL that's giving up 6 venues, FIFA should commend them for making what is understandably a tough decision. The deals have been signed, FIFA should respect them and not ask for 1 measly stadium just because it's 50k, retractable seating and has a roof.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Lord David said:


> If FIFA is serious about getting the WC in Australia, then they will respect us, acknowledge the constraints and accept the other venues on offer.
> 
> After all, it's the AFL that's giving up 6 venues, FIFA should commend them for making what is understandably a tough decision. The deals have been signed, FIFA should respect them and not ask for 1 measly stadium just because it's 50k, retractable seating and has a roof.


Erm.. sorry.. but what? Why should FIFA care? There are plenty of other countries who will host it according to rules if you don't want to. FIFA doesn't need to bring anything to Australia, its Australia that wants to bring World Cup there. So play by the rules..


----------



## RobH

Australia will offer what it can offer. It can't offer stadiums whose owners don't agree. If FIFA wants a world cup in Australia they'll overlook one stadium being left out and perhaps wrangle with the Australian organising committee over the exact stadium plan in the coming years. If they don't want a world cup in Australia they simply won't pick them.


----------



## Mo Rush

Lord David said:


> If FIFA is serious about getting the WC in Australia, then they will respect us, acknowledge the constraints and accept the other venues on offer.
> 
> After all, it's the AFL that's giving up 6 venues, FIFA should commend them for making what is understandably a tough decision. The deals have been signed, FIFA should respect them and not ask for 1 measly stadium just because it's 50k, retractable seating and has a roof.


Boy oh boy. Good Luck with that.

It has a *roof.* This makes sense in *winter*. IF FIFA want the stadium FIFA will get the stadium.

If they don't they just won't bother.


----------



## Livno80101

I just dont understand all that crap around AFL vs FIFA... FIFA World Cup is biggest sporting event one country can host... so, if there is necessity, that AFL league can be shortened, or some match days can be moved,so it starts like 3/4 weeks before planned (like last week of February) and finished in late September (so you will get 6 weeks free, for stadiums to be used in WC to be prepared)

or matches can be played simultaneously with WC, but played on smaller stadiums (why those must be played in 50-60-90k stadiums ??? )

or, if you want to, you can just give up, and let America host that event


----------



## antriksh_sfo

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Erm.. sorry.. but what? Why should FIFA care? There are plenty of other countries who will host it according to rules if you don't want to. FIFA doesn't need to bring anything to Australia, its Australia that wants to bring World Cup there. So play by the rules..


+1
A desparate attempt for one and seems like have mercy give us the World Cup.:lol::lol:

Now with undertable arrangements being restricted.
OZ may not be able to pull out something like Sydney 2000.

Remember, Manchester and Sydney had a deal, who ever looses before the final round shall divert all their support to the remaining of the two in competition.
Still Sydney just won by just 2 votes.
Juan Samarach later said, had it been a tie he would have been a fix to cast his deciding vote.


----------



## Walbanger

I really don't see this as a FIFA vs AFL thing. I just see it as ill thought out words of some Australian posters. Most in Australia are a little more realistic and are very aware that if FIFA foresee venue difficulty that can easily choose another bid which may very well be superior anyway.

Though there is no guarantee of Australia winning the 2022 in such a tight race but if we lose, rightly or wrongly the AFL will be the scapegoat.


----------



## aaronaugi1

Mo Rush said:


> Boy oh boy. Good Luck with that.
> 
> It has a *roof.* This makes sense in *winter*. IF FIFA want the stadium FIFA will get the stadium.
> 
> If they don't they just won't bother.


Etihad isn't exactly the perfect venue for football anyway. I don't see why they would push so hard for a venue that is only 56k and still doesn't offer that great of viewing conditions. 

Although it may be winter, the weather probably only going to impact matches in Sydney and Canberra.

I get the impression that while it is cold in Melbourne and Geelong, it doesn't actually rain as much in winter periods compared to Sydney.

I know Hobart is actually drier than Perth. Much colder, but drier because of its location.


----------



## shabangabang

kichigai said:


> Australia's Bid Stadiums
> 
> http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/australias-bid_stadiums.aspx
> 
> Stadium Australia - Sydney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sydney Football Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacktown Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MCG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brisbane Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perth Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adelaide Oval
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gold Coast Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newcastle Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canberra Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geelong Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Townsville Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semi Finals for Perth, Melbourne and Sydney.
> 
> Townsville, Gold Coast, Canberra, Geelong, Newcastle, Blacktown all feature temporary seating and will have reduced capacity post World Cup.


Does it honestly look like we need Etihad stadium? Stuff the AFL. Let them play in an empty stadium while the rest of Australia watches some of the best athletes in the world do their thing.


----------



## Melb_aviator

Is the Geelong stadium planned to have similar movable seating to Etihad? that would be great. Then it would have a legacy usage for Football (soccer) into the future. The only issue with the Geelong stadium idea I see is the fact that the existing stand is being kept. Makes it look weird, but I understand that it is a stand built not long ago so it is hardly worthwhile getting rid of it.

The bids new stadiums at Blacktown, Canberra and Perth will all provide great legacies for the future, although the Western Sydney venue is likely to be underused and struggle as much as ANZ stadium has after the event.


----------



## shabangabang

Melb_aviator said:


> Is the Geelong stadium planned to have similar movable seating to Etihad? that would be great. Then it would have a legacy usage for Football (soccer) into the future. The only issue with the Geelong stadium idea I see is the fact that the existing stand is being kept. Makes it look weird, but I understand that it is a stand built not long ago so it is hardly worthwhile getting rid of it.
> 
> The bids new stadiums at Blacktown, Canberra and Perth will all provide great legacies for the future, although the Western Sydney venue is likely to be underused and struggle as much as ANZ stadium has after the event.


From what I have read the Blacktown stadium is going to have its capacity reduced to 27k after the world cup.
It will be the home ground of the new Western Sydney A-League team.
It will also make a good increased capacity venue for Penrith and/or Parramatta to host matches. It will certainly be well used.


----------



## Mo Rush

aaronaugi1 said:


> Etihad isn't exactly the perfect venue for football anyway. I don't see why they would push so hard for a venue that is only 56k and still doesn't offer that great of viewing conditions.
> 
> Although it may be winter, the weather probably only going to impact matches in Sydney and Canberra.
> 
> I get the impression that while it is cold in Melbourne and Geelong, it doesn't actually rain as much in winter periods compared to Sydney.
> 
> I know Hobart is actually drier than Perth. Much colder, but drier because of its location.


I'm sure the viewing conditions are better than the MCG...or not?

I'm not suggesting FIFA will definitely want the venue or even get it.
I'm only stating that if FIFA want the venue, as the tournament is during winter, they will get it.

If they feel its unnecessary to grab it, then they won't. The roof ensures 5-8 matches without the impact of the winter weather.

Its just better for broadcasters, sponsors and viewers around the world...


----------



## woozoo

aaronaugi1 said:


> Etihad isn't exactly the perfect venue for football anyway. I don't see why they would push so hard for a venue that is only 56k and still doesn't offer that great of viewing conditions.
> 
> Although it may be winter, the weather probably only going to impact matches in Sydney and Canberra.
> 
> I get the impression that while it is cold in Melbourne and Geelong, it doesn't actually rain as much in winter periods compared to Sydney.
> 
> I know Hobart is actually drier than Perth. Much colder, but drier because of its location.


Melbourne has more rainy days in June than Sydney on average.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_066062.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086071.shtml

Etihad stadium would be far more appealing for FIFA, fans and the organising commitee than anything in Geelong. 
1) Roof
2) Bigger capacity
3) In Melbourne therefore no need for fans to travel to Geelong. Easier for fans and easier for organising transport.
4) Plenty of room for FIFA media circus tents next door.
5) Prime location which Victorian State and Council is trying, and arguably failing, in developing into an attractive tourist precinct. It needs investment and exposure and what better to do that than the WC?!
6) FFA and federal and state governments would prefer shots like this:









Over shots like this:









To answer Mo, Etihad has better site lines than the MCG Im pretty sure. Smaller pitch so closer to action and steeper stands. Of course it also has retractable seating. All round better venue than "the G".

I certainly hope the FFA is just using the geelong stadium in the bid book and are hoping for Etihad to be used. Id be perfectly happy for the AFL to be using this whole thing as a means to get the state gov to invest in Kardinia park and then say "ahh **** it, just take Etihad coz we're not using it anyway!"

Anyone got any news on whether the AFL and NRL would be running during the cup?
I've read assurances from the government that the competitions will surely continue, though I dont know whether to take them seriously or not.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 Russia
2022 USA
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Japan
2038 Mexico


----------



## niftim

Russia!


----------



## RobH

LOL, so Europe's going to go 5 cycles without getting the world cup is it Matthew? Your lists get funnier and funner!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2018 England/Russia
2022 United States
2026 Asia (China, Korea, Japan, Australia)
2030 England/Russia/Italy/Spain
2034 Argentina
2038 Egypt


----------



## Luke80

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 Russia
> 2022 USA
> 2026 Australia
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Japan
> 2038 Mexico


:lol: Disguise your wind-ups better next time!


----------



## kichigai

2018 Matthew Lowry
2022 Matthew Lowry
2026 Matthew Lowry
2030 Matthew Lowry


----------



## Livno80101

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 Russia
> 2022 USA
> 2026 Australia
> 2030 Uruguay and Argentina
> 2034 Japan
> 2038 Mexico


Oh my dear God... biggest stupidity I have never heard :nuts:


----------



## zaDic

2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 ASIA
2030 Argentina/Uruguay (OK, just Arg)
2034 EUROPE


----------



## TEBC

is there any kind of bid index like the games bid index?


----------



## hangman

Another person who doesnt understand fifas rotation policy. No two hosts from asia in a row.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

kichigai said:


> 2018 Matthew Lowry
> 2022 Matthew Lowry
> 2026 Matthew Lowry
> 2030 Matthew Lowry


Thank you for Choseing me to Host 3 World Cup games in a Row but my Tokyo House will be to small for a football flied.
President Sepp Blatter Want Europe get the Games in 2018 but ant going to Happen just like. President Dr Jacques Rogge want Cape Town to get the 2020 Games but ant going to Happen.

2018 USA, North America
2022 Russia, Europe and Asia
2026 Australia, Australia
2030 Agentina And Uruguay, South America
2034 Japan, Asia
2038 Italy, Europe


----------



## crazyalex

zaDic said:


> 2018 England
> 2022 Australia
> 2026 ASIA
> 2030 Argentina/Uruguay (OK, just Arg)
> 2034 EUROPE


GTFO (Get The **** Out) Matthew Lowry wannabe


----------



## crazyalex

Matthew Lowry said:


> Thank you for Choseing me to Host 3 World Cup games in a Row but my Tokyo House will be to small for a football flied.
> President Sepp Blatter Want Europe get the Games in 2018 but ant going to Happen just like. President Dr Jacques Rogge want Cape Town to get the 2020 Games but ant going to Happen.
> 
> 2018 USA, North America
> 2022 Russia, Europe and Asia
> 2026 Australia, Australia
> 2030 Agentina And Uruguay, South America
> 2034 Japan, Asia
> 2038 Italy, Europe


Oh look it's Matthew list again hno:
Austraila is a Oceania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
Austraila football is a Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Football_Confederation


----------



## RobH

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=32968

Apparently a new update coming in a few days


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

^^interesting article.


----------



## Alemanniafan

RobH said:


> http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=32968
> 
> Apparently a new update coming in a few days


Thanks for the link, it's nice to read, but seriously:
An index where Qatar ends up 3rd with a better score than the US even has, tied with Russia and just one point behind Australia. No offense to the people from Qatar and this ranking probably indicates the Qatar bid might be far better than many of us here expect, but I personally can't really take a ranking with an outcome like that very serious. 
The main reason why the result of this ranking is so weird is probably because they have no weighted scores for their categories while having lots of categories valueing the bid "paperwork" aspects like: "Bid operation/leadership", "Relation w/ FIFA members", "International PR"
while at the same time having only very few categories for cultural and touristic infrastructure aspects which are partially being completely omitted even and only partially rated in this one category here:"Transport/Accommodation".


----------



## Nikom

England is the best bid


----------



## Fizmo1337

> Belgium & Netherlands Pros
> -Football is the national sport for both countries, thus guaranteed national enthusiasm.
> -Short distance between venues.
> -Good transport infrastructure.
> -Neither have hosted the World Cup before.





> Belgium & Netherlands Cons
> -By far the smallest country or group of countries bidding.


Doesn't matter aslong as there are enough hotels and if the infrastructure can cope with the millions of visitors. Should be possible, if needed you can stay in nearby cities, you can get everywhere witin a couple of hours anyway within benelux.


> -Belgium's lack of political unity.


Don't really see what this has to do with it? If we get the World Cup the stadiums will be build for sure and no Belgium won't split before 2018.


> -Many domestic teams don't need 40,000+ stadiums, thus costly and un-needed legacy.


Maybe not 12 teams but at least 8 teams need a bigger stadium. 40000 Would be a good stadium for a number of teams + we need a new national stadium in Belgium too + a few stadiums can get reshaped to a 20/30k stadium if needed.


> -FIFA might be against joint bids.


FIFA is against join bids because of the political bullcrap between te FA's of the 2 countries like in Japan/South Korea. However, BE & NL have 1 bid and work very closely together so it's no problem.


That said, I think England deserve it more. Spain/Portugal would be nice aswell, great culture, great weather, great people, great cities, great for camping, just perfect. Russia, please... just no. They are worse in every social-eco aspect compared to Spain or England. Worse cities (in general, I know moscow & St Petersburg r nice), same or worse climate, worse infrastructure, fans not as friendy as in spain/england, too big distances, racism problem(?), not sure if the camping would be as good as in spain/england, difficult to reach cities outside moscow, too many socio-economic problems within society, first time that they bid and could go on and on. Just throwing some money at it is not enough. 

And the trolls on this thread don't really change my attitude (allthough I shouldn't use this as an argument).

I have nothing against Russia, I just think a World Cup would be better in England or Spain. Maybe Russia in 2026.


----------



## jacoboy7

Very Good read 

I just hope Australia gets 2022, and not Qatar, no offence xD.


----------



## ArrHo

Landanar said:


> English - very mean and unprincipled people. They cam betray and lie for their aims. They disdain all other counries and natioins except their owners from USA. They have just blamed Russia, Catar and Spain in corruption. Of course they hadn't any evidences. Also they blamed many members of FIFA. ...
> I can talk very long about their abomination...
> I hope that worls cup will be in Russia. But if Russia loses, i can support some other country except England and USA.


and who said the cold war was over, this is football and England has a great choice of stadiums, new and old. it also has alot of football fans so no games will have poor attendence plus with the Olympics being held before it we will have the lessons learnt from that to create a brilliant world cup.


----------



## rus

Comrades, the Europeans accept the fact that the World Cup 2018 will take place in Russia. We he needed, we never in history did not take World Cup or Euro. 
Welcome to Russia in WC 2018!


----------



## AILD

ArrHo said:


> and who said the cold war was over


No one. Jackson-Wennick amendment still in power, without reasons, USA and UK continue to arm and supply puppet regimes around Russia (Georgia, Baltic states), USA STILL have nuclear weapons in Europe, USA STILL has US base in Germany, while Russia doesn't, NATO still exists, UK continue to arm terrorist gangs in N.Caucusus to continue collapse, based on artificially created destabilisation, on August 2008 we saw an Information attack on Russia, in 2008 there was a puppet candidate on president elections - freemason Bogdanov who openly said that he travelling in USA a lot to meet USA politicians before elections, "Color revolutions" in post-Soviet space (CIA regime changes), anti-Russian propaganda in Holyshitwood films continues even stronger, I even don't talk about anti-Russian propaganda in mass media (just read any article about Russia and you will find proved lies very fast), and on and on and on.

But it's not already a Cold War, where 2 sides are fighting. This is one-sided "Cold" attack on Russia.

And someone still wonder why Russia have problems in economic or social sphere? Of course it has, because the whole Intelligense Agencies of USA and UK is working on its creation.


----------



## RobH

Hopefully some FIFA top bods are watching the play-off final at Wembley at the moment. A really great advertisment for football in England. Fantastic football match, great atmosphere.


----------



## Luke80

eMKay said:


> England is overdue.


Absolutely! Even if our bid was total crap (which it isn't!), there would still be a case for us hosting given what we have given to the football world. Best, largest, most exciting, most glamourous, most watched football system in the world.

Russia was a footballing wilderness until a few years ago. Are we going to have to play on artificial pitches like in CL games?!

Of course it would do a world of good hosting it in Russia but that still doesn't out-do what England has IMO.

It's about time FIFA did something right so for goodness sake look past the Triesman ordeal and do what's right for the World Cup and for international football!

PS: where did all these crazy Russian nationalists come from?


----------



## Attraction

Russia!!!


----------



## Alemanniafan

RobH said:


> ...
> London's stadium is a much tighter bowl than past Olympic stadiums.


Looking at the diagramm you postet, I seriuosly doubt it's tighter or even as tight than the Olympiastadion in Berlin. 
It theoretically still might be on average, but only if the stands are really very steep, since the stands in Berlin are in fact rather shallow, 
but the distance from the stands to the pitch sure does look quite a lot bigger to me when I compare the pictures of the Olympiastadion in Berlin 
to the diagram and the pics of the Olympic Stadium in London. (especially along the sidelines the distances seem to be quite noticeably bigger. 
The interior of the Olympic stadium looks like a much wider oval than in Berlin to me.)









(http://www.lowvision2.de/fussball/o_stadion.jpg)



RobH said:


>


----------



## BS3_RED

Alemanniafan said:


> Looking at the diagramm you postet, I seriuosly doubt it's tighter or even as tight than the Olympiastadion in Berlin.
> It theoretically still might be on average, but only if the stands are really very steep, since the stands in Berlin are in fact rather shallow,
> but the distance from the stands to the pitch sure does look quite a lot bigger to me when I compare the pictures of the Olympiastadion in Berlin
> to the diagram and the pics of the Olympic Stadium in London. (especially along the sidelines the distances seem to be quite noticeably bigger.
> The interior of the Olympic stadium looks like a much wider oval than in Berlin to me.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (http://www.lowvision2.de/fussball/o_stadion.jpg)


What stadium is the 2nd pic?


----------



## RobH

Top pic: Berlin Olympic stadium
Bottom pic: London Olympic stadium


----------



## ExSydney

Chimbanha said:


> As commented earlier, the host choice of a FIFA World Cup is not about stadiums. However, stadium-wise, Australia's bid is really underwhelming. FIFA will certainly have objections regarding the oval stadiums, especially MCG.
> 
> All Brazilian ovals apart from Beira-Rio will get their fields lowered in order to bring the stands closer to the action. Even Maracanã had their project rejected because of it. This is, by the way, a pre-requisite for the opening game, final and semifinals: as widely discussed in the Brazilian forum, FIFA sells the lower-tier seats for the highest prices, which is why they need them to be close to the field. That's the reason why Jerome Valcke will certainly have problems with the MCG project and any other stadium that expects to host quarterfinals and beyond.


There is only 1 genuine oval stadium in Australias 2018/2022 bid and thats the MCG,which can be excused because it seats 100,000.
Im not sure what point your making.


----------



## Cauê

2018 - England; 
2022 - Qatar or Australia;


----------



## Chimbanha

ExSydney said:


> There is only 1 genuine oval stadium in Australias 2018/2022 bid and thats the MCG,which can be excused because it seats 100,000.
> Im not sure what point your making.


Only 1 oval? What about the Gold Coast stadium?

My point is that my country is organizing a World Cup right now and, trust me, there isn't a lot of things that can be excused to stadiums that intend to host semifinals of the World Cup. Maracanã (which by the way looks a lot like MCG) had its field lowered in 3m in 2007 and it may have to be lowered again (unless it is physically impossible, as it seems to be right now). Considering the MCG is probably holding the final too, FIFA will probably demand, aside from the field lowering, an extension of the roof (like Maracanã is doing).

Truth is, and South Africans will agree with me, if FIFA chooses a country as host they're not accepting automatically all stadium proposals.


----------



## ExSydney

Chimbanha said:


> Only 1 oval? What about the Gold Coast stadium?
> 
> My point is that my country is organizing a World Cup right now and, trust me, there isn't a lot of things that can be excused to stadiums that intend to host semifinals of the World Cup. Maracanã (which by the way looks a lot like MCG) had its field lowered in 3m in 2007 and it may have to be lowered again (unless it is physically impossible, as it seems to be right now). Considering the MCG is probably holding the final too, FIFA will probably demand, aside from the field lowering, an extension of the roof (like Maracanã is doing).
> 
> Truth is, and South Africans will agree with me, if FIFA chooses a country as host they're not accepting automatically all stadium proposals.


True..and that will happen.There is no doubt Bid Book stadiums vary dramatically from actual.
You point stemmed from that fact that Australia's bid was underwhelming due to the amount of "oval stadiums".

I made a point that there is only one real oval stadium and that was the MCG.The rest are either rectangle or reconfigured rectangle.
Yes..that may change,but only for the better.There will certainly no further oval stadiums on the final list.
As for the MCG..There is a huge difference between it and the Maracana.First thing..its modern..the Maracana..isnt..and thats why FIFA has put high demands on it.The MCG is built in 2 parts...the Southern stand built in 1992 and the northern stand built in 2006...Apart from internal refits and some new seats,the Maracana is really the same venue as it was 50 years ago.Thats not to say the MCG wont be upgraded before 2022.Maybe a new roof..Im not sure.The ground certainly will not be lowered considering its major tenant is the Australian Football League.
As for the Final,its common knowledge that if Australia wins 2018/2022,the the Final will be played at the 88,000 seat Sydney Olympic stadium.


----------



## ExSydney

Chimbanha said:


> Only 1 oval? What about the Gold Coast stadium?
> 
> .


Reconfigured rectangle...Certainly not an oval.


----------



## Welsh American

England in 2018
USA in 2022

End of story


----------



## krudmonk

Lord David said:


> Although a US WC would be dramatically different to 1994, Australia is a new frontier and *has much more to offer* (even if legacy is a weak point in term of post WC stadium use) than the Yanks do.


California has 15 million more people than your whole country and we don't play on ovals.


----------



## ExSydney

Welsh American said:


> England in 2018
> USA in 2022
> 
> End of story


England wait 52 years and the USA get it again after hosting in 1994?

Forget it...

Australia 2022!!


----------



## en1044

ryebreadraz said:


> Also, I think that FIFA doesn't want to keep China from hosting until 2034 at the earliest so they stay away from Australia so China can host 2026 or 2030.


Exactly.

I love Australia, but unfortunately for them China is the popular new kid on the block.


----------



## crazyalex

ExSydney said:


> England wait 52 years and the USA get it again after hosting in 1994?
> 
> Forget it...
> 
> Australia 2022!!


^^agree
Will be good
2018 Benelux or Russia
2022 Austraila


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

If China wants, then they should probably bid?


----------



## ExSydney

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> If China wants, then they should probably bid?


I agree..You cant go on who "may" bid..There were rumours China were going to bid for 2018 or 2022.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ment/china-consider-world-cup-bid-971898.html

So what are we supposed to do.Discount all REAL bids for 2018/2022 in the faint hope that China "may" bid for 2026 or do we end up in the same situation where China pull out of the race..

Stuff China..They either bid or they dont...Simple as that.


----------



## ryebreadraz

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> If China wants, then they should probably bid?


They chose a Winter Olympics bids over a World Cup bid this time around, but have said that they would like to host a World Cup soon. FIFA will be sure to make sure they can host as soon as China bids.


----------



## ExSydney

ryebreadraz said:


> They chose a Winter Olympics bids over a World Cup bid this time around,


Wow!..That will impress FIFA!
As I said before..Stuff them..They are either bidding or they are not...
They are currently NOT bidding


----------



## Chimbanha

ExSydney said:


> As for the MCG..There is a huge difference between it and the Maracana.First thing..its modern..the Maracana..isnt..and thats why FIFA has put high demands on it.The MCG is built in 2 parts...the Southern stand built in 1992 and the northern stand built in 2006...Apart from internal refits and some new seats,the Maracana is really the same venue as it was 50 years ago.Thats not to say the MCG wont be upgraded before 2022.Maybe a new roof..Im not sure.The ground certainly will not be lowered considering its major tenant is the Australian Football League.
> As for the Final,its common knowledge that if Australia wins 2018/2022,the the Final will be played at the 88,000 seat Sydney Olympic stadium.


Well, and what's the point of being modern if the stands are a kilometer away from the pitch and the stadium has no roof? FIFA doesn't care about looks and modernity. Morumbi is probably getting our opening game even though it's our ugliest stadium in the bid. My experience with our WC preparations show that, in order of importance to FIFA:
1 - Visibility
2 - Security (esp. evacuation)
3 - Comfort (e.g. roof)
4 - Outside space (esp. for opening and final venues)
5 - Looks/modernity, etc.

And, because of that:

A - MCG is not going to hold 100,000 expectators. All the seats that exceed the pitch-distance guidelines (90m distance to the center of the pitch and 190m to the farthest corner) will not be utilized - Maracanã will lose more than 10,000 seats due to this guideline, and, considering the pitch looks much farther in MCG, I think it will lose much more. I think Wembley and the Olympic Stadium in London would lose some seats too.

B - Maracanã will have to eliminate all the parts at which a superior tier covers an inferior one, reconstructing the lower tier with the same inclination as the upper one. Morumbi even had to get rid of their intermediate tier in order to obey to this guideline, and I think it's pretty much the only solution to the MCG.

I'm not bullying Australia or anything, it's just that this is the bid at which I'm focused now. I mean, don't even get me started on the English stadiums and they fact that are located in the middle of the city with virtual no breathing space.

It's just that you guys that are out of the hosting process have no idea of how picky FIFA can be and how there is no such thing as compromise in their book. The first thing after a country is elected hosts is to sign an agreement at which the host countries agree to follow all the FIFA guidelines - and FIFA makes sure to use every possible type of pressure in order to make it happen. 

If Brazil is going through all this stadium remodelling when it was pretty much the only option FIFA had, imagine what will happen to the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 Word Cups, which will be picked among a dozen of contenders.


----------



## ryebreadraz

ExSydney said:


> Wow!..That will impress FIFA!
> As I said before..Stuff them..They are either bidding or they are not...
> They are currently NOT bidding


What impresses FIFA is the money. They could care less about the rest of it. China is a moneymaker. They are going to bid and Australia, while a nice bid and one that I think would go very well, isn't lucrative enough to push China back.


----------



## RobH

I think the rankings and the numbers are a bit questionable to be honest, but the qualitative analysis below them is excellent.


----------



## hangman

Even some of that was a load of rubbish, I thought. Australia marked down in at least 3 categories for the code clash, which is already sorted? And way to misinterpret the 'lucky country' comment.

I'll agree with england as #1 but thats about it.


----------



## SYG1968

England!


----------



## No1

RobH said:


> No reason to believe the economy will still be in a sticky patch by 2018, and nor does that preclude hosting a big event anyway. Don't forget the preparations for the 2012 Olympics have been ongoing throughout the recession, and have been going well despite it. Besides which, our world cup bid uses mostly existing stadiums and those which aren't existing are built by the clubs, not the government.


Economy could be better and worse and it's uncertainty is bad for candidacy.
But England did not get only a summer Olympic 2012 but the Rugby World Cup , union and league. And rugby union WC is important and watched. Also know that there were problems with the ways of financing Olympics in 2009.
I think it is good that Russia receives organization of WC 2018. There are several reasons:
1. People from west explore Russian culture. Decades the Cold War created a great russophobia in the west. The best way to stop it is that people explore Russia and meet people. As an example of St Petersburg. One of the most beautiful cities in the world with a huge history and incredible Hermitage museum. How many people know that the Hermitage Museum has the largest collection of paintings in the world? Picasso, Rubens, Rembrandt, Matisse, Leonardo da Vinci...Or to meet place where created Dostoyevsky or Tchaikovsky and so on.
2. Prejudice. I saw that someone wrote that there is nothing in Russia except Moscow and St. Petersburg. Do you know that the Nizhny Novgorod one of most important historical Russian cities? I will not tell the reason, I hope that Russia will get the World Cup in 2018 and you will find out.
It is a closed city during the Soviet Union but that does not mean that there is nothing there.
This is just one example. What to say about the Volgograd (Stalingrad)? Would not you like to see the place of greatest battle of the Second World War? Or get to know the city where born Immanuel Kant? 
3. Russia has a tradition in football. Not only national team that was european champion. USSR and Russian clubs won several titles in european competitions.
Russia has a lot to offer, it is not evil empire.


----------



## MattXG

Look, if you guys want to have a REAL world cup....ya gotta do it in America.

We still hold the records for attendance and money even though we didn't even have a soccer league when we held it and there were less teams and less games! 

Now we have many more super stadiums already built and more on the way. 

How can we be ignored?


----------



## Fobos2030

MattXG said:


> How can we be ignored?


Simply:lol:


----------



## RobH

MattXG said:


> Look, if you guys want to have a REAL world cup....ya gotta do it in America.
> 
> We still hold the records for attendance and money even though we didn't even have a soccer league when we held it and there were less teams and less games!
> 
> Now we have many more super stadiums already built and more on the way.
> 
> How can we be ignored?


Well, I think many would dispute the idea that a world cup in America - a country where football is the fifth sport at best - would be more REAL than in any other country. Because, to be perfectly honest, if the US' national sport didn't happen to share a similar sized pitch to football, the country would be in much the same position as Australia.

It's because of this happy coincidence, rather than a wide-spread and deep rooted passion for the Game, that the US can offer FIFA record attendences and revenue. That's not to say the US shouldn't make the most of this point, or that FIFA should ignore it and not take it into account, but big stadiums which are built mainly for another sport doesn't make the prospect of a US world cup more real or more enticing for your average fan.


----------



## MattXG

RobH said:


> Well, I think many would dispute the idea that a world cup in America - a country where football is the fifth sport at best - would be more REAL than in any other country. Because, to be perfectly honest, if the US' national sport didn't happen to share a similar sized pitch to football, the country would be in much the same position as Australia.
> 
> It's because of this happy coincidence, rather than a wide-spread and deep rooted passion for the Game, that the US can offer FIFA record attendences and revenue. That's not to say the US shouldn't make the most of this point, or that FIFA should ignore it and not take it into account, but big stadiums which are built mainly for another sport doesn't make the prospect of a US world cup more real or more enticing for your average fan.


Why? As long as the venue has good sightlines and is a modern, comfortable place to be...what else matters? 

Surely American stadiums have better sight lines than do those big round stadiums in Australia. Not to mention, unlike Australia, we don't have to interrupt sports leagues that are in the middle of their season. 

We win.


----------



## RobH

MattXG said:


> Why? As long as the venue has good sightlines and is a modern, comfortable place to be...what else matters?
> 
> Surely American stadiums have better sight lines than do those big round stadiums in Australia. Not to mention, unlike Australia, we don't have to interrupt sports leagues that are in the middle of their season.
> 
> We win.


If it was any other country you were competing against I might agree with you, but the prospect of an Australian world cup, even in stadiums which may be inferior to what the US can offer, excites me more than a US world cup so soon after their last tournament. Ozzie sports fans are some of the best in the world and they put on the best Olympics of my lifetime. I hope they're given a shot at the world cup (after us in 2018, of course).

And of course, America will always be able to offer bigger stadiums than everyone else, possibly with better sightlines. That's a given. That isn't, and nor should it be, a trump card, otherwise no nation would ever win a world cup bid if America is also in the race! :lol:

Besides which, didn't Chicago 2016 offer much the same argument to the IOC only a few months ago only to be beaten by a city that had never hosted before? Technically superior bids don't always win; there are other, more intangible factors which are always in play when hosts of events like this are chosen.


----------



## Fobos2030

MattXG said:


> Why? As long as the venue has good sightlines and is a modern, comfortable place to be...what else matters?
> 
> Surely American stadiums have better sight lines than do those big round stadiums in Australia. Not to mention, unlike Australia, we don't have to interrupt sports leagues that are in the middle of their season.
> 
> We win.


You guys already had WC in 94. I think it is time to give it to Australia or someone else who didn't have it yet...


----------



## 863552

http://www.australia2018-2022.com.au/news-updates_detail.aspx?view=64


----------



## Mo Rush

Next week a "Live" poll will be started.

Each day voting will open, and close after 24 hours. The country with the least amount of votes will be eliminated. Voting will open the next day for the remaining candidates until host country wins the majority of the votes.

The process will begin with 2018 and then proceed with the remaining countries, for the 2022 bids, following FIFA's rotation policy currently in place.

Voting will be in the form of a secret vote.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

RobH said:


> I think the rankings and the numbers are a bit questionable to be honest, but the qualitative analysis below them is excellent.


Will these results translate into votes?
If yes then guys b ready for one big mistake Qatar WC
Wish some sanity prevails n hopefully money does not win
Well IOC report for 2012 had put Paris ahead of London
What follwed is just history


Wish som


----------



## 863552

^^

You need a new thread... >.>


----------



## RobH

^^ This report is nothing official. Just a website creating its own index.


----------



## TEBC

ye


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Australia
2030 Argentina and Uruguay
2034 Italy
2038 Japan


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Seriously, can you stop with the lists?


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Seriously, can you stop with the lists?


Why isn't he banned yet? Not he even started to open threads for his nonsense


----------



## fish.01

MattXG said:


> Why? As long as the venue has good sightlines and is a modern, comfortable place to be...what else matters?
> 
> Surely American stadiums have better sight lines than do those big round stadiums in Australia. Not to mention, unlike Australia, we don't have to interrupt sports leagues that are in the middle of their season.
> 
> We win.


While one or two Australia stadiums will be round ones most will be rugby league stadiums with close, high pitch seating and good atmosphere.

Who cares that we have to interrupt sports leagues that are in the middle of their season. They have agreed in writing and handed over their stadiums so it's a done deal.

Australia has almost 5 times more fans per capita at this years world cup than the USA so it could be argued the atmosphere will be better outside the stadiums in Australia as well. The average aussie would be far more excited than the average american to hold the football world cup and that would make it more exciting for our visitors as well. 

Would the US use some of those tiny NFL pitches that they used in the last US world cup where it looked like football was being played on a billiards table?

You also will not have to be photographed, fingerprinted and scowled at to attend an Australian world cup 

"is a modern, comfortable place to be...what else matters? "....the fact that you asked this should disqualify you from holding a world cup


----------



## AILD

*FIFA probe dismisses Russia-Spain World Cup bribery claims*

http://en.rian.ru/sports/20100528/159204607.html


----------



## RobH

^^ A predictable outcome to this investiation; exactly what I said would happen all along. 

Now, may the best bid win.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

Now i love Australia but to be honnest they love their AFL, Rubey and Cricket they full in more seats then Soccer so.

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Japan
2030 Uruguay and Argentina
2034 Australia
2038 UAE Sorry Qatar you wont be the 1st islam country to get the games


----------



## Bump

Can you please stop posting lists. Once is enough. No one can predict what will happen in 20 years time.


----------



## AILD

The "great" British press continue attacks on Russia and its Bid. Now they choosed a phrase from the context ("British fans are hooligans") and making hysteria about it. But before it, they should learn more about context. Oops. Another fail.


----------



## coth

They are making a hysteria of everything now. Obviously some people are not able to lose in а fitting manner.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/new...-World-Cup-but-their-bid-is-just-fantasy.html


----------



## TheoG

AILD said:


> The "great" British press continue attacks on Russia and its Bid. Now they choosed a phrase from the context ("British fans are hooligans") and making hysteria about it. But before it, they should learn more about context. Oops. Another fail.


erm, sorry AILD, but you seem to have mistaken the great British press with the news of the world

the great british press (the BBC, the guardian, the times etc.) haven't said a bad word about the Russian bid. In fact, thanks to the daily mail and lord triesman, they almost seem in favour of it

so next time, don't try and insult our country using information gained in the news of the world, it's all crap and about 99% of it isn't actually true

the way you can tell a proper person from an idiot is that idiots believe what they read all the time, proper people don't
news of the world targets the idiots of the world, and the plain perverted, to make money

oops, another fail


----------



## Luke80

AILD said:


> "British fans are hooligans"


Ignoring their own (often) worse problems of violence in football, that's what everyone else in the world chooses to believe about us.


----------



## TheoG

no, you don't get it
they are taking 'the way we took the phrase 'british fans are hooligans' way out of context' way out of context, if you get what i'm saying
they're not saying that we're hooligans, which if you discount millwall is probably true, but millwall fans are not really normal, let's be honest

i'm annoyed with the way they think that everybody in Britain reads, and more importantly believes what they read in the sun and the news of the world
maybe they're having hysterical fits about it, as long as it provides rupert Murdoch with a large pension 
this doesn't mean everybody is laughing at you over here

today's newspaper is tomorrows fish and chip wrapper, today's sun is today's fish and chip wrapper'

surely Russians must have some tabloid newspaper which looks like it was designed for dyslexic 3 year olds and is as true as the harry potter series 

anyway, back on topic, I want England to win naturally, but I wouldn't care too much if anyone else wins, as long as the Russians stop whining about us
2022, I want the USA, I would say Australia but that would rule out china until 2034, and we wouldn't want that, would we
same reason for Qatar, japan and Korea, among other things


----------



## massp88

TheoG said:


> no, you don't get it
> they are taking 'the way we took the phrase 'british fans are hooligans' way out of context' way out of context, if you get what i'm saying
> they're not saying that we're hooligans, which if you discount millwall is probably true, but millwall fans are not really normal, let's be honest
> 
> i'm annoyed with the way they think that everybody in Britain reads, and more importantly believes what they read in the sun and the news of the world
> maybe they're having hysterical fits about it, as long as it provides rupert Murdoch with a large pension
> this doesn't mean everybody is laughing at you over here
> 
> today's newspaper is tomorrows fish and chip wrapper, today's sun is today's fish and chip wrapper'
> 
> surely Russians must have some tabloid newspaper which looks like it was designed for dyslexic 3 year olds and is as true as the harry potter series
> 
> anyway, back on topic, I want England to win naturally, but I wouldn't care too much if anyone else wins, as long as the Russians stop whining about us
> 2022, I want the USA, I would say Australia but that would rule out china until 2034, and we wouldn't want that, would we
> same reason for Qatar, japan and Korea, among other things


There is nothing wrong with China having to wait. Australia should be awarded to host the 2022 cup. They have a better case than China.


----------



## TheoG

massp88 said:


> There is nothing wrong with China having to wait. Australia should be awarded to host the 2022 cup. They have a better case than China.


well I see what you mean, but I'm not sure FIFA will, I'm sure they'll want to break into china as soon as possible, with all the money it'll bring them
as I said, I'd rather see Australia host, but for money making purposes, I think FIFA will overlook them


----------



## Luke80

TheoG said:


> no, you don't get it


My point wasn't entirely related to his, more of something I needed to get off my chest!


----------



## *SFCboy*

I think FIFA should be arranged by countries that can afford without compromising your finances, so I think that the strongest candidates are Japan, UK, USA, mexico, russia, Spain and aaustralia, any of them can make the tournament without compromising your finances


----------



## TheoG

Luke80 said:


> My point wasn't entirely related to his, more of something I needed to get off my chest!


aah, ok, I understand


----------



## TheoG

*SFCboy* said:


> I think FIFA should be arranged by countries that can afford without compromising your finances, so I think that the strongest candidates are Japan, UK, USA, mexico, russia, Spain and aaustralia, any of them can make the tournament without compromising your finances


good point, though I wouldn't say Spain were among the most economically stable countries in the world, and I find it odd that you've emitted Qatar from that list too
I agree though, what is the point of handing the world cup to a country that can't afford it


----------



## GunnerJacket

TheoG said:


> 2022, I want the USA, I would say Australia but that would rule out china until 2034, and we wouldn't want that, would we


Why the hell not?...


TheoG said:


> well I see what you mean, but I'm not sure FIFA will, I'm sure they'll want to break into china as soon as possible, with all the money it'll bring them
> as I said, I'd rather see Australia host, but for money making purposes, I think FIFA will overlook them


So, the Chinese are going to stop being interested in football because the World Cup is in Oz rather than in their homeland? Let's consider this, shall we.

Most reports from SA and leading to Brazil suggest the WC as an event is more a money maker for FIFA than it is for the host country unless that host already has the infrastructure in place. This isn't to say the subsequent investment in new stadia and transport may not be worthwhile, and it's safe to say Brazil and others will greatly benefit from the investment. It's possible China would as well, but there's already a stark difference in the prospects. Brazil has a strong league and the long-term use for their new venues is secured. China? Not so much. If there was such dynamic interest then we'd be seeing the baby steps already, but we're not. 

And while a similar angle could be shared regarding SA, they had the leverage of the rotation policy and the desire to make something of themselves, something new and to inspire development. Again, China doesn't need the same inspiration or outside investment in order to justify their needs, if they feel those needs are present. They've the economic potential to pursue them directly, unlike SA, but instead focus on other areas.

Lastly there's the cultural and tourism difference. Hosting the WC is decidedly different from the Olympics. Whereas the latter is concentrated in one area, the WC is spread over 9+ metro regions. I find it dubious to think the highly image conscious and security wary Chinese are prepared to invite such stark increases in tourists all across their nation while still fighting some of the publicity and news interest issues they do at present. It's easy to put on the pretty face for two weeks in Beijing, but far different from suggesting you're trying to make the rest of the country more inviting to tourists. Thus, why bother?

Meanwhile from FIFA's angle there's little they're missing by waiting out a China bid. The Chinese people are already buying and watching about as much soccer as they can and want, and so long as there are plenty of equally attractive hosts around to keep the event so high on the public conscience, there's no need to bang down the Great Wall. After all, after factoring in inflation there's probably little difference in the revenues FIFA would realize from being in Australia versus China, and if there was then the Chinese would be making waves about it already. Since they aren't...

I'm not discounting that China could someday bid, host a wonderful event and reap great benefits in the process. I just think the idea that FIFA or anyone would discount another Asian host simply on the possibility of accommodating the Chinese at a later date is, well, weak.



*SFCboy* said:


> I think FIFA should be arranged by countries that can afford without compromising your finances, so I think that the strongest candidates are Japan, UK, USA, mexico, russia, Spain and aaustralia, any of them can make the tournament without compromising your finances


So long as that's not the only factor. However, the conventional wisdom is that the local hosts and their governments are smart enough to know what is and what isn't beyond their reach. Whether or not that's reality is another matter.


----------



## TheoG

GunnerJacket said:


> Why the hell not?...
> So, the Chinese are going to stop being interested in football because the World Cup is in Oz rather than in their homeland? Let's consider this, shall we.
> 
> Most reports from SA and leading to Brazil suggest the WC as an event is more a money maker for FIFA than it is for the host country unless that host already has the infrastructure in place. This isn't to say the subsequent investment in new stadia and transport may not be worthwhile, and it's safe to say Brazil and others will greatly benefit from the investment. It's possible China would as well, but there's already a stark difference in the prospects. Brazil has a strong league and the long-term use for their new venues is secured. China? Not so much. If there was such dynamic interest then we'd be seeing the baby steps already, but we're not.
> 
> And while a similar angle could be shared regarding SA, they had the leverage of the rotation policy and the desire to make something of themselves, something new and to inspire development. Again, China doesn't need the same inspiration or outside investment in order to justify their needs, if they feel those needs are present. They've the economic potential to pursue them directly, unlike SA, but instead focus on other areas.
> 
> Lastly there's the cultural and tourism difference. Hosting the WC is decidedly different from the Olympics. Whereas the latter is concentrated in one area, the WC is spread over 9+ metro regions. I find it dubious to think the highly image conscious and security wary Chinese are prepared to invite such stark increases in tourists all across their nation while still fighting some of the publicity and news interest issues they do at present. It's easy to put on the pretty face for two weeks in Beijing, but far different from suggesting you're trying to make the rest of the country more inviting to tourists. Thus, why bother?
> 
> Meanwhile from FIFA's angle there's little they're missing by waiting out a China bid. The Chinese people are already buying and watching about as much soccer as they can and want, and so long as there are plenty of equally attractive hosts around to keep the event so high on the public conscience, there's no need to bang down the Great Wall. After all, after factoring in inflation there's probably little difference in the revenues FIFA would realize from being in Australia versus China, and if there was then the Chinese would be making waves about it already. Since they aren't...
> 
> I'm not discounting that China could someday bid, host a wonderful event and reap great benefits in the process. I just think the idea that FIFA or anyone would discount another Asian host simply on the possibility of accommodating the Chinese at a later date is, well, weak.


I agree with you in the sense that I don't think Australia and the other asian countries should be discounted just due their proximity to China, but I think a couple of members of FIFA will maybe think about this when choosing who to vote, with regards to them getting as big a pension as possible as quickly as possible.

The Chinese are more intersted in football than they ever have been, and they're interest is growing. Live matches from the Premiership, Serie A and the Bundesliga are shown on free to air TV - we don't even get live matches from our own league free in Britain, let alone leagues from half way around the world. Many idolise players that they see on TV - shirts with names like Rooney, Ronaldo etc. sell by the million. Their national team is the most supported in the world, despite not much success.

Imagine the hype that a world cup in China would cause - you saw how many turned up to events at the Olympics - even more people would turn up to the world cup, with it being spread over the whole nation. Couple that with the size of the stadiums over there - China have 10 stadiums built in the last fifteen years with a capacity of 60k or over, a number only beaten by the Americans. Without doubt, these stadiums will be 95% full or more every match, be it for Algeria vs New Zealand or Brazil vs Argentina. That would result in a lot more tickets being sold than an Australian World Cup would.

As well as tickets, massive amounts of merchandise would be sold. Bearing in mind that millions of people in China wouldn't get tickets, many would want to have some sort of world cup experience - hence the fan parks, the parties etc. The amount of England shirts, for example, sold at a Chinese world cup would amass to about the same as the amount sold in 2 or 3 years in England.

All in all, for financial purposes and for the general sake of the Chinese people, a world cup in China would be nothing like we've ever seen before in terms of spectator support, merchandise sold and general hype brought up. 

I really do doubt that, if they were given the chance, China would delay bidding for the world cup even longer, and I'm sure if they even hinted about bidding, FIFA would encourage them greatly. And even if Australia, Qatar or the like won 2022 and after China announced that they were bidding for 2026, I'm sure FIFA would tweak the rules a bit - like they did when Germany beat South Africa in bidding for 2006, much to the dismay of the FIFA money-men. A rule, not very well thought out, clearly, was introduced all but assuring that South Africa would win 2010. 

I'm not saying that I want the US to win 2022 - I'm half Australian, so I have as good a reason as any to want them to win, but I think that in the end of the day, China has the chance to be a deciding factor in who hosts the 2022 world cup.


----------



## Mo Rush

GunnerJacket said:


> Most reports from SA and leading to Brazil suggest the WC as an event is more a money maker for FIFA than it is for the host country unless that host already has the infrastructure in place.


We function better with deadlines and so the accelerated infrastructure etc. are lasting benefits, including the exposure, tourism potential in the future etc.

South Africa will still need many years more to develop its transport infrastructure, 2010 is our start, not our end.

What many do NOT know is that FIFA pump money into the LOC. They basically fund the LOC, so we already benefit from the FIFA money.
Its not like the IOC which requires a blank cheque from the government to cover any OCOG shortfall.

Its also been hugely beneficial to have these projects during a recession, and to force various agencies to work together to plan and fund project, some dating back to 1970.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mo Rush said:


> We function better with deadlines and so the accelerated infrastructure etc. are lasting benefits, including the exposure, tourism potential in the future etc.


Most major developments benefit from the pressure of a deadline for a one-time event. "Now or never" and all that.



> What many do NOT know is that FIFA pump money into the LOC. They basically fund the LOC, so we already benefit from the FIFA money.
> Its not like the IOC which requires a blank cheque from the government to cover any OCOG shortfall


But that's hardly a grand expense by FIFA compared to their requirements. And there's often confrontational politics once the LOC begins the detailed negotiations and planning with the local governments. 

Again, I'm not poo-pooing the impact or FIFA's investment, merely noting that the return on the investment will be rather steady to FIFA but locally the community gets out of it what they put into it.



> Its also been hugely beneficial to have these projects during a recession, and to force various agencies to work together to plan and fund project, some dating back to 1970.


Verily. It could be argued this event was an economic savior for SA.


----------



## GunnerJacket

TheoG said:


> I agree with you in the sense that I don't think Australia and the other asian countries should be discounted just due their proximity to China, but I think a couple of members of FIFA will maybe think about this when choosing who to vote, with regards to them getting as big a pension as possible as quickly as possible.


I forget the term for this but it's akin to insider trading - Acting for the benefit of the shareholder (FIFA board member) at the expense of the company and/or it's competitors (bidding nations). Ammoral activity, but I wouldn't put that past FIFA.


> The Chinese are more intersted in football than they ever have been, and they're interest is growing. Live matches from the Premiership, Serie A and the Bundesliga are shown on free to air TV...


And odds are it will continue to keep growing thanks to modern media and local investment, regardless of what FIFA does.


> ...Many idolise players that they see on TV - shirts with names like Rooney, Ronaldo etc. sell by the million.


And chances are they'll buy the shirts for the next Beckham, Eto'o, etc, just as well.


> Their national team is the most supported in the world, despite not much success.


Based on what standard? No way I rate them ahead of the Dutch, English, Brazilians and others. No way.


> Imagine the hype that a world cup in China would cause - you saw how many turned up to events at the Olympics...


You mean the ones with various empty seats for early round events? 


> ...with it being spread over the whole nation. Couple that with the size of the stadiums over there...


I've yet to hear the Chinese government would be thrilled to have some 300M tourists and press galavanting all over their country. Beijing is one thing, half the nation is another. 


> China have 10 stadiums built in the last fifteen years with a capacity of 60k or over...


And many of them are general athletic venues constructed in hurried conditions with less than ideal standards for what FIFA would desire, or provide fan experiences comparable to pure football venues like those in Spain, Brazil, etc. Oz will have some of the same criticism regarding their ovals, but their stadia are also more regularly used. This also kind of negates the idea of any legacy. To wit...


> Without doubt, these stadiums will be 95% full or more every match, be it for Algeria vs New Zealand or Brazil vs Argentina. That would result in a lot more tickets being sold than an Australian World Cup would.


A lot more? Maybe, but such difference would only show for the early rounds and if China uses their cavernous athletic stadia. If they pursue some legacy venues chances are we'd see more 40k stadiums. And keep in mind FIFA events often create reduced capacities based in proportion to the venue, for media and guests of honor, etc.


> Bearing in mind that millions of people in China wouldn't get tickets, many would want to have some sort of world cup experience - hence the fan parks, the parties etc. The amount of England shirts, for example, sold at a Chinese world cup would amass to about the same as the amount sold in 2 or 3 years in England.


And proportionately how great would the difference be if the event were in, say, Japan? Or Russia?


> All in all, for financial purposes and for the general sake of the Chinese people, a world cup in China would be nothing like we've ever seen before in terms of spectator support, merchandise sold and general hype brought up.


For China, absolutely. For FIFA, marginally so. Their expected returns are based almost exclusively on their fixed fees (per ticket, merchandise item, etc), which are adjusted more for inflation than based on where the event is held. Their return on each ticket sold would be the same if the event were in SA or in Chile. Past broadcasting contracts suggest the biggest factor is time zone, not necessarily the host nation. 


> I really do doubt that, if they were given the chance, China would delay bidding for the world cup even longer, and I'm sure if they even hinted about bidding, FIFA would encourage them greatly.


Last I checked nothing's stopping them from bidding, and FIFA encourages everyone to bid because it drives up their rates.


> And even if Australia, Qatar or the like won 2022 and after China announced that they were bidding for 2026, I'm sure FIFA would tweak the rules a bit - like they did when Germany beat South Africa in bidding for 2006, much to the dismay of the FIFA money-men. A rule, not very well thought out, clearly, was introduced all but assuring that South Africa would win 2010.


Whereas I fall on the exact opposite. One mistake doesn't make another all right, but rather suggests weaker standards. If you're scenario plays out, how do you think the likes of Russia or Mexico would feel?


> I'm not saying that I want the US to win 2022 - I'm half Australian, so I have as good a reason as any to want them to win, but I think that in the end of the day, China has the chance to be a deciding factor in who hosts the 2022 world cup.


They've also an equally good chance of facing financial ruin in about 3 years pending several issues, so we'll have to wait and see. Which is why I contest disregarding an Aussie bid on the prospect of an as-yet imaginary bid from China is absurd. 

Granted, FIFA has done plenty of things we can consider absurd. :nuts:

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

GunnerJacket said:


> Most major developments benefit from the pressure of a deadline for a one-time event. "Now or never" and all that.
> 
> But that's hardly a grand expense by FIFA compared to their requirements. And there's often confrontational politics once the LOC begins the detailed negotiations and planning with the local governments.
> 
> Again, I'm not poo-pooing the impact or FIFA's investment, merely noting that the return on the investment will be rather steady to FIFA but locally the community gets out of it what they put into it.
> 
> Verily. It could be argued this event was an economic savior for SA.


Its perhaps not a grand expense but it does cost money to run the show, and run it successfully. FIFA money may not go directly to citizens, but the functioning of the LOC is vital.

FIFA's requirements are quite varied but it simple comes down to each host city understanding them. Many like to over exaggerate these requirements as if they are different to the norms and requirements of other events.


----------



## Chimbanha

I'm oficially making my prediction - It's all starting to make sense to me:

As I said some pages ago, FIFA WC host selection has to be understood under the light of the World (Blatter/CAF/CONMEBOL) x (UEFA - Specially the Big 5) dispute within the executive commitee.

Blatter has to accept that one of the WCs will go to Europe due to the rotation policy created by him, but it can still go to a country outside the "evil axis" - of which Spain and England are contenders. 

He just single-handedly gave the WC to CONMEBOL and CAF, so there aren't any host contenders from these confederations, which will prevent any vote-bargaining. So I bet he expects the 7 votes from these confederations to go to whichever host of his preference: Russia, for what he's been hinting - conveniently the biggest outsider among the bidders within UEFA. These countries bloc-voted in 2006, the last actually competitive election, for the South African bid (along with CONCACAF voters). Germany only won because it received ALL european votes (8) plus all Asian-Oceanic ones. So, with the support of CONMEBOL and CAF, all Blatter and Havelange (Team World) need to do is make sure that there is no bloc-voting from the remaining executives. 

1 - There won't be any Asian bloc-voting, for the following reasons:

(i) AFC is too split. Do you guys remember the last election to the AFC presidency, at which the Qatari candidate said he would cut off the head of the Korean one?

(ii) out of the 4 asian members of the executive board, 3 are from countries that are bidding for 2022, so they'll be too busy bargaining votes with different european bids (they can't bargain with the same one, since each country - or some of them - only has 1 vote to offer).

2 - There won't be any bloc voting in Europe this time, since Blatter shrewdly maneuvered so that the WC has to happen in Europe - so there are too many european candidates. Vote-splitting is inevitable. 

3 - There may be bloc voting from the CONCACAF 3 votes and OFC's vote, but, even if they all go to England's, Spain's or Bene's bids, they will not be enough to beat the Russians with the support of CAF and CONMEBOL. 

Russia is taking 2018.


----------



## hngcm

I haven't even thought about how the splitting of the asian bids will help the USA win 2022.


----------



## RobH

Chimbanha said:


> I'm oficially making my prediction - It's all starting to make sense to me:
> 
> As I said some pages ago, FIFA WC host selection has to be understood under the light of the World (Blatter/CAF/CONMEBOL) x (UEFA - Specially the Big 5) dispute within the executive commitee.
> 
> Blatter has to accept that one of the WCs will go to Europe due to the rotation policy created by him, but it can still go to a country outside the "evil axis" - of which Spain and England are contenders.
> 
> He just single-handedly gave the WC to CONMEBOL and CAF, so there aren't any host contenders from these confederations, which will prevent any vote-bargaining. So I bet he expects the 7 votes from these confederations to go to whichever host of his preference: Russia, for what he's been hinting - conveniently the biggest outsider among the bidders within UEFA. These countries bloc-voted in 2006, the last actually competitive election, for the South African bid (along with CONCACAF voters). Germany only won because it received ALL european votes (8) plus all Asian-Oceanic ones. So, with the support of CONMEBOL and CAF, all Blatter and Havelange (Team World) need to do is make sure that there is no bloc-voting from the remaining executives.
> 
> 1 - There won't be any Asian bloc-voting, for the following reasons:
> 
> (i) AFC is too split. Do you guys remember the last election to the AFC presidency, at which the Qatari candidate said he would cut off the head of the Korean one?
> 
> (ii) out of the 4 asian members of the executive board, 3 are from countries that are bidding for 2022, so they'll be too busy bargaining votes with different european bids (they can't bargain with the same one, since each country - or some of them - only has 1 vote to offer).
> 
> 2 - There won't be any bloc voting in Europe this time, since Blatter shrewdly maneuvered so that the WC has to happen in Europe - so there are too many european candidates. Vote-splitting is inevitable.
> 
> 3 - There may be bloc voting from the CONCACAF 3 votes and OFC's vote, but, even if they all go to England's, Spain's or Bene's bids, they will not be enough to beat the Russians with the support of CAF and CONMEBOL.
> 
> Russia is taking 2018.


If Blatter is arranging it so all his supporters in developing nations vote for his favoured bid (rumoured to be Russia), I hope FIFA will be good enough to reimburse England, Holland/Belgium and Spain/Portugal for the tens of millions they've wasted in participating.


----------



## coth

RobH said:


> If Blatter is arranging it so all his supporters in developing nations vote for his favoured bid (rumoured to be Russia), I hope FIFA will be good enough to reimburse England, Holland/Belgium and Spain/Portugal for the tens of millions they've wasted in participating.


Nothing was reimbursed to Moscow when it lost 2012 Olympics...


----------



## RobH

I wasn't being entirely serious coth. 

But the notion that the head of FIFA can arrange it so completely that his favoured bid wins (something which is far more tricky within the IOC - Rogge favoured Paris for 2012) is worrying. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it doesn't say much for FIFA's processes if it is.


----------



## Lord David

coth said:


> Nothing was reimbursed to Moscow when it lost 2012 Olympics...


Correction, Moscow losing 2012, paved the way for a successful Sochi 2014.


----------



## rus

Offtopic, specifically for Russophobes
*Russian beach soccer squad lifts Euro Cup*
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-07/beach-soccer-euro-cup.html


----------



## AILD

Russia's Bid Book was stealed in South Africa during FIFA congress :nuts: .
And 2 parts of Netherlands/Belgium Bid Book too.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

AILD said:


> Russia's Bid Book was stealed in South Africa during FIFA congress :nuts: .
> And 2 parts of Netherlands/Belgium Bid Book too.


You cant be serious.... hno: who and why would someone do that ?


BTW i didn't consider USA '94 as a pull-down for their bid until recently...
Japan & Korea certainly will not get it, due to co-hosting in 2002.


----------



## TheoG

AILD said:


> Russia's Bid Book was stealed in South Africa during FIFA congress :nuts: .
> And 2 parts of Netherlands/Belgium Bid Book too.


Apparently true, look:

http://en.rian.ru/sports/20100615/159433477.html


----------



## crazyalex

AILD said:


> Russia's Bid Book was stealed in South Africa during FIFA congress :nuts: .
> And 2 parts of Netherlands/Belgium Bid Book too.


Maybe English men stealed it :rofl:


----------



## rus

crazyalex said:


> Maybe English men stealed it :rofl:


100%


----------



## Walbanger

"Sir, our bid book has been stolen and it was our only copy".

"I guess their will be no World Cup then, I'll tell the children"


----------



## Will737

Walbanger said:


> "Sir, our bid book has been stolen and it was our only copy".
> 
> "I guess their will be no World Cup then, I'll tell the children"


I think they might have a spare somewhere....If they don't then sucks to be them because I thought Russia were a good chance for 2018.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Will737 said:


> I think they might have a spare somewhere....If they don't then sucks to be them because I thought Russia were a good chance for 2018.


Dude, i read in the article that they have 500 copies of these.


----------



## RobH

They've 499 spares!


----------



## Will737

RobH said:


> They've 499 spares!


The thief has his work cut out for him...hope his got a high quality paper shredder.


----------



## Walbanger

Will737 said:


> I think they might have a spare somewhere....If they don't then sucks to be them because I thought Russia were a good chance for 2018.


I really wasn't expecting a little joke to go over peoples heads.


----------



## rus

This was the work of MI5


----------



## JimB

Rev Stickleback said:


> I've been to games in Russia.
> 
> Police? Hah! They bring the army in. Hundreds of them. I went to a match in St Petersburg and wondered if a military coup had taken place. I'm not sure if there even were any away fans that day.


Problem is, this is the 21st century and FIFA won't take kindly to the idea that Russian army units, with no understanding of the dynamics of football crowds, could be left in charge of security at World Cup matches.

You need experienced professionals who know how to prevent trouble starting and how to bring it under control peacefully, and with as little injury to all involved, if it ever should kick off. You don't need trigger happy army recruits!


----------



## JimB

MoreOrLess said:


> Nonsese Jim, can't you see these fine gentlemen are having a friendly exchange of views?


Indeed.

As you say, just a friendly exchange of views. There have never been any hooligans in Russia ever. Not one.........not a single, ickle hooligan in the whole of Russia's history. They are all peace loving paragons of virtue.


----------



## Luke80

FIFA will do what they want. If they want Russia, then they'll stick to their out-dated stereotype of English hooligans and use it as an excuse. Poland and Ukraine have pretty bad hooligan problems but UEFA have let them stage 2012.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Luke80 said:


> FIFA will do what they want. If they want Russia, then they'll stick to their out-dated stereotype of English hooligans and use it as an excuse. Poland and Ukraine have pretty bad hooligan problems but UEFA have let them stage 2012.


Absolutely agree. I still remember how in 1999, during UEFA Cup match between Wisla Krakow (Polish champion) and FC Parma a knife was thrown by a Wisla fan from the stands. The knife hit Italian international Dino Baggio who required 5 stitches to a head wound. As result Wisła being suspended from European cup play for a year.

I know about similar incidents during international marches in Italy, Spain, England. Do you know at least one incident during international match in Russia? Or, may be, during other non-football sport international competition in Russia?


----------



## AlekseyVT

JimB said:


> Problem is, this is the 21st century and FIFA won't take kindly to the idea that Russian army units, with no understanding of the dynamics of football crowds, could be left in charge of security at World Cup matches.
> 
> You need experienced professionals who know how to prevent trouble starting and how to bring it under control peacefully, and with as little injury to all involved, if it ever should kick off. You don't need trigger happy army recruits!


Yes, I remember it. Similar accusations for Russian police have been in the British press before CL2008 final. However, the guards worked professionally.

And you will tell me after this that the Brits ignored the press? :lol:


----------



## rus

MoreOrLess said:


> Nonsese Jim, can't you see these fine gentlemen are having a friendly exchange of views?


^^Good video. Spartak forewer!


----------



## SASH

AlekseyVT said:


> Be honest, after 2 Finals (1974, 1978) and three semi-finals (1974, 1978, 1998).


To be honest 1 WC (2010), 3 Finals ('74, '78 and 2010) and 4 semi Finals ('74, '78, '98 and 2010)


----------



## AlekseyVT

SASH SCF said:


> To be honest 1 WC (2010), 3 Finals ('74, '78 and 2010) and 4 semi Finals ('74, '78, '98 and 2010)


Agreed. :cheers:


----------



## Mo Rush

South Africa and England have both hosted the rugby, cricket and football world cup.
South Africa in 16 years, England in 26 years.


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> Absolutely agree. I still remember how in 1999, during UEFA Cup match between Wisla Krakow (Polish champion) and FC Parma a knife was thrown by a Wisla fan from the stands. The knife hit Italian international Dino Baggio who required 5 stitches to a head wound. As result Wisła being suspended from European cup play for a year.
> 
> I know about similar incidents during international marches in Italy, Spain, England. Do you know at least one incident during international match in Russia? Or, may be, during other non-football sport international competition in Russia?


Go on then........tell us, oh perfect, angelic, all-knowing one, about these incidents involving England fans throwing knives at footballers.


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> Yes, I remember it. Similar accusations for Russian police have been in the British press before CL2008 final. However, the guards worked professionally.
> 
> And you will tell me after this that the Brits ignored the press? :lol:


Err.............what accusations? I haven't made any accusations. Try reading what I wrote again.

I repeat, it is far better to use police who are highly experienced and trained in football crowd control than army units that are trained for combat. No sensible person would argue against that.


----------



## AlekseyVT

SASH SCF said:


> To be honest 1 WC (2010), 3 Finals ('74, '78 and 2010) and 4 semi Finals ('74, '78, '98 and 2010)


P.S. Last year, when Russian team didn't qualified on World Cup, I wrote to my Dutch colleague that Netherlands has no any barriers on the road to victory at World Cup anymore.


----------



## RobH

JimB said:


> Go on then........tell us, oh perfect, angelic, all-knowing one, about these incidents involving England fans throwing knives at footballers.


He's making it up as he goes along Jim.


----------



## SASH

AlekseyVT said:


> P.S. Last year, when Russian team didn't qualified on World Cup, I wrote to my Dutch colleague that Netherlands has no any barriers on the road to victory at World Cup anymore.


:cheers:


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> He's making it up as he goes along Jim.


Surely not????

Only the English would do such a thing!


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

Quote from the Guardian, sorry i cant paste that link for reasons only Paul Allen is aware of...


by Barry Glenndenning
Hold the press, news just in, CANADA, yes CANADA launches a late but apparently accepted bid to FIFA for the right to host the 2022 World Cup.

The bid was supported, organised almost single handedly and delivered personally by son of semi professional and brother of professional footballer, Steve Nash. Nash is a two time MVP in the NBA, who plays as point guard for middling team Phoenix Suns. The Suns have never managed to reach the play off finals which makes the achievements of this relatively diminutive six foot, 11 stone canadian all the more immpressive. Nash who was also born in South Africa was head of the Canadian delegation that also included the Prime minister and Marcel Trudeau son of Pierre, among others.

The Guardian was at the impromptu press conferenceheld by CBS sports which laid out the bid in detail. http://www.youtube.com/user/CBSSports#p/u/4/mS_Qi8TB3v4


----------



## 863552

^

No they aren't.


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

watch the bid.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Canada ??


----------



## 863552

PrevaricationComplex said:


> watch the bid.


Give me a link.


----------



## AlekseyVT

PrevaricationComplex said:


> 1) England beats you there
> 2) England beats you there
> 3) nice use of the ol'e bait and switch there. construction index is a poor second if the stadia are already there/and or need minor improvements.
> 4) England beats you there
> 5) refer to point 3
> 
> in any case its academic really, i dont think England will get as many votes as the benelux ones. and any support for the obviously inferiour spanish one will translate into votes for anything other than England. England has too many enemies, Jack Warner etc


1) Russians cities are more bigger than English. All England outside the London is big province land.
2) Almost all Russian cities are located in Europe. How you can beat us? I think, if matches of one WC will played in European and Asian parts, that it's more interesting situation.
3) The new stadiums will look more better than old. And reconstruction of old stadiums always will cost more than building at empty spaces.

So, you can just repeat "England beats you there", like it was in 2007 :bash: But finally we beat you.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Biggest English cities:
1) London - 7.6 mln. people
2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people

Biggest Russian cities:
1) Moscow - 10.56 mln. people
2) St.-Peterburg - 4.6 mln. people
4) Yekaterinburg - 1.37 mln. people
6) Kazan - 1.14 mln. people
13) Volgograd - 0.98 mln. people
40) Kaliningrad - 0.42 mln. people.


----------



## AlekseyVT

In addition, all candidate cities in Russia (like Moscow, St.-Peterburg, Kazan) are totally different, while British cities outside London are known to the Europeans and made in the same style. There will be nothing to open for himself something new in England.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

AlekseyVT said:


> Biggest English cities:
> 1) London - 7.6 mln. people
> 2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
> 3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
> 4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
> 6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people



Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:

1) London - 11.92 mln. people
2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people

_Source:_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.


----------



## Sochi NEW Dubai

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:
> 
> 1) London - 11.92 mln. people
> 2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
> 3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
> 4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
> 6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
> 7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
> 8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
> 9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
> 10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people
> 
> _Source:_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones
> 
> In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.


Moscow metropolitan area
moscow federal city 10 millions+moscow region moscow 6 millions
=more 16 millions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_subjects_of_Russia_by_population


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:
> 
> 1) London - 11.92 mln. people
> 2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
> 3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
> 4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
> 6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
> 7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
> 8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
> 9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
> 10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people
> 
> _Source:_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones
> 
> In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.


the importance is really about how well the city can absorb perhaps 20,000-40,000 fans from overseas, as well has having the logistics to get them there.

As seems to be a worry with Ukraine's preparations for Euro 2012, hotels and transport links seem to be rather inadequate.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
Thus we must regard the metropolitan population and not only the core city population. And in terms of logistics, I believe England is far of Russia.




Sochi NEW Dubai said:


> Moscow metropolitan area
> moscow federal city 10 millions+moscow region moscow 6 millions
> =more 16 millions
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_subjects_of_Russia_by_population


In that case, we must compare it with Greater London+South East England+East of England:

*Components - Pop Census 2001 - Area (km²/sq mi)*
London -- 7,322,400 -- 1,707 / 659
South East England -- 8,000,550 -- 19,096 / 7,373
East of England -- 5,388,140 -- 19,120 / 7,382
*Total -- 20,711,090 -- 39,923 / 15,414*

And like I said before, I don't think this is important. I only brought this because one colleague posted a table with the cities population and not the metropolitan area.


----------



## coth

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:
> 
> 1) London - 11.92 mln. people
> 2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
> 3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
> 4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
> 6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
> 7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
> 8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
> 9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
> 10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people
> 
> _Source:_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones
> 
> In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.


agglomerations
http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html

metro areas
http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x...n&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&pt=a&va=&srt=pnan

and please don't start it over again.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade

^^
I think you didn't understand the discussion:



AlekseyVT said:


> Biggest English cities:
> 1) London - 7.6 mln. people
> 2) Birmingam - 0.98 mlin. people
> 3) Sheffield - 0.51 mln. people
> 4) Manchester - 0.46 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 0.44 mln. people
> 6) Leeds - 0.44 mln. people





Yuri S Andrade said:


> Cities? You should consider the metropolitan areas:
> 
> 1) London - 11.92 mln. people
> 2) Manchester - 2.54 mln. people
> 3) Leeds-Bradford - 2.39 mln. people
> 4) Birmingham - 2.36 mln. people
> 5) Liverpool - 1.36 mln. people
> 6) Sheffield - 1.28 mln. people
> 7) Newcastle - 1.05 mln. people
> 8) Bristol - 1.01 mln. people
> 9) Nottingham - 0.82 mln. people
> 10) Leicester - 0.77 mln. people
> 
> _Source:_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones
> 
> In any case, I don't understand why the cities size is that important.


Nobody is discussing "aglomeration vs. metropolitan area", but "city proper vs. metropolitan/aglomeration". I just questioned the collegue statement about the English cities populations. On this context, doesn't make sense talk about cities in terms of official boundaries. My point is: Manchester is actually a 2.5 million people metropolis and not a 0.4 million mid-size city.

And no, I didn't "start" anything here. It was Aleksey the one posting cities population.

Don't be mad. I don't care about this 2018/2022 World Cup choice process. England, Russia, Belgium/Netherlands, USA, whatever. I'm against 2014 here in Brazil. For the other years, that's not my business.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

> *Japan 2022 Bid Universal Fan Fest *
> 
> Japan has pledged that if it is granted the rights to host the 2022 World Cup games, it will develop technology enabling it to provide a live international telecast of the event in 3D, which would allow 400 stadiums in 208 countries to provide 360 million people with real-time 3D coverage of the games projected on giant screens, captured in 360 degrees by 200 HD cameras. Furthermore, Japan will broadcast the games in holographic format if the technology to do so is available by that time. Beyond allowing the world's spectators to view the games on flat screens projecting 3D imaging, holographic projection would project the games onto stadium fields, creating a greater illusion of actually being in the presence of the players. Microphones embedded below the playing surface would record all sounds, such as ball kicks, in order to add to the sense of realism.
> 
> Sources: Wikipedia, Popular Science & Japan Times.


:shocked::uh:

Although Japan's chances of getting 2022 are slim, I really wish this could actually be done.


----------



## dars-dm

I think Russia needs this championship more than England, and the main reason is that there's always no problem for England to qualify and it'll play in WC 2018 wherever it is, and Russia may not only lose the bid, but also lose the qualification to it to another Slov(ak, en)ia (Russia failed in 2006 when Slovakia became 2nd in group).


----------



## antriksh_sfo

The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.


----------



## 863552

PrevaricationComplex said:


> I give up. Maybe its my fault for making the absurdity of the fake article too subtle, instead of claiming nash almost single handedly organised the bid, and that the prime minister was there, i shouldve included magic carpets and russian conspiracy theories involving Mi5 assasinating their journos.
> 
> :horse:


:lol: I was messing with you. I knew it was a joke. *shifty*


----------



## Melb_aviator

antriksh_sfo said:


> The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.


England does have a good bid, but I think that Russia are favourites.

The fact is though that 2018 WILL go to Europe. That is being made very clear by FIFA to all bids, including Japan and Australia who pulled out of the running for that year due to recommendations made by that organisation.

The national teams performance is only 1 part of the chain. It may be seen as a way of putting England back on its feet in regards to its player development.

Taking for granted that 2018 will be in Europe is not unexpected, as in all reality the US is not doing itself many favours by staying in the race for 2018.


----------



## JimB

antriksh_sfo said:


> The complacency creeping into the British bid... taking it for granted that 2018 being a European bid, they can easily win, may cost them dear and relatviely unexpected to the national team's early exit.


A straw man argument if ever there was one.

What complacency? The England 2018 bid team know perfectly well that the competition is fierce and that any of the four European bids could prevail. They aren't in the slightest bit complacent.

Seems to me that this "complacency" you speak of is just a figment of your overactive imagination. Or perhaps you merely wish to believe that the England 2018 team are complacent because such an outcome would confirm your prejudices about English people?


----------



## JimB

Sochi NEW Dubai said:


> Russia 2018 clearly
> 1) big cities
> 2) quite in the European area with the exception of Ekaterimburg that is to 40 km of europe
> 3) big construction index (Moscow city, Yekaterinburg city, volgograd city, Olympiad in Sochi, Okhta center in St.petersburg, universiade of Kazán...)
> 4) Good airports and communications
> 5) new stadiums
> I am convinced undoubtedly by much more Russia than England


Who gives a damn about the size of the cities? Certainly not FIFA. Or perhaps you hadn't noticed that one of this year's World Cup cities, Polokwane, is little more than a small town?

The fact is that all the English cities involved have the required infrastructure to be able to accomodate the likely number of fans and media. And even if that hadn't been the case, England is so compact that you're never far away from a big city. Take Milton Keynes, for example. Not a big city by any means - but it's only a half hour train journey from central London. In this respect, I dare say that England is far, far better equipped than Russia currently is.

England's airports and communications are at least the equal of Russia's. It's preposterous for you to suggest otherwise. Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world, for crying out loud! And the general transport situation in England is much more sympathetic to fans than it is in Russia, simply because of the compactness of England and the vastness of Russia. That's not Russia's fault, of course. But it's a fact nevertheless. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?

As to stadiums, England has plenty of modern stadiums already - such as Wembley and the Emirates. And there are many proposed new stadiums and redevelopments to come - such as the new Anfield; the new White Hart Lane; the new Olympic stadium; the new Plymouth stadium; the new Bristol stadium; the new Nottingham stadium; a redeveloped and increased capacity Villa Park; a redeveloped and increased capacity Elland Road; a redeveloped and increased capacity Hillsborough. More than likely, there will also be a redeveloped and increased capacity Old Trafford, Eastlands, Stadium of Light and possibly even St James' Park too.

And, on top of it all, *none* of these stadiums (other than Milton Keynes and Plymouth, possibly - and even those two clubs would get decent crowds if they enjoyed any success) would become white elephants after the World Cup. They would all continue to be used to most of their capacity long after the World Cup has been and gone. The same couldn't be said for Russia, where many clubs in the potential host cities rarely get crowds of more than 10,000.

Unlike you, I'm not going to make any boastful predictions about who will win the bid. Russia may well win. Certainly, it has the advantage of never having hosted the World Cup before. That will count in its favour. And FIFA politics is so convoluted that it would be foolish for anyone to claim that they will win.

But on the basis of the points you make in your post, there is no way that you can sensibly claim that Russia's bid is superior to England's.


----------



## JimB

Rev Stickleback said:


> I think point 5 may be England's undoing, or to be precise, that attidute that what we have now is fine and we don't need to rebuild.
> 
> A bid proposing a collection of fine new stadiums is going to be looked upon favourably compared to one proposing a lot of older ones.


Another straw man!

What attitude? It's a figment of your imagination.

As I said in my long post above, England 2018 is proposing a major programme of new and redeveloped stadiums.

The fact that England already has a lot of stadiums of the required size and quality won't count against England's bid. It's nonsense to suggest that it would. Otherwise, going by that logic, the World Cup would only ever be hosted by countries with inadequate stadium infrastructure that probably don't even need the stadiums other than for the four weeks of the World Cup.

I don't believe that that is what FIFA is aiming for. Do you?


----------



## crazyalex

country vs country 
This thread need close down


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

> Originally Posted by Sochi NEW Dubai View Post
> Russia 2018 clearly
> 1) big cities
> 2) quite in the European area with the exception of Ekaterimburg that is to 40 km of europe
> 3) big construction index (Moscow city, Yekaterinburg city, volgograd city, Olympiad in Sochi, Okhta center in St.petersburg, universiade of Kazán...)
> 4) Good airports and communications
> 5) new stadiums
> I am convinced undoubtedly by much more Russia than England


for the sake of clarity, im gonna repeat my self...

*its all academic* anyway.

why is it academic? because its a list of critieria that exists only that poster head! some of them dont even make sense. a russian *advantage*(i.e relative to England) is supposed to be:

that *some* of their cities are in europe:nuts:

good airports (compared to Englands crappy ones) :nuts:


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

Solopop said:


> :lol: I was messing with you. I knew it was a joke. *shifty*


:lol: no worries. if anything i owe you an appology. the anonymity of the net is no reason to behave like a facepalming teenager.:cheers:


----------



## Chimbanha

JimB said:


> Not at all. Let me explain again.
> 
> I'm not suggesting a merge between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.
> 
> I'm just suggesting that it would be sensible and fair for FIFA to group together CONCACAF and CONMEBOL for the purposes of choosing World Cup hosts.
> 
> A strict rotational policy may have been abandoned but I think we all know that FIFA will try to share their tournament around as evenly as possible. Europe will probably get the World Cup once every twelve years but, because of the large number of realistic potential European hosts (up to 10, I'd estimate), it will still mean a huge gap between successful bids. Maybe 120 years.
> 
> By contrast, even if the World Cup only returned to CONMEBOL or CONCACAF every 20 years (and I somehow doubt it would be that long), a country like the USA would only have wait a maximum of 60 years between World Cups.


The current system won't live much longer. I wouldn't doubt it would be cancelled after December's elections. It was created with the sole purpose of giving the WC to CAF and CONMEBOL, Blatter's support confederations. Once such confederations realize that the only countries able to do the hosting duties have already done it, they won't oppose to the cancellation of the system.

I'd say it will be cancelled between 2010 and 2020. Inclusive :lol:


----------



## ryebreadraz

The rotational policy has already been canceled. The only rule now is that a confederation cannot host the next two World Cup after they host so CAF cannot host 2014 or 2018 and CONMEBOL cannot host 2018 or 2022. Whichever confederation hosts in 2018 will not be able to host 2022 or 2026.


----------



## Chimbanha

ryebreadraz said:


> The rotational policy has already been canceled. The only rule now is that a confederation cannot host the next two World Cup after they host so CAF cannot host 2014 or 2018 and CONMEBOL cannot host 2018 or 2022. Whichever confederation hosts in 2018 will not be able to host 2022 or 2026.


Exactly. I'm talking about the Rotational policies _lato senso_, which includes both species (the first one and the one descibed by you). It'll be cancelled soon.


----------



## T74

Chimbanha said:


> Exactly. I'm talking about the Rotational policies _lato senso_, which includes both species (the first one and the one descibed by you). It'll be cancelled soon.


I actually agree with this - if the "no bids for next two WC" policy stops the FIFA endorsed candidate bidding, the system will be changed


----------



## ryebreadraz

I doubt that gets changed any time soon. No confederation will be hosting more often than one out of every three and FIFA Presidents need the votes of non-European members to get and hold the post so they will keep the rule in place to appease non-European confederations, IMO.


----------



## JimB

ryebreadraz said:


> I doubt that gets changed any time soon. No confederation will be hosting more often than one out of every three and FIFA Presidents need the votes of non-European members to get and hold the post so they will keep the rule in place to appease non-European confederations, IMO.


Besides which, it would be quite wrong for any continent to host the tournament more frequently than once in every three World Cups.


----------



## T74

JimB said:


> Besides which, it would be quite wrong for any continent to host the tournament more frequently than once in every three World Cups.


agreed - but we are talking FIFA here :nuts:


----------



## rantanamo

Rev Stickleback said:


> A US world cup doesn't necessarily offer a bigger amount of money than anywhere else. Crowds would be higher, but FIFA don't keep the ticket revenue, so that makes no difference to them.
> 
> They won't get more tv money or sponsorship for a world cup in the USA either.


The TV money and sponsorship would be bigger. Why? Each city per capita would simply be more lucrative to large multi-nationals to get personal exposure. This is why automakers constantly complain about there not being a USGP. For many companies the US is their biggest market. Not to mention large US companies coming on as sponsors. Its not an arrogance thing, but its simply a fact. Its still the largest economy in the world by a large amount.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

rantanamo said:


> The TV money and sponsorship would be bigger. Why? Each city per capita would simply be more lucrative to large multi-nationals to get personal exposure. This is why automakers constantly complain about there not being a USGP. For many companies the US is their biggest market. Not to mention large US companies coming on as sponsors. Its not an arrogance thing, but its simply a fact. Its still the largest economy in the world by a large amount.


The world cup is a global event. Sponsors are concerned with their worldwide exposure far more than adverts in each host city.

There's nothing at all to suggest tv money would be bigger. Germany is a far more lucrative TV market than South Africa, yet tv revenues were considerably higher in 2010 than in 2006, again, because it's a global event, not an event in one country. FIFA care far more about worldwide tv revenues than the revenue each potential host country can bring in.


----------



## _X_

rantanamo said:


> The TV money and sponsorship would be bigger. Why? Each city per capita would simply be more lucrative to large multi-nationals to get personal exposure. This is why automakers constantly complain about there not being a USGP. For many companies the US is their biggest market. Not to mention large US companies coming on as sponsors. Its not an arrogance thing, but its simply a fact. Its still the largest economy in the world by a large amount.


As a single entity yes.If the world cup is hosted in Eastern Asia then there is no debate-the money to be generated will eclipse anything else on offer from Europe or the Americas.
Thats the simple economics of having two thirds of the worlds population in your timezone.We started to see it in South Africa with Asian sponsors from Japan,South Korea,China and India starting to make a real presence 
A world cup in Asia in 2022 will turbocharge football in Asia and it will provide a goldmine for FIFA


----------



## T74

and by 2022, I'll be stunned if the USA is still the worlds largest economy, with odds on China overtaking by then, and possibly India too

you talk about the USA being the worlds largest car market, will this be the case still in 12 years given the growth of the Indian and Chinese auto markets?


----------



## AILD

"Dollar" financial pyramid has no place to expand anymore and it's crushing.

USA already lives on virtual money (derivatives), not real. Those trillions printed by FED only postponing the collapse. + Destability which was created by Goldman Sachs and US-controlled "rating agencies" through Greece surprise debt also played part in postponing.

USA has only one way t continue their imperial existing - big war. They are trying to provoke it against Iran, N.Korea vs S.Korea, India vs Pakistan, Israel vs Turkey, etc.

Summary for sheeple.

Russia is among rare countries which have potential to remain stabile during collapse of the whole previous financial system, because we have enough energy to consume and sell, food/water and military nuclear potential to prevent aggression against us.

This is why 2014 Winter Olympics and 2013 Summer Universiade already ours.
This is the main reason why FIFA must give WC-2018 to Russia.

As you notice, Brasil (WC-2014,OG-2016) will also play a big part in future construction of the world.


----------



## nomarandlee

^^ Hi Russian troll. :hi: When will be the first day that one of you will surprise me and cease to talk mindless Putinese.


----------



## Walbanger

AILD said:


> "Dollar" financial pyramid has no place to expand anymore and it's crushing.
> 
> USA already lives on virtual money (derivatives), not real. Those trillions printed by FED only postponing the collapse. + Destability which was created by Goldman Sachs and US-controlled "rating agencies" through Greece surprise debt also played part in postponing.
> 
> USA has only one way t continue their imperial existing - big war. They are trying to provoke it against Iran, N.Korea vs S.Korea, India vs Pakistan, Israel vs Turkey, etc.
> 
> Summary for sheeple.
> 
> Russia is among rare countries which have potential to remain stabile during collapse of the whole previous financial system, because we have enough energy to consume and sell, food/water and military nuclear potential to prevent aggression against us.
> 
> This is why 2014 Winter Olympics and 2013 Summer Universiade already ours.
> This is the main reason why FIFA must give WC-2018 to Russia.
> 
> As you notice, Brasil (WC-2014,OG-2016) will also play a big part in future construction of the world.


Mate there are far more sensible reasons why Sochi won the 2014 bid and why Russia can win the 2018 WC bid, no need to draw out doomsday scenarios. 

Don't get too preachy with the US War theories. Most of us are far from naive on the topic and understand the alarming economic persuasions but there's little reason to believe the US is gunning for all out military confrontation with Iran, what would they get out of it other than another quagmire. The suggestion they want military conflict between Pakistan and India, South and North Korea, Israel and Turkey is just downright illogical and immoral, millions would die. You do know that all of them bar North Korea is in some way or form a US ally don't you?

I'm not directing this at you directly AILD but it seems some Russians want the rest of the world to to see Russia in a different light to that they percieve foreigners see them but they don't affort the same gesture to the US and other NATO countries. The US attracts valid criticism but the real reasons are hardly simplistic and neat. We don't all assume the Georgia conflict was a totally onesided affair either. Australians certainly have no problem with Russians and there culture.


----------



## hngcm

OZ 2022 vs China 2026

I'll bet on China.


----------



## rantanamo

_X_ said:


> As a single entity yes.If the world cup is hosted in Eastern Asia then there is no debate-the money to be generated will eclipse anything else on offer from Europe or the Americas.
> Thats the simple economics of having two thirds of the worlds population in your timezone.We started to see it in South Africa with Asian sponsors from Japan,South Korea,China and India starting to make a real presence
> A world cup in Asia in 2022 will turbocharge football in Asia and it will provide a goldmine for FIFA


Sorry, but that's not simple economics. Japan, China, India, South Korea are about as economically disperate as you can get. South Korea/Japan yes, but China no. The problem with China is you have to get viewers that spend on those sponsors. Same with India. There are not 1.5 billion spenders on the level of spenders in the west. Its just a fact and will be for a long time. Japan and Korea, yes.

And to minimize the impact of local sponsors is pure ignorance. Normally its important, but during the WC where advertising has to take place outside of the stadium, an even larger element of local is added. These are big dollars. I know many of you don't like the US and don't want them to have the WC in favors of nations who care even less than the US.


----------



## JimB

AILD said:


> "Dollar" financial pyramid has no place to expand anymore and it's crushing.
> 
> USA already lives on virtual money (derivatives), not real. Those trillions printed by FED only postponing the collapse. + Destability which was created by Goldman Sachs and US-controlled "rating agencies" through Greece surprise debt also played part in postponing.
> 
> USA has only one way t continue their imperial existing - big war. They are trying to provoke it against Iran, N.Korea vs S.Korea, India vs Pakistan, Israel vs Turkey, etc.
> 
> Summary for sheeple.
> 
> Russia is among rare countries which have potential to remain stabile during collapse of the whole previous financial system, because we have enough energy to consume and sell, food/water and military nuclear potential to prevent aggression against us.
> 
> This is why 2014 Winter Olympics and 2013 Summer Universiade already ours.
> This is the main reason why FIFA must give WC-2018 to Russia.
> 
> As you notice, Brasil (WC-2014,OG-2016) will also play a big part in future construction of the world.


Hahahaha!

Are you for real?

Which propaganda book did you swallow?


----------



## RobH

AILD said:


> "Dollar" financial pyramid has no place to expand anymore and it's crushing.
> 
> USA already lives on virtual money (derivatives), not real. Those trillions printed by FED only postponing the collapse. + Destability which was created by Goldman Sachs and US-controlled "rating agencies" through Greece surprise debt also played part in postponing.
> 
> USA has only one way t continue their imperial existing - big war. They are trying to provoke it against Iran, N.Korea vs S.Korea, India vs Pakistan, Israel vs Turkey, etc.
> 
> Summary for sheeple.
> 
> Russia is among rare countries which have potential to remain stabile during collapse of the whole previous financial system, because we have enough energy to consume and sell, food/water and military nuclear potential to prevent aggression against us.
> 
> This is why 2014 Winter Olympics and 2013 Summer Universiade already ours.
> This is the main reason why FIFA must give WC-2018 to Russia.
> 
> As you notice, Brasil (WC-2014,OG-2016) will also play a big part in future construction of the world.


It's lucky the US have virtually no new stadiums to build then isn't it! The US bid, unlike Russia's, doesn't propose a massive building spree which relies on huge amounts of public funds. It relies on existing stadiums.

This point alone means talk of macro-economics and the global economy is irrelevent. And talk of war is even more irrelevent and bordering on trolling.

Besides which, 2018 is almost certainly going to Europe anyway. Russia isn't competing with the US in reality (despite the fact that the US is still bidding for both events), so I don't know what your problem is.


----------



## coth

yes, he is for real. he was just adding to talks about economies. but as was sais it's a global event. but, as i'll add - for sponsors important are developing economies, as they mean large number of new potential customers.


----------



## flierfy

rantanamo said:


> And to minimize the impact of local sponsors is pure ignorance. Normally its important, but during the WC where advertising has to take place outside of the stadium, an even larger element of local is added. These are big dollars. I know many of you don't like the US and don't want them to have the WC in favors of nations who care even less than the US.


Advertising space outside the ground which is seen by just a few thousand people is fly-speck compared to the hoardings around the pitch.


----------



## Luke80

AILD talking out of his arse again...


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> Advertising space outside the ground which is seen by just a few thousand people is fly-speck compared to the hoardings around the pitch.


to flesh that out slightly, FIFA received $1.6 billion in sponsorship money for this year's world cup. Now, I don't know how much more an advertising hoarding goes for in Miami as opposed to Manchester or Moscow, but's it would need to be pretty large to be a wildly signifacant factor.


----------



## nomarandlee

coth said:


> yes, he is for real. he was just adding to talks about economies. but as was sais it's a global event. but, as i'll add - for sponsors important are developing economies, as they mean large number of new potential customers.


Don't embarrass yourself Coth, he was trolling as you yourself are bordering on. If an American goes into the Russian thread and starts talking unprovoked about the foreign policy, talking about Putins crimes, or the hopeful impending collapse and weakness of Russia then that would be trolling as well. Yet, from Russians we see this old game played all too often in threads Get it? 

You Russians here at SSC really need to get over your post cold war U.S. obsession and stop trying to convince yourself and others you with the mythology of Russia being the white knights out to save the world from the "empire".


----------



## AILD

nomarandlee said:


> When will be the first day that one of you will surprise me and cease to talk mindless Putinese.


How on Earth anything in my post has anything with Putin, troll?

Seems like someone still has Cold War propaganda Media, imaging any "bad" things as Putin's actions. Nice to see another zombie  .



nomarandlee said:


> If an American goes into the Russian thread and starts talking unprovoked about the foreign policy...


This is not american thread, get it? Cold War didn't end. USA continue to finance terrorists on N.Caucusus to divide Russia, USA rebuilt Afghan drug production after NATO occupation, NATO still exist (they created new "threat" now - "terrorism". Problem - Reaction - Solution), US Holyshitwood still russophobic, US media - -II-, US education - -II-, american kids still killing "bad Russians" in computer games, americans still associate Russians with "communists", etc. american absurd.

Relax, dude. I was angry on f***in' USA cause they officially declared that they will help Kurdish terrorists in destabilisation of Turkey. If earlier they hided that they are financing them, but now they lost any respect even to the work of criminal politician and openly support terrorists who already bombed important infrastructure many times in Turkey.

(Turkey is becoming more independent. That's why we saw Israel's attack on Turkish aid ship. That's why Turkey voted against sanctions for Iran. That's why Turkey is rebuilding partnership with Russia in any spheres, and more and more). Watch on attempts to destabilise Turkey through terrorist bombings. This is main USA/UK instrument of pressure.

Zombies just don't want to look at situation wider and from another angle.

*JimB*, these "propaganda books" and sources are mostly "western" (oops)
Never heard about "Great Game"?

Previous "dollar" financial system is dying. But the hooligan can't die calm, without remaining chaos.

Like the video.


----------



## JimB

:lol:

What the **** are you banging on about, AILD?

This is a thread about bids to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022. It is not a forum for you to drone on and on and on about whatever political agenda you have. There's a Skybar for that kind of talk.

Please, if it's not too difficult for you, try to stay on topic.

There's a good lad.


----------



## coth

nomarandlee said:


> Don't embarrass yourself Coth, he was trolling as you yourself are bordering on. If an American goes into the Russian thread and starts talking unprovoked about the foreign policy, talking about Putins crimes, or the hopeful impending collapse and weakness of Russia then that would be trolling as well. Yet, from Russians we see this old game played all too often in threads Get it?
> 
> You Russians here at SSC really need to get over your post cold war U.S. obsession and stop trying to convince yourself and others you with the mythology of Russia being white knights against the evil US empire.


And you are obviously bordering on russophobic racist trolling.


----------



## nomarandlee

So the handfull of Russians who often troll in threads about the U.S. on SSC are now considered their own race? 

:rofl:

I didn't go into geo-political smack talk fest in a sports thread about Russia unlike your fellow Russian jingoist. Not every obnoxious nationalist is worth going into the trench with or you only share in the embarrassment. Learn the lesson Coth.


----------



## RobH

coth said:


> And you are obviously bordering on russophobic racist trolling.


You quote him yet ignore alid's irrelevant rants about war etc. I assume you're dealing with that via pm, being a mod n'all. 

i nominate Jim b for moderatorship


----------



## coth

nomarandlee said:


> So the handfull of Russians who often troll in threads about the U.S. on SSC are now considered their own race?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> I didn't go into geo-political smack talk fest in a sports thread about Russia unlike your fellow Russian jingoist. Not every obnoxious nationalist is worth going into the trench with or you only share in the embarrassment. Learn the lesson Coth.


you always come into one arguments - all russians are trolls. may be it's a time to check your reflection in a mirror.




RobH said:


> You quote him yet ignore alid's irrelevant rants about war etc. I assume you're dealing with that via pm, being a mod n'all.


some of alid's comments were sure not relevant to the topic, but nomarandlee's were far worse racial.



as i said from my point of view - china, like other bric countries, is important for fifa (for sponsors) mainly not because of their large economy, but because of economy is developing. very very large number of new potential customers far more important than slight, but expensive changes in market shares within developed markets.


----------



## Matthew Lowry

2018 England


----------



## JimB

coth said:


> And you are obviously bordering on russophobic racist trolling.


Racist????????

Oh, please! Get over yourself.

Nothing worse than someone who is forever playing the racist card where it doesn't belong.

AILD came storming on to this thread, spouting reams of political mumbo jumbo that had no place here. In the circumstances, nomarandlee's response was quite restrained.


----------



## RobH

^^ Exactly.


----------



## Archbishop

Russian is a race now?


----------



## DenilsonUK

coth said:


> And you are obviously bordering on russophobic racist trolling.


:lol::lol::lol:

130 days to go...


----------



## coth

JimB said:


> Racist????????
> 
> Oh, please! Get over yourself.
> 
> Nothing worse than someone who is forever playing the racist card where it doesn't belong.


Ethnicism if you wish, but Racism is a common term for all types of discriminations based on nationality. Be it Chinese or Arabian mod he wouldn't stand that long here with such claims.


----------



## Buju Banton

2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 Morocco
2030 Uruguay/Argentina for 100th


----------



## JimB

coth said:


> Ethnicism if you wish, but Racism is a common term for all types of discriminations based on nationality. Be it Chinese or Arabian mod he wouldn't stand that long here with such claims.


He'd stand much more of a chance than AILD!


----------



## nomarandlee

coth said:


> Ethnicism if you wish, but Racism is a common term for all types of discriminations based on nationality. Be it Chinese or Arabian mod he wouldn't stand that long here with such claims.


Russians are an ethnic group. A specific contingent of Russian SSC members whop happen to troll endlessly don't make their own "race". Why are you not grasping this concept?

It would be far more interesting if you could tell us why an American should be able to go into a sports related thread and talk smack about Russia to the equivalent sad, insecure, bitter display that AILD's did. This is hardly the first thread that Russian trolls have derailed such threads in this one and in other non-related threads. For you to "get it" perhaps you need a mental exercise......



> Russia has only one way t continue their imperial existing - big war. They are trying to provoke it against Poland, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine......
> Summary for Rusheeple.
> U.S. is among rare countries which have potential to remain stabile during collapse of the whole previous financial system, because we have enough high technology to consume and sell, food/water and military nuclear potential to prevent aggression against us.
> This is why the 1980 and 2002 Winter Olympics and 1996, 1984 Summer Olympics have already been ours.
> This is the main reason why FIFA must 2022 to USA.


If AILD has wrote such gibberish instead you would ask the hell his delusional trolling problem was? Such an American would be a bitter insecure wanker embarrassing themselves and I assure you when Russians, and their misguided fellow nationalist who back them, do it you look no less pathetic.


----------



## AILD

So, Gerald Celente or David Icke, for example, are also Russian trolls if they don't accept US terrorist policy? 

Ok, I was wrong writing political things in sport thread, but it was done because I was sick of US "officials" about Kurdish terrorists support, and it doesn't change anything I said.

Mod can easily delete comments.


----------



## Mo Rush

Please end all discussions re: race. 

Sensitive political discussions will also result in an infraction, and so too will replies to political posts.

Accusations of racism will result in an infraction and will be taken very seriously.


----------



## nomarandlee

AILD said:


> So, Gerald Celente or David Icke, for example, are also Russian trolls if they don't accept US terrorist policy?



On without the nonsense.....


----------



## Buju Banton

why do arrogant Americans think they are going to win when they just hosted it in 1994?


----------



## Matthew Lowry

I dont know about Morocco 2026 i think the USA is going to get them then.


----------



## ryebreadraz

Buju Banton said:


> why do arrogant Americans think they are going to win when they just hosted it in 1994?


Why do you have to throw the word "arrogant" in there? Many non-Americans believe the US is the favorite. It's not as if we're going out on a limb by thinking we are the favorites to win the right to host.

The money generated by a US hosted World Cup would make incredible. The average attendance of a US World Cup would be so far beyond anything that any non-US country could offer. It would be a huge boost to the sport in a country of 300+ million as well and offers more large cities for entertainment for visitors outside the matches than most countries. The stadiums are far more advanced than the stadiums offered by other countries and the infrastructure is very good. The US also requires no public investment in the stadiums and the costs of hosting would be miniscule.

The 28 year gap between hosting the World Cup would be small and is definitely a negative, but it is in no way a deal breaker when you're offering so much in the bid. Also, Mexico and Canada's unwillingness to bid makes it so the US bid represents the entire confederation, not like it was picked above other confederation bids unfairly. Mexico supports the US bid, as does the rest of the confederation. Because so many countries in the confederation cannot host, they throw their weight behind the US bid.


----------



## lazzaro_HD

*México esta modernizando sus centros de espectáculos así como los centros deportivos, ya en 2011 podrá ser la sede de cualquier evento masivo de nuestra era moderna! *


----------



## T74

Buju Banton said:


> why do arrogant Americans think they are going to win when they just hosted it in 1994?


I'm Australian, and really want us to win 2022, but reality is the USA bid looks like a good one, and they are the bid to beat IMO


----------



## coth

BRIC countries could offer more attractive world cup than developed simply due to large free money that cannot be put back into economy. South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014, Russia 2018 and China 2026. All new market. 2022 only misses here. But i'm still sure it's going to be Australia or Qatar. FIFA could simply change rules for China, it will worth it.


----------



## Big Cat

*Cold war rivals vie to stage football’s big event*


> During the last World Cup, a curious sideshow played out at expensive breakfast tables in Johannesburg’s business district of Sandton. The actors: lobbyists and officials. The stake: the right to host the World Cups of 2018 and 2022. On December 2, the 24 men on Fifa’s executive committee will select both hosts. Here’s the interim report on how the race stands:
> 
> The 2018 Cup will most likely go to a European country. England might seem the obvious choice. The country’s stadiums and infrastructure could host the tournament tomorrow morning.
> 
> However, England lacks friends within Fifa. It’s perceived as arrogant, and as having done little to administer the international game. That’s why two international administrators, Geoff Thompson and David Dein, now front England’s bid. But it’s an uphill struggle.
> 
> Also, Fifa’s officials dread Britain’s tabloids dogging their every step and bugging their hotel rooms for eight years. And if the US gets the 2022 competition, as seems likely, Fifa would probably avoid two consecutive English-speaking hosts.
> 
> Spain and Portugal, joint bidders, are more popular inside Fifa. They also traditionally get the Latin American vote. Yet they seem to have few other votes. Moreover, this debt-stricken duo would need to fork out for new stadiums.
> 
> Nobody knocks the Belgian-Dutch bid. Yet that’s a sign that its rivals don’t fear it. The Low Countries promise a compact and green World Cup. Those may not be the most compelling selling points. The Dutch also fear they are too strait-laced for the lobbying game.
> 
> Still, officials inside this bid think they will get votes that nobody now foresees – chiefly from small countries that also hope to make joint bids for a World Cup one day.
> 
> For now, though, insiders are tipping Russia for 2018. Fifa delights in tapping new markets through World Cups. Russia is a white spot on Europe’s footballing map. It has never hosted a major football tournament. Crucially, it can muster more lobbying might than its rivals. When Vladimir Putin phones asking for your support, you probably say yes. A Russian World Cup would cost a lot, but if Putin wants to spend the money, Russia will.
> 
> As for the 2022 World Cup, the most important words spoken in this race came from a country that isn’t even bidding. Wei Di, new head of China’s football federation, said this month: “I think China should apply for the World Cup [of 2026].”
> 
> China’s government will make the decision, not Wei Di. But Fifa would love China to bid. If the country signals it will, that would shape the race for 2022. If China gets 2026, no Asian country could stage 2022, because continents cannot host twice running. The only non-Asian bidder for 2022 is the US. So if China wants to bid, the US would surely get 2022.
> 
> That makes sense anyway. True, the US hosted the tournament as recently as 1994, but American interest in soccer has surged since. The US hits Fifa’s two sweet spots: its soccer market is both lucrative and growing. Ticket sales in huge American stadiums would raise fortunes. However, the country wouldn’t let in every person holding a match ticket – something Fifa would normally require.
> 
> Japan and South Korea hosted the World Cup in 2002. Now each wants to host it separately. Most observers think that’s too soon. These bids may be devices to keep Japanese and Korean officials off the streets.
> 
> Australia presents its bid as a proxy for the growing Indian and Chinese markets. However, that argument is holed if China bids. Australia needs China to stay out. If that happens, Australia hopes Japan and Korea will back it after they are knocked out in early voting.
> 
> Qatar is spending oil money on lobbying. But few foreigners want a World Cup played in the desert, in indoor stadiums in 40-degree heat. Choosing Qatar would look a choice for money. That would make Fifa look tacky.
> 
> For now, Russia and the US look the frontrunners.


----------



## The Game Is Up

^^ A lot of ifs. Stuff that we may have not thought about could affect the voting. 2018 is nowhere near a done deal (as is 2022). My gut feeling tells me that the Netherlands could surge in the last days and surprise everyone, if only to thwart the momentum towards one of the other two large factions. What I think might happen is once the other bids are voted out it would come down to three and if one of them is the Netherlands bid then the thinking would be if the party for one of the other two candidates believes that it would not win the final vote then to shift their votes towards the Netherlands without having to go to another round, thereby defeating the would-be favorites and giving the Netherlands the win.

For 2022, I think AFC (with cooperation of the Chinese govt) will remove the China bid threat, thereby making it much more interesting. I think Australia would then be the consensus choice for the Asian delegates. They would then have a shot of winning over the CAF delegates, a good number of European delegates, the Oceania delegate and then it would be a battle for South America between them and the Concacaf candidate (US).


----------



## Melb_aviator

The Game Is Up said:


> ^^ A lot of ifs. Stuff that we may have not thought about could affect the voting. 2018 is nowhere near a done deal (as is 2022). My gut feeling tells me that the Netherlands could surge in the last days and surprise everyone, if only to thwart the momentum towards one of the other two large factions. What I think might happen is once the other bids are voted out it would come down to three and if one of them is the Netherlands bid then the thinking would be if the party for one of the other two candidates believes that it would not win the final vote then to shift their votes towards the Netherlands without having to go to another round, thereby defeating the would-be favorites and giving the Netherlands the win.
> 
> For 2022, I think AFC (with cooperation of the Chinese govt) will remove the China bid threat, thereby making it much more interesting. I think Australia would then be the consensus choice for the Asian delegates. They would then have a shot of winning over the CAF delegates, a good number of European delegates, the Oceania delegate and then it would be a battle for South America between them and the Concacaf candidate (US).


I am not so sure FIFA wou;ld think China is the best move just yet. It has many issues in the game with corruption, and I am sure the govt there would not want to have the event until their team is regularly qualifying for the WC. It would be a national embarrassment, which is not a good thing to a communist regime (look at Nth Korea for instance), if the team is not a success. It is all seen as a propoganda machine.

China might have the market, but the AFC will not let all its bids down by allowing China to loom large over the 2022 bid. China had its chance to bid for this one and did not do it. 

If Asia misses out on 2022, look for 2026 to be a very competitive process. If China does enter, then the Chinese govt would have to invest a lot of money in development and fix up its Footballing Authorities, which FIFA do not like, because it is govt intervention in footballing matters


----------



## ExSydney

China trying to derail this whole Asian campaign for 2022 is a disgrace.Are FIFA supposed to drop everthing for China in the "hope" that it "may" bid for 2026?

China were also interested in 2018
http://www.panasianbiz.com/asia/asia-news-only/china-willing-to-host-2018-wor/

and nothing became....

Go away China..
Bid when you actually decide to put in an official bid and promote it when FIFA actually opens up the bidding process for that year.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Melb_aviator said:


> China might have the market, but the AFC will not let all its bids down by allowing China to loom large over the 2022 bid. China had its chance to bid for this one and did not do it.


So you're agreeing with me that AFC would put pressure on the Chinese F.A. to back out of any threat. I, too, see that happening. 

As for the idea (according to the article) that the Australia bid is like being a proxy for India or China, I also don't look at it that way. In fact, I think the idea is brilliant and is a bigger threat than people here realize (from my standpoint). Hosting in Australia means that FIFA gets Asian eyeballs at a much more convenient time without having to go into one of those "problem countries" we keep hearing about. It would avoid (for FIFA) the charge that they only care about money over the state of human beings while enjoying the advantages of staging it in an already-developed nation and timely access to a vast emerging market in viewers. 

The future of FIFA profits is in television rights, not stadium revenues. It would be a question of whether the Asian television market in the long run is more lucrative or whether they still think the rights fees from US television networks would overcome that. I do not know the answer to that question. On one hand, the soccer audience in North America is growing to the point that now it's worthwhile to bid for World Cup TV rights. OTOH, the Asian TV market is also becoming very lucrative and is the true threat to the North American market (and even the European market) in terms of consolidated value. This is why I am of the thinking that Australia might win it.

Sure, FIFA might not care who pays for the stadia as long as they're not footing the bill but television and video, online and mobile hold the key to the future. Butts on seats matter still but not as much as people think. They've proven that they can make money off an African World Cup, with ticket prices for some seats that would be considered a bargain in the developed world. Why? Television, online, mobile and such. And an already-built-in audience who would consume so much footy to make your head spin. They could do the same in Asia but Japan and Korea already hosted and they're not likely to host for a long time. China, as you say, has to up their football to make it worth their salt and the ASEAN countries are still not yet ready. So Australia is probably their best horse right now. 

The AFC honchos surely must know this. It's not so much an issue of corruption as more of their influence within FIFA. They don't want China to go above them and will do what they can to neutralize it.


----------



## hngcm

But why not let China and OZ battle it out in 2026? 

The USA WILL get either 2022 or 2026. 

Makes sense to give them 2022 and have OZ/China go for 2026.


----------



## T74

hngcm said:


> But why not let China and OZ battle it out in 2026?
> 
> The USA WILL get either 2022 or 2026.
> 
> Makes sense to give them 2022 and have OZ/China go for 2026.


why would any of the non-Chinese AFC bidders agree to that?


----------



## RobH

hngcm said:


> But why not let China and OZ battle it out in 2026?
> 
> The USA WILL get either 2022 or 2026.
> 
> Makes sense to give them 2022 and have OZ/China go for 2026.


Why will the USA get one of those two?


----------



## The Game Is Up

http://southkorea.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/2022-world-cup-bid-update.html



> South Korea’s bid to host the 2022 World Cup Finals passed a huge test last week as the FIFA inspection team completed a 4-day visit. The second of nine inspections that FIFA will perform in the coming months, the visit to Seoul was meant to examine Korea’s ability to host a future World Cup. With such a short visit planned, FIFA’s itinerary was packed full with scheduled events. Among other things, the group met with President Lee Myung-bak, toured stadiums around Seoul, Daegu, and Ulsan, and visited Seoul Plaza near city hall, a popular fan fest site where countless Koreans gathered to watch recent World Cups.
> 
> Korea’s bid committee seemed pleased with the visit which went off without a hitch. The results from FIFA, however, won’t be released until closer to the December 2nd selection date in Zurich. Of course, South Korea has already hosted one World Cup in 2002, something that might prove to be a bit of a double-edged sword for future bids. One thing working in South Korea’s favor is the infrastructure that is already built into the country as a result of the 2002 finals. Only two new stadiums would need to be constructed, which makes their bid eco-friendly with very little financial risk. In addition, the bid also leaves room for North Korea to be included in some capacity should tensions ease in the coming years. It was suggested that the North’s capital, Pyongyang, could perhaps host a few games.
> 
> However, since Korea hosted the World Cup as recently as 2002, it seems unlikely that they would be given the chance again so soon, especially when so many nations are clambering to host and more traditional soccer nations have had to wait much longer between intervals. Although approving Korea’s bid for 2022 would ensure a relatively stress-free World Cup since most of the infrastructure already exists, could FIFA justify having the World Cup back in Korea so soon?


----------



## antriksh_sfo

Big Cat said:


> *Cold war rivals vie to stage football’s big event*


I indeed predicted the same and stick on to it.
2018: England/Russia
2022: USA
2026: China
This shall be the outcome this December.
So OZ can only think of 2038.


----------



## warden987

Can't really wait to hear that FIFA's World Cup 2018 is in Russia.:banana:


----------



## CPHbane

antriksh_sfo said:


> I indeed predicted the same and stick on to it.
> 2018: England/Russia
> 2022: USA
> 2026: China
> This shall be the outcome this December.
> So OZ can only think of 2038.


seems everyone seal the choice of 2026 on China........


----------



## T74

on China 2026, lets wait to hear from the govt before we get too excited

remember the Chinese footy federation initially intended to bid for 2018.....but then it quietly walked away

nothing like this can happen in China without Beijing's approval, and right now Beijing is not happy with the footy fed due to the issues of corruption in the local comp and the under performance of the national team at the WC level

given Beijing is yet to endorse the 2026 "suggestion", I'd say it happening is far from certain still at this stage


----------



## Matthew Lowry

I think Australia will get the 2026 World Cup.
Then the Cup will go to China.

Remember FIFA wants to see Australia getting the Cup in the 2020s.


----------



## bthj

crazyalex said:


> so what Mexico host FIFA world cup twice
> 
> Russia 2018
> USA 2022
> China 2026


mexico 86 was a back up on short notice as the tournament was originally awarded to columbia


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Matthew Lowry said:


> I think Australia will get the 2026 World Cup.
> Then the Cup will go to China.
> 
> Remember FIFA wants to see Australia getting the Cup in the 2020s.


omg shutt upppasdpapdasp


----------



## Will737

Matthew Lowry said:


> I think Australia will get the 2026 World Cup.
> Then the Cup will go to China.
> 
> Remember FIFA wants to see Australia getting the Cup in the 2020s.


If FIFA want Australia to get a WC, as well as China (soon) then why can't they go Australia 2022, USA 2026 China 2030?


----------



## T74

Will737 said:


> If FIFA want Australia to get a WC, as well as China (soon) then why can't they go Australia 2022, USA 2026 China 2030?


forget that, I'd like to know how he thinks FIFA want an Aussie WC one day

yet to hear anything remotely along those lines here


----------



## hkskyline

*Freed from England duties, Beckham can represent his country at a higher pitch*
13 August 2010
The Times

David Beckham has not played his last game for England, but he may have played his last game for the England football team. England's manager, Fabio Capello, has decided that Beckham is "a little bit too old" to win another competitive cap. But as the Player says in Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, every exit is an entrance somewhere else. Beckham's exit from the football field frees him to focus more fully on his already blossoming new role — that of not just an elder statesman of his sport, but an elder statesman of sport. More potently still, he has harnessed his fame (is any Briton more recognised abroad?) to his passion, his charm and his "choose me" patriotism to become a charismatic ambassador for Britain.

Having been influential in securing the 2012 Olympics for London, Beckham is now pivotal in England's faltering bid to host football's 2018 World Cup: he was the man FIFA grandees queued to be snapped with when would-be 2018 hosts presented their bids in Johannesburg in June. When football stars are commonly caricatured as overpaid, oversexed and over-fond of Cristal, when some players are suspected of regarding turning out for their country as a burden as much as an honour, Beckham has evolved into the closest thing that modern-day Britain has to Bobby Moore. As with Pele for Brazil, Beckham has become role model and roving envoy for both football and his country.

You might have got long odds against such a twist of fate a decade ago, when Beckham was known at least as much for his haircuts, his wife, his sarongs, for that humiliating red card in the 1998 World Cup, and for his appearances in gossip columns as much as he was for his set-piece kicks. You see? Football really is a game of two halves.


----------



## CPHbane

joshjordaan said:


> If the FIFA Executive Committee will never pre-approve china without a bid, they can scream and shout all they want but in the end, it comes down to who has vote. i think Russia 2018 and USA 2022 unless someone pulls out a shocker (Australia).
> And i think that 2026 will be between South Africa, Egypt, China, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia.



SA? probably after 50 years later
BR? I do't think they could get WC twice in just 12 years

2026 is CHN VS AUS if AUS lost to USA in 2022

But very probably lost to CHN.......


----------



## The Game Is Up

I wouldn't rule out AUS for 2026. Sure, it wouldn't be any easier from their standpoint the bid competition. However, knowing China's footballing track record, I happen to think a Chinese bid would be a bit less than meets the eye. That's why I find it strange that some people are hoping that China would "come in" and "knock out" the Aussie bid.

By now, I would have thought the Asian members would come to a consensus agreement as to who would be their "best" choice and unite behind it. That they have not can only because of either national pride or internal politics in play.


----------



## Alan21LP

I vote for:

Russia 2018

USA 2022

Australia 2026


----------



## antriksh_sfo

CPHbane said:


> SA? probably after 50 years later
> BR? I do't think they could get WC twice in just 12 years
> 
> 2026 is CHN VS AUS if AUS lost to USA in 2022
> 
> But very probably lost to CHN.......


What if Japan springs a surprise and wins the 2022 World Cup bid?
They are upto something serious among all the Asian Contenders.


----------



## joshjordaan

CPHbane said:


> SA? probably after 50 years later
> BR? I do't think they could get WC twice in just 12 years
> 
> 2026 is CHN VS AUS if AUS lost to USA in 2022
> 
> But very probably lost to CHN.......


Look at the confederation rotation policy and then re comment. china haven't even released their intention to bid yet. But lets wait and see, December 2nd is just around the corner.


----------



## bing222

England 2018

Australia 2022

Russia/USA 2026


----------



## _X_

The Game Is Up said:


> I wouldn't rule out AUS for 2026. Sure, it wouldn't be any easier from their standpoint the bid competition. However, knowing China's footballing track record, I happen to think a Chinese bid would be a bit less than meets the eye. That's why I find it strange that some people are hoping that China would "come in" and "knock out" the Aussie bid.
> 
> By now, I would have thought the Asian members would come to a consensus agreement as to who would be their "best" choice and unite behind it. That they have not can only because of either national pride or internal politics in play.


Interesting post.
What we do know is-the next 3 world cups will be played in Europe,Asia and specifically the USA.What order nobody knows.
The overwhelming favourite for 2018 is undoubtedly European ,be it England,Russia or Spatugal.This can all come crumbling down if a preliminary ballot isn't held by UEFA as the USA will be the no 2 choice from the England, Spain, Belgium and Russian exco members.
With a preliminary UEFA vote at least 6 members will support the same bid whereas the other 3 will hope the USA has the numbers and they can try again in 2022.
Re 2022,supposing UEFA do succeed,then the first round will be extremely crucial.A number of factors make the 4 votes from the AFC a mystery.Three of the 4 AFC bids have Exco members leaving self interest as a major hurdle.There has also been infighting between the Qatari and the South Korean over control of the AFC.
It seems a common thought that if Australia can avoid being eliminated in the first round then we may go all the way to a fourth round final stoush with the USA
The USA will have possibly 9 votes in round 1 but that may be as many votes as they will get till round 4.They will definitely be one of the final 2 for 2022.
Also,Australia's main fear would have to be that if we miss 2022 then we may never get a realistic shot for many years

Folks need to understand that regardless of everything the USA will host by 2026-other countries don't have that luxury


----------



## joshjordaan

Will737 said:


> If FIFA want Australia to get a WC, as well as China (soon) then why can't they go Australia 2022, USA 2026 China 2030?


confederation rotation policy forbids it.


----------



## _X_

CPHbane said:


> SA? probably after 50 years later
> BR? I do't think they could get WC twice in just 12 years
> 
> 2026 is CHN VS AUS if AUS lost to USA in 2022
> 
> But very probably lost to CHN.......


As far as I can see Australia will not bid in 2026 if China is bidding because it would be futile.This the only reason Australia put in a bid this time

We have all our eggs in 1 basket so if Exco like us they better support us now


----------



## _X_

joshjordaan said:


> confederation rotation policy forbids it.


Not only that,UEFA will not wait any longer than 12 years to host again-meaning they would wreck CONMEBOLs dream of a centennial WC


----------



## CPHbane

antriksh_sfo said:


> What if Japan springs a surprise and wins the 2022 World Cup bid?
> They are upto something serious among all the Asian Contenders.


I don't think JPN will get WC 2022. they did it in 2002 although they, together with KOR ,claim that that was joint bid.

Especially considering Asia and pacific regions has other strong bidders like QAT and AUS, the chance for JPN and KOR is nominal.


----------



## CPHbane

_X_ said:


> As far as I can see Australia will not bid in 2026 if China is bidding because it would be futile.This the only reason Australia put in a bid this time
> 
> We have all our eggs in 1 basket so if Exco like us they better support us now


They vie for SOG before.......SYD and PEK for SOG 2000

i hope to see another battle between aussie and chinese.......


----------



## CPHbane

joshjordaan said:


> Look at the confederation rotation policy and then re comment. china haven't even released their intention to bid yet. But lets wait and see, December 2nd is just around the corner.


Yes,so i set the context that if US win 2022........

According to Weidi and CFA official, if asia does not win 2022, CHN definitely will strive for 2026.


----------



## T74

CPHbane said:


> Yes,so i set the context that if US win 2022........
> 
> According to Weidi and CFA official, if asia does not win 2022, CHN definitely will strive for 2026.


this is just the federation though, which is still dealing with internal issues of mistrust of the local comp and poor performances of the national team. until the govt comment, its all noise

that being said, if they govt say "yay", forget about AU for 2026. Australia beat a very different China for the Sydney SOG that it will be facing for a 2026 WC

this china is much richer, and has much greater political clout

also IMO China will want to be THE AFC bid. Australia and all others I reckon will come under immense pressure to give China a clean run - especially as the 4 competing Asian bids may be blamed for any loss to the USA


----------



## crazyalex

Blatter warns England's 2018 bid
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=816990&sec=global&campaign=rss&source=soccernet&cc=3436


----------



## slipperydog

No freedom of speech? So I think if Russia gets the bid, I'll go down to the middle of St Petersburg Square with a few buddies and hold up big signs that say "Putin is a commie motherf****. Go USA!"

Just to see what happens...


----------



## Walbanger

AlekseyVT said:


> Yes, I know it, but what about world in general (and particually in European non-English speaking states) - it's possible to compare it with football or Olympic events. I'm saw only few TV-translations in Russia and it's some difficult to know the real level of popularity for this kind of sport.
> 
> In other words, will FIFA pay any attention to this? Do they know about Rugby events?


FIFA certainly do know of the Rugby World Cup, it is a highly prestigious event which under many critera ranks as the 3rd largest Sports tournament in the World behinfd the FIFA WC and the Summer Olympics. There are also many healthy parallels in the 2 tournaments. If England is awarded 2018, FIFA would certainly pay attention to the RWC but I can't see it being in the negative. It would be seen as an encouraging "dress rehersal" by FIFA and far more closer to the mark than the Confederations Cup. FIFA has had no problems in the past (Mexico and West Germany) and in the future (Brazil) going to a Nation which is home to the host city of the most recent Summer Olympics.

Rugby Union's international size is a matter of perspective. It doesn't compare to Soccer in popularity of depth but it is still one of the most widely spread team sports in the world and one of the few which can justify large stadiums build for it's own use. The RWC has less teams playing than the FIFA WC but the average crowds are not much smaller. With the last 3 RWC's averaging 42 683, 38 282 and 47 150. This says that though there is a smaller pool of "elite" Rugby Nations, Rugby Union is still a very successful spectator sport.

After all that, I'm personally neutral in regards to which UEFA nation hosts 2018.


----------



## coth

It's no way third. Formula 1, Hockey, Basketball and might be even Tennis are more popular, not talking about athletic championships.


----------



## Walbanger

I did write "which *under many critera ranks as the 3rd* largest Sports tournament in the World". There is no fully conclusive way to judge this but there is evidence to say it is in the vicinity. The same goes for arguing which is larger and / or more illustrious out of the FIFA WC or the Summer Olympics. The only other event I can think of that challenges the RWC for 3rd is the UEFA European Football Championship but the RWC may have just past it in 1999, though it would be close.
You can look it up for yourself if you want. F1 is an annual series not a Touranment. Hockey and Basketball are popular but which "Tournament" are you thinking about?
Hockey and Basketballs World Championships are somewhat watered down by a legitimate and coverted Olympic Competition, Rugby Union doesn't have that. The former two may be as popular, even more so than Rubgy Union but their major championship is not to the scale or does it have the turnover of the Rugby World Cup, there isn't demand for 600 000 tickets either.
Hockey, Basketball, Tennis and Rugby are all more popular than most Olympic Sports but we acknowledge the size and prestiege of the Olympic Games.

As for Tennis, it isn't even clear which Grand Slam is number one. Wimbledon is the most prestigious, The French Open has the widest worldwide broadcasting and audience and currently largest pool of prize money, The Australian Open and US open generally have a larger attendance than the other two.

http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf
(Look at page 9 for brief summary)

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mediazone/news/newsid=2039040.html
(Look at 3rd paragraph)

http://www.austrade.gov.au/From-the-World-Trade-Organisation-to-the-Rugby-World-Cup-how-the-Wallabies-can-help-Australia-exports/default.aspx

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/7d73942e84ffd110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm
(Acknowledgment from a neutral party)


----------



## crazyalex

Rugby were 5th
http://www.worldsbiggests.com/2010/04/top-10-most-popular-team-sports-in.html

and ofcouse Rugby aren't popular in Russia


----------



## AlekseyVT

crazyalex said:


> Rugby were 5th
> http://www.worldsbiggests.com/2010/04/top-10-most-popular-team-sports-in.html
> 
> and ofcouse Rugby aren't popular in Russia


WOW! I'm checked information about Rugby World Cups and learned that Russian team (like Georgian) will be play in final tournament of Rugby WC!!!!
Hmm, I never heard this news before.


----------



## AlekseyVT

crazyalex said:


> Rugby were 5th
> http://www.worldsbiggests.com/2010/04/top-10-most-popular-team-sports-in.html
> 
> and ofcouse Rugby aren't popular in Russia


Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world?!!! I was sured that only Commonwealth states know about this game.

And American Football on 9th place? I was sured that nobody outside USA heard about this game.

By the way, are Rugby and American Football same kinds of sport?


----------



## Melb_aviator

Walbanger said:


> I did write "which *under many critera ranks as the 3rd* largest Sports tournament in the World". There is no fully conclusive way to judge this but there is evidence to say it is in the vicinity. The same goes for arguing which is larger and / or more illustrious out of the FIFA WC or the Summer Olympics. The only other event I can think of that challenges the RWC for 3rd is the UEFA European Football Championship but the RWC may have just past it in 1999, though it would be close.
> You can look it up for yourself if you want. F1 is an annual series not a Touranment. Hockey and Basketball are popular but which "Tournament" are you thinking about?
> Hockey and Basketballs World Championships are somewhat watered down by a legitimate and coverted Olympic Competition, Rugby Union doesn't have that. The former two may be as popular, even more so than Rubgy Union but their major championship is not to the scale or does it have the turnover of the Rugby World Cup, there isn't demand for 600 000 tickets either.
> Hockey, Basketball, Tennis and Rugby are all more popular than most Olympic Sports but we acknowledge the size and prestiege of the Olympic Games.
> 
> As for Tennis, it isn't even clear which Grand Slam is number one. Wimbledon is the most prestigious, The French Open has the widest worldwide broadcasting and audience and currently largest pool of prize money, The Australian Open and US open generally have a larger attendance than the other two.
> 
> http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2004/feddep/FinalEconomicImpactOfRWC2003.pdf
> (Look at page 9 for brief summary)
> 
> http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mediazone/news/newsid=2039040.html
> (Look at 3rd paragraph)
> 
> http://www.austrade.gov.au/From-the-World-Trade-Organisation-to-the-Rugby-World-Cup-how-the-Wallabies-can-help-Australia-exports/default.aspx
> 
> http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/7d73942e84ffd110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm
> (Acknowledgment from a neutral party)


I wonder why the French Open is the most viewed. To me it is the least exciting. Its just too slow.

I actually prefer the history of Wimbeldon,

The Aus and US Opens are on a par for excitement, but they both lack the historical element. They are the modern slams afterall


----------



## crazyalex

AlekseyVT said:


> By the way, are Rugby and American Football same kinds of sport?


----------



## Walbanger

crazyalex said:


> Rugby were 5th
> http://www.worldsbiggests.com/2010/04/top-10-most-popular-team-sports-in.html
> 
> and ofcouse Rugby aren't popular in Russia


Rugby Union may be 5th most popular team sport but that doesn't mean that the Rugby World Cup isn't the 3rd largest Sporting tournament in the world. Australia's national sport is Cricket and we're better at it than Rugby but we're aware that the Rugby World Cup is larger and more prestigious than the Cricket World Cup.

In that very article you posted it says "The 16-nation *Rugby World Cup is the third largest single sporting event*, achieving an average attendance of more than 45,000 and an estimated television audience in excess of two billion".



AlekseyVT said:


> Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world?!!! I was sured that only Commonwealth states know about this game.
> 
> And American Football on 9th place? I was sured that nobody outside USA heard about this game.
> 
> By the way, are Rugby and American Football same kinds of sport?


Yes Rugby and American football are the "same kind of sport" as American Football is mostly a localised evolved version of the parent game Rugby via Canada. Born out of Rugby School Rules and influenced by the Eton Wall game and previous older Medievel "Football" games rather than the Sheffield and Cambridge Rules which gave birth to the Football Association.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Walbanger said:


> Yes Rugby and American football are the "same kind of sport" as American Football is mostly a localised evolved version of the parent game Rugby via Canada. Born out of Rugby School Rules and influenced by the Eton Wall game and previous older Medievel "Football" games rather than the Sheffield and Cambridge Rules which gave birth to the Football Association.


So why American football players have no success at the Rugby World Cups?


----------



## rus

sarmat said:


> Well...How can you stop talking about politics, when the basic human rights in Russia are thrown to the dogs. Country has no freedom of speech. Would you like a country like this to host the Mundial? I do not.
> 
> For example. Russia was awarded the Olympic games. But most of the city of Sochi has no sewer system and what they have is just regularly dump to the sea without any treatment.
> 
> The city of Sochi has no storm water facilities. Instead of building the Olympic infrastructure, they should really concentrate on making livable conditions for the Russian citizens. On top of this all. The city of Sochi is isolated from the rest of Russia, connected only by an old mountain road, built during the Tsar’s times..


Протоукр недоділаний жери своє сало з горілкой та не встрявай в тему, яка тебе не стосується. Що у вас бендерлогів за звичка така, спочатку соснути у якогось англійця, потім підставити дупу канадійцю. Чи на Канадщині всі свідоміти такі ж підораси:bash:
Sorry for offtopic


----------



## T74

AlekseyVT said:


> Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world?!!! I was sured that only Commonwealth states know about this game.
> 
> And American Football on 9th place? I was sured that nobody outside USA heard about this game.
> 
> By the way, are Rugby and American Football same kinds of sport?


you have to remember cricket is very popular in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh - all very populous countries

American football has a massive penetration in the USA (I understand it is easily the no. 1 sport there now), and with a pop of over 300 million thats a lot of people


----------



## Walbanger

AlekseyVT said:


> So why American football players have no success at the Rugby World Cups?


Because they are not the exact same sport let alone under the same governing bodies. They are historically related (American Football evolved from Rugby) but have different rules, positions and physical requirements, not unlike Squash and Raquetball, Surfing and Bodyboarding or Ice Hockey and Bandy. Given enough time, players from either possibly could made the transition to the other code but there isn't strong enough push and pull factors.

We really are side tracked now. So to sum it all up American Football is on the Rugby side of the Football family tree and I can't see the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England being a negative to the the 2018 England bid. The Rugby WC is not a threat to the FIFA WC and FIFA may very well see it as a realistic dress rehersal should England's bid win the 2018 tournament.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Melb_aviator said:


> I wonder why the French Open is the most viewed. To me it is the least exciting. Its just too slow.
> 
> I actually prefer the history of Wimbeldon,
> 
> The Aus and US Opens are on a par for excitement, but they both lack the historical element. They are the modern slams afterall


Hello!

I'm not fan of Rugby or American Football, but I like to see tennis.

I see some reasons for it:
1) Grass surface is not popular today. The tournaments on grass surface played only within one month from 11 of tennis season (January-November), including two weeks of Wimbledon tournament.
2) Despite of all efforts of the organizers, the grass surface is heavily damaged during the tournament. In the second week of Wimbledon it looks poorly.
3) Wimbledon tournament is so conservative and aristocratic. The rule of white clothes for players look like anachronism.
4) At Roland Garros I can see all beauty of smart combinational play, all beauty of tennis. At Wimbledon it almost impossible to be competitive in the matches against players who have big physical force (like Williams sisters). It almost impossible to resist against strong shots. And players offen won the points only after few shots.

Therefore I'm not suprised that Roland Garros look more interesting than "elite" Wimbledon tournament.


----------



## AlekseyVT

T74 said:


> you have to remember cricket is very popular in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh - all very populous countries
> 
> American football has a massive penetration in the USA (I understand it is easily the no. 1 sport there now), and with a pop of over 300 million thats a lot of people


Yes, but the other kinds of sport have wider international recognition. It's so strange to see Cricket, Baseball, American Football (these kinds of sport are popular only in the some world regions) in one row with Volleyball (FIVB is bigger federation by the number of its members), Basketball, Football, Tennis or Road Cycling.

FIVB (Volleyball) - 220 members;
FIBA (Basketball) - 213 members;
FIFA (Football) - 208 members;
ITF (Tennis) - 205 members

IRB (Rugby) - 115 members;
ICC (Cricket) - 104 members;
IBAF (Baseball) - 112 members.

By the way, baseball is only kind of sport for many years, which was excluded from the Olympic program. Therefore I'm sured that this rating of popular kinds of sport was made for English-speaking readers and very subjective.


----------



## Walbanger

It's not so subjective when one looks at the financial turnover, tv revenue and attendance numbers of Sports like Rugby, Cricket and Baseball. Volleyball may be a popular recreational pursuit but can't hold a candle to the 3 above in financial sophistication and strength. Having more than 100 nation members is more than enough to encompass the world and have global appeal.

Tennis is massive but isn't a team sport in the mold of Rugby, Soccer, Cricket, Baseball etc so it doesn't compare appropriately. Yeah it has doubles and the Davis and Fed Cups but the main focus and prestige is found in the Singles titles of the Grand Slams.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Walbanger said:


> It's not so subjective when one looks at the financial turnover, tv revenue and attendance numbers of Sports like Rugby, Cricket and Baseball. Volleyball may be a popular recreational pursuit but can't hold a candle to the 3 above in financial sophistication and strength. Having more than 100 nation members is more than enough to encompass the world and have global appeal.
> 
> Tennis is massive but isn't a team sport in the mold of Rugby, Soccer, Cricket, Baseball etc so it doesn't compare appropriately. Yeah it has doubles and the Davis and Fed Cups but the main focus and prestige is found in the Singles titles of the Grand Slams.


Please answer on one more question. I listen about such kind of sport which named "Australian Football". Is it variation of European Football, American Football or Rugby? Is "Australian Football" also among top kind of sport in the world according to these ratings?


----------



## woozoo

Australian rules football is a sport which is only really played within Australia in any significant numbers. And within Australia it is the dominant sport in four of the six states (in the other states, Rugby League is the dominant sport), though it is gaining popularity throughout the country.

It is most closely related to Gaelic football, and is not really comparable to European football, American football or Rugby.

The aim of the game is to kick an oval ball through the goal. Players are allowed to use their hands, and the sport is contact, though not as rough as either Rugby or American Football.

I havent seen the ratings, but given Australias small population, and the fact the sport is limited to Australia, I cant see it being rated as very popular internationally.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Trelawny said:


> Going to be either Russia or England for 2018, and Australia or Qatar for 2022. People should agree, unless they are blind. :lol::cheers:


I am not sure how far people agree, but the USA is also a possible host for 2022 along with Qatar and Australia, i wonder why you specifically had it in the 2018 section.,,,


----------



## Trelawny

*Explanation-Read Slowly*

2018 is strongly predicted to be Europe or a Currently Prepared country. That being said all of Europe is placed in 2018, and USA which is a Currently Prepared country that is NOT an Experiment.

2022 will have the Experiment countries, which are countries that haven't been tested before ( Australia, Qatar). Fifa wouldn't give USA a 2022 slot because they know they can deliver a successful games without the extra time, they are going to save this spot for the non-Euro Experiment Newbies.

Japan & Korea are not new and are currently prepared, but since they just hosted in 2002 they have the worst chances in the bid.

USA have the second worst chances behind #1 shared between Japan and Korea. Since they hosted it fairly recent is a factor. And because they just aren't needed. Example 2018 is favoured Europe. The only way USA would get the bid is if Fifa felt the Europe bids for 2018 would not deliver, so they would be a safety or backup. But I don't think that would happen in this bid.

Portugal/Spain and Belgium/Netherlands just can't compete with an England or Russian bid, plain and simple.

Russia or England 2018
Australia or Qatar 2022


----------



## Chimbanha

Trelawny said:


> 2018 is strongly predicted to be Europe or a Currently Prepared country. That being said all of Europe is placed in 2018, and USA which is a Currently Prepared country that is NOT an Experiment.
> 
> 2022 will have the Experiment countries, which are countries that haven't been tested before ( Australia, Qatar). Fifa wouldn't give USA a 2022 slot because they know they can deliver a successful games without the extra time, they are going to save this spot for the non-Euro Experiment Newbies.
> 
> Japan & Korea are not new and are currently prepared, but since they just hosted in 2002 they have the worst chances in the bid.
> 
> USA have the second worst chances behind #1 shared between Japan and Korea. Since they hosted it fairly recent is a factor. And because they just aren't needed. Example 2018 is favoured Europe. The only way USA would get the bid is if Fifa felt the Europe bids for 2018 would not deliver, so they would be a safety or backup. But I don't think that would happen in this bid.
> 
> Portugal/Spain and Belgium/Netherlands just can't compete with an England or Russian bid, plain and simple.
> 
> Russia or England 2018
> Australia or Qatar 2022


I kinda agree with your logic, but my conclusion is different. Russia is the experimental bid among the Europeans, so they'll go the risky way in 2018 and do 2022 in a safe country, the U.S.


----------



## geoone

^^Exactly. I was just gonna say that Russia is also "experimental". 

FIFA 2018/22 inspection team leader stated after Russia's evaluation visit, that if Russia was going to host this, they'd have to start work IMMEDIATELY to have everything ready in time. 

So this would seem to suggest the opposite order of what you have if the vote were to pan out that way. Why give the U.S. the extra time when obviously Russia would need it more.


----------



## crazyalex

Chimbanha said:


> I kinda agree with your logic, but my conclusion is different. Russia is the experimental bid among the Europeans, so they'll go the risky way in 2018 and do 2022 in a safe country, the U.S.


Japan more safe country than the United State..

Global Peace Index ranking 
Japan.............3
Portugal.........13 & Spain..25
Qatar..............15
Belgium...........17 & Netherland..27
Austaila..........19
United Kingdom.31 (England, Wales, scotland, N. Ireland)
South Korea......43
United State......85
Russia............143

8 or 12 year future those ranking will change


----------



## Walbanger

Interesting. Australia may not have hosted the FIFA WC before but it don't see it as "experimental". Australia like almost all the bids are sticking to the tried and true layout of the tournament. We're a wealthy, stable country with highly developed infrastructure and very mild winters where beaches are still used, especially in Sydney, Perth, Gold Coast and Townsville. The Stadiums and bars will be full. FIFA would have no doubts about Australia's ability to successfully host the event. I don't see why Australia isn't also a Safe option.


----------



## geoone

> USA have the second worst chances behind #1 shared between Japan and Korea. Since they hosted it fairly recent is a factor. And because they just aren't needed. Example 2018 is favoured Europe. The only way USA would get the bid is if Fifa felt the Europe bids for 2018 would not deliver, so they would be a safety or backup. But I don't think that would happen in this bid.


I think if FIFA wants to go the "safe/back-up" way, that would be England. Sepp Blatter was quoted as saying; "going to England would be EASY. The fans are there, the stadiums are there, the infrastructure is there, it's 'easy'". So it all depends what FIFA really wants. Do they want easy, or do they want some risk with a bigger leagacy pay-off in the end.

And while the U.S. may have hosted it fairly recent, in terms of further promoting soccer as a major league sport in the U.S. is still something that FIFA would most likely consider as well in terms of legacy. Major league soccer was founded in the U.S. in 1993 as part of the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. 

Soccer is still not very popular in the U.S. compared to baseball, football & basketball. So another FIFA World Cup in the U.S. could catapult the sport into a new level, just like the first one started the way to a U.S. major league soccer federation. Besides, Germany hosted again after only 32 years.


----------



## slipperydog

geoone said:


> And while the U.S. may have hosted it fairly recent, in terms of further promoting soccer as a major league sport in the U.S. is still something that FIFA would most likely consider as well in terms of legacy. Major league soccer was founded in the U.S. in 1993 as part of the 1994 World Cup in the U.S.
> 
> Soccer is still not very popular in the U.S. compared to baseball, football & basketball. So another FIFA World Cup in the U.S. could catapult the sport into a new level, just like the first one started the way to a U.S. major league soccer federation. Besides, Germany hosted again after only 32 years.


This is a good point. Legacy is still very much in play for the USA. Because back in 1994 when the league was launched, there was almost zero backing by the American sports media, only by the USSF. Nowadays, ESPN has become very pro-soccer. And frankly, ESPN is the king, whatever they tell Americans to be interested in, they are. People couldn't care less about poker and Little League Baseball 10 years ago, but now they do because ESPN broadcasts those events and tells Americans to be interested.

In short, if USA gets the bid for 2022, coupled with natural growth/prestige of the MLS over the next 10 years and two more World Cup cycles with massive media coverage, the 2022 World Cup could be the event that helps soccer finally supplant the NHL as the fourth biggest sport in this country.


----------



## _X_

The USA will definitely host 2026 if they miss out on 2018 or 2022 .
UEFA and the AFC will be out of the running while CAF simply couldn't find a strong enough opponent(Egypt/Morocco) and CONMEBOL would be chasing the centennial in 2030

None of the other bids have that luxury,and for some such as Australia-this is it,we simply won't be able to compete with the emerging superpowers in the area such as China and India when they finally get there football act together


----------



## _X_

I think this is quite relevant

Bin Hammam rules out FIFA top job tilt
August 27, 2010 - 3:54PM

AFP

Asian Football Confederation chief Mohamed Bin Hammam has ruled out a bid for the FIFA presidency next year, opening the door for Sepp Blatter to run the world game for another four years.

The 61-year-old Qatari is seen as a successor to the 74-year-old Swiss and one of the few people with the potential to unseat him, but he appears ready to bide his time.

"Let me be very clear, I will not run for the next FIFA election. I will be backing Sepp Blatter to remain in office for a new mandate," Bin Hammam told AFP on Friday.
Advertisement: Story continues below

His decision not to run follows a similar move by Michel Platini earlier this year. The Frenchman was also considered a key candidate but he will seek a second term as UEFA president instead.

The Qatari, seen as a moderniser, has been AFC chief since 2002 and has overseen the launch of the AFC Champions League and the admission of Australia into the confederation.

Bin Hammam, a FIFA executive committee member, said he would similarly seek re-election as AFC president next year.

"My aim is to run for the next election of AFC president due at the start of 2011," he said.

"Hopefully I will get the full confidence of all the national associations."

After 12 years in office, Blatter has made clear he has no plans on leaving when his term runs out on June 11, 2011, saying he has not finished his mission.

The Swiss was elected FIFA president in 1998 and won a fierce re-election fight in 2002 before being returned unopposed in 2007.

The Asian bloc, the biggest football confederation in the world, wields 46 votes in the presidential election and will play a vital role in deciding whether Blatter continues his reign.

Bin Hammam rocked the boat earlier this year by saying he would like to see an Asian as president of world football's governing body.

He also said he believed that all FIFA presidents should be limited to two terms. Before Blatter, Brazil's Joao Havelange led FIFA for 24 years.

His remarks led to tensions between Bin Hammam and Blatter, but by last month they had ironed out their differences and the two powerbrokers appeared together at the Soccerex Asia Forum in Singapore.

"Even with my own brother, the son of my father and mother, sometimes I have arguments and differences. Blatter is not going to be an exception," Bin Hammam said then when asked about their disagreements.

"Even though there are differences sometimes, he is my good friend."

Bin Hammam also congratulated Blatter for his decision to take the World Cup to South Africa, a move many critics thought would backfire.

"I have to put on the record that Blatter's bet on South Africa has paid off. Much of the credit has to go to his personal efforts and determination," he said.

When the pair next appeared together, again in Singapore, for the launch of the Youth Olympic football tournament this month, it was Blatter's turn to lavish praise, saying Bin Hammam had changed the face of Asian football.

"In terms of administration and organisation, AFC is really professional. From Vision Asia, the AFC Champions League to the development of referees, AFC are doing very well," said Blatter.

"This is all due to the hard work of my friend, AFC president Mohamed Bin Hammam. He has made so much effort to take Asian football to new heights. He has contributed so much to the rapid progress of Asian football."
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...les-out-fifa-top-job-tilt-20100827-13vbz.html


----------



## Trelawny

Chimbanha said:


> I kinda agree with your logic, but my conclusion is different. Russia is the experimental bid among the Europeans, so they'll go the risky way in 2018 and do 2022 in a safe country, the U.S.


I think it's more 50/50 for Russia. 

Of course Fifa have never tested or experimented with a eastern euro country before, and Russia is somewhat less wealthy. So that can make it an experiment.

However, Russia having a population if 190 million, being in Europe ,having the football culture and being an economic powerhouse can make it a strong 2018 bid.

Australia and Qatar are more 2022 experiment. They are further away from Europe where a large fan base comes from. They don't have the population. They have good economies but aren't a powerhouse. And most important they don't have football culture. Russia is football hyped, they wouldn't need 8 years to get into the football culture where Qatar and Australia would.


----------



## geoone

Russia poses a big risk as far as stadia goes, however. They are proposing 10 new stadiums to be built for the tournament, & that in itself is "experimental". 

FIFA 2018/2022 Inspection Team Leader, Harold Mayne-Nicholls, has already stated that Russia would have to start work "immediately" if they were to host the tournament.

So it all depends how confortable FIFA would be with Russia being able to deliver all that new stadia in less than 8 years time. Otherwise, I'd say 2022 would be a better option for Russia if FIFA were to have some reservations on preps.


----------



## Trelawny

^^^^True

I still believe 2018 is Europe, so i wouldn't move them to 2022. I think Fifa can trust the Russians. They are building normal stadiums and have the people and money to build them on time. Russia looks like a proud nation that wouldn't mess things up, when they were competing against their rivals to get the competition ( USA, England).

Qatar building some new tech stadiums and might need to bring in labour workers. 8 years should be left for them or Australia only.


----------



## Fobos2030

Sochi has a very poor infrastructure. When Sochi was biding there was many questions like can we trust russians? Will they build all we need for WO? Now you can check out this threads: 
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1004931
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=945472
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=244549

Even in crises we didn’t reduce investments in Olympic Games. 

For WC we purposing 12 new stadiums and a huge number of new infrastructure objects like roads, airports, hotels and else. 
Our government gave FIFA all guaranties they need. Medvedev and Putin told by them self that we will build all is need for WC. We can do this You can trust Russians


----------



## Mo Rush

*Dear Forumers

All political discussions or discussion related to racism are now banned.

It is clear that these issues aren't being debated constructively, and are therefore off limits entirely.

Post of this nature, including replies will result in infractions. Persistent posts of the nature will result in forumers being banned.*

This thread is closed until further notice.


----------



## _X_

FIFA arrives to assess Spain-Portugal's bid for 2018 World Cup

By The Associated Press (CP) – 3 hours ago

MADRID — A FIFA delegation began its trip to asses Spain and Portugal's joint bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup on Monday, saying the countries got off to a good start by presenting all the required documents on time.

FIFA delegation leader Harold Mayne-Nicholls said the body's seventh and final inspection tour in Europe would last four days and take in both countries, with only the United States and Qatar still to be visited.

Spain's Interior Ministry said in a statement Monday that it was due to present FIFA's evaluation committee with the security plans for the joint candidature.

Miguel Angel Lopez, the bid's CEO, said Madrid and Barcelona would be visited in Spain and Porto and Lisbon in Portugal. He said the joint bid was strong because it included seven elite category stadiums.











http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5joTIFzT9P41eeLH0O9g0fGEngGsg


----------



## Aka

> *Candidatura Ibérica com "boas possibilidades" em receber Mundial*
> *20h02m*
> 
> 
> O chefe da delegação da FIFA que visitou durante quatro dias Portugal e Espanha afirmou hoje, quinta-feira, que "ficou bem impressionado" e revelou que a Candidatura Ibérica "tem boas possibilidades" de organizar o Mundial de futebol de 2018/2022.
> 
> "Após esta visita, foi possível notar que a Candidatura Ibérica é mais do que uma ilusão e que tem boas possibilidades de receber uma competição como o Campeonato do Mundo", disse o chileno Harold Mayne-Nicholls, numa declaração proferida num hotel em Lisboa.
> 
> O responsável da FIFA, que nos últimos dois dias visitou o Estádio do Dragão e o Estádio da Luz, considerou que os recintos espanhóis e portugueses "são o cenário ideal para milhões de desportistas e adeptos" e que as conclusões "são muito positivas".
> 
> "Ficámos bem impressionados. São estádios que possuem uma rica história, de tradição reconhecida. Foi também interessante a presença de importantes figuras do futebol mundial, jogadores e treinadores do passado e do presente, que querem o Mundial na Península Ibérica", disse Harold Mayne-Nicholls.
> 
> O chefe da delegação da FIFA mostrou-se também satisfeito com as infraestruturas hoteleiras e rodoviárias e com a criação de uma rede de TGV (comboio de alta velocidade) entre os dois países.
> 
> "Viajámos dessa forma entre Barcelona e Madrid e ficámos impressionados com a segurança, a velocidade e a pontualidade", referiu.
> 
> Antes do final da sua declaração, Harold Mayne-Nicholls pediu ainda "uma melhor coordenação entre as organizações de futebol, o governo e as autoridades locais".
> 
> Além das duas candidaturas conjuntas Espanha/Portugal e Bélgica/Holanda, estão também no terreno as da Rússia, Inglaterra, Austrália, Estados Unidos, Indonésia, Japão, México, Qatar e Coreia do Sul.
> 
> A FIFA escolherá as sedes dos mundiais de futebol de 2018 e 2022 em 2 de Dezembro do ano em curso.
> 
> 
> 
> Source




Meaning, they were impressed and said that Portugal and Spain have good chances of hosting the World Cup.

Harold Mayne-Nicholls also mentioned that Portugal and Spain stadiums are the ideal scenery for millions of sportsmen and fans and that their (FIFA delegation) conclusions are very positive.

To him, these stadiums have a rich history and known tradition. They also liked the presence of past and present players and managers.

They're satisfied with hotels and railroads and with the creation of a high-speed rail system between the two countries, having tried it from Madrid to Barcelona. They were impressed with the speed, security and punctuality.


He only asked for a better coordenation between football bodies, the Government and local authorities.




Oh well, I bet they say this to everyone.


----------



## Aka

> *FIFA finishes the inspection assuring that their report will be very favourable*
> 02 - 09 - 2010
> 
> 
> *“The Iberian Bid has many chances of being elected to organise the Football World Cup 2018/2002, and our report is going to be very positive because we have observed that they have a great sport, hotel and transport infrastructure, as well as a strong support from their political and sports authorities”, assured in his good-bye Mr. Harold Mayne-Nicolls from Chile, head of the FIFA inspectors’ delegation that has spent the last few days in Spain and Portugal.*
> 
> 
> FIFA’s inspection visit to Spain and Portugal has come to an end. During today’s working session, the group of evaluators headed by the Chilean Mr. Harold Mayne-Nicolls was in Lisbon. That was the final stage of the visit in which, during the last four days, the Iberian Bid has shown the ambassadors of the highest body of world football the cities and stadiums that would host the organisation of the World Cup 2018/2022, if Spain and Portugal’s joint bid is elected on December 2nd.
> 
> As a conclusion to the four days they have spent in Spain and Portugal, the FIFA inspectors thanked the collaboration they have received from the Iberian Bid representatives to help them achieve the proposed aim: to see ‘in situ’ and know those infrastructures and stadiums that have been suggested for the organisation of the World Cup 2018/2022, and to be able to prepare their report.
> 
> They expressed their satisfaction after checking that the response by both the Spanish and the Portuguese governments about the initiative to organise the World Cup was unanimous. There is close cooperation between both countries. “We are sure that the coordination on a State level which would be necessary if the World Cup came to the Iberian Peninsula is fully guaranteed”, Mr. Mayne-Nicolls stated. He also emphasised how important it is that no problems exist with visas for foreigners, as well as the cooperation between both countries in security matters.
> 
> The inspectors will also take with them a good impression about the infrastructures and means of transport, airports and hotels they have seen. They highlighted the trip from Madrid to Barcelona in a high-speed train, “we were fully satisfied both by its safety and by its comfort, and mainly by its punctuality”, he assured. He equally stressed the excellence of the stadiums visited, “ideal sceneries for millions of sportspeople who follow football on a permanent basis”.
> 
> In short, the visit to Spain and Portugal has been highly valued by the FIFA inspectors. The Iberian Bid representatives will have to continue working until December 2nd, the date on which the name of the bid elected to organise the World Cup of 2018 and 2022 will be known but, for the time being, a great result has been obtained with the effort made.
> 
> Prior to their good-bye, the six FIFA men inspected Benfica’s Do Sports stadium, proposed to host one of the semi-finals of the tournament. The Vice-President of the Lisboan club, Mr. Rui Gomes da Silva, along with the legendary players Eusebio, Toni and Humberto Coelho –who was once the national team coach, too– also welcomed the group. There, apart from seeing the sports facilities, they had the chance to observe how the eagle “Victória”, the club’s mascot, flies over the pitch of the stadium, something that impressed the group of inspectors as well.
> 
> 
> Source


. .


----------



## Aka

By the way, it seems one semi-final will be played at Estádio da Luz and the third place match at Dragão.

No surprises.


----------



## coth

British Media keeps denigrate opponents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...hy-2018-World-Cup-Russia-Its-black-white.html


----------



## Aka

AILD said:


> Does FIFA know about Spain and Portugal debt problems?


And your point is...?

All the major stadiums are private (except for La Cartuja). Most of them were already built.

There's no need to spend money in transportation because everything already exists.

The same thing for hotels, hospitals and so on.


So, what the hell are you trying to say?


----------



## Aka

Sochi NEW Dubai said:


> The candidacy of Spain and Portugal isn't much known in Spain, that is to say, that many people don't know that it exists. Also it isn't very worn out.


What?


----------



## Sochi NEW Dubai

^^That the people in Spain don't know it and that it isn't very worked


----------



## Aka

Sochi NEW Dubai said:


> ^^That the people in Spain don't know it and that it isn't very worked


What the...

Are you in Spain?


----------



## RobH

Aka said:


> And your point is...?
> 
> All the major stadiums are private (except for La Cartuja). Most of them were already built.
> 
> There's no need to spend money in transportation because everything already exists.
> 
> The same thing for hotels, hospitals and so on.
> 
> 
> So, what the hell are you trying to say?


This is the point. It just so happens that the three nations worst affected by the recession who are bidding - the USA, England, and Spain - are also the nations with the least amount of work to do on their stadiums and infrastructure. The debt problems which exist in these countries shouldn't affect their bids really.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Would most people agree that with the noises coming from Fifa and Uefa Russia is the favourite to win at the moment?


----------



## Mo Rush

You mean England.


----------



## AILD

Aka said:


> ...





> Debt levels in Spain and Portugal may “snowball” in coming years and additional budget cuts are needed to meet deficit targets announced just a month ago, according to a draft European Commission document.
> 
> “While the newly announced measures are significant and the targets imply impressive budgetary consolidation, more measures are needed to meet those targets, in particular for 2011,” according to the draft report, which is dated May 26. The document, titled “Consolidation Requirement in Spain and Portugal,” was prepared by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, for the region’s finance ministers.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...debt-may-snowball-eu-draft-says-update3-.html

Also it is not "natural" crisis. It is an attack on Eurozone.



> There has been considerable controversy about the role of the English-language press in the regard to the bond market crisis. *Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ordered the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia intelligence service to investigate the role of the "Anglo-Saxon media" in fomenting the crisis.* No results have so far been reported as a result of this investigation.
> 
> According to the Madrid daily El País, "the National Intelligence Center (CNI) was investigating 'whether investors' attacks and the aggressiveness of some Anglo-Saxon [sic] media are driven by market forces and challenges facing the Spanish economy, or whether there is something more behind this campaign.'" *The Spanish Prime Minister has suggested that the recent financial market crisis in Europe is an attempt to draw international capital away from the euro in order that countries, such as the U.K. and the U.S., can continue to fund their large external deficits which are matched by large government deficits.*
> ...
> Financial speculators and hedge funds engaged in selling euros have also been accused by both the Spanish and Greek Prime Ministers of worsening the crisis. Angela Merkel has stated that "institutions bailed out with public funds are exploiting the budget crisis in Greece and elsewhere."
> ...
> The role of Goldman Sachs in Greek bond yield increases is also under scrutiny.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_European_sovereign_debt_crisis#July_2010

So my point is that this was only first attempt of attack on Euro. So will be another further. It's long time until 2018 and the possibility of Sovereign default is high with such attacks.

Of course it doesn't mean that Spain and Portugal will not have enough money to host WC. But riots like in Greece can be a big problem.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Mo Rush said:


> You mean England.


No even Michel Platini isn't too fond of England, what excuse did he use? oh that England doesn't have a leader in place after Triesman was axed. I wouldn't be too surprised if Russia won tbh.


----------



## Aka

AILD said:


> Of course it doesn't mean that Spain and Portugal will not have enough money to host WC. But riots like in Greece can be a big problem.


First of all, try to know more about other countries before talking about them. The situation in Spain and Portugal is no way close to the one in Greece.

And even if it was, neither the Portuguese or the Spanish would act like the Greeks did. Different ways of thinking.

We've faced far worse situations than this.


I was disliking the way others were bashing Russia in this thread. But after this...

And you won't buy me with oil.


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

Sochi NEW Dubai said:


> ^^ I don't know . But I want that I gain the candidacy of Russia because I believe that they her have worked very much and that it is excellent. *The candidacy of Spain and Portugal isn't much known in Spain, that is to say, that many people don't know that it exists. Also it isn't very worked*.


 

Sorry, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Everyone in Spain & Portugal knows about the candidacy, do you really think that the citizens in two "football lover" countries like Spain & Portugal are not aware that they're bidding to organize a WC?...:bash:


----------



## Mo Rush

Its AlL gUUd said:


> No even Michel Platini isn't too fond of England, what excuse did he use? oh that England doesn't have a leader in place after Triesman was axed. I wouldn't be too surprised if Russia won tbh.


There are 24 votes, and IMO at this stage it remains England's to lose.


----------



## AILD

Aka said:


> ..


Relax, I will be happy if WC will be in Spain and Portugal. This is my favourite bid with Russia.


----------



## Wuppeltje

The FIFA inspection through Holland & Belgium a few weeks ago:


----------



## Aka

AILD said:


> Relax, I will be happy if WC will be in Spain and Portugal. This is my favourite bid with Russia.


And I like every bid. Whoever wins will be a good choice.

Even the bids from Qatar, Japan and Korea are great. I only have doubts about the size of the country of Qatar and the fact that Japan and Korea had one in 2002.

But it annoys me when I see people here talking trash and stuff about other countries' bids:

- "Spain doesn't need Portugal"
- "Spain and Portugal are in crisis"
- "Americans don't like football"
- "Australians don't like football"
- "Russia doesn't have infrastrucutures"
- "Russians are racists, communists and don't allow other countries' flags"
- "English media is this and that"


Jeez!!! Most of it doesn't even matter!!! Isn't it just great that everyone's going to get cool stadiums?


EDIT: I didn't talk about Belgium and the Netherlands because there weren't many people complaining about them.


----------



## Trelawny

Portugal has very few stadiums, it's a 80% Spain world cup. That's not fair because it's not like the Spain fans will cheer for Portugal.


----------



## Aka

Trelawny said:


> Portugal has very few stadiums, it's a 80% Spain world cup. That's not fair because it's not like the Spain fans will cheer for Portugal.


It was Portugal who choose to have three stadiums. The only ones with a capacity bigger than 40k, without spending money.

And who cares if they cheer for Portugal or not? Portugal would play all its matches at home.


----------



## Lord David

Trelawny said:


> Portugal has very few stadiums, it's a 80% Spain world cup. That's not fair because it's not like the Spain fans will cheer for Portugal.





Aka said:


> It was Portugal who choose to have three stadiums. The only ones with a capacity bigger than 40k, without spending money.
> 
> And who cares if they cheer for Portugal or not? Portugal would play all its matches at home.


As I may have stated before, Portugal should have really proposed to build a new 80,000 seater stadium in Lisbon, or upgraded the national one to such, whilst also using one of their existing ones. The 80,000 seater would host the opening match (whether Portugal or Spain is in the draw for the first game remains to be seen, probably just end up doing like 2002 where group A has no host sides. Each respective host side would play at home stadiums with the group). Madrid would host the final, and that 80,000 seat Lisbon stadium would host the 3rd place match.

Then you add 3 other stadiums from 3 other Portuguese cities.

Then it would be a 7 Spain stadium (in 7 cities) and 5 Portugal stadium setup (in 4 stadiums).

But that didn't happen. Perhaps next time, if there is one.


----------



## Aka

Lord David said:


> As I may have stated before, Portugal should have really proposed to build a new 80,000 seater stadium in Lisbon, or upgraded the national one to such, whilst also using one of their existing ones. The 80,000 seater would host the opening match (whether Portugal or Spain is in the draw for the first game remains to be seen, probably just end up doing like 2002 where group A has no host sides. Each respective host side would play at home stadiums with the group). Madrid would host the final, and that 80,000 seat Lisbon stadium would host the 3rd place match.
> 
> Then you add 3 other stadiums from 3 other Portuguese cities.
> 
> Then it would be a 7 Spain stadium (in 7 cities) and 5 Portugal stadium setup (in 4 stadiums).
> 
> But that didn't happen. Perhaps next time, if there is one.


I repeat: "without spending money"

That answers your "question".

And building a new stadium would be stupid and a disaster. Completely useless.

The opening match is featured to have the title holder, like it used to be - if they qualify -, with the second match of the first day being Portugal's one.

You don't see any third place match being played at any of the top 2/3 stadiums, do you? Semi-finals are much more important than that. That game would go to Dragão.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Mo Rush said:


> There are 24 votes, and IMO at this stage it remains England's to lose.


Considering when the bid process started England were more or less odds on favourites and now they are neck and neck with Russia and the fact that its too close to call suggests to me the momentum is with Russia. When comparing the two bids currently England should win considering majority of the stadia and infrastructure is in place (of course more work is needed) when compared to Russia which have yet to build majority of their venues and upgrade alot of their infrastructure. Even after all that Russia is still up there with Fifa shows that they are now strong contenders and may even be ahead, it is upto England to step up their efforts to persuade Fifa. i don't think it is theirs to lose but it theirs to win.


----------



## Wuppeltje

FIFA World Cup 2018 - Host Country

Which country will host the tournament?

Win
England - 2.25
Netherlands & Belgium (joint bid) - 3.00
Spain & Portugal (joint bid) - 5.00
Russia - 6.00
USA - 10.00

Unibet


----------



## _X_

Bookmakers odds are a little deceptive.They obviously try and cover there bets.There is no way that Russia are least favourite


----------



## kichigai

According to those odds they're not. Look again.


----------



## coth

USA won't get it in 2018. That's 100% sure. There are some possibilities for 2022. So it's last in bet, but not last in bid.

By the way - there is a strong rumor in Russia that all that football racist pranks that appeared recently are British paid.


----------



## JimB

coth said:


> By the way - there is a strong rumor in Russia that all that football racist pranks that appeared recently are British paid.


How pathetic is that!

Really...........get a grip.


----------



## Mo Rush

*As before discussions around racism and politics are off-topic.*
This will result in instant infractions.

Coth, that includes you.


----------



## T74

so what is the speculation on the way the bid trading will be going?

with only three months to go, and the inspections done, I imagine the politicking will be getting very blatant now


----------



## RobH

JimB said:


> How pathetic is that!
> 
> Really...........get a grip.


Laughable isn't it but I wouldn't worry, he's probably trying to distract us from this. Two incidents in a fortnight; but I won't go on about it, nor about the seemingly inadequate response from the RFA, because it seems it's a tabboo subject now.

As for bookmaker's odds, they are not a good indication of what will happen. Bookies are good at predicting and laying odds for things where there is known form - Man Utd winning, Chelsea scoring more than 5 goals, England losing on penalties etc. With closed votes like this however, they're probably as much in the dark as any of us, so odds for these races (and Olympic races) tend only to reflect the media and the money coming in. Paris and Chicago were both odds on for the 2012 and 2016 Olympics respectively, and of course odds from British bookies will always skew far too much in favour of the England 2018 bid.

----------------------

Back on topic: It seems the US could very well withdraw from 2018, leaving it open for a European nation, at least if you believe Platini:
_*
UEFA President and FIFA Ex-co member Michel Platini says that he is “90 per cent confident” that the USA will withdraw from the running to host the 2018 World Cup, leaving the way open for one of the four European candidate nations.*_

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33694


----------



## crazydude

T74 said:


> so what is the speculation on the way the bid trading will be going?
> 
> with only three months to go, and the inspections done, I imagine the politicking will be getting very blatant now


I want to know how this will work too. Will Europe split their votes across 2 bids in the 1st round? That way they knock out the US, but don't cause a majority, and end the voting at the 1st ballot. Then from round 2 they vote 'as they wish'?


----------



## T74

crazydude said:


> I want to know how this will work too. Will Europe split their votes across 2 bids in the 1st round? That way they knock out the US, but don't cause a majority, and end the voting at the 1st ballot. Then from round 2 they vote 'as they wish'?


for 2022 we were hearing in AU that US was doing well in south america, and Australia in the EU, and that Africa would almost decide which way the dice would fall - Asia of course was all over the shop

this was a few months ago, and obviously a lot has happened since.

also the usual FIFA game of delegates promising their vote to multiple bids has been happening you would assume


----------



## Mo Rush

Try and predict the vote of each FIFA member!


----------



## _X_

Mo Rush said:


> Try and predict the vote of each FIFA member!


did it for fun a few weeks ago and it turned up a few surprises


----------



## rus

The Monday Briefing - FIFA Inspectors Arrive in New York; Rooney Scandal:cheers:
http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33697
Rooney vice girl allegations threaten £6million sponsorships
England star Wayne Rooney faces a crisis of Tiger Woods-sized proportions after allegations about his private life were published in British tabloids. Reports in the News of the World and Sunday Mirror allege that Rooney consorted with prostitutes last year, while his wife Coleen was heavily pregnant with their son Kai. It is the third time Rooney has faced such allegations. Having rebuilt his image as a family man, Rooney has sponsorship and endorsement deals worth an estimated £6million per year with companies such as Coca Cola, Nike and EA Sports. Having seen sponsors desert Woods after the break up of his marriage amidst personal scandal, experts have warned that Rooney may face a similar crisis. “There is a big rebuild of Rooney’s reputation required. This kind of coverage is a million miles away from the role model image sponsors want to see,” James Herring of PR firm Taylor Herring told PR Week. Coca Cola and EA Sports have declined to comment on the stories.
^^ England 2-1 Russia
Lord Trisman -------- Banana
Wayne Rooney


----------



## Mo Rush

_X_ said:


> did it for fun a few weeks ago and it turned up a few surprises


But did you consult with Matthew Lowry who spoke to FIFA members?


----------



## Trelawny

rus said:


> The Monday Briefing - FIFA Inspectors Arrive in New York; Rooney Scandal:cheers:
> http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33697
> Rooney vice girl allegations threaten £6million sponsorships
> England star Wayne Rooney faces a crisis of Tiger Woods-sized proportions after allegations about his private life were published in British tabloids. Reports in the News of the World and Sunday Mirror allege that Rooney consorted with prostitutes last year, while his wife Coleen was heavily pregnant with their son Kai. It is the third time Rooney has faced such allegations. Having rebuilt his image as a family man, Rooney has sponsorship and endorsement deals worth an estimated £6million per year with companies such as Coca Cola, Nike and EA Sports. Having seen sponsors desert Woods after the break up of his marriage amidst personal scandal, experts have warned that Rooney may face a similar crisis. “There is a big rebuild of Rooney’s reputation required. This kind of coverage is a million miles away from the role model image sponsors want to see,” James Herring of PR firm Taylor Herring told PR Week. Coca Cola and EA Sports have declined to comment on the stories.
> ^^ England 2-1 Russia
> Lord Trisman -------- Banana
> Wayne Rooney


Boy Rooney grew up to fast. :lol:. Middle aged crisis. :lol:


----------



## RobH

Steering us back on topic again, saw this pick on Flickr. I'm sure it's been photoshopped a bit, but it's a good shot nonetheless

Wembley Football Stadium, London - England Vs Bulgaria by Dazz*A


----------



## RobH

And a short vid of the inspection visit from England 2018's YouTube page, with a few nice aerial shots of some of the stadiums:

http://www.youtube.com/user/officialengland2018


----------



## Trelawny

Who won the game? England vs Bulgaria?


----------



## RobH

4-0 to England in the end, pretty comfortable.


----------



## Mo Rush

Soccer City kicks your Wembley's behind! grrr.


----------



## _X_

Kenni said:


> I want the US to get the 2018 WC. 2022 is just too long off the road.


Platini has said he's 90% certain the USA will pull out of 2018
If its any consolation the USA will definitely get 2026 basically unopposed


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Trelawny said:


> All I am saying it made more headlines! I'd rather just give England the 2018 world cup so they won't nag for it latter. Let them complete the sporting event hosting cylce so we won't see them after 2018 for 50 years.


I'll take that thanks :cheers1:


----------



## Kenni

Trelawny said:


> More like 2026 they will get it. :lol:


I dunno, don't be so sure. :cheers:


----------



## Ecological

Trelawny also said Switzerland will do England like they did Spain ... 

his not one for getting predictions right


----------



## eMKay

_X_ said:


> Platini has said he's 90% certain the USA will pull out of 2018
> If its any consolation the USA will definitely get 2026 basically unopposed


I'm betting we'll pull out of 2018 to lock up 2022, not 2026. England 2018, USA 2022. Lock.


----------



## LarisaCh

*Russia defends 2018 World Cup bid in face of racism and corruption claims*

*• Sports minister claims racism and corruption exist in UK game*
*• Lokomotiv banner no worse than Newcastle in 2007, he adds*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/sep/07/russia-world-cup-2018-vladimir-putin

Russia's sports minister, Vitaly Mutko, today defended the country's 2018 World Cup bid against allegations of corruption and of racism among fans.

With less than three months until Fifa's executive committee holds a secret ballot in Zurich to decide the venue for the 2018 tournament, the bidding nations are campaigning in earnest. While Mutko refused to say whether he believed Russia and England were the favourites to host the 2018 World Cup, assessing his bid's chances simply as "good", he claimed he had great respect for England's.

But the minister – speaking at Moscow's Luzhniki stadium, which would host the final if the event went to Russia — also expressed his exasperation with the recent negative coverage of his country's bid. He pointedly declared that it was wrong for countries to "gloat" at each other's difficulties.

Mutko repeatedly expressed his warm feelings towards the English game but said that these sentiments were not always reciprocated. "We respect English football. We respect the English more than they respect us," he said. "I can't find a reason for such dislike [in the British press] for Russia's bid."

The Kremlin is extremely sensitive to western criticism, especially from Britain, with Mutko claiming that corruption and racism among fans exist in numerous countries, including the UK. "Sometimes in the non-Russian press we read that there is also corruption in England. People sometimes cross the road in the wrong place."

His remarks come after Lokomotiv Moscow fans celebrated Peter Odemwingie's recent sale to West Bromwich with a banner showing a banana and the message: "Thanks West Brom". Mutko, though, claimed that he had come across unpleasant sentiments when he attended a Newcastle United match three years ago.

He also revealed that, when the Fifa vote takes place, Russia's powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, is planning to travel to Zurich for it and to lobby Fifa's executive committee personally. In 2007 Putin flew to Guatemala and persuaded the International Olympic Committee to award the 2014 Winter Olympics to Russia and the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Mutko said that Putin had been intimately involved in drafting Russia's bid and raises the subject weekly. Last month he hosted members of Fifa's six-man inspection team at his private dacha outside Moscow and spent 90 minutes telling them that Russia would fulfil all its Fifa obligations.

Putin also gave a "personal guarantee" that all building would be completed on time. Should Russia win, it plans to waive visas for fans, as it did for the 2008 Champions League final between Chelsea and Manchester United.


----------



## RobH

Regardless of whether you believe this to be a British conspiracy and a figmant of our Press' imagination, English football isn't facing a letter of complaint from the Nigerian FA to FIFA about the treatment of their players. I'd worry more about that than about what our tabloids think if I were you.


----------



## JimB

LarisaCh said:


> Mutko repeatedly expressed his warm feelings towards the English game but said that these sentiments were not always reciprocated. "We respect English football. We respect the English more than they respect us," he said. "I can't find a reason for such dislike [in the British press] for Russia's bid."


This is a common misconception for people who don't know or don't understand the UK.

The British media is negative about *everything*! If they ever praise anything or anyone (be it politicians, royal family, actors, singers, businessmen etc), it is only so that they can then bring it / them crashing back down to earth. They like nothing better than a bit of juicy investigative journalism or a "kiss and tell" sting that embarrasses individuals and institutions (Wayne Rooney, Lord Triesman, the FA).

So while there may occasionally be stories in the British media that criticize Russia's bid, there are probably ten times as many such stories that criticize England's own bid.

So Russians shouldn't feel as though they're being persecuted or singled out. They aren't. It's just the UK media being..............well, being the UK media!


----------



## LarisaCh

JimB said:


> So while there may occasionally be stories in the British media that criticize Russia's bid, there are probably ten times as many such stories that criticize England's own bid.


Can you give me links on these articles?


----------



## RobH

Do a search for triesmann or handbag or platini or warner or England 2018 trouble. Google is your friend. Suffice to say, they've all been discussed at one point or another over the past two years.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

The Written British Press is the worst in the world, they will do anything for a story. Lets not forget they even set up Triesman (head of the Enlgand 2018 bid) with undercover filming and got him sacked!! The British press couldn't give a toss about morals or ethics or the British people for that matter. All they want to do is sell papers. Trust me when the Olympics come round in 2012 they will leave no stone unturned to try and find as much negativity and criticism as possible. 

They make me sick! uke:


----------



## RobH

But I'd rather have them with all their faults than not have them at all. And as you well know, we have some of the best journalism in the world as well in this country. The Panorama investigation into IOC ethics on the one hand, the Triessman debacle on the other...two bids, two faces of our media. What can you do eh?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Well, don't do anything decidedly illegal or immoral and chances are you won't end up on the wrong side of that equation, no?

But I agree, for as much as the 4th estate caters to the lowest common denominators among us, they also provide a functional layer of public oversight and vigilance against real abuses of power. Better to have that available than not at all.


----------



## matthemod

That article just makes that russian guy sound incredibly insecure. I mean seriously "Britain have it in for us" and "Oh I heard something similar when I was in Newcastle in 2007." 

Talk about trying to cover your own arse.


----------



## AILD

matthemod said:


> That article just makes that russian guy sound incredibly insecure. I mean seriously "Britain have it in for us" and "Oh I heard something similar when I was in Newcastle in 2007."
> 
> Talk about trying to cover your own arse.


Such brits also make me sick uke:


----------



## matthemod

Constructive.


----------



## rus

British comrades, your media only hurt you. Thanks to her about you is very bad thinking in Russia. Russian people are using all their wealth abusive vocabulary commenting on the British articles about bananas.


----------



## RobH

I don't think we're going to agree on this, but as I said on the previous page, our media are *not* the reason the Nigerian FA are complaining to FIFA about Russia. And considering Nigeria has a vote on the FIFA exective committee (one of only 24), that's a problem - one your bid and the Nigerian FIFA exec member have to sort out between them. As it is, it's very likely that vote is not going your way.


----------



## rus

Do not you understand that the Nigerian member of FIFA usual corrupt. He obviously made it clear to the British, he wants to sell his vote.


----------



## Trelawny

Ecological said:


> Trelawny also said Switzerland will do England like they did Spain ...
> 
> his not one for getting predictions right


1 mistake won't hurt my record. You on the other hand is the joke of the skybar with your horrible predictions. :hilarious


----------



## ryebreadraz

Does anyone know if the reports on the inspection visits are usually leaked out? I know FIFA doesn't release them, but do we usually get an idea of what each of them say from the executive committee leaking out some info?


----------



## MysteryMike

*FIFA inspection leader Harold Mayne-Nicholls urged U.S. bid leaders Thursday to reconsider the legacy aspect of their efforts to win the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

“In case you will be awarded to host the event, we would also need a strong focus on international legacy, not only on a domestic one,” Mayne-Nicholls said in one of two atypically pointed remarks.*
*
“Please let me add that there might be in a later stage additional needs for public transportation to cater to foreign fans,” he said without elaborating further.*

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33708


----------



## MysteryMike

Mo Rush said:


> Welcome back. South Africa for 2018.


??


----------



## MysteryMike

*The fields at all potential sites can be widened to meet international standards if the U.S. is awarded either the 2018 or 2022 tournament, FIFA's World Cup inspectors were assured this week. The fields at NFL stadiums are generally smaller than the 75 yards FIFA prefers,

"We've assured them that we will get to FIFA international dimensions -- and in a cost-effective way," U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said Friday. "And, if for any reason that was an issue, we have alternatives."*
*
"We did have some private conversations on things that I thought we could make improvements in," Gulati said. "We had a frank discussion about government guarantees, those sorts of issues. Security is an issue for everyone and that's true for any major international event.*

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9I59ID01.htm


----------



## Walbanger

MysteryMike said:


> “In case you will be awarded to host the event, we would *also need a strong focus on international legacy, not only on a domestic one*,” Mayne-Nicholls said in one of two atypically pointed remarks.
> 
> http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33708


God knows if that is a direct quote but if it is, can someone explain it to me?
Isn't international legacy FIFA's job, not the USA's or any other bid?

What would that international legacy have to be?


----------



## Gondolier

Walbanger said:


> God knows if that is a direct quote but if it is, can someone explain it to me?
> Isn't international legacy FIFA's job, not the USA's or any other bid?
> 
> What would that international legacy have to be?


Good question. I think Mr. Nicholls was being inarticulate in that regard because he seemed to qualify his statement about transportation for foreign visitors. 

_No, Mr. Nicholls the USA bid cities will TOTALLY ignore the foreign visitors and either have them walk to the stadia or be forced to catch taxis at jacked-up rates. _

Duh!! OF COURSE, the travel needs of visitors will be dealt with.

And some of the US cities' mass transport systems are NO worse than what South Africa offered or Brazil will offer in 4 years' time...so I don't know what this Chilean is talking about?? 

They are such frickin' fault-finders.


----------



## ryebreadraz

The few venues that do have a lack of public transportation to the stadium right now are either i the midst of building it or they will use buses during the Cup to transport people so anyone in the city will have no problem at all taking public transportation to matches. I have no idea what he's going on about.


----------



## MysteryMike

Walbanger said:


> God knows if that is a direct quote but if it is, can someone explain it to me?
> Isn't international legacy FIFA's job, not the USA's or any other bid?
> 
> What would that international legacy have to be?


No, the legacy of the bid should be attained by the hosts. Please refer to the Australian bid video for clues.


----------



## Walbanger

Jeez, it's not easy having to watch Nicole Kidman's botoxed mug for 5 min.

Alright so your refering to contributions to Asia and Oceania.
I'm sorry, I just assumed that every bid would naturally have a similar agenda. So does that mean that Mr Nicholls does not believe that the US bid is giving enough back to CONCACAF?
It's already pretty well developed for Soccer. So Mr Nicholls want the US to splash out more on the Caribbean. Canadian teams are already joining the MLS. What else can they really do.


----------



## T74

I'm with the Wall, I have no idea what this "International Legacy" the US is supposed to be delivering is


----------



## RobH

Presumably something more like this:

http://www.england2018bid.com/ourgoals/global-impact/

You may well say that should be up to FIFA alone, but if other bids are offering to set up, or in England's case increase their international development programmes and the US is offering little in comparison, it won't do your bid any favours.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Best Bid video


----------



## _X_

ryebreadraz said:


> The few venues that do have a lack of public transportation to the stadium right now are either i the midst of building it or they will use buses during the Cup to transport people so anyone in the city will have no problem at all taking public transportation to matches. I have no idea what he's going on about.


Yes -Park and Ride will usually be the case as there is always an exclusion zone which usually limits parking at the stadium


----------



## GunnerJacket

Walbanger said:


> God knows if that is a direct quote but if it is, can someone explain it to me?
> Isn't international legacy FIFA's job, not the USA's or any other bid?
> 
> What would that international legacy have to be?


Translation: We want you to spend more US money in other nations.

I get it, and I'm all for using sport to share goodwill, build relations and help impoverished areas. Between this and the IOC's demands we're reaching levels of extortion. Presumably to make up for the under-the-table funding no longer found acceptable. :|

That someone wants to do this with their resources is great, but making it an expectation of the individual hosts taints the spirit of the process, IMO. If FIFA wants to see a global legacy then they should bloody well do it, rather then line their own lavish suit pockets and demand more $ from the hosts. 



RobH said:


> Presumably something more like this:
> 
> http://www.england2018bid.com/ourgoals/global-impact/


Great scott, could her shoes be any higher?!!



> You may well say that should be up to FIFA alone, but if other bids are offering to set up, or in England's case increase their international development programmes and the US is offering little in comparison, it won't do your bid any favours.


If this costs the US the bid then so be it. Most of these bidding nations are doing so much for global charity as it is, and getting little respect in return, that I'm growing very weary of demands for more such outreach. Especially from the likes of Sepp Blatter.


----------



## Walbanger

RobH said:


> Presumably something more like this:
> 
> http://www.england2018bid.com/ourgoals/global-impact/
> 
> You may well say that should be up to FIFA alone, but if other bids are offering to set up, or in England's case increase their international development programmes and the US is offering little in comparison, it won't do *your* bid any favours.


Ah, that makes it clearer. Thankyou
Though I'm not American but an Aussie


----------



## ryebreadraz

The bid book clearly states that if the US were to host, it would relate its efforts to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals in creating sustainable development worldwide, but doing so through soccer. They've dubbed it "One on One, One by One" and it's explained in even the shortened bid book posted on the bid site. A professor from Columbia, who is one of the world leaders on sustainable development, is on the bid committee. I can't see how that's not an international legacy and whatever other crap this man is spewing.


----------



## Gondolier

GunnerJacket said:


> Translation: We want you to spend more US money in other nations.


Well, you gotta give us the Cup first so that it can generate the $$ to spend on other nations. Without it, then there's NO reason to raise $$ or have the money from gate receipts with which to build a fund. Duh!! 

Our bid team should've told the FIFA doofuses: ever heard of LA'84?? hno:


----------



## Qatar Son 333

*Qatar 2022, 12 Stadiums.*

*Al-Shamal Stadium (45,330)*




*Al-Gharrafa Stadium (44,740)*




*Al-Khor Stadium (45,330)*




*Al-Wakrah Stadium (45,120)*




*Al-Rayyan Stadium (44,740)*




*Sport city stadium (47,500)*




*Doha Port Stadium (45,000)*




*Education city Stadium (45,000)*




*Umm Slal Stadium (45,000)*




*Qatar University Stadium (43,500)*




*Khalifa International Stadium (68,000)*




*Lusail National Stadium (86,000)*


----------



## AILD

Thanks ^^


----------



## Trelawny

Qatar has the best stadiums of any other bidding nation. Qatar must host the 2022 world cup. We can't be having a country where there are triple the amount of kangaroos than humans. hno:


----------



## ryebreadraz

Trelawny said:


> Qatar has the best stadiums of any other bidding nation. Qatar must host the 2022 world cup. We can't be having a country where there are triple the amount of kangaroos than humans. hno:


Better stadiums than the US? I think not.


----------



## Trelawny

ryebreadraz said:


> Better stadiums than the US? I think not.


USA's stadiums are like fake tits. They are big but fake for football. They don't have football culture and feels more like american football. :bash:

Qatar is beautiful natural tits.:happy:


----------



## ryebreadraz

Trelawny said:


> USA's stadiums are like fake tits. They are big but fake for football. They don't have football culture and feels more like american football. :bash:
> 
> Qatar is beautiful natural tits.:happy:


They're fake for football, but Qatar's stadiums will be taken apart and sent out to make stadiums elsewhere and those are real football stadiums with a football culture? If you want to make the fake for football argument, it needs to be in comparison to England or Spain/Portugal, etc. Comparing it to Qatar's stadiums doesn't make much sense.

What makes them so fake, though? When you look at the likely US venues, what makes them fake? Outstanding sightlines, proximity to the pitch? Is that not real football? Do we need to put a few tracks around the stadium to make them real football stadiums?


----------



## Trelawny

ryebreadraz said:


> They're fake for football, but Qatar's stadiums will be taken apart and sent out to make stadiums elsewhere and those are real football stadiums with a football culture? If you want to make the fake for football argument, it needs to be in comparison to England or Spain/Portugal, etc. Comparing it to Qatar's stadiums doesn't make much sense.
> 
> What makes them so fake, though? When you look at the likely US venues, what makes them fake? Outstanding sightlines, proximity to the pitch? Is that not real football? Do we need to put a few tracks around the stadium to make them real football stadiums?


Only one of Qatar's stadiums will be taken apart, the Doha Port Stadium.

Any Stadium that is not purposely built for football is fake. People will walk past all the American stadiums and say it's home is for American football.


----------



## crazyalex

Trelawny said:


> USA's stadiums are like fake tits.
> 
> Qatar is beautiful natural tits.:happy:


:rofl:


----------



## ryebreadraz

Trelawny said:


> Only one of Qatar's stadiums will be taken apart, the Doha Port Stadium.
> 
> Any Stadium that is not purposely built for football is fake. People will walk past all the American stadiums and say it's home is for American football.


Most modern stadiums are built to accommodate several different things now. Soccer City just held rugby. Cape Town Stadium has no plans for soccer matches now. Stade de France is home to the French rugby team and how about the dozens and dozens of stadiums with a track around the field? Are those purposely built for football?


----------



## boschb

VOTE QATAR!


----------



## _X_

Interesting that Doha's single city World Cup bid stadiums have a total capacity of 605,260
This is more than triple the amount of Qatari nationals according to the United Nations :moods:

It all looks wonderful in a model or on paper but its totally unsustainable and absolutely a figment of their imagination like everything else in that bid at this point.

If only they had another 8-9 major cities and the weather wasn't 53 degrees in the shade


----------



## MysteryMike

It is, Qatar is one of the hardest countries to gain citizenship in. Pretty much you have to know a sheik or a member of the royal family to become a citizen. Qatar recogns they have 1.6 mill people but less than a quarter of this number are actual citizens. The rest of the people just work there. It doesn't make a difference if you are a promising african footballer though, you'll get citizenship straight away  In the past wc qualification campaign more than half of qatar's squad was purchased in this way. They failed again as always however. You can checkout the facebook group dedicated to this http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10411522604 Anyway it's fair to say Qatar's world cup bid is in tatters. Like I have said, it never should have started to begin with, basically none of these stadiums on bs graphic designed videos and images exist. Qatar has no use for them now, or in the future. It really was a joke. Anyway at least they got some advertising for Qatar out of it I guess. World Cups cannot be bought. Let the real contenders step up to the plate.


----------



## _X_

Qatars stadiums are as follows

Al-Shamal Stadium,Doha
Al-Khor Stadium,Doha
Al-Wakrah Stadium,Doha
Al-Rayyan Stadium,Doha
Sports City Stadium,Doha
Education City Stadium,Doha
Umm Slal Stadium,Doha
Qatar University Stadium,Doha
Khalifa International Stadium,Doha
Lusail National Stadium,Doha
Al-Gharrafa Stadium,Doha

Doha Port Stadium makes up the last one although I can't find any information about where it is:nuts:


----------



## Qatar Son 333

_X_ said:


> Qatars stadiums are as follows
> 
> Al-Shamal Stadium,Doha
> Al-Khor Stadium,Doha
> Al-Wakrah Stadium,Doha
> Al-Rayyan Stadium,Doha
> Sports City Stadium,Doha
> Education City Stadium,Doha
> Umm Slal Stadium, Doha
> Qatar University Stadium,Doha
> Khalifa International Stadium,Doha
> Lusail National Stadium,Doha
> Al-Gharrafa Stadium,Doha
> 
> Doha Port Stadium makes up the last one although I can't find any information about where it is:nuts:


Clearly your trying to make a joke out of the bid, now here is the correct list.

Al-Shamal Stadium, Al-Shamal
Al-Khor Stadium, Al-Khor
Al-Wakrah Stadium, Al-Wakrah
Al-Rayyan Stadium, Al-Rayyan
Sports City Stadium, Doha
Education City Stadium, Al-Rayyan
Umm Slal Stadium, Umm Slal
Qatar University Stadium, Doha
Khalifa International Stadium, Al-Rayyan
Lusail National Stadium, Umm Slal
Al-Gharrafa Stadium, Al-Rayyan
Doha Port Stadium, Doha

Yes Doha and its suburbs, but not enough to claim its all in Doha. because ITS NOT.


----------



## Mo Rush

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Clearly your trying to make a joke out of the bid, now here is the correct list.
> 
> Al-Shamal Stadium, Al-Shamal
> Al-Khor Stadium, Al-Khor
> Al-Wakrah Stadium, Al-Wakrah
> Al-Rayyan Stadium, Al-Rayyan
> Sports City Stadium, Doha
> Education City Stadium, Al-Rayyan
> Umm Slal Stadium, Umm Slal
> Qatar University Stadium, Doha
> Khalifa International Stadium, Al-Rayyan
> Lusail National Stadium, Umm Slal
> Al-Gharrafa Stadium, Al-Rayyan
> Doha Port Stadium, Doha
> 
> Yes Doha and its suburbs, but not enough to claim its all in Doha. because ITS NOT.


3 venues in Doha? Not going to happen
4 venues in Al-Rayyan? Not going to happen. (450,000 popn)
2 venues in Umm Slal? Not going to happen. (Under 100,000 popn)


----------



## Walbanger

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Clearly your trying to make a joke out of the bid, now here is the correct list.
> 
> Al-Shamal Stadium, Al-Shamal
> Al-Khor Stadium, Al-Khor
> Al-Wakrah Stadium, *Al-Wakrah*
> Al-Rayyan Stadium, *Al-Rayyan*
> Sports City Stadium, Doha
> Education City Stadium, *Al-Rayyan*
> Umm Slal Stadium, *Umm Slal*
> Qatar University Stadium, Doha
> Khalifa International Stadium, *Al-Rayyan*
> Lusail National Stadium, *Umm Slal*
> Al-Gharrafa Stadium, *Al-Rayyan*
> Doha Port Stadium, Doha
> 
> Yes Doha and its suburbs, but not enough to claim its all in Doha. because ITS NOT.


Doha, 3 venues
Al-Wakrah 16km from the centre of Doha
Al-Rayyan 9km from the centre of Doha, 4 venues
Umm Slal 15km from centre of Doha, 2 venues
----------------------------------------------
= 10 venues in Doha Metro

How is that fair?


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Mo Rush said:


> 3 venues in Doha? Not going to happen
> 4 venues in Al-Rayyan? Not going to happen. (450,000 popn)
> 2 venues in Umm Slal? Not going to happen. (Under 100,000 popn)





Walbanger said:


> Doha, 3 venues
> Al-Wakrah 16km from the centre of Doha
> Al-Rayyan 9km from the centre of Doha, 4 venues
> Umm Slal 15km from centre of Doha, 2 venues
> ----------------------------------------------
> = 10 venues in Doha Metro
> 
> How is that fair?


Qatar is only 11,437 sq km !! where do you guys really expect us to build stadiums ? in the middle of the Sea ? or the middle of the Desert ? Just to please you folks ? obviously the stadiums would be located near urban areas with "a" population. Take not Umm Slal has a mega-project that is projected to have 200,000 in population (project pop. only!)

BTW these are according to Municipalities in Qatar.


1-Doha
5-Wakrah
6-Rayyan
9-Umm Slal
4-Khor
8-Shamal


----------



## coth

There has been people complaining about 3 stadiums in Moscow, when Podolsk stadium located 45 km away of Spartak stadium (56 km by road) on another side of Moscow urban area. This is like another country for some bids. A lot of British stadiums are about same distance as well.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Besides, The Qatar 2022 bid did mention that the number of rooms by 2022 would be almost the same as South Africa 2010, and this bid will have all 12 Stadiums connected by a nation-wide metro.


----------



## Mo Rush

Walbanger said:


> Doha, 3 venues
> Al-Wakrah 16km from the centre of Doha
> Al-Rayyan 9km from the centre of Doha, 4 venues
> Umm Slal 15km from centre of Doha, 2 venues
> ----------------------------------------------
> = 10 venues in Doha Metro
> 
> How is that fair?


I drive 15km to work everybody.

Compact is one thing. Impossible is another.


----------



## Mo Rush

I back London for 2018 and Sydney for 2022.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Trelawny said:


> USA's stadiums are like fake tits. They are big but fake for football. They don't have football culture and feels more like american football. :bash:
> 
> Qatar is beautiful natural tits.:happy:


 :| As of right now Qatar only has a training bra and a dream of womanhood.


----------



## boschb

I hope every one realizes that Qatar is the richest country on planet earth and fastest growing, doubling in ten years, and theres still 12 years to go!


----------



## Mo Rush

CaliforniaJones said:


> The FIFA Inspection group is expected to deliver a report for FIFA ex-co.
> Like for 2010 and 2014 evaluation reports, there could have a standing about best bids.
> 
> http://www.troywatts.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fifawc2010evaluationreport.pdf
> 
> http://www.troywatts.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fifawc2014evaluationreport.pdf
> 
> An expecting standing
> 
> 1 England
> 2 United States
> 3 Australia
> 4 Spain-Portugal
> 5 Japan/Korea/Belgium-Netherlands
> 8 Russia/Qatar


Excellent: England, USA, Spain-Portugal, Japan
Very Good: Australia, Russia
Good: Belgium-Netherlands
Unsatisfactory: Qatar


----------



## MysteryMike

*Some key notes/quotes*

*England* : "All the needs and objectives of our visit were met and we are positive that the World Cup in England in 2018 would be a great experience with a long-lasting legacy for the country and its people, as well as for football worldwide," said Mayne-Nicholls

"Concerning public transportation and event facilities, there seems to be no problem in hosting an event of such scope," he said.

"This also counts for safety and security matters. One thing Fifa are particularly focused on is accommodation as we need a very high number of quality rooms."This is why we ask all bidders for a certain number of contracted hotel rooms. We trust that you will be able to fulfil the necessary requirements."

England 2018 bid chief executive Andy Anson downplayed the issue over accommodation, describing it as a "technical formality", and promised to have organised the required 60,000 hotel rooms before the end of September deadline. 

*Russia* Fifa has warned World Cup bidder Russia they must begin building their stadiums and infrastructure immediately if they are to host the finals in 2018 or 2022."Work needs to start now to guarantee everything will be in place in time," said Fifa's Harold Mayne-Nicholls. 

*Australia *"During the visit we had the chance to learn a lot about your country and especially about football in Australia. We are proud to know that programs such as Football United are used as a vehicle for social improvements that will help to build better communities: also it was very impressive to read that the growth of football in Australia in the last decade has been 60 per cent and that at the moment there are more than 600,000 players registered.

"We also heard about the promises to deliver new first class stadiums and to renovate the existing ones, the implementation of volunteers programs, the improvements in telecommunications and transportation that will take place and beside all that that if the World Cup comes to Australia in 2022, it will be more than a football tournament with four important areas in social development, including the Oceania countries in this program.

"As a conclusion and after checking the bid book presentation on site, we must conclude that this country seems to be prepared in all the aspects to organize the World Cup in 2022."

*USA* “In case you will be awarded to host the event, we would also need a strong focus on international legacy, not only on a domestic one,” Mayne-Nicholls said in one of two atypically pointed remarks.

“Please let me add that there might be in a later stage additional needs for public transportation to cater to foreign fans,” he said without elaborating further.

“We did have some private conversations on things that I thought we could make improvements in,” Gulati said. “We had a frank discussion about government guarantees, those sorts of issues. Security is an issue for everyone and that’s true for any major international event. 

The fields at all potential sites can be widened to meet international standards if the U.S. is awarded either the 2018 or 2022 tournament, FIFA’s World Cup inspectors were assured this week. 

“We’ve assured them that we will get to FIFA international dimensions—and in a cost-effective way,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said Friday. “And, if for any reason that was an issue, we have alternatives.”

I apologise to other bids but these are the only 4 bids I have time for and a final reference to the "joke" which is the only bid to FAIL the technical requirements


----------



## ryebreadraz

I'm still flabbergasted by his comment on the US needing an international legacy. Does he know nothing about the bid?


----------



## MysteryMike

He would've seen more than any of us, so my guess is he obviously felt there was a lack of investment by the US FA into development programs around the region and a lack of international legacy from the bid. I read what Sunil Gulati said when he was talking about a legacy and frankly I didn't hear anything other than "we hosted so good 94 give me now finish job we good".


----------



## ryebreadraz

If you check out the abridged bid book there's sections dedicated to an international legacy. The bid book clearly states that if the US were to host, it would relate its efforts to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals in creating sustainable development worldwide, but doing so through soccer. They've dubbed it "One on One, One by One." A professor from Columbia, who is one of the world leaders on sustainable development, is on the bid committee. I can't see how that's not an international legacy or a commitment to it.


----------



## rus

*TWENTY REPORTERS AND A MINISTER*
Yesterday twenty reporters of well-known papers and informational agencies from different countries of five continents visited the office of Sport Express. This delegation is traveling across Russia to examine our opportunities to host the World Cup-2018. In the office a round table took place where the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Youth Policy Vitaliy Mutko answered the questions of the journalists.


On the eve of the meeting the group has been to St. Petersburg where they visited the construction site of a new stadium, met the head of the city’s sports committee Vyacheslav Chazov and chiefs of the fan group Nevsky Front.

In Moscow the delegation met the general director of RFU and the Bid Committee Alexey Sorokin, sports director of the Committee Alexey Smertin, PFC CSKA President Evgeniy Giner and famous goalkeeper Renat Dasaev.

"We understand that all countries-bidders are able to organize and carry out the World Cup but we want to have the tournament in Russia," said Mutko.

"Firstly, no World Championship has ever taken place in Eastern Europe. That is the vocation of football to encourage economic development opening new territories and that is the World Cup should migrate."

"Otherwise, trying to make the life easier we will come to the point when the tournament will only take place in such countries as Germany, England, France."

"Secondly, the main task formulated in FIFA Statutes, is to popularize football. The World Cup would give Russia a unique chance. We have listed 13 towns and 16 stadiums. Five stadiums are being built already. Others should be reconstructed or built. And this is the heritage that the tournament can leave. Of course we can construct stadiums without the World Cup but the human nature is that it is always easier when there is a goal."

"Thirdly, in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed into 15 independent countries and we started to build in Russia a new, modern, democratic republic with open economy to leave it peace with other states."

"And now we wanted to show to the rest of the world not only Moscow and Saint Petersburg – that are being visited by many tourists – but also other Russian cities. Let people know our multinational citizens better!"
http://english.sport-express.ru/summary/1_5573/


----------



## rus

*RADNEDGE: RUSSIA IS FAVOURITE NOW*
One of the most well known football reporters in the world, Chairman of AIPS Football Commission, former editor-in-chief of World Soccer Keir Radnedge eyes Russian chances to host the World Cup-2018.


"At the moment I think that Russia is favourite in the race for the World Cup," said Radnedge. "The bids of all candidates have three sides – technical, commercial and political. And in the political aspect Russians shot ahead."

"England experienced many problems to restore the former influence in the sports world for many years. And finally after London won the bidding to host the Olympic Games-2012 the forgotten feeling of self-confidence reappeared. Till that time many people seriously believed that England will never get anything again."

"Of course England has chances. When the country was applying for the World Cup-2006 its bid had a strong opposition from the most part of the English press. Nowadays there is nothing of the kind: there is criticism but it does not make so much harm as before."

"The reasons of that opposition were the following: journalists thought that wrong people were dealing with the bid and that they were making wrong statements. In particular, statements that England as a native land of football has the right to host the World Cup."

"And it is incorrect because looking at the bids of such countries as Qatar we can judge that any country with no exceptions has the right to bid for the World Championship. In this issue everybody is equal. And this time there is no such arrogant statement from the officials of the English bid."

"At the moment people speak only about Russia and England as possible candidates. And no one pays much attention to a joint bid of Spain and Portugal. FIFA stressed it many times that they do not like much joint bids."

"Previous tournaments showed that there are many problems connected with the implementation of joint bids and FIFA does not want to make similar mistakes. Moreover there are comprehensive bids of single countries."

"The only thing I cannot understand is the one why Spain needs Portugal for the tournament when it is a big country itself."
http://english.sport-express.ru/summary/1_5574/


----------



## Will737

MysteryMike said:


> *Australia *"During the visit we had the chance to learn a lot about your country and especially about football in Australia. We are proud to know that programs such as Football United are used as a vehicle for social improvements that will help to build better communities: also it was very impressive to read that the growth of football in Australia in the last decade has been 60 per cent and that at the moment there are more than 600,000 players registered.
> 
> "We also heard about the promises to deliver new first class stadiums and to renovate the existing ones, the implementation of volunteers programs, the improvements in telecommunications and transportation that will take place and beside all that that if the World Cup comes to Australia in 2022, it will be more than a football tournament with four important areas in social development, including the Oceania countries in this program.
> 
> "As a conclusion and after checking the bid book presentation on site, we must conclude that this country seems to be prepared in all the aspects to organize the World Cup in 2022."


Great news if your Australian.


----------



## rus

Mutko speech(part 1) and answers to questions(part 2, 3 ,4, 5)
http://video.sport-express.ru/football/raznoe/3911/


----------



## rus

*Russia World Cup Bid Unveils Stunning Saint Petersburg Stadium*
(WFI) Saint Petersburg will host a World Cup semi-final in a 69,500-seat stadium with a moveable roof and retractable pitch if Russia is successful in its bid for the FIFA 2018 tournament.

The Russian bid unveiled the design to reporters today at the stadium construction site on Krestovsky Island in the north west of the city.

It is the single biggest stadium project proposed under the bid - and at a cost of 500 million euros the most expensive.

Russia's bid proposes 16 stadiums in 13 host cities. Four stadia in the Moscow area would stage games; 13 new venues are planned. 

Bid officials claims Saint Petersburg's new venue - designed by Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa - is one of the jewels of its bid book submission to FIFA.

"This is one unbelievable construction. It is going to be one of the most sophisticated and modern stadiums," said Alexander Chernov, one of Russia's leading sports lobbyists who is a strategic advisor to the bid.

Speaking at a briefing at the Saint Petersburg's sport's headquarters, the city's head of sport, Vyatcheslav Chasov, added: "We see the city as the main piece in the whole [bid] concept. Everybody is very supportive because the city loves football and wants the World Cup to come here."

FIFA inspectors visited the construction site last month as part of their mammoth two-month tour of the nine bidders for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The six-man FIFA delegation also visited stadiums in Moscow, Kazan and Sochi. 

"We have a long way to run but we are already deep in the process of being prepared for the World Cup. Construction of the new stadium is on its way. Next year we start construction of a new airport," Chasov said.

Chasov attended the opening game at the South African World Cup to get some pointers on how to organise the FIFA tournament. 

He pinpointed traffic management in the first days of the 2010 World Cup as an specific issue that Russia could learn from to help address its own traffic congestion problems in Saint Petersburg and particularly Moscow.

"I have no doubt the city [Saint Petersburg] will be prepared well before the World Cup to deliver a brilliant competition," he added.

Chasov said the new airport would be constructed in three years regardless of whether Russia secures the World Cup. In the last two years, he revealed that the number of hotel beds had doubled, while last year the seaport was opened - a "big piece of our tourist industry".
*Stadium innovation in Saint Petersburg*
Funded by the city, construction on the new Saint Petersburg started in 2007 and is scheduled to finish by the end of 2011. 

The retractable-roof design includes a sliding pitch mechanism that allows two fields to be moved in and out of the venue at different levels. 

One field would remain outside the arena at any one time under efforts to enhance grass growth and maintain a good pitch. 

The stadium project mirrors similar systems that are in operation in the Netherlands at Vitesse Arnhem's Gelredome and Schalke 04's stadium in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

The venue, which will be the new home of Zenit Saint Petersburg from 2012, is being built on the site of the former 75,000-capacity Keirov Stadium, an outdated arena constructed in the 1930s that was pulled down three years ago.

"In the one month since the inspection team was here, we have seen huge change," said Chernov, who was leader of Russia's bid for the UEFA 2008 European Championship that went to Austria-Switzerland. He was also general manager of Moscow's 2012 Olympic bid

The retractable roof will be lifted into place next summer when the seats are also scheduled to be installed.

"I have no doubt this stadium will be completed by the end of next year," he said.
The design calls for a multipurpose stadium 
concept, with a range of sports and entertainment events planned. 

"Everything can be organised here," Chernov said, adding that it would be used 365 days a year.

Zenit's current home, the 22,000-seat Petrovsky Stadium, could not be expanded because of its location on the banks of the River Neva. It is proposed as a team base camp in the Russia 2018 bid book.

The Russia bid says thousands of football fans at a World Cup would travel to the new stadium from the city centre by boat via the city's well-connected waterways. Others would use the metro and shuttle buses to get to the venue, while car travel is also an option with thousands of parking spaces planned.

INSIDER travelled to Russia as a guest of the bid team which is paying for the trip. 

Around 20 reporters are on the four-day media tour, which includes visits to Saint Petersburg, Moscow and Sochi, the Black Sea resort hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics.

On Monday night, journalists travelled from Saint Petersburg to Moscow via high-speed train, a journey that took just over four hours.

Reporters will on Tuesday meet with Vitaly Mutko, chairman of the Russian bid and the country's sports minister, bid CEO Alexey Sorokin and first deputy prime minister and World Cup bid co-chairman, Igor Shuvalov.

A tour of the Luzhniki Olympic Complex, venue for the 1980 Moscow Olympics, is also scheduled.

Luzhniki Stadium, upgraded to 89,300 seats for the World Cup, would be the showpiece venue of the tournament, hosting the opening match, a semi-final and the final.

By INSIDER editor Mark Bisson
http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33736


----------



## Mo Rush

*World Cup Bid Index 1.1* (by Mo Rush)

The main movements this week sees Russia gain some ground on England, while Qatar drops down further due to logistical concerns raised. The remaining bids remain steady.

The figures included consultation with Matthew Lowry who has spoken to every FIFA member.

*Out of 100*

England 84
Russia 78
Australia 73
Spain-Portugal 73
USA 65
Japan 61
Belgium-Neterlands 60
Qatar 39


----------



## crazyalex

Mo Rush said:


> Matthew Lowry who has spoken to every FIFA member.


It true or you just joking?


----------



## RobH

Completely true


----------



## T74

completely wrong

they consulted with him, between his meetings with the mayor of Cape Town and him securing the Olympic bid for Tokyo


----------



## MysteryMike

T74 said:


> they consulted with him, between his meetings with the mayor of Cape Town and him securing the Olympic bid for Tokyo


busy man


----------



## Will737

Mo Rush said:


> *World Cup Bid Index* (by Mo Rush)
> 
> The main movements this week sees Russia gain some ground on England, while Qatar drops down further due to logistical concerns raised. The remaining bids remain steady.
> 
> The figures included consultation with Matthew Lowry who has spoken to every FIFA member.
> 
> *Out of 100*
> 
> 
> Qatar 39


Yet 'Qatar 9 votes have confirmed' :nuts::crazy:


----------



## Mo Rush

No disrespect to the members of the FIFA executive committee, but the mix of countries represented seems ludicrous.


----------



## ryebreadraz

Mo Rush said:


> No disrespect to the members of the FIFA executive committee, but the mix of countries represented seems ludicrous.


You can't disrespect people who deserve none.


----------



## T74

isn't the Qatar score a tad over harsh Mo?

Also why USA rated so tough?


----------



## _X_

T74 said:


> isn't the Qatar score a tad over harsh Mo?
> 
> Also why USA rated so tough?


Qatar won't make the final vote so I think its about right


----------



## MysteryMike

slipperydog said:


> Actually, yes. You really don't know how FIFA works, do you...
> 
> As for low attendances in MLS, of course attendances are low. It's the fifth/sixth most popular spectator sport in the country. But Australia is worse.
> 
> As for transport, Australia currently has the exact same problem as the US in terms of rail transport to a couple suburban stadiums. Both countries should be able to fix this by 2022, however.


Right keep thinking that buddy :lol: US have a population of 300 million, Australia has a population of 21 million and they pull around the same average crowd, I think that says more than enough for the US right then and there. Perhaps the following two videos explain those crowd figures. 

BTW I haven't heard FIFA claim anything bad about Australia's bid in terms of the technical report, infact what Mr Nicholls said was *Australia is ready in every aspect * that includes transportation, legacy and everything else. Australia pulled off the 2000 Olympics with no problems what so ever, its still to this day considered the best olympics thus far, the same cannot be said for when Atlanta hosted the olympics, the athletes were peeing their pants as to whether they would even make their event.


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> Right keep thinking that buddy :lol: US have a population of 300 million, Australia has a population of 21 million and they pull around the same average crowd, I think that says more than enough for the US right then and there. Perhaps the following two videos explain those crowd figures.
> 
> BTW I haven't heard FIFA claim anything bad about Australia's bid in terms of the technical report, infact what Mr Nicholls said was *Australia is ready in every aspect * that includes transportation, legacy and everything else. Australia pulled off the 2000 Olympics with no problems what so ever, its still to this day considered the best olympics thus far, the same cannot be said for when Atlanta hosted the olympics, the athletes were peeing their pants as to whether they would even make their event.


I probably should not have mentioned domestic league attendances before, because these have absolutely no bearing on predicting attendances at a tournament with the stature of the World Cup. I merely made a statement about the federation and league instability, and used league attendances as an exhibit of this fact.

I'm doing my best to be reasonable here, but you seem hell-bent on trolling. And that's fine, you're an Aussie and you're sticking up for your bid. But if you are chalking up Australia's entire bid to a few off-hand press conference quotes from the inspection committee, you may be in for a major disappointment. If you've followed World Cup selection processes in the past, you would know that most voters just don't read that report.

While I agree that it _should _be a scientific process, the unfortunate truth is that most of it is hand-shaking and back-room deals. That's just the way FIFA works, and always will. Most voters have likely made their minds up already, and those that haven't will make their decision based not on some report, but on a "what can you do for me" basis.


----------



## RobH

I think you're arguing cross purposes here guys. MysteryMike is arguing why Australia _should_ be chosen, whilst you're arguing why the USA likely _will_ be chosen. I don't think what either of you are saying is wrong actually.

I don't think there's much wrong with pointing out that Australia punches way above its weight in terms of most sports, football included, nor that Sydney 2000 proves Australia has the organisational ability to match anyone.

Nor is there much wrong in pointing out the fact that a US world cup will surpass any other in terms of ticket sales, and has greater potential for growth compared with Australia.

Domestic attendences mightn't mean a lot to FIFA (I'm not sure that's entirely true), but from a supporter's point of view they do matter and Australia does pretty damn well for a nation where football is nowhere near top dog considering the size of its population. It's no lie to say it outdoes the US in this regard given the relative population sizes.

And then of course you have 1994 in the equation as well. Slipperydog could easily argue that _won't_ make a difference to FIFA, and he may well be right! MysteryMike and others could easily argue it _should_ make a difference to FIFA's thinking (I'd almost certainly be supporting the US for 2022 over Australia had the US not hosted in '94, for example).

As I said, you're not having the same debate with each other!! Slipperdog is trying to predict, MysteryMike is trying to support; and so we go around in circles!!


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Its interesting how many think CONMEBOL would vote as a bloc (and specifically to USA) when El Salvador & Venezuela have both mentioned their complete support for Qatar 2022 World Cup, not to mention Brazil which does have a voting member in the FIFA Executive Committee.
In addition, Paraguay is also another very likely nation to support Qatar 2022 World Cup.


----------



## T74

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Its interesting how many think CONMEBOL would vote as a bloc (and specifically to USA) when El Salvador & Venezuela have both mentioned their complete support for Qatar 2022 World Cup, not to mention Brazil which does have a voting member in the FIFA Executive Committee.
> In addition, Paraguay is also another very likely nation to support Qatar 2022 World Cup.


this article is indicating they believe they will vote as a bloc, and the Paraguay vote is in play

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33750

that being said, as I've said before I reckon any promise for a vote at this stage is worth as the paper its written on


----------



## Will737

> Its interesting how many think CONMEBOL would vote as a bloc (and specifically to USA) when El Salvador & Venezuela have both mentioned their complete support for Qatar 2022 World Cup, not to mention Brazil which does have a voting member in the FIFA Executive Committee.
> In addition, Paraguay is also another very likely nation to support Qatar 2022 World Cup.


9 votes confirmed for Qatar!haha:lol::lol:lol hahah with this Qatar win wc!11!!1!!

Seriously what a joke, anyone thats promised a vote anywhere is probably a liar, or are a tiny bit corrupt or have been corrupted. Come voting time we'll see who really supports Doha's bid for the world cup.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Will737 said:


> 9 votes confirmed for Qatar!haha:lol::lol:lol hahah with this Qatar win wc!11!!1!!
> 
> Seriously what a joke, anyone thats promised a vote anywhere is probably a liar, or are a tiny bit corrupt or have been corrupted. Come voting time we'll see who really supports Doha's bid for the world cup.


You keep saying 9 votes, fine, whatever. :skull:

Mike keeps saying "should withdraw ASAP, OMG so embarrassing", fine, whatever. :runaway:

I have reached up to 15 highly likely votes, with other reports i got of 18 votes. :yes:


----------



## Will737

Qatar Son 333 said:


> You keep saying 9 votes, fine, whatever. :skull:
> 
> Mike keeps saying "should withdraw ASAP, OMG so embarrassing", fine, whatever. :runaway:
> 
> I have reached up to 15 highly likely votes, with other reports i got of 18 votes. :yes:


I believe I've posted this before in relation to the Qatar bid:


----------



## RobH

Qatar son, your confidence is great, but last time I heard such a confident prediction from the supporter of an underdog bid, they were proved horribly wrong:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/8690-prediction-time/page__view__findpost__p__137612

(remember this Mo?)


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Will737 said:


> I believe I've posted this before in relation to the Qatar bid:


Sure, let me live in my delusions.

:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|


----------



## mattec

Qatar Son 333 said:


> You keep saying 9 votes, fine, whatever. :skull:
> 
> Mike keeps saying "should withdraw ASAP, OMG so embarrassing", fine, whatever. :runaway:
> 
> I have reached up to 15 highly likely votes, with other reports i got of 18 votes. :yes:


If FIFA votes to send the WC to qatar, then they have lost all credibility imho.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

mattec said:


> If FIFA votes to send the WC to qatar, then they have lost all credibility imho.


As if they have any left :?


----------



## GulfArabia

GIVE THE MIDDLE EAST A CHANCE


----------



## ryebreadraz

GulfArabia said:


> GIVE THE MIDDLE EAST A CHANCE


Give Micronesia a chance!


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Apparently there seems to be little or no controversy surrounding the compact Belgian & Dutch co-bid. Dark horse potential?


----------



## MysteryMike

GulfArabia said:


> GIVE THE MIDDLE EAST A CHANCE


Give Bristol City a chance, give Timbuktu a chance. Qatar is not the right nation to host a football world cup in the middle east or anywhere. It would be an absolute farce and a disgrace to international football, Qatar hasn't even made a football world cup, their football development is non existent, the team is virtually bought and fails the technical requirements for the hosting of the world cup. The place has no culture, no tourist destinations, virtually nothing. I've lived there, you go outside Doha (which is really small anyway) and you hit desert with the only thing you see being camels crossing the road. That's fantastic, not! The country struggles to fill a 12k stadium and even then everything is thrown into chaos on match day. Qatar's bid is a bid based on the "land of the fairies", it's based on non existent graphic designed stadium photos and videos backed by unproven technolgies, it's an utter farce. For me it should be Egypt that hosts the first arab world cup or as other people have suggested Morocco, both these nations have great footballing traditions, they've got the population, they've got their own teams and both are fantastic destinations to visit for tourists as well. Both nations would also benefit considerably from hosting the world cup. What benefits do Qatar get? This bid achieves no economic improvement for the nation. This bid is merely a show pony for the king and to show how Qatar has a bucket load of money so that's all that matters and they're better than everyone else in the middle east. The middle east should host a world cup but it's about being the right country, a country that deserves to host the world cup and qatar does not fit that bill and would be the most undeserving nation of all time. It would be an absolute and utter joke. 

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10411522604


----------



## mattec

GulfArabia said:


> GIVE THE MIDDLE EAST A CHANCE


I will when a credible bid is presented.


----------



## Mo Rush

Rio has only 1 match venue for 2014. Surely using basic logic this means Qatar will be allocated 10!


----------



## mattec

delete :/


----------



## Will737

Why don't Fiji and the Solomon Islands launch a joint bid? Surely it would be a better choice than Qatar.


----------



## T74

slipperydog said:


> At this point, I think it is a bit of an optimistic pretense to assume that this is going to have much of an effect on the 2018/2022 hosts. Wouldn't get my hopes up. What matters though is that he is correct. Any objective observer regardless of confederation would agree that CONCACAF is entitled to one of the spots currently belonging to Africa.


yes, but the ex-co delegates for Africa will not be objective, they will be wanting what is best for their own confed

I doubt they will want to reward Warner with a WC after he costs them a WC slot


----------



## slipperydog

T74 said:


> yes, but the ex-co delegates for Africa will not be objective, they will be wanting what is best for their own confed
> 
> I doubt they will want to reward Warner with a WC after he costs them a WC slot


That would depend on when the World Cup distribution allotment is decided. I am unfamiliar with exactly when this decision would be made, but if it is before the 2018/2022 announcement, then your theory might be correct that it could hurt CONCACAF. But like I said, losing a spot isn't the end of the world, it is normal procedure for these things to change from cup to cup.

That brings up an interesting point. If North America gets another slot, based on recent performance, this would be a possible distribution:

UEFA - 13
CONMEBOL - 5.5
CAF - 4
AFC - 4
CONCACAF - 4
OFC - .5

My reasoning is that right now it's too easy for NZ to qualify with a playoff against Asia. Now if they can beat Peru/Ecuador/Colombia/Venezuela, that to me would be enough to give them a spot at the finals.


----------



## T74

If this were to happen, changes would be:

UEFA - 13 (unchanged)
CONMEBOL - 5.5 (up 1)
CAF - 4 (down 1)
AFC - 4 (down 0.5)
CONCACAF - 4 (up 0.5)
OFC - .5 (unchanged)

from a political point of view, this will piss off AFC and CAF, be it right or wrong. if Warner is seen to be pushing this, it is not a great way to get support for the African ex-co delegates, whom many say will be very influential in deciding who gets both the 18 and 22 hosting gigs.

on the issue of Oceania getting it too soft against Asian, I think you will find that this game gets rotated. I know Australia (when we played in Oceania) went up against Uraguay twice, and Iran one in the three previous qualification periods.


----------



## _X_

T74 said:


> If this were to happen, changes would be:
> 
> UEFA - 13 (unchanged)
> CONMEBOL - 5.5 (up 1)
> CAF - 4 (down 1)
> AFC - 4 (down 0.5)
> CONCACAF - 4 (up 0.5)
> OFC - .5 (unchanged)
> 
> from a political point of view, this will piss off AFC and CAF, be it right or wrong. if Warner is seen to be pushing this, it is not a great way to get support for the African ex-co delegates, whom many say will be very influential in deciding who gets both the 18 and 22 hosting gigs.
> 
> on the issue of Oceania getting it too soft against Asian, I think you will find that this game gets rotated. I know Australia (when we played in Oceania) went up against Uraguay twice, and Iran one in the three previous qualification periods.


It certainly *doesn't* get rotated.
Many feel that Concacaf have too many spots as it is,there will be no change in allocation across the board.African nations provide far more quality players than both the AFC and Concacaf combined
CAF has 8 teams in the top 50,Concacaf 2,AFC 3,OFC 1


----------



## T74

_X_ said:


> It certainly *doesn't* get rotated.
> Many feel that Concacaf have too many spots as it is,there will be no change in allocation across the board.African nations provide far more quality players than both the AFC and Concacaf combined
> CAF has 8 teams in the top 50,Concacaf 2,AFC 3,OFC 1


I didn't mean a formal rotation - just that it is not always Oceania vs Asia for that shared spot

we didn't get to 2006 beating Iran


----------



## slipperydog

_X_ said:


> It certainly *doesn't* get rotated.
> Many feel that Concacaf have too many spots as it is,there will be no change in allocation across the board.African nations provide far more quality players than both the AFC and Concacaf combined
> CAF has 8 teams in the top 50,Concacaf 2,AFC 3,OFC 1


Providing quality players and playing well as a national team are two different things. I know you know that, don't play dumb. It's good to think for yourself and not just take FIFA rankings as gospel. The US ranked ahead of Ghana just days after they defeated the US? Norway over Ghana? Gabon over the Czech Republic? Yeah, okay.

In *present form*, not based on some ranking that uses far too long of a sample timeframe, my eyes tell me the group of US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Honduras are currently better than Australia, Japan, Korea, and Iran. And based on most the results at the World Cup, I would have to say Africa is marginally better, if at all, than North America. At this point, CONCACAF is well-deserving of a fourth qualifying spot.


----------



## Walbanger

double post


----------



## Walbanger

slipperydog said:


> My reasoning is that right now it's too easy for NZ to qualify with a playoff against Asia. Now if they can beat Peru/Ecuador/Colombia/Venezuela, that to me would be enough to give them a spot at the finals.


It may look that way at first but I assure you it is not so easy for NZ to qualify. The reality is there is next to no meaningful competition for New Zealand during their Oceania world cup qualification. They don't get the opportunity to get battle hardened by a competitive qualification series. Many overseas clubs don't release their best players for fixtures against Oceania opponents so the team is given even less time to gel together. So they finish first in Oceania which is more a series of training drills then meaningful games then they are expected to jump to the level of competitive teams who have gone through the grinder of an intense quaification series against many quality opponents. This is exactly why Australia eventually left Oceania. There is a reason why Australia struggled to qualify for decades. Australia's AFC qualification for 2010 was a cake walk compared to the Oceania vs AFC or CONMEBOL Playoff.


----------



## Wezza

slipperydog said:


> In *present form*, not based on some ranking that uses far too long of a sample timeframe, my eyes tell me the group of US, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Honduras are currently better than Australia, Japan, Korea, and Iran.


Honduras & Costa Rica? You're kidding right? If you're going on "current form" , Honduras was recently beaten by Canada & Costa Rica has had a draw & 2 losses in their last 3 matches. They lost to Jamaica in their last match.


----------



## slipperydog

Wezza said:


> Honduras & Costa Rica? You're kidding right? If you're going on "current form" , Honduras was recently beaten by Canada & Costa Rica has had a draw & 2 losses in their last 3 matches. They lost to Jamaica in their last match.


Absolutely not kidding. Those must have been friendlies because I did not hear about any of those games. Frankly, friendlies can be very misleading because of limited squad availability and managers' decisions to bring in new players. As there are a great host of peripheral factors, I hesitate to use any friendly as a basis for determining the quality of a team. What I pay attention to most in my evaluation are results in meaningful competitions.

Again, this is just based on my own observations. And those observations tell me Africa is not yet ready to establish itself as a power confederation alongside UEFA and CONMEBOL, and is still about on par with Asia and North America. I have not seen anything to disprove the notion that those three confederations should have the same number of World Cup qualifiers.


----------



## Wezza

What do you use to judge these teams by then if you don't use friendlies? Costa Rica didn't make the WC, so it's hard to know what their current form is without using friendlies. And Honduras picked up 1 point at the WC. Meanwhile, both Japan & South Korea made it out of their groups & both could have made the 1/4s with a bit more luck. Also, Australia picked up 4 points, the same as Ghana who advanced instead.


----------



## slipperydog

Wezza said:


> What do you use to judge these teams by then if you don't use friendlies?


Usually World Cup qualifiers. For instance, a World Cup qualifier from last summer would have more merit to me than a friendly last week. So in the rare case where a team did not make the World Cup, it's not _technically _present form. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part.

And I don't get too hung up on World Cup point totals and wins and losses. I watch how teams actually play, not just who wins the game. Did the team actually play well, or were they just fortunate? It's too simplistic just to look at who advances or a team's point total and make that your entire barometer for confederational strength. Some teams get outplayed but get a lucky break and win the game. But it doesn't necessarily make them the better team. Football is a sport where one bad call or a mistake by the goalkeeper can totally change the result of a game.


----------



## Wezza

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you logic, but each to their own.


----------



## _X_

T74 said:


> I didn't mean a formal rotation - just that it is not always Oceania vs Asia for that shared spot
> 
> we didn't get to 2006 beating Iran



Sorry mate,its certainly not rotational and haven't got the time atm but will fill you in totally over the next day or so


----------



## _X_

slipperydog said:


> Usually World Cup qualifiers. For instance, a World Cup qualifier from last summer would have more merit to me than a friendly last week. So in the rare case where a team did not make the World Cup, it's not _technically _present form. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part.
> 
> And I don't get too hung up on World Cup point totals and wins and losses. I watch how teams actually play, not just who wins the game. Did the team actually play well, or were they just fortunate? It's too simplistic just to look at who advances or a team's point total and make that your entire barometer for confederational strength. Some teams get outplayed but get a lucky break and win the game. But it doesn't necessarily make them the better team. Football is a sport where one bad call or a mistake by the goalkeeper can totally change the result of a game.


Amazing post.
There are 3 certainties in WCQ-every world cup.1-NZ will qual top of OFC.2 and 3-USA and Mexico will qualify 1st and second in Concacaf.We can't say this about any other confederation as they are all more competitive. 4 spots from 10 countries plus the Carribean is really pushing it.
The only way you'll get another spot is if UEFA gives you one-good luck with that:lol:


----------



## Will737

My god there are some bullshit artists here.


----------



## RobH

*England say they will withdraw from the race to host the 2022 World Cup and focus on a bid for 2018 if the United States formally end its 2018 interest.*

David Dein, the international president of England's bid, told a media briefing in London he expected the US to pull out of the 2018 race soon.

"Consequently we will almost certainly withdraw from 2022," he added.

Fifa's executive committee will vote to decide the hosts of both the 2018 and 2022 events on 2 December in Zurich.

Representatives from the England 2018 bid and US Soccer were unavailable for further comment when contacted by BBC Sport. 

Link


----------



## Gondolier

RobH said:


> *England say they will withdraw from the race to host the 2022 World Cup and focus on a bid for 2018 if the United States formally end its 2018 interest.*
> 
> David Dein, the international president of England's bid, told a media briefing in London he expected the US to pull out of the 2018 race soon.
> 
> "Consequently we will almost certainly withdraw from 2022," he added.
> 
> Fifa's executive committee will vote to decide the hosts of both the 2018 and 2022 events on 2 December in Zurich.
> 
> Representatives from the England 2018 bid and US Soccer were unavailable for further comment when contacted by BBC Sport.
> 
> Link


/\ So in other words, the UK is scared that the US 2018 vote might fracture the Euro votes and thereby let the US sneak in for 2018, leaving 2022 as a free-for-all??

I like that scenario!!


----------



## RobH

Possibly, but England (not the UK) wouldn't be alone in wanting to remove this possibility - there will also be pressure from the other three European bids. I think there _must_ be a lot going on behind the scenes; the England bid team wouldn't be saying these things _publically_ unless they knew something. With Platini and now Dein saying they think the US will withdraw from 2018, I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't

And perhaps, just perhaps, the US may have gained a few European votes for 2022 into the bargain...who knows?


----------



## Mo Rush

RobH said:


> the England bid team wouldn't be saying these things _publically_ unless they knew something.


why not? they haven't said many wise things before either.


----------



## Will737

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Oooooooooooooooooo
> 
> So just because FIFA has said that its not allowed (which is obvious from the beginning) that its the end of the world for the Qatar bid !!? :hahaha: seriously, this is such a childish game we are playing.
> 
> Hell must have broke loose when FIFA inspector also stated that Qatar currently has logistical problems (duh, the games are 12 years away...)
> 
> I will say what i want and I dont really care, really, you shouldnt be botherd anyways
> 
> WE HAVE DEALS WITH MANY COUNTRIES, AND THE LIST IS INCREASING WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
> 
> The issue is not just related to a couple of FIFA Executive committee members anymore, but rather governments, major companies and important world figures in sport and politics.
> 
> We could say that we might have grabbed the German vote as well
> 
> What proof does FIFA have of Qatar bribing the members ? nothing. If they have proof they could clearly be seen as "gifts" the rest is really details.
> 
> *Answer me this, has Australia or USA done what they have to do to grab enough votes for this World Cup ? it seems from what i see that Qatar is the only one that "really" wants this*.


Your the only one of the 'qatari's' (not all but the qataris that post in your bid thread) worth listening to/reading. 


Australia and USA have easily done enough to show they want it - much more than Qatar so I ask you, what has Qatar _really_ done to _really_ show that they _really_ want the WC. It seems that most of the people currently in Qatar could honestly not give a damn about it because they won't be in the country by 2022.


----------



## 863552

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Oooooooooooooooooo
> 
> So just because FIFA has said that its not allowed (which is obvious from the beginning) that its the end of the world for the Qatar bid !!? :hahaha: seriously, this is such a childish game we are playing.
> 
> Hell must have broke loose when FIFA inspector also stated that Qatar currently has logistical problems (duh, the games are 12 years away...)
> 
> I will say what i want and I dont really care, really, you shouldnt be botherd anyways
> 
> WE HAVE DEALS WITH MANY COUNTRIES, AND THE LIST IS INCREASING WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
> 
> The issue is not just related to a couple of FIFA Executive committee members anymore, but rather governments, major companies and important world figures in sport and politics.
> 
> We could say that we might have grabbed the German vote as well
> 
> What proof does FIFA have of Qatar bribing the members ? nothing. If they have proof they could clearly be seen as "gifts" the rest is really details.
> 
> Answer me this, has Australia or USA done what they have to do to grab enough votes for this World Cup ? it seems from what i see that Qatar is the only one that "really" wants this.


Australia has opted to move its most popular sports code to comply with the FIFA guide lines. What did Qatar do they opted out for an Earlier game. Reason A.

Australia has a population much larger than Qatar, infact around 5 of our cities, have more or around about the same population as Qatar. Reason B

I could go on but, it's not worth wasting away energy on mindless idiots like you.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Will737 said:


> *Your the only one of the 'qatari's' (not all but the qataris that post in your bid thread) worth listening to/reading. *
> 
> 
> Australia and USA have easily done enough to show they want it - much more than Qatar so I ask you, what has Qatar _really_ done to _really_ show that they _really_ want the WC. It seems that most of the people currently in Qatar could honestly not give a damn about it because they won't be in the country by 2022.


I keep getting that, not sure why.. is it because I try to cope with your attitude by replying in a similar manner ? :? Interesting.

I still want to see you saying what Australia and USA has done to get 2022. why do I have to answer with a lot of info and you dont by simply saying "we did it already, what about you".

--------------
Well I didn't really mention "show" that it wants to host, but rather the actions being taken.

BUT, that fact that the country spent 1.5 Million Euros on a showcase model for the second generation cooling, so that if we were to host the world cup, the actual game will in no way be affected by the heat (+ comfort for spectators). Doing it in an environmentally friendly way (carbon neutral).

Blatter visiting Qatar and stating that the Middle East should host the world cup and Qatar has a very good chance to be the first. not to mention that he witnessed a cup final and visited the first outdoor air conditioned stadium in the world.

Being the only country in Asia to host the AFC Asian Cup for the 2nd time (Qatar 2011 Asian Cup) + The most successful Asian Games ever (Doha 2006).

Brazilian & South African Support (Hosts of 2010 & 2014 FIFA WC) +
many countries support for the bid such as: Venezuela, El Salvador, Arab Countries etc.

Hosting world class international friendlies (Brazil vs England + Brazil vs Argentina)

Providing a full scale bid with full 12 stadiums all of them with FIFA requirements (In terms of number of stadiums and capacities) 

Providing 170,000 seats to be donated to developing countries thus post world cup, their will be 22 stadiums built around the world. Thus having a great legacy of 11 stadiums with appropriate capacities.

,,,,,.. Just a little from the top of my head...


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Solopop said:


> Australia has opted to move its most popular sports code to comply with the FIFA guide lines. What did Qatar do they opted out for an Earlier game. Reason A.
> 
> Australia has a population much larger than Qatar, infact around 5 of our cities, have more or around about the same population as Qatar. Reason B
> 
> I could go on but, it's not worth wasting away energy on *mindless idiots like you*.


See, even you cant give a serious response. thats not related to what Australia has done to show how much it wants the WC. higher population ? seriously ? I wasn't aware of a "Increase population for the sake of 2022 Bid" drive/program..... 

On the other hand Qatar didn't need to move any sport since THE main sport IS FOOTBALL. Apparently unlike Australia or USA.

oh and, Ehem...



> *1* It is prohibited to insult, demean (directly or indirectly) another forumer or Moderator.
> This includes racist comments based on nationality. Provocations of any sort will be sanctioned accordingly.


----------



## 863552

Australia.

Hosted 2 Olympics. 2000 Sydney - said to be the greatest ever.
Has actually made it to the WC.
Unlike Qatar, we don't face logistical challenges like weather, and infrastructure.
We have a population that can be relied on to fill stadiums.
Countless sporting events that pit Qatars list to shame.
Supported by the likes of Indonesia one of the worlds largest countries
Is organising events even before the winner is annouced - Breakfast on the Bridge
Falls into one of the best timezones for the worlds largest football watching region.
Backed by, Everton Manager, Nicole Kidman, Qantas, PwC. Countless other people.
Through the 1GOAL program we are helping defeat aids in Africa and spread the game.

That's just off the top of my head.


----------



## 863552

Qatar Son 333 said:


> See, even you cant give a serious response. thats not related to what Australia has done to show how much it wants the WC. higher population ? seriously ? I wasn't aware of a "Increase population for the sake of 2022 Bid" drive/program.....
> 
> On the other hand Qatar didn't need to move any sport since THE main sport IS FOOTBALL. Apparently unlike Australia or USA.
> 
> oh and, Ehem...


Just proved how diversified we are, compared to our fellow competitors.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

*The Blatter and Bin Hammam Agreement*


Bin Hammam backs off from FIFA Elections
Qatar Hosting 2022 FIFA WC
Bin Hammam AFC President for another term.
Bin Hammam supports Blatter for FIFA Presidency.

+

Qatar's bid is CENTRAL, its in the middle of the world, UNLIKE AUSTRALIA, it would be able to satisfy Europe, Africa & Asia with Prime time and semi-prime time matches. (3.5 Billion in Prime time).


----------



## 863552

^
ahahaha! Yeah, and I'm KIng Kong. :lol:


----------



## slipperydog

I am really excited about attending the World Cup in 2022. If it was in Australia or the US, I would be there in a heartbeat. But as an objective observer, I have to say that if it was awarded to Qatar, I wouldn't even consider going. It's just not appealing to me whatsoever. And I just have this feeling that most fans throughout the world agree with me. To shell out thousands of dollars and deal with the hassle of travel, you have to give the fans a pretty convincing reason to do so.

The stereotypes are that it is a barren desert, bloody hot, extremely conservative, and alcohol unfriendly. Whether these are true or not, people often make decisions based on perception, not reality. And the general perception of the Middle East worldwide is not very positive. No offense intended, but because of this, I believe it would be one of the most poorly attended World Cups ever.


----------



## hngcm

slipperydog said:


> I am really excited about attending the World Cup in 2022. If it was in Australia or the US, I would be there in a heartbeat. But as an objective observer, I have to say that if it was awarded to Qatar, I wouldn't even consider going. It's just not appealing to me whatsoever. And I just have this feeling that most fans throughout the world agree with me. To shell out thousands of dollars and deal with the hassle of travel, you have to give the fans a pretty convincing reason to do so.
> 
> The stereotypes are that it is a barren desert, bloody hot, extremely conservative, and alcohol unfriendly. Whether these are true or not, people often make decisions based on perception, not reality. And the general perception of the Middle East worldwide is not very positive. No offense intended, but because of this, I believe it would be one of the most poorly attended World Cups ever.


Yup. 

Would you rather travel to:

New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami. 

OR

Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide. 

OR

Doha, Doha, Doha, Doha, oh and Doha.


----------



## ryebreadraz

RobH said:


> Good blog article on the 2022 competition from the BBC. Dismisses Japan, Korea and Qatar, and tends to favour Australia over the US. A good summary overall.
> 
> Link


Makes a lot of good points. I think it doesn't mention enough the money generated by a US World Cup, but I think we all know about that. With regards to legacy, I'm curious what the difference in money spent on legacy related things and its impact between the different bidding countries. You would think the US would be able to make so much more that they would be able to create a greater legacy, but how much more, I don't know and the Australians still have a very good bid. While I'd love the US to win 2022, I'll make the trip to Australia if they get it. I've been there before and it's a fantastic country.


----------



## Wezza

Qatar Son 333 said:


> I keep getting that, not sure why.. is it because I try to cope with your attitude by replying in a similar manner ? :? Interesting.
> 
> I still want to see you saying what Australia and USA has done to get 2022. why do I have to answer with a lot of info and you dont by simply saying "we did it already, what about you".
> 
> --------------
> Well I didn't really mention "show" that it wants to host, but rather the actions being taken.
> 
> BUT, that fact that the country spent 1.5 Million Euros on a showcase model for the second generation cooling, so that if we were to host the world cup, the actual game will in no way be affected by the heat (+ comfort for spectators). Doing it in an environmentally friendly way (carbon neutral).
> 
> *Blatter visiting Qatar and stating that the Middle East should host the world cup and Qatar has a very good chance to be the first. not to mention that he witnessed a cup final and visited the first outdoor air conditioned stadium in the world.
> 
> Being the only country in Asia to host the AFC Asian Cup for the 2nd time (Qatar 2011 Asian Cup) + The most successful Asian Games ever (Doha 2006).*
> 
> Brazilian & South African Support (Hosts of 2010 & 2014 FIFA WC) +
> many countries support for the bid such as: Venezuela, El Salvador, Arab Countries etc.
> 
> *Hosting world class international friendlies (Brazil vs England + Brazil vs Argentina)*
> 
> Providing a full scale bid with full 12 stadiums all of them with FIFA requirements (In terms of number of stadiums and capacities)
> 
> Providing 170,000 seats to be donated to developing countries thus post world cup, their will be 22 stadiums built around the world. Thus having a great legacy of 11 stadiums with appropriate capacities.
> 
> ,,,,,.. Just a little from the top of my head...


Those points alone should get Qatar over the line....


----------



## Mo Rush

Qatar Son 333 said:


> *The Blatter and Bin Hammam Agreement*
> 
> 
> Bin Hammam backs off from FIFA Elections
> Qatar Hosting 2022 FIFA WC
> Bin Hammam AFC President for another term.
> Bin Hammam supports Blatter for FIFA Presidency.
> 
> +
> 
> Qatar's bid is CENTRAL, its in the middle of the world, UNLIKE AUSTRALIA, it would be able to satisfy Europe, Africa & Asia with Prime time and semi-prime time matches. (3.5 Billion in Prime time).


None of which matters since the bid is impossible.

No hosting so many venues in 1 city, not today, not in 2022, with or without Blatter.


----------



## timmy- brissy

Well, well, well...as a englishmen i don't really care about us winning the world cup, sure it would be nice but i can't imagine me living here by then. We are the home of football, have infrastructure, the passionate fans and if built new stadiums they would be used afterwards. We also feature the most football league's in the world. Honestly London could quite easily hold the WC on it's own! But that's not going to happen...

Spain and Portugal - would also like to see this nice weather, nice culture and have a big football passion just keep out the flares! Spain and Portugal should still be big teams and players like Canales will be coming to 28 or so i think. Would have the Nou Camp as the final though.

Holland and Belgium - hardly un-talked about. Would be great to see these guys hold it, two countries who don't do anything wrong and keep to themselves. Good stadia some work though.

Russia - They show a lot of money and determination but it's going to have sort out it's perception. Many westerners just don't want to go to Russia, me included! Sort that out and you'll make your bet stronger.

As for our fellow companions of english speaking nations. I would thorougly enjoy them both holding the world cup! Australia has the weather, cities, culture, sporting life style and the unique wildlife can only add to that! Still need better stadia but they're who i really want. America ah, you guys a long with Australians get so much slack for your lack of football culture. But these events will only make the sport stronger over there. I would love for it to be in America, just so i could go and visit LA again and watch England or Spain play. Of course if some matches we're played in LA i wonder how many celebs would turn up to support the US?  But you have stadiums, advertisement and the infrastructure quite easily, adding public transport would be a nice additions as well. 

But really i don't mind who wins, as long as they showcase great stadiums, football passion and grow the sport you have my support.


----------



## Trelawny

I demand the Australian trolls to be banned.


----------



## _X_

Trelawny said:


> I demand the Australian trolls to be banned.


Come on mate,can you just accept the fact that its universal that no one wants the WC in Qatar and that is reflected in these threads.Anyone I know that has been to a WC has already stated they would not attend.Not only that, the bid doesn't comply with the national hosting agreement or the host city agreement
Imagine a USA v England match in Qatarhno:.Well actually that could include USA,England,Australia,Spain,South Korea,Japan,Portugal-7 of the other bidders who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan or others such as Germany ,France,Italy,Canada,Poland,Romania,Turkey,Denmark, Bulgaria,Sweden,Czech Republic,Norway,Hungary,Slovakia, Albania,Croatia,Lithuania,Macedonia,New Zealand,Latvia, Estonia,Azerbaijan,Finland,Greece,Slovenia,Armenia,Malaysia,Montenegro,Singapore,Ukraine,Bosnia,Luxembourg,Ireland, Jordan,Austria,Iceland.

Thats 25 of the top 50 FIFA ranked nations(including Israel) that Doha's neighbours (Iran or Saudi Arabia) would not be happy with making it an impossible task for a secure WC


----------



## Qatar Son 333

_X_ said:


> Come on mate,can you just accept the fact that its universal that no one wants the WC in Qatar and that is reflected in these threads.Anyone I know that has been to a WC has already stated they would not attend.Not only that, the bid doesn't comply with the national hosting agreement or the host city agreement
> Imagine a USA v England match in Qatarhno:.Well actually that could include USA,England,Australia,Spain,South Korea,Japan,Portugal-7 of the other bidders who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan or others such as Germany ,France,Italy,Canada,Poland,Romania,Turkey,Denmark, Bulgaria,Sweden,Czech Republic,Norway,Hungary,Slovakia, Albania,Croatia,Lithuania,Macedonia,New Zealand,Latvia, Estonia,Azerbaijan,Finland,Greece,Slovenia,Armenia,Malaysia,Montenegro,Singapore,Ukraine,Bosnia,Luxembourg,Ireland, Jordan,Austria,Iceland.
> 
> Thats 25 of the top 50 FIFA ranked nations(including Israel) that Doha's neighbours (Iran or Saudi Arabia) would not be happy with making it an impossible task for a secure WC


This post makes 0 sense.... I mean really, SO WHAT ? whats wrong with the countries you have listed ? Clearly you dont know anything about Qatar or its 2022 bid.

Qatar is Iran BEST ally in the region and Saudi Arabia so far is the most supporting of Qatar's neighbors. so what are you on about.

+

Brazil vs England last year, I dont recall any death threats or mass riots, this isnt the Israeli-Palestinian borders or Iraq.... for such a great level match to have a great attendance and no problems whatsoever is really good, there will most probably be no problems in attendance in 2022.


----------



## slipperydog

Qatar Son 333 said:


> .... for such a great level match to have a great attendance and no problems whatsoever is really good, there will most probably be no problems in attendance in 2022.


Well, like I said, if it's hosted in Australia or the USA, FIFA will have a guaranteed attendee (myself). If it's in Qatar, FIFA will have a guaranteed _non_-attendee.

So if there's more like myself, then yes, I think there will be attendance problems.


----------



## timmy- brissy

Trelawny said:


> I demand the Australian trolls to be banned.


It's not like you've not been trolling... i've read the last 50 pages and you do indeed troll! So quiet down and stop being so hypocritical.


----------



## timmy- brissy

I admire Qatar's determination, but to be honest Qatar has hardly any relevance on football in the world scale. Now America or Australia don't exactly too but at least they have good national teams and have created some great players and America seems to be creating some great talent. But if football relevance to world is a thing for Fifa, England, Spain/ Portugal and Holland/Belgium are right up there.


----------



## Will737

Trelawny said:


> You are Islamophobic. The only people you need to worry about is the west and Israel doing air raids on civilians.


you ar mikee mousse u dont deserv ur own opinioion.

I'm loving the dribble that you keep posting


----------



## Mo Rush

Trelawny said:


> You are Islamophobic. The only people you need to worry about is the west and Israel doing air raids on civilians.


What a stupid thing to say. Keep going at the rate you're going.


----------



## Trelawny

Yes i get the blame because someone says random shyt like Qatar is a safe heaven for terrorist. And says Saudi Arabia is anti west when everyone knows they are like another American state.

I see there is an english alliance. People who support a Russian or Qatar bid are being pushed to the side while english rebels attack them, moderators included.. Why we can't defend ourselves is beyond me.


----------



## RobH

An Anglo-Saxon conspiracy?


----------



## Will737

RobH said:


> An Anglo-Saxon conspiracy?


Of course. It's the only logical reason the Qatar bid receives criticism.


----------



## 863552

Lies, I do it for shits and giggles.


----------



## Will737

Solopop said:


> Lies, I do it for shits and giggles.


That too, and to see them make idiots of themselves.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Qatar Son 333 said:


> It doesn't necessarily have to be international attendance.


Disqualification of the essence of a World Cup. I'm not surprised by this level of ignorance.


----------



## slipperydog

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Disqualification of the essence of a World Cup. I'm not surprised by this level of ignorance.


That's not entirely true. A USA World Cup wouldn't need nearly as much foreign attendance as, say Australia or Qatar. It depends on the country. But yes, you're right, it is ignorant to think Qatar needs no foreign attendance.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

slipperydog said:


> It depends on the country. But yes, you're right, it is ignorant to think Qatar needs no foreign attendance.


It's just another naive indicator to stress the cosmetic aspect of an arrogant and unrealistic bid from a country where domestic league attendances by locals are non-existent.


----------



## Mo Rush

Trelawny said:


> Yes i get the blame because someone says random shyt like Qatar is a safe heaven for terrorist. And says Saudi Arabia is anti west when everyone knows they are like another American state.
> 
> I see there is an english alliance. People who support a Russian or Qatar bid are being pushed to the side while english rebels attack them, moderators included.. Why we can't defend ourselves is beyond me.


well obviously the Islamophobic argument takes a big dive when trying to use it on me.


----------



## nomarandlee

Trelawny said:


> Yes i get the blame because someone says random shyt like Qatar is a safe heaven for terrorist. And says Saudi Arabia is anti west when everyone knows they are like another American state.
> 
> I see there is an english alliance. People who support a Russian or Qatar bid are being pushed to the side while english rebels attack them, moderators included.. Why we can't defend ourselves is beyond me.


Everyone knows that the KSA is like any American state? No wonder how you have displayed the lack of maturity in order to get brigged as often as you do.


----------



## _X_

Qatar's hosting of major sporting events in June and July include























Also
1988 Asian Cup-2 December – 18 December
2011 Asian Cup-7 January – 29 January
2006 Asian Games-December 1–15
2016 Summer Olympic Bid-October 14 and October 30


----------



## Will737

_X_ said:


> Qatar's hosting of major sporting events in June and July include
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also
> 1988 Asian Cup-2 December – 18 December
> 2011 Asian Cup-7 January – 29 January
> 2006 Asian Games-December 1–15
> 2016 Summer Olympic Bid-October 14 and October 30


OMFG!!11!!1! 

They have never hosted a MAJOR event - maybe never will.


----------



## _X_

To be fair they have done a good job of hosting those other events,its just that they would never dream of hosting in the height of summer,which unfortunately for them is FIFA World Cup time.The Asian Cup over the last decade had started to formalise around the June period only for Qatar to take it straight into January -making it hard for European based players to participate


----------



## Trelawny

Mo Rush said:


> well obviously the Islamophobic argument takes a big dive when trying to use it on me.


Yes I know your of Indonesian decent. I was only talking to the other dude and it was based on other comments he made as well. I have read that the Australians are become more and more fearful and worried about their rising northern neighbor. Maybe you should think twice before you chose who to support. :lol:. But lets get back on topic.



nomarandlee said:


> Everyone knows that the KSA is like any American state? No wonder how you have displayed the lack of maturity in order to get brigged as often as you do.


It's true. Saudi Arabia and America are like best friends. They are an alliance against Iran, building high tech nukes and spy stations. It's there oil state. :bash:

This is about the world cup bids though.


----------



## Will737

When did I say anything 'Islamophobic'? Seriously, your a tool - get out before you make an even bigger arse of yourself and Qatar's bid.


----------



## 863552

Where are these reports of Australia and Indonesia problems?


----------



## Wezza

Solopop said:


> Where are these reports of Australia and Indonesia problems?


In his imagination. Seems like he's got a pretty good one of those too.


----------



## Trelawny

2 Months left!! :banana:. Fifa should just eliminate countries as we go on. South Korea, Japan, Belgium/Holland should just be eliminated now.


----------



## MysteryMike

*An outbreak of football hooliganism at the recent match between Anzhi Makhachkala and Spartak Moscow has drawn a stern response from the Dagestan club. But the potential embarrassment for Russia’s football authorities could continue in the run-up to the announcement of the 2018 World Cup hosts.

Although many in football’s homeland feel rioting fans are a relic of the past, Russian reporters gleefully reminded the world of English fan rampages home and away in response to allegations of corruption in the domestic game here. But reports of a Spartak supporters’ coach being shot at in Makhachkala, while fans clashed inside and outside the stadium, is the last thing Russia’s 2018 bid needs.

The head coach of Anzhi, a newly-promoted Premier League team, was quick to rebuke the official fan club – and said before the game fans had been asked not to respond to taunts from Spartak. Hadji Hadjiev told Sovietsky Sport: “We understand it is linked to the behaviour of red and white fans when we played in Moscow, but we cannot accept this. “We are well aware that an extremist group of Spartak fans has created an intolerable situation at different stadiums, and the executive director of the club Sayid Abdullayev met our fan representatives several times to ask them not to react.”

During Sunday’s game rival fans clashed on the terraces of Anzhi’s stadium, while members of the hosts’ “Dikaya Divisiya” (Wild Movement) fan group displayed a banner accusing Spartak fans of fascism. After the match the Spartak team bus was pelted with stones and a supporters coach was fired on with traumatic weapons.*

http://www.mn.ru/sports/20101006/188101032.html


----------



## coth

quit that made up crap, really


----------



## acade88

Matthew Lowry said:


> 2018 Russia
> 2022 Australia
> 2026 USA
> 2030 Argentina and Uruguay
> 2034 China


impossible, 2026 & 2030 in america? no way!
and 2022 & 2030 in the southern hemisphere, is impossible too... by FIFA rules


----------



## ryebreadraz

acade88 said:


> impossible, 2026 & 2030 in america? no way!
> and 2022 & 2030 in the southern hemisphere, is impossible too... by FIFA rules


How is 2022 and 2030 impossible by FIFA rules? The only rule I know of is that a confederation cannot host either of the next two World Cups after it hosts one.

2030 is going to be back in Europe anyways. They're going to get one of every three.


----------



## love-qatar

The stadium number 12 
first time publish to public


----------



## _X_

love-qatar said:


> The stadium number 12
> first time publish to public


Brilliant render mate.
If the World Cup hosting rights was a competition for the best renders then Russia and Qatar would romp it in-------but its clearly not.
I see a lot of Green Point in there.Green Point made it thru to construction though whereas this may just remain an architects wet dream.We'll see at the end of the month


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

love-qatar said:


> The stadium number 12
> first time publish to public


Thank you for sharing Fantasy Stadium. Great design.

Please elaborate on cooling technologies. How does it fit in given the open spaces?

Which parts of this white elephant to be are modular?


----------



## Trelawny

So beautiful. :cheers:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Trelawny said:


> So beautiful. :cheers:


Agreed


----------



## mattec

acade88 said:


> impossible, 2026 & 2030 in america? no way!


one's in North America, and another is in South America, its two different places with two different confederations...


----------



## rus

MysteryMike said:


> *An outbreak of football hooliganism at the recent match between Anzhi Makhachkala and Spartak Moscow has drawn a stern response from the Dagestan club. But the potential embarrassment for Russia’s football authorities could continue in the run-up to the announcement of the 2018 World Cup hosts.
> 
> Although many in football’s homeland feel rioting fans are a relic of the past, Russian reporters gleefully reminded the world of English fan rampages home and away in response to allegations of corruption in the domestic game here. But reports of a Spartak supporters’ coach being shot at in Makhachkala, while fans clashed inside and outside the stadium, is the last thing Russia’s 2018 bid needs.
> 
> The head coach of Anzhi, a newly-promoted Premier League team, was quick to rebuke the official fan club – and said before the game fans had been asked not to respond to taunts from Spartak. Hadji Hadjiev told Sovietsky Sport: “We understand it is linked to the behaviour of red and white fans when we played in Moscow, but we cannot accept this. “We are well aware that an extremist group of Spartak fans has created an intolerable situation at different stadiums, and the executive director of the club Sayid Abdullayev met our fan representatives several times to ask them not to react.”
> 
> During Sunday’s game rival fans clashed on the terraces of Anzhi’s stadium, while members of the hosts’ “Dikaya Divisiya” (Wild Movement) fan group displayed a banner accusing Spartak fans of fascism. After the match the Spartak team bus was pelted with stones and a supporters coach was fired on with traumatic weapons.*
> 
> http://www.mn.ru/sports/20101006/188101032.html


For one day before the game Anji - Spartak, in Makhachkala was killed islamic terrorist Rimikhan Ziyadov. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimikhan_Ziyadov
Rimikhan Ziyadov (born December 23, 1984 - died October 2, 2010) was a Russian professional football player. According to Russian law enforcement, he was also a leader of a terrorist cell and was shot dead during a confrontation with security forces. He last played in the Russian Second Division for FC Dagdizel Kaspiysk. He was vice-captain of the club, this season 21 games and 1 goal.
Dagestan and Chechnya among the poorest and fascist territory in Russia. There Russian is very dangerous, 99% of the population are Muslims. I want to reassure all the 2018 World Cup held there never will be. Nearest city Kranodar located a few hundred kilometers away.
North Caucasus for Russia like Northern Ireland for England.


----------



## aaronaugi1

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Thank you for sharing Fantasy Stadium. Great design.
> 
> Please elaborate on cooling technologies. How does it fit in given the open spaces?
> 
> Which parts of this white elephant to be are modular?


ziiiinnnnggg!


----------



## Mo Rush

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Instead of bashing Qatar's bid, find something useful to do. (For all members)


Bashing is : this bid sucks

Reality is: a world cup cannot be hosted within essentially one city.

Why exactly this is difficult to understand is still beyond me. Even if every other factor, time, region, heat, football culture, were ignored, this bid fails on the fundamental principle of providing 7-10 host cities, not suburbs, to host a World Cup. This basic fact has nothing to do with Doha or Qatar and applies to every other host.

This doesn't mean Qatar should not bid or that Doha is not a great sports city.

I'd love it London or Sydney or Paris hosted the entire World Cup, but thats just not going to happen.


In terms of bashing, you will note that I continue to be a strong supporter of Doha's Olympic bid, because its possible, feasible and of a very high quality.


----------



## _X_

Mo Rush said:


> Bashing is : this bid sucks
> 
> Reality is: a world cup cannot be hosted within essentially one city.
> 
> Why exactly this is difficult to understand is still beyond me. Even if every other factor, time, region, heat, football culture, were ignored, this bid fails on the fundamental principle of providing 7-10 host cities, not suburbs, to host a World Cup. This basic fact has nothing to do with Doha or Qatar and applies to every other host.
> 
> This doesn't mean Qatar should not bid or that Doha is not a great sports city.
> 
> I'd love it London or Sydney or Paris hosted the entire World Cup, but thats just not going to happen.
> 
> 
> *In terms of bashing, you will note that I continue to be a strong supporter of Doha's Olympic bid, because its possible, feasible and of a very high quality.*


x2
Single City=thumbs up
October=thumbs up


----------



## Wezza

love-qatar said:


> The stadium number 12
> first time publish to public


What city is this stadium in?

EDIT: Doesn't matter, I found it. It's in Doha.


----------



## T74

very sexy stadium - is this to be built regardless of the bids success?

I hope so, it looks sensational!


----------



## Wezza

^^
I doubt it would be built. Considering the fact that all of the stadiums were going to be significantly downsized after the WC anyway.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Pure result of envy, jealousy, hatred & racism is my following contribution:
> 
> 
> Bala 5heir bala um 7mar, ay 5heir min warak ya mal3oon elwalden, la3alek ma terba7 6ool ma roo7ek tetnafas elhawa. Al7een hatha t8ool-lah Basha ?!! Labook labo abo abook, ya um elhelan int !! 7sabek insha2allah 3end allah sub7anah, w yarab yestajeeb da3wati 3leek lel w nahar. ya 6'alem ya 7a8eer ya munafi8. :shocked: Got that Oncebittentwiceshy ?


I got your message, boy. I will refrain from translating your insults and portraying the exposure of my parents. I will not stoop to your level.


----------



## coth

Ironically - the most important person of modern English football supports Russian bid 
http://www.gazeta.ru/sport/2010/10/a_3426451.shtml


----------



## venki04ss

_X_ said:


> Brilliant render mate.
> If the World Cup hosting rights was a competition for the best renders then Russia and Qatar would romp it in-------but its clearly not.
> I see a lot of Green Point in there.Green Point made it thru to construction though whereas this may just remain an architects wet dream.We'll see at the end of the month


_X_ .. Brilliant Render.? what about your Country.? no new render.? no new stadium's.? all existing upgrade are shit in Australia. 

I can hardly find Semi Final's venue in Australia.


----------



## amrja

MysteryMike said:


> Buddy it's not racist, it's FACT. I lived in Qatar myself, my dad was a key part of putting in the telecommunications infrastructure in Qatar as one of the chief project managers for Cable and Wireless and he then ran it for a long time before QTel alright. I was stating exactly what happened, maybe it's time you learned some truths instead of living in delusion.


How is it fact when there are a number of churches operating in Doha, built with the full consent of the Emir (who gifted the churches the land they were built on himself)? Nobody is prosecuted here for freely practicing their religion, full stop. 



OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Not to be confused with realism though.


That point is debatable. Still, a bit unnecessarily cynical to say what you said above, don't you think?


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

amrja said:


> That point is debatable. Still, a bit unnecessarily cynical to say what you said above, don't you think?


Qatar's bid being apocryphal, obscene, antithetical, hostile, asinine, embarrassing, contemptuous and an insult?. Indeed, I forgot to mention cynical.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Supporter's atmosphere is organic and spontaneous. 

Dedicated airco-zones, sponsored by Carrier, in a desperate attempt to fabricate and dictate atmosphere, aren't. 

One has to originate from authentic footballing countries to grasp the magnitude. 

Qatar. All alone in the airco-zone.


----------



## MysteryMike

amrja said:


> How is it fact when there are a number of churches operating in Doha, built with the full consent of the Emir (who gifted the churches the land they were built on himself)? Nobody is prosecuted here for freely practicing their religion, full stop.


Buddy wake up:lol: the church was only built two years ago and it's only because the emir is kissing US ass and allowing the HQ there to bomb the rest of the middle east. Qatar's bid is rubbish, if Qatar hosts the world cup then Timbuktu can host the world cup, they've gotten closer to qualifying with an actual football team that's from their country unlike Qatar. BTW I didn't put this before but I wonder how many people are interested in going to jail for making out with their partner during the football world cup. 

*The couple was first rebuked by authorities in Qatar for kissing in public along the beach. So the two Lebanese expats argued that they were married and were doing nothing wrong. But the plea, ironically, put them in even more trouble, as their union was judged unlawful by a court in this conservative Muslim Persian Gulf country.

The couple, who fled Qatar before the verdict was announced, was sentenced in absentia to a year of prison for having an illicit sexual relationship, according to recent media reports. The court argued that their marriage could not be recognized in Qatar because it was an interfaith union between a Muslim woman and a Christian man. 

The trouble started in April when a Qatari family complained to police about the couple kissing in public, Gulf Times said. Police said the two, whose names were not released to the media, were caught in an "indecent position."The man, who works in Qatar, said he had done nothing more than place his hand on the shoulder of his wife, who had arrived to the country 10 days earlier. *

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/12/qatar-interfait.html


----------



## hngcm

^^^ Can't believe stuff like that still happens in the 21st century.hno:


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> Buddy wake up:lol: the church was only built two years ago and it's only because the emir is kissing US ass and allowing the HQ there to bomb the rest of the middle east.


So ?? We have had many churches around Doha for the expat population, but this was the first government backed one (Largest in the Gulf area), soon we will have a synagogue next to it aswell.

What is this ? No body is kissing any ones ass. We built the runway and some facilities and they simply came (shifting from KSA), yes it is used by the US to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is also the protection of Qatar as a whole, this is a great security point as they will help in providing airspace security during the World Cup. 




MysteryMike said:


> Qatar's bid is rubbish, if Qatar hosts the world cup then Timbuktu can host the world cup, they've gotten closer to qualifying with an actual football team that's from their country unlike Qatar. BTW I didn't put this before but I wonder how many people are interested in going to jail for making out with their partner during the football world cup.


Timbuktu ? :lol:. yeah right, It would be very hard for countries to do what Qatar is doing right now, could they offer stadiums as good as the Qatar bid ? hardly. We are proud of our nationalized players, do as you like (eg, smash your head on to a wall). 

That last comment was as stupid as the comment that claimed there will be mass arrests in Russia due to the law that prohibits flags in public areas. (laws and rules change with time, its time that you understand that).


----------



## MysteryMike

Russia has a real football team and has qualified for world cups, Russia also hasn't failed the technical requirements for a world cup. Qatar has failed at everything, all of Qatar's bid is complete utter BS. What the heck is real? Nothing! It's based on bs graphic designed videos, pictures, unproven technologies,bs promises and people who aren't even qatari because guess what? Qatar has produced ZERO decent football players. Qatar is a failure and a disgrace to the football world and quite frankly this whole bid is nothing more than an embarrassing joke to show the ego of the Qatari king. It's made a total farce of the world cup bidding process. It's an absolute utter joke, the worst bid in the history of all bids. As I said Timbuktu deserves to host the world cup before Doha aka Qatar aka place with nothing for tourists aka kissing in public will land you in jail aka place that's the richest country on the planet per capita but still doesn't pay it's employees and pretty much holds them as captive slaves, Qatar = total FAIL! (from every point of view)


----------



## Wezza

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Timbuktu ? :lol:. yeah right, It would be very hard for countries to do what *Doha* is doing right now, could they offer stadiums as good as the *Doha* bid ? hardly. We are proud of our nationalized players, do as you like (eg, smash your head on to a wall).
> 
> That last comment was as stupid as the comment that claimed there will be mass arrests in Russia due to the law that prohibits flags in public areas. (laws and rules change with time, its time that you understand that).


Fixed for accuracy.


----------



## amrja

MysteryMike said:


> Buddy wake up:lol: the church was only built two years ago and it's only because the emir is kissing US ass and allowing the HQ there to bomb the rest of the middle east.


I'm getting pretty tired of this BS. The Churches have been operating for much, much longer than 2 years ago, with the full knowledge of the State. For as long as I remember, they have been operating out of villas, out of schools, and out of sports halls. The Emir granted them the permeant structures two years ago - not the right to worship, which has been there for much longer. 

As for the Emir "kissing US ass", I call bullshit. The Emir has one of the most balanced policies in the Middle East; while he is allied to the US, he uses that influence to allow him to do a lot of good around the region. This is the man who financed the rebuilding efforts in South Lebanon after the 2006 war, opened the first independent new source in the Middle East (Al Jazeera), and has shifted much aid to Gaza for years now. Nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.



MysteryMike said:


> Qatar's bid is rubbish, if Qatar hosts the world cup then Timbuktu can host the world cup, they've gotten closer to qualifying with an actual football team that's from their country unlike Qatar. BTW I didn't put this before but I wonder how many people are interested in going to jail for making out with their partner during the football world cup.


WTF do you have against Qatar? Seriously, did you get bullied there as a child or something? If you don't like their bid that's completely your choice and right, but why do you feel the need to attack them left, right and centre?

And i'm pretty sure that should the WC happen, a lot of the country's regulations will be very loosened for the duration.



MysteryMike said:


> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/12/qatar-interfait.html


That is pretty shocking, although I will say two things. First of all, this may (and I emphasize *may*) not be the full story. Second of all, with many cases like this the courts will hand down a sentence and then follow up with an order for it to not be carried out, to make a statement that local values should be respected more than anything. I suspect something similar happened here.

In any case, I completely disagree with this law but the issue here is that the Qatari court does not recognize the validity of their marriage, and not that it does not recognize their freedom to worship. Your original point is still completely false - a Christian, Hindu or whatever can practice their religion in Qatar.


----------



## Mr. Fitz

coth said:


> what's wrong with it?
> 
> he is the man who lead british champions to their title.


He's Russian, I'm a Chelsea fan and I can safely say he's not the most important figure in modern English football, of course he's going to support his own country's bid.


----------



## T74

Things are getting interesting now

Korean bid accuse competing non-asian 2022 bids (hmm who could that be) of creating false rumours of a 2026 China bid to get the USA up for 2022

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33785

and then we have the AFC boss seeming to talk up the China bid for 2026

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...idding-process-under-fire-20101008-16b04.html

then we have rumours of a certain AFC president wanting the top job:

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33787

why do I get the feeling the AFC has no chance of in 2022 at all now, and our own confed boss will be selling us down the river for his own benefit?


----------



## 863552

Hamman is selling us out. :/


----------



## Will737

Blatter ran to Qatr on his knees. deffo tru fakt.


----------



## waqif

Will737 said:


> Blatter ran to Qatr on his knees. deffo tru fakt.


your prime minster was in his office few days ago asking him to vote for Australia I dont see any new news every thing clear since months to Qataris.


----------



## Wezza

That doesn't make sense.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Wezza said:


> That doesn't make sense.


Neither does Mysterymike or Solopop (utter BS)


----------



## Mo Rush

Wezza said:


> So let's get this straight.....
> 
> Lusail National Stadium - *Doha*
> Khalifa International Stadium - *Doha*
> Sports City Stadium - *Doha*
> Al-Kahwr Stadium - Al Khor
> Al-Shamal Stadium - Ash Shamal
> Al-Wakrah Stadium - Al Wakrah
> Umm Salal Stadium - Umm Salal (15km north of Doha)
> Doha Port Stadium - *Doha*
> Education City Stadium - *Doha*
> Al-Gharafa Stadium - *Doha*
> Al Rayyan Stadium - Al Rayyan
> Qatar University Stadium - *Doha*
> 
> 7 stadiums within Doha itself. You've gotta be kidding me! Is this some kind of joke? :lol:


Its called blind nationalism.

Thing is, Qatar_son is clearly not dumb or uninformed, its blind nationalism that results in somebody looking at the list convincing themselves of something thats impossible.


----------



## RobH

It's difficult, not impossible I'd say. But it does fly in the face of the rules all the other bids have to abide by, and probably wouldn't result in a very exciting world cup either for TV or travelling fans.

Can they do it; at a real stretch.

Should other 2022 bids be ignored in favour of this one; I hope not, personally.


----------



## Mo Rush

Its impossible by FIFA rules and host city contracts. Unless these contracts have changed.


----------



## RobH

Well exactly.

Logistically though, it's not impossible; just very difficult, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## MysteryMike

JYDA said:


> Since the expansion of the world cup to 32 teams the three worst showings have all been by teams from one confederation...... Asia! The only confederation that has sent teams to the world cup that were disgracefully uncompetitive.
> 
> 2002: China 0 pts, -9 GD
> 2002: Saudi Arabia 0 pts, -12 GD
> 2010: North Korea: 0 pts, -11 GD
> 
> They've also lost three consecutive intercontinental qualification play-offs.


I think North Korea is a very harsh inclusion on that list they got like 9 of those goals scored against them in one game or more accurately in the 2nd half of that game vs Portugal. Obviously something happened to them, otherwise they played good football throughout and done really well against the likes of Brazil. 

As for the recent worst performance ever by any confederation at a world cup well I think CONCACAF covered that well and truly in 2006. 

World Cup 2006
Costa Rica 0 points
Trinidad and Tobago 1 point
United States 1 point

Now that's not just one team being bad, that's the whole confederation being pathetic. I thought even this time the USA were extremely fortunate to end up with 5 points, thanks to fluke goals at the death, otherwise it would've been almost a similar performance for CONCACAF this time.


----------



## slipperydog

Enough of the pissing contest between North America and Asia. The fact is that they are about equal, and should have the same number of World Cup berths and they probably will after the FIFA meeting.


----------



## JYDA

MysteryMike said:


> As for the recent worst performance ever by any confederation at a world cup well I think CONCACAF covered that well and truly in 2006.
> 
> World Cup 2006
> Costa Rica 0 points
> Trinidad and Tobago 1 point
> United States 1 point
> 
> Now that's not just one team being bad, that's the whole confederation being pathetic. I thought even this time the USA were extremely fortunate to end up with 5 points, thanks to fluke goals at the death, otherwise it would've been almost a similar performance for CONCACAF this time.


Yeah, the USA were really "fortunate" when the referee disallowed a clearly valid winner against Slovenia. They had another first half goal wrongly disallowed in the first half against Algeria. 

As for 2006, all but one asian team finished last in their group and none made the round of 16. You conveniently excluded Mexico who made it out of their group that year. Even Trinidad defeated Asia's 5th place team just to get into the tournament.


----------



## Mo Rush

Getting such good vibes from the Russian bid. Nice bid videos. Massive government backing. Catching up every day. Great renders!


----------



## MysteryMike

JYDA said:


> Yeah, the USA were really "fortunate" when the referee disallowed a clearly valid winner against Slovenia. They had another first half goal wrongly disallowed in the first half against Algeria.
> 
> As for 2006, all but one asian team finished last in their group and none made the round of 16. You conveniently excluded Mexico who made it out of their group that year. Even Trinidad defeated Asia's 5th place team just to get into the tournament.


Obviously last minute injury time flukes don't count as fortunate, neither does literally own goals by opposition goalkeepers. USA in no way should have made it out of the group. In 2006, Australia weren't part of Asia however they are now and they did make the round of 16 and only just lost to eventual champions Italy. In the 2002 world cup South Korea made it to the final four. As for defeating Asia's 5th place team, Oceania even achieved that when New Zealand beat Bahrain again to qualify and now word is New Zealand will also join Asia, just as Australia did and they went through undefeated in the world cup, which will further strengthen the Asian Confederation.


----------



## MysteryMike

Mo Rush said:


> Getting such good vibes from the Russian bid. Nice bid videos. Massive government backing. Catching up every day. Great renders!


England had good vibes for the 2006 world cup but then various factors conspired to sink the ship. I can't help but feel that somewhat similar factors may sink the Russian armada this time around.


----------



## Wezza

JYDA said:


> Since the expansion of the world cup to 32 teams the three worst showings have all been by teams from one confederation...... Asia! The only confederation that has sent teams to the world cup that were disgracefully uncompetitive.
> 
> 2002: China 0 pts, -9 GD
> 2002: Saudi Arabia 0 pts, -12 GD
> 2010: North Korea: 0 pts, -11 GD
> 
> *They've also lost three consecutive intercontinental qualification play-offs.*


So what are you all so worried about? The .5 spot has effectively gone to another confederation if that's the case.

Time to cut back CONCACAF's spots, the only teams that are half decent are the yanks & Mexico. :cheers:

P.S. Why are we talking about this subject here? What does it have to do with the 2018/2022 bids.


----------



## slipperydog

Wezza said:


> Time to cut back CONCACAF's spots, the only teams that are half decent are the yanks & Mexico. :cheers:


If USA and Mexico are considered "half decent", then Asia must be abysmal. Who would they put up against USA and Mexico? South Korea, Japan, Australia? Give me a break.


----------



## _X_

Obviously this argument could go on and on but its not relevant to discuss cutting back the WC competition from 32 teams to 20 as its got zero to do with this thread.
I thought I killed it a few pages ago but knucklehead wants to keep discussing it.Take your 1950's hair brain idea to another forum mate

End rant


----------



## hngcm

Wezza said:


> So what are you all so worried about? The .5 spot has effectively gone to another confederation if that's the case.
> 
> Time to cut back CONCACAF's spots, the only teams that are half decent are the yanks & Mexico. :cheers:
> 
> P.S. Why are we talking about this subject here? What does it have to do with the 2018/2022 bids.


As opposed to Asia that has zero decent teams...

Mexico and the USA have beaten decent teams in meaningful tournaments, not in friendly games played at home 10,000 miles away from the other country.


----------



## mattec

hngcm said:


> As opposed to Asia that has zero decent teams...
> 
> Mexico and the USA have beaten decent teams in meaningful tournaments, not in friendly games played at home 10,000 miles away from the other country.


South Korea is pretty good


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> That doesn't seem like a very fair comparison. South America has 10 members in it's association and Uruguay, Chile and Brazil were in the top 4 teams during qualification for the world cup and they went onto do really well, whereas Asia has 46 teams and China, Indonesia, UAE and Oman were all no where near even qualifying for the world cup. If you want to do comparisons, I guess you'd have to use the nations that actually qualified such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and perhaps North Korea. As far as those results go in recent times, all I know is.
> 
> Japan 1 Argentina 0
> Australia 1 Paraguay 0
> 
> Football in Asia is well and truly coming up and to assist that development the world cup in 2022 should be held in the Asian Confederation (as long as Europe wins the 2018 bid of course ).


So it's like I said, *ASIA HAS ONLY THREE COMPETITIVE TEAMS, WHILE SOUTH AMERICA HAS EIGHT!.* Who wins?.


----------



## _X_

MOVE ON ALREADY


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> I think North Korea is a very harsh inclusion on that list they got like 9 of those goals scored against them in one game or more accurately in the 2nd half of that game vs Portugal. Obviously something happened to them, otherwise they played good football throughout and done really well against the likes of Brazil.
> 
> As for the recent worst performance ever by any confederation at a world cup well I think CONCACAF covered that well and truly in 2006.
> 
> World Cup 2006
> Costa Rica 0 points
> Trinidad and Tobago 1 point
> United States 1 point
> 
> Now that's not just one team being bad, that's the whole confederation being pathetic. I thought even this time the USA were extremely fortunate to end up with 5 points, thanks to fluke goals at the death, otherwise it would've been almost a similar performance for CONCACAF this time.


We are talking about Conmebol!. Concacaf is weaker than Conmebol!.


----------



## Bolsilludo

_X_ said:


> MOVE ON ALREADY


You have a lot of envy of us my friend, A LOT!. When you win a world cup we can talk seriously.


----------



## Will737

FYI CONMEBOL'S ***** IS BIGGER THAN CONCACAF'S!


----------



## SkyCA

Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!!Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!!


----------



## Wezza

slipperydog said:


> If USA and Mexico are considered "half decent", then Asia must be abysmal. Who would they put up against USA and Mexico? South Korea, Japan, Australia? Give me a break.





hngcm said:


> As opposed to Asia that has zero decent teams...
> 
> Mexico and the USA have beaten decent teams in meaningful tournaments, not in friendly games played at home 10,000 miles away from the other country.


----------



## slipperydog

Whatever bro. Not interested in a debate. We know we're better. G'day. :wave:

Anyway, so how bout those bids everyone?


----------



## Will737

slipperydog said:


> Whatever bro. Not interested in a debate. We know we're better. G'day. :wave:


Bitch, please.


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## Wezza

slipperydog said:


> Whatever bro. Not interested in a debate. We know we're better. G'day. :wave:
> 
> Anyway, so how bout those bids everyone?


:lol:


----------



## MoreOrLess

_X_ said:


> Obviously this argument could go on and on but its not relevant to discuss cutting back the WC competition from 32 teams to 20 as its got zero to do with this thread.
> I thought I killed it a few pages ago but knucklehead wants to keep discussing it.Take your 1950's hair brain idea to another forum mate
> 
> End rant


There are legit arguements to be made agenst that idea and as I said I doubt it will happen but you certainly didnt provide any of them. You just started ranting and raving about South American "taking away" spots(which started this whole debate) when in reality my suggestion did nothing of the sort since they would lose places aswell then tried to justify it with a couple of friendly results.

There really can be no debate for me as reguards world cup spots, CONCACAF clearly have far too many and the crimal Jack Warner being Blatters croney is likely one of the reasons, two decent nations with 3 1/2 spots is just a joke. The AFC isnt as bad as you have 3 decent nations with 4 spots but its still at least 1 more than you should have.

When you see a european team on the same kind of level as Japan, the US, Mexico, Australia at the world cup(say Croatia, Denmark, Sweden etc) that side is more likely going to have to have out performed either a massive nation or at the very least 1-2 of a similar standard to qualify.

In CONCACAF or the AFC though those teams only need to out perform minnows and indeed one of the minnows gets a garneteed WC spot by out performing other minnows.


----------



## MysteryMike

I thought Australia beat Uruguay to qualify for the world cup in 2006. Are you calling Uruguay a minnow?


----------



## Wezza

MoreOrLess said:


> There are legit arguements to be made agenst that idea and as I said I doubt it will happen but you certainly didnt provide any of them. You just started ranting and raving about South American "taking away" spots(which started this whole debate) when in reality my suggestion did nothing of the sort since they would lose places aswell then tried to justify it with a couple of friendly results.
> 
> There really can be no debate for me as reguards world cup spots, CONCACAF clearly have far too many and the crimal Jack Warner being Blatters croney is likely one of the reasons, two decent nations with 3 1/2 spots is just a joke. The AFC isnt as bad as you have 3 decent nations with 4 spots but its still at least 1 more than you should have.
> 
> When you see a european team on the same kind of level as Japan, the US, Mexico, Australia at the world cup(say Croatia, Denmark, Sweden etc) that side is more likely going to have to have out performed either a massive nation or at the very least 1-2 of a similar standard to qualify.
> 
> In CONCACAF or the AFC though those teams only need to out perform minnows and indeed one of the minnows gets a garneteed WC spot by out performing other minnows.


It's called the World Cup for a reason. Not Europe/South America plus a couple of other teams cup. It's fine how it is. Maybe shift the .5 spots from AFC & CONCACAF to other confederations.


----------



## waqif

Bolsilludo said:


> You have a lot of envy of us my friend, A LOT!. When you win a world cup we can talk seriously.


true South America is much better and Asia need long years to win it is first world cup.

here top 5 Asian teams as wining the cups

1 Saudi Arabia - 3 AFC Cup - 4 Qualify to WorldCup
2 Japan - 3 AFC Cup - 4 Qualify to WorldCup
3 Iran - 3 AFC Cup - 3 Qualify to WorldCup
4 S. Korea - 2 AFC CUP - 8 Qualify to WorldCup (too many Qualifies but only 2 old AFC cups)
5 Iraq - 1 AFC Cup - 1 Qualify to Worldcup


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> true South America is much better and Asia need long years to win it is first world cup.
> 
> here top 5 Asian teams as wining the cups
> 
> 1 Saudi Arabia - 3 AFC Cup - 4 Qualify to WorldCup
> 2 Japan - 3 AFC Cup - 4 Qualify to WorldCup
> 3 Iran - 3 AFC Cup - 3 Qualify to WorldCup
> 4 S. Korea - 2 AFC CUP - 8 Qualify to WorldCup (too many Qualifies but only 2 old AFC cups)
> 5 Iraq - 1 AFC Cup - 1 Qualify to Worldcup


No Qatar?


----------



## MysteryMike

Here I was thinking FIFA already done the work of evaluating who the top teams were in the Confederation. 

*Australia ranked No 24 
Japan ranked No 30
South Korea ranked No 44*

I can't be bothered looking at the next page but they include others such as Doha ranked at 104.


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> No Qatar?


sure Qatar maybe we never win any cups only Asia Golden Medal


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> sure Qatar maybe we never win any cups only Asia Golden Medal


Sounds important.


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Here I was thinking FIFA already done the work of evaluating who the top teams were in the Confederation.
> 
> *Australia ranked No 24
> Japan ranked No 30
> South Korea ranked No 44*
> 
> I can't be bothered looking at the next page but they include others such as Doha ranked at 104.


Australia ?? well what i knew this country is new in Asia 
Also whos talking here about Doha or Australia ?

Doha has no cups and Australia has nothing

maybe Qatar can win AFC Cup 2011 when they host it
and Australia win it is first AFC Cup in 2015 they host

Fifa ranking !!!
i was remeber when Saudi Qualified to Round 16 in WC 1994 they becomes in Fifa Top 10 
Alos when South Korea Qualified to WC Round 4 they becomes in Fifa Top 10


----------



## MysteryMike

is that like the stars that little kids get in preschool so they got at least something to show?


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> Australia ?? Asia well what i knew this country is new in Asia
> Also whos talking here about Doha or Australia ?
> 
> Doha has no cups and Australia has nothing
> 
> *maybe Qatar can win AFC Cup 2011 when they host it*
> and Australia win it is first AFC Cup in 2015 they host


Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, Qatar will not win the Asian Cup anytime soon.


----------



## Will737

waqif said:


> Australia ?? well what i knew this country is new in Asia
> Also whos talking here about Doha or Australia ?
> 
> Doha has no cups and Australia has nothing
> 
> maybe Qatar can win AFC Cup 2011 when they host it
> and Australia win it is first AFC Cup in 2015 they host


This post should have a warning sign on it as reading it will either make you shit yourself laughing, spend days staring at your screen trying to figure out what it says and it will definatly decrease your average IQ.


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, Qatar will not win the Asian Cup anytime soon.


why are you wizard ? or maybe you suggest your country as our south american friend said when you win any cup come talk new comer


----------



## Will737

waqif said:


> why are you wizard ? or maybe you suggest your country as our south american friend said when you win any cup come talk new comer


Mind numbing. You must be a BSD multi. What are your views on crustaceans?


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> *why are you wizard ?* or maybe you suggest your country as our south american friend said when you win any cup come talk new comer


No, i'm just a realist.

What has Qatar won again? Come back & talk when you have won something....... Anything!


----------



## Will737

Wezza said:


> No, i'm just a realist.
> 
> What has Qatar won again? Come back & talk when you have won something....... Anything!



they has asian gamez gold medal!!11!! with this they kan win Wc!!!11!


----------



## Wezza

Will737 said:


> they has asian gamez gold medal!!11!! with this they kan win Wc!!!11!


What's an asian games?


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> No, i'm just a realist.
> 
> What has Qatar won again? Come back & talk when you have won something....... Anything!


Qatar still holding Asia Golden Medal 2006
Qatar won Youth World Cup Silver Medal in (Australia 1981) 

we never said to South American people we are better than you !!
and we didnt speak in Asia name like the new comer !!

sorry but your team is a bit better than this small country Qatar

you need such 25 years to be with Asia heros

Saudi Arabia
Japan
Iran
S. Korea
Iraq


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> FIFA says otherwise


Did you read what i wrote a few minutes ago?.



Bolsilludo said:


> World cup matches give a lot of points for the FIFA ranking, even if all the matches you play end in a draw. Ecuador don't play an important match since the 2010 world cup qualifiers. That's the reason why New Zealand is in a better position than Ecuador.


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> Did you read what i write a few minutes ago?.


You mean wrote? What does that matter? FIFA have the final say in who is what ranking. If Equador actually versed New Zealand, I'm sure Equador would get beaten on current form.

New Zealand drew with Paraguay in the world cup, they drew with Italy and they drew with Slovakia. 
They beat Serbia before the world cup, all these nations are ranked higher than New Zealand but they did draw against them/beat them and it's not like New Zealand play some sort of system like 6-4-0 or something, they play an attacking 4-3-3 system, which sometimes even changes into a 3-4-3 system. Equador on the other hand, I know love to park the bus, and quite simply they are nowhere near these other nations, the last time I heard anything about Equador, it involved a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of Brazil.


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> You mean wrote? What does that matter? FIFA have the final say in who is what ranking. If Equador actually versed New Zealand, I'm sure Equador would get beaten on current form.
> 
> New Zealand drew with Paraguay in the world cup, they drew with Italy and they drew with Slovakia.
> They beat Serbia before the world cup, all these nations are ranked higher than New Zealand but they did draw against them/beat them and it's not like New Zealand play some sort of system like 6-4-0 or something, they play an attacking 4-3-3 system, which sometimes even changes into a 3-4-3 system. Equador on the other hand, I know love to park the bus, and quite simply they are nowhere near these other nations, the last time I heard anything about Equador, it involved a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of Brazil.


Oh my god!, I'm shaking. New Zealand... the next world cup champion. Give me a break!.


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> Oh my god!, I'm shaking. New Zealand... the next world cup champion. Give me a break!.


I said they'd probably beat Equador, South America have been playing the game for how long? It's the most popular sport in almost every nation there, New Zealand on the other hand, football is probably the neglected step child of New Zealand sport. But now with the performance at the world cup, the tide is turning and New Zealand has every chance of turning into a powerful footballing nation.


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> I said they'd probably beat Equador, South America have been playing the game for how long? It's the most popular sport in almost every nation there, New Zealand on the other hand, football is probably the neglected step child of New Zealand sport. But now with the performance at the world cup, the tide is turning and New Zealand has every chance of turning into a powerful footballing nation.


They are a rugby power, but in football they have a long way to go my dear friend.


----------



## T74

NZ did well for what they have, but a powerful football nation?


On NZ wanting to move over, the rationale is probably similar to what Australia had. In Oceania you don't get any decent matches to condition your team before the do or die elimination against the other confed. Basically means your team don't play together properly until the last two games of your qualification process

Also agree Oceania is a joke. Personally I'd merge them into Asia, and them split Asia in half (mid-east/central & south Asia for one confed, Oceania, SE and East Asia the other)


----------



## Bolsilludo

^^ I'm totally agree with you.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Bolsilludo said:


> Come on!, Italy played in South Africa one of its worst world cups. And Boca Juniors, what can i say about Boca Juniors?. Nowadays they are in the eleventh position of the argentine league.


However, Italy still remain a big power in European football. If they played in South Africa one of its worst world cups, it's only their personal problems. I was not bored of New Zealand's play.

During WC2006 I watched matches of Trinidad & Tobago team. They made draw with Sweden and England was not able to scored them during 80 minutes. Really, during this match vs. England I don't regret that Trinidad&Tobago played in WC.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Australia look good at previous WC2006 and lose in 1/8 final by future champions (Italians) only at last minutes due to dubious penalty. At WC2010 Australians look better than France, Greece or Italy. Therefore I'm sure that such region must be represent in World Cups.


----------



## Bolsilludo

AlekseyVT said:


> However, Italy still remain a big power in European football. If they played in South Africa one of its worst world cups, it's only their personal problems. I was not bored of New Zealand's play.
> 
> During WC2006 I watched matches of Trinidad & Tobago team. They made draw with Sweden and England was not able to scored them during 80 minutes. Really, during this match vs. England I don't regret that Trinidad&Tobago played in WC.


Sometimes these situations happen, but ultimately the best always win.
That's the reason because almost always the world champions are the same.


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> Sometimes these situations happen, but ultimately the best always win.
> That's the reason because almost always the world champions are the same.


Anyway bloke time to move one
The wonderful thing about the WC is its diversity between confederations.Is the standard higher in the UCL,most likely,Euro maybe but this is the WC and some parts of this world are going thru a big growth phase compared to the established markets

I'm sure we'd all be supporting a combined Argie/Uru bid for 2030.


----------



## _X_

AlekseyVT said:


> Australia look good at previous WC2006 and lose in 1/8 final by future champions (Italians) only at last minutes due to dubious penalty. At WC2010 Australians look better than France, Greece or Italy. Therefore I'm sure that such region must be represent in World Cups.


Thanks for your mature,worldly opinion


----------



## Bolsilludo

_X_ said:


> Anyway bloke time to move one
> The wonderful thing about the WC is its diversity between confederations.Is the standard higher in the UCL,most likely,Euro maybe but this is the WC and some parts of this world are going thru a big growth phase compared to the established markets
> 
> I'm sure we'd all be supporting a combined Argie/Uru bid for 2030.


Don't get me wrong, I am glad that countries like Australia and New Zealand grow. But I think they still have long way to go, especially New Zealand.


----------



## MoreOrLess

MysteryMike said:


> Yeah Australia were in Oceania, which probably further stamps the point. New Zealand are also planning on joining the Asian Confederation. 75% of the world's population resides in Asia, so I don't know what kind of growth you're talking about but clearly it can't be anything in the real world. Football has well and truly developed in Europe and South America. Asia is football's growth zone and that is exactly why Asia will get more spots in future world cups, to reflect the population demographics of the world. Asia's football is also coming up in leaps and bounds to reflect the demographics of the region.


Perhaps we should just forget about qualifying altogether and base it purely on population stats then? 32 biggest nations qualify and forget about the rest even if there far superior?

Trust me theres alot of room for football to grow in eastern Europe and South America, Russia being in South Africa last summer instead of North Korea or Costa Rica would obviously have been far better for the game and a much truer reflection of achievement.

As I said I think "growing the game" is just cover to Blatter giving out qualifying spots to his cronies like Jack Warner.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Bolsilludo said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am glad that countries like Australia and New Zealand grow. But I think they still have long way to go, especially New Zealand.


Of course, there are lot of football teams who have long way to go for WC medals, not speaking about WC title (including Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Japan, etc.). But for play at WC and don't be boys for beating - Australia and New Zealand don't have such way.


----------



## Trelawny

_X_ said:


> Yet they were the only unbeaten team at this years WC and gave us some great moments including
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NZ=49
> Equador=72


^^Probably the worst game I have ever seen in a world cup.

This is the reason why Ecuador didn't qualify. And Uruguay did well in the world cup. These great teams shouldn't be fighting for their lives to be in the tournament.While new Zealand plays mickey mouse countries to get in, shame.


----------



## The Gazmon

People are forgetting that this is a 'World' Cup, it's a representation of the world, not just the 'best' countries in the world. It's a collection of the best countries in their respective regions, of the world.

NZ earned their right to be there, regardless of rankings Oceania get 0.5 spots for how many teams? Over 10. South America get 4.5 for 10-teams, is that fair? In terms of proportional representation, no. In terms of footballing pedigree, then yes.

What about North Korea? They were the lowest ranking side ever to compete in the World Cup, so should they not be there? They earned their place, FIFA gave the AFC 4.5 spots and it's the AFC's decision to decide them as they see fit.

If you truely wanted the best teams in the world at the tournament then you'd not both about qualifiers and just have the top-31 teams qualify, plus the host nation; hardly a true representation of the global game.


----------



## Bolsilludo

Trelawny said:


> ^^Probably the worst game I have ever seen in a world cup.
> 
> This is the reason why Ecuador didn't qualify. And Uruguay did well in the world cup. These great teams shouldn't be fighting for their lives to be in the tournament.While new Zealand plays mickey mouse countries to get in, shame.


^^ What a match!, how to forget it.


----------



## Bolsilludo

The Gazmon said:


> People are forgetting that this is a 'World' Cup, it's a representation of the world, not just the 'best' countries in the world. It's a collection of the best countries in their respective regions, of the world.
> 
> NZ earned their right to be there, regardless of rankings Oceania get 0.5 spots for how many teams? Over 10. South America get 4.5 for 10-teams, is that fair? In terms of proportional representation, no. In terms of footballing pedigree, then yes.
> 
> What about North Korea? They were the lowest ranking side ever to compete in the World Cup, so should they not be there? They earned their place, FIFA gave the AFC 4.5 spots and it's the AFC's decision to decide them as they see fit.
> 
> If you truely wanted the best teams in the world at the tournament then you'd not both about qualifiers and just have the top-31 teams qualify, plus the host nation; hardly a true representation of the global game.


The question is, should Conmebol keep 4.5 spots for the next world cups?. The answer is, of course YES!.
The number of teams in a world cup is finite. I don't care at all if you want more spots, but don't take them from us!.


----------



## Walbanger

Wait, what?
No one wants to take away the .5 from CONMEBOL


----------



## _X_

woozoo said:


> _x_, are you not concerned about this?


Quote:
_China's federation said in July it wants to host in 2026 -- a potential campaign that could prompt FIFA to keep Asia in the game by going to the U.S. four years earlier._ 



Nup,not one bit.AFC ExCo's have already proven that its never been said.Chung flew right off about it the other day basically accusing the USA of fabricating the story as its the only thing they can hang their hat on.

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33785


> FIFA vice president and Korean football leader Chung Mung-joon has launched a withering attack on the country’s 2022 World Cup bid rivals, suggesting they have waged a dirty tricks campaign for which they “definitely deserve a yellow card, if not red".
> 
> Speaking at the Leaders in Football conference in London, Chung said there was a “lingering suspicion” that a rival bid had deliberately taken out of context China’s desire to run for the 2026 tournament to suit its own ends.
> 
> Chung said that Chinese FA head Wei Di had denied to Asian Football Confederation colleagues quotes attributed to him in the Chinese state media in July, in which he entertained plans for a bid to host the 2026 finals.


China had exactly the same chance as everyone 18 months ago to ACTUALLY BID.As you'd be aware they have extreme problems with their FA-some of the worst of the 208 FIFA members




> Gambling, match-fixing, crooked referees and poor performances by the national team have made the sport the laughing stock of fans and a matter of mounting state concern.
> 
> Earlier this month, Chinese police formally arrested the former head of the China Football Association Xie Yalong -- the second CFA boss to be embroiled in a widening graft scandal -- and other top football officials.


http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...on-late-chinese-surrender-20101013-16i4t.html

Regarding 2026 the Americans,in a unique situation because of the rotation lineup will be awarded 2026 uncontested anyway.Its only 1360 days more .Compare this to Australia-Frank Lowy has already said we will not bid against China,so this is most likely our only realistic bid in my lifetime.Quite hard to take when I think about it


----------



## Bolsilludo

slipperydog said:


> Well if they don't get it this time around, Aussie will certainly be able to get another crack at it in 2026 won't they? Obviously you would have to hope China doesn't bid, because they would be a virtual lock, but if they don't I'd say Aussie has a great shot against Africa. *South America is probably holding out for that stupid centennial thing that is destined to fail abysmally.*


Watch your words brother!. Who laughs last, laughs best!.


----------



## JimB

USP said:


> I could hardly imagine that FIFA will give the right to host next two World Cup's to english speaking countries at once... sorryee =) England18/Australia22 or England18/USA22 - world won't get it. The last couple sounds improbable to me. That's the reason why Chicago quit the race for 2016 Summer Olympics. The only contries standing a better chances for 2022 are Australia and USA. Japan and Korea hosted WC just 8 years ago. It is still too early each for them to bid for the next WC. Qatar... that project was a joke from the beginning. maybe once they will be allowed to host Olympics as well as Singapore (i believe that) but never World Cup. and you know... arab states... alcohol is banned... no beer... no vodka... all girls wear black burkas... that's not a football atmosphere at all.
> 
> *So I think Spain and Portugal have best chances for 2018*. And Australia - for 2022. I also don't disregard my country. Owing to different sport venues, we will exactly have 6 top-class stadiums by the beginning of 2014 (3 in Moscow), 1 in Saint-Petersburg, 1 in Kazan and 1 in Sochi. The goal for the government is to built stadiums just in 5 other cities. That mission is possible.


Of all the European bids, I would say that Spain / Portugal have the least chance of success at the moment.

They can offer by far the best collection of stadiums but they can only do so as a joint bid. And my impression is that FIFA would ideally prefer single nation bids. I'm also quite certain that most UEFA countries would prefer a single nation bid - because the more hosts from UEFA, the less qualifying places from UEFA.

The fact that Portugal will only be providing 3 of the stadiums (2 in one city) is a further black mark against the bid. At least Japan and South Korea were equal partners in terms of stadiums and cities used. Given that Spain hosted the World Cup as recently as 1982 and that they could easily host on their own again, the perception is that they have only included Portugal in their bid in order to be able to counter the inevitable claims from their competitors that it isn't Spain's turn. And that might not go down well with FIFA delegates.

At the moment, I think it's too close to call between England and Russia. Who knows - maybe Holland / Belgium could be the dark horse which makes the last minute dash to the line? But Spain / Portugal will really have to wow the FIFA delegates if they are to overcome the inherent weakness of theirs being a "joint" bid that very heavily favours one country (that has hosted the World Cup relatively recently) over the other.


----------



## slipperydog

_X_ said:


> Nup,not one bit.AFC ExCo's have already proven that its never been said.Chung flew right off about it the other day basically accusing the USA of fabricating the story as its the only thing they can hang their hat on.


Whatever helps you sleep at night. Believe what you want regarding China. No one actually knows, including myself, whether any of it is true. It's definitely something to consider though. All I'm saying is that passing on Asia this time around protects FIFA. Austrlia and Qatar are welcome to bid in 2026 as a back-up in case China doesn't bid.



> Compare this to Australia-Frank Lowy has already said we will not bid against China,so this is most likely our only realistic bid in my lifetime.Quite hard to take when I think about it


Plenty of soccer fans around the world live in countries that will never host a World Cup. So they go themselves. That's why we invented jumbo jets. I sure as hell am not waiting around until for the World Cup to come to my country to go to one. Damn dude, you're acting as if the world would end...Actually you might be right, none of this really matters, since no tournament will make it past 2012. :devil:


----------



## RobH

Sounds like the shit might be hitting the fan if this is true:

*Two Fifa officials offer to sell votes in contest to host 2018 World Cup, Sunday Times alleges*

From the BBC News Ticker....more coming soon I'm sure...


----------



## RobH

For any Brits reading this, BBC Radio 5Live will be discussing these accusations at 10PM tonight. Sounds like the Times are going big with this tomorrow morning.


----------



## RobH

News trickling out, but now top news on the BBC:

_*Two Fifa officials are alleged to have offered to sell their votes in the contest to host the 2018 World Cup, according to a Sunday Times report.*

The newspaper claims Nigerian Amos Adamu, a Fifa executive committee member, asked for £500,000 for a "personal project", against Fifa rules.

And Oceania Football Confederation president Reynald Temarii, wanted money for a sports academy for his vote.

Fifa will decide the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups on 2 December.

More to follow._

Link


----------



## coth

That's a numerous allegation from Britain. If this turn out to be yet again fake Britain would have an only option - to withdraw from WC2018.


----------



## RobH

Very funny


----------



## SouthmoreAvenue

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but doesn't it make sense now to create seperate a FIFA WC Bid Thread for 2018 and a different one for 2022? I mean a lot of nations have canceled their bids for 2018, and are soley focusing on 2022, yet it doesn't make sense to discuss them in a thread that involves 2 seperate events. 

Europe is getting 2018, so 2022 bids are better discussed in a different thread, no?
(I know most, if not all, nations do have their own individual threads, but if we are to rationally compare them to other bids, the only thread to do so is this one; which, like I said, makes no sense since it considers 2 seperate WC's)


----------



## MoreOrLess

This is the Times not an FA private text message to a mistress, I'd be supprized if they didnt have pretty sound evidense to back it up.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

coth said:


> That's a numerous allegation from Britain. If this turn out to be yet again fake Britain would have an only option - to withdraw from WC2018.


I don't see why. It's not as if the claim is that particular countries are using bribes to get votes. It's also not the FA making the allegation.


Germany got the 2006 world cup on the back of faked bribes, and no action was taken.


Of course the big problem now is that it might put delegates off an England bid. The exposure will have cost a few the possibility of a luxury retirement home, and they won't forget that.



MoreOrLess said:


> This is the Times not an FA private text message to a mistress, I'd be supprized if they didnt have pretty sound evidense to back it up.


The newspaper has video footage in which Nigerian Amos Adamu, a Fifa executive committee member, appears to ask for £500,000.

In the video, Adamu was asked whether the money for a "private project" would have an effect on the way he voted, he replied: "Obviously, it will have an effect. Of course it will. Because certainly if you are to invest in that, that means you also want the vote." 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9099326.stm


----------



## Gondolier

RobH said:


> Yep, that's how I _feel_ about 2022 as well - I'd rather the US waited longer and FIFA gave the Ozzies a chance. I'm a total hyporcrite in wanting England 2018 instead of Russia though, who have never hosted before, but that's just the way of these things. You support your home team. :lol:
> 
> Slipperydog, "the USA is a technically superior bid in virtually every aspect", but it will _always be_, and - along with having hosted recenty in 1994 - that's its biggest problem right there. This isn't like the Olympic bid process where the IOC grabs the iron while its hot, knowing a chance might not come again because a city might not have the appetite. FIFA knows the USA will bid until they win (why wouldn't they - they've not nothing to lose and everything to gain?) and they know _everytime_ they bid they will offer all the things you've listed. Bypassing the US in 2022 in favour of Australia may well suit them, and they'll know the USA will almost certainly be back another time with a similarly excellent bid.


But why? 3 southern hermisphere WCs (OK, broken in 2018) in almost a row??? And then, Oz is a what? 25 million market. The US (plus neighboring Canada and Mexico) presents a 400-million market right there. 

Why should FIFA wait another 4 years? 

You can probably hold an Olympics in a 10-million country...but you can't hold the men's World Cup in a country (outside of Europe and No. America) smaller than RSA's 49.5 million.


----------



## 863552

^
You're a fool. Australia's key market area is over two billion people. :lol:


----------



## Gondolier

Solopop said:


> ^
> You're a fool. Australia's key market area is over two billion people. :lol:


U mean 2 billion kangaroos, koalas and platypi of course.


----------



## Lord David

Gondolier said:


> U mean 2 billion kangaroos, koalas and platypi of course.


He meant Asia. Expect plenty of tourists from Asia to come to an Australian WC.

Expect the die hard fans from all over to come to Australia and support their team.

Don't expect 2 billion, that's being a bit silly (though yes, he was referring to the potential market), but expect a considerable amount of fans coming over.


----------



## Wezza

slipperydog said:


> Well, let's see:
> 
> 1) more ticket sales due to larger stadiums
> *2) 25 million foreign-born residents*
> 3) top-notch security and infrastructure
> 4) more lucrative television contract due to better time zone for European viewing
> 5) tap into continued growth in the passion for soccer for a massive population
> 6) track record of excellent '94 legacy
> 7) no potential of a competing variety of football league matches and stadiums during the summer
> 8) gives FIFA flexibility of being able to host it in China in 2026 should they decide to put forth a bid (if not Aussie would still be a great back-up choice at this time)
> 
> Again though, while the USA is a technically superior bid in virtually every aspect, there is something to be said for a first-time host. Australia has to pin their hopes on this.


You make some good points. But number 2 was a bit bewildering, not sure what that has to do with anything to be honest.



Gondolier said:


> U mean 2 billion kangaroos, koalas and platypi of course.


You clearly don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## T74

Gondolier said:


> U mean 2 billion kangaroos, koalas and platypi of course.


your numbers are somewhat off

while Australia does have roughly 60 million kangaroos, the other two species are in a very different position

there are around 100,000 koalas in the wild, and while they are thriving in Victoria, their status is close to endangered in the other states (ranging from threatened to rare)

Platypus are rarer (only in the low thousands), but this is more due to their limited availability of food and suitable habitat

saying Australia is a funny zoo full of strange animals is as dumb as saying the USA is full of Paris Hilton wanna-bes who want to nuke commies


----------



## Will737

Gondolier said:


> U mean 2 billion kangaroos, koalas and platypi of course.











hno: What a stupid, childish and downright idiotic comment.


----------



## _X_

Gondolier said:


> But why? 3 southern hermisphere WCs (OK, broken in 2018) in almost a row??? And then, Oz is a what? 25 million market. The US (plus neighboring Canada and Mexico) presents a 400-million market right there.
> 
> Why should FIFA wait another 4 years?
> 
> You can probably hold an Olympics in a 10-million country...but you can't hold the men's World Cup in a country (outside of Europe and No. America) smaller than RSA's 49.5 million.


Oh dear

Try 4,688,000,000 in 2022------PRIMETIME
And all of Europe and the UK in daylight hours including 54 matches(all the big ones) after midday at worst
Very compelling

Can't get that anywhere else but Japan and Korea and we all agree that neither will win hosting rights this time around

Only an Australasian in its centennial year win can offer such incredible football legacy to FIFA that will surely smash the global cumulative viewing total thru the 70 billion mark and offer such powerful returns for all its sponsors.The amazing TV rights that would follow would be truly mind boggling
Not only that ,the AFC would offer an extra chance for China to qualify 4 years earlier than any unsubstantiated suggestions of interest in 2026
Make no mistake-we will bid once only as has been confirmed.It is now or never for us,we won't be bidding against a totally corrupt Chinese FA bid
On the other hand,the USA ,in a unique set of circumstances can and will get hosting rights just 4 years later in 2026-uncontested


----------



## The Game Is Up

RobH said:


> No European countries will able to bid for 2026 under FIFA's current rules. Unless you know something we don't Russia will not be involved in that vote and nor would Poland or Turkey.


Up the Aussies, then? 

Hmmm...assuming they don't change those rules, I would have to think that one a bit further. There has to emerge some real competition for what would still be a (potentially) lucrative proposition. After all, there were votes for Morocco in 1988. Maybe Mexico would put in a bid to make it more interesting. Perhaps Venezuela would bid just out of spite.


----------



## hngcm

Wezza said:


> Who says we would be unopposed? That's a pretty naive thing to say.


People say the USA would be unopposed for 2026 so the same must be true for OZ!

China 2026.


----------



## T74

hngcm said:


> People say the USA would be unopposed for 2026 so the same must be true for OZ!
> 
> China 2026.


USA would basically be unopposed

your only chance of a competing bid would be from Africa or North America (assuming Uruguay/Argentina are intent on 2030)

This means your competition is likely to be Mexico or Morocco, and that assuming they even bid (Mexico withdrew very early in this process)

If Asia is up for 2026, within Asia alone you would expect bids from China, at least one from the mid east, and possibly Japan and/or Korea again


----------



## _X_

hngcm said:


> People say the USA would be unopposed for 2026 so the same must be true for OZ!
> 
> China 2026.












Can you PLEASE do some research before posting ffs:lol:

A good start 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids
+
-read the whole thread-by then it might be December 2,saving you from further embarassment


----------



## _X_

2018 bid-dark blue
2022 bid-light blue
Cancelled bid-purple
Ineligible in 2018-orange
Ineligible in both-red
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids

Looks like FIFA has already dismissed Doha :lol:


----------



## RobH

Qatar is on there in light blue, can't you see it?


----------



## eomer

woozoo said:


> The reason quality European teams miss out occasionaly, is that they play in a small group where only 1.5 teams prgress, a couple of mistakes results in disaster. Thats said, its very rare for the top European teams to miss out unless they go through a form slump/manger trouble etc during qualifying. But this is evidence that the CONMEBOL system is more fair. More games, played over a longer period of time is a better evaluator of team quality - hence Argentina and Brazil always get through.


Yes, you are right: COMEBOL qualifying system is more fair than European one. But do you really think that it would be possible to do the same thing with 52 teams for only 15 places ? 

It's normal for Spain to play against Andorra or Luxemburg or San Marino but should Spain (or Italy, Germany, Netherlands...) play official match vs Andorra AND Luxembourg AND San Marino AND Liechteinstein AND...? 

And what about teams like Kazahkstan, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Israël, Georgia (I won't say Turkey: that's not the point) that are not in Europe but play in UEFA ?

Do you really think that FIFA should have accepted Faroe Islands or Northern Ireland ? And what about England, Scotland and Wales ?



_X_ said:


> Looks like FIFA has already dismissed Doha


How many cities could host games in Qatar ? 
Qatar seems a bit too small for a FIFA World Cup but why not Olympic Games in Doha ?

So, I think that England is the main favorite for 2018 but Russia can be a surprize.
I don't think combined bid will succeed.

For 2022: Japan and Korea hosted together last WC in Asia (2002). I think they are out for 2022.The choice will be USA vs Australia...the first one allready hosted 1994: so AUSTRALIA will get it. 

Then: Europe 2026 and Uruguay-Argentina 2030.


----------



## slipperydog

So who does everyone think the two bidding nations being investigated for bribery are? I don't really understand what bidding nations would have to do with a bunch of British reporters just trying to dig up dirt on a couple corrupt dudes.


----------



## labytnangi

It is an alternative video for Russia's 2018 World Cup bid. You can learn Russian better and learn each city separately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0MufOiEtrw


----------



## woozoo

eomer said:


> *Yes, you are right: COMEBOL qualifying system is more fair than European one. But do you really think that it would be possible to do the same thing with 52 teams for only 15 places ? *
> 
> It's normal for Spain to play against Andorra or Luxemburg or San Marino but should Spain (or Italy, Germany, Netherlands...) play official match vs Andorra AND Luxembourg AND San Marino AND Liechteinstein AND...?
> 
> And what about teams like Kazahkstan, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, Israël, Georgia (I won't say Turkey: that's not the point) that are not in Europe but play in UEFA ?
> 
> Do you really think that FIFA should have accepted Faroe Islands or Northern Ireland ? And what about England, Scotland and Wales ?
> 
> 
> How many cities could host games in Qatar ?
> Qatar seems a bit too small for a FIFA World Cup but why not Olympic Games in Doha ?
> 
> So, I think that England is the main favorite for 2018 but Russia can be a surprize.
> I don't think combined bid will succeed.
> 
> For 2022: Japan and Korea hosted together last WC in Asia (2002). I think they are out for 2022.The choice will be USA vs Australia...the first one allready hosted 1994: so AUSTRALIA will get it.
> 
> Then: Europe 2026 and Uruguay-Argentina 2030.


I didn't suggest that at all. I was disagreeing with someones suggestion that CONMEBOL be split into two groups of five.


----------



## Gondolier

Tallsmurf said:


> Gondolier - England is not the UK - it is only part of it. Have a look at the bid - it does not include any stadiums in Scotland or Wales.
> 
> In fact the Olympics is the only significant sporting event where UK participate as a single team - maybe because it is primarily about personal success rather than team sports?
> 
> In virtually every other sport the UK participatea as separate nations (not sub-nations - the UK is not a nation it is a state - a multi-nation state similar to former USSR and Yugoslavia).
> 
> The UK is merely a political union - if it should be forced to play as one united team, then why not have a single EU team?


Duh! The United Nations does NOT recognize Scotland, Wales & No, Ireland as separate, sovereign NATIONS!! Does the US, RUssia, China, Abu Dhabi, etc., have separate relations with Scotland, Wales & NI? Do they have separate embassies in the world capitals? They are divisions that exist *only in the British mind *-- and which they have brainwashed the rest of your Commonwealth lackeys to 'accept.' 

Every other sport? Not in swimming; not in volleyball; not by the ISU...and I am sure many others. 

They are an ARTIFICIAL creation only recognized in the unreal world of SOME sports.


----------



## Tallsmurf

..While Northern Ireland is arguably an artificial creation, Wales and Scotland are most definetly not - check your history books (if you can read).

It is an anomaly which may be corrected soon in any case - being forced to accept a common UK sports team could be the final wedge that breaks the UK apart


----------



## eomer

Gondolier said:


> Duh! The United Nations does NOT recognize Scotland, Wales & No, Ireland as separate, sovereign NATIONS!!


About British Islands, there are two possibilities:
- Considering the rule "one country, one team", FIFA should recognise UK and Eire (just like Olympic International Commitee does)
- Considering the rule "one nation, one team", FIFA should reconize England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (just like International Rugby Board does).

==> In both ways, Northern Ireland should not exist.


----------



## RobH

> They are divisions that exist only in the British mind


Since you're the only one continuing with this point, it seems that's not the case.


----------



## Gondolier

_X_ said:


> Ineligible in both-red
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids
> 
> Looks like FIFA has already dismissed Doha :lol:


Dismissed Doha? But why is that corner of Surinam and British Guyana not red? So that means they are eligible for either 2018 and 2022.


----------



## Walbanger

slipperydog said:


> So who does everyone think the two bidding nations being investigated for bribery are? I don't really understand what bidding nations would have to do with a bunch of British reporters just trying to dig up dirt on a couple corrupt dudes.


Can someone clarify for me if it's two or more Bidding Nations that offered a bribe to the Nigerian and Oceania FIFA guys or is it the two FIFA guys who asked certain bidders for a bribe.


----------



## Gondolier

RobH said:


> Since you're the only one continuing with this point, it seems that's not the case.


Because people have been conditioned to accept an artificial situation. That does NOT make it fact or a reality.

By common definition, you are a SOVEREIGN nation if the family of nations recognizes you as such and have emissaries to conduct relations. I never heard of a Welsh or Scottish ambassador to the US nor vice-versa. nations send ambassadors, and here is another silly British affectation...to _the "Court of St. James._" :nuts: It just proves this silly British notion of little separate duchies.


----------



## RobH

> Because people have been conditioned to accept an artificial situation. That does NOT make it fact or a reality.


Er, yeah it does actually.  

That's why the US played England in the last world cup. The reality is pretty clear to me.

I'm not taking lectures on geographical reality from someone who lives in a country where the "World Series" is the name of a domestic sports competition, sorry.


----------



## Tallsmurf

Gondolier - You are spectaculalry missing the point - Britain is a multinational state - one state (UK) which is recognised in UN - but comprising 4 (or maybe 3 1/2) separate nations with unique identities, histories and charecteristics, with varying degress of self-autonomy.

But unlike IOC which categorically recognises UN recognised countries only, FIFA is more flexible and recognises other territories and dependencies.


----------



## Gondolier

RobH said:


> Er, yeah it does actually.
> 
> That's why the US played England in the last world cup. The reality is pretty clear to me.
> 
> I'm not taking lectures on geographical reality from someone who lives in a country where the "World Series" is the name of a domestic sports competition, sorry.


Well, I don't accept that either. It's just something named by the baseball marketers.

But tell me, *when are Wales, Scotland and No, Ireland sending their ambassadors to Washington, DC *-- as well as *their Permanent Representatives to the United Nations * (as they are called in case you did NOT know)? We are just waiting to send ours.


----------



## Gondolier

matthemod said:


> Let me repeat, the U.K. is DISADVANTAGING itself by having 4 separate Football Associations.


Then why do they keep it so?


----------



## Ecological

Gondolier said:


> The year after you did, tinkerbell!! :lol: :lol:


And i'm still more educated then you! wow. :nuts:


----------



## Gondolier

JimB said:


> Hahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> This gets better and better! You're just digging an ever deeper hole for yourself.
> 
> You're absolutely right, you know. There are no FIFA peace keepers stationed in the world's trouble spots. Funny that, because we aren't talking about the volatility of Afghanistan. Or the decades old division of Cyprus. Or the badlands of the Sudan.
> 
> And you're just as right about the fact that FIFA has never tried any war criminals. But no one should have to point out to you that that's because the laws that FIFA makes and upholds aren't laws concerning human rights or the ethics of war or the recognition of national boundaries. Their laws are about the offside rule; the tackle from behind; and the size of the goals. It beggars belief that you should continue to confuse the two.
> 
> The biggest irony of all is that you wrote:
> 
> _YOU ARE SORELY mistaken in confusing a mindset of sports values with the reality of legitimate, sovereign nations_
> 
> .......................Earth to Gondolier! Earth to Gondolier! Come in, please.
> 
> You're the only one who is confusing the two. Persistently so.


HahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahHahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah!!


----------



## Gondolier

Ecological said:


> And i'm still more educated then you! wow. :nuts:


If you say so, nimrod. :nuts:


----------



## Ecological

Gondolier said:


> Then why do they keep it so?


As mentioned. lets all take a trip to the bars in and around Cardiff in the up-coming fixture. You can wear my nice new England shirt and I'll leave you for just 10 minutes. Then you might be able to grasp it ... the hard way.


----------



## matthemod

Why does it matter? It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the rest of the World in any way. We are 4 culturally distinct countries with 4 national teams that have existed long before the World Cup or FIFA.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're right.


----------



## Gondolier

Ecological said:


> As mentioned. lets all take a trip to the bars in and around Cardiff in the up-coming fixture. You can wear my nice new England shirt and I'll leave you for just 10 minutes. Then you might be able to grasp it ... the hard way.


Alright, I'll wait for my first-class ticket and limo pick-up.


----------



## Ecological

Gondolier said:


> If you say so, nimrod. :nuts:


I genuinely feel exasberrated trying to figure what the **** you're on the about half the time!


----------



## Gondolier

matthemod said:


> Why does it matter? It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect the rest of the World in any way. We are 4 culturally distinct countries with 4 national teams that have existed long before the World Cup or FIFA.
> 
> Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're right.


You have your fantasy bubble; I have mine. Let's float away.


----------



## Ecological

Gondolier said:


> You have your fantasy bubble; I have mine. Let's float away.


With the amount of air in your head, I suspect the only reason you're still on this planet is because your parents have built your leesh into the foundations. :nuts:


----------



## Gondolier

Ecological said:


> I genuinely feel exasberrated trying to figure what the **** you're on the about half the time!


You think? You probably don't. 

Oh educated one...it's exas*P*erated...*NOT* exasberrated. Now, you were saying?? Oh, wipe that foam off your harelip. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gondolier

Ecological said:


> With the amount of air in your head, I suspect the only reason you're still on this planet is because your parents have built your leesh into the foundations. :nuts:


Oh Cambridge PhD, it's L-E-A-S-H...NOT leesh. Tsk..tsk. 

Now about that vocational school you wanted to get into...


----------



## JimB

Gondolier said:


> Why aren't Basque-Spain Quebec, Appalachia, Normandy, Chiapas, Chechnya, Kashmir, etc., separate "nations" like the English provinces of Wales, Scot & NI purport to be? Because their larger entities adhere to the more WIDELY accepted notion that to be a separate, sovereign NATION, OTHER nations must recognize you as such. Not by some sporting federation headed by addled fuddy-duddies who still like to wear armbands and not allow new technology to decide controversial decisions for fear that it will interrupt _the flow of the game. _ hno: At least the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia *had the GUTS *to actually break up and declare themselves SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT states. So silly...just like the silly 4-in-1 combo 'masquerade' that Britain likes to play.


As has already been pointed out, the home nations have had their own football teams and identities since long before there was any formalized international competition. For many years, international football consisted only of games played between the home nations. By the time that Jules Rimet came up with the idea for a World Cup, it was far too late to shut that particular stable door. The horse had bolted long ago.

By contrast, the semi-autonomous or disputed states that you mention don't have decades of international footballing history behind them. There has never been any reason for them to have a separate football team. And there won't be any such reason unless or until the dispute is finally resolved in favour of independence.


----------



## Gondolier

JimB said:


> As has already been pointed out, the home nations have had their own football teams and identities since long before there was any formalized international competition. For many years, international football consisted only of games played between the home nations. By the time that Jules Rimet came up with the idea for a World Cup, it was far too late to shut that particular stable door. The horse had bolted long ago.
> 
> By contrast, the semi-autonomous or disputed states that you mention don't have decades of international footballing history behind them. There has never been any reason for them to have a separate football team. And there won't be any such reason unless or until the dispute is finally resolved in favour of independence.


But *so what?* You're playing in the 21st century. Not 1895 or 1905. Duh!! Get with it!! 

Or is that too contemporary to wrap your head around? Have you even changed your calendar since 1910?


----------



## matthemod

Gondolier said:


> You have your fantasy bubble; I have mine. Let's float away.


Fantasy bubble, you mean historical fact? 

JimB, Ecological, this guy is just trolling.


----------



## Gondolier

matthemod said:


> Fantasy bubble, you mean historical fact?
> 
> JimB, Ecological, this guy is just trolling.


Yeah, hello? This is one of your alter-aliases. 

Mislaid your passwords again, Mathilda?


----------



## crazyalex

Gondolier ruin this thread hno:


----------



## Gondolier

In case you haven't noticed, followers -- I can give as good as I get.


----------



## matthemod

"Internet Troll: someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

This is a civil forum where topics relative to Stadium's and Sports Arena's are discussed respectfully.


----------



## JimB

Gondolier said:


> Ah...when backed up against a wall, little England goes to the sandbox and pulls the _"it's our game _ card."
> 
> Awwwwwww. Hurt your sensibilities, little Robbie? Here's a band-aid. hno:


You missed the smilie? Rob was joking.



> Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike the UK or the Brits.


Methinks he doth protest to much.

Everything about the content and tone of your posts screams enormous antipathy towards the UK. You clearly have a gigantic chip on your shoulder. For your own good health, you really ought to do something about it. You'll find that your life is much better without unnecessarily burdening yourself so.

A good definition of resentment for you (I think it will help you): resentment is like injecting your own body full of poison and then waiting for the other person to die.

Just let it go. You're not going to achieve anything by letting this fester within you.


----------



## Gondolier

JimB said:


> Everything about the content and tone of your posts screams enormous antipathy towards the UK. You clearly have a gigantic chip on your shoulder. For your own good health, you really ought to do something about it. You'll find that your life is much better without unnecessarily burdening yourself so.
> 
> A good definition of resentment for you (I think it will help you): resentment is like injecting your own body full of poison and then waiting for the other person to die.
> 
> Just let it go. You're not going to achieve anything by letting this fester within you.


Oh yeah. Now you're playing my shrink. What are your credentials??

How much do you charge? Can I get a *4-in-1 combo *rate from you? Where the hell is that coupon?? :lol: :lol:


----------



## waqif

The Australian 18 October
*World Cup bid team met man accused of bribery*

AUSTRALIAN World Cup bid delegates met a group of Nigerian officials last year, including the man at the centre of bribery allegations. 
Football Federation Australia yesterday confirmed that Amos Adamu, the Nigerian president of the West African Football Union, who also serves on world governing body FIFA's executive committee, was at a meeting at the Australian high commissioner's residence during the under-17 World Cup in November.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cused-of-bribery/story-e6frg6nf-1225940394267

this second time FIFA get such reports about Australia in this year and should now take action also AFC should kick Australia out of Asia and send them back to Oceania after their scandal with Tahiti member who is president of the Oceania Football.

in 28 october meeting they should cancel Australia bid since it is the only country don't have seat and try to buy votes by money and Jewelry.


and here some reports about the last time ....

*June-July: Fifa investigates Australia's 2022 World Cup bid over bribes*

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2890...tion-into-australia-world-cup-2022-bid-after-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cused-of-bribery/story-e6frg6nf-1225940394267


----------



## Gondolier

matthemod said:


> "Internet Troll: someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
> 
> This is a civil forum where topics relative to Stadium's and Sports Arena's are discussed respectfully.


Awwwwwwwwwww. I engaged in civil discussion. When I started listing intelligent points, all of a sudden you swarmed up with insults and put-downs. 

And when I got back at you...you pull the "troll" card. 

Can't take it? Maybe the blood rush is too much for you. Maybe it's you JimB, PhD, should be counseling you; not me. 

I haven't cracked. But you guys just reminded me that I gotta change the kitty litter. 

Later, chumps...


----------



## crazyalex

**** this shit I'm out of here

Good night.


----------



## JimB

matthemod said:


> Fantasy bubble, you mean historical fact?
> 
> JimB, Ecological, this guy is just trolling.


Yes, of course he is.

No one could genuinely be so obtuse, surely?

Nevertheless, it's a slow work day. So it's been fun toying with him.


----------



## JimB

Gondolier said:


> But *so what?* You're playing in the 21st century. Not 1895 or 1905. Duh!! Get with it!!
> 
> Or is that too contemporary to wrap your head around? Have you even changed your calendar since 1910?


History, tradition and identity might mean nothing to you.

But they are qualities highly prized by the football fraternity.


----------



## RobH

waqif said:


> The Australian 18 October
> *World Cup bid team met man accused of bribery*
> 
> AUSTRALIAN World Cup bid delegates met a group of Nigerian officials last year, including the man at the centre of bribery allegations.
> Football Federation Australia yesterday confirmed that Amos Adamu, the Nigerian president of the West African Football Union, who also serves on world governing body FIFA's executive committee, was at a meeting at the Australian high commissioner's residence during the under-17 World Cup in November.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cused-of-bribery/story-e6frg6nf-1225940394267
> 
> this second time FIFA get such reports about Australia in this year and should now take action also AFC should kick Australia out of Asia and send them back to Oceania after their scandal with Tahiti member who is president of the Oceania Football.
> 
> in 28 october meeting they should cancel Australia bid since it is the only country don't have seat and try to buy votes by money and Jewelry.
> 
> 
> and here some reports about the last time ....
> 
> *June-July: Fifa investigates Australia's 2022 World Cup bid over bribes*
> 
> http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2890...tion-into-australia-world-cup-2022-bid-after-
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cused-of-bribery/story-e6frg6nf-1225940394267


I take it innocent till proven guilty isn't a central tennet of the Qatari legal system then?


----------



## _X_

Gondolier said:


> Awwwwwwwwwww. I engaged in civil discussion. When I started listing intelligent points, all of a sudden you swarmed up with insults and put-downs.
> 
> And when I got back at you...you pull the "troll" card.
> 
> Can't take it? Maybe the blood rush is too much for you. Maybe it's you JimB, PhD, should be counseling you; not me.
> 
> I haven't cracked. But you guys just reminded me that I gotta change the kitty litter.
> 
> Later, chumps...


You are a massive troll though,not a very good one but massive all the same


----------



## _X_

RobH said:


> I take it innocent till proven guilty isn't a central tennet of the Qatari legal system then?


Guilty of meeting an ExCo member FFS:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Ecological

I suspect Gondolier enjoys such types of conversation considering he has no life. still my short comings in rushed replies are surely enough evidence to see I am indeed a retard of the highest magnitude. Unfortunately ... I'll take my highly paid job and maybe one day return to study English. and not the highly acclaimed *British language.* 

:lol:


----------



## Walbanger

I'm curious to know what Gondolier thinks of West Indies Cricket

...or the Sporting status of Puerto Rico.


----------



## coth

Tallsmurf said:


> Gondolier - You are spectaculalry missing the point - Britain is a multinational state - one state (UK) which is recognised in UN - but comprising 4 (or maybe 3 1/2) separate nations with unique identities, histories and charecteristics, with varying degress of self-autonomy.
> 
> But unlike IOC which categorically recognises UN recognised countries only, FIFA is more flexible and recognises other territories and dependencies.


It doesn't matter at all for everyone outside Britain and for the topic. USA has dozens of states on its own, Russia is a federation with more than 80 subject that includes 21 republic and 5 other autonomous subjects with 30 official languages.


----------



## RobH

The first international wasn't Texas vs Ohio though, it was Scotland vs England.

If we're going to go off-topic it might as well be about something interesting. Has anyone else come across The Unofficial Football World Championships before. Japan are the current World Champions:

http://www.ufwc.co.uk/

_Welcome to the Unofficial Football World Championships – probably the least known but most exciting football competition on Earth.

This is how it works: the Unofficial Football World Championships (UFWC) pitches real international teams into a continuous series of boxing-style title matches. Winners of UFWC title matches become title-holders, and move up the rankings table.

UFWC lineage goes right back to the very first international football match in 1872, between Scotland and England in Glasgow. As Scotland and England were the only international teams in existence, the winner of this initial match could safely claim to be the best side in the world – the Unofficial Football World Champions, if you will. Unfortunately, neither side managed to win the match – the score was a rather disappointing 0-0. So swiftly fast-forward to the second international football match, again between England and Scotland, and played in London on 8 March 1873. This time there were a full six goals – England won 4-2, and became the very first Unofficial Football World Champions. But they didn’t hold the title for long. In 1874 they were beaten 2-1 by Scotland, meaning the UFWC title passed to the Scots.

The UFWC title bounced backward and forward between England and Scotland, and then Ireland and Wales got involved. The British home nations dominated the UFWC during international football’s formative years, until the instigation of international tours and tournaments meant sides from all around the globe began to play each other. Following the UFWC lineage through almost 800 friendly and competitive matches, we can trace how the title was passed between over 40 different nations during more than 130 years of international football._


----------



## Rev Stickleback

coth said:


> It doesn't matter at all for everyone outside Britain and for the topic. USA has dozens of states on its own, Russia is a federation with more than 80 subject that includes 21 republic and 5 other autonomous subjects with 30 official languages.


The UK government itself has the official line that the UK is four countries with a common government.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823

If anyone believes they are better informed than the UK government on the subject, then perhaps they ought to take the issue up with them.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

RobH said:


> The first international wasn't Texas vs Ohio though, it was Scotland vs England.


The first international fixture might actually be USA v Canada. In cricket! It took place in 1844.


----------



## T74

_X_ said:


> Guilty of meeting an ExCo member FFS:lol::lol::lol:


exactly - as an Australian I would be pissed if our federation were not meeting with EVERY exco delegate to get their vote

if they agree to bribery, that is a different issue, but they should be meeting with anyone who has a vote on Dec 2

Any further update on whether or not FIFA will delay the vote?


----------



## slipperydog

Seriously though, who does everyone think the two countries are?


----------



## Gondolier

JimB said:


> Yes, of course he is.
> 
> No one could genuinely be so obtuse, surely?
> 
> Nevertheless, it's a slow work day. So it's been fun toying with him.


So smug one can almost see the slime oozing of your ears, JimB.


----------



## Gondolier

Rev Stickleback said:


> The UK government itself has the official line that the UK is four countries with a common government.
> 
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823
> 
> If anyone believes they are better informed than the UK government on the subject, then perhaps they ought to take the issue up with them.


Yes, and Iran declares itself an "Islamic republic." :lol: :lol: Just because a gov't declares itself whatever....doesn't mean the outside world has to toe that B/S line.


----------



## MoreOrLess

slipperydog said:


> Seriously though, who does everyone think the two countries are?


Anyone involved is more than capable I'd guess but Russia and Dpha seem the most likely to me.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

slipperydog said:


> Gotta go with Russia and Qatar.


this.


----------



## _X_

slipperydog said:


> :lol: That's just it. The 'investigating' is the 'pretending to care' part, and the 'prosecuting' is the 'not doing anything about it' part.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta go with Russia and Qatar.


At $10 million a vote x 13=$130 million
Very cheap investment considering a few bids have limitless budgets
Four or five bids just wouldn't be able to do it unless there was private money being splashed around
I really can't see a number of bids doing things on this scale


----------



## T74

slipperydog said:


> :lol: That's just it. The 'investigating' is the 'pretending to care' part, and the 'prosecuting' is the 'not doing anything about it' part.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta go with Russia and Qatar.


exactly :lol:

on your guesses, I'm with you

Russia I'll be surprised if they get hit, Sepp loves "new" markets, and seems to have been supportive of Russia

Qatar on the other hand.... the bid is a non-compliant one, so it will go down amyway. Its also been championed by the guy going for his job. I wouldn't be surprised if Sepp has the numbers that Qatar feels his wrath

that being said, who the heck knows what will happen :nuts:


----------



## coth

Nigeria was openly supporting UK because of "political reasons", so it's more likely was because of "financial support".


----------



## slipperydog

This Russian guy must be really worried about his bid...check out the jabs he just threw at England. Total bitch move.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=833638&cc=5901


----------



## T74

I saw that

this is gunna get ugly - its against the rules to do this, but obviously they are feeling the pressure

Coth - don't you think Nigeria may be a tad closer to the English bid that the Russian given the banner situation and they way it was effectively shrugged off in Russia?


----------



## coth

there has been a lot even worse moves from britain. he was just commenting those british attacks.



and there has been no any "banner situation". it was all the story made up by british press.


----------



## RobH

No it wasn't - the player in question was offended, the Nigerian FA complained to FIFA about it, Kick it Out weren't happy, and even Sorokin eventually conceded it was racist, but only when trying to make a point that there is also racism in England (I don't think he noticed the implication contradicted his earlier statements when he made that claim).

The press may have blown it out of proportion somewhat (though the Russian reaction to it was one reason for this - they could have put it to bed by saying they'd punish the perpetrators rather than stupidly insisting it wasn't racist). It certainly wasn't _"made up"_ though!


----------



## T74

coth said:


> there has been a lot even worse moves from britain. he was just commenting those british attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> and there has been no any "banner situation". he was all the story made up by british press.


yes, but people get arrested for it, or at least banned from the stadium for x number of years. what punishment did these fans get

again, its against the rules for bidding countries to slag each other off

edit - just saw your last post - are you seriously saying it didn't happen and the british press made it up?!?!? they were photographed having the banner at the game


----------



## Steel City Suburb

coth said:


> That's a numerous allegation from Britain. If this turn out to be yet again fake Britain would have an only option - to withdraw from WC2018.


Don't be daft. The revelation of cheating through the British media has been top class. There's no hiding for cheating liars.


----------



## T74

first article I've found naming any country: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...a-demanding-cash-for-votes-article604223.html

FIFA set to suspend crooked duo

FIFA chiefs are set to suspend shamed duo Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii tomorrow – and have opened a probe into claims that Spain and Qatar have been part of an illegal vote-bartering cartel.

As Russia bid chief Alexei Sorokin broke FIFA rules by launching a wild attack on the England campaign, FIFA President Sepp Blatter carpeted the two members of his Executive Committee who were caught on camera demanding cash for votes.

Nigerian Adamu was forced to beg for *Blatter’s forgiveness at an emergency meeting in Zurich, while Tahitian Temarii, head of Oceanian football, admitted he had “made a mistake” in his conversations with undercover reporters.

Both men have been summoned to explain themselves to FIFA’s Ethics Committee tomorrow, but the signs are that they will be suspended from the 24-member Ex-Co prior to being booted out of FIFA.
Quantcast

The governing body said: “FIFA has asked the chairman of the Ethics Committee to act without delay to take all possible steps.

“Investigations are also ongoing in relation to other FIFA officials who may have been involved in the issue in question.”

Blatter is still understood to be demanding the votes for both tournaments will be held, as scheduled, in Zurich on December 2, despite calls for a postponement.


----------



## RobH

Sorokin's rather put his foot in it today with his comments which are pretty much against the rules of conduct in this bidding race.

I know they're a rebuttle to certain press comments about Russia's bid, but he's not a journalist but a member of the Russia 2018 bid team, and is therefore sailing very close to the wind. _Nobody_ in England's bid team has made public comments about Russia's bid, by contrast. 

Risking FIFA sanctions by criticising a rival is a foolish move on his part; he's probably just stirring it, but, as I said, he's sailing close to the wind, especially if FIFA are in the mood to clamp down on anything untoward, which they may well be.


----------



## Ecological

Are the English the only one who play by the rules? And one things for sure. The English might be a curse on certain things to do with the nation but they dont half make the rest of the world out for what they truly are. 

Dog eat dog world. God love the British press.


----------



## coth

RobH said:


> Sorokin's rather put his foot in it today with his comments which are pretty much against the rules of conduct in this bidding race.
> 
> I know they're a rebuttle to certain press comments about Russia's bid, but he's not a journalist but a member of the Russia 2018 bid team, and is therefore sailing very close to the wind. _Nobody_ in England's bid team has made public comments about Russia's bid, by contrast.
> 
> Risking FIFA sanctions by criticising a rival is a foolish move on his part; he's probably just stirring it, but, as I said, he's sailing close to the wind, especially if FIFA are in the mood to clamp down on anything untoward, which they may well be.


Did you actually read an original text of his replies in Russian? Guardian sometimes might be good, but this time it's an example of low quality press.

http://www.sport-express.ru/newspaper/2010-10-18/9_1/


----------



## RobH

care to tell us what he actually said?


----------



## anacleta




----------



## eomer

My predictions:
- England 2018
- Australia 2022
- Europe 2026 (Russia, Spain, Turkey...)
- Uruguay-Argentina 2030


----------



## coth

RobH said:


> care to tell us what he actually said?


there is a 30-minute interview

use all of them together, you won't able to translate carefully using single translator. and never ask such questions, never. it's considered a bad behavior outside english countries.
http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/Default.aspx
http://www.translate.ru/Default.aspx/Site


----------



## Aka

Uh?


----------



## giomorales

For what I understand, FIFA don't like the idea of two countries hosting the world cup anymore, they had a bad experience with japan, the only way they will consider to nations hosting the world cup will be Uruguay and Argentina or Chile.. or Colombia... etc.. when the rotation comes back to America, and this will be for the centenary of Uruguay as the 1st host of the world cup if I'm not mistaking, also the money factor.
I dont think Spain needs help from Portugal or biseversa.


----------



## Mr Trebus

what right do they have to remove the rubbish..i am the only one who has the right to remove things from my garden..ohh ENGLAND for 2018:cheers:


----------



## crazyalex

Ecological said:


> God love the British press.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

slipperydog said:


> This Russian guy must be really worried about his bid...check out the jabs he just threw at England. Total bitch move.
> 
> http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=833638&cc=5901


Simple exaggaration and "cutting the context" tactic.

Instead of reading "summary", read the interview.

Another attack on Russia's Bid Chief, based on dirty tactic.

Bitch move is of those who are talking bulls**t without full knowing of situation.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

This is another clear example how press is acting as an instrument of propaganda and part of creation of bad atmosphere around Russia-2018 bid.

These americans/british fools even don't dare to read the full interview and context of the phrases, but they want "sensation" and another shameless attack, based on nothing.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> Sorokin's rather put his foot in it today with his comments which are pretty much against the rules of conduct in this bidding race.
> 
> I know they're a rebuttle to certain press comments about Russia's bid, but he's not a journalist but a member of the Russia 2018 bid team, and is therefore sailing very close to the wind. _Nobody_ in England's bid team has made public comments about Russia's bid, by contrast.
> 
> Risking FIFA sanctions by criticising a rival is a foolish move on his part; he's probably just stirring it, but, as I said, he's sailing close to the wind, especially if FIFA are in the mood to clamp down on anything untoward, which they may well be.


Nice try. Fail.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

T74 said:


> As Russia bid chief Alexei Sorokin broke FIFA rules by launching a wild attack on the England campaign


British journalists are really dumb. Or this is made by purpose. Or both.


----------



## Mo Rush

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> Nice try. Fail.


How is that a fail? Commenting about another bid is far from wise especially while FIFA's ethics committee is considering the bid bribery situation.

You can only use "nice try. fail" when it actually applies.

"Nice Try. Fail" does not mean...e.g. I disagree.

RobH makes a valid point. 

Instead you could have said. "I do not think its wise to comment on other bids, but I do not think it will impact the Russian bid".


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

Mo Rush said:


> How is that a fail? Commenting about another bid is far from wise especially while FIFA's ethics committee is considering the bid bribery situation.
> 
> You can only use "nice try. fail" when it actually applies.
> 
> "Nice Try. Fail" does not mean...e.g. I disagree.
> 
> RobH makes a valid point.
> 
> Instead you could have said. "I do not think its wise to comment on other bids, but I do not think it will impact the Russian bid".


Did you read the interview? 

He did comment the British press, not British bid.

He even specially said in first answer (direct translation): "There are not talking about England as such, but rather about the features of the British press."

I know that nothing will come to FIFA ethics committee from this interview, because there are still people who have brains, can read the text and translate it without cutting. But there are a lot of people who are automatically falling for everything they read.


----------



## LarisaCh

AlekseyVT said:


> However, Italy still remain a big power in European football. If they played in South Africa one of its worst world cups, it's only their personal problems. I was not bored of New Zealand's play.
> 
> During WC2006 I watched matches of Trinidad & Tobago team. They made draw with Sweden and England was not able to scored them during 80 minutes. Really, during this match vs. England I don't regret that Trinidad&Tobago played in WC.


Yes, guys. I watched this match with my boyfriend and father. It was the best reportage, the benefis of Vasily Utkin! I have not heard so many jokes within 90 minutes in all my life. After 80th minutes we're all laughed without stop when we were listen this great report:


----------



## Mr Trebus

^^A good 2-0 win for England.Where was Russia..oh you didnt qualify as normal:lol:Ive got it..EUREKA..you want to host a world cup so you actually get to play in one..good luck:cheers:


----------



## RobH

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> Did you read the interview?
> 
> He did comment the British press, not British bid.
> 
> He even specially said in first answer (direct translation): "There are not talking about England as such, but rather about the features of the British press."
> 
> I know that nothing will come to FIFA ethics committee from this interview, because there are still people who have brains, can read the text and translate it without cutting. But there are a lot of people who are automatically falling for everything they read.


I don't read Russian. Maybe you could have tried explaining rather than saying "nice try, fail". I've seen you cry wolf enough about the British press so I'm not going to take you word that it's taken out of context this time, especially since your last account on this website was removed because of such posts.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> ...


But you failed. Maybe you could have translated the text online. It's easy.

And British press know that brits are very lazy to translate original, so they're writing whatever they want, in their interests.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> I've seen you cry wolf enough about the British press


Because this press deserves it. And it's nothing in compare with all absurd they created and wrote.


----------



## RobH

And yet our press is also responsible for catching out two FIFA members accpeting bribes, which is what we should be talking about.

Incidentally, I'd still love to know within what context Sorokin talking about London's crime rate and underage drinking in England is appropriate. I can't think of any reason for him to have brought these things up.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> And yet our press is also responsible for catching out two FIFA members accpeting bribes, which is what we should be talking about.


Talk. No one stops you.

British press and you accused Russia's Bid Chief in what he didn't say. No appologises.

If it's normal for you, then something is wrong with you.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> Incidentally, I'd still love to know within what context Sorokin talking about London's crime rate and underage drinking in England is appropriate. I can't think of any reason for him to have brought these things up.


Are you stupid or what? There is a link. There is online translator. Go!

And why person is not allowed to talk about other country's issues? It's not about English Bid.

You see how many problems and absurd the only article created, because some have "superiority complex" and don't want to use translator.


----------



## RobH

> Are you stupid or what?


*Definition:*
–adjective

Stupid: Insulting members on an internet forum when one has already had one account removed.


----------



## matthemod

The Ethics Committee at Fifa is why you can't talk about another country. If you're involved with your countries bid, you are not ethically allowed to slander and insult another country who is also bidding.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

Oh, I understood. You don't need to read the interview, because nothing stops you to use online translator and realise why you was wrong. 

You only need to provoke other member. Good job.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

matthemod said:


> and insult another country who is also bidding.


He just stated the fact. The fact is insulting?

And one more time: read the text.

For lazy (without editing):


> *- Why did the attacks on our bid is going out of England?*
> 
> - There are not talking about England as such, but rather about the peculiarities of the British press. Style at them like this: caustic comment on any drawbacks, not only strangers, but their own. Suffice it to recall the story of David Trismanom when they struck a blow to themselves. I do not think that the numerous attacks by the British media is just an English bid. I do not want to believe it. It would be very costly for them to exercise.
> 
> *- Why Russia is practically not respond to attacks?*
> 
> - We do this absolutely consciously. No scandal, do not enter into squabbles, although we have much to say. It's no secret, for example, that in London the highest crime rate when compared with other European cities, and the highest level of alcohol consumption among young people. But why should poke his nose in that and so everybody knows?
> 
> *- Even if we recall the sensational story with a banner against Odemvingie, the same day in Manchester on the stand burned an American flag. But more about that almost no one wrote.*
> 
> - It is. We were aware of, but did not focus on this account. While it could start a conversation about the lack of tolerance and inciting ethnic hatred by English fans. But we do not behave like the aunt in the kitchen, which sits hayot neighbors. We are confident that can handle normal methods: the conviction to make a serious commitment, demonstration of successful cooperation with the IOC in preparing for the Games in Sochi in 2014. In a word, works fine. And FIFA is certainly appreciate it.
> 
> *- You generally have assumed that the British media will such violent attack?*
> 
> - Yes. Realized that this would happen, just after publishing an article about Lord Trismane. Because when the British - I mean the journalists, rather than an application - realized that done, it took them somehow divert attention away from this unpleasant history. And they began to look psevdonegativnye by a competitor.


----------



## coth

remove it please. they should learn what is ethical tolerance.

spaniards, frenchies reads russian forum here and sites with no problems, russians have no problems in reading english, german, spanish without knowledges. the world does not spinning around britain. before false quoting someone, care to read him in original source.


----------



## matthemod

It's slander that's all it is. I don't know whether London does or doesn't have the highest crime rate/youth drinking but it is not ethical as a representative of a nation's FIFA World Cup bid to bring that up vocally. There is absolutely no reason for him to say it other than to discredit the English Bid and to slander the Nation as a whole. Why bring it up anyway? London isn't hosting the world cup the whole of England is, so what's the use in saying such a thing?

You say "it's fact" but what would you (and every other Russian on here) be like if the head guy of the English bid came out to say "Russia is the most racist and corrupt country in Europe", you would all be in hysterics.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

matthemod said:


> You say "it's fact" but what would you (and every other Russian on here) be like if the head guy of the English bid came out to say "Russia is the most racist and corrupt country in Europe", you would all be in hysterics.


Because it's not the fact.

Oh, yeah, and these are contant themes in british press. So no need for England Bid to repeat it.

And read the text again. He answered on question, and showed examples with explanation why Russia's Bid doesn't use it to blackmail other bid.

You, brits, like to provoke tensions from nothing by articles and posts...


----------



## matthemod

You're missing the point, it does not matter if it is fact or not, as a representative of his nation's FIFA bid, he is ethically obliged NOT to insult or slander another nation. It's also fact that London is one of if not the most multi-cultural city in Europe but you don't see him saying that do you, because that's not slander.

Even if the British media was as biased as you claim, the English FIFA representative would not say such things about the Russian Bid as no other nation bidding has done. Let the media do whatever they want, they are not the ones acting as representatives to FIFA.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

I would be happy if England Bid Chief said the same type of phrase: we and british press don't create scandals from nothing, don't enter into squabbles, exaggorate and cut the context, and we are confident that can handle normal methods, although we have much to say..

But it would be lie, considering the british press campaign.


----------



## crazyalex




----------



## Rev Stickleback

Gondolier said:


> Yes, and Iran declares itself an "Islamic republic." :lol: :lol: Just because a gov't declares itself whatever....doesn't mean the outside world has to toe that B/S line.


So which bit of "Islamic" and "Republic" do you think is false?

Is Iran a buddhist monarchy in your eyes?




Russia__WC__2018 said:


> - Even if we recall the sensational story with a banner against Odemvingie, the same day in Manchester on the stand burned an American flag. But more about that almost no one wrote.
> 
> - It is. We were aware of, but did not focus on this account. While it could start a conversation about the lack of tolerance and inciting ethnic hatred by English fans.


Do you actually believe the burning of the American flag was racist or was about hating Americans?

And what example of English fans inciting ethnic hatred are you aware of?


----------



## RobH

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> I would be happy if England Bid Chief said the same type of phrase: *we and british press* don't create scandals from nothing, don't enter into squabbles, exaggorate and cut the context, and we are confident that can handle normal methods, although we have much to say..
> 
> But it would be lie, considering the british press campaign.


We and the British Press? Why should the England bid leader speak on behalf of the British press? As I've said before, the two are unrelated, in my country at least. I don't know how things work in Russia though.


----------



## MysteryMike

*THE World Cup is football's showpiece but - as the Dutch showed in this year's final - the biggest prize can sometimes induce tactics that range from questionable to dastardly.

So it is with the bid process to host the tournament, enmeshed this week in scandal as FIFA probes claims that two executive committee members who vote to award the tournament hosting rights have courted bribes from undercover reporters posing as representatives of the US bid. Then, just a day later, it emerged that FIFA is considering suspending two bidding nations amid claims they agreed to swap votes for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments.

Among the Australian bid team there have sometimes been frustrations, a realisation that bids that are publicly funded - such as Australia's and the US - face greater scrutiny and oversight than others, such as Russia and Qatar, that boast deep pockets and a win-at-all-costs mentality.

Vote swapping is strictly prohibited by FIFA's bid rules and two unnamed bidders - widely believed to be Qatar and Spain-Portugal - are under investigation. Again, FIFA's process - awarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cups at the same time and deploying a voting system of multiple rounds - hardly discourages the prohibited behaviour.

So what does all this chaos mean for Australia's hosting chances? If, as seems possible, Qatar and Spain-Portugal are suspended from bidding, Australia would benefit. A chief rival for 2022 would be removed and powerful Asian confederation boss Mohammed bin Hammam, a Qatari, would throw his support behind Australia. The two executive committee members caught out by The Sunday Times are under investigation by FIFA's ethics committee. Should they be suspended or sacked, would FIFA rush to replace them from within their confederations? Or would it vote to award hosting rights as scheduled on December 2 without them - a move that would surely disadvantage Australia, which is relying on Oceania's vote?

Australia has worked assiduously to win support - including secondary backing from those committed to other bids in the first round of voting. It puts its hopes in the glowing impression left on FIFA's assessment team that toured the nation's facilities earlier this year and in the powers of persuasion of its billionaire chairman. But as the tapes of Adamu and Temarii reveal, no assurance counts as a guarantee in this murky world.*

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/soccer/bid-chaos-may-favour-australia-20101019-16sh7.html


----------



## TheoG

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> I would be happy if England Bid Chief said the same type of phrase: we and british press don't create scandals from nothing, don't enter into squabbles, exaggorate and cut the context, and we are confident that can handle normal methods, although we have much to say..
> 
> But it would be lie, considering the british press campaign.


World politics lesson. In the UK, the FA and the press are completely unrelated. There are different types of newspaper in the UK - tabloid and broadsheet. Broadsheets are more reliable, often, more formal and just generally better. The Sunday Times is a broadsheet newspaper, it is one of Britain's most well respected newspapers. Tabloids are more sensationalist, often make up crap and have pictures of topless women in them. The News of the World is a tabloid newspaper, as is the Daily Mail (ish).

The British press have no 'campaign', as one force. Some newspapers have differing views from others, they don't all gang together and say 'hey, let's p*ss off Country X today!', as you seem to be suggesting. Their job is to report news in an unbiased, sensible fashion, which some are more successful at than others, sell copies and make money.

Some newspapers will tend to make scandals to sell more copies, that's inevitable. Others won't do that, make up stuff to make money. Sure, if they discover something exclusive and interesting, they'll report it, but they won't make up anything. The Daily Mail Treisman affair was part of the former, part of the latter. This is all the latter. 

Whether this is the case in Russia, I don't know.

And, referring to your post about the banana incident, the Man Utd fan burning the flag was a symbol of the fan's hate towards the club's current owner, who happens to be American. It wasn't a racist remark to the whole country. The banana incident, on the other hand, was racist, and the club should be punished in some way for it, it was purely out of order.


Off topic, sort of, but did anyone else see the news story about the Russians making inflatable tanks


----------



## MysteryMike

Well the Russians seems to be off the hook according to the previous report.


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> Well the Russians seems to be off the hook according to the previous report.


For vote-trading or for denigrating other bids?


----------



## void0

Obviously, FIFA members read English-speaking media and it affects their mind much more than a single comment from Russian bid boss, that's not a fair play.


----------



## void0

slipperydog said:


> For vote-trading or for denigrating other bids?


Vote-trading? Where did you read that?


----------



## Will737

void0 said:


> Obviously, FIFA members read English-speaking media and it affects their mind much more than a single comment from Russian bid boss, that's not a fair play.


Oh dear.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Rev Stickleback said:


> Do you actually believe the burning of the American flag was racist or was about hating Americans?


Undoubtely! But Sorokin only answered on the question of journalist about this fact.


----------



## TheoG

void0 said:


> Obviously, FIFA members read English-speaking media and it affects their mind much more than a single comment from Russian bid boss, that's not a fair play.


Fail.


----------



## TheoG

AlekseyVT said:


> Undoubtely! But Sorokin only answered on the question of journalist about this fact.


Well good, it wasn't. It was directed at the Man Utd owner, who is American, because everyone hates him, because he got the club into deep sh*t, in short. It was not racist, it was a symbol of disgust at the clubs current owner, not at all Americans.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Last time I see the public burning of American flag in the TV-news from Iran and Iraq. I doubt that the people who doing it very love Americans.


----------



## AlekseyVT

TheoG said:


> Well good, it wasn't. It was directed at the Man Utd owner, who is American, because everyone hates him, because he got the club into deep sh*t, in short. It was not racist, it was a symbol of disgust at the clubs current owner, not at all Americans.


So, I also can say that banner of Russian fans was directed at Lokomotiv player, who is African, because many fans don't like this play, in short. It was not racism, it was a symbol of disgust at the former club player, not at all Africans. There were words at the banner - "Thanks to West Bromwich", so it was absolutely understand what it mean.


----------



## matthemod

"Yeah...Another Time" The answer you're looking for is, it doesn't.

And of course racism exists in the U.K., the difference is we don't then have our top guy in football say "oh it wasn't racist, banana's mean the player was not very good". Our Football executives completely condemn it.


----------



## GammaHamster

slipperydog said:


> LOL chill out man. I'm not bashing Russians. I just thought that was hilarious because the reporter is investigating rumors about workers drinking on the job. :lol:
> 
> One more time...


The funniest part is that guy was disfigured from birth, not drunk. Laughing at disabled people is so much fun.


----------



## TheoG

void0 said:


> Does anybody believe there is no racism in UK?


No, sad as it is, nobody believes this. However, racism in most European countries, including Russia, is worse than here.

Do Russians believe that there is no racism in Russia? Or is it still a completely crime-free perfect society, as everyone knows.


----------



## RobH

matthemod said:


> "Yeah...Another Time" The answer you're looking for is, it doesn't.
> 
> And of course racism exists in the U.K., the difference is we don't then have our top guy in football say "oh it wasn't racist, banana's mean the player was not very good". Our Football executives completely condemn it.


This is exactly the point. This whole story would have dissapeared WEEKS ago but for the Russian FA's reaction to it. It's a minor story which has become bigger and that is entirely the fault of the Russian FA for not condemning the banner.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

void0 said:


> Does anybody believe there is no racism in UK?


Nope, but I've been to a Zenit home game where there was a black player on the field. 

I've never experienced anything like anywhere in the UK, or indeed anywhere else in the world where I've watched football (which is a fair few countries)

To be truthful there wasn't much in the way of hostility towards him. The monkey chants were just regarded as one great big joke by the crowd (and a it was a large portion of the crowd), who found doing it hilarious. It was just a bit of fun to most of them. No big deal.

And that's kind of the problem.


----------



## void0

TheoG said:


> No, sad as it is, nobody believes this. However, racism in most European countries, including Russia, is worse than here.
> 
> Do Russians believe that there is no racism in Russia? Or is it still a completely crime-free perfect society, as everyone knows.


Yes, there is racism in Russia. You may convince someone that this is exactly the reason why Russia shouldn't host world cup and England should, but we are again come back to the original question, is it fair to attack rival countries instead of promoting its own?


----------



## RobH

void0 said:


> Yes, there is racism in Russia. You may convince someone that this is exactly the reason why Russia shouldn't host world cup and England should, but we are again come back to the original question, is it fair to attack rival countries instead of promoting its own?


What you call attacking we call journalism. This was newsworthy and was picked up on and sadly becuase of the Russian FA reaction it has become a bigger story than it ever should have been.


----------



## void0

RobH said:


> What you call attacking we call journalism.


So many journalists on this forum


----------



## matthemod

void0 said:


> Yes, there is racism in Russia. You may convince someone that this is exactly the reason why Russia shouldn't host world cup and England should, but we are again come back to the original question, is it fair to attack rival countries instead of promoting its own?


This is exactly what the last few pages have been about, the Russian representative saying that London has high crime and large underage drinking and has, whether intentional or not, slandered the English bid.


----------



## void0

matthemod said:


> This is exactly what the last few pages have been about, the Russian representative saying that London has high crime and large underage drinking and has, whether intentional or not, slandered the English bid.





> Mr Sorokin regrets if his statements have led to an erroneous interpretation and understanding


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9107798.stm

Is case closed?


----------



## matthemod

Of course, as long as that's ok with Russia____WC____2018


----------



## TheoG

void0 said:


> Yes, there is racism in Russia. You may convince someone that this is exactly the reason why Russia shouldn't host world cup and England should, but we are again come back to the original question, is it fair to attack rival countries instead of promoting its own?


Did you see our bid representative say anything even slightly insulting about the racism in Russian football as a means of slandering your bid?

I think, the point is, the Russian FA have handled both the London jibes and the banana incident badly, and that will have a negative effect on their bid, possibly dealing it a fatal blow. It's really quite hard to argue against that.


----------



## CCCPraven

slipperydog said:


> One of the best youtube clips ever:


hno:


----------



## slipperydog

The joke was about the premise of the video...not about the guy's disability. Really glad the guy got help though!


----------



## crazyalex

Press Freedom Index
1*Denmark
1*Sweden
1*Norway
1*Ireland
1*Finland
6*Estonia
13*New Zealand
16*Australia
20*United Kingdom
20*United States
94*Qatar
108*United States (extra-territorial)
150*Israel
153*Russia
168*People's Republic of China
174*North Korea
175*Eritrea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index


----------



## void0

^^Those ratings are not the math science, they are biased and based on "expert" opinion about the countries they probably never been to.
How the heck you can estimate press freedom, say in FYROM? 
But that's really not an appropriate thread to discuss this kind of things and it has nothing common with football.


----------



## AlekseyVT

crazyalex said:


> Press Freedom Index
> 1*Denmark
> 1*Sweden
> 1*Norway
> 1*Ireland
> 1*Finland
> 6*Estonia
> 13*New Zealand
> 16*Australia
> 20*United Kingdom
> 20*United States
> 94*Qatar
> 108*United States (extra-territorial)
> 150*Israel
> 153*Russia
> 168*People's Republic of China
> 174*North Korea
> 175*Eritrea
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index


What connection between "press freedom" and World Cup?


----------



## AlekseyVT

Rev Stickleback said:


> Young people get drunk. It must be a first.
> 
> How does that impact on England's ability to host exactly?


Ooops... Firstly you say that this is connected with English bid and Sorokin broken ethical principles. Now you say that it's not connected with it. :nuts:


----------



## Harry1990

i thought england's bid had been ruined after the whole triesman saga but i know think england are creeping torwards the bid.

Spain/Portugal- poor financial situation in spain pretty much rules them out in my opinion, unfortunate looked a strong bid

Belgium/ holland probably the weakest bid out of the european bids and probable lack of funds in euro countries.

Russia- strong, rich country, unfortunate racism in crowds, head of russian bid insults english bid in public which against the rules probably ruins bid. shame would like to see a russian world cup one day


before any russian people start saying i am insulting them there are racist in every country in the world, including england and russia but the difference is that it is simply not tolerated anymore, we have changed since the 1970's and 1980's we no longer through banana's or monkey nuts at our black players or sing racist chants, we no longer have widespread holigians (MILLWALL vs WEST Ham game aside) so i think if russia takes what we did 20 years ago on board and change the way the game is run then eventually you will win the rights to host the World Cup


ps- sorry for the terrible spelling


----------



## AlekseyVT

Mr Trebus said:


> ^^A good 2-0 win for England.Where was Russia..oh you didnt qualify as normal:lol:Ive got it..EUREKA..you want to host a world cup so you actually get to play in one..good luck:cheers:


Ohhh, guys. We are a modest country which have a national team of middle-class. As you was mentioned we're want to host WC because this is only chance to see Russian team in the main tournament.

After Soviet collapse jokes about Russian football became an essential attribute of the numerous humorous TV and show programs. If a comedian never joking about Russian football, then he is a bad comedian.

However, when such "soap bubble" as the English team with a great conceit not able to beat such a football "superpowers" as Algeria or Trinidad, it really became funny. It's always funny to look at a persons with a big ego, when they are falls from the imaginary sky to the earth.


----------



## MysteryMike

What's wrong with your spelling? I can't see anything 

Belgium/holland well what can I say, momentum none = GONE
Spain/Portugal supposedly caught in the bribes scandal = GONE

That leaves England versus Russia in an epic battle for the 2018 hosting rights!


----------



## AlekseyVT

*GOOD EXAMPLES HOW THE WESTERN PROPAGANDA WORKING:*



slipperydog said:


> Seriously though, who does everyone think the two countries are?





MoreOrLess said:


> Anyone involved is more than capable I'd guess but Russia and Dpha seem the most likely to me.





MysteryMike said:


> Yeah almost 100% certain it is Russia and Doha.





Tallsmurf said:


> And yes - Russia is the likely second suspect - not as rich but with a much more realistic bid - maybe looking for those last few bids that could swing it their way rather than an outright shopping trip.





slipperydog said:


> One is an Asian country and one is a European country. Guess away.





slipperydog said:


> Gotta go with Russia and Qatar.





Dimethyltryptamine said:


> this.





T74 said:


> exactly :lol:
> on your guesses, I'm with you





T74 said:


> first article I've found naming any country: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...a-demanding-cash-for-votes-article604223.html
> 
> *FIFA chiefs are set to suspend shamed duo Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii tomorrow – and have opened a probe into claims that Spain and Qatar have been part of an illegal vote-bartering cartel.*





MysteryMike said:


> Well the Russians seems to be off the hook according to the previous report.





TheoG said:


> Yeah, granted, it was really, really f*cking stupid, but still not as bad as the Russians.





TheoG said:


> However, racism in most European countries, including Russia, is worse than here.


----------



## RobH

Russians talking about propaganda. Lol.

Seriously, as long as you lot insist an obviously racist baner wasn't racist you've no right to accuse others of being blinded by propaganda.


----------



## MysteryMike

*The leader of Russia's bid to host the 2018 World Cup has backtracked on his criticism of England's suitability to stage the tournament.

Alexei Sorokin risked punishment from Fifa when he was quoted in a Russian newspaper talking about both the crime-rate and the level of alcohol consumption in London. However, an official spokesman for the Russian bid has since said that Sorokin "regrets" if his statements have "led to such an erroneous interpretation and understanding."*

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...sia-2018-chief-risks-fifas-wrath-2111189.html


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'd say your attitude in this thread is a much better example of Russian domestic propagnda working.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> Russians talking about propaganda. Lol.


As you can see, nobody of the Russians accused the Brits for bribery. Of course, the Russians, who lived in the Soviet times know more about the role of propaganda and how it works. Brits don't know it.



RobH said:


> Seriously, as long as you lot insist an obviously racist baner wasn't racist you've no right to accuse others of being blinded by propaganda.


I mean that this incident (of course, shameful for us) was artificially inflated British propaganda and does not characterize the real state of racism in Russia. Burning of the American flag looked more disgusting.


----------



## AlekseyVT

MoreOrLess said:


> I'd say your attitude in this thread is a much better example of Russian domestic propagnda working.


Examples, pls hno:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

yawn


----------



## RobH

AlekseyVT said:


> I mean that this incident (of course, shameful for us.)


I'm glad you think it was shameful. Perhaps you could tell that to virtually every other Russian in this thread AND the head of your nation's bid who still insist it was innocent and nothing to be ashamed of!


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> I'm glad you think it was shameful. Perhaps you could tell that to virtually every other Russian in this thread AND the head of your nation's bid who still insist it was innocent and nothing to be ashamed of!


I'm sure that almost every Russian forumer does not support the idea with this banner and don't want to see it in the future. They just say about extent of the problem, which has been artificially inflated. It was no more than personal insult to the player, organized a small group of stupid fans.


----------



## void0

Hosting WC in Russia will definitely help to solve racism problems in Russia by attracting public attention to this kind of issues.
One of the advantages of Russia will be multicultural nature of the country and some of games will take place in Muslim areas.
Another advantage is that this will boost construction of football and other infrastructural objects in Russia, improving that part of the world. 
Now there is active discussion regarding lifting visa regime with EU, I hope final division will be done before 2018.


----------



## RobH

^^ All undoubedly true and a big selling point; I'm quite certain England wasn't in the best place when it was awarded Euro 96 yet that acted as a catalyst. Dealing with such issues correctly can be a real boost for Russia and its world cup bid. Unfortunately, the Russian FA's denials over this silly banner show anything but the correct approach so far.


----------



## Mo Rush

In terms of bid videos, Russia is in the lead.


----------



## Mo Rush

Mo Rush said:


> *World Cup Bid Index 1.2*
> 
> *Out of 100*
> 
> England 85
> Russia 80
> Australia 75
> Spain-Portugal 74
> USA 64
> Japan 58
> Belgium-Neterlands 57
> Qatar 41


*World Cup Bid Index 1.3*

*Out of 100*

England 83
Russia 79
Australia 74
Spain-Portugal 72
USA 68
Japan 56
Belgium-Neterlands 55
South Korea 50
Qatar 42


----------



## AlekseyVT

Ok, let to think:

1) In 2013 Moscow stadium Luzhniki will be host World Championships in Athletics. This competition will be held within 9 days. There will be among 2100 athletes, and black-skin athletes (Afro-American sprinters, African stayers) will be played leading roles (like Asians or Latin Americans in some disciplines).
2) In 2013 Kazan will be host Summer Universiade. This competition will be held within 11 days. There will be among 10.000 participants, and black-skin students also will be played same roles.
3) In 2014 Sochi will be host Winter Olympic Games. This competition will be held within 17 days. There will be among 2600 participants. Of course, there are not so many black-skin athletes who played leading roles in the winter kinds of sport, but there will be not small numbers of participants from the African states.
4) There will be among 900 football players in the WC2018.

Therefore, for Brits one stupid banner is a main argument in the anti-PR company against WC2018 in Russia. But it only shows the weakness of British argumentation.


----------



## Mr Trebus

AlekseyVT said:


> Ohhh, guys. We are a modest country which have a national team of middle-class. As you was mentioned we're want to host WC because this is only chance to see Russian team in the main tournament.
> 
> After Soviet collapse jokes about Russian football became an essential attribute of the numerous humorous TV and show programs. If a comedian never joking about Russian football, then he is a bad comedian.
> 
> However, when such "soap bubble" as the English team with a great conceit not able to beat such a football "superpowers" as Algeria or Trinidad, it really became funny. It's always funny to look at a persons with a big ego, when they are falls from the imaginary sky to the earth.


why of course..russians are world reknowned for their humble attitude:lol:


----------



## RobH

AlekseyVT said:


> Ok, let to think:
> 
> 1) In 2013 Moscow stadium Luzhniki will be host World Championships in Athletics. This competition will be held within 9 days. There will be among 2100 athletes, and black-skin athletes (Afro-American sprinters, African stayers) will be played leading roles (like Asians or Latin Americans in some disciplines).
> 2) In 2013 Kazan will be host Summer Universiade. This competition will be held within 11 days. There will be among 10.000 participants, and black-skin students also will be played same roles.
> 3) In 2014 Sochi will be host Winter Olympic Games. This competition will be held within 17 days. There will be among 2600 participants. Of course, there are not so many black-skin athletes who played leading roles in the winter kinds of sport, but there will be not small numbers of participants from the African states.
> 4) There will be among 900 football players in the WC2018.
> 
> Therefore, for Brits one stupid banner is a main argument in the anti-PR company against WC2018 in Russia. But it only shows the weakness of British argumentation.


It would have gone away very quickly as an argument had the Russian FA reacted correctly. As it was, they all but condoned it, and the story became much bigger than it should have been. This isn't a British argument by the way, the Nigerian FA weren't happy about how this was dealt with either, so you can stop shifting the blame.

All of the above are great, but one incident is one too many; and one incident dealt with poorly is even worse.

_Well, I would say this - I've been working here for 18 years, and in 1975 no one died. In 1976, no one died. In 1977, no one died. In 1978, no one died. In 1979, no-one died. In 1980... someone died. In 1981, no one died. In 1982 there was the incident with the pigeon. In 1983, no one died. In 1984, no one died. In 1985, no one died. In 1986... I mean, I could go on. _


----------



## void0

Instead of bashing Russian bid, can someone explain what are the benefits of british bid?


----------



## RobH

I don't think a discussion is bashing the Russian bid - which is excellent in many respects - but I can certainly tell you some points about the England (not British) bid:

1. A compact country with good rail links between stadiums, good for fans in this sense
2. World reknowned Premier League stadiums such as Old Trafford, the Emirates, St James' Park etc etc. Unless the Olympic Stadium is included none of these stadiums will have running tracks and all will be purpouse built for the sport.
3. A very safe option, most stadiums already in place, certain of sell-out stadiums, a mature but steadily growing footballing market which sponsors will love
4. Extremely good stadium security - a model other countries are looking to when dealing with their own domestic issues within stadium management
5. Very good offering to all teams. They are all being offered either a Premier League or Championship training base at which to train. Individual tie-ups with clubs will help foster a sense of belonging and it'd be nice to see a place take a team to their hearts as Middlesbrough did with North Korea back in 1966.
6. Know-how when it comes to big events - London 2012 is going extremely well and FIFA will see this.
7. Giving a world cup to the country which has provided one of the greatest contingenets of travelling fans.
8. Government support at all levels, all guaruntees signed and sealed over a year ago, one of the first bids to do so

I'm sure I could think of some more, but there are some.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Of course, there are not so many black-skin people who live in Russia (Russia never conquered or looted African colonies). However, few athletes plays leading roles in Russian national teams.

*Emiliya Turey is a Russian team handball player, playing for the Russian national team since 2003. She was born in Astrakhan. Her mother is Russian, while her father is of Sierra Leonean descent. She is three times World Champion, from 2005, 2007 and 2009. She won a silver medal at the 2008 Summer Olympics, silver (2006) and bronze (2008) medals at the European Championships. She is also two-times World (2001, 2003) and European (2002) champion among young national teams.*









*Nkeirouka Ezekh is a curler for Russia of Nigerian-Russian descent. She was born in 1983, Moscow. She plays for Russian team since 2000, took part at three Winter Olympic Tournament. She was part of Ludmila Privivkova's team, which won the 2006 European Curling Championships.*









*Jon Robert "J.R." Holden is an American-born, naturalized Russian professional basketball player. He plays for BC CSKA Moscow since 2002 till now. He was named the 2003 Russian Superleague A Player of the Year and won the Euroleague 2005–06 and the Euroleague 2007–08 season championships with CSKA. Holden's biggest achievement came in the 2007 FIBA European Championship (EuroBasket) final game in Madrid against Spain (World Champions 2006), where he scored the winning shot that gave Russia the championship. He scored the final winning basket with 2 seconds left in the game. He was also named to the Russian squad for the 2008 Beijing Olympics Basketball Tournament.*









*Nikael Bikua-Mfantse is a rower of Russian national team. He won European Rowing Championship in discipline Quadruple Sculls.*


----------



## T74

BTW I have heard rumours here that the Sunday Times has a round 2 of revelations due to their next edition

any of our UK friends heard if this is right?


----------



## RobH

No I hadn't heard that. This sounds like the Parliamentary expenses scandal all over again if that's true though; drip-feeding the revelations and drawing them out rather than bringing them out all in one go! 

Any details on what the revelations might involve? Who did you hear these rumours from?


----------



## dacrio

2018 fifa world cup:

Vote For Russia: 9

Blatter 
Hayatou 
Texieira
Erzik
Makudi
Ogura
Mutko
Lefkaritis
Bin Hammam
Adamu

England: 5

Valcke
Platini
joon
thompson
Blazer

Spain and portugal: 6

Grondona
Villar
Warner
Temarii
Salguero
Leoz

Holland and Belgium: 4 ELIMINATED

D'hooge
Anouma
Beckenbauer
Abo Rida

with or without temarii and adamu the result is the same


----------



## RobH

Blatter doesn't get to vote unless it's a tie in the final round as I understand it.


----------



## dacrio

RobH said:


> Blatter doesn't get to vote unless it's a tie in the final round as I understand it.


correct


----------



## RobH

So, you've given us your predictions for Round 1 of the voting only and it's 8 (because Blatter dosn't vote),5,6,4.

You haven't given us the final result.


----------



## dacrio

RobH said:


> So, you've given us your predictions for Round 1 of the voting only and it's 8 (because Blatter dosn't vote),5,6,4.
> 
> You haven't given us the final result.


I know, next week.
I need to speak with Sepp


----------



## RobH

okay then


----------



## Fobos2030

del


----------



## Aka

dacrio said:


> 2018 fifa world cup:
> 
> Vote For Russia: 9
> 
> Texieira


Teixeira (who the hell is "Texieira"?) voting for Russia instead of Spain and Portugal? Right... :|


----------



## Trelawny

I feel an upset will happen. People think it will be England and Australia hosting. But I don't think Fifa will let that happen.


----------



## Mr.Underground

Trelawny said:


> I feel an upset will happen. People think it will be England and Australia hosting. But I don't think Fifa will let that happen.


England and Australia are the favourite.

I think will be Russia and Australia at the end.


----------



## T74

Mr.Underground said:


> England and Australia are the favourite.
> 
> I think will be Russia and Australia at the end.


last betting I saw USA were still ahead of Australia, but that was a couple of months ago


----------



## JimB

What happened to my posts?

Have they been deleted? If so, why?

Mo?


----------



## T74

Anyone know more about this Zen-Ruffinen, and which bid/s he could be working for?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Ruffinen-offers-himself-as-a-210k-fixer.html

World Cup 2018: former Fifa official Michel Zen-Ruffinen offers himself as a '£210k’ fixer

TheBy Richard Bright
Published: 11:36PM BST 23 Oct 2010

World Cup 'votes for hire’ crisis took another twist on Saturday night with new allegations emerging against Michel Zen-Ruffinen, the former Fifa general secretary.

The World Cup 'votes for hire’ crisis took another twist last night with new allegations emerging against Michel Zen-Ruffinen, the former Fifa general secretary.

He was filmed allegedly offering himself as a fixer available for hire for £210,000.

With England seemingly leading the way in the race to win the rights to stage the 2018 World Cup finals, Zen-Ruffinen, 51, is alleged to have told undercover reporters what he claims it would take to win the backing of some of the members of the Fifa executive committee who will vote on the issue in Zurich on Dec 2.

Zen-Ruffinen allegedly suggests some of the members can be influenced by money, another by “ladies”, while another was “the biggest gangster you will find on earth”.

Fifa has already agreed to investigate the issue of vote buying after similar allegations last week.

These new claims will heap further pressure on Sepp Blatter. In May he will again run for Fifa president, at the age of 74. As it stands, he will run unopposed.

This lends a political delicacy to the Fifa ethics committee’s investigation into alleged corruption by two of its executive committee members, Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii, four other officials and, in a parallel investigation, alleged collusion between bidding nations on vote-swapping for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

Blatter cannot afford to go soft on corruption for fear that another candidate might use it as a platform to run against him in May. Yet neither can he take the risk of being too severe on those who have been inside the Fifa oligarchy.

Aside from investigating Adamu and Temarii for allegedly offering to take money in exchange for their vote — the classic corruption paradigm — Fifa is also looking into what it is ludicrously calling “rumours” (you don’t investigate a rumour) of collusion between bids on voting.

It is forbidden for bids to co-operate with each other and horse-trade votes (i.e. if you vote for us for 2018, we’ll vote for you for 2022) just as it is forbidden for one bid to criticise another. Yeah, and Blatter is a tall, handsome man. The procedure itself is manifestly open to abuse, exacerbated once it became clear that a deal had been cut to ensure one of the European bids was going to get 2018.

At that point, the bidders hived off into two groups. In these circumstances could a bid afford not to gain an ally in the other camp? Fifa is looking at Spain and Portugal’s relationship with Qatar but it would be naive to assume it stops there.

Asian Football Confederation president and Fifa executive committee member Mohammed Bin Hammam has even publicly said that it is “not surprising” that this sort of thing is taking place.

Why did Fifa put itself in such a vulnerable position? Simply greed. The decision to award two World Cups at the same time was because it would enable Fifa to cut more lucrative television and marketing deals. And of course, being wooed by twice as many suitors doubtless has its advantages.

The voting itself takes place behind closed doors in Zurich and is anonymous. Until there is transparency, Fifa’s ethics committee (who said oxymoron?) will be kept busy.

A US study estimated the World Cup to be worth $5billion (£3.2billion) to a host nation. Five billion dollars; 24 votes. Exactly.

With the English bid getting the highest marks from Fifa’s inspection team there is growing optimism of success. The investigation of Spain-Portugal and Qatar can do nothing but good for the English bid.

Russia is the only credible rival, and its bid was reported last night to be in trouble, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin believed to be resisting pressure to fly to Zurich for the vote on Dec 2.


----------



## Wezza

Trelawny said:


> I feel an upset will happen. People think it will be England and Australia hosting. But I don't think Fifa will let that happen.


Australia losing out to the USA for 2022 wouldn't be an upset in alot of people's eyes. As much as I hate saying it, I think the USA are the favourites for it. Although I really hope they don't get it for 2 reasons; 1) They had it in 1994 & 2) Well, I'm Australian! :cheers:


----------



## _X_

Wezza said:


> Australia losing out to the USA for 2022 wouldn't be an upset in alot of people's eyes. As much as I hate saying it, I think the USA are the favourites for it. Although I really hope they don't get it for 3 reasons; 1) They had it in 1994 2) Well, I'm Australian! :cheers: 3)they are guaranteed to get it in 2026 anyway


fixed it for ya mate


----------



## Suburbanist

Aka said:


> Teixeira (who the hell is "Texieira"?) voting for Russia instead of Spain and Portugal? Right... :|


Teixeira is Ricardo Teixeira, the powerful president of Brazilian Football Association, president of the 2014 WC Local Committee and son-in-law of Joao Havelange, the former FIFA president.

Conmembol usually close support of its delegates together. And there is nothing wrong supporting Spain and Qatar, as they do not belong to UEFA.

I doubt Qatar stood any chance on the following rounds.


----------



## T74

Suburbanist said:


> Teixeira is Ricardo Teixeira, the powerful president of Brazilian Football Association, president of the 2014 WC Local Committee and son-in-law of Joao Havelange, the former FIFA president.
> 
> Conmembol usually close support of its delegates together. And there is nothing wrong supporting Spain and Qatar, as they do not belong to UEFA.
> 
> I doubt Qatar stood any chance on the following rounds.


not necessarily.

If the media is right, and the Spainish 4 and Qatari 3 agreed to back the Spanish/Qatari bids in a trade-off, Qatar would be guaranteed to make it to the final round (starting with a base of 7 votes).

They only needed 5 more to win. It would be tough for the Korean and Japanese delegate to vote against their confed, so that gives them 9. As you mentioned, Conmembol tend to vote together, so that then brings Paraguay into play (up to 10). That then meant Qatar only needed to get 3 more votes to win, and they have been working hard to develop goodwill with CAF. If they get the Nigeria/Cameroon/Côte d'Ivoire, thats your 13.

The issue Aka raised though was he was disputing Teixeira being put in the pro-Russia column for 2018 by Dacrio. On this, I agree with him. Would be stunned if any of Conmembol voted against Spain/Portugal - especially in the first round of voting. That being said, he also had Bin Hammam and Makudi voting for Russia, and both are liked to the alleged Qatari/Spain deal, so you would be expecting them to also support Spain. Also he had Abo Rida voting for Holland, when he has been alleged to be the third of the Qatari block.

Switch those three votes, you suddenly get Spain with 10, Russia with 6, England with 5, and Benelux with 3 after his hypothetical first round vote.


----------



## T74

The Guardian goes into a bit more detail (cannot access the Times as its subscriber only). Definitely looks like the noose will be tightening after this for the Spainish/Qatari deal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/24/fifa-alleged-bribes-voting-world-cup

Former Fifa official caught on camera in World Cup votes bribe scandal

• Michel Zen-Ruffinen says several Fifa members can be bribed
• Spain, Portugal and Qatar alleged to have struck voting deal

* Marcus Christenson
* guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 October 2010 01.42 BST

Michel Zen-Ruffinen, a former secretary general of Fifa, has said he can identify Fifa executive members who are willing to be bribed to buy their votes for the World Cups in 2018 (for which England is bidding) and 2022.

The latest allegations in the cash for votes scandal come from a Sunday Times report which says Zen-Ruffinen was caught on camera going through a list of Fifa executive members, saying how much their votes would cost, and describing one of them "as the biggest gangster on earth".

Zen-Ruffinen added that the Spain/Portugal bid to host the World Cup has struck a deal with Qatar to exchange votes, which will have implications for England's 2018 bid, although Qatar have angrily denied the allegations.

"People expect a battle between Russia and England but they are very much disturbed by the alliance with Qatar, because if Spain start with seven, which nobody was expecting ... that's a real alliance. It's bound, tacked with a nice ribbon and that's really problematic. This is the most problematic thing. And I was informed about it last week. And this is not just a rumour. That's a fact."

Zen-Ruffinen, a 51-year-old lawyer who worked for 16 years at football's world governing body and was regarded as the Fifa president Sepp Blatter's protégé before falling out with him, named two Fifa members whom he maintained would be susceptible to financial inducements, and a third whom he described as "the guy you can have with ladies and not money ..."

He described a fourth member as "the biggest gangster you will find on earth", whose vote would cost "a minimum of half a million (dollars)."

Zen-Ruffinen said later that he had only been recounting "well-known rumours."

It also emerged that Spain may have secured another vote through Reynald Temarii, the Fifa executive committee member for Oceania, according to a statement by Ahongalu Fusimalohi, another member of the Oceania executive committee. "Oceania have indirectly said they will support England," Fusimalhi said. "But they are not."

Asked who they were supporting, he replied: "Spain."


----------



## kidrobot

I'm just tired of arguing, matthenod. I have counter-arguments, but we better stop right here and give a good example to others.

As for the scandal - I'm almost sure the journalists got some support and "motivation". Because I don't see it why they didn't do this earlier and on a wider scale.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> For the 300th time, the England 2018 bid has NOTHING to do with what is written in our press and there is no more a PR campaign against Russia than there is against any other bid. Would you and other Russians in this thread get that into your skulls, because I'm pretty bored of repeating this point.


If England 2018 bid has NOTHING to do with what is written in your press, so why you post these articles in your every tenth message? :nuts:


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> If England 2018 bid has NOTHING to do with what is written in your press, so why you post these articles in your every tenth message? :nuts:


Think about it.

The articles are ABOUT the WC 2018 bids (and therefore relevant to this thread).

That's altogether a different thing to the articles being written BY the England 2018 bid team.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## AlekseyVT

JimB said:


> Think about it.
> 
> The articles are ABOUT the WC 2018 bids (and therefore relevant to this thread).
> 
> That's altogether a different thing to the articles being written BY the England 2018 bid team.
> 
> It's not rocket science.


Seriously. If you post article, that it means - you seems it interesting and you are solidary with journalist. There are many articles about a World Cup in the British press. But you recommend us to read only articles which are interesting to you. Therefore articles corresponds to your opinion, whether not so?


----------



## MoreOrLess

RobH said:


> Before the whinging hoards came over the Urals and carried on their tirade about the British Press we were talking about the vote selling scandal, a very good example of excellent journalism (and from the British press as well, who'd've thunk it?!)
> 
> Things aren't black and white, as I've said hundreds of times there's good and bad journalism, just like any profession. Distrusting all journalism is as silly and dangerous as trusting all of it. If the press wasn't in existence Adamu wouldn't be suspended, we wouldn't know about the alleged Qatari-Spain vote deal, we wouldn't know about the story broken today about how much it costs to get a vote from certain FIFA execs, and FIFA would be going about its normal dirty business whilst pretending to the world it's policing itself and is a clean organisation.
> 
> Then what would we be talking about?.....stadiums probably


The ironic thing is that thus far the british press have probabley helped the Russian bid by exposing two of their rivals potentially corruption.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

matthemod said:


> Yes the media will be saying all sorts of things about the other bids, they're also saying it about our bid too.


Do you realise that people who are reading biased bulls**t about Russia's bid in british news, they don't care that this is a "characteristics of british press". The important thing that it's attacking other bid. No one cares that this is "british thing" (it's a jersey thing  )

Or you can write bulls**t about others, but don't forget to write the same about yourself, and you are clear?

It doesn't justify external attacks.

Brits who can't accept it are lying to themselves. But it's your problem.


----------



## TampaMike

AlekseyVT said:


> Seriously. If you post article, that it means - you seems it interesting and you are solidary with journalist. There are many articles about a World Cup in the British press. But you recommend us to read only articles which are interesting to you. Therefore articles corresponds to your opinion, whether not so?


If it is an article that relates to the World Cup or bidder, than they have all the rights to post the article. Even if it rips other bidders.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

coth said:


> A lot of lie and false claims from British side is a good sign for Russian bid. They feel they are in troubles. Actually i believe UK should be disqualified just for this massive black PR campaign launched against Russia.
> 
> 
> ps. All was said is "he will decide himself, so ask him".


You were there, I take it?


The funny thing is, this "black PR story" isn't even against the Russian bid. It's not critical of the bid in any way.

If a Russian paper printed a story saying Cameron was only going to go if he beleived England would win the bid, it wouldn't be seen as a smear on the England bid. A knock against Cameron perhaps, but that's it.


But of course, you believe the media in this country is being told by the government and the FA to print the stories they want them to print, because that's how media across the world works, apparently.


It is strange how there's a such a strong correlation between countries with a poor press freedom index and the conviction they have that other countries keep lying about them. If North Koreans had internet access they'd be outraged about the lies other countries tell about their land.


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> Seriously. If you post article, that it means - you seems it interesting and you are solidary with journalist. There are many articles about a World Cup in the British press. But you recommend us to read only articles which are interesting to you. Therefore articles corresponds to your opinion, whether not so?


That may be your modus operandi but you can't assume that everyone is the same as you.

If Rob posts an article about the World Cup bids on this thread, the most that you have the right to assume is that he posted it because it was relevant to this thread.


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

Rev Stickleback said:


> It is strange how there's a such a strong correlation between countries with a poor press freedom index and the conviction they have that other countries keep lying about them.


This is exactly what must be said about UK and USA. USA even still censoring video reports from Afghanistan.

Or this: British SIS Hit Team Kills Top US Oil Expert For Breaking Gulf Oil Spill News Blackout

This is a long long conversation. How people from countries, which are listed higher in Soros-sponsored "list" have superiority complex, and talking about others, like they don't have access to the "truth".

The situation is directly opposite.

And let's not make a mess from this point.


----------



## JimB

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> Do you realise that people who are reading biased bulls**t about Russia's bid in british news, they don't care that this is a "characteristics of british press". The important thing that it's attacking other bid. No one cares that this is "british thing" (it's a jersey thing  )
> 
> Or you can write bulls**t about others, but don't forget to write the same about yourself, and you are clear?
> 
> It doesn't justify external attacks.
> 
> Brits who can't accept it are lying to themselves. But it's your problem.


For crying out loud.........do you and your fellow Russians have nothing better to talk about other than the British media? It's quite clear that you don't understand the British media and how it operates and it's equally clear that you have no interest in listening to the informed opinion of those who DO understand. I wouldn't presume to lecture you about the Russian media. So what makes you think you can lecture Brits?

As has been said, time after time, the Russian obsession with the British media on this thread is mind numbingly boring. You just drone on and on and on and on and on and on and on........

Please......pretty please........with sugar on top......talk about something else. Talk about something that is relevant to this thread (like, I dunno..............um...........stadiums?) and give up this half witted obsession you have with the British media. Because, as things stand, perpetual Russian whingeing is just ruining this thread and rendering it utterly unreadable.


----------



## waqif

*Argentina gives tactical green light to Qatar 2022 bid *

Argentina has confirmed it will throw its weight behind Qatar’s bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022.

*
“We expect that Doha in return will support our candidacy to co-host the event in 2030 along with Uruguay,” said Carlos Enrique Meyer, Argentinean tourism minister, during a state visit to Doha".*

http://www.arabianbusiness.com/argentina-gives-tactical-green-light-qatar-2022-bid-357860.html

Gulftimes

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...=393998&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

JimB said:


> I wouldn't presume to lecture you about the Russian media. So what makes you think you can lecture Brits?


I see how brits or americans lecturing Russia about its "totalitarian media" everyday in internet. Though they don't have a clue about that.

The main problem, I repeat, is not even a british press bias. The superiority complex, based on what you "did know since birthday" about some countries, is a main problem. And that people don't want to change its dinosour vision of the world.

And I don't understand why are you talking to me, because I argued with matthemod.


----------



## JimB

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> I see how brits or americans lecturing Russia about its "totalitarian media" everyday in internet. Though they don't have a clue about that.
> 
> The main problem, I repeat, is not even a british press bias. The superiority complex, based on what you "did know since birthday" about some countries, is a main problem. And that people don't want to change its dinosour vision of the world.
> 
> And I don't understand why are you talking to me, because I argued with matthemod.


Yawn.

Again...........

Any chance that you could talk about something else?


----------



## RobH

Seriously, are there _any_ Russians on this sub-forum who are intelligent, objective supporters of their bid because I haven't met one yet. I mean that honestly and with sadness. 

I've been posting on various internet forums for years about Olympic and world cup bids. Every group of supporters had its blind nationalists who would blame criticism on the press and see their nation's bid as perfect, but they tended to be ignored and disowned by their less jingoisitic countrymen, and you could mostly have a good debate in the end.

There isn't _one_ Russian here who redeems the rest and who you can have a debate with. Not one. It's like you've all been indoctrinated to repeat the party line. Take that as an insult if you want and carry on rambling about the British Press if you like, but I've got more pressing matters to attend to:


----------



## Russia__WC__2018

RobH said:


> ...


et:


RobH said:


> It's like you've all been indoctrinated to repeat the party line.


We are all just KGB agents. Only we have access to internet. Others have only 5 minutes every week, when they have free time in Gulag.

How didn't you know that?


----------



## crazyalex

Oh no English vs Russian again hno:


----------



## RobH

Alex, you try debating with a group of people who respond back in perfect unison "it's the British press wot dun it"

It's touching in a way to know how much they care about us and our Press, but you won't get very far with them if you want to talk about anything other than the Fourth Estate.


----------



## Mo Rush

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> I see how brits or americans lecturing Russia about its "totalitarian media" everyday in internet. Though they don't have a clue about that.
> 
> The main problem, I repeat, is not even a british press bias. The superiority complex, based on what you "did know since birthday" about some countries, is a main problem. And that people don't want to change its dinosour vision of the world.
> 
> And I don't understand why are you talking to me, because I argued with matthemod.


Honestly, which century do you live in?

Fascinating.


----------



## dacrio

T74 said:


> not necessarily.
> 
> If the media is right, and the Spainish 4 and Qatari 3 agreed to back the Spanish/Qatari bids in a trade-off, Qatar would be guaranteed to make it to the final round (starting with a base of 7 votes).
> 
> They only needed 5 more to win. It would be tough for the Korean and Japanese delegate to vote against their confed, so that gives them 9. As you mentioned, Conmembol tend to vote together, so that then brings Paraguay into play (up to 10). That then meant Qatar only needed to get 3 more votes to win, and they have been working hard to develop goodwill with CAF. If they get the Nigeria/Cameroon/Côte d'Ivoire, thats your 13.
> 
> The issue Aka raised though was he was disputing Teixeira being put in the pro-Russia column for 2018 by Dacrio. On this, I agree with him. Would be stunned if any of Conmembol voted against Spain/Portugal - especially in the first round of voting. That being said, he also had Bin Hammam and Makudi voting for Russia, and both are liked to the alleged Qatari/Spain deal, so you would be expecting them to also support Spain. Also he had Abo Rida voting for Holland, when he has been alleged to be the third of the Qatari block.
> 
> Switch those three votes, you suddenly get Spain with 10, Russia with 6, England with 5, and Benelux with 3 after his hypothetical first round vote.


hno:

believe that qatar has chances to host the world cup is ridicoulus.
a world cup in qatar?!??!:lol:
spain 10 votes in the first round?!??! ...too many

I know we're speaking about money but , please, be serious!


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Russia__WC__2018 said:


> This is exactly what must be said about UK and USA. USA even still censoring video reports from Afghanistan.
> 
> Or this: British SIS Hit Team Kills Top US Oil Expert For Breaking Gulf Oil Spill News Blackout
> 
> This is a long long conversation. How people from countries, which are listed higher in Soros-sponsored "list" have superiority complex, and talking about others, like they don't have access to the "truth".
> 
> The situation is directly opposite.
> 
> And let's not make a mess from this point.


hmm, you didn't perhaps have a look round some of the "News" from that site?

How about this story
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/03/time-to-grow-a-spine-now-white-people/

*Time to Grow a Spine Now, White People!*

You know you’re not a “hater,” you’re an American and have always wanted to give everyone a fair shake, no matter his skin color. But why can’t us Whites get a break once in a while from all this racism bull we have to listen to, 24/7? You don’t think we deserve a little slack after all we’ve done in this country to improve race relations?

You’re not the only one who feels this way. But you know something else? It’s not Blacks or us “Evil Whites” responsible for the mess we’re in. We’ve been played for suckers for way too long. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not really “racism” behind all of this, but a way of keeping Whites feeling guilty, a way to get OUR rights trampled on and to force us to look the other away as another race does whatever the hell they want to in the world!

Yep, that’s right — the Jews. You might be blowing it all off right now, but listen up: Jews have worked consciously for years to make the US a “pluralistic” society or what they describe in their infinite wisdom, a “Universal Country.” Oh, that sounds great and all, but the facts of the matter is that they’ve really done this for their own inner motives — never really caring about Blacks in the end. Many Jews, privately, are totally hateful about Blacks.


How about...
*Europe Becomes Less European With Each New Wave of Mass Immigration*

The rise in forced marriages — estimated to be in the region of 10,000 every year, of which 20 percent involve male victims — is yet more evidence that Third World culture has been imported into Britain along with Third World immigrants.

In a disturbing display of the simple truth that a culture is merely the reflection of a people, and that cultures change when the population changes, the incidence of forced marriages in Britain has risen sharply along with the rise in the number of immigrants.


and let's not forget the way that piece of "journalism" you quoted ends...


> Most unfortunately in all of these events is that another great voice for freedom has been silenced in America with the killing of Matthew Simmons; a sad fact made even more intolerable as the majority of the American people continue to remain complacent while the appetite of the US elite classes to steal all they can is warned is pushing them all towards a new Revolutionary War. ﻿


Call me a cynic if you like, or even one of the "sheeple" who does know the "truth", but something about that site makes me suspect it isn't exactly a reliable source of information.


If that's where you get your ideas of press "cover-ups" from though, it does explain a lot.


----------



## MysteryMike

This thread continues to be derailed by garbage, I mean honestly, Russia you are not doing yourselves any favors. Is this like the Japanese kamikaze efforts when they couldn't win? Why isn't anyone knocking these tosser bids that were stealing your votes via vote rigging i.e Spain/Portugal and Qatar. Anyone who talks again on some tangent Anglophile versus Russophile debate should cop a you know what.


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> *Argentina gives tactical green light to Qatar 2022 bid *
> 
> Argentina has confirmed it will throw its weight behind Qatar’s bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022.
> 
> *
> “We expect that Doha in return will support our candidacy to co-host the event in 2030 along with Uruguay,” said Carlos Enrique Meyer, Argentinean tourism minister, during a state visit to Doha".*
> 
> http://www.arabianbusiness.com/argentina-gives-tactical-green-light-qatar-2022-bid-357860.html
> 
> Gulftimes
> 
> http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...=393998&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16


Another pay off Qatar? Another bribe? Another nation to corrupt? Qatar should be the first nation eliminated out of the world cup bid, it should have happened when the bidding process initially started, what a disgrace for FIFA.


----------



## kidrobot

I don't see people from any other countries posting bullshit articles here, other than Britain, that's why there is such an argument between brits and russians.

Anyway, I find it funny how things have changed. Our country was brainwashed for 80 years. So noone believes what the press says. 
Now when I talk to some guys from Britain or the US it seems like it is they who have been reading Pravda for the last century. Any conversation about Russia ends with blabbering about kgb, gulag, freedom of press, democracy, speech freedom index or whatever. 

Surprisingly, there is an anglosaxon expat community in Moscow. Guys from Britain, America, Australia, Canada. About 40 000 of them. Got their own newspapers, satellite channel. I've talked to many of them and they enjoy living under our bloody regime.


----------



## T74

I find it amusing that the main media empire that does have its TV/newspaper empire follow its owners agenda (and usually report with bias politically) is News Limited.

News Limited of course which dominates the UK press.

News Limited of course which is owned by an American who was originally Australian.

out of interest, why would an ex-Australian American give a toss about boosting the British self esteem for anything, when its not his allegiance, and his sole allegiance is to himself and selling papers?


----------



## RobH

kidrobot said:


> I don't see people from any other countries posting bullshit articles here, other than Britain, that's why there is such an argument between brits and russians.
> 
> Anyway, I find it funny how things have changed. Our country was brainwashed for 80 years. So noone believes what the press says.
> Now when I talk to some guys from Britain or the US it seems like it is they who have been reading Pravda for the last century. Any conversation about Russia ends with blabbering about kgb, gulag, freedom of press, democracy, speech freedom index or whatever.
> 
> Surprisingly, there is an anglosaxon expat community in Moscow. Guys from Britain, America, Australia, Canada. About 40 000 of them. Got their own newspapers, satellite channel. I've talked to many of them and they enjoy living under our bloody regime.


Like we give a ****.


----------



## TheoG

kidrobot said:


> I don't see people from any other countries posting bullshit articles here, other than Britain, that's why there is such an argument between brits and russians.
> 
> Anyway, I find it funny how things have changed. Our country was brainwashed for 80 years. So noone believes what the press says.
> Now when I talk to some guys from Britain or the US it seems like it is they who have been reading Pravda for the last century. Any conversation about Russia ends with blabbering about kgb, gulag, freedom of press, democracy, speech freedom index or whatever.
> 
> Surprisingly, there is an anglosaxon expat community in Moscow. Guys from Britain, America, Australia, Canada. About 40 000 of them. Got their own newspapers, satellite channel. I've talked to many of them and they enjoy living under our bloody regime.


You do realise that RobH and I were posting links to the silly articles to make a point, not that we actually believed them. The one who took it to be a true article was in fact Russian. I'm not saying that Russia is a bad country, or that it's badly run, but some people on here seem to copy and paste stuff off Pravda.ru because they think it's true, which is ignorant and stupid, IMO.

Just out of interest, and off topic, but do Russia have satirical comedy shows, such as Have I Got News For You, or Mock the Week, which take the p*ss out of everything, eg. the government, the people, even our bid for 2018, around the time of the Triesman affair, in a funny way? YouTube them, they're very funny, do you have anything similar in Russia?


----------



## AlekseyVT

JimB said:


> T
> If Rob posts an article about the World Cup bids on this thread, the most that you have the right to assume is that he posted it because it was relevant to this thread.


If Rob posts an article about the World Cup bids on this thread, that I'm have right to comment it and named it BS when I'm so think, isn't it?


----------



## kidrobot

Nah, our satirical comedy shows are very gentle to everyone to my mind. Not only the government, but also to the pop-stars, cops, average joes. They joke about corruption, officials and stupidity, sochi 2014 bid, crap football teams but they are usually too nice.
There is a russian analogue of "Little Britain" though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NBUpQV227M


----------



## AlekseyVT

TheoG said:


> Just out of interest, and off topic, but do Russia have satirical comedy shows, such as Have I Got News For You, or Mock the Week, which take the p*ss out of everything, eg. the government, the people, even our bid for 2018, around the time of the Triesman affair, in a funny way? YouTube them, they're very funny, do you have anything similar in Russia?


This show have funny name "Projectorparishilton". I'm don't watch this programm, but they have such style. I'm don't want to find some interesting fragments, but here are fragments of interview with Jean-Paul Gaultier:


----------



## TheoG

BTW, this is a funny read. It's a mock tabloid newspaper called the Private Eye, which is edited by the comdeian Ian Hislop (who, incidentally, I live about a mile from, and whose house Ive been to, family Ive met, pool I've swam in, etc.).
www.private-eye.co.uk/


----------



## TheoG

kidrobot said:


> Nah, our satirical comedy shows are very gentle to everyone to my mind. Not only the government, but also to the pop-stars, cops, average joes. They joke about corruption, officials and stupidity, sochi 2014 bid, crap football teams but they are usually too nice.
> There is a russian analogue of "Little Britain" though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NBUpQV227M


That's closer to what Have I Got News For You is like, it's a bit gentler, still good fun though. Mock the Week is just insults, less so since Frankie Boyle, who has managed to get into trouble with just about everyone, including the Queen, still funny. 

I prefer sketch shows, like Harry and Paul, or Armstrong and Miller, though, personally.


----------



## AlekseyVT

More video (about gay parade):





Football players:





Russian players watching WC in South Africa:


----------



## kidrobot

The most scandalous newspaper we ever had was "The Exile". It was published by an american expat living in Moscow. He mocked mafia, government, other expats, other countries, russian opposition, orthodox church, journalists from the world over, i.e. almost everything. He also had a very specific approach to russian women (he called them "cheap whores" and it infuriated a lot of them), tried a lot of drugs and wrote about his prostitute visits. It was a good example of Gonzo-journalism. In 2008 he stopped publishing the newspaper saying he had problems with the government and went back to America. Which is probably not true - if the officials wanted his paper shut, they wouldn't let him bash everyone for 6 years. Most likely he ran out of money.
You can check the whole archive of the issues here: http://exile.ru/
There are some hillarious and witty articles about modern Russia - like this one: http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7861&IBLOCK_ID=35&phrase_id=47586


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> If Rob posts an article about the World Cup bids on this thread, that I'm have right to comment it and named it BS when I'm so think, isn't it?


You have the right to comment about an article. Absolutely. Be as critical of it as you want.

But, just because you might only ever post articles which reflect your own opinion, you don't have the right to assume that everyone else does the same. You have no idea what other people might or might not do.

Here's an idea: why don't you ask RobH instead of making such assumptions? That would be the civilized and polite thing to do.

Or is that too much to ask of you?


----------



## TampaMike

:banana: *This Thread is in Chaos Mode!!!!* :banana:


----------



## Walbanger

^^ I thought we just had a break through with the satirical stuff.


----------



## nomarandlee

kidrobot said:


> I don't see people from any other countries posting bullshit articles here, other than Britain, that's why there is such an argument between brits and russians.
> Anyway, I find it funny how things have changed. Our country was brainwashed for 80 years. So noone believes what the press says.
> .


I call BS on that one. The vitriolic jingoist most Russians have shown themselves to be on SSC aren't likely the kind to have not bought into much of what their national press tells them. The lack in diversity of thought is striking.


----------



## nomarandlee

Rev Stickleback said:


> Call me a cynic if you like, or even one of the "sheeple" who does know the "truth", but something about that site makes me suspect it isn't exactly a reliable source of information.
> 
> 
> If that's where you get your ideas of press "cover-ups" from though, it does explain a lot.


Not shocking it wouldn't raise a red flag to him. That is the same nutter journalism that is RT's bread and butter so why would that come off as abnormal.


----------



## AlekseyVT

nomarandlee said:


> I call BS on that one. The vitriolic jingoist most Russians have shown themselves to be on SSC aren't likely the kind to have not bought into much of what their national press tells them.


What the difference between your own position and position of your national press?


----------



## AlekseyVT

JimB said:


> You have the right to comment about an article. Absolutely. Be as critical of it as you want.
> 
> But, just because you might only ever post articles which reflect your own opinion, you don't have the right to assume that everyone else does the same. You have no idea what other people might or might not do.
> 
> Here's an idea: why don't you ask RobH instead of making such assumptions? That would be the civilized and polite thing to do.
> 
> Or is that too much to ask of you?


This is not forum for RobH, this is forum for everybody. I ask you about the rules of talk.

RobH posted the article. I, like other Russians, said that this article is BS. You started to talk about "brainwashing Russians", "party line", "RT", "North Koreans" and other crap. Are you against critic from Russian side? Why are you defending this newspaper, if you don't feel connection between mass-media and English bid?

If you show me a Russian article or report on RT, where speaking that the failure of the current British PM Gordon Brown attend at FIFA' meeting on December 2, 2010 will symbolize fiasco of English bid, I will also say that this is BS. If you will find such articles everyday in Russian press, that you will have right to speak that Russian mass-media is BS.


----------



## Fobos2030

Here some more video: 

Putin and Medvedev:





Arshavin - Congratulation happy New Year:





Putin and Medvedev at the computer:





A song about rename militia in police:





sry for offtop


----------



## MoreOrLess

I hate to ask for anyone to be banned Mo but could you please give some of these fools the boot. I know this forum has nationalism leaking though every crack in the walls but its normally backed up with some kind of intelligent debate.


----------



## _X_

Interesting vids.You get the gist of them although its unfortunate the first one hasn't got subtitles


----------



## Kampflamm

What the hell is this thread about?


----------



## Wezza

Kampflamm said:


> What the hell is this thread about?


x2


----------



## _X_

This should get things back on track:lol:

UEFA members accepted millions to vote for Poland and Ukraine to host Euro 2012

Sunday, 24 October 2010
Share
By Duncan Mackay

October 24 - A new corruption scandal erupted today when it was claimed that UEFA officials accepted €11 million (£10 million/$15 million) worth of bribes to help Poland and Ukraine win its controversial bid to host the European Championships in 2012.

Cyprus' Spyros Marangos has claimed he is going to release information that five members of European football's governing body's Executive Board accepted the money to vote for Poland and Ukraine ahead of rivals Italy and another joint bid from Croatia and Hungary.

Poland and Ukraine polled eight votes at the UEFA Congress in Cardiff in April 2007 when they were awarded the tournament while Italy got four and no-one voted for Croatia/Hungary.

There was widespread surprise at the decision at the time and the event has since been overshadowed by problems with the build-up, particularly in Ukraine.

Marangos, a member on the executive committee of the Cyprus Football Association, told the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung that he has tried to give the evidence to UEFA but that they are not interested.

It is unclear how Marangos came to obtain this evidence or how reliable it is.

But his lawyer Neoclis Neocleous has claimed that there are witnesses who can corroborate his version of events and they are willing to testify under oath.

"[There] one or two witnesses were involved in certain transactions," said Neocleous.

But UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino has dismissed the information.

"If anyone knows things he should raise them," he told Suddeutsche Zeitung.

"Our doors are always open, we will look at everything."

But Marangos has several e-mails which he claims are evidence that he has tried to alert UEFA but that they are ignoring him, including cancelling a meeting where he planned to hand over his evidence in August.


----------



## Ecological

Isn't it funny how the the nation with the most respected media IN THE WORLD (The British) who don't hide behind anything, who get all the scoops and actually report THE NEWS and not what senior members want the average joe to hear is being ridiculed for exposing a scandal which they would've done even if it involved the English. If you have noticed. The press have no care about anything other then reporting major stories to sell papers and gain reputation. 

The British press are so far ahead of other's in terms of getting inside knowledge and actually breaking stories and reporting on them its the reason so many people have a say on them.

You guys question the Sun etc as being a bad paper! Its not a bad paper. Its just a paper that shows a few boobs and stories which aren't that important. They are still factual though. The news is just stuff which the thick society prefer rather then a broadsheet like the Times. Plus its cheaper.

Now the Ruskies on here seem to feel a vendetta on thier bid by our press because thier politicians cant stop opening thier traps and spouting shit. To bad our boys are there to pick up on it. Try and defend them as much as you want ... it's your lot in the wrong for saying the stuff. not ours for reporting it.

Ask Rooney, Ask Ashley Cole, Ask Triesman ... etc etc ... All English all had thier lives fucked up by our Press for being FUCKING GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO and revealing the TRUTH. deal with it. Much rather have that then PUTIN keeping tabs on whats wrote. 

FREE PRESS ... LOVE IT.


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> This is not forum for RobH, this is forum for everybody. I ask you about the rules of talk.
> 
> RobH posted the article. I, like other Russians, said that this article is BS. You started to talk about "brainwashing Russians", "party line", "RT", "North Koreans" and other crap. Are you against critic from Russian side? Why are you defending this newspaper, if you don't feel connection between mass-media and English bid?
> 
> If you show me a Russian article or report on RT, where speaking that the failure of the current British PM Gordon Brown attend at FIFA' meeting on December 2, 2010 will symbolize fiasco of English bid, I will also say that this is BS. If you will find such articles everyday in Russian press, that you will have right to speak that Russian mass-media is BS.


You're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you? I shouldn't have to explain yet again, but here goes:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing an article (though please just stick to criticizing the specifics of the article rather than launching into a stale and repetitive polemic about the British media). If you disagree with an article, you have every right to say why you think it is wrong.

But you cannot make assumptions about other people and their motives. You specifically accused RobH of only posting articles which exactly reflected his own opinion. But that is demonstrably untrue since, if you bothered to look back through this thread, you will see that he has posted many articles - some of which take a stance that is diametrically opposed to others. So how on earth could RobH agree with both? Unless you're also accusing him of being clinically schizophrenic? :nuts:

One other thing (since your paranoia seems to have precluded the possibility of any fact or rational thought from entering your head)................please be aware that I haven't said anything about the Russian media. I couldn't care less about the Russian media. I no more want this thread to be derailed by tedious drivel about the Russian media than I want it to be derailed by tedious drivel about the British media.

So be so kind as to cease lecturing me about doing things that I have never done. There's a good lad.

Incidentally, you need to update your internal browser. If *Gordon Brown* was to attend FIFA's meeting on December 2nd in support of England's bid, it would be almost as much of a surprise as if Boris Yeltsin was to attend in support of Russia's bid.


----------



## rus

It is necessary that in this thread was a Russian moderator. Anglo-Saxons behave rude and condescending, knowing that they are all allowed. Requires democracy.


----------



## JimB

Ecological said:


> Isn't it funny how the the nation with the most respected media IN THE WORLD (The British) who don't hide behind anything, who get all the scoops and actually report THE NEWS and not what senior members want the average joe to hear is being ridiculed for exposing a scandal which they would've done even if it involved the English. If you have noticed. The press have no care about anything other then reporting major stories to sell papers and gain reputation.
> 
> The British press are so far ahead of other's in terms of getting inside knowledge and actually breaking stories and reporting on them its the reason so many people have a say on them.
> 
> You guys question the Sun etc as being a bad paper! Its not a bad paper. Its just a paper that shows a few boobs and stories which aren't that important. They are still factual though. The news is just stuff which the thick society prefer rather then a broadsheet like the Times. Plus its cheaper.
> 
> Now the Ruskies on here seem to feel a vendetta on thier bid by our press because thier politicians cant stop opening thier traps and spouting shit. To bad our boys are there to pick up on it. Try and defend them as much as you want ... it's your lot in the wrong for saying the stuff. not ours for reporting it.
> 
> Ask Rooney, Ask Ashley Cole, Ask Triesman ... etc etc ... All English all had thier lives fucked up by our Press for being FUCKING GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO and revealing the TRUTH. deal with it. Much rather have that then PUTIN keeping tabs on whats wrote.
> 
> FREE PRESS ... LOVE IT.


Please........don't get drawn into this, however provoked you may feel. Quite apart from the fact that what you say is highly debatable (to put it mildly), it has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.


----------



## JimB

rus said:


> It is necessary that in this thread was a Russian moderator. Anglo-Saxons behave rude and condescending, knowing that they are all allowed. Requires democracy.


Quite the opposite.

Mo has shown tolerance beyond the call of duty not to ban some of the Russians on this thread who persistently derail it.


----------



## RobH

rus said:


> It is necessary that in this thread was a Russian moderator. Anglo-Saxons behave rude and condescending, knowing that they are all allowed. Requires democracy.


I'm personally of the opinion the thread should be closed actually. Don't see any point in it anymore really.


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> I'm personally of the opinion the thread should be closed actually. Don't see any point in it anymore really.


True, that.


----------



## T74

Few updates from World Football Insider:

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33836


Blatter leadership under scrutiny
Under-fire Sepp Blatter faces a big week in his leadership of FIFA and his campaign to be re-elected as president at the FIFA Congress next May. Blatter will today meet with secretary general Jerome Valcke and other senior officials to discuss the damaging allegations centring around Zen-Ruffinen's revelations. The executive committee meets on Thursday and Friday when the bid scandal will be top of the agenda. Members are also scheduled to decide the voting procedure for the Dec. 2 secret ballot. But one possible outcome of the Ex-co meeting is that the vote may be postponed.

Switzerland reviews corruption laws
Switzerland is examining its corruption laws following the bid scandal involving Zurich-based FIFA. Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung reported that sports minister Ueli Maurer has launched a review and may tighten the regulations. Switzerland is home to over 40 international sports federations, including FIFA, UEFA and the IOC. Federal sports office spokesman Christoph Lauener told the newspaper that corruption was a bigger problem for sport and its reputation than doping.

Only three bidders at International Football Arena
World Cup bid CEOs from Australia, Japan and Russia are presenting at the International Football Arena conference in Zurich tomorrow. Nearly 200 football executives are attending the Oct. 25 to 26 conference at the Dolder Grand Hotel, but there are few FIFA Ex-co members for the bid teams to impress. FIFA president Sepp Blatter is expected to be there for a short time, but with fresh allegations emerging on Sunday in the bid bribery scandal he will be spending most of today and tomorrow in crisis meetings at FIFA headquarters. The other six 2018/2022 bids do not have a presence at the small-scale conference, preferring to concentrate their lobbying efforts elsewhere on the campaign trail.

UEFA denies Euro 2012 bribery claims
UEFA secretary general Gianni Infantino has dismissed claims over bribes being given to UEFA officials to secure the 2012 European Championships for Poland and Ukraine. According to news reports over the weekend, Cyprus Football Association chief Spiros Marangos alleges that several members of UEFA's ruling executive took bribes in exchange for their votes for the east European nations. The former head of the Polish FA, Michal Listkiewicz, also refuted the claims. Poland-Ukraine beat off competition from Italy and Croatia-Hungary in the UEFA vote in April 2007.


----------



## AlekseyVT

JimB said:


> Incidentally, you need to update your internal browser. If *Gordon Brown* was to attend FIFA's meeting on December 2nd in support of England's bid, it would be almost as much of a surprise as if Boris Yeltsin was to attend in support of Russia's bid.


Sorry, I was referring to current British PM David Milliband, of course.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> I'm personally of the opinion the thread should be closed actually. Don't see any point in it anymore really.


Agreed. I'm finish with this thread until December. I'm tired of numerous personal insults. I'm hope that FIFA voters will make me a good gift on my birthday.

Bye!


----------



## Ecological

David Cameron


----------



## TheoG

AlekseyVT said:


> Sorry, I was referring to current British PM David Milliband, of course.


Lol, I do hope that was sarcasm...



rus said:


> It is necessary that in this thread was a Russian moderator. Anglo-Saxons behave rude and condescending, knowing that they are all allowed. Requires democracy.


It ain't 'Anglo-Saxons' (we haven't been called that for over a millenium, it's like us calling you Slavs or Soviets) who are derailing the thread by complaining about the British media every time we post an article that you don't like, then insulting the entire western world publicly and clearly.


----------



## Ekumenopolis

Russia 2018/Australia 2022, that would be nice.


----------



## Walbanger

^^ FIFA may very well go the safe option for one and new frontier for the other. So either Russia 2018 / USA 2022 or England 2018 / Australia 2022.


----------



## Gondolier

If they ban the foreworx in 2012, England will surely lose 2018!!


----------



## RobH

It's an IOC member who suggested stopping Olympic fireworks, not a LOCOG official, so you wouldn't see fireworks in Sochi 2014 either if such a policy were implemented. Besides which, I don't think that idea has any legs; it's bloody stupid considering the fact that they burn a giant gas cauldron for a whole month!



> FIFA may very well go the safe option for one and new frontier for the other. So either Russia 2018 / USA 2022 or England 2018 / Australia 2022.


Very, very possible.


----------



## Mr Trebus

rus said:


> It is necessary that in this thread was a Russian moderator. Anglo-Saxons behave rude and condescending, knowing that they are all allowed. Requires democracy.


wtf are 'anglo-saxons':lol:


----------



## RobH

Apparently.

Who knew eh?


----------



## Mr Trebus

RobH said:


> Apparently.
> 
> Who knew eh?


thanks for the info:lol:


----------



## LarisaCh

_X_ said:


> Interesting vids.You get the gist of them although its unfortunate the first one hasn't got subtitles


This one?


----------



## Gondolier

Mr Trebus said:


> wtf are 'anglo-saxons':lol:


The ones who aren't the Hittites!! :lol:


----------



## Will737

Just thought I'd inform people that Vladamir Putin hit someone because they said he looked like Dobby the House Elf. Probably the most constructive thing posted in this thread for a while.


----------



## _X_

LarisaCh said:


> This one?


Yep


----------



## LarisaCh

Will737 said:


> Just thought I'd inform people that Vladamir Putin hit someone because they said he looked like Dobby the House Elf. Probably the most constructive thing posted in this thread for a while.


I have paid attention to it long time ago. He also looked like Gollum. I won't be suprised if I'll know that film animators used Putin's face for creation of the images of these personages. :lol:


----------



## Trelawny

Will737 said:


> Just thought I'd inform people that Vladamir Putin hit someone because they said he looked like Dobby the House Elf. Probably the most constructive thing posted in this thread for a while.


You Lie!


----------



## MysteryMike

*Despite the severity of the charges facing Adamu and Temarii the collusion issue is the most sensitive for Fifa because, if proven, it impacts on a many as seven executive committee members.

The challenge it poses for Fifa was illustrated as five of those whose votes are alleged to have been discussed as part of the Qatar-Iberia deal attended meetings at Fifa House yesterday.

Ángel María Villar Llona, the Spanish head of the Iberian bid, and Qatar’s Mohamed Bin Hammam, president of the Asian Football Confederation, are likely to face questions about the allegations.

Their natural or historic allies could also face scrutiny. Bin Hammam has previously had the support of Hany Abou Rida, of Egypt, and Worawi Makudi of Thailand.

Villar Llona and the Iberian bid, meanwhile, have natural allies in Latin America, including Fifa’s senior vice-president, Julio Grondona, of Argentina, and Ricardo Texeira, of Brazil.

Bin Hammam, Makudi, Texeira and Grondona declined to comment yesterday and there is no suggestion that any of those linked to the investigation have broken Fifa rules. The ethics commission, meanwhile, said last week that no investigation has been opened against them.

The Qatar and Spain-Portugal bids have made no comment on the allegations, but both harbour doubts about the substance of the allegations.

The political implications of taking on two bids, and potentially dragging senior figures in the world game into the inquiry, is one of many difficult decisions facing Blatter and Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke this week.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...t-as-Fifa-sinks-into-quagmire-of-scandal.html


----------



## MysteryMike

*England 8/11
Russia 7/4
Portugal/Spain 11/2
Belgium/Netherlands 40*

http://www.bet365.com/home/

*England 4/5
Russia 6/4
Spain/Portugal 6/1
Holland/Belgium 25/1*

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/F...l/Football-Specials/Tournament-Specials-s1479


*England 4/5
Russia 2/1
Spain/Portugal 4/1
Holland/Belgium 25/1*

http://sports.coral.co.uk/sport/en#/drilldown/type/10511/World-Cup-2018


----------



## RobH

Be interesting to see, if any are available, odds from Russian bookies. Not that bookies are generally very good at calling these things anyway. There's very little prior "form" to go with.


----------



## JimB

MysteryMike said:


> *England 8/11
> Russia 7/4
> Portugal/Spain 11/2
> Belgium/Netherlands 40*
> 
> http://www.bet365.com/home/
> 
> *England 4/5
> Russia 6/4
> Spain/Portugal 6/1
> Holland/Belgium 25/1*
> 
> http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/F...l/Football-Specials/Tournament-Specials-s1479
> 
> 
> *England 4/5
> Russia 2/1
> Spain/Portugal 4/1
> Holland/Belgium 25/1*
> 
> http://sports.coral.co.uk/sport/en#/drilldown/type/10511/World-Cup-2018


These odds don't necessarily accurately reflect the chances of each bidding nation.

These are all British bookmakers. So there will inevitably be an unusually high proportion of bets placed on England to win.

I dare say that Russian bookmakers' odds have Russia at the shortest price.


----------



## Melb_aviator

I think it is clear that if Qatar win that some deal making has been done that goes against any common sense, even if FIFA say all is fine. They will do everything to cover their backsides, to create an atmosphere that all is well.

The Spain and Qatari vote collusion makes sense, based on comments that came out of Sth America, from the Argentine and Brazilan govt officials. It seemed strange that they were so commited to the votes going to Qatar, that there must be something in it for them.

We will all have to wait and see, but if the US or Australia do not win for 2022, all credibility will be out the door.


----------



## Melb_aviator

JimB said:


> These odds don't necessarily accurately reflect the chances of each bidding nation.
> 
> These are all British bookmakers. So there will inevitably be an unusually high proportion of bets placed on England to win.
> 
> I dare say that Russian bookmakers' odds have Russia at the shortest price.


Is the Holland/Belgium bid really that bad? It has hardly got any attention and has been written off by so many.


----------



## MysteryMike

Melb_aviator said:


> I think it is clear that if Qatar win that some deal making has been done that goes against any common sense, even if FIFA say all is fine. They will do everything to cover their backsides, to create an atmosphere that all is well.
> 
> The Spain and Qatari vote collusion makes sense, based on comments that came out of Sth America, from the Argentine and Brazilan govt officials. It seemed strange that they were so commited to the votes going to Qatar, that there must be something in it for them.
> 
> We will all have to wait and see, but if the US or Australia do not win for 2022, all credibility will be out the door.


Absolutely there is definite collusion going on and Qatar is buying votes because they can. FIFA's first mistake was to allow joint bids, next they didn't take out rubbish bids such as Qatar whose only hope is to bribe their way to victory. If FIFA don't ban Spain/Portugal and Qatar mid November then all hell will break loose in world football.


----------



## MysteryMike

Melb_aviator said:


> Is the Holland/Belgium bid really that bad? It has hardly got any attention and has been written off by so many.


I think Holland and Belgium just have nothing going for them. They're not in the media spotlight, they don't have a great campaign, I mean having a few people do a Mexican wave is not a great way to sell your nation. I don't know, you'd think they would have some power within FIFA but quite frankly they've got almost no chance, even with Spain/Portugal's elimination from the bid it's England vs Russia and the thing is if Russia has done any "deals" as well then those executives also start getting nervous and England is definitely in prime position.


----------



## RobH

Nothing wrong with joints bid per se, and it could just as easily have been England or Russia colluding with the Qataris. Perhaps a shortlist a la the IOC might be an idea. Weed out the unrealistic bids prior to the vote.


----------



## waqif

Melb_aviator said:


> I think it is clear that if Qatar win that some deal making has been done that goes against any common sense, even if FIFA say all is fine. They will do everything to cover their backsides, to create an atmosphere that all is well.
> 
> The Spain and Qatari vote collusion makes sense, based on comments that came out of Sth America, from the Argentine and Brazilan govt officials. It seemed strange that they were so commited to the votes going to Qatar, that there must be something in it for them.
> 
> We will all have to wait and see, but if the US or Australia do not win for 2022, all credibility will be out the door.


Qatar supported Brazil 2014 and will support Argentine bid in future also Qatar have strong relations with these countries so nothing strange when they give their votes to Qatar.

just take it easy that not first time your country losing votes against Qatar that happen in AFC Cup 2011 and will happen many times till we see your country has seat in FIFA and strong relations in AFC and alliances around the world as Qatar.


----------



## JimB

Melb_aviator said:


> Is the Holland/Belgium bid really that bad? It has hardly got any attention and has been written off by so many.


Not at all. They actually have a good bid - although a rather high proportion of their stadia will understandably be of the minimum required capacity. They could be the dark horses.

But, as things stand, they have zero momentum (if that counts for anything). All the whispers seem to suggest England or Russia.

As to joint bids, in an ideal world I think FIFA would prefer single bidding nations. And I'm quite certain that UEFA would prefer England or Russia.......because, if either of the joint bids win, it will mean one less qualification place for UEFA. But it is inevitable that more and more countries that cannot justify bidding exclusively, will team up to bid with a neighbouring nation. So, as Rob says, nothing wrong with a joint bid per se.

Spain / Portugal, however, is a different matter. I'm pretty sure that FIFA will not approve of a joint bid in which one country is clearly the junior partner - especially when the other country is more than capable of hosting on its own.


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Absolutely there is definite collusion going on and Qatar is buying votes because they can. FIFA's first mistake was to allow joint bids, next they didn't take out rubbish bids such as Qatar whose only hope is to bribe their way to victory. If FIFA don't ban Spain/Portugal and Qatar mid November then all hell will break loose in world football.


nobody paid bribe other than Australia because they dont have vote in FIFA
and for same reason FIFA banned Oceana member

Qatar has the right to vote Spain or England or any country they find their interest in.

every thing was clear since long time we told you long time ago there no chance for Australia you lost AFC 2011 and you will lost this bid too till you have effect in AFC and FIFA and make real alliance in world not new enemies and bribe scandal as Tahiti member.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Yea, Australia doesn't have any alliances around the world. We're just a tiny, minuscule country. Oh wait...


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> *nobody paid bribe other than Australia because they dont have vote in FIFA*
> and for same reason FIFA banned Oceana member
> 
> Qatar has the right to vote Spain or England or any country they find their interest in.
> 
> every thing was clear since long time we told you long time ago there no chance for Australia you lost AFC 2011 and you will lost this bid too till you have effect in AFC and FIFA and make real alliance in world not new enemies and bribe scandal as Tahiti member.


Yes because our bid is the one which is currently under scrutiny... :lol::nuts:

Look in your own back yard before making such outlandish claims.


----------



## hngcm

waqif said:


> Qatar supported Brazil 2014 and will support Argentine bid in future also Qatar have strong relations with these countries so nothing strange when they give their votes to Qatar.


I'm pretty sure Brazil was unopposed for 2014...


----------



## _X_

Qatar doesn't exist

Nup,they don't

They can't

It's OK,I found them


----------



## coth

Britain insist that Russia can't host WC ostensibly because of racism. But your behavior guys towards of Qatar isn't really better than any kind of racism...
Jokes like country doesn't exist are completely unacceptable.


----------



## Kampflamm

All these discussions are pointless anyway...

*Paul the Octopus dies*

Paul the Octopus, who rose to prominence for his accurate predictions of Germany's matches, has died.

Said to have been born in January 2008 in Weymouth, England, the octopus predicted the correct result of all but two of Germany's games during Euro 2008, failing to predict the defeats to Croatia and Spain.

At this summer's World Cup, he maintained a 100% record, getting all Germany's results right before opting for Spain to beat Netherlands in the final.

[...]

His owners rejected offers from bookmakers for Paul after the World Cup as the octopus went into retirement, *but his final prediction was that England would win the rights to host the 2018 World Cup.*

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=836234&sec=global&cc=5739


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

_X_ said:


> Qatar doesn't exist
> 
> Nup,they don't
> 
> They can't
> 
> It's OK,I found them


:lol:


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> Yes because our bid is the one which is currently under scrutiny... :lol::nuts:
> 
> Look in your own back yard before making such outlandish claims.


yes all i saw on FIFA web site is an offical investigation wtih Australia in june due bribe and recently the offical suspend to oceania member.


----------



## waqif

coth said:


> Britain insist that Russia can't host WC ostensibly because of racism. But your behavior guys towards of Qatar isn't really better than any kind of racism...


we dont care what british or Australians says since the world is backing Qatar bid and we has history with Australia when we won our AFC Cup 2011 bid they tried every things but the whole Asia voted for Qatar.


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> yes all i saw on FIFA web site is an offical investigation wtih Australia in june due bribe and recently the offical suspend to oceania member.


Australia was cleared of doing anything wrong, Australia didn't bribe or collude with anybody unlike Qatar (whose only way of winning was to do that). Anybody and everybody from every nation England, Russia, Australia, Spain/Portugal, Japan, South Korea, Holland/Belgium and the whole freggin world could see the only way Qatar were ever going to get this world cup was through corruption and underhanded tactics during the bidding process because Qatar is the least deserving nation to EVER bid for a Football World Cup. It has made the FIFA bidding process and the entire integrity of FIFA an absolute utter joke.


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Australia was cleared of doing anything wrong, Australia didn't bribe or collude with anybody unlike Qatar (whose only way of winning was to do that). Anybody and everybody from every nation England, Russia, Australia, Spain/Portugal, Japan, South Korea, Holland/Belgium and the whole freggin world could see the only way Qatar were ever going to get this world cup was through corruption and underhanded tactics during the bidding process because Qatar is the least deserving nation to EVER bid for a Football World Cup. It has made the FIFA bidding process and the entire integrity of FIFA an absolute utter joke.


our member is still in FIFA and he is the head of AFC

you are who use bribes and this normal in your continent that why FIFA suspended Oceana member in big scandal lol


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> our member is still in FIFA and he is the head of AFC
> 
> you are who use bribes and this normal in your continent that why FIFA suspended Oceana member in big scandal lol


I'd learn how to spell Oceania first and I haven't heard of any investigation into Australia or England, Bin Hammam has been called up to the FIFA investigation committee, adios amigos !! :lol:


----------



## RobH

> our member is still in FIFA and he is the head of AFC
> 
> you are who use bribes and this normal in your continent that why FIFA suspended Oceana member in big scandal lol


Maybe you want to think before you post next time.

Oceania's FIFA exec has been suspended but Australia's bid is not under investigation. With Qatar it's the other way around, and actually their exec is hardly in a secure position even though he hasn't been suspended.


----------



## waqif

RobH said:


> Maybe you want to think before you post next time.
> 
> Oceania's FIFA exec has been suspended but Australia's bid is not under investigation. With Qatar it's the other way around, and actually their exec is hardly in a secure position even though he hasn't been suspended.


Qatar not under investigation who was under offical investigation is Australia in june and I can provide the offical link from FIFA site do you want the link ? i can bring it now if you want


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> Qatar not under investigation who was under offical investigation is Australia in june and I can provide the offical link from FIFA site do you want the link ? i can bring it now if you want


Yes please do. At the end of the day, Australia's bid is in the clear & Qatar's is not. Deal with it.


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> Yes please do. At the end of the day, Australia's bid is in the clear & Qatar's is not. Deal with it.


Qatar what ?


----------



## RobH

waqif said:


> Qatar not under investigation who was under offical investigation is Australia in june and I can provide the offical link from FIFA site do you want the link ? i can bring it now if you want


Australia was cleared, Qatar is still under investigation. These are the facts.


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> Qatar not under investigation who was under offical investigation is Australia in june and I can provide the offical link from FIFA site do you want the link ? i can bring it now if you want


I think there's a clear difference between voting collusion by Doha and what Australia were "accused" of by a rogue media outlet and they were cleared by FIFA, so they obviously didn't do anything wrong. The scale of Doha's collusion with Spain/Portugal can pretty much take FIFA down with it. This is what FIFA gets for allowing such a sham bid to even enter the bidding race. 

*Despite the severity of the charges facing Adamu and Temarii the collusion issue is the most sensitive for Fifa because, if proven, it impacts on a many as seven executive committee members. The challenge it poses for Fifa was illustrated as five of those whose votes are alleged to have been discussed as part of the Qatar-Iberia deal attended meetings at Fifa House yesterday.

Ángel María Villar Llona, the Spanish head of the Iberian bid, and Qatar’s Mohamed Bin Hammam, president of the Asian Football Confederation, are likely to face questions about the allegations.Their natural or historic allies could also face scrutiny. Bin Hammam has previously had the support of Hany Abou Rida, of Egypt, and Worawi Makudi of Thailand. Villar Llona and the Iberian bid, meanwhile, have natural allies in Latin America, including Fifa’s senior vice-president, Julio Grondona, of Argentina, and Ricardo Texeira, of Brazil. *

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...t-as-Fifa-sinks-into-quagmire-of-scandal.html


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> Qatar what ?


Right, Doha sorry!


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> Qatar what ?


Do I need to spell it out for you? :nuts:



> *Spain and Qatar face Fifa probe into alleged World Cup bid collusion*
> The Spain-Portugal and Qatar World Cup bids are under investigation by Fifa's ethics committee following allegations that they agreed to trade votes in clear breach of bidding rules, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
> 
> By Paul Kelso
> Published: 10:42PM BST 20 Oct 2010
> 
> Big gesture: Fifa president Sepp Blatter's main aim is to restore confidence in the organisation Photo: AP
> Sources with knowledge of the investigation confirmed on Wednesday night that the two bids are the subject of an inquiry launched in the wake of corruption allegations against two Fifa executive committee members.
> If found guilty of colluding, the bids could face expulsion from the contest for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. Spain-Portugal is campaigning to win the 2018 race, with Qatar among five candidates for 2022.
> 
> The investigation into alleged collusion has the potential to blow the race for the two tournaments wide open, with Spain-Portugal a major rival to England's bid for the 2018 tournament.
> 
> Were the Iberian bid to be reprimanded or ejected, England would face a straight fight with frontrunners Russia. Holland-Belgium is considered the outsider of the four European bids.
> Confirmation of the investigation into the bids came as Fifa suspended Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii, the two executive committee members exposed in the Sunday Times' cash-for-votes revelations last weekend.
> 
> After a meeting of Fifa's ethics committee in Zurich on Wednesday, at which they both appeared, the pair were provisionally suspended from all football-related activity pending the outcome of an investigation that is expected to conclude in mid-November.
> 
> "The decision to suspend these two individuals was taken unanimously," said Claudio Sulser, chairman of the ethics committee.
> "The ethics committee has zero tolerance for anything that violates its code of ethics in order to protect the good of Fifa and its image," he said. "We deem that it is crucial to protect the integrity of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bidding process."
> 
> In a statement, Fifa said that a provisional suspension was justified "taking into account the gravity of the case and the likelihood that a breach of the Fifa statutes, code of ethics and disciplinary code has been committed".
> Former Nigerian sports minister Adamu was filmed by the Sunday Times suggesting to undercover reporters that a payment of £500,000 to build artificial pitches be directed through a relative's bank account.
> 
> Temarii, president of the Oceania Football Confederation, was recorded discussing a £1.5 million payment to improve a football development centre in New Zealand. He also told the reporters that two bids had offered "huge" payments for his support and that he had received offers of between $10-12 million (£7.5 million).
> 
> Four other officials implicated in the Sunday Times expose were also suspended. Slim Aloulou, chairman of Fifa's disputes resolution committee, Amadou Diakite, a member of the referees committee, Ahongalu Fusimalohi and former executive committee member Ismael Bhamjee all now face a full investigation.
> 
> Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke said that the vote on the World Cup was unlikely to be delayed beyond the scheduled date of Dec 2, but neither he nor Susler was able to say whether it could go ahead if Adamu and Temarii remain suspended.
> 
> Their suspension lasts for 30 days and can be extended for a further 20, but Sulser said he was confident that the investigation would be completed, with an announcement due between Nov 15-17.
> 
> Sulser said he hoped to conclude the collusion inquiry into Spain-Portugal and Qatar at the same time. Neither bid was at Wednesday's meeting, though Fifa president Sepp Blatter did meet with the Emir of Qatar in Zurich on Wednesday in a long-standing arrangement.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph revealed in September that rumours of collusion between Spain-Portugal and Qatar were widespread in football.
> The central charge is that the two bids agreed to trade blocs of votes under their influence, with Qatar's supporters on the executive committee alleged to have agreed to back Spain-Portugal in the 2018 vote in exchange for support from the Iberian's voters in the 2022 race.
> 
> "We got the information [about collusion] a few weeks ago, and there have been rumours saying that it definitely took place," said Valcke. "We said that we should ask the ethics committee to look at the case."
> The collusion inquiry will be greeted with delight by Spain-Portugal and Qatar's rivals, but it will also raise questions about the wisdom of running the 2018 and 2022 races in parallel.
> 
> Valcke defended that decision: "The process for 2018 and 2022 has been perfectly well managed and the ethics committee has made several interventions to make sure that the bids are complying with the rules."
> He rejected suggestions that the allegations against Adamu and Temarii showed that Fifa is corrupt.
> 
> Blatter said the investigation marked a "sad day for football" adding: "As the president of Fifa, I appeal to all members of the Fifa family to behave in an honest, sincere and respectful manner because football is based on discipline, respect, fair play and solidarity.
> 
> "I am a little bit surprised that [you] say is Fifa corrupt? Fifa is actually in the world of sport a well-recognised organisation and institution, so let us do our job and clarify the situation and bring back credibility to football.
> "Our society is full of devils and you find these devils in football. We have to fight for fair play. Trust us and you will see confidence will be restored."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...obe-into-alleged-World-Cup-bid-collusion.html

Capiche?


----------



## waqif

RobH said:


> Australia was cleared, Qatar is still under investigation. These are the facts.


the facts is just british newspaper claims about Spain bid and nobody care about it and even it is true FIFA cant do any thing spain can vote for any country they want it is like who said ( why England will vote for it is self ) lol

the fact is Oceana member is suspended


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> Do I need to spell it out for you? :nuts:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...obe-into-alleged-World-Cup-bid-collusion.html
> 
> Capiche?


well I never heard Bin Hamam said he will vote for Spain ! All i heard he will vote for Qatar but if he did that great and I dare FIFA or anyone else can do anything


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> well I never heard Bin Hamam said he will vote for Spain ! All i heard he will vote for Qatar but if he did that great and I dare FIFA or anyone else can do anything


Congratulations!


----------



## MysteryMike

*Bin Hammam said: ‘Whether the best candidates for 2018 and 2022 win or not, I’m not 100 per cent sure as this depends more on public relations and how as a marketing person you sell your product. There is also a lack of clear written criteria.’Bin Hammam, a Qatari, said vote trading among executive committee members would be taking place. He told the Leaders in Football conference at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge: ‘I will be looking to the interests of Qatar because that is the bid for me. All the bidders are telling me, “If you vote for me I’ll vote for you”.’*

Says more than enough really, what he really meant in the story was "I told Spain/Portugal and their cronies, they vote for me, I vote for them plus they shall get the votes of my cronies". Here is the AFC president saying there is no written criteria so he can go and rig the votes...

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/843402-world-cup-contest-not-about-the-best-bid


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> *Bin Hammam said: ‘Whether the best candidates for 2018 and 2022 win or not, I’m not 100 per cent sure as this depends more on public relations and how as a marketing person you sell your product. There is also a lack of clear written criteria.’Bin Hammam, a Qatari, said vote trading among executive committee members would be taking place. He told the Leaders in Football conference at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge: ‘I will be looking to the interests of Qatar because that is the bid for me. All the bidders are telling me, “If you vote for me I’ll vote for you”.’*
> 
> Says more than enough really, what he really meant in the story was "I told Spain/Portugal and their cronies, they vote for me, I vote for them plus they shall get the votes of my cronies".
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/843402-world-cup-contest-not-about-the-best-bid


*I will be looking to the interests of Qatar because that is the bid for me*

of course not Australia interests


----------



## Will737

Paging Mo_Rush to thread to do some moderating...oh wait.


----------



## Will737

BSD said:


> *I will be looking to the interests of Qatar because that is the bid for me*
> 
> of course not Australia interests


:crazy: You make NO sense.


----------



## waqif

Will737 said:


> Paging Mo_Rush to thread to do some moderating...oh wait.


your friend Mo Rush stacked in Qatar bid topic and last comment by him was 



Mo Rush said:


> Cape Town 2026


----------



## MysteryMike

Yep as I said says it all, here is the Qatari AFC president and possible future president of FIFA saying there is no written criteria so he can go and rig the votes...that's fantastic. Like I said adios amigos!! Blatter will take his chance and send Bin Hammam and his band of tossers to the FIFA EXIT door, where he will unceremoniously boot them from the organisation. Blatter 1 Bin Hammam and cronies -500, fantastic day for everyone :banana:


----------



## Will737

Does this forum has any form of sanity left? Or have the likes of waqif, rus and wezza just totally screwed the whole place up?


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> *Bin Hammam said: ‘Whether the best candidates for 2018 and 2022 win or not, I’m not 100 per cent sure as this depends more on public relations and how as a marketing person you sell your product. There is also a lack of clear written criteria.’Bin Hammam, a Qatari, said vote trading among executive committee members would be taking place. He told the Leaders in Football conference at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge: ‘I will be looking to the interests of Qatar because that is the bid for me. All the bidders are telling me, “If you vote for me I’ll vote for you”.’*
> 
> Says more than enough really, what he really meant in the story was "I told Spain/Portugal and their cronies, they vote for me, I vote for them plus they shall get the votes of my cronies". Here is the AFC president saying there is no written criteria so he can go and rig the votes...
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/843402-world-cup-contest-not-about-the-best-bid


And ?


----------



## labytnangi

Alternative russian bid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0MufOiEtrw


----------



## MysteryMike

Qatar Son 333 said:


> And ?


he went and rigged the votes and is dragging FIFA through the mud, what a disgrace. Adios as the name states into the FIFA Bin


----------



## RobH

We don't know anything yet, all we know is Qatar's bid is under investigation and he is implicated. Nothing has been proven, but it's not a position either would want to be in. Don't be a wind up merchant Mike


----------



## neufert

_The Daily Telegraph revealed in September that rumours of collusion between Spain-Portugal and Qatar were widespread in football._

Great! finally british media comes on the scene!


----------



## MysteryMike

RobH said:


> We don't know anything yet, all we know is Qatar's bid is under investigation and he is implicated. Nothing has been proven, but it's not a position either would want to be in. Don't be a wind up merchant Mike


FIFA is taking too long for this thing honestly. If I was there one week, it'd be like your gone, yep your gone and you you are definitely freggin gone, infact you are so gone that you should never show your face in public within two decades of leaving this place, you can never work or even touch a football again and please take your butt kissers with you. That's right you and you GTFO, I don't want to even hear about you useless tossers ever, let alone ever see you. Now leave before I give the human garbage compactor a call.


----------



## jacoboy7

Cant wait till the 2nd of Dec when Qatar DON'T win, so hopefully waqif gets the message and doesn't release retardation on the forum anymore.


----------



## MysteryMike

Walbanger said:


> Yeah, we understand you Waqif. Most of us realise you are a *retard*.


 :rofl:


----------



## MysteryMike

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> No, compare us to the US. Despite the fact we've got 290 million less people, I bet we'd still give them a run for their money ... more so than Doha Qatar.


Australia and the US at least have made world cups and don't bribe players to play for their country oh that reminds me waqif mark nov 15th down in your diary buddy because guess what? you can climb up to the top of the sheraton and land on the pavement below, thus ending your useless worthless life. The world will be a better place that day


----------



## hngcm

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> No, compare us to the US. Despite the fact we've got 290 million less people, I bet we'd still give them a run for their money ... more so than Doha Qatar.


Not really.


----------



## MysteryMike

hngcm said:


> Not really.


well US hosted in 1994 and is almost guaranteed 2026, so why be a hog? England had to wait 40 plus years to host it again.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

hngcm said:


> Not really.


Australia - 21
USA - 25

Looks like we not only gave y'all a run for your money, we ran off with it 



just mucking around, we love you Yanks


----------



## coth

MysteryMike said:


> :rofl:


I'm sure Mo will deal with you as soon as possible.


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> well US hosted in 1994 and is almost guaranteed 2026, so why be a hog? England had to wait 40 plus years to host it again.


That's poor reasoning. How can I say this politely? Ok here it goes: Americans really don't give a f*ck about England. Or anyone else for that matter. They want it in 2022. They were allowed to bid, so they did. Sure America could bid again in 2026. But so could anyone else. Yah, yah I understand that Oz's chances are lower then...that's just the way it goes unfortunately.

All that being said, I think Aussie would be a terrific choice in 2022. Actually kinda rooting for y'all


----------



## MysteryMike

coth said:


> I'm sure Mo will deal with you as soon as possible.


Face it buddy the Russian FA have blown this bid, much like England probably blew the 2006 bid. Don't worry there's 2030 for Russia  Qatar on the other hand try the year 4050, maybe by then, you might actually have some sort of worth, after we've run through all the countries that deserve to host the world cup.


----------



## Walbanger

hngcm said:


> Not really.


Well Australia and the USA have never met in a meaningful international but as far as historical results are between the two, its 1 win to Australia, 1 win to the USA and 1 draw. Since Australia has escaped from the FIFA wilderness that is Oceania, our rank has gone straight to the neighbourhood of the USA's.


----------



## RobH

MysteryMike said:


> Face it buddy the Russian FA have blown this bid, much like England probably blew the 2006 bid. Don't worry there's 2030 for Russia  Qatar on the other hand try the year 4050, maybe by then, you might actually have some sort of worth, after we've run through all the countries that deserve to host the world cup.


Mike, stop being a wind up. Russia is still joint favourite. Both England and Russia know the other's bid is very strong, but in different ways.


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## T74

Walbanger said:


> Um, Australia is a Natural Gas exporter. We don't use Qatari Gas or Oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Australians and Amercans aren't fighting because we have a deep understanding and respect for each other. Australian's haven't come on this forum proclaiming numerous votes already secured and that hosting is a foregone conclusion, dec 2 being a mere formality. All the while showing remarkable ignorance at the scale and culture of the event.
> 
> The US like Australia, South Korea and Japan all have provided bids which fullfill the conventional criterior of hosting a World Cup, no special exceptions needed for any of them.
> 
> Australian's actually recognise the USA as a legitimate and in many way's superior competitior but we have beaten strong competitiors before in a fair fight rather than a sleazy back door mess. The US has nothing to prove to Australia or the World when it comes to hosting these type of events, nor does Australia.


Actually we do import a small amount natural gas, about AUD 1.8 billion per annum. Of this, less than half comes from the Mid East.

As for Qatar, we import goods worth about AUD 400 million from them, which considering we import goods worth $250+ billion, it puts them at about 1.7% of total imports - less than we buy from Puerto Rico. The USA in comparison, even after a year of massive recession was still over 10% of our imports.

On the USA Waqif, Aussies are realistic and know they are the fav, and it will take something amazing from Lowy and co to win the bid against them. Issue for Qatar is with it effectively a one city bid, its always been discounted for this reason (and the heat). Its not about racism, Singapore would face the same hurdles. You just don't have the infrastructure needed to provide the support a touring population a WC needs. No one city ANYWHERE in the world can do it, and that includes the likes of Shanghai, London, and New York


----------



## Walbanger

Well there you go, happy to stand corrected.


----------



## MysteryMike

T74 said:


> Issue for Qatar is with it effectively a one city bid, its always been discounted for this reason (and the heat). Its not about racism, Singapore would face the same hurdles. You just don't have the infrastructure needed to provide the support a touring population a WC needs. No one city ANYWHERE in the world can do it, and that includes the likes of Shanghai, London, and New York


I love the racism thing lol. Just cracks me up every time when people have been saying myself included that Egypt would make an awesome host. I mean can you imagine? World cup games, then going to see the pyramids, the valley of the pharaohs etc etc would be amazing. Even more important that that in my opinion is the fact Egypt are a massively talented football side, that could take anyone apart on their day. They were in the top 10 teams on the planet and are the reigning african champions, they certainly are not a disgrace to international football like Doha. I love this comment on the BBC as well half of Birmingham haha :lol: GOLD! 

*I think England for 2018 and Australia for 2022. England is a traditional centre of football and they haven't hosted since 1966! Australia has never hosted the world cup and they are up against 3 bids that have hosted the world cup in the last 16 years!! (Qatar doesn't count. That bid is equivalent to having the world cup entirely in only half of Birmingham!)

Maybe FIFA should just go off the technical inspection reports. They are relatively neutral *

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jamespearce/2010/10/fifa_faces_historic_challenge.html


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Australia and the US at least have made world cups and don't bribe players to play for their country oh that reminds me waqif mark nov 15th down in your diary buddy because guess what? *you can climb up to the top of the sheraton and land on the pavement below, thus ending your useless worthless life*. The world will be a better place that day


im used on such posts from Australians guys


----------



## waqif

coth said:


> I'm sure Mo will deal with you as soon as possible.


Mo rush lol that guy who supporting them and allow their posts to show their racist and hateful to the world


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> im used on such posts from Australians guys


Why would you think I was Australian? My dad worked with Cable and Wireless in Qatar. Doesn't that tell you anything? oh wait, I forgot, it's as I said before  The worst thing is the cornish would need a clean but it's alright, totally worth it for this


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> Mo rush lol that guy who supporting them and allow their posts to show their racist and hateful to the world


Mo Rush sees the truth, it's unfortunate he hasn't banned you as of yet, it's funny that you keep talking about racism, it just dumbfounds me that you even know that word at all. Saying Doha can't host the world cup isn't racist, it's FACT.


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Mo Rush sees the truth, it's unfortunate he hasn't banned you as of yet, it's funny that you keep talking about racism, it just dumbfounds me that you even know that word at all.


and Jan can see the multi names & banned them


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> and Jan can see the multi names & banned them


:nuts:


----------



## MysteryMike

*The joint Spanish and Portuguese bid to host the 2018 World Cup have denied allegations they agreed a pact with Qatar, who are bidding for the 2022 edition, to manipulate the voting process. Soccer's world governing body FIFA are investigating claims of collusion and vote-swapping for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, which is banned and can lead to disqualification.

Last week, FIFA provisionally suspended two members of their executive committee, which begins a two-day meeting on Thursday to address the bidding process, over allegations they offered to sell their votes to undercover newspaper reporters from a British newspaper. "The Iberian bid already told FIFA last Wednesday that it does not have any agreement with any other bidding nation," Miguel Angel Lopez, chief executive of the Spanish/Portuguese candidacy, said in a statement on Thursday.

They had offered FIFA full cooperation in the investigation, he added. FIFA's executive committee is due to announce the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups in Zurich on Dec. 2.

Russia, England, Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands are bidding for 2018 and Japan, South Korea, Australia, United States and Qatar want 2022.*

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/28102010/2/spain-portugal-deny-world-cup-bid-collusion.html

Either way these votes won't be going to Doha now :lol: mmm smells like the olympic bid all over again doesn't it?


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## TheoG

This thread is a bag of lols. How sad.


----------



## Mo Rush

*Hi All

Please consult forum guidelines. You will note that provoking forumers by consistently trying to be offensive or aggressive in your posts will result in infractions.

MysteryMike as a case in point. Not every post needs to highlight your views of the Russian bid.*


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Mo Rush said:


> Hi All
> 
> Please consult forum guidelines. You will note that provoking forumers by consistently trying to be offensive or aggressive in your posts will result in infractions.


What are your thoughts about the BeNe bid now that we have found controversy elsewhere?


----------



## _X_

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> What are your thoughts about the BeNe bid now that we have found controversy elsewhere?


I love that bid.Bennelux would host a wonderful World Cup


----------



## _X_

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-pos...orocco-failed-in-football-World-Cup-bribe-bid
*Morocco failed in football World Cup bribe bid*
SIMON PLUMB - Sunday Star Times
05:00 31/10/2010

Morocco tried, and failed, to buy the Oceania Football Confederation's vote in the race to host this year's World Cup, according to claims in the latest videos from a British newspaper sting.

As revelations from the Sunday Times' investigations into alleged Fifa corruption continue, a secretly filmed Auckland meeting between suspended OFC delegate Ahongalu Fusimalohi and an undercover reporter sees Fusimalohi claim that in 2004 the African nation floated a $200,000 bribe attempt.

Fusimalohi goes on to say it was "thrown in the rubbish".

"Let's just say they made offers," Fusimalohi says on the video. "Let's just say there were people being offered [$US150,000], something to that effect, maybe more, I'm not sure," Fusimalohi is captioned as saying (the audio on the video is often poor).

"It comes in brochures, it comes in all sorts of forms, but the first thing you do is destroy it and throw it in the rubbish."

While the video seemingly adds proof to the existence of bribes and corruption within the Fifa bidding processes, the OFC's apparent spurning of the alleged Moroccan attempt may help its cause when Fifa's ethics committee investigates the Times' claims.

Last week Fairfax Media revealed how over the past six years OFC president Reynald Temarii, suspended alongside Fusimalohi, had repeatedly tried to build a multi-million-dollar Auckland football academy, uncovering blueprints for the redevelopment of Mangere Centre Park and stalled plans for the unused Supertop site at Mt Smart Stadium.

The latest batch of Sunday Times videos feature even more from Fusimalohi. He is recorded saying Temarii was set to vote for Spain in the upcoming meetings to decide the host nation of the 2018 World Cup – suggesting a deal where the Spanish were willing to help train and develop OFC youth teams.

Fusimalohi told Fairfax he accepted the opportunity to submit an official statement to Fifa this week – calling the Sunday Times' sting attempt "rubbish".

"I can guarantee you everything that's come out of the Sunday Times about me is misleading," Fusimalohi told Fairfax.

"I have watched the whole one-hour interview."

FIFA has delayed confirming worldwide qualification paths to the 2014 World Cup.

But New Zealand Football, which needs the information to start booking the All Whites' 2011 fixtures, is confident the hitch should clear over in a few days.

Fifa committee member and NZ Football chairman Frank van Hattum spent the week at world football headquarters in Zurich for a scheduled meeting with Fifa's Associations Committee.
Ad Feedback

Prior to the cash-for-votes scandal that has rocked the biggest organisation in world sport, it was expected van Hattum would return home knowing the All Whites' qualification route to Brazil in 2014.

But van Hattum now says it will have to wait until early next week – though he's "pretty sure" things will stay the same for the All Whites' favourable path to the World Cup.

"No, we haven't confirmed things yet," van Hattum told Fairfax.

"We're still pretty sure it's going to be exactly as it was last time though.

"At the end of the day I think I might find out Monday or Tuesday. I would think early next week."

Earlier this month NZ Football chief executive Michael Glading told Fairfax busy plans for the All Whites' 2011 diary were already well down the track, and he would be able to open negotiations with potential opponents as soon as Fifa confirmed the All Whites' route to Brazil 2014.

It is expected the All Whites will have at least three World Cup qualifying games next year – but Glading cannot plan what he hopes will be four additional fixtures until Fifa confirms the qualifiers.


----------



## mdhar.v12

As far as 2022 is concerned only US and Australia are the main contenders. and maybe Australia might have an edge over US, as FIFA and IOC are exploring new markets rather than traditional western countries…..and I think there will be no “OBAMA effect” which has failed to secure Chicago 2016 Olympics…..


----------



## Mo Rush

_X_ said:


> http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-pos...orocco-failed-in-football-World-Cup-bribe-bid
> *Morocco failed in football World Cup bribe bid*
> SIMON PLUMB - Sunday Star Times
> 05:00 31/10/2010
> 
> Morocco tried, and failed, to buy the Oceania Football Confederation's vote in the race to host this year's World Cup, according to claims in the latest videos from a British newspaper sting.
> 
> As revelations from the Sunday Times' investigations into alleged Fifa corruption continue, a secretly filmed Auckland meeting between suspended OFC delegate Ahongalu Fusimalohi and an undercover reporter sees Fusimalohi claim that in 2004 the African nation floated a $200,000 bribe attempt.
> 
> Fusimalohi goes on to say it was "thrown in the rubbish".
> 
> "Let's just say they made offers," Fusimalohi says on the video. "Let's just say there were people being offered [$US150,000], something to that effect, maybe more, I'm not sure," Fusimalohi is captioned as saying (the audio on the video is often poor).
> 
> "It comes in brochures, it comes in all sorts of forms, but the first thing you do is destroy it and throw it in the rubbish."
> 
> While the video seemingly adds proof to the existence of bribes and corruption within the Fifa bidding processes, the OFC's apparent spurning of the alleged Moroccan attempt may help its cause when Fifa's ethics committee investigates the Times' claims.
> 
> Last week Fairfax Media revealed how over the past six years OFC president Reynald Temarii, suspended alongside Fusimalohi, had repeatedly tried to build a multi-million-dollar Auckland football academy, uncovering blueprints for the redevelopment of Mangere Centre Park and stalled plans for the unused Supertop site at Mt Smart Stadium.
> 
> The latest batch of Sunday Times videos feature even more from Fusimalohi. He is recorded saying Temarii was set to vote for Spain in the upcoming meetings to decide the host nation of the 2018 World Cup – suggesting a deal where the Spanish were willing to help train and develop OFC youth teams.
> 
> Fusimalohi told Fairfax he accepted the opportunity to submit an official statement to Fifa this week – calling the Sunday Times' sting attempt "rubbish".
> 
> "I can guarantee you everything that's come out of the Sunday Times about me is misleading," Fusimalohi told Fairfax.
> 
> "I have watched the whole one-hour interview."
> 
> FIFA has delayed confirming worldwide qualification paths to the 2014 World Cup.
> 
> But New Zealand Football, which needs the information to start booking the All Whites' 2011 fixtures, is confident the hitch should clear over in a few days.
> 
> Fifa committee member and NZ Football chairman Frank van Hattum spent the week at world football headquarters in Zurich for a scheduled meeting with Fifa's Associations Committee.
> Ad Feedback
> 
> Prior to the cash-for-votes scandal that has rocked the biggest organisation in world sport, it was expected van Hattum would return home knowing the All Whites' qualification route to Brazil in 2014.
> 
> But van Hattum now says it will have to wait until early next week – though he's "pretty sure" things will stay the same for the All Whites' favourable path to the World Cup.
> 
> "No, we haven't confirmed things yet," van Hattum told Fairfax.
> 
> "We're still pretty sure it's going to be exactly as it was last time though.
> 
> "At the end of the day I think I might find out Monday or Tuesday. I would think early next week."
> 
> Earlier this month NZ Football chief executive Michael Glading told Fairfax busy plans for the All Whites' 2011 diary were already well down the track, and he would be able to open negotiations with potential opponents as soon as Fifa confirmed the All Whites' route to Brazil 2014.
> 
> It is expected the All Whites will have at least three World Cup qualifying games next year – but Glading cannot plan what he hopes will be four additional fixtures until Fifa confirms the qualifiers.


This really is NOT news.

The stadium contracts promised to French Contractors were the worst kept secret of the Morroccan bid.


----------



## Mo Rush

_X_ said:


> I love that bid.Bennelux would host a wonderful World Cup


Excellent bid, wonderful host. Poor marketing, and hard to stand out in this bid race.

Wouldn't mind at all. I think we all know a Bennelux WC would be special, well organized and festive.


----------



## woozoo

^^ An example of a "compact" world cup with plenty of football history that would work well.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

_X_ said:


> I love that bid.Bennelux would host a wonderful World Cup


 There's resistance though from governmental bodies and population with respect to FIFA's ludicrously colonial demands. Submission time.


----------



## _X_

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> There's resistance though from governmental bodies and population with respect to FIFA's ludicrously colonial demands. Submission time.


They seem to be everyone's second preference and just could surprise if they can somehow get past the first round.
Its fair to say that they have stayed well clear of controversy and are finally,finally getting some traction because of it 

Its such an incredibly competitive group of UEFA bids,that seems the biggest problem


----------



## RobH

The biggest problem is FIFA don't know how to run a bid process, and even if they did have proven to be corruptable! That, my friend, is the biggest problem. The IOC managed to keep control of an Olympic bid race which included London, Paris, Moscow, New York and Madrid - the two most important cities in Western Europe, Russia and the US' number 1 cities, and erm, Madrid!  That could have been Cold war II, the Napoleonic wars and the Armada rolled into one if it got out of control, but it didn't because it was a very well run process on the whole.

FIFA need to learn from this because I can't imagine how this could be a bigger farce than it already is.

EDIT: Sorry, just reread your post, and you meant the biggest problem for Holland/Belgium didn't you? You're probably right on that front.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

RobH said:


> EDIT: Sorry, just reread your post, and you meant the biggest problem for Holland/Belgium didn't you? You're probably right on that front.


The Bene(lux) bid may hold a soft spot as 'everyone's second favorite' but it has been speculated the Chocolate Clogs dont reserve a soft spot for their own bid in terms of FIFA's draconic requirements.


----------



## _X_

RobH said:


> The biggest problem is FIFA don't know how to run a bid process, and even if they did have proven to be corruptable! That, my friend, is the biggest problem. The IOC managed to keep control of an Olympic bid race which included London, Paris, Moscow, New York and Madrid - the two most important cities in Western Europe, Russia and the US' number 1 cities, and erm, Madrid!  That could have been Cold war II, the Napoleonic wars and the Armada rolled into one if it got out of control, but it didn't because it was a very well run process on the whole.
> 
> FIFA need to learn from this because I can't imagine how this could be a bigger farce than it already is.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, just reread your post, and you meant the biggest problem for Holland/Belgium didn't you? You're probably right on that front.


Yep.
This bid hasn't been prepared to drop to the level of its continental rivals and they should be rewarded for that.
As far as questions being asked by the good folk from the low countries,I'm sure its not going to inhibit their chances.
Many details are always hammered out after the winner is confirmed anyway

And yes Rob-FIFA must learn from this.The previous occasions where more than 1 WC was awarded at the same time was ages ago.As I've posted before-13 votes at $10 million each is an incredibly cheap outcome for a bid that goes down that route


----------



## MysteryMike

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> The Bene(lux) bid may hold a soft spot as 'everyone's second favorite' but it has been speculated the Chocolate Clogs dont reserve a soft spot for their own bid in terms of FIFA's draconic requirements.


Their marketing effort with an embarrassing Mexican wave simulation has been piss poor as well. Lack of government support and half ass marketing is not the way to winning the world cup bid in 2018. Corruption, collusion with the most undeserving 2022 bids and bribing officials with as much as you've got and offering half your nation if need be is kay:


----------



## _X_

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> The Bene(lux) bid may hold a soft spot as 'everyone's second favorite' but it has been speculated the Chocolate Clogs dont reserve a soft spot for their own bid in terms of FIFA's draconic requirements.


I reckon that you would also have a lot of ExCo for second preferences,not just the global fans of the game

Gotta laugh at the requirement for a separate lane on the road for FIFA:bash:
Rustenburg seemed to have one of them-it was called the emergency lane


----------



## MysteryMike

_X_ said:


> Gotta laugh at the requirement for a separate lane on the road for FIFA:bash:


You mean the blatter lane?? This is what happens when there isn't one. 

*FIFA boss Sepp Blatter is at the centre of a cover-up mystery after police apparently tried to keep his role in a high speed car crash secret.

Blatter lost control of his 155mph Mercedes Benz sports car as he clipped another vehicle while overtaking on his way to his home in Berner Oberland, Switzerland.

The Merc span out of control and slammed straight into a Volkswagen Golf coming the other way.

Both cars overturned but Blatter, 73, and the other driver escaped with just cuts and bruises during the crash this weekend.

But within minutes of the accident Swiss police removed the numberplates from Blatter's 115,000 GBP Mercedes SL 63 AMG motor, apparently to disguise the identity of the driver.

At first police refused to reveal any details of the accident. Finally, three days later, a police spokesman said: "Investigations are ongoing. We haven't decided yet whether the files will be handed over to an examining court."

Blatter's spokesman Hans Klaus would only say: "Mr Blatter is doing well. He is working as usual. I am aware of the accident but will not comment on it."

Controversial Blatter has faced several calls for him to quit his 1 million USD (612,000 GBP) a year job as FIFA boss.

Earlier this year he provoked outrage when he said high-earning Premiership stars were treated "like slaves" by their clubs.

And he infuriated female players by saying there would be more interest from spectators if they wore tighter shirts. *



















http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9288


----------



## RobH

I can't see both sides. One side is very much in the right, the other very much in the wrong. There's no grey areas at all in all this. FIFA got caught out and are now playing the victim. Well, cry me a river!

Whether it is wise or not is a different question (I can certainly see why you'd ask this question), but I can tell you people in this country will _not_ blame the Times for an England loss even if it does turn out FIFA rejected the bid because of their journalism.

Go back a few years and you'll see the IOC acted properly when the BBC did an investigation like the Times'. No IOC members spoke out publically about "unethical practices" or the methods of the "English press", the member was thrown out of the IOC and London 2012 ultimately chosen. Even if London had lost to Paris, it wouldn't have been because of the BBC's Panorama investigation because the IOC simply did not hold that against the bid; they were able to seperate the journalism from the bid and not hold one responsible for the other's actions. The noises coming out of FIFA seem to imply very strongly the opposite and this to me is yet more proof that the people at the top do not know (nevermind want) to hold a transparent bidding process.

In other words, FIFA have a choice as to how to react, just as the IOC did back in 2004. It won't be the Times' fault if they make the wrong choice.

I am though, quite certain (and indeed heartened) that if England loses this and it looks like the reason for the loss is a grudge, our press will tear FIFA a new arsehole over the next few years, and deservedly so. If FIFA plays this wrongly, whoever does win 2018 and 2022 is going to end up working with a severely troubled organisation.


----------



## _X_

RobH said:


> I can't see both sides. One side is very much in the right, the other very much in the wrong. There's no grey areas at all in all this. FIFA got caught out and are now playing the victim. Well, cry me a river!
> 
> Whether it is wise or not is a different question (I can certainly see why you'd ask this question), but I can tell you people in this country will _not_ blame the Times for an England loss even if it does turn out FIFA rejected the bid because of their journalism.
> 
> Go back a few years and you'll see the IOC acted properly when the BBC did an investigation like the Times'. No IOC members spoke out publically about "unethical practices" or the methods of the "English press", the member was thrown out of the IOC and London 2012 ultimately chosen. Even if London had lost to Paris, it wouldn't have been because of the BBC's Panorama investigation because the IOC simply did not hold that against the bid; they were able to seperate the journalism from the bid and not hold one responsible for the other's actions. The noises coming out of FIFA seem to imply very strongly the opposite and this to me is yet more proof that the people at the top do not know (nevermind want) to hold a transparent bidding process.
> 
> In other words, FIFA have a choice as to how to react, just as the IOC did back in 2004. It won't be the Times' fault if they make the wrong choice.
> 
> *I am though, quite certain (and indeed heartened) that if England loses this and it looks like the reason for the loss is a grudge, our press will tear FIFA a new arsehole over the next few years, and deservedly so. If FIFA plays this wrongly, whoever does win 2018 and 2022 is going to end up working with a severely troubled organisation*.


I couldn't agree more.
Its dancing with death this time.
How Blatter and MBH can come out and blame the press for EXPOSING something I'll never know.
The biggest short term winners are Sepp Blatter,MBH,the Doha bid and the Iberian bid.The biggest short term losers are the USA,but long term the big losers are Sepp Blatter,MBH,the Doha bid and the Iberian bid,Marudi and Salgeiro


----------



## MoreOrLess

Gondolier said:


> But FIFA is only ONE sport!! Yes, football is popular to watch but ultimately, as ALL but two countries are left remaining, the ordinary fan/viewer's allegiance also diminshes as his nation is turned out. Fans (who have NO OTHER life) just stick to the end just to watch...pretty much like hanging around a bloody wreck.
> 
> The Olympics involve some 2 dozen sports...and a LOT more nationalism is invested in the IOC's party because if you lose in one sport, you still have a few others to hope to come out on top. Unlike the WC which only comes once every 4 years--and your nation has only 1 shot in 32, the Olympics *actually come around EVERY 2 years*--and for at least 50 of both the summer/winter nations, they stand a bigger chance of grabbing something which you can't in FIFA's baby.


I don't see how most of that has much relivance to the point I made, FIFA has direct control of the most popular and richest sport in the world, the IOC has less direct control of a number of much less popular sports.

The very nature of the Olympics with its focus on ideals combined with a much less established audience(who watches these sports the rest of the time?) makes it much more vunerable to damaging by charges of corruption I'd say.


----------



## MoreOrLess

slipperydog said:


> It's not this specific investigation that I have a problem with, because we all know FIFA is a mess. You'll probably never agree with me, but your national media does seem to have a pervasive track record of setting up stings for people up who are in highly-visible positions just to break a story. I just don't understand British culture's cannibalistic obsession with celebrity. You all build people up, and then purposely try to bring them crashing back down. Doesn't matter if it's the prince, *Triesman, John Terry, Ashley Cole, or Wayne Rooney*, but you almost love seeing your own fall. Everton fans who hate Rooney so much, they were almost ecstatic to see him fail in the World Cup. Just something about that mentality that doesn't sit right with me. That's why I'm not so sure a backlash against the English bid isn't somewhat deserved.
> 
> One analogy I can use is this. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood, and the cops have virtually nothing to do, so they have to manufacture revenue. They will get a handful of ordinary looking people together and have them walk across streets. Then they have 5 or 6 cops on patrol bikes waiting around the corner. Legally, you have to stop at the intersection and wait until the person has completely crossed the road; complete meaning foot on sidewalk. Which is obviously ridiculous, when they've already crossed your half of the street, there's clearly no danger, and you should be able to continue, but the law is the law. $300 ticket. So I just don't think setting people up to fail is really in the spirit of the law.


Thats the bad side of the british media but ultimately the focus of it is pretty much all internal, something like Triesman for example only hurt the FA, you don't see the gutter press going after Blatter or the like because the interest isnt there.

What where talking about here though is totally different though, serious jurnolism tracking down obvious corruption/wrong doing. I see nothing wrong with that personally and if losing out on a WC due to FIFA being rotten to the core and a law onto themselves is the price to pay for a less corrupt society then I'd guess most people here are willing to pay it.


----------



## _X_

This =Qatar and CAF
Wonder if Chung has been weaving his magic in the same way for 2022:nuts:
Get your act together FIFA


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50601372-77/south-2018-africa-ioc.html.csp

*S. Korea receives warning*
Published Nov 3, 2010 05:28PM
Updated Nov 4, 2010 12:32AM

olympics • The IOC issued a warning to Pyeongchang on Wednesday after a conflict-of-interest probe into sponsorship contracts tied to the South Korean city’s bid for the 2018 Winter Olympics. The IOC ethics commission ordered Pyeongchang to “fully respect the rules of conduct” after two South Korean companies signed sponsorship deals with international sports federations headed by senior IOC members. Korean Air and the International Skating Union have agreed to postpone their sponsorship deal until after the 2018 host-city vote next July, the IOC said. “The ethics commission reminded Pyeongchang 2018 and its related organizations to fully respect the rules of conduct related to candidate cities and issued a warning,” the International Olympic Committee said.


----------



## MysteryMike

Gondolier said:


> But FIFA is only ONE sport!! Yes, football is popular to watch but ultimately, as ALL but two countries are left remaining, the ordinary fan/viewer's allegiance also diminshes as his nation is turned out. Fans (who have NO OTHER life) just stick to the end just to watch...pretty much like hanging around a bloody wreck.
> 
> The Olympics involve some 2 dozen sports...and a LOT more nationalism is invested in the IOC's party because if you lose in one sport, you still have a few others to hope to come out on top. Unlike the WC which only comes once every 4 years--and your nation has only 1 shot in 32, the Olympics *actually come around EVERY 2 years*--and for at least 50 of both the summer/winter nations, they stand a bigger chance of grabbing something which you can't in FIFA's baby.


FIFA has more power than the IOC. The Olympics are slowly dieing, people don't want to watch them, they're boring, no one remembers who won gold medals, no one remembers who came first, no one really cares. With football on the other hand, people remember who won the world cup in 1966, 1930 etc etc. The global audience for football is growing and growing rapidly as football becomes more and more prominent within Asia. But scandals such as this will not help the game or more accurately FIFA get lucrative sponsors. Sony is currently considering it's sponsorship arrangements with FIFA after the 2014 world cup, these kind of scandals mean FIFA's sponsorship revenue base will be hit and companies will use it as a bargaining tool for future world cups, even if the worldwide audience continues to increase. If companies see FIFA as some politically weak, corrupt and ultimately irrelevant organisation which doesn't support their ideals then they will withdraw their funds and more than likely go back to other sporting events for their advertising. As someone at Sony said we are currently sponsoring the game not FIFA, we market ourselves as world cup sponsors not FIFA sponsors. If FIFA refuses to act more sternly right here, right now then more than likely the likes of Sony etc will walk away from future events, regardless of the events pulling power, which I can in no way see diminishing. But the point is it was more vital for the IOC to act on these kind of disgraceful charges as compared to FIFA, as FIFA has a growing product, that people actually like and remember as compared to the IOC.


----------



## MysteryMike

*JOHANNESBURG, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Danny Jordaan, the man responsible for organising the last World Cup, is now seeking to sit on the all-powerful FIFA committee that decides, among other things, where future World Cups will be played.

The 59-year-old South African administrator, whose term as chief executive officer of the 2010 World Cup Organising Committee ends next month, has been nominated by his country for a post on the FIFA executive committee, the 24-man inner cabinet that runs the game and takes all its major decisions.

"The World Cup profile is a big help," said Jordaan, who intends lobbying across the continent in the next months.

"It is important for me that Africa feels I can make a contribution," he told Reuters.

Two of Africa's four positions on the FIFA executive committee come up for re-election in February, one of them held by Nigerian Amos Adamu, who world football's governing body provisionally suspended last month.

Adamu was caught in a newspaper sting seeking money for his vote in next month's upcoming on where the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be held.

The other African berth up for re-election is held by Jacques Anouma, president of the Ivorian Football Federation, who has not yet made public whether he will seek another four-year term.

Adamu is expected to try to hold on to his post if he is not expelled by FIFA, whose ethics committee will decide on his future this month.

Nominations for the posts close on Nov. 23, three months before the election at the Confederation of African Football congress in Khartoum, Sudan. Jordaan is the first to make his candidacy public.

His experience in football administration, dating back more than two decades, and the successful organising of the World Cup will be key parts of his election campaign.

Jordaan said he had had a surge of support from African football associations and says he is confident of winning a place on the FIFA executive as well as the CAF executive.

Traditionally, administrators seeking to work their way up to the FIFA committee serve time first as members of the CAF executive, but Jordaan is attempting both at the same time.

A former history teacher and Parliamentarian, Jordaan almost single-handedly ran South Africa's two World Cup bid campaigns before taking over the organisation of the 2010 finals.*

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/8262014/south-africas-world-cup-chief-seeks-fifa-post


----------



## Mo Rush

I've actually met him. He is great and knows most of what there is to know in terms of FIFA requirements, but adds a reality check/human touch to those requirements.

As I've said before, he has been attending/inspecting World Cups since 1994 in USA, when the 2010 FIFA WC started, was an official observer at 1 or 2 world cups, and delivered an exceptional WC in South Africa


----------



## 863552

So, I'm wondering what will all the training facilities be like?


----------



## ryebreadraz

Solopop said:


> So, I'm wondering what will all the training facilities be like?


For whose bid?


----------



## 863552

All.


----------



## mattec

Solopop said:


> So, I'm wondering what will all the training facilities be like?




The US is using all of the MLS stadiums.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Solopop said:


> All.


The Qatari village of Doha envisages hosting the world’s biggest sporting event in twelve semi-modular fantasy stadiums. This should give you an idea of the proposed training facilities, to be equipped with the latest in advanced & sophisticated cooling technologies. 

Football’s coming home in Qatar, epitome and synonym for Arab soccer hotbeds.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

ffs wheres da cooling teknologie!


----------



## ryebreadraz

mattec said:


> The US is using all of the MLS stadiums.


The US is basically just going to give a ton of options. There are the MLS stadiums in some cities, there are MLS teams' practice fields as well and the college's all around the country provide tons and tons of possible practice fields in every city. It will be up to the teams in the tournament on whether they want a smaller, secluded college, all the MLS facilities, stadiums, whatever they want. The teams will be able to pick the kind of training facility they want.


----------



## MysteryMike

England has the best facilities of them all, premier league club facilities, championship club facilities etc etc, there just is no shortage of places to practice.


----------



## _X_

ryebreadraz said:


> The US is basically just going to give a ton of options. There are the MLS stadiums in some cities, there are MLS teams' practice fields as well and the college's all around the country provide tons and tons of possible practice fields in every city. It will be up to the teams in the tournament on whether they want a smaller, secluded college, all the MLS facilities, stadiums, whatever they want. The teams will be able to pick the kind of training facility they want.


This will be true with many of the bids.Its no good just supplying 32 options because as we saw in South Africa,(with many teams choosing altitude as the determining factor for location)the teams will have different ideas than you might expect

Its highly likely that most teams would fly in for the match only if it were held in Doha,robbing the World Cup of much of its atmosphere


----------



## DenilsonUK

Solopop said:


> All.


Proposed training facilities for the teams playing in Sunderland, one of the host cities in the England 2018 bid.

*Stadium of Light, Sunderland*









*Academy of Light, Sunderland*









*Rockliffe Park Training Ground, County Durham*









*Darlington Arena, Darlington*









*Victoria Park, Hartlepool*









*Brunton Park, Carlisle*









*Riverside County Cricket Ground, Durham*









I imagine it'll be a pretty similar setup for the other host cities?


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## RahalInter

OK my opinion everyone has a good bid. Regarding 2018 England have a strong bid, with Russia not far behind. Belgium/Netherlands looks interesting while my least favorite is Spain/ Portugal I think Spain should have went solo on that + with recent allegations I don't want them to get the hosting rights. 2022 meanwhile Australia seem to have a solid bid, Qatar is very interesting and creative but like the Iberian bid they have had troubles regarding corruption or whatever the others mentioned. USA look boring they already had hosted it before so I really don't want them to have it again. Japan and Korea both have hosted it aswell quite recently so there is a very little chance they are going to win. So after saying this, my vote would go to either, England, Russia, or Belgium//Netherlands for 2018 and Australia for 2022. If Australia doesn't win then I think Qatar should get it.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

RahalInter said:


> OK my opinion everyone has a good bid. Regarding 2018 England have a strong bid, with Russia not far behind. Belgium/Netherlands looks interesting while my least favorite is Spain/ Portugal I think Spain should have went solo on that + with recent allegations I don't want them to get the hosting rights. 2022 meanwhile Australia seem to have a solid bid, Qatar is very interesting and creative but like the Iberian bid they have had troubles regarding corruption or whatever the others mentioned. USA look boring they already had hosted it before so I really don't want them to have it again. Japan and Korea both have hosted it aswell quite recently so there is a very little chance they are going to win. So after saying this, my vote would go to either, England, Russia, or Belgium//Netherlands for 2018 and Australia for 2022. If Australia doesn't win then I think Qatar should get it.


That is a fair analysis. It think the same


----------



## Gondolier

/\ Well, I don't think the 22 Exec Board members will agree with that. And that's really all that matters.


----------



## RahalInter

Gondolier said:


> /\ Well, I don't think the 22 Exec Board members will agree with that. And that's really all that matters.


I'm a supporter of the Australian bid since half of my blood is Australian, though I really don't think my opinion is biased, I personally think Australia is actually the favorite for 2022. I understand if you think differently, everyone has opinions, I just dont want USA or Spain/Portugal to get the rights to host 2022 and 2018 WC's respectively.


----------



## _X_

Gondolier said:


> /\ Well, I don't think the 22 Exec Board members will agree with that. And that's really all that matters.


They will actually


----------



## Walbanger

^^ I don't think the Exec Board will agree with it. It's is just too darn sensible for them.


----------



## nomarandlee

ryebreadraz said:


> The US is basically just going to give a ton of options. There are the MLS stadiums in some cities, there are MLS teams' practice fields as well and the college's all around the country provide tons and tons of possible practice fields in every city. It will be up to the teams in the tournament on whether they want a smaller, secluded college, all the MLS facilities, stadiums, whatever they want. The teams will be able to pick the kind of training facility they want.


As well many major universities have top notch training and sports medicine facilities and can faciliate a sense of seclusion for the teams (if that is what they prefer).


----------



## Gondolier

_X_ said:


> They will actually


No, they won't. Wanna bet?


----------



## _X_

I already have:cheers2 days ago)

Tell me where you're other 10/11 votes are
Blazer,Thompson and Warner
Oh dear
But ,you've got the next one uncontested luckily
July 4,2026 wc final Dallas


----------



## Gondolier

_X_ said:


> I already have:cheers2 days ago)
> 
> Tell me where you're other 10/11 votes are
> Blazer,Thompson and Warner
> Oh dear
> But ,you've got the next one uncontested luckily
> July 4,2026 wc final Dallas


No kidding? 

Yeah, you and your infallible crystal ball. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Will737

Gondolier said:


> No kidding?
> 
> Yeah, you and your infallible crystal ball. :lol: :lol:


Explain why Australia would be such a bad host.


----------



## _X_

Gondolier said:


> No kidding?
> 
> Yeah, you and your infallible crystal ball. :lol: :lol:


The fact you can't even come up with just one more vote is pretty substantial

Just 6 weeks ago the USA had 11 primary votes-its all turned to scheisse


----------



## Walbanger

_X_ said:


> I already have:cheers2 days ago)
> 
> Tell me where you're other 10/11 votes are
> Blazer,Thompson and Warner
> Oh dear
> But ,you've got the next one uncontested luckily
> July 4,2026 wc final Dallas


Don't do that. You sound just like the Qatari's.

We don't know what direction the votes will go. What say's UEFA will vote as a block, especially towards either Australia or the US?


----------



## _X_

Walbanger said:


> Don't do that. You sound just like the Qatari's.
> 
> We don't know what direction the votes will go. What say's UEFA will vote as a block, especially towards either Australia or the US?


But its ok for him to troll the crap out of us.
And no I don't know for sure who anyones voting for but I do have a forum that *only* deals with that 1 issue


----------



## Walbanger

Gondolier is a soft touch, not really a troll.


----------



## _X_

Agree


----------



## coth

^that was poor photoshop. here is the real one.


----------



## _X_

hno:

How embarrassing to plagiarise someone else's work
Find your own ideas bogan


----------



## _X_

And you must feel absolutely destroyed that Qatar has tried so hard to kill the Russian bid by colluding with Spain

What a loser


----------



## coth

That's an unproved assumption.

And did you took that photo you used in photoshop? No? Then you barbarically stole it... You used a someone else's work for a poor business, pretending to be an original author... That's so barbaric... hno:


----------



## Walbanger

Here that X, you didn't just steal it. Barbarism was involved.


----------



## _X_

coth said:


> That's an unproved assumption.
> 
> And did you took that photo you used in photoshop? No? Then you barbarically stole it... You used a someone else's work for a poor business, pretending to be an original author... That's so barbaric... hno:


:bash:
You copied the idea

Anyway back to Qatar killing the Russian bid:lol:
Very strange you support Qatar.
It was neck and neck between England and Russia 3 weeks ago,until Qatar put Spain on a pedestal.
Now you'll struggle to get to the final round as Spain already have 7 votes minimum-Spain,Argentina,Brazil,Guatemala,Qatar,Egypt,Thailand

Thanks for turning me off the Russian bid.You're quite welcome to search my post history for any disparaging remarks about Russia-there wasn't any


----------



## _X_

Walbanger said:


> Here that X, you didn't just steal it. Barbarism was involved.


^^


----------



## coth

_X_ said:


> :bash:
> You copied the idea
> 
> Thanks for turning me off the Russian bid.You're quite welcome to search my post history for any disparaging remarks about Russia-there wasn't any


But you wasn't any better, you stole the photo 


You are welcome to search my post history as well. But i'll help you. I said - personally i believe Qatar should withdraw from race to open the window for joint Middle East 2030 bid. Same could go to UK. It should be Western EU joint bid. 

Russian bid covers nearly half of Europe. American bid covers half of North America. Australian bid covers whole Australia (but i think if you get 2022 World Cup you should give at least one stadium to New Zealand. i'm sure Blatter won't be against it). The Qatar and UK covers just tiny countries. That's unfair for rest of western EU. Because of small England they won't able to get anything at their homes for next 12-16 years...


----------



## Trelawny

No joint bids suck. Last thing we need is both Australia and New Zealand hosting. Then we have two more crappy teams in the world cup.

However a joint bid between Colombia & Ecuador would be supported.


----------



## coth

Trelawny said:


> No joint bids suck.


Elaborate and explain your answer please.


----------



## Trelawny

coth said:


> Elaborate and explain your answer please.


It takes away the point of the world cup. Your supposed to show off your country, you want tourist to experience the hosting country. Look at Japan and Korea they both want to host by themselves now beacuse they probaly felt the tourist didn't capture as much with a joint bid.

Even Qatar wants to host by themselves as they know a saudi joint bid would be pointless, as they would steal the light.


----------



## RahalInter

How the hell would Colombia/Ecuador bid be supported?? Australia and New Zealand both went quite well in the past World Cup, while neither Colombia nor Ecuador qualified. In fact Colombia haven't qualified since France 1998 hno:


----------



## SouthmoreAvenue

RahalInter said:


> How the hell would Colombia/Ecuador bid be supported?? Australia and New Zealand both went quite well in the past World Cup, while neither Colombia nor Ecuador qualified. In fact Colombia haven't qualified since France 1998 hno:


I'm pretty sure if Australia and NZ played in CONMEBOL, they would have trouble qualifying for the WC as well. Just saying.


----------



## TampaMike

How the heck did this thread unlocked? Obviously from the 5-year old conversation between _X_ and (MOD!) Coth, nothing has changed.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

SouthmoreAvenue said:


> I'm pretty sure if Australia and NZ played in CONMEBOL, they would have trouble qualifying for the WC as well. Just saying.


Didn't Australia beat Uruguay to make it to Germany 2006?


----------



## Bolsilludo

AndreasBerlin said:


> Didn't Australia beat Uruguay to make it to Germany 2006?


Yes, but in Uruguay, Australia lost 0-1.
Australia never won a single match in South America.


----------



## Wezza

Trelawny said:


> No joint bids suck. Last thing we need is both Australia and New Zealand hosting. Then we have two more crappy teams in the world cup.


Yet you want Qatar to win the rights to 2022? Have you ever seen them play? :lol: hno:



Bolsilludo said:


> Yes, but in Uruguay, Australia lost 0-1.
> Australia never won a single match in South America.


Not that it really matters anymore but Australia dominated Uruguay at home in that match. Shouldn't have lost it. The right team ended up qualifying anyway.


----------



## Bolsilludo

Wezza said:


> Not that it really matters anymore but Australia dominated Uruguay at home in that match. Shouldn't have lost it. The right team ended up qualifying anyway.


Australia dominated Uruguay?
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Give me a break!


----------



## Trelawny

Wezza said:


> Yet you want Qatar to win the rights to 2022? Have you ever seen them play? :lol: hno:


I wouldn't watch Qatar.I would watch South American and African teams playing in Qatar's cool futuristic stadiums while drinking a beer and eating chicken wings. :banana:


----------



## Bolsilludo

^^ Excellent idea!, see you there... :lol:


----------



## Will737




----------



## Trelawny

Bolsilludo said:


> ^^ Excellent idea!, see you there... :lol:


Lol see you where at my local bar? I'm a student don't have any money to travel. But you can always donate. :lol:


----------



## Will737

Trelawny said:


> Lol see you where at my local bar? I'm a student don't have any money to travel. But you can always donate. :lol:


So you're not gonna come fight me like you said you would? Coward.


----------



## Bolsilludo

Trelawny said:


> Lol see you where at my local bar? I'm a student don't have any money to travel. But you can always donate. :lol:


Don't worry guy!, I will pay you the travel. :lol:


----------



## Wezza

Bolsilludo said:


> Australia dominated Uruguay?
> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> Give me a break!


Watch it again buddy. You weren't that good back then. I will give credit where it's due, Uruguay is a very good side now.



Trelawny said:


> I wouldn't watch Qatar.I would watch South American and African teams playing in Qatar's cool futuristic stadiums while drinking a beer and eating chicken wings. :banana:


Because African sides are so awesome at the WC. :lol: And I doubt you will be drinking beer, more like non-alcoholic beer tasting drinks.


----------



## Trelawny

Will737 said:


> So you're not gonna come fight me like you said you would? Coward.


Why would I waste my money on someone as Insufficient as you. You are like a fetus that hasn't developed into a real person. I'd rather spend the almighty dollar on rent and a flat screen t.v.



Bolsilludo said:


> Don't worry guy!, I will pay you the travel. :lol:


:colgate:


----------



## MysteryMike

Trelawny said:


> I wouldn't watch Qatar.I would watch South American and African teams playing in Qatar's cool futuristic stadiums while drinking a beer and eating chicken wings. :banana:


yeah , no middle east nation was even able to qualify for the world cup, for all Qatar's money as I said previously, they are the biggest embarrassment to international football, just like some pretender on here, no names required of course . http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10411522604#!/group.php?gid=10411522604&v=info


----------



## MelbourneFC

I am totally biased and really think that all countries could have a good world cup however 2022 would be great to have in Australia. One of the great things about our bid is that most cities have stadiums within a close walk to all the action of the CBD of each respecitve city (except for Sydney) which is a major plus. Nothing better than having a few drinks at Fed square in Melbourne for example before walking to a Socceroos game at the MCG. Please bring the world cup to Oz we won't let the football world down!!!


----------



## ExSydney

MelbourneFC said:


> I am totally biased and really think that all countries could have a good world cup however 2022 would be great to have in Australia. One of the great things about our bid is that most cities have stadiums within a close walk to all the action of the CBD of each respecitve city (except for Sydney) which is a major plus.


The Sydney Football Stadium is close to the Sydney CBD.


----------



## _X_

ExSydney said:


> The Sydney Football Stadium is close to the Sydney CBD.


And the Olympic Stadium has a dedicated rail line


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> Yes, but in Uruguay, Australia lost 0-1.
> Australia never won a single match in South America.


Hardly played over there,but we have an equal record with Uruguay,beaten Argentina in a match 4-1 at senior level,lead them at under 20 level and womens,have beaten Brazil and match them in womens,have an outstanding record against Paraguay,hardly played Colombia but lead them at under 20's,never played Equador or Bolivia and only once against Venezuela for a draw


----------



## Mo Rush

MelbourneFC said:


> I am totally biased and really think that all countries could have a good world cup however 2022 would be great to have in Australia. One of the great things about our bid is that most cities have stadiums within a close walk to all the action of the CBD of each respecitve city (except for Sydney) which is a major plus. Nothing better than having a few drinks at Fed square in Melbourne for example before walking to a Socceroos game at the MCG. Please bring the world cup to Oz we won't let the football world down!!!


----------



## Wezza

I wish we got to play in Cape Town.


----------



## hngcm

_X_ said:


> Hardly played over there,but we have an equal record with Uruguay,beaten Argentina in a match 4-1 at senior level,lead them at under 20 level and womens,have beaten Brazil and match them in womens,have an outstanding record against Paraguay,hardly played Colombia but lead them at under 20's,never played Equador or Bolivia and only once against Venezuela for a draw


Sure you can beat Argentina/Brazil once in a while, but how many games can OZ take from them in a REAL match?

OZ did beat Uruguay in 2006...in penalties after home-and-home wins. 

I'm not sure if OZ can keep up to Chile/Paraguay/Colombia/Ecuador/Uruguay in the grueling 18 game qualification campaign. 

I know Mexico (my team!) can and would qualify regularly in CONMEBOL because Mexico places in the top 4 in the Copa America regularly and beats Argentina/Brazil with some frequency. 

Mexico has placed in the top 4 of the Copa America in 5 of the 7 Copas it has participated in. In the remaining two, Mexico lost in the quarterfinals. 

Maybe we'll find out if Japan declines its invitation for the 2011 edition. Not sure if Japan wants to finish last in it's group of 4 once again like they did in 1999. And that was with a weak group of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Peru.

Heck now I'm sure OZ can't compete lol.


----------



## hngcm

Actually nevermind about Japan declining it's invitation, the draw for the 2011 Copa America will take place this thursday lol.


----------



## Walbanger

You seem hell bent on underestimating Australia. Sure we're not world beaters but it's your lack of familiarity with our footballing history that you think we couldn't be competitive in COMNEBOL. Have you ever actually looked at the results of the knockout world cup qualifications involving Australia and a South American team. I'm amazed Australia has done so well instead of being blown off the park considering the total lack of competive preparation when in Oceania while the South Americans are battle hardened by their super competitve 18 game qualification series.


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## Wezza

hngcm said:


> Sure you can beat Argentina/Brazil once in a while, but how many games can OZ take from them in a REAL match?
> 
> OZ did beat Uruguay in 2006...in penalties after home-and-home wins.
> 
> I'm not sure if OZ can keep up to Chile/Paraguay/Colombia/Ecuador/Uruguay in the grueling 18 game qualification campaign.
> 
> I know Mexico (my team!) can and would qualify regularly in CONMEBOL because Mexico places in the top 4 in the Copa America regularly and beats Argentina/Brazil with some frequency.
> 
> Mexico has placed in the top 4 of the Copa America in 5 of the 7 Copas it has participated in. In the remaining two, Mexico lost in the quarterfinals.
> 
> Maybe we'll find out if Japan declines its invitation for the 2011 edition. Not sure if Japan wants to finish last in it's group of 4 once again like they did in 1999. And that was with a weak group of Paraguay, Bolivia, and Peru.
> 
> Heck now I'm sure OZ can't compete lol.


What a crock of shit, Mexico would hardly ever qualify in CONMEBOL. What a tugger! :lol:


----------



## rus

I think that the probability of winning Russia's bid is 99%.


----------



## RobH

If it is, that proves FIFA are mugs.


----------



## _X_

hngcm said:


> Blah,blah,blah,Mexico,blah,blah,Australia crap blah blah


Oh dear.
Played 5 times(2 confed cup,3 friendlies)
Australia won both CC matches.Overall 2 w,1 d,2 l
In all competitive matches between the 2 nations in all grades
Australia 11 wins,5 draws,4 losses
34 goals for,27 against

We certainly aren't a super power by any means,but we aren't easybeats

Getting back on track


----------



## jacoboy7

Gotta admit im not likeing that photo haha.
and i joined http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10411522604&v=info#!/group.php?gid=10411522604
like 90% of the group are arabs :| wtf going on hahaha


----------



## _X_

Mo Rush said:


>


Great photo Mo.
Is that Long Street?


----------



## Mo Rush

_X_ said:


> Great photo Mo.
> Is that Long Street?


No, its the fan walk. Cape Town Train Station to Cape Town Stadium. http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/FIFA2010/PublishingImages/Maps/Map_C.jpg










1. Africa statue
2. Waterkant Street
3. St Andrew’s Square
4. Corner of Chiappini and Somerset Roads
5. Somerset Rd
6. Gallows Hill


----------



## _X_

They had some massive crowds on that fan walk IIRC


----------



## Bolsilludo

_X_ said:


> Hardly played over there,but we have an equal record with Uruguay,beaten Argentina in a match 4-1 at senior level,lead them at under 20 level and womens,have beaten Brazil and match them in womens,have an outstanding record against Paraguay,hardly played Colombia but lead them at under 20's,never played Equador or Bolivia and only once against Venezuela for a draw


You feel proud to post this data? :lol: You should be ashamed. hno:



_X_ said:


> we have an equal record with Uruguay


Not in our land. I repeat, you NEVER won a single match in South America.



_X_ said:


> beaten Argentina in a match 4-1 at senior level


That was a FRIENDLY match played 22 years ago in AUSTRALIA, NOT in South America.



_X_ said:


> lead them at under 20 level and womens,have beaten Brazil and match them in womens


First, as you said, those were U-20 matches. Second, except in Brazil, women's football isn't very popular in South America.



_X_ said:


> outstanding record against Paraguay


You didn't defeat them in Paraguay.



_X_ said:


> hardly played Colombia but lead them at under 20


U-20 match = zero important match.



_X_ said:


> and only once against Venezuela for a draw


A draw with Venezuela, what a merit!. :lol:


----------



## AlekseyVT

I'm sured that in WC2014 should be played six South American teams (including Brazil). Uruguay, which looked like weakest SA team for WC2010, reached semifinals.


----------



## Bolsilludo

Walbanger said:


> Have you ever actually looked at the results of the knockout world cup qualifications involving Australia and a South American team.


South America beats Australia 2-1 in CONMEBOL-OFC playoffs.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

Bolsilludo said:


> South America beats Australia 2-1 in CONMEBOL-OFC playoffs.


Wow! 2-1 hey...? You really played them off the park.... Not!


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> South America beats Australia 2-1 in CONMEBOL-OFC playoffs.


Bugger off will you and let people talk about 2018/2022,of which there are NO South American bidders


----------



## Bolsilludo

^^ Hey brother!, I didn't start this debate.


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> ^^ Hey brother!, I didn't start this debate.


Yes, you did, you started this from the first time you joined after you found a serious lack of support for your moronic bid for the 2030 world cup, which by the way is perfectly poised for the 12 year cycle when Europe gets to bid again, more than likely Russia will be your opponent. All I can say is best of luck to you  

Then you started on a rampage about how good South American football is compared to everyone else, that's fantastic but the holders of the world cup is an European nation. If Australia played in South America they would be the 5th highest ranked FIFA nation in South America, which by their results against various South American opposition is more than justified. This is all with football not being pretty much the only sport, you can only imagine how good Australia will get in the future, so again best of luck to you and your delusions :nuts:


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> You feel proud to post this data? :lol: You should be ashamed. hno:
> 
> Not in our land. I repeat, you NEVER won a single match in South America.


10 whole matches at senior level in total against the whole 10 teams----wow
At other levels we played 3 times and won in Chickayo,South America and Uberlandia,South America

Can I just quietly remind you that Uruguay has won 10 medals at the Olympics-from a total of 16,321 awarded
No gold in 82 years:lol:
There is not one sport in the world that Uruguay has a better head to head record than Australia--------not one 

Enough of the pissing
Back to bidding for the 2018/2022 WC


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> Yes, you did, you started this from the first time you joined after you found a serious lack of support for your moronic bid for the 2030 world cup


Our bid has more support than you imagine. Surely more than yours.



MysteryMike said:


> which by the way is perfectly poised for the 12 year cycle when Europe gets to bid again, more than likely Russia will be your opponent. All I can say is best of luck to you


The 12 year cycle no longer exist. You are very uninformed.



MysteryMike said:


> Then you started on a rampage about how good South American football is compared to everyone else


You are wrong, CONMEBOL insn't better than everyone else. What I said was that CONMEBOL is, along with UEFA, the world's most powerful confederation.



MysteryMike said:


> If Australia played in South America they would be the 5th highest ranked FIFA nation in South America, which by their results against various South American opposition is more than justified.


Are you sure?. Mmmmm, I don't know bro. Good teams like Ecuador and Colombia couldn't qualify. Is Australia better than Colombia or Ecuador?. Besides, in Asia you don't have to play matches at high altitude. You don't have any idea what the lack of oxigen is!. I want to see Australia play in Bogota (2640 meters), Quito (2800 meters) or La Paz (3077 meters).


----------



## Bolsilludo

_X_ said:


> Can I just quietly remind you that Uruguay has won 10 medals at the Olympics-from a total of 16,321 awarded
> No gold in 82 years:lol:


We are talking about football, not about other sports.



_X_ said:


> There is not one sport in the world that Uruguay has a better head to head record than Australia--------not one


Yes there is, it's called FOOTBALL.

Uruguay: 3.424.595 habitants, 4 times world champions.
Australia: 22,516,536 habitants, 0 times world champions. :nuts:


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> We are talking about football, not about other sports.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is, it's called FOOTBALL.
> 
> Uruguay: 3.424.595 habitants, 4 times world champions.
> Australia: 22,516,536 habitants, 0 times world champions. :nuts:


You can't read-I said HEAD TO HEAD
4 wins,4 losses,1 draw
2 wcq wins a piece,1 confed cup win to Australia

Can we get back to the bidding race


----------



## AndreasBerlin

Bolsilludo said:


> We are talking about football, not about other sports.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is, it's called FOOTBALL.
> 
> Uruguay: 3.424.595 habitants, 4 times world champions.
> Australia: 22,516,536 habitants, 0 times world champions. :nuts:


I was just about to argue with you about Uruguay's "4" titles, but technically you are right, and I think Uruguay deserve the acknowledgement for this


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> The 12 year cycle no longer exist. You are very uninformed.You are wrong, CONMEBOL insn't better than everyone else. What I said was that CONMEBOL is, along with UEFA, the world's most powerful confederation.Are you sure?. Mmmmm, I don't know bro. Good teams like Ecuador and Colombia couldn't qualify. Is Australia better than Colombia or Ecuador?. Besides, in Asia you don't have to play matches at high altitude. You don't have any idea what the lack of oxigen is!. I want to see Australia play in Bogota (2640 meters), Quito (2800 meters) or La Paz (3077 meters).


Prove it. Seems to be everyone in world football is working on the cycle, except yourself. Do you know something everyone else doesn't ? I mean even the bidding teams and FIFA committee members? I doubt it, so how about you pack it up and go and improve your embarrassing knowledge of world football even a tiny bit. 

No, you clearly said South America is better than everyone else and pretty much no one else almost deserves to play football, buddy why don't you go and play in your little South American league and pretend that Uruguay can even conquer that. Hardly any teams go to South America to play because there is no use in doing so. What's it going to achieve, football development? money? No, NOTHING. Not even teams from South America want to go and play in places like La Paz and Quito because it's far from an equivalent playing field. Not even Brazil, Argentina etc have good records at those venues and that's why FIFA banned high altitude matches for a while because it's equivalent to doping i.e having an unfair advantage. But hey good for the Bolivians that they could protest and get La Paz back in, doesn't mean anyone who doesn't need to play there will ever play there. But you can go on about your delusions as I said. :lol:


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> Prove it. Seems to be everyone in world football is working on the cycle, except yourself. Do you know something everyone else doesn't ? I mean even the bidding teams and FIFA committee members? I doubt it, so how about you pack it up and go and improve your embarrassing knowledge of world football even a tiny bit.
> 
> No, you clearly said South America is better than everyone else and pretty much no one else almost deserves to play football, buddy why don't you go and play in your little South American league and pretend that Uruguay can even conquer that. Hardly any teams go to South America to play because there is no use in doing so. What's it going to achieve, football development? money? No, NOTHING. Not even teams from South America want to go and play in places like La Paz and Quito because it's far from an equivalent playing field. Not even Brazil, Argentina etc have good records at those venues and that's why FIFA banned high altitude matches for a while because it's equivalent to doping i.e having an unfair advantage. But hey good for the Bolivians that they could protest and get La Paz back in, doesn't mean anyone who doesn't need to play there will ever play there. But you can go on about your delusions as I said. :lol:


What annoy me about some Australians is that, in terms of football, they see themselves better than they really are. You underestimate the value and the rich history of South American football. You must learn to be more humble in life.


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> What annoy me about some Australians is that, in terms of football, they see themselves better than they really are. You underestimate the value and the rich history of South American football. You must learn to be more humble in life.


I don't know about Australians, but certainly I suggest you grab a dictionary and read over and over the meaning of the word humble many many times. South America is NOT world football. Get over it.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Bolsilludo said:


> What annoy me about some Australians is that, in terms of football, they see themselves better than they really are. You underestimate the value and the rich history of South American football. You must learn to be more humble in life.


Right, because South American football is the be-all and end-all? :lol:


----------



## Bolsilludo

*Sepp Blatter Full Of Praise For South Korea's 2022 World Cup Bid*

*FIFA president is quite positive about South Korea's 2022 World Cup bid.*

*By Stefan Coerts*
Nov 8, 2010 3:00:00 PM

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has taken the time to praise South Korea's 2022 World Cup Bid, labelling the South Korean bid as 'very good'.

The 74-year-old added that FIFA is keen to help foster peace between South Korea and North Korea by using the power of the World Cup.

"I can say that with all my determination, Korea is a good bidding association and the bidding company for the World Cup 2022," Blatter was quoted as saying in a press conference. "Even a very good one. Not only good one — very good.

"I will be very, very happy to use the power of the World Cup and the power of football to help foster peace on the Korean peninsula."

South Korea face competition from Australia and Qatar among others in the battle to host the 2022 World Cup finals.

Source: http://www.goal.com/en/news/3512/20...ull-of-praise-for-south-koreas-2022-world-cup


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> *Sepp Blatter Full Of Praise For South Korea's 2022 World Cup Bid*
> 
> *FIFA president is quite positive about South Korea's 2022 World Cup bid.*
> 
> *By Stefan Coerts*
> Nov 8, 2010 3:00:00 PM
> 
> FIFA president Sepp Blatter has taken the time to praise South Korea's 2022 World Cup Bid, labelling the South Korean bid as 'very good'.
> 
> The 74-year-old added that FIFA is keen to help foster peace between South Korea and North Korea by using the power of the World Cup.
> 
> "I can say that with all my determination, Korea is a good bidding association and the bidding company for the World Cup 2022," Blatter was quoted as saying in a press conference. "Even a very good one. Not only good one — very good.
> 
> "I will be very, very happy to use the power of the World Cup and the power of football to help foster peace on the Korean peninsula."
> 
> South Korea face competition from Australia and Qatar among others in the battle to host the 2022 World Cup finals.
> 
> Source: http://www.goal.com/en/news/3512/20...ull-of-praise-for-south-koreas-2022-world-cup


That's great that you're finally getting the message about the rest of world in football kay:


----------



## Bolsilludo

MysteryMike said:


> That's great that you're finally getting the message about the rest of world in football kay:


:banana: :lol:


----------



## Bolsilludo

EDIT


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> "FIFA announced on October 29, 2007 that it will no longer continue with its continental rotation policy, implemented after the 2006 World Cup host selection. The newest host selection policy is that any country may bid for a World Cup, provided that their continental confederation has not hosted either of the past two World Cups".
> 
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_hosts
> 
> I was right, you don't. :banana:


Right, Let me explain this to you, this means that the confederation hosting the world cup within a specific year cannot host it for the next 2 consecutive world cups i.e lets take Brazil 2014 which is part of the South American confederation right. South America can thereby not bid for the next 2 world cups i.e 2018 and 2022 (which is why there are no South American bidders for these 2 editions of the world cup). South America can only next bid for the 2026 world cup. Let's say England win the 2018 bid, then that means Europe cannot bid for the next two consecutive world cups, which means 2022 and 2026 are out for Europe. The next available bidding year is 2030, where Russia will bid as the European candidate and as I said before good luck with that


----------



## T74

Bolsilludo said:


> "*FIFA announced on October 29, 2007 that it will no longer continue with its continental rotation policy*, implemented after the 2006 World Cup host selection. The newest host selection policy is that any country may bid for a World Cup, provided that their continental confederation has not hosted either of the past two World Cups".
> 
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_hosts
> 
> I was right, you don't. :banana:


I really hate defending Mike (who is an embarrassing troll), but techincally he didn't say it was a rotation policy, he referred to a 12 year cycle. As you mentioned, by getting 2018 UEFA will miss the next two WC bids, which means they are back in the game for 2030.

Personally I hope you guys get it though, sometimes you have to respect your history.

Also don't think MM is typical of most Aussies, most of us can post something other than baits and the same youtube picks over and over again.

Then again, we inflicted Matt Lowry on this forum, so maybe Aussies should be banned on mass hno:


Back to the bids, any work yet on when the tech reports will be released?


----------



## Bolsilludo

T74 said:


> I really hate defending Mike (who is an embarrassing troll), but techincally he didn't say it was a rotation policy, he referred to a 12 year cycle.


Ok, now I understood what he wanted to explain. Sorry. :angel:


----------



## MysteryMike

T74 said:


> I really hate defending Mike (who is an embarrassing troll), but techincally he didn't say it was a rotation policy, he referred to a 12 year cycle. As you mentioned, by getting 2018 UEFA will miss the next two WC bids, which means they are back in the game for 2030.
> 
> Personally I hope you guys get it though, sometimes you have to respect your history.
> 
> Also don't think MM is typical of most Aussies, most of us can post something other than baits and the same youtube picks over and over again.
> 
> Then again, we inflicted Matt Lowry on this forum, so maybe Aussies should be banned on mass hno:
> 
> 
> Back to the bids, any work yet on when the tech reports will be released?


I suggest you get off the alcohol ASAP :nuts: The technical reports are given to the executives in a couple of days, but more than likely FIFA will want to keep it a secret. The ethics committee reports come out on Nov 17th.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> The ethics committee reports come out on Nov 17th.


Great, just in time for the South American clash of Brazil VS Argentina in Qatar :banana:


----------



## hngcm

Wezza said:


> What a crock of shit, Mexico would hardly ever qualify in CONMEBOL. What a tugger! :lol:


Mexico has made it to the top 4 in Copa America 5 out of 7 times. 

That's already more than Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. 

And those teams have played the Copa America 42 times. 

Truthfully I'm not sure if OZ can compete because there really isn't enough information to make a decision. 

But I KNOW that Mexico would compete and qualify most of the time. 

And oh yeah all of the Copa Americas have been in South America. 

I'd like to see how CONMEBOL teams fare playing in important games at Estadio Azteca. Actually, the 1999 Confederations Cup was played in Mexico. Mexico beat Bolivia in the group stage and then beat Brazil in the final. 

Heck you have to go pretty far back to find a friendly game that Mexico has lost at Azteca.


----------



## hngcm

_X_ said:


> Oh dear.
> Played 5 times(2 confed cup,3 friendlies)
> Australia won both CC matches.Overall 2 w,1 d,2 l


I didn't say Mexico was better than OZ did I?

I said I'm sure Mexico can compete due to the results I've seen and I said I'm not sure if OZ can do it too cuz there'es not information. 

That and head to head record isn't THAT important. 

For example the USA has recently had a WAY better head to head record against Mexico. 

But I'm sure if you ask most teams they'll rather play the USA instead of Mexico. Mexico downs big teams regularly.


----------



## hngcm

Also I have nothing against OZ, I just like debating about soccer lol.

I would love for our teams to play in the final here in the US in 2022.


----------



## Mo Rush

South Africa is best at soccer. We will dominate and win in 2014. This is clear.


----------



## MysteryMike

The FIFA Executive Committee, chaired by President Joseph S. Blatter, approved the voting process to determine the hosts of the 2018 FIFA World Cup™ and 2022 FIFA World Cup™ during their meeting held in Zurich on 28 and 29 October. The voting will take place at the Home of FIFA in Zurich on 2 December 2010 and the process will be as follows:

* The 2018 vote will take place first, then the 2022 one. The vote will be by secret ballot and all eligible members of the FIFA Executive Committee can vote in both ballots
* To win the right to host the competition, a bidder must obtain an absolute majority (50% + 1) of the votes of the FIFA Executive Committee members present
* In the event of a tie when only two bidders remain, the FIFA President will have the casting vote
* For any voting round in which an absolute majority is not achieved, the bidder with the lowest number of votes will not progress to the next voting round
* If there is a tie for the lowest number of votes in any round, an intermediate voting round will be conducted to determine which of the tied bidders does not progress
* When the final decision on the host has been taken, the result will be put in two envelopes and taken by the notary to the “Messe Zurich”, where they will be handed over to the FIFA President for the announcements 

The order of the presentations by the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup™ bidders to the Executive Committee was also drawn during the meeting. 

*On 1 December, 
Australia will give their presentation at 14.00 CET, 
Korea Republic at 15.00, 
Qatar at 16.00, 
the USA at 17.00 
and Japan at 18.00.*

*On 2 December, 
Belgium/Netherlands will give their presentation at 09.00, 
Spain/Portugal at 10.00, 
England at 11.00 
and Russia at 12.00. *

Each presentation will be made at the Home of FIFA in Zurich and last 30 minutes. All presentations will be broadcast live on FIFA.com and at the “Messe Zurich”.

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/media/newsid=1325928.html


----------



## Wezza

Bolsilludo said:


> What annoy me about some Australians is that, in terms of football, they see themselves better than they really are. You underestimate the value and the rich history of South American football. You must learn to be more humble in life.


Most of us know how strong South American football is. What's you point?



hngcm said:


> Mexico has made it to the top 4 in Copa America 5 out of 7 times.
> 
> That's already more than Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.
> 
> And those teams have played the Copa America 42 times.
> 
> Truthfully I'm not sure if OZ can compete because there really isn't enough information to make a decision.
> 
> But I KNOW that Mexico would compete and qualify most of the time.
> 
> And oh yeah all of the Copa Americas have been in South America.
> 
> I'd like to see how CONMEBOL teams fare playing in important games at Estadio Azteca. Actually, the 1999 Confederations Cup was played in Mexico. Mexico beat Bolivia in the group stage and then beat Brazil in the final.
> 
> Heck you have to go pretty far back to find a friendly game that Mexico has lost at Azteca.


Dude Mexico can't even top CONCACAF qualifying, they would struggle in CONMEBOL.


----------



## hngcm

I come up with evidence on how Mexico has proven itself against CONMEBOL in real competition and you bring up CONCACAF qualifying...

Dude OZ didn't even make it to the second round of the WC so of course they would struggle in CONMEBOL...[/sarcasm]


----------



## slipperydog

You can tell everyone is bored and just waiting for the vote when people are trying to come up with stuff to argue about just to pass the time...opcorn:


----------



## ExSydney

Late breaking news!
Mexico have pulled out of the race for the 2022 World Cup.It was just announced no less than 14 months ago!


----------



## Wezza

hngcm said:


> I come up with evidence on how Mexico has proven itself against CONMEBOL in real competition and you bring up CONCACAF qualifying...
> 
> Dude OZ didn't even make it to the second round of the WC so of course they would struggle in CONMEBOL...[/sarcasm]


No shit sherlock. I'm not deluded like you.


----------



## _X_

slipperydog said:


> You can tell everyone is bored and just waiting for the vote when people are trying to come up with stuff to argue about just to pass the time...opcorn:


Its been a very long campaign,almost as long as WCQ'ing but it seems to be coming round so quick all of a sudden.

Just can't wait-its been a very good period for our campaign
C'mon


----------



## T74

Latest news!!!

Newspapers have gotten photos of Sepp personally conducting his investigation into the Spain/Qatar corruption allegations










they also have these inside images of the FIFA Ethics Committee hearing testimony:


----------



## AlekseyVT

*ENGLAND STILL HAVE A CHANCES FOR HOSTING OF WC2018!!!!!*


----------



## AlekseyVT

*England's 2018 World Cup bid still in running, says senior Fifa official

• Corruption claims have damaged Fifa's reputation, says official
• England's chances of hosting 2018 World Cup remain 'very big'*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/09/england-2018-world-cup-fifa

*A member of Fifa's ruling executive committee has admitted that claims of corruption in the bidding process for the 2018 World Cup have damaged the governing body's reputation and that, despite the fallout from the affair, England is still in the running to become hosts.*

Junji Ogura, the Japanese member of the 24-man committee that will decide on the 2018 and 2022 hosts next month also says the status of the tournament has been affected. *Ogura insisted England should not give up hope despite bid leaders admitting their campaign has been badly damaged by the recent Sunday Times undercover investigation into Fifa.*

Two executive committee members, Nigeria's Amos Adamu and Tahiti's Reynald Temarii, have already been suspended following corruption allegations pending a hearing next week by Fifa's ethics committee. They deny any wrongdoing.

Ogura told the BBC: "We were very surprised and disappointed when the executive committee announced two members had been provisionally suspended. We are totally disappointed and yes, I am sure there is damage for Fifa and for the World Cup. We are waiting for the outcome of the Fifa ethics committee later this month and we don't know if they are innocent."

England's chances of hosting the 2018 World Cup have been "significantly damaged" by the Sunday Times allegations, according to a senior bid leader, who fear even more fallout from a BBC Panorama investigation.

*The England bid now looks to be in third place among the four European bidders for 2018 behind the combined Spain-Portugal bid and Russia, and ahead of only the joint Holland and Belgium bid.*

Allegations of collusion between Spain-Portugal and Qatar are also to be dealt with by Fifa's ethics committee next week but so far little concrete evidence has emerged.

The England 2018 chief executive, Andy Anson, visited the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, this week to express fears that the Panorama investigation could fatally harm their bid because Fifa members are angry at being targeted by the English media. Ogura insisted however that England are still in the running. He said: "Their chances are very big. The contents of the English bid everyone appreciates very much."


----------



## Ecological

What a crock of shit. Russians and Spaniards damage sport with constant drug test fails and match fixing yet the English explot these UN-SPORTSMANLIKE ACTS and get fucked.

Piss of FIFA you egotistical dicks. Give it to a country that actually plays fair. not some corrupt sporting nations. And don't pretend they aren't.


----------



## Will737

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Little things please little minds.


One of the funniest guys on the forum.



waqif said:


> dont worry they will qualify to world cup even before they reach 2 million population and this could happen in brazil 2014 and 2018 before they host it in 2022 as they done many football achievements in past and as they was one step away from it in 1998 and 1990 what we are care about now is Asia Cup which will be hosted in Qatar next January and World cup hosting.


Just telling you now - you will never be at a World Cup.

Also stop 'mocking our performance' at the 2010 WC. At least we got there unlike a certain little country.


----------



## waqif

hngcm said:


> I'm aware it wasn't at the Olympics, my point is that NOBODY cares who won the gold medal at the Olympics so why would anybody care about the gold in the Asian games?
> 
> Australia has proven that they can compete on the world stage by actually qualifying to the World Cup and even making the 2nd round in 2006.
> 
> Qatar hasn't qualified but hey at least they have some worthless gold medal from a tournament nobody cares about!


hahahah what else you can says  no nody care about how many you qualified kuwait is small country qualified to world cup in 80's so what !!! their federation now is suspended you will says like X_ your Rank 21 !! saudi made Rank better than this in past they are now ranked at 69 and they quailified to world cup more than your big country even they are smaller they won Asia cup. all these things is nothing without win cups or medals to recored in history.

we have many achievements than your country some of them on your country land like what happend in youth world cup when we won silver medal in Australia 1981.


----------



## MysteryMike

*AUSTRALIA's bid for the 2022 World Cup will be given a glowing recommendation when FIFA officially publishes its evaluation report of the bidding countries tonight.

FIFA's inspection time found virtually no technical fault with Australia's bid and praised the nation's stadiums, security and inner city transport systems.

They were also convinced of the lasting legacy bringing the World Cup Down Under would create.

The few negative points raised were the impact on US and European TV rights, a lack of hotel accommodation in some areas and the travel challenges created by the distance between our host cities.

Qatar's rival bid looks set to stumble at the first hurdle over the oppressive summer heat in the Middle East while the USA creates security problems, "legal risks" and a key lack of Government money or commitment.

Korea's bid which promises to unite North and South has a huge appeal to FIFA but, like Japan's bid, is unlikely to succeed because of their recent hosting of the competition in 2002.

Press Association Sport has seen an advanced copy of the FIFA report and here outlines some of the key points as identified by the inspectors.

USA (2022)

Good points: Stadia already built, hotels, transport, security.

Bad points: "Medium legal risk", lack of government guarantees.

QATAR (2022)

Good points: Novel approach to World Cup, legacy, new stadia.

Bad points: June/July heat "potential health risk", 12 stadiums located within a 20-mile radius.

AUSTRALIA (2022)

Good points: Legacy, security, stadia, transport infrastructure.

Bad points: Shortage of contracted hotel rooms, transport challenges, risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

JAPAN (2022)

Good points: Stadia, technology developments, hotels, transport.

Bad points: Security plan not fully ensured, risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

SOUTH KOREA (2022)

Good points: Legacy - may play some games in North Korea, stadia, technology, security.

Bad points: Risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

ENGLAND (bidding for 2018)

Good points: Transport, stadia, IT, security, marketing, legacy.

Bad points: Too few venue-specific training sites or venue-specific team hotels, too few training base camp hotels.

SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018)

Good points: Stadia, transport, hotels, legacy.

Bad points: Lack of clear security plan, co-hosting "a challenge".

RUSSIA (2018)

Good points: 13 planned new stadia, hotels, legacy.

Bad points: "Huge transport challenge and major building programme needed".

HOLLAND/BELGIUM (2018)

Good points: Stadia, legacy.

Bad points: Too few hotel rooms, co-hosting "a challenge", lack of government guarantees.
*

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/News/188985,high-praise-for-australia-wc-bid.aspx


----------



## WFInsider

Elena Isinbayeva will be one of the representatives of Russia bid in Zurich.


----------



## _X_

The health risk in Qatar is pertinent

Just how many people will die at that World Cup from dehydration??
Here are the temperatures for June and July this year-58 days over 40-degrees C(104 F) C-an average of 46.3 C degrees
(115 F)hno:
The weather in Qatar
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KQIR/2010/6/1/DailyHistory.html
Maximum,minimum,humidity
June	1	2010	45	28	61
June	2	2010	43	28	48
June	3	2010	37	27	89
June	4	2010	39	29	83
June	5	2010	44	27	90
June	6	2010	44	27	87
June	7	2010	44	28	70
June	8	2010	41	30	54
June	9	2010	44	29	60
June	10	2010	45	27	54
June	11	2010	41	26	74
June	12	2010	43	26	75
June	13	2010	46	27	75
June	14	2010	44	28	52
June	15	2010	43	28	71
June	16	2010	45	29	78
June	17	2010	46	28	81
June	18	2010	48	30	76
June	19	2010	48	30	79
June	20	2010	48	30	78
June	21	2010	46	29	76
June	22	2010	44	30	63
June	23	2010	43	28	58
June	24	2010	40	29	46
June	25	2010	41	28	49
June	26	2010	42	28	55
June	27	2010	40	27	60
June	28	2010	40	23	75
June	29	2010	41	26	75
June	30	2010	41	26	77
July	1	2010	42	27	67
July	2	2010	44	30	46
July	3	2010	42	29	44
July	4	2010	39	27	88
July	5	2010	44	27	100
July	6	2010	47	31	44
July	7	2010	44	30	82
July	8	2010	42	30	88
July	9	2010	43	32	74
July	10	2010	41	31	77
July	11	2010	44	31	83
July	12	2010	45	32	71
July	13	2010	48	33	64
July	14	2010	49	36	44
July	15	2010	47	33	51
July	16	2010	47	30	58
July	17	2010	46	30	59
July	18	2010	45	29	65
July	19	2010	45	30	67
July	20	2010	42	32	45
July	21	2010	45	31	65
July	22	2010	45	30	75
July	23	2010	46	31	66
July	24	2010	45	28	75
July	25	2010	46	28	76
July	26	2010	45	29	59
July	27	2010	43	30	61
July	28	2010	43	30	61
July	29	2010	42	30	81
July	30	2010	43	31	65
July	31	2010	43	31	82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar

Climate data for Qatar
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Month Average high °F (°C) 72
Jan 72(22) 
Feb 73 (23) 
Mar 81 (27) 
Apr 90 (32) 
May 100(38) 
Jun 106 (41) 
Jul 115 (46)  
Aug 111 (44) 
Sep 106 (41) 
Oct 95(35) 
Nov 84(29) 
Dec 75(24) 
Year 92.3(33.5)

Source: weather.com


----------



## Walbanger

waqif said:


> you are nothing you never won any cup or football medal qaulifiy to world cup lol even Kuwait , Emarities and very very small countris done this even Saudi done this more than your country many smaller countries done better your country even korea qualified more than 8 times this nothing with cup or medal.
> 
> we have youth world cup sliver medal 1981
> we have Asia gold medal 2006
> we have 2 times Arab Gulf Cup
> 
> buy votes ?? hahaha why did we paid Australia vote ?? even your country not on football map and dont have seat hahahah
> 
> man you are nothing in Aisa you just paid bribe to oceana member so Fifa suspended oceana vote.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:
If meaningless tournaments are so important to you Waqif, here is the list of equivalent Australian honours which no one (ever Australians) cares about.
Confederations Cup 1997 Runner Up (or as Waqif would put it "Silver Medal" :lol
Confederations Cup 2001 Third Place (ooh, a Bronze)
OFC Nations Cup x4 Champions
AFC Mens Team of the year 2006

and if sub Mens National Team results matter so much to you like your Under20's 1981 performance.

U17's World Cup 1999 Australia Runner Up.

*ONLY THE WORLD CUP MATTERS*


----------



## _X_

Its not that special Waqif,we've been rather busy winning things in pretty well everything else
FIFA World Cup™ appearances
3 (1974, 2006, 2010)
FIFA Womens World Cup™ appearances
4(1995,1999,2003,2007q/f,2011)
Mens Olympic Football
7(1956 r2,1988q/f,1992 4th,1996r1,2000r1,2004q/f,2008grp)
Womens Olympic Football
2(2000,2004-q/f)

Continental titles
Winner
OFC Nations Cup (1980, 1995, 2000, 2004 Play-off)
Trans-Tasman Cup(1986,1988,1991,1995,2001) 
AFC Womens Asian Cup 2010
OFC Womens Championship(1995,1998,2003)
Runners-Up
OFC Nations Cup (1998, 2002)
AFC Womens Asian Cup 2006
OFC Womens Championship(1983,1986,1991)
AFC U 20 Men's Championship (2010)

Third
OFC Womens Championship(1989)
Fourth
AFC Womens Asian Cup 2008
AFC U-17 Mens Championship(2010)
Best Results
Runners-Up
FIFA Confederations Cup (1997), FIFA U-17 World Cup Final (1999)
Third
FIFA Confederations Cup (2001)
Fourth
FIFA U-20 World Cup Final (1991, 1993), Olympic Football Tournament Final (1992)


----------



## MysteryMike

*FIFA has questioned the idea of the World Cup being co-hosted in its technical reports on the four bids for the 2018 tournament, the BBC reported on Tuesday.

The Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands bids were criticised in FIFA's reports for being joint efforts, the BBC said after it obtained a copy of the executive summary.

Russia's bid has been criticised over transport and technology infrastructure while England's bid came under fire over training venues and team hotels, it added.

Soccer's world governing body is due to make the reports on the four bids public on Wednesday.

According to the BBC, the FIFA reports suggested that co-hosting could be a problem for the Iberian bid.

"It should be noted that a co-hosting concept could pose challenges regarding the joint operational delivery of the FIFA World Cup in terms of ensuring consistent standards.

"Therefore in order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the co-hosting concept, further key operational details would be required," the BBC quoted the report as saying.

Government guarantees were also a concern for the joint bid from Belgium and Netherlands.

"The necessary government support has not been secured as neither the government guarantees nor the government declaration has been provided in compliance with FIFA's requirements," the BBC quoted the report as saying.
*
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ing-BBC/articleshow/6939607.cms#ixzz15W3qJxwD


----------



## MysteryMike

This is a report that comes from Qatar in 2008. This is based in June/July when the world cup will be hosted. I'm sure no top clubs will want their players to end up dead, playing for their country in the world cup. It'd open up FIFA to a whole new world of law suits. As I said Qatar's bid should be eliminated ASAP. 

*There have been several reports of the Qatar-China match but what most seemed to have missed was just how hot it was. Even the spectators were soaked through with sweat, so it must have been awful for the players, even though they were gulping down fluids at every opportunity. Obviously the Chinese players' special water cooled vests had less effect than they had anticipated, as they seemed the more lackluster of the two teams. There is little chance of playing good football in this weather*

http://qatarvisitor.blogspot.com/2008/06/qatar-football-too-hot-to-play.html#ixzz15W4r0kcR

*Poor Qatar. You pay Brazil £4million and England £400,000 and all they prove is that it's too hot to play football in your country. Even at night. Your best ref can't spot a penalty and a sending off when they happen a yard in front of his nose. You don't recognise Israel's right to exist. etc etc etc*

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...-watching-England-v-Brazil-article221753.html


----------



## Mo Rush

MysteryMike said:


> This is a report that comes from Qatar in 2008. This is based in June/July when the world cup will be hosted. I'm sure no top clubs will want their players to end up dead, playing for their country in the world cup. It'd open up FIFA to a whole new world of law suits. As I said Qatar's bid should be eliminated ASAP.
> 
> *There have been several reports of the Qatar-China match but what most seemed to have missed was just how hot it was. Even the spectators were soaked through with sweat, so it must have been awful for the players, even though they were gulping down fluids at every opportunity. Obviously the Chinese players' special water cooled vests had less effect than they had anticipated, as they seemed the more lackluster of the two teams. There is little chance of playing good football in this weather*
> 
> http://qatarvisitor.blogspot.com/2008/06/qatar-football-too-hot-to-play.html#ixzz15W4r0kcR
> 
> *Poor Qatar. You pay Brazil £4million and England £400,000 and all they prove is that it's too hot to play football in your country. Even at night. Your best ref can't spot a penalty and a sending off when they happen a yard in front of his nose. You don't recognise Israel's right to exist. etc etc etc*
> 
> http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...-watching-England-v-Brazil-article221753.html



Please stop posting all posts or text in bold. They will be removed it this continues. Thanks


----------



## _X_

MysteryMike said:


> [/url]


lol at this from your link


----------



## Mr Trebus

The qatar bid has been a joke from day one.It would be nice for australia to get it as football needs a boost and higher profile there as theres too many bogan bazzas chomping pies and watching afl.


----------



## T74

Mr Trebus said:


> The qatar bid has been a joke from day one.It would be nice for australia to get it as football needs a boost and higher profile there as theres too many bogan bazzas chomping pies and watching afl.


I like chomping on a pie and watching AFL :lol:


----------



## _X_

Mr Trebus said:


> The qatar bid has been a joke from day one.It would be nice for australia to get it as football needs a boost and higher profile there as theres too many bogan bazzas chomping pies and watching afl.


Here here
Anyway,its ok for them to watch OzRules,its when they get extreme about football that I kinda go off a bit


----------



## Aquarius

*BID EVALUATION REPORT*​
http://es.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/33/59/45/bidevaluationreport.pdf​


----------



## MysteryMike

_X_ said:


> lol at this from your link


*THE World Cup bid of one Qatar has been labelled "a potential health risk" to players and fans in official inspection reports.
*
The evaluations of the nine bidders raise questions about each, but most are about Qatar, one of Australia's main rivals to host the Cup, where the temperature during World Cup time can nudge 50C.

A team of FIFA experts said Qatar's bid relied on a huge and speculative construction program of hotels, stadiums and transport links.

The reports come two weeks before FIFA's executive committee will vote on awarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

Australia is praised for its experience of major events and government support, and the potential to establish soccer as a leading sport here.

The major criticisms centre on a shortfall in contracted hotel rooms, and the reliance on domestic air travel between host cities.

But the criticism of Qatar is damning, leading to a fresh push from rival bidders to have it ruled non-compliant before the December 3 vote - amid fears it could win the vote.

*Even the European press, previously focused on the 2018 contest, has turned on the Qatari bid after the technical reports. Chief sports correspondent of London's The Times, Matt Dickinson, wrote: "Staging a World Cup in Qatar makes as much sense as taking darts to the moon."

On Twitter, the London Telegraph's chief soccer writer, Henry Winter said: "Best bid for 2022 is Australia. Obvious. Legacy, fun, facilities, atmosphere, it has to be Oz. Qatar too steamy & soulless. Fact."
*
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/soccer/world-cup-report-damns-qatar/story-e6frfg8x-1225955173243


----------



## MysteryMike

AUSTRALIA (2022) - Low Risk

USA (2022) - Medium Risk (Additional transport required, legacy, government guarantees)

QATAR (2022) - High Risk (Health and welfare of players, staff and spectators under threat, infrastructure, security, transport, logistics, accommodation)

Japan (2022) - Medium Risk (Security, government guarantees)

South Korea (2022) - Medium Risk (transportation, infrastructure)

ENGLAND (2018) - Low Risk

SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018) - Medium Risk (Security, communications, accommodation, transport)

RUSSIA (2018) - Medium Risk (transport, infrastructure, communications, logistics, accommodation)

HOLLAND/BELGIUM - Medium Risk (2018) (government guarantees, accommodation)


----------



## AlekseyVT

MysteryMike said:


> AUSTRALIA (2022) - Low Risk
> 
> USA (2022) - Medium Risk (Additional transport required, legacy, government guarantees)
> 
> QATAR (2022) - High Risk (Health and welfare of players, staff and spectators under threat, infrastructure, security, transport, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> Japan (2022) - Medium Risk (Security, government guarantees)
> 
> South Korea (2022) - Medium Risk (transportation, infrastructure)
> 
> ENGLAND (2018) - Low Risk
> 
> SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018) - Medium Risk (Security, communications, accommodation, transport)
> 
> RUSSIA (2018) - Medium Risk (transport, infrastructure, communications, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> HOLLAND/BELGIUM - Medium Risk (2018) (government guarantees, accommodation)


Do you read the report? Are you live in own reality?

Page 34:

*If Russia is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be LOW. The requirements for contractual documents have been met, and the necessary goverment support has been secured and is confirmed by the Goverment Legal Statement. Futhermore, the Russian Goverment has been given the chance to gain experience in supporting the hosting and staging of a major sports events and to show its willingness to make material concessions and accommodate the concerns of event organisers.*


----------



## AlekseyVT

If England/Russia/Spain & Portugal is (are) awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be *LOW.*

If Holland & Belgium are awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be *MEDIUM.*

*So, please get rid of your superiority complex.*


----------



## Mr Trebus

i think russia is high risk but with traditional russian brown envelopes becomes low risk:lol:


----------



## AlekseyVT

Mr Trebus said:


> i think russia is high risk but with traditional russian brown envelopes becomes low risk:lol:


You can create own classification. Fortunately, no one (except other British trolls like MysteryMike and RobH) will take it seriously. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## WFInsider

Mr Trebus said:


> i think russia is high risk but with traditional russian brown envelopes becomes low risk:lol:


Get out from this thread, troll.


----------



## Gondolier

> MystressMikey posted (from the Evaluation report):
> 
> while the USA creates security problems,
> 
> USA (2022)
> 
> Good points: Stadia already built, hotels, transport, *security*.


*Can you even read your own posting? Do you have an iota of comprehension in your abcess-riddled brain??? 

How can a "good point" also be a problem"? *

Mods, how come you allow this troll to post twisted, facts but then delete my posts pointing out his half-truths and imagined rearranging of facts?? Obviously, this is a VERY BIASED board.


----------



## Gondolier

Here's the full description of the USA Bid assessment from the FIFA Bid Evaluation Report: 



> *4.9 USA:
> Executive Summary*
> 
> The USA bid’s hosting concept and legacy
> programme highlights the importance of the FIFA World Cup™ as a key step in the further development of the USA as a football
> nation. The bid offers fl exibility in terms of city infrastructure, stadiums and facilities, all of which provide a broad platform for staging the event. The bid is supported by the national and local football authorities, the local city governments (by virtue of duly executed Host City Agreements) and the stadium authorities (by virtue of duly executed Stadium
> Agreements).
> 
> The bid proposes 18 Host Cities and 18 stadiums, thus exceeding FIFA’s requirement. All 18 stadiums are built with no further renovation indicated. Nevertheless, since most stadiums are American football venues, the
> Bidder plans to remove seats in the corners and adapt the existing structure to meet the FIFA World Cup™ pitch size requirements.
> 
> In terms of football development, the Bidder
> suggests a range of domestic and international
> activities that could be funded by the success
> of the FIFA World Cup™ in the USA. United
> States (US) football is respected worldwide
> and its teams have recorded various successes
> at club and international level. The USA has
> considerable experience in hosting large-scale
> national and international sporting events in
> the last 20 years. It held the 1996 Summer
> Olympic Games, the 2002 Winter Olympic
> Games, the 1994 FIFA World Cup™ and the
> FIFA Women’s World Cups™ in 1999 and 2003.
> 
> The Bidder has contracted the required number
> of venue-specific team hotels (VSTH) but has
> not contracted the required number of venuespecifi
> c training sites (VSTS). It has contracted
> the required number of team base camp (TBC)
> hotels but has not contracted the required
> number of TBC training sites. FIFA’s team facility
> requirements could potentially be met, however
> a complete inventory of contracted team
> facilities is required.
> 
> In terms of accommodation, 170,000 rooms have already been contracted, thus exceeding FIFA’s minimum requirement of 60,000. The accommodation plan is based on a wide ranging and plentiful supply of good-quality rooms at fair, contractually agreed conditions.
> 
> As for the FIFA headquarters, it is proposed
> to have separate FIFA headquarters for the
> first and second stages of the competition.
> Additional details are required in order to assess
> the proposals. The rate for a standard room in the proposed first-stage hotel is high and should be reviewed.
> 
> In general, the candidate Host Cities have a
> well-developed transport infrastructure and
> experience in managing traffic and crowd fl ows
> for events and sports contests. However, the
> country’s vastness and geographic location
> imply a dependence on air travel in view of
> the lack of alternative means of long-distance
> transport within the country. Nevertheless, the
> capacity of the airports and the competitiveness
> of the aviation market in the USA would assure
> reliable air transfer. Temporary transport would
> have to be arranged to and from the majority
> of the proposed stadiums during the event.
> The country has a strong information and
> communications technology (ICT) infrastructure,
> and it appears as though FIFA’s requirements
> would be met.
> 
> *International standards for major event safety
> and security and for health and medical services
> are likely to be met.*
> 
> The proposals submitted by the Bidder for the competition-related events would generally fulfill FIFA’s requirements. Marketing, media and communication matters have also been addressed. The information provided suggests that *the USA is the number one market for sports sponsorship in the world and that it also has a growing market for football sponsorship.* However, as the required guarantees, undertakings and confi rmations are not given as part of Government Guarantee No. 6 (Protection and Exploitation of Commercial Rights) and mere reference is made to existing general intellectual property laws in the USA, FIFA’s rights protection programme cannot be ensured. In terms of TV, should the FIFA World Cup™ be hosted in the USA, the TV ratings and media rights income in the Americas are likely to be higher.
> 
> The Bidder has submitted an expenditure
> budget of USD 661.2 million (current) for a FIFA
> Confederations Cup and FIFA World Cup™ in
> 2021 and 2022. The budget has been submitted
> in the format required with supporting
> information. *A projection of approximately
> 4,957,000 sellable tickets has been made.
> If the USA is awarded the hosting rights,
> FIFA's legal risk appears to be medium. * Whilst
> the necessary government support has not
> been documented as neither the Government
> Guarantees, the Government Declaration nor
> the Government Legal Statement have been
> provided in compliance with FIFA's requirements
> for government documents, the US Government
> has considerable experience in supporting the
> hosting and staging of major sports events and
> has proven its willingness to make material
> concessions, accommodate the concerns of event
> organisers, and has expressed its intention to
> enact the necessary legislation by 1 June 2013.
> Furthermore, the requirements for contractual
> documents have been met.


Forget all the dishonest, fanciful, poisonous summaries of MystressMike. She makes up her OWN reports as she goes along. Make your own judgments not based on the self-serving, BLATANTLY BIASED interpretation of an obviously psychologically damaged source like MysteryMike.


----------



## Schmeek

Slightly confused as to why the report clearly highlights the UK rather than England on the map, and the close of host cities includes Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff..?

Have I missed something, or have FIFA made a mess of this?


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

Wtf! Spain&Portugal proposal has the highest mark between the WC 2018 bids...oh no my God, this is the end of the world!!....lol....maybe on December 2nd more than a mouth will be shut... 

Good luck to everyone...looks like that someone's gonna need it...


----------



## RobH

AlekseyVT said:


> You can create own classification. Fortunately, no one (except other British trolls like MysteryMike and RobH) will take it seriously. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Fucking hell, you never shut up do you?


----------



## Walbanger

Schmeek said:


> Slightly confused as to why the report clearly highlights the UK rather than England on the map, and the close of host cities includes Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff..?
> 
> Have I missed something, or have FIFA made a mess of this?


Have a closer look at the Map's Key.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> Fucking hell, you never shut up do you?


*Robbie*, your last post in the Russian thread is rough trolling. You said all what you think. Unfortunately, the moderator is too sympathetic to English bid and don't want to ban you. hno:


----------



## RobH

Yes, 1 post, and it got the thread locked as I'd intended, so I'm quite pleased about that. It was by way of thanks for you getting the England thread locked with your trolling the previous day. 

No need to thank me.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> No need to thank me, but perhaps before taking the moral high-ground and getting upset when your thread got locked, you could have decided to think twice before posting reams of shit in the England thread. Just a thought eh?


This shit has been shown by all world TV-channels and newspapers. The normal fan will blame the government (who passed the law), students-vandals, the police (which did not provide security). But you decided to blame Russians for the fact that all known footage were showed - "Russians are ****". I did not expect that the British so receptive to criticism. After your posts English thread was blocked because you have insulted the whole nation.

And what you did in response? You will send the stereotypical Photoshop images, and said that you want to block Russian thread. And the moderator agreed with the requirement of troll. Terrific!

You can block Russian thread, ban Russian forumers, but it don't help you to win elections for WC2018!


----------



## RobH

You seem to be forgetting that you started your posts with the headline "25 years into the fight against English hooliganism" in size 7 font. Trolling much? Every post of mine which you call trolling has been in response to idiocy from you and other Russians here. It's quite simple and the threads bare that out.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Simple.


----------



## AlekseyVT

I think that the recent events in the major British city has shown that security in England is not as perfect as you (and Blatter) thought. I think that 80% of these students are football fans. If this is their reaction to the rising of cost of education, what their reaction on the expensive WC tickets?

By the way, same situation is impossible in Russia because we're have free education.


----------



## Mr Trebus

The russians are getting desperate boys..the screw is turning:cheers:


----------



## Schmeek

Walbanger said:


> Have a closer look at the Map's Key.


Oh I see. Still don't see why they are on there though or why the map is of the uk when it states England.


----------



## RobH

AlekseyVT said:


> I think that the recent events in the major British city has shown that security in England is not as perfect as you (and Blatter) thought. I think that 80% of these students are football fans. If this is their reaction to the rising of cost of education, what their reaction on the expensive WC tickets?












Thank you proving my point about the value of your contributions to this forum :lol:


----------



## matthemod

AlekseyVT said:


> I think that the recent events in the major British city has shown that security in England is not as perfect as you (and Blatter) thought. I think that 80% of these students are football fans. If this is their reaction to the rising of cost of education, what their reaction on the expensive WC tickets?
> 
> By the way, same situation is impossible in Russia because we're have free education.


The entire march involved 50'000 students, 49'000 of which were entirely peaceful. 1'000 decided to attack the Conservative HQ and they get the disproportionate amount of media coverage. 

Let me just re-iterate that for you, in your own unique style

2% OF THE PROTESTORS RIOTED. WITH VAST MAJORITY BEING PEACEFUL. (edited for Aleksey)

You're talking as if Russia has never had a riot...


----------



## AlekseyVT

matthemod said:


> The entire march involved 50'000 students, 49'000 of which were entirely peaceful. 1'000 decided to attack the Conservative HQ and they get the disproportionate amount of media coverage.
> 
> Let me just re-iterate that for you, in your own unique style
> 
> LESS THAN 1% OF THE PROTESTORS RIOTED. WITH VAST MAJORITY BEING PEACEFUL.
> 
> You're talking as if Russia has never had a riot...


^^
1.000 of 50.000 is 2%, not "less than 1%". Yes, Britain really have serious problems with education system. And they have increased the cost of this. :lol:


----------



## Rev Stickleback

matthemod said:


> The entire march involved 50'000 students, 49'000 of which were entirely peaceful. 1'000 decided to attack the Conservative HQ and they get the disproportionate amount of media coverage.
> 
> Let me just re-iterate that for you, in your own unique style
> 
> LESS THAN 1% OF THE PROTESTORS RIOTED. WITH VAST MAJORITY BEING PEACEFUL.
> 
> You're talking as if Russia has never had a riot...


I doubt it was even anywhere near 1000 rioting (although I doubt it was anywhere like 50,000 protesting either - such crowd estimates are notoriously over estimated).


And even if the utterly ludicrous idea of students rioting about ticket prices happened, where exactly would they riot? Would they all hop on EasyJet flights to Zurich to attack FIFA's HQ?


People are wrong to say the Russian guys should be banned. They are comedy gold.


----------



## matthemod

AlekseyVT said:


> ^^
> 1.000 of 50.000 is 2%, not "less than 1%". Yes, Britain really have serious problems with education system. And they have increased the cost of this. :lol:


Fair enough, Maths was never my strong suit. I see you didn't even acknowledge my point however that it was such a small number.

I was more a History Buff, particularly European History, particularly European History of the 19th and 20th centuries. 

Can't help but think it's Ironic that considering what I have learnt about European history, a Russian is lecturing about how "unsafe" England is because of Rioting.


----------



## AlekseyVT

matthemod said:


> Can't help but think it's Ironic that considering what I have learnt about European history, a Russian is lecturing about how "unsafe" England is because of Rioting.


I'm not talking about history, but about the present. History of British riots and colonial/civil wars is the past, but the current problems are present.


----------



## matthemod

So, by your standards, one riot of probably less than 1000 people, in the centre of London, is somehow going to affect our national bid, for a competition in 8 years.

I just want to clarify that's what you're saying, because good lord that is dumb.


----------



## PejatBR

I dont want another world cup in USA, they dont deserve to receive another because they cant feel the love for football. In USA soccer is still a boring sport for the most of americans.

Katar would have a boring world cup in really beautiful stadiums.

Japan and Korea hosted in 2002, not enough far to got a good feeling and expectation thata big event like that derserves.

My favorites

2018: Portugal/Spain X England

2022: Australia X Russia


----------



## RobH

The England 2018 chief executive, Andy Anson, said today that he was increasingly confident that the World Cup bid could move on from the "period of uncertainty" created by corruption allegations against Fifa executives and secure enough votes to triumph on 2 December.

As Fifa today published the executive summaries of its technical reports, and made more detailed versions available to the 22 executive committee members who will vote on 2 December, Anson said their positive verdict would allow England's bid to refocus on its strengths.

He insisted that despite perceived damage caused by Fifa corruption allegations in the British media, and the prospect of a controversial Panorama airing days before the vote, the positive assessment of England would provide the springboard for a late rally.

"We're unhappy Panorama is going to run. We can't say it's positive for England that a programme of that nature is going to run so close to the vote. But do we think we can still win it? Of course we do," he said, perhaps unsurprisingly. "We're satisfied and content the support is still there behind us. Over the past two weeks we've had a lot of positive signals. We've had very positive signals from Fifa Exco members that have given us great encouragement that we're very much in the race."

Anson is also convinced that several key executive committee members are undecided how to vote and will keep their options open until the last possible moment.

Countering growing public cynicism about the probity of the process, Anson insisted that he still believed it to be a fair one. "We fought hard and fair for two years and we're still confident we can win it. We feel we have been given a fair chance to win it and every chance to win it."

If the two executive committee members currently suspended are not allowed to vote, then there will be 22 voters and backing from seven of them will be sufficient to make it through the first round. Eight votes would guarantee that England make it to the final round for a shoot-out against Russia or Spain/Portugal. "One vote counts for an awful lot and it could still go either way," said Anson. "There are some who will definitely leave their options open until the last minute."

Fifa today published executive summaries of the technical reports into the nine bidders for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups but did not make public the more detailed versions that will go to the 22 executive committee members.

Those longer versions rate each country as low-, medium- or high-risk in a range of 17 operational categories from transport to stadiums and accommodation. Among the 2018 bidders, the joint Spain/Portugal bid and England come out on top with 15 low ratings and two medium each.

England's bid is rated a medium risk for accommodation, where Fifa inspectors picked up on the fact that England had not guaranteed the required amount of hotel rooms at the required rate, and for stadium operations, where all of the bidders who have included unbuilt grounds in their plans have received a medium or high rating.

Although a positive technical report is not likely to be a decisive factor in the final vote, Anson said that for England in particular – which has partly based its pitch on being a safe bet and a commercial bonanza – it was crucial.

He said recent conversations with executive committee members had left him feeling more confident than at any time since the Sunday Times corruption allegations that led to the suspension of the executive committee members Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii.

The Fifa ethics committee will meet tomorrow to decide their fate and also rule on allegations of collusion between the Qatar bid for 2022 and Spain/Portugal. It is claimed that they secured a bloc of seven votes by trading support.

As far as the 2022 bidders are concerned, the technical report was seen as a blow to Qatar's hopes. The Middle-Eastern country, which started off as an outsider but has become an increasingly strong contender, was the only one among the nine to be rated as a high overall operational risk in the reports.


----------



## AlekseyVT

I think the main outcome of the last few weeks:
1) FIFA recognized that in technical terms Russian and English bids on the one level;
2) Safety in England was called into question.

Thus, the superiority of the British in these two important criteria was a myth. Now I see only one advantage in favor of England - it's a motherland of football.


----------



## Bolsilludo

EDIT


----------



## RobH

If you say so. Comedy gold, you're right Rev.


----------



## AlekseyVT

matthemod said:


> So, by your standards, one riot of probably less than 1000 people, in the centre of London, is somehow going to affect our national bid, for a competition in 8 years.
> 
> I just want to clarify that's what you're saying, because good lord that is dumb.


All matter in details. Of course, this was not a serious damage, but also this is not in favor of English bid. If less than 1000 students were able to did it, that what can did in London few thousands of fans (not only from England)?


----------



## RobH

Or Moscow for that matter?


----------



## Steel City Suburb

I for one have had enough of this constant slapping each other in the face. I don't care who started it, just end it. 

AlekseyVT - Don't post on the English bid thread.
And the English group of members don't post on the Russian thread. 

Agreed? 

This is getting more childish and embarrassing for both sides by the post.


----------



## AlekseyVT

RobH said:


> Or Moscow for that matter?


It's difficult for me to imagine that 1000 students in Moscow are able to broke into the headquarters of "United Russia" party and crush it.

Of course, I'm not saying that Moscow is ideal in this regard. But the last time such hooliganism occurred in 2002, after losing match of World Cup. However, the Russian police was not ready for this (fans watched match at the big screen in the centre of Moscow) and shop windows were broken, not the headquarters of leading party.


----------



## RobH

Tried ignoring the trolls, and it didn't work, and nor were they banned. So **** it, I'll show them to be the idiots they are instead.


----------



## Steel City Suburb

AlekseyVT said:


> It's difficult for me to imagine that 1000 students in Moscow are able to broke into the headquarters of "United Russia" party and crush it.
> 
> Of course, I'm not saying that Moscow is ideal in this regard. *But the last time such hooliganism occurred in 2002, after losing match of World Cup*. However, the Russian police was not ready for this (fans watched match at the big screen in the centre of Moscow) and shop windows were broken, not the headquarters of leading party.


hno:


----------



## TheoG

This thread is being kind of trashed by blind nationalists ATM, be it AlekseyVT, MysteryMike, waqif, etc.

Sophisticated conversation, please


----------



## _X_

AlekseyVT said:


> I think the main outcome of the last few weeks:
> 1) FIFA recognized that in technical terms Russian and English bids on the one level;
> 2) Safety in England was called into question---BY AlekseyVT
> 
> Thus, the superiority of the British in these two important criteria was a myth. Now I see only one advantage in favor of England - it's a motherland of football.


Fixed


----------



## _X_

TheoG said:


> This thread is being kind of trashed by blind nationalists ATM, be it AlekseyVT, MysteryMike, waqif, etc.
> 
> Sophisticated conversation, please


----------



## Qatar Son 333

TheoG said:


> This thread is being kind of trashed by blind nationalists ATM, be it AlekseyVT, MysteryMike, waqif, etc.
> 
> Sophisticated conversation, please


----------



## _X_

:lol:


----------



## Fern

CiudadanoDelMundo said:


> Wtf! Spain&Portugal proposal has the highest mark between the WC 2018 bids...oh no my God, this is the end of the world!!....lol....maybe on December 2nd more than a mouth will be shut...


I'd say that our bid is also the most exciting. Can't wait to have the WC over here!!


----------



## Qatar Son 333

_X_ said:


> :lol:


----------



## TheoG

Qatar Son 333 said:


>


What's wrong?
I'm not saying you're a blind nationalist, you actually seem to have a good level of intelligence, compared to others on here.


----------



## MysteryMike

MysteryMike said:


> AUSTRALIA (2022) - Low Risk
> 
> USA (2022) - Medium Risk (Additional transport required, legacy, government guarantees)
> 
> QATAR (2022) - High Risk (Health and welfare of players, staff and spectators under threat, infrastructure, security, transport, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> Japan (2022) - Medium Risk (Security, government guarantees)
> 
> South Korea (2022) - Medium Risk (transportation, infrastructure)
> 
> ENGLAND (2018) - Low Risk
> 
> SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018) - Medium Risk (Security, communications, accommodation, transport)
> 
> RUSSIA (2018) - Medium Risk (transport, infrastructure, communications, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> HOLLAND/BELGIUM - Medium Risk (2018) (government guarantees, accommodation)





AlekseyVT said:


> Do you read the report? Are you live in own reality?
> 
> Page 34:
> 
> *If Russia is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be LOW. The requirements for contractual documents have been met, and the necessary goverment support has been secured and is confirmed by the Goverment Legal Statement. Futhermore, the Russian Goverment has been given the chance to gain experience in supporting the hosting and staging of a major sports events and to show its willingness to make material concessions and accommodate the concerns of event organisers.*


My analysis is 100% correct, I think the technical report merely backs up everything I have said before. Legal risk is not the overall level of risk. This is merely the outline of the report so there are a lot more black marks for Qatar of course everybody knows it, for Russia, for the US, for Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium. I have also noted down for you the key areas of concern, read the report.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

TheoG said:


> What's wrong?
> I'm not saying you're a blind nationalist, you actually seem to have a good level of intelligence, compared to others on here.


Nothing personal, its a "cold war - type" situation. 

Besides, Qatar scored low on the "Fifa legal risk" part.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

TheoG said:


> This thread is being kind of trashed by blind nationalists ATM, be it AlekseyVT, MysteryMike, waqif, etc.
> 
> Sophisticated conversation, please


Jaundiced jingoism executed to unparallelled dimensions by Downers and Gille de la Tourette sufferers.


----------



## AlekseyVT

MysteryMike said:


> My analysis is 100% correct, I think the technical report merely backs up everything I have said before. Legal risk is not the overall level of risk. This is merely the outline of the report so there are a lot more black marks for Qatar of course everybody knows it, for Russia, for the US, for Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium. I have also noted down for you the key areas of concern, read the report.


Why you don't wrote anything for English & Australian bids?


----------



## Qatar Son 333

"In terms of accommodation, over 84,000 rooms
have already been contracted, thus exceeding
FIFA’s minimum requirement of 60,000."

Something big Australia was not able to provide:

"In terms of accommodation, 43,000 rooms
have already been contracted, thus falling short
of FIFA’s minimum requirement of 60,000."


----------



## Qatar Son 333

Mystery Mike your analysis has been proven to be EXTREMELY FALSE, due to several incorrect points,

for example there is NO PROBLEM in terms of accommodation provided from Qatar.

Australia on the other hand has PROBLEMS WITH TRANSPORT, "the country’s vastness and geographic location imply a dependence on air travel, potentially causing domestic and international transfer challenges in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport within the country."


----------



## MysteryMike

Qatar Son 333 said:


> "In terms of accommodation, over 84,000 rooms
> have already been contracted, thus exceeding
> FIFA’s minimum requirement of 60,000."
> 
> Something big Australia was not able to provide:
> 
> "In terms of accommodation, 43,000 rooms
> have already been contracted, thus falling short
> of FIFA’s minimum requirement of 60,000."


Australia is still massively low risk, you think Australia doesn't have enough hotel rooms? The country is like top 10 in tourism receipts, infact it's number 8 in the world, England are number 7. If that's the best you can find best of luck to you. As I have said many times Qatar should be eliminated for failing everything required, there has been no worse bidding nation in the history of world cup bidding.


----------



## MysteryMike

Qatar Son 333 said:


> Australia on the other hand has PROBLEMS WITH TRANSPORT, "the country’s vastness and geographic location imply a dependence on air travel, potentially causing domestic and international transfer challenges in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport within the country."


This is a problem for any other large nation as well (South Africa would have had the same line), the US has the same line plus they need to improve their local transportation networks as well. Qatar's bid is a total sham.


----------



## MysteryMike

AlekseyVT said:


> Why you don't wrote anything for English & Australian bids?


They are low risk, so I do not need to write anything for them. Both of them suffer in accommodation but as I said, England is the number 7 nation in tourism receipts and Australia are the number 8 nation in tourism receipts, there is really no issue with this what so ever. The analysis is correct, Australia and England are the only 2 nations deemed to be low risk and for me I have never doubted them, they deserve to host the world cups, they have fantastic teams behind their bids and they have done everything required to do so. I think if the world cup was in 2022 in the case of Russia, it may have been a different story but it is 2018 and the challenges are going to be a little too much to overcome. As for Qatar, is the most embarrassing bid of all time. The Qatar bid chief may as well come into the FIFA meeting with no pants on, or for that matter any clothes on what so ever because that is the level of standard of Qatar's bid. It's FAIL, FAIL, FAIL, everywhere. 



MysteryMike said:


> AUSTRALIA (2022) - Low Risk
> 
> USA (2022) - Medium Risk (Additional transport required, legacy, government guarantees)
> 
> QATAR (2022) - High Risk (Health and welfare of players, staff and spectators under threat, infrastructure, security, transport, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> Japan (2022) - Medium Risk (Security, government guarantees)
> 
> South Korea (2022) - Medium Risk (transportation, infrastructure)
> 
> ENGLAND (2018) - Low Risk
> 
> SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018) - Medium Risk (Security, communications, accommodation, transport)
> 
> RUSSIA (2018) - Medium Risk (transport, infrastructure, communications, logistics, accommodation)
> 
> HOLLAND/BELGIUM - Medium Risk (2018) (government guarantees, accommodation)


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> Australia is still massively low risk, you think Australia doesn't have enough hotel rooms? The country is like top 10 in tourism receipts, infact it's number 8 in the world, England are number 7. If that's the best you can find best of luck to you. As I have said many times Qatar should be eliminated for failing everything required, there has been no worse bidding nation in the history of world cup bidding.


It has not been mentioned in the FIFA report, so they don't care ! Australia being so successful in this thing couldn't provide basic sufficient accommodation, this is a total joke ! 



MysteryMike said:


> This is a problem for any other large nation as well, the US has the same line plus they need to improve their local transportation networks as well. Qatar's bid is a total sham.


UNLIKE THE QATAR BID, which was able to provide every single stadium with sufficient public transport and major transport links, (Buses, Watar taxis and metro connections)



MysteryMike said:


> They are low risk, so I do not need to write anything for them. Both of them suffer in accommodation but as I said, England is the number 7 nation in tourism receipts and Australia are the number 8 nation in tourism receipts, there is really no issue with this what so ever.


if it wasent it wouldnt have left such a scar on what could have been a glowing bid, what a fail.


----------



## MysteryMike

Qatar Son 333 said:


> It has not been mentioned in the FIFA report, so they don't care ! Australia being so successful in this thing couldn't provide basic sufficient accommodation, this is a total joke !
> 
> UNLIKE THE QATAR BID, which was able to provide every single stadium with sufficient public transport and major transport links, (Buses, Watar taxis and metro connections)
> 
> if it wasent it wouldnt have left such a scar on what could have been a glowing bid, what a fail.


Qatar bid fails in everything ok. Just get that through you head, your bid is a total utter FAIL. Sorry but it's not me that says it, it's the FIFA technical report that says it. I have been saying it all the time too of course because I know the FACTS, the FACTS are QATAR FAILS EVERYTHING. Qatar is the worst bidding nation of all time. Nothing you claim exists, it's not real. Your bid is a total sham.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> Qatar bid fails in everything ok. Just get that through you head, your bid is a total utter FAIL. Sorry but it's not me that says it, it's the FIFA technical report that says it. I have been saying it all the time too of course because I know the FACTS, the FACTS are QATAR FAILS EVERYTHING. Qatar is the worst bidding nation of all time. Nothing you claim exists, it's not real. Your bid is a total sham.


This is expected from a BIASED, HYPOCRITICAL person. Your in such a shock that Qatar got a "fairly good" technical report that your are in "denial mode" you need to take a rest, I recommend a temporary brig.


----------



## _X_

Qatar Son 333 said:


> This is expected from a BIASED, HYPOCRITICAL person. Your in such a shock that Qatar got a "fairly good" technical report that your are in "denial mode" you need to take a rest, I recommend a temporary brig.


Actually 333,the report for Qatar was a shocker
Heat
Logistics
Security
Training Village
Qualified people
The sheer amount of building
Accommodation exclusivity
The point kept coming up about the inability to test loads at WC levels


----------



## MysteryMike

Qatar Son 333 said:


> This is expected from a BIASED, HYPOCRITICAL person. Your in such a shock that Qatar got a "fairly good" technical report that your are in "denial mode" you need to take a rest, I recommend a temporary brig.


Good? Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word good then at all. The words that would come into mind in regards to the Qatar bid report would be appalling, disgraceful, embarrassing, atrocious, I mean there was even mention about the health and welfare of players being put at risk. June/July are the hottest months of the year in Qatar, even Qataris leave Qatar during then. Do you really think FIFA are going to risk massive law suits from clubs after they have put in their bid book health concerns, not just even the welfare of the players but fans as well. I mean adios amigo, as they say, you might want to get someone to translate that one for you as well


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Qatar bid fails in everything ok. Just get that through you head, your bid is a total utter FAIL. Sorry but it's not me that says it, it's the FIFA technical report that says it. I have been saying it all the time too of course because I know the FACTS, the FACTS are QATAR FAILS EVERYTHING. Qatar is the worst bidding nation of all time. Nothing you claim exists, it's not real. Your bid is a total sham.


the only fail we saw is the big lose by Arab team not qaulified to WC 2010

Egypt 3 Australia Zeroooo lol






Arab world deserve world cup it is the time to be hosting in Qatar

the team Ranked 21 lol


----------



## Wezza

waqif said:


> the only fail we saw is the big lose by Arab team not qaulified to WC 2010
> 
> Egypt 3 Australia Zeroooo lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab world deserve world cup it is the time to be hosting in Qatar
> 
> the team Ranked 21 lol


You're going to have to do better than that. Egypt deserve to host a world cup, Qatar do not, simple as that.


----------



## _X_

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-cup-bid-slammed/story-e6frey4r-1225955192458


> But the criticism of Qatar is damning, even written in FIFA's diplomatic speak, and it emerged last night that the flaws highlighted in the bid are leading to a fresh push to have it ruled non-compliant before the December 2 vote.
> 
> Though it's expected that FIFA's ethics committee will find no hard evidence of collusion between the Spain/Portugal and Qatar bids when it reports tomorrow, it's believed the other seven bidders are lobbying FIFA's ExCo members to have the Middle East nation sidelined at an extraordinary meeting tomorrow.


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> You're going to have to do better than that. Egypt deserve to host a world cup, Qatar do not, simple as that.


you have to know Egypt will going to vote for Qatar by it is member Hani Abu Radia becouse arabs deserve world cup do you need to be beating by another non qaulified arab team such Qatar 1.5 million population then wait till next January Asia Cup 2011 in Qatar and this will be another scandal other than the lose by non qualified arab team.


----------



## _X_

waqif said:


> you have to know Egypt will going to vote for Qatar by it is member Hani Abu Radia becouse arabs deserve world cup do you need to be beating by another non qaulified arab team such Qatar 1.5 million population then wait till next January Asia Cup 2011 in Qatar and this will be another scandal other than the lose by non qualified arab team.


You do realise MBH didn't vote for Egypt for 2010


----------



## Qatar Son 333

I see a lot of this in this thread.


----------



## MysteryMike

You must be saying FIFA are envious because everyone has said what the FIFA TECHNICAL REPORT has said - Qatar's bid is total garbage.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

MysteryMike said:


> You must be saying FIFA are envious because everyone has said what the FIFA TECHNICAL REPORT has said - Qatar's bid is total garbage.


FIFA has nothing to do with whats going on in this thread.

All i see is, Australia bashing Qatar (primary agenda)
&
England bashing Russia (and the other way around)


----------



## antriksh_sfo

_X_ said:


> Is that so!:lol:
> 
> I reckon 13 will do it,12 most likely,maybe even 11 or if Qatar get kicked out it could be less


The results would be:
2018: Close contest England or Russia
2022: USA or Japan

So stop wasting your resources, have fun during the thanksgiving holidays and be prepared for the REALITY CHECK on 02 Dec 2010.

Qatar's effort is appreciable.
Oz attempt is equally far fetching as Qatar's but still* WILL NOT *attract votes as many votes.


----------



## MysteryMike

antriksh_sfo said:


> 2022: USA or Japan
> 
> So stop wasting your resources, have fun during the thanksgiving holidays and be prepared for the REALITY CHECK on 02 Dec 2010.
> 
> Qatar's effort is appreciable.
> Oz attempt is equally far fetching as Qatar's but still* WILL NOT *attract votes as many votes.


Both USA and Japan don't have even government guarantees, both are previous hosts, Japan in only 2002 and the US in 1994, the US also lacks a legacy to the sport and localised transportation infrastructure so best of luck to your rubbish thoughts on the matter.


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> You must be saying FIFA are envious because everyone has said what the FIFA TECHNICAL REPORT has said - Qatar's bid is total garbage.


AFC which belong to FIFA eliminated Australia from AFC Cup 2011 bid and Qatar now who will host AFC Cup 2011 ..... fact

FIFA will not choose Australia which located in east of Asia becouse East of Asia already hosted WC in 2002 by Japan/Korea ..... fact

simply another fact ..... Australia not on FIFA map and dont have vote seat lol


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> Both USA and Japan don't have even government guarantees, both are previous hosts, Japan in only 2002 and the US in 1994, the US also lacks a legacy to the sport and localised transportation infrastructure so best of luck to your rubbish thoughts on the matter.


hahahaha that guy he want Australia to win in anyway lol


----------



## MysteryMike

waqif said:


> hahahaha that guy he want Australia to win in anyway lol


All I have said are FACTS, not utter garbage that you post. I doubt your even Qatari, more like a US troll trying to damage everyone else. But the truth has come out because you've been found wanting. :lol:


----------



## antriksh_sfo

MysteryMike said:


> Both USA and Japan don't have even government guarantees, both are previous hosts, Japan in only 2002 and the US in 1994, the US also lacks a legacy to the sport and localised transportation infrastructure so best of luck to your rubbish thoughts on the matter.


:lol::lol:


----------



## waqif

MysteryMike said:


> All I have said are FACTS, not utter garbage that you post. I doubt your even Qatari, more like a US troll trying to damage everyone else. But the truth has come out because you've been found wanting. :lol:


all you said is gossip before you bid on FIFA as Asian country not from Oceana you first need to get seat and place on fifa then try to host Asia Cup like Qatar then bid to World Cup as Asian country lol

and yeah im Qatari and non of your business my nationality or my personal information if you not abel to face facts not my problem.

Australia is bad time zone for europ ( huge loss to sponsorship )
Australia have no seat in FIFA and new in Asia with no lobby
Australia never hosted Asia Cup still early to bid as Asian country
Australia in far east area of asia which hosted WC few years ago (2002) Jap-Kor
Australia have problems with accommodation requirements
Australia have problems large size and transports

finally and the most important thing there only 2 weeks to announcement day and you need to lobby 14 votes as Qatar did.


----------



## T74

USA will have the govt guarantees in place in 2013, so this is a massive non-issue for them.

As for Qatar, apparently Chucky is working to get the Qatar bid booted on failing to meet the technical requirements. No idea if he has the support necessary to make this happen though.


----------



## waqif

T74 said:


> USA will have the govt guarantees in place in 2013, so this is a massive non-issue for them.
> 
> As for Qatar, apparently Chucky is working to get the Qatar bid booted on failing to meet the technical requirements. No idea if he has the support necessary to make this happen though.


his name Chuck Blazer not chucky the doll lol










also he cant collecting votes to his country bid to boot Qatar the head of AFC lol and next president of FIFA after 2015 as Bin Hamam and Blatter agreed.

Qatar become a nightmare for some people we dont care you bring us chucky or batman lol


----------



## Will737

WOW. I reckon if you read all of waqifs posts your IQ would drop dramatically. People should just ignore him. He is probably some 12 year old kid with no clue about anything and would believe anything he read. Its called an ignore list folks.


----------



## Wezza

waqif how old are you? I mean seriously, you seem like a little kid.


----------



## waqif

Wezza said:


> waqif how old are you? I mean seriously, you seem like a little kid.


are you empty of words !! you seems to me you dont know what you talking about


----------



## waqif

Will737 said:


> WOW. I reckon if you read all of waqifs posts your IQ would drop dramatically. People should just ignore him. He is probably some 12 year old kid with no clue about anything and would believe anything he read. Its called an ignore list folks.


my age not your business and your IQ keep it stacked with your dramatically bid not me


----------



## _X_

A number of things are adding up to dismissal of the Doha bid in the next 24/48
-The Collusion investigation
-The Negative Inspection report
-Project Seleucia
-The postponement of the Qatar v Haiti match
-The lobbying of ExCo by 7 bids to remove Qatar
-The Extraordinary meeting of ExCo


----------



## hngcm

Question:

What's OZ's "legacy"?

I always scratch my head when it comes to "legacy."


----------



## MysteryMike

hngcm said:


> Question:
> 
> What's OZ's "legacy"?
> 
> I always scratch my head when it comes to "legacy."


The Australia bid’s hosting concept highlights the opportunity for FIFA to bring the FIFA World Cup™ to Australia and the Oceania region for the first time. A FIFA World Cup™ in Australia promises to be the catalyst for an explosion of emotion for more than 22 million people in Australia, a further 17 million in Oceania and 600 million in South-East Asia. Part of the world’s fastest-growing region Australia, a key member of the Asian Football Confederation, sits within the largest FIFA World Cup™ audience. Over 60% of the world’s population currently resides in Asia. By 2020 Asia’s population is expected to be four times that of North America and Europe combined. Australia is well situated in a sophisticated local sports commercial market, while regionally the opportunities are extensive. 
It will generate boundless interest and support for football throughout the region and will provide an enormous boost to football development. Our stadia will have a defined legacy, not just for football but the wider sporting landscape in Australia.


----------



## _X_

hngcm said:


> Question:
> 
> What's OZ's "legacy"?
> 
> I always scratch my head when it comes to "legacy."


Fair comprehensive global legacy but particularly to the 4.688 billion people in our timezone









Oceania will get their only chance at being part of the WC,of course New Zealand is part of our bid book with massive benefits to them.
The 600 million of ASEAN which is Australia's Association have never had a host before and so it represents them as well.
We have programs in place in the Caribbean,Africa and some fantastic initiates for indigenous folks of Australia
As far as domestic infrastructure there will be $31.5 billion spent outside sport which will leave its mark for all time.
We have 3 new rectangular configured stadiums to be built
It will of course confirm and grow our reputation in the events industry,as well as road,rail,air links upgrades
Its a magnificent opportunity for the country,in these exciting boom times that Asia provides right now
And of course the brilliant exposure for FIFAs sponsors


----------



## T74

Gondolier said:


> These things can be calculated exponentially. And it's NOT like Oz is going to ALL OF A SUDDEN absorb 75 million Chinese refugees who will then watch all 64 Games of a 2022 World Cup.
> 
> Now, would a Ghana v. Paraguay first-round game in Perth really sell out? Hey, I got a bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area to sell ya.


we won't need 100 million here to sell out the stadium, look at our history with Olympics and CWG and you will see that Australian's do attend international sport in high numbers. Still remember I couldn't even get tickets for the badminton finals for my wife (and we don't give a stuff about that sport here)


----------



## MysteryMike

Gondolier said:


> Now, would a Ghana v. Paraguay first-round game in Perth really sell out? Hey, I got a bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area to sell ya.


Yes, it would actually because just like at the Olympic games and just like it was at the rugby world cup, when even nations such as Uruguay and Georgia, sold out, the world cup games, will sell out because at the moment, Australia gets almost zero decent football (other than a few socceroos games once in a blue moon and an odd visit from david beckham once every six years) and people in Australia love their sport. They don't care what it is, as long as it's top class sport and the world cup is the best there is. Australia's population is also booming and most of those coming in are immigrants and they definitely love football plus the game has so many juniors playing it that they cannot find enough grounds for them, so by 2022 I think that the Australian bid committee would have no problem in pretty much selling out the whole event. Where as the US has zero chance in becoming a football nation, Australia has every chance, that is the key difference here, they just need the best in football to show them in their country and the best of football, is the WORLD CUP.


----------



## Shambolic

slipperydog said:


> Comfortable? Did you see the television ratings in Europe for 2002?


**News Flash** It's a WORLD CUP not European Cup..... I'm sure Europe will survive one tournament where the timezones aren't favourable for them.

Time to move on old chap, your argument is getting boring.


----------



## T74

the issue of Euro tv rights cannot be discounted. yes the landscape is moving, but Euro will still be a massive chunk of change.

Slippery is right though that the timing will be critical to determining any value


----------



## Shambolic

^^
I realise that but it is after all, the World Cup & not European Cup.


----------



## slipperydog

This is not a dismissal of the Oz bid by any stretch. But it certainly doesn't behoove one to ignore several critical issues for the sake of nationalistic loyalty that I have seen from many of you. It's obvious that the US bid is the superior bid from virtually every technical standpoint, but technical merit is hardly the only consideration in awarding a tournament, nor should it be.

Spreading the game around the world is certainly a noble idea, and this tournament would certainly be valuable for the development of the game in Australia, but I am still quite skeptical of the tournament to do anything of the sort for the Asian market. A 'first-time continent' may sound nice in theory, but if we're being objective, it's not like we're talking about bringing the tournament to a continent like Africa. After all, this island 'continent' of 25 million is smaller than Tokyo or Seoul alone.

If I was FIFA and truly concerned about making significant, long-lasting in-roads in Asia, waiting four years really shouldn't matter very much; the population centers you need to be reaching are in China, Japan, Korea, India, or Indonesia. If it can't be China, I think a joint India/Indonesia bid in the vain of 2002 would be fantastic and very feasible by 2026.


----------



## MysteryMike

T74 said:


> the issue of Euro tv rights cannot be discounted. yes the landscape is moving, but Euro will still be a massive chunk of change.
> 
> Slippery is right though that the timing will be critical to determining any value


FIFA overestimated the love of the world cup in European markets for that world cup. The timing was set up poorly by Japan/South Korea, which was one of the reasons why FIFA were annoyed at both Japan and South Korea at the end of it. They thought that Europe would view the world cup at almost any time, as Asia is forced to at the moment, they were wrong. Although the total amount of viewers were more for the 2002 edition of the world cup than both the European editions in 1998 and 2006 thanks to the fact that Asia almost tripled the European viewing audience. Since then Asia has become the biggest viewing audience for the world cup consistently and they are growing. Australia will not have such a major problem because with the European time zone anyway, firstly the European market is going to be looked after at the 2022 world cup (where as it was an after thought for the 2002 edition) and secondly Australia has a much wider and more appropriate European time range than Japan or South Korea. A game in Perth will have almost 3 hours difference in time compared with that of Sydney or Brisbane.


----------



## MysteryMike

slipperydog said:


> This is not a dismissal of the Oz bid by any stretch. But it certainly doesn't behoove one to ignore several critical issues for the sake of nationalistic loyalty that I have seen from many of you. It's obvious that the US bid is the superior bid from virtually every technical standpoint, but technical merit is hardly the only consideration in awarding a tournament, nor should it be.
> 
> Spreading the game around the world is certainly a noble idea, and this tournament would certainly be valuable for the development of the game in Australia, but I am still quite skeptical of the tournament to do anything of the sort for the Asian market. A 'first-time continent' may sound nice in theory, but if we're being objective, it's not like we're talking about bringing the tournament to a continent like Africa. After all, this island 'continent' of 25 million is smaller than Tokyo or Seoul alone.
> 
> If I was FIFA and truly concerned about making significant, long-lasting in-roads in Asia, waiting four years really shouldn't matter very much; the population centers you need to be reaching are in China, Japan, Korea, India, or Indonesia. If it can't be China, I think a joint India/Indonesia bid in the vain of 2002 would be fantastic and very feasible by 2026.


Joint India/Indonesia bid :lol: You and Gondolier are on some serious crack. FIFA has to develop both China and India's football markets before they are able to even comprehend hosting a world cup, how can they achieve this? By hosting the world cup in Australia and giving prime time coverage of the world cup in India and China. Asia has had to cope with bad timings for television for the 2006 edition, 2010 edition, 2014 brazil will be the same (it's in the american time zone), 2018 bad time zone again, FIFA can't ignore Asia for five consecutive world cups and hope to develop the game in both of these Asian giants. Australia is a fantastic country who is an upcoming footballing power, they have developed their own professional league and they require a world cup to develop their national league and make football the number one sport in the nation. They have fantastic tourist destinations, the best developed economy at the moment, a fantastic legacy for the sport and they would be a safe destination for the world cup.


----------



## japanese001

Australia:cheer:


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> Joint India/Indonesia bid :lol: You and Gondolier are on some serious crack. FIFA has to develop both China and India's football markets before they are able to even comprehend hosting a world cup, how can they achieve this?


Sixteen years is a long time. There is much work to be done, but if the political and economic will-power is there, India and Indonesia are certainly capable of being ready to host a fine tournament by then. And as you said yourself, middle class growth and economic development in that region is expected to explode in that time frame. Seems like a perfect marriage.



> 2018 bad time zone again, FIFA can't ignore Asia for five consecutive world cups and hope to develop the game in both of these Asian giants.


You just finished arguing that Asians will watch at any time of day. "Since then Asia has become the biggest viewing audience for the world cup consistently and they are growing." So which is it?


----------



## MysteryMike

slipperydog said:


> Sixteen years is a long time. There is much work to be done, but if the political and economic will-power is there, India and Indonesia are certainly capable of being ready to host a fine tournament by then. And as you said yourself, middle class growth and economic development in that region is expected to explode in that time frame. Seems like a perfect marriage.
> 
> You just finished arguing that Asians will watch at any time of day. "Since then Asia has become the biggest viewing audience for the world cup consistently and they are growing." So which is it?


That is the most ridiculous combined bid in history. Have you even looked at a world map at all in your life. I know you Americans are seriously behind the eight ball but that is just plain embarrassing for everyone concerned. As I said if FIFA wants to host a world cup in China or India, they have to develop the football of these 2 nations and the best way to do it, is to show the world cup in prime time within Asia in 2022. There is no other way, football has to be seen to care about Asia and kids who will become the next batch of stars shouldn't have to watch games at 3 or 5 am in the morning. Asia is the biggest audience of viewers for the World Cup, it's a known FACT, but Asia has so much more potential for FIFA and FIFA knows this, Australia will give that perfect time zone for Asia and will be a much safer option to host a world cup compared to the other nations bidding. This will be at a time when Asia will have 70% of the world's population as well so the numbers stack up for Australia, no matter what anyone says.


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> That is the most ridiculous combined bid in history. Have you even looked at a world map at all in your life. I know you Americans are seriously behind the eight ball but that is just plain embarrassing for everyone concerned.


Pathetic flame attempt. If you watched the World Cup in 2002, you would know that it operated as two completely separate tournaments. So if China doesn't show interest in 2026, a joint India/Indonesia bid is certainly in the realm of possibility if they don't choose to pursue their own individual bids. But 6 and 6 is certainly an option if they can't pull off all 12 cities by themselves.



> Asia is the biggest audience of viewers for the World Cup, it's a known FACT


Could you post these statistics? I'm genuinely curious to see how far Asian soccer has come. Keep in mind though, television ratings =/ television revenue.


----------



## Pule

antriksh_sfo said:


> *Shadow over World Cup bids *Source: AFP
> 
> GENEVA: England and *Australia's bids* to host football's World Cup in 2018 and 2022 may suffer from clashes with local sports events, including tennis at Wimbledon and *Australian rugby league*, FIFA indicated.


Football will bring more revenue to the Australians...

I would like to see the 2018 or 2022 FIFA World Cup going Australias way...


----------



## Walbanger

Gondolier said:


> These things can be calculated exponentially. And it's NOT like Oz is going to ALL OF A SUDDEN absorb 75 million Chinese refugees who will then watch all 64 Games of a 2022 World Cup.
> 
> *Now, would a Ghana v. Paraguay first-round game in Perth really sell out? Hey, I got a bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area to sell ya. *


Don't talk about my home town like that! 
Seriously yes I do believe Ghana v Paraguay in Perth would sell out.
Be it Trinidad & Tobago vs Slovenia then probably not in a Perth Stadium planned capacity of 60/70 000.


----------



## MysteryMike

slipperydog said:


> Pathetic flame attempt. If you watched the World Cup in 2002, you would know that it operated as two completely separate tournaments. So if China doesn't show interest in 2026, a joint India/Indonesia bid is certainly in the realm of possibility if they don't choose to pursue their own individual bids. But 6 and 6 is certainly an option if they can't pull off all 12 cities by themselves.
> 
> Could you post these statistics? I'm genuinely curious to see how far Asian soccer has come. Keep in mind though, television ratings =/ television revenue.


Like I said look at a global map, it isn't feasible at all geographically as I said. Besides India and Indonesia are far lower ranked than even Qatar, how they hope to garner any attention without the growth in football that a prime time hosting of a world cup within their region can achieve I doubt you have any answers for. That is why Australia will host the 2022 edition. The Asian market has missed out for far too long. They have clearly shown they are also the most dedicated football audience watching games at the most ridiculous of times for the last 2 world cups and also Brazil 2014 and Europe (hopefully England) 2018 will be the same story. That's four world cups in a row where your biggest audience and largest growing market have been screwed. By 2022, this is even more of an issue with 70% of the world's population being based in Asia.


----------



## slipperydog

This is exactly what I expected. So based on your numbers from the last Asian World Cup in 2002, despite the fact that 70% of the world's population resides in Asia, they still couldn't get more viewers than the Americas, Europe, and Africa? That's pretty pathetic.


----------



## MysteryMike

slipperydog said:


> This is exactly what I expected. So based on your numbers from the last Asian World Cup in 2002, despite the fact that 70% of the world's population resides in Asia, they still couldn't get more viewers than the Americas, Europe, and Africa? That's pretty pathetic.


2002 they didn't have 70% of the world's population, it's in 2022 that Asia will have 70% of the population. But the numbers don't lie, the largest audience for the world cup is in Asia and football has developed since then and they will get absolutely massive audiences in Asia for 2022. Australia will set that up beautifully with their available time zones  By doing this FIFA can develop the football within China, India/other markets in Asia and get them ready to host a world cup and cater to their biggest audience after making them suffer for 4 consecutive world cups.


----------



## T74

do you have the viewing numbers for 2010?


----------



## slipperydog

MysteryMike said:


> 2002 they didn't have 70% of the world's population, it's in 2022 that Asia will have 70% of the population.


You're right. My mistake, Asia only had 60% of the world's population in 2002. So using your own numbers, the viewership for an Asian-friendly World Cup in 2002 was as follows:

Asian population: 60%
Asian viewership: *11,157,368*

Americas/Africa population: 27%
Americas/Africa viewership: *9,983,164*

Africa and the Americas nearly matched their television ratings back in 2002. So like I said, that's a pretty lame effort from Asia given their drastic population and time-zone advantage. But even if Asia had 80% of the world's population by 2022 and could 'guarantee' higher viewership than their shambolic effort in 2002, FIFA still can't garner as high television revenues than if they host it in North America or Europe.


----------



## Walbanger

^^ You're forgetting the massive growth in the Asian middle class between 2002 and now let alone 2022.


----------



## Shambolic

Bolsilludo said:


> Many forget that in 1995, Qatar hosted an U-20 FIFA World Cup.
> In 1995 there weren't temperature problems?. What changed from that moment until now?.


What you're forgetting is that it was played during April when average temps are 21 to 32 degrees c.


----------



## Bolsilludo

Ok, you win. :lol:


----------



## Hansadyret

I can't se the Qatar bid winning, Qatar+UAE could maybe just maybe have a chance but Qatar alone should realisticly have no chance when competing with so many other good bids. If the FIFA representatives have not lost lost their minds this should be between Australia and USA since Japan/Korea just had it.


----------



## MysteryMike

Bolsilludo said:


> Many forget that in 1995, Qatar hosted an U-20 FIFA World Cup.
> In 1995 there weren't temperature problems?. What changed from that moment until now?.


Australia has hosted multiple U-20 World Cups but obviously the players could hardly play and it wasn't hosted in June/July which are the hottest months in Qatar, even Qataris flee Qatar during this time. Qatar has a male to female ratio of 4:1, it gets further skewed during this time because if the husband doesn't have leave then the wife and kids just go


----------



## _X_

Bolsilludo said:


> Many forget that in 1995, Qatar hosted an U-20 FIFA World Cup.
> In 1995 there weren't temperature problems?. What changed from that moment until now?.


FACT
Qatar have NEVER held a major sporting event in June or July

There is a major reason for this


----------



## Mo Rush

Would you all just ignore the temperature for just a second.

It doesn't matter what Qatar has hosted. Hosting 10 WC venues in one city is just not going to happen, and is not in any way feasible in Doha.


----------



## slipperydog

The key is not Qatar because they appear likely to make it to the second round. But Qatar's votes are maxed out because they won't receive any more support than what they already have. The real battle is between the US and Australia to get to the second round. If one of them can do that, all the voters who voted for either the US or Oz in the first round will vote for the English-speaking country that actually makes it though. Qatar will have a group of dedicated voters all the way through, but if a US/Oz voter's choice misses the second round, they will not be voting for Qatar.


----------



## Gondolier

After they have voted for 2018, will THAT be announced to the world BEFORE they recovene for the 2022 vote?? Or will 2018 only be revealed to the ExeCom; then they vote for 2022 AND THEN reveal both results in one fell swoop??


----------



## Walbanger

^^ If FIFA all ready admitts that having the bids at the same time was a mistake then they really should anounce the winner of 2018 before they vote for 2022 else they just accentuate the current problems they are having. One would have to ask themselves how solid the Spain/Qatar pack is if England or Russia are already announced as winner for 2018. It would be the most transparent way to do itas it would leave far less questions.


----------



## Pule

_X_ said:


> Oi Pule,howzit goin champ??


Good Jim and how's you doing mate?


----------



## _X_

Pule said:


> Good Jim and how's you doing mate?


Very well bloke.That was an amazing World Cup you fellas put on,really hope we get the chance to repay the debt in 12 years.United Nations at my place:dance:


----------



## Shambolic

^^
Your shout.


----------



## _X_

Shambolic said:


> ^^
> Your shout.


Only shouting foreigners-was in the bid book as part of our global legacy .Limit of about 30
Drinking classes daily


----------



## Pule

_X_ said:


> Very well bloke.That was an amazing World Cup you fellas put on,really hope we get the chance to repay the debt in 12 years.United Nations at my place:dance:


 
Look out for the Rainbow Nation painting painting Oz with it's rainbow colors.


----------



## beastjim

So North Korea and South Korea's situation, surely not good for the world cup bid of Korea, especially as I believe they had raised the possibility of playing some games in North Korea.


----------



## rus

LOUIS DREYFUS: I SUPPORT RUSSIAN WORLD CUP-2018 BID

The Russian owner of Marseille Margarita Louis Dreyfus arrived in Moscow not only to support her team in the forthcoming Champions League fixture against Spartak Moscow.
http://english.sport-express.ru/summary/1_5787/


----------



## RobH

That was always a ridiculous suggestion.


----------



## T74

RobH said:


> That was always a ridiculous suggestion.


don't diss the greatest football manager of all time - he will arrange your death using one of his invisible mobile phones












edit - just saw the news - damn this could get ugly quick


----------



## crazyalex

North Korea is Best Korea

but sadly WW3 wont start hno:


----------



## Shambolic

crazyalex said:


> North Korea is Best Korea
> 
> but sadly WW3 wont start hno:


What are you smoking?


----------



## Gondolier

crazyalex said:


> 2018: Belgium & The Netherlands
> 2022: Australia


Ha ha.

2018 - Russia
2022 - USA
2026 - China or Australia


----------



## rus

2018 RUSSIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0x_o0xqrrE&feature=related
2022 Korea\Japan\Australia\USA


----------



## _X_

2018-England,Nebe,Russia
2022-Australasia


----------



## pazke

2018 : Portugal & Spain
2022 : Australia
:banana:


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

crazyalex said:


> 2018: Belgium & The Netherlands
> 2022: Australia


me too!!  and thanks for ur supports


----------



## 863552

*GO AUSTRALIA!*


----------



## arabuser

Portugal & Spain 2018
Qatar 2022


----------



## magic_johnson

England
Australia

Looks like i'm having a late night wednesday night then. 1:30am :cheers:


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

My bet:

Portugal & Spain
Australia / Qatar


----------



## anacleta

Portugal & Spain 2018
Australia 2022


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

*2018*

The Russian bid contains too many flaws, so does its Iberian pendant. As much as I love England, not only as a footballing country, and having completed the 92 traveling from abroad, I'd favor the Belgian/Dutch bid for sentimental reasons. 


*2022*

I'd like to see the World Cup staged in an authentic non-cosmetic sporting environment where it hasn't been staged before. I would have thought Australia would be an amazing experience, unlike the USA back in the Nineties.


----------



## AlekseyVT

*2018 Russia
2022 Australia*


----------



## 863552

2018 - Benelux
2022 - Australia


----------



## RobH

Well, I might as well just add:

*2018 England
2022 Australia*

And that's final!


----------



## Flying Hollander

2018:
Joseph S. BLATTER Switzerland 
Julio H. GRONDONA Argentina Spa

Vice President
Issa HAYATOU Cameroon 
CHUNG Mong Joon Korea Republic Hol
Jack A. WARNER Trinidad and Tobago	Rus
Ángel María VILLAR LLONA Spain Spa
Michel PLATINI France 
Reynald TEMARII Tahiti XXX
Geoff THOMPSON England Eng

Member
Michel D'HOOGHE Belgium Hol
Ricardo Terra TEIXEIRA Brazil Spa
Mohamed BIN HAMMAM Qatar 
Senes ERZIK Turkey 
Chuck BLAZER USA Eng
Worawi MAKUDI Thailand 
Nicolás LEOZ Paraguay Spa
Junji OGURA Japan 
Amos ADAMU Nigeria XXX
Marios LEFKARITIS Cyprus 
Jacques ANOUMA Côte d'Ivoire 
Franz BECKENBAUER Germany 
Rafael SALGUERO Guatemala Spa
Hany ABO RIDA Egypt 
Vitaly MUTKO Russia Rus

If i count well it's now Spa/Port 5, Rus 2, Hol/Bel 2, Eng 2 11 votes already given 11 togo But i expect Spa/Port a high propabilty but my heart is for Hol/Bel then England then Spa/Por Russia is to big for a WC

2022: very hard will be a gues > Australia Ocenan candicate would can organish a WC


----------



## anze

I hope: benelux 2018
qatar 2022


----------



## Melb_aviator

2018: Spain & Portugal / England
2022: Australia / US

The key issue at play are where exactly the rumoured voting blocks will move their votes to if the preferred bid is eliminated. 

Biggest questions for 2022:

- Is the rumoured Sth American voting block going to move their support to the USA, if they do vote for Qatar and it is eliminated, or does that vote go to an Asian bid, moving the vote along MBH's intentions?
- Will any 'deal' between Spain/Portugal and Qatar fall apart if the 2018 bid is lost?
- What are the intentions of the remaining African voters?
- What are the voting intentions of the remaining European voters?
- Where does the unalligned Asian vote (Thailand) go to?

I know that there is no officially proven 'deal' between Qatar and Spain/Portugal, but its getting clearer that the voting pattern will likely end up going that way. The words of the delegates from all those who were rumoured to be in that block, including the Sth American voters, all point to it panning out that way.

The main variables are peoples 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferances. 

My main issue with the Australian and England bids are the early rounds. I have a feeling they both have many secondary preferences, but limited first up votes. I do feel that Holland/Belgium will go out first in 2018, but can not pick the 2022 race.


----------



## Farol da Barra

Deveria ser na Rússia em 2018!


----------



## RobH

*The process becomes even more farcical. The words piss-up and brewery spring to mind:*

The electorate to decide the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, cut to 22 in the wake of the corruption scandal that led to the suspension of two executive committee members, could change again after the Oceania Football Confederation today launched a last-ditch effort to appoint a replacement.

Although it was tonight unclear whether Fifa would sanction such a move, if successful it would force all nine bidding nations to again recalibrate their strategies as they attempt to plot a path to victory.

The OFC general secretary, Tai Nicholas, said tonight that Reynald Temarii, the OFC president who was suspended for a year after breaking Fifa rules on breach of confidence, was likely to waive his right to appeal if it meant a replacement could be parachuted in to vote.

Fifa stipulates that a full executive committee member can be removed only by its congress and had implied the vote would proceed with 22 members. But Nicholas insisted there were "a number of legal options" open to the OFC that would allow Temarii to be replaced.

The confederation has called an executive meeting in Auckland on Saturday to try to install David Chung, the acting president, as president and assume Temarii's position on the executive committee.

"We have one vote and it's fundamentally important that we have the right to our one vote on one of the biggest decisions in football for years," Nicholas told the website Inside World Football.

"It would be a big sacrifice in terms of the opportunity to clear himself for the sake of the OFC casting its vote, but he has always put the confederation first."

A Fifa spokesman said it had yet to receive any official request from the OFC so would not comment. If the OFC was able to find a way to appoint Chung, he would almost certainly vote for Australia to host the 2022 tournament.

The implications for England would be less clear. Their bid team had heavily courted Temarii, who has protested his innocence and threatened to sue the Sunday Times, and were hopeful of his vote but others believe he was inclined to vote for Spain/Portugal. Going ahead with 23 voters would also strip Fifa's president, Sepp Blatter, of his casting vote in the event of a tie.

Link


----------



## IanCleverly

Trelawny said:


> Who lives in the Eastern time zone around here? ESPN/TSN better be showing this other wise gotta watch it from spainsh mexican channels.


The bid announcement will be shown live via fifa.com (but not the individual county presentations).

In the UK, it'll be shown on BBC2, Sky Sports News and Eurosport.


----------



## HendrX

2018 Belgium Netherlands

2022 Australia


----------



## _X_

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...dises-us-cup-bid/story-fn63e0vj-1225961721949


*Lawsuit jeopardises US cup bid*

* Peter Wilson
* From: The Australian
* November 27, 2010 12:00AM 

AUSTRALIA'S main rival to host the 2022 soccer World Cup, the US, faces a lawsuit that could undermine its bid.

The US Soccer Federation is being sued for $US50 million ($51.5m) by a former promoter of professional games in the US.

The suit could wipe out the federation's asset base.

The lawyer behind the legal action said yesterday he had asked a US court last week to compel FIFA executives in Switzerland to disclose their dealings with the USSF on the suit.

Soccer powerbrokers in the US say they were confident they could beat the lawsuit and fend off any threat to their bid for the World Cup.

But in the run-up to FIFA's decision on Thursday on the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 events, the demand that FIFA reveal possibly sensitive communications with the USSF is unlikely to impress the notoriously secretive masters of the game.
The US is the frontrunner for the 2022 event, ahead of Australia, Qatar, Japan and South Korea. A European bid is certain to win the 2018 World Cup.
A judge in Chicago gave heart to the litigants in July by ruling that the federation had a case to answer on claims that it was involved in racketeering, extortion and anti-competitive behaviour when it forced promoters to pay large fees for the right to hold matches in the US between foreign professional clubs, including Manchester United and Barcelona.

The promoter, ChampionsWorld, paid $US3m to hold such matches between 2003 and 2005, and sold more tickets than the US Major League Soccer competition.
ChampionsWorld claims those fees pushed it into bankruptcy in 2005 and its creditors are suing the USSF for $US50m damages.

According to the USSF published accounts, the federation had net assets of $US51.1m at the end of March last year.

A court ruling that the USSF and FIFA had no right to demand the fees would knock a hole in the federation's revenue and set a legal precedent that could allow other promoters to demand repayment of millions more in fees.

*Supporters of the lawsuit said the USSF could be bankrupted, compromising its ability to host the World Cup, *if the court decided ChampionsWorld was driven out of business by predatory behaviour by the federation and FIFA.

Soccer United Marketing, an MLS spin-off, does most of the promotion of international soccer matches in the US. Its revenue has helped MLS to survive its growth years and fund the World Cup bid.

Alan Rothenberg, president of the federation when the US hosted the 1994 World Cup, said he expected the federation to defeat the lawsuit, and even if it lost it had a strong enough balancesheet to avoid bankruptcy.

The federation's revenue stream from international matches ranked well behind its earnings from television rights and gate receipts for US national team matches, he said.

In the year to 2009, the federation made $US2.9m from fees on international matches, and this year it is likely to have taken more than $US3m from more than 40 international matches involving clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester City.

Jamie Brickell, the lawyer representing the creditors, said he hoped to be in court by the middle of next year and he was confident of success after a ruling in July by Circuit Court judge Harry D. Leinenweber.

"The judge agreed with us that there is no statute in American law that says the federation has authority over all professional soccer, or that FIFA has the power to give anybody the right to govern professional soccer," Brickell said.

He hoped Judge Leinenweber would next week direct FIFA to provide information about its role in the matter.

The USSF tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing US legislation on sport, and internal decisions by FIFA, had given it the right to impose the fees on promoters, but Judge Leinenweber said the case should go ahead.

He ruled that the federation had no right to govern professional soccer except in the Olympics.

"ChampionsWorld has sufficiently alleged a pattern of racketeering activities," Judge Leinenweber wrote.

US laws did not appear to give the federation monopoly control over professional soccer in the US, he said, and if it had that control, USA Basketball, which ran the amateur sport, would also have control over the NBA.

"It is extremely difficult to conclude from a reading of the plain text (of the relevant legislation) or its legislative history that Congress intended such a result," he wrote.

"The court holds that, as a matter of law, the act does not give the USSF authority to govern professional soccer in the US, except to the extent necessary for USSF to govern the participation of professional players in the Olympic Games and related events."

Australian soccer officials said the issue of charging such "sanctioning fees" for standalone matches between foreign teams had not arisen in Australia because teams such as the current visitors, LA Galaxy, had always been part of series involving Australian sides.

A Football Federation of Australia spokesman said it did not have a position on whether it would impose fees if an independent promoter brought two foreign teams to play each other in Australia.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

Well, it is lucky they have the proper Government Gaurantees to back them up.... oh wait! :bash:


----------



## _X_

Qatar is illegal,Portugal is broke,Spain cant afford the stadium upgrades and now this

Shortlist I say:lol:


----------



## Qatar Son 333

_X_ said:


> Qatar is illegal,Portugal is broke,Spain cant afford the stadium upgrades and now this
> 
> Shortlist I say:lol:


I know right !! and its bad since only a couple of days are left ! 

FIFA _should_ make a shortlist instead of this mess.


----------



## RobH

FIFA should do a lot of things, but they don't.


----------



## Qatar Son 333

RobH said:


> FIFA should do a lot of things, but they don't.


Including disqualifying Qatar's bid, but so far around 5 days are left to voting and that didn't happen.


----------



## RobH

I'm sorry you read that implication in my post, it was certainly not intended.


----------



## Gondolier

Re suit vs. USSF...nothing's going to happen with that...much like the case against the two Salt Lake 2002 frontmen. That case was dismissed by a federal judge. Same thing with this...it could be dragged all the way to the Supreme Court...which could take it two years...and it could still be booted out.

It does NOT endanger the USA bid in any way.


----------



## Gondolier

Melb_aviator said:


> 2018: Spain & Portugal / England
> 2022: Australia / US
> 
> The key issue at play are where exactly the rumoured voting blocks will move their votes to if the preferred bid is eliminated.
> 
> Biggest questions for 2022:
> 
> - Is the rumoured Sth American voting block going to move their support to the USA, if they do vote for Qatar and it is eliminated, or does that vote go to an Asian bid, moving the vote along MBH's intentions?
> - Will any 'deal' between Spain/Portugal and Qatar fall apart if the 2018 bid is lost?
> - What are the intentions of the remaining African voters?
> - What are the voting intentions of the remaining European voters?
> - Where does the unalligned Asian vote (Thailand) go to?
> 
> I know that there is no officially proven 'deal' between Qatar and Spain/Portugal, but its getting clearer that the voting pattern will likely end up going that way. The words of the delegates from all those who were rumoured to be in that block, including the Sth American voters, all point to it panning out that way.
> 
> The main variables are peoples 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferances.
> 
> My main issue with the Australian and England bids are the early rounds. I have a feeling they both have many secondary preferences, but limited first up votes. I do feel that Holland/Belgium will go out first in 2018, but can not pick the 2022 race.


Rumor: with the US holding military exercises with South Korea this weekend, in a show to stand-up to North Korea, SOUTH Korea will reportedly throw its support behind the USA 2022 bid.


----------



## TheoG

I want England for 2018 and Australia for 2022, but I think it'll be Russia 2018, with England out in the second round, and USA 2022


----------



## -Corey-

If the U.S. gets elected as the host nation, I wonder what cities could make the final cut. I'd love to see Los Angeles, Denver, San Diego, Houston, New York, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Boston, Kansas City and Dallas making the final cut, and maybe Miami instead of Denver, but Miami is the worst when it comes to public transportation hno:.


----------



## -Corey-

I want 2018 for Russia and 2022 for the United States.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

-Corey- said:


> If the U.S. gets elected as the host nation, I wonder what cities could make the final cut. I'd love to see Los Angeles, Denver, San Diego, Houston, New York, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Boston, Kansas City and Dallas making the final cut, and maybe Miami instead of Denver, but Miami is the worst when it comes to public transportation hno:.



I think the major centres of Chicago and San Francisco are a must...! Why aren't they there again??


----------



## Gondolier

AndreasBerlin said:


> I think the major centres of Chicago and San Francisco are a must...! Why aren't they there again??


Chicago didn't send in a bid.

San Francisco only had Stanford. Candlestick and the Oakland Coliseum at the time (all not very desirable). The new 49ers stadium (I think a 67,000 seater) envisaged for Santa Clara was up for a vote; won the plebiscite in June, but still isn't built. USA2022 only wanted to submit venues that ARE already existing to show that it's ready to host at the drop of a hat. I hope FIFA requests that they include the Bay Area.


----------



## -Corey-

So i have a question, are only 10 cities going to be chosen? Because I thought there were going to chose 12 cities out 18. :S.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Solopop said:


> 2018 - Benelux


Meanwhile, Europe's equivalent to Doha, the appendix called Luxembourg, have chickened out, only for Belgium and The Netherlands to co-host. 

Tumbling dice.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2018: England/Russia
2022: USA


----------



## 863552

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> Meanwhile, Europe's equivalent to Doha, the appendix called Luxembourg, have chickened out, only for Belgium and The Netherlands to co-host.
> 
> Tumbling dice.


I don't really care. They've got nice food.

And Gondolier, Australia is also sending a navy fleet to SK, so shut the **** up, you useless troll.


----------



## Gondolier

-Corey- said:


> So i have a question, are only 10 cities going to be chosen? Because I thought there were going to chose 12 cities out 18. :S.


It'll get finalised after the US is picked on Friday. It'll all depend on geography, infrastructure and MLS training facilities that will be offered. For one thing, forget Phoenix, Kansas City, Baltimore and Nashville. Those four are DEFINITELY out.


----------



## _X_

Drongolier said:


> Seriously, you're just embaressing...it's EMBAR*ASS*ING, jackass!! :lol:


Nice one D


----------



## _X_

Drongolier said:


> Why should it be primed for East Asia? The times that make the most sense in the actual venue and time zone will prevail...not something timed for East Asia.


Gotta look after the biggest market


----------



## Evgen Ekb

2018 Russia
2022 Australia


----------



## 863552

Gondolier said:


> Seriously, you're just embaressing...it's EMBAR*ASS*ING, jackass!! :lol:


Heaven forbid should I spell a word wrong! Call Mother Teresa and alert the Pope! Hey while we're at it why not alert Gandhi aswell! :bash:


----------



## nomarandlee

_X_ said:


> Gotta look after the biggest market


Nah. Even though East Asia has a potential great market I doubt that FIFA would forsake setting up ideal day/night times for its most rabid mature markets in Europe/Africa/Americas to serve East Asian prime time.

Having the games anywhere in the Americas makes it ideal to have early afternoon games in the Americas and while televising them prime time at night in Europe/MENA/Africa.


----------



## hngcm

_X_ said:


> Gotta look after the biggest market


Then it makes more sense to wait for China 2026.


----------



## hngcm

Gondolier said:


> Why should it be primed for East Asia? The times that make the most sense in the actual venue and time zone will prevail...not something timed for East Asia.


For the times I posted it's primed for NA/Europe. 

I just figure that a 12am is the latest than Europe would want a game to start.


----------



## crazyalex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpyggmTmeE&feature=player_embedded


----------



## RobH

Yawnnn......zero new stadiums planned as the 18 in the bid book are already in existence, not sure of the relevence of that link Alex.


----------



## Gondolier

_X_ said:


> Gotta look after the biggest market


Theoretically "biggest" but they still DON'T pay TOP dollars. Cumulatively--and this is for a USA setting, it would still be Europe as the pmany LOCAL rimary market, and then of course, the host country because of the MANY local sponsors who help finance the event. The East Asia TV markets would probably be a tertiary consideration.


----------



## Gondolier

hngcm said:


> *Then it makes more sense to wait for China 2026*.


*Can't argue with that*!!


----------



## RobH

The Guardian understands that Oceania has received confirmation from Fifa that Temarii can be replaced in the voting. Fifa has not yet made public its stance but sources indicated today that Chung, 48, had boarded a flight to Zurich.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/28/england-2018-world-cup-fifa


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

hngcm said:


> Then it makes more sense to wait for China 2026.


me too  and thanks for ur support :cheers1:


----------



## RobH

It makes absolutely no sense to wait for a bid which may never come from a football assocaition in turmoil and a country with a poor national team. Choose what's on your plate now, not what might or might not come in the future.


----------



## AndreasBerlin

It doesn't make sense to wait for East Asia.

Italia 1990- Bad viewing time for East Asia
USA 1994- Bad viewing time for East Asia
France 1998- Bad viewing time for East Asia
Sth Korea/Japan 2002- Perfect time for East Asia
Germany 2006- Bad viewing time for East Asia
South Africa- Bad viewing time for East Asia
Brazil 2014- Bad viewing time for East Asia
Europe 2018- Bad viewing time for East Asia

No business in their right mind can ignore Asia, the potential for growth is enormous. FIFA literally can't afford to ignore the region, if FIFA do, they will do it at their own peril.


----------



## wexine

Egland 2018 and USA 2022 for me.


----------



## rus

This is offtopic:banana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8X20kAB1lc&feature=player_embedded
Special for English press, Peter Odemvinge, Amos Adamu and all English-russophobs.


----------



## Piotrek_409

I want

2018 - Spain/Portugal
2022 - Australia

I think

2018 - Russia
2022 - Australia

Russia might win due to some political reasons, however IMHO in 'the transparent and honest world' they should start extensive infrastructure modernization program and bid for UEFA 2020 instead.


----------



## RobH

Not good at all; let's hope the Dutch FA decide to do something, rather than denying the obvious.


----------



## AlekseyVT

rus said:


> This is offtopic:banana:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8X20kAB1lc&feature=player_embedded
> Special for English press, Peter Odemvinge, Amos Adamu and all English-russophobs.


I'm doubt that it can be interesting for British mass-meda.


----------



## Archbishop

rus said:


> This is offtopic:banana:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8X20kAB1lc&feature=player_embedded
> Special for English press, Peter Odemvinge, Amos Adamu and all English-russophobs.


That's horrific.


----------



## RaiderATO

Gondolier said:


> For one thing, forget Phoenix, Kansas City, Baltimore and Nashville. Those four are DEFINITELY out.


Nashville has been very good to international soccer in the US. It'd be a shame to cut them out of a possible WC.


----------



## JimB

AlekseyVT said:


> I'm doubt that it can be interesting for British mass-meda.


I very much doubt that anyone in the English media has even seen that clip.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Archbishop said:


> That's horrific.


 What is? What's the story behind this banner?


----------



## Archbishop

The racism is.


----------



## MysteryMike

Racism is a disgrace. Quite a few clubs should be banned from football for at least a little while to think why their fans behave like such imbeciles.


----------



## MysteryMike

Liverpool boss Roy Hodgson says England deserve to host the World Cup.

Hodgson has given his backing to England's bid to host the World Cup finals in 2018.

"It's very important," he said. "A lot of money and time has been invested in it. From 1966 to 2018, that's a fairly reasonable length of time for a top nation in football like England to wait to get their second chance of a World Cup at home.

"In England we have the best stadia, unbelievably passionate crowds and there are very, very few leagues in the world where teams who play outside of the top league can command a public figure of 25,000-30,000, as we see all the time in the Championship.

"If the World Cup comes here, you're guaranteed so many things - easy access for transport, hotels and facilities, the best stadia, wonderful football pitches and a football-crazy nation.

"For me it's a no brainer - England should get 2018."

http://www.tribalfootball.com/artic...on-backing-england-2018-world-cup-bid-1281441


----------



## MysteryMike




----------



## _X_

RobH said:


> The Guardian understands that Oceania has received confirmation from Fifa that Temarii can be replaced in the voting. Fifa has not yet made public its stance but sources indicated today that Chung, 48, had boarded a flight to Zurich.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/28/england-2018-world-cup-fifa


As expected

This is a bonus to 1 bid and vital to another


----------



## _X_

AndreasBerlin said:


> It doesn't make sense to wait for East Asia.
> 
> Italia 1990- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> USA 1994- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> France 1998- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> Sth Korea/Japan 2002- Perfect time for East Asia
> Germany 2006- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> South Africa- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> Brazil 2014- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> Europe 2018- Bad viewing time for East Asia
> 
> No business in their right mind can ignore Asia, the potential for growth is enormous. FIFA literally can't afford to ignore the region, if FIFA do, they will do it at their own peril.


World Cup by TIMEZONE
Surely its Australasia's turn with 4.688 billion people in that timezone for 2022
The 3 scenario's

1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 Europe(Qatar+3)

1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)


1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 Asia (Australia+8/+10,SouthKorea+9,Japan+9)


----------



## Gondolier

_X_ said:


> World Cup by TIMEZONE
> Surely its Australasia's turn with 4.688 billion people in that timezone for 2022
> ]


Huh? So what? Do you really think ALL 4.7 billion ARE counted and WILL BE WATCHING all the matches? Don't be DAFT!!

Probably no more than say 150,000,000 (in EastAsia) for a crucial Japan v. Spain game. All the rest will be TOOO BUSY scraping a living to put food on their table rather than watching a foolish game which means NOTHING to their empty stomachs.

Don't be RIDICULOUS!!


----------



## _X_

Gondolier said:


> Huh? So what? Do you really think ALL 4.7 billion ARE counted and WILL BE WATCHING all the matches? Don't be DAFT!!
> 
> Probably no more than say 150,000,000 (in EastAsia) for a crucial Japan v. Spain game. All the rest will be TOOO BUSY scraping a living to put food on their table rather than watching a foolish game which means NOTHING to their empty stomachs.
> 
> Don't be RIDICULOUS!!


The 3 scenario's

1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 Europe(Qatar+3)

1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)


1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 America (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 America (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 America (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 America (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain/Portugal,Netherlands/Belgium+1,Russia+3)
2022 Asia (Australia+8/+10,SouthKorea+9,Japan+9)

What are you talking about-the ratings went down after Japan/Korea in 2002 by 9%.As you well know the Asia middle classes are growing at such a rapid rate.I witnessed this first hand in South Africa this year with the amount of Asians that were their.In fact I was given a corporate ticket by an Indian fellow for England v Algeria

The fact is absolute.The growth for FIFA is East Asia where 70% of the World will be in 2022.By then who knows just how much FIFA could smash the global total audience by-its been suggested an average of 1,000,000,000 is on the cards


----------



## Gondolier

*Swedish bookies put Russia and USA ahead for 2018 and 2022*:



> The biggest Scandinavian bookmaker, Unibet, were first to announce the rates for the election of the FIFA World Cup 2018 and 2022 hosts.
> 
> *According to the Swedish company, Russia is the favorite in the race for the 2018 event, while the US is most likely to grab the Mundial in 2022.
> 
> The rates for the Russian victory equal 1.85, while the chances of their main rivals – England – are rated at 2.50.
> 
> The joint bid of Spain and Portugal is third (5.00), and there seems to be absolutely no faith in Belgium and Holland, who are rated at 30.00.
> 
> “FIFA World Cup should go to new countries. We have done a great job, and if all goes as planned, the Swedish bookies will prove right,” Vitaly Mutko, Russia’s Sports Minster told Rossiya 2 channel.
> 
> The election of the 2018 World Cup host is to take place in Zurich, Switzerland on December 2.
> 
> As for host of the World Cup in 2022, the bookies put the US as number one favorite, with 1.80.
> 
> The chances of Australia (3.50) and Qatar (3.75) are considered nearly equal, while two Asian countries – Japan (12.00) and Korea (20.00) – are seen as outsiders.


http://rt.com/sport/football/unibet-world-cup-russia/


----------



## MysteryMike

AUSTRALIA goes in as near-favourite to this week win its bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

That year's venue for the biggest sports show on earth will be announced on Friday.

Experts and bookies say Australia's bid is well-placed to win.

Sports analysts at London-based Futures Sports and Entertainment have us as clear favourites, while global bookies William Hill put Qatar just ahead - mostly because a Qatari is one of FIFA's big chiefs.

Governor-General Quentin Bryce and billionaire businessman Frank Lowy will lead Australia's final pitch in Zurich on Wednesday.

They will have half an hour to convince FIFA Australia can pull it off.

Speaking from Zurich yesterday, Football Federation Australia CEO Ben Buckley told the Herald Sun that the delegates were confident.

"It's a bit like preparing for a grand final, but we have been doing that for the best part of two years.

"There is a lot of excitement, some nerves, but we are quietly confident we measure up very well."

Futures Sports and Entertainment director and analyst Kevin Alavy said Australia's odds had definitely shortened.

"It's a very tough competition against some strong rival bids," he said.

"With only 22 members of the FIFA executive committee having a vote, any late changes in opinion have a massive impact on the outcome."

Mr Alavy said Australia's chances of winning would be partly influenced by the result of the 2018 decision, also to be announced on Friday.

"For that, Australia should be cheering on the Poms," he said.

"If England wins, that will arguably be the option that would lead to the most revenues being generated in 2018, which would give FIFA more confidence to give it to Australia in 2022."

"It's inevitable that football will rapidly rise in popularity relative to other Australian sports.

"Already we're seeing one of Australia's principal sports cricket suffering as its TV and in-stadia fan base dwindles ... that challenge will only become greater in the face of the World Cup."

Melbourne Victory striker Archie Thompson said Australia finally had its chance to make a mark on the world sport: "We have what it takes."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad-ap...oal-is-very-near/story-fn6bfm6w-1225962365354


----------



## hngcm

RobH said:


> It makes absolutely no sense to wait for a bid which may never come from a football assocaition in turmoil and a country with a poor national team. Choose what's on your plate now, not what might or might not come in the future.


If China 2026 doesn't materialize then I'm sure FIFA can go to another Asian country. OZ 2026?


----------



## MysteryMike

_X_ said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...dises-us-cup-bid/story-fn63e0vj-1225961721949
> 
> 
> *Lawsuit jeopardises US cup bid*
> 
> * Peter Wilson
> * From: The Australian
> * November 27, 2010 12:00AM
> 
> AUSTRALIA'S main rival to host the 2022 soccer World Cup, the US, faces a lawsuit that could undermine its bid.
> 
> The US Soccer Federation is being sued for $US50 million ($51.5m) by a former promoter of professional games in the US.
> 
> The suit could wipe out the federation's asset base.
> 
> The lawyer behind the legal action said yesterday he had asked a US court last week to compel FIFA executives in Switzerland to disclose their dealings with the USSF on the suit.
> 
> Soccer powerbrokers in the US say they were confident they could beat the lawsuit and fend off any threat to their bid for the World Cup.
> 
> But in the run-up to FIFA's decision on Thursday on the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 events, the demand that FIFA reveal possibly sensitive communications with the USSF is unlikely to impress the notoriously secretive masters of the game.
> The US is the frontrunner for the 2022 event, ahead of Australia, Qatar, Japan and South Korea. A European bid is certain to win the 2018 World Cup.
> A judge in Chicago gave heart to the litigants in July by ruling that the federation had a case to answer on claims that it was involved in racketeering, extortion and anti-competitive behaviour when it forced promoters to pay large fees for the right to hold matches in the US between foreign professional clubs, including Manchester United and Barcelona.
> 
> The promoter, ChampionsWorld, paid $US3m to hold such matches between 2003 and 2005, and sold more tickets than the US Major League Soccer competition.
> ChampionsWorld claims those fees pushed it into bankruptcy in 2005 and its creditors are suing the USSF for $US50m damages.
> 
> According to the USSF published accounts, the federation had net assets of $US51.1m at the end of March last year.
> 
> A court ruling that the USSF and FIFA had no right to demand the fees would knock a hole in the federation's revenue and set a legal precedent that could allow other promoters to demand repayment of millions more in fees.
> 
> *Supporters of the lawsuit said the USSF could be bankrupted, compromising its ability to host the World Cup, *if the court decided ChampionsWorld was driven out of business by predatory behaviour by the federation and FIFA.
> 
> Soccer United Marketing, an MLS spin-off, does most of the promotion of international soccer matches in the US. Its revenue has helped MLS to survive its growth years and fund the World Cup bid.
> 
> Alan Rothenberg, president of the federation when the US hosted the 1994 World Cup, said he expected the federation to defeat the lawsuit, and even if it lost it had a strong enough balancesheet to avoid bankruptcy.
> 
> The federation's revenue stream from international matches ranked well behind its earnings from television rights and gate receipts for US national team matches, he said.
> 
> In the year to 2009, the federation made $US2.9m from fees on international matches, and this year it is likely to have taken more than $US3m from more than 40 international matches involving clubs such as Real Madrid and Manchester City.
> 
> Jamie Brickell, the lawyer representing the creditors, said he hoped to be in court by the middle of next year and he was confident of success after a ruling in July by Circuit Court judge Harry D. Leinenweber.
> 
> "The judge agreed with us that there is no statute in American law that says the federation has authority over all professional soccer, or that FIFA has the power to give anybody the right to govern professional soccer," Brickell said.
> 
> He hoped Judge Leinenweber would next week direct FIFA to provide information about its role in the matter.
> 
> The USSF tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing US legislation on sport, and internal decisions by FIFA, had given it the right to impose the fees on promoters, but Judge Leinenweber said the case should go ahead.
> 
> He ruled that the federation had no right to govern professional soccer except in the Olympics.
> 
> "ChampionsWorld has sufficiently alleged a pattern of racketeering activities," Judge Leinenweber wrote.
> 
> US laws did not appear to give the federation monopoly control over professional soccer in the US, he said, and if it had that control, USA Basketball, which ran the amateur sport, would also have control over the NBA.
> 
> "It is extremely difficult to conclude from a reading of the plain text (of the relevant legislation) or its legislative history that Congress intended such a result," he wrote.
> 
> "The court holds that, as a matter of law, the act does not give the USSF authority to govern professional soccer in the US, except to the extent necessary for USSF to govern the participation of professional players in the Olympic Games and related events.


Yes, no government guarantees, funding on the brink, more and more questions are asked.


----------



## MysteryMike

hngcm said:


> If China 2026 doesn't materialize then I'm sure FIFA can go to another Asian country. OZ 2026?


Australia is ready right now. I doubt Australia will bid again till the next century if it misses out this time around and that means a big hole in Blatter's football world map. They are first time hosts and they have the best legacy, the football development both internally and within it's region, the government backing, the best time zone for the Asian television audience (which is going to compromise of 70% of the world's population by 2020, it will thus also allow the key markets of China and India to develop their football), the security, the major events experience and more to the point - major sports events experience, the best performing developed economy, the infrastructure, the population, the best climate for the players and fantastic tourism destinations for football fans to make it an absolutely unforgettable world cup.


----------



## Gondolier

MysteryMike said:


> Yes, no government guarantees, funding on the brink, more and more questions are asked.


 Good try, Misery. That lawsuit AIN'T going nowhere. Just like the Salt Lake City brouhaha with the 2 bid frontmen, *it was thrown out by a federal judge. * Even if this goes to the Supreme Court, it'll take at least *TWO years*. (I know; I used to work in the legal industry.) So this is NOTHING...a total tempest in a teapot!! hno:


----------



## Gondolier

MysteryMike said:


> Australia is ready right now. I doubt Australia will bid again till the next century if it misses out this time around and that means a big hole in Blatter's football world map. They are first time hosts and they have the best legacy, the football development both internally and within it's region, the government backing, the best time zone for the Asian television audience (which is going to compromise of 70% of the world's population by 2020, it will thus also allow the key markets of China and India to develop their football), the security, the major events experience and more to the point - major sports events experience, the best performing developed economy, the infrastructure, the population, the best climate for the players and fantastic tourism destinations for football fans to make it an absolutely unforgettable world cup.


Australia DOESN'T have the people and those inflated Asian television numbers are BALONEY...and you know it. Australia is ONLY tied in with Asia because it has NO ONE ELSE to PLAY WITH!! It is all SYMBOLIC. But the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Koreans, etc., really *rather resent *Australia being added to their grouping!!


----------



## MysteryMike

Gondolier said:


> Australia DOESN'T have the people and those inflated Asian television numbers are BALONEY...and you know it. Australia is ONLY tied in with Asia because it has NO ONE ELSE to PLAY WITH!! It is all SYMBOLIC. But the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Koreans, etc., really *rather resent *Australia being added to their grouping!!


Australia's numbers all stack up, they are supported by global science and population demographics analysis, Australia is a part of Asia because Asia also wanted Australia and currently Australia are the highest ranked nation within the Asian Confederation, giving the region a lot of stability and enhancing their football. The 2 other powers within Asia, South Korea and Japan etc have enjoyed having Australia because they give them European like opposition to play against and it's made them a lot stronger and helped Asia retain it's 4.5 slots in the world cup without any questions. I suggest you type in wikileaks and clinton together into google btw, just for your information. It'll give you a real shot in the arm :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike

RobH said:


> The fallout should be against FIFA, regardless who wins. Even if England win we should still be pushing for FIFA to clean up its act.


Yes, should is the key word there, or will people be on such a high from winning the bid, that everybody forgets?


----------



## Schmeek

It made me sick listening to it on the radio. We all know what FIFA are like, but to hear it all in one concentrated summing up was too much.
Blatter and Warner.... horrible horrible pieces of work.... I despise them. All these proud countries, almost literally on their knees, begging to suck their c*cks.....and swallow. Nasty nasty nasty.
Just for the opportunity to have FIFA wade into their proud country, throw aside all current laws/taxes, rip them off something chronic claim the moral high ground through 'legacy', 'helping the community' etc and whatever other bullshit they can lay their hand on to point to.

I honesty thought last night: Actually, bollocks to the world cup. Bollocks to FIFA. The BBC are right. At the end of the day how can we hold our heads up high after even communicating with these people, let alone running all over the place begging them? 
We should pull England out of the World cup. And I mean the team, not just the bidding. We're rubbish anyway. I don't want to see us connected with FIFA anymore in any shape or form. It's a necesary sacrifice. You never know other countries may follow. There's plenty out there who never will have the chance to host. Nothing to lose, they should unite with us and boycot it. FIFAs loss, methinks. They'll soon realise where the power is, and understand they can never ever blackmail the world with their 'conditions' and 'contracts' etc etc.

Start a new rival tournament/body, where equality, fairness, transparency and above all decency is paramount.

Ok, I understand that corruption is found in all walks of life, in all companies and organisations. I can never be fully eradicated. But what is so unacceptable in FIFAs case, is it appears to be from the top down. And the casualness with which it readily abuses it's position. 

So to the vote..... c'mon England!


----------



## Walbanger

^^ I know what you mean. I had similar thoughts of Australia just giving them the finger and a kick in the balls. Even had a little fantasy of a break away transparent Football organisation, then tried to work out key nations that would be needed to make it work and grow. If the Iberian/Qatar pack holds and wins I was thinking the losers of 2018, 2022 would be a nice start, small in number but strategically important.


----------



## Feffo23

I hope:

2018 England

2022 Australia

but for 2018 i think that winner will be Russia...


----------



## _X_

Walbanger said:


> ^^ I know what you mean. I had similar thoughts of Australia just giving them the finger and a kick in the balls. Even had a little fantasy of a break away transparent Football organisation, then tried to work out key nations that would be needed to make it work and grow. If the Iberian/Qatar pack holds and wins I was thinking the losers of 2018, 2022 would be a nice start, small in number but strategically important.


From Andreas 2 pages ago



AndreasBerlin said:


> There is a very interesting quote from Charles Sale's article today in the Daily Mail:
> 
> "If the World Cup goes to Russia in 2018 followed by Qatar in 2022, the fall-out for FIFA would be immense. It is expected to include a challenge to FIFA's authority as world football's governing body. Already there is talk of a breakaway International Football Federation being formed in similar fashion to the G14 opposition to UEFA before the rebel clubs were brought into the fold."
> 
> The full article can be read here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...RLES-SALE-Riot-rocks-Zurich-eve-big-vote.html
> 
> Any thoughts?


----------



## Walbanger

Interesting


----------



## Axelferis

For kickbaks:
-russia
- quatar


----------



## RobH

"Broadcast was in the public interest," declares SKY

*Football pundits and journalists were up in arms this morning after SKY Sports 'carelessly and irresponsibly jeopardised the World Cup bid' by broadcasting Liverpool losing 2-1 to Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday.*

The 18 time league winners and holders of 5 European cups have recently fallen from grace, having their Champions League place usurped by a resurgent Spurs and suffering a poor run of form that sees them struggling to maintain a place in the top 10 of the Premier League and playing Paul Konchesky at left back.

However, many feel that their dreadful form should have been hidden from the prying eyes of FIFA and certainly not broadcast live only days before the World Cup vote.

Ian Ridley of the Mail on Sunday said, "Liverpool Football Club are a national treasure and their image as one of the best teams in the world ever is vital to England winning the rights to host the World Cup in 2018. FIFA don't care about small clubs like Spurs, Everton and Aston Villa. They want to see the usual top 4 winning all the time just like they do in other European countries. SKY have shown a blatant disregard for football fans all over the country by airing this defeat."

Phil Thompson, a SKY pundit who happens to also support Liverpool, added, "I have handed in my resignation to SKY. The World Cup is far more important that their petty agenda to increase viewing figures. By all means show the game, but at least edit out the last 5 minutes and any footage of Paul Konchesky. Or just arrange the fixture for after the vote. Any FIFA executives that saw that on Sunday will be outraged."

SKY's actions have even prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to issue an apology to FIFA via the Downing Street Twitter feed. The PM wrote:

@FIFA_Committee Because we support free media we could not prevent this broadcast. However if you re-watch the game you will see that Spurs got lucky lmao. Everyone in England is working hard to make sure Liverpool are back in the top 4 by 2018 #youllneverwalkalone

In order to limit the damage caused by the broadcast the FA have dispatched an envoy to FIFA HQ led by Prince William and Gerry and the Pacemakers who will be handing out signed Liverpool shirts DVDs of 'that' European Cup Final in 2005.

http://www.dearmrlevy.com/dml/2010/11/29/broadcast-was-in-the-public-interest-declares-sky.html

:lol:


----------



## RahalInter

so close and i am so eager to see who is going to get the hosting rights, please AUS for 2022!!!! if not at least either Japan or Korea, and 2018 anything but Spain/Potugal!!


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

I want


2018 for *Belgium and the Netherlands...!!*
2022 for *Australia*


----------



## SharksBoy

2018 - Russia
2022 - Australia


----------



## RobH

*Australia's World Cup bid has suffered a setback with Oceania not expected to vote in Thursday's ballot (Friday AM AEDT) for the 2022 tournament.*

Oceania football chief Reynald Temarii has decided to press on with his appeal against a one-year suspension for ethics violations, AFP reported on Tuesday.

His decision is expected to stop acting Oceania president David Chung from replacing Temarii on FIFA's ruling panel and voting for Australia this week.
Advertisement: Story continues below

FIFA has said that Chung could only replace Temarii if the Tahitian waives his right to appeal his suspension.

That is something Temarii is not prepared to do even if it potentially costs Oceania its voice in the vote for the 2018 and 2002 World Cups.

The Oceania representative has been mandated to vote for Australia.

The opportunity in the past few days to replace Temarii with Chung on the board had been a boost for Australia's chances of winning a majority of votes from the now 22 active members of FIFA's executive committee.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/temarii-set-to-press-on-fifa-official-20101201-18fna.html


----------



## Will737

RobH said:


> "Broadcast was in the public interest," declares SKY
> 
> *Football pundits and journalists were up in arms this morning after SKY Sports 'carelessly and irresponsibly jeopardised the World Cup bid' by broadcasting Liverpool losing 2-1 to Tottenham Hotspur on Sunday.*
> 
> http://www.dearmrlevy.com/dml/2010/11/29/broadcast-was-in-the-public-interest-declares-sky.html
> 
> :lol:


Who wrote this article? What a piece of shit.


----------



## _X_

RobH said:


> *Australia's World Cup bid has suffered a setback with Oceania not expected to vote in Thursday's ballot (Friday AM AEDT) for the 2022 tournament.*
> 
> Oceania football chief Reynald Temarii has decided to press on with his appeal against a one-year suspension for ethics violations, AFP reported on Tuesday.
> 
> His decision is expected to stop acting Oceania president David Chung from replacing Temarii on FIFA's ruling panel and voting for Australia this week.
> Advertisement: Story continues below
> 
> FIFA has said that Chung could only replace Temarii if the Tahitian waives his right to appeal his suspension.
> 
> That is something Temarii is not prepared to do even if it potentially costs Oceania its voice in the vote for the 2018 and 2002 World Cups.
> 
> The Oceania representative has been mandated to vote for Australia.
> 
> The opportunity in the past few days to replace Temarii with Chung on the board had been a boost for Australia's chances of winning a majority of votes from the now 22 active members of FIFA's executive committee.
> 
> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/temarii-set-to-press-on-fifa-official-20101201-18fna.html


Story getting around that Qatar 2022 met Tamirii in Malaysia just prior to this latest news.
If he has accepted a bribe in the order of $10-12 million such as the one he talked about 6 weeks ago then his reputation will be forever toilet paper.
He has 2 options
1-Waive his rights,be back on the FIFA ExCo in 12 months and serve there long term
This gives OFC a vote,and he would be championed for his actions in the greater good
2-Appeal,while suspended over the following 12 months,then get absolutely annihilated at the OFC election in 12 months-basically killing his career and he would be viewed by the OFC and Australia similar to how Dempsey was viewed by the South Africans

Its your choice Reynard-do the right thing because FIFA will NEVER have a revote


----------



## MysteryMike

RobH said:


> Phil Thompson, a SKY pundit who happens to also support Liverpool, added, "I have handed in my resignation to SKY. The World Cup is far more important that their petty agenda to increase viewing figures. By all means show the game, but at least edit out the last 5 minutes and any footage of Paul Konchesky. Or just arrange the fixture for after the vote. Any FIFA executives that saw that on Sunday will be outraged.
> 
> http://www.dearmrlevy.com/dml/2010/11/29/broadcast-was-in-the-public-interest-declares-sky.html
> 
> :lol:


 Konchesky :lol::lol:


----------



## MysteryMike

_X_ said:


> Story getting around that Qatar 2022 met Tamirii in Malaysia just prior to this latest news. If he has accepted a bribe in the order of $10-12 million such as the one he talked about 6 weeks ago then his reputation will be forever toilet paper.


You wouldn't be surprised would you? I don't believe he ever had any intention of voting properly in the ballot anyway. Perhaps it's a good sign for Australia that he isn't there because that casting ballot could go to Sepp Blatter, whom I believe is more reliable than the OFC member, who knows he might have been trying to follow in the footsteps of previous OFC member Charlie Dempsey.


----------



## TheoG

Will737 said:


> Who wrote this article? What a piece of shit.


It's called a joke. I think it's quite funny, actually


----------



## MysteryMike

TheoG said:


> It's called a joke. I think it's quite funny, actually


It's a brilliant piece and extremely funny, just picturing Phil Thompson saying that makes me chuckle :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike

*England 2018 clear a path to victory in World Cup battle *

There now looks a good chance that England will have at least six supporters in the first round, although the hope of seven seems unlikely.

The six England are depending on to get through the first round are their own Geoff Thompson, the CONCACAF trio of Jack Warner, Chuck Blazer and Rafael Salguero, Turkey's Senes Erzik and Japan's Junji Ogura.

Then the 'clear path to victory' being mapped out would see England pick up two or even three of the eliminated Holland/Belgium backers, expected to be Belgium's Michel D'Hooghe, France's Michel Platini and Chung Mong-joon, of Korea.

The new recruits would be enough to take England past the Russians in the second ballot and into a final shoot-out against Spain. And there are sure to be more defectors from the Russian camp to the English cause, especially with the clear Russian frustration over the Spain-Qatar vote-trading alliance.

On Tuesday night, Oceania's David Chung heard he would not get FIFA clearance to be the 23rd man around the table in FIFA House

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...2018-clear-path-victory-World-Cup-battle.html


----------



## _X_

FIFA v IOC by timezone

The IOC seems far more equitable

World Cup by TIMEZONE since broadcasting began

The 3 scenario's
1954 Europe (Switzerland+1)
1958 Europe(Sweden+1)
1962 Americas (Chile-4)
1966 Europe(England+0)
1970 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 Americas (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 Americas (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 Americas (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England/Spain/Netherlands+1/Russia+3)
2022 Europe(Qatar+3)

11 Europe,6 Americas,1 Asia.


1954 Europe (Switzerland+1)
1958 Europe(Sweden+1)
1962 Americas (Chile-4)
1966 Europe(England+0)
1970 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 Americas (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 Americas (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 Americas (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England/Spain/Netherlands+1/Russia+3)
2022 Americas (UnitedStates-5/-8)

10 Europe,7 Americas,1 Asia,


1954 Europe (Switzerland+1)
1958 Europe(Sweden+1)
1962 Americas (Chile-4)
1966 Europe(England+0)
1970 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1974 Europe (Germany +1)
1978 Americas (Argentina-3)
1982 Europe (Spain+1)
1986 Americas (Mexico-6/-8)
1990 Europe (Italy+1)
1994 Americas (UnitedStates-5/-8)
1998 Europe (France+1)
2002 Asia (SouthKorea+9/Japan+9)
2006 Europe (Germany+1)
2010 Europe (SouthAfrica+2)
2014 Americas (Brazil-2/-4)
2018 Europe (England+0,Spain,Netherlands+1/Russia+3)
2022 Asia (Australia+8/+10,SouthKorea+9,Japan+9)

10 Europe,6 Americas,2 Asia,



Olympics by timezone since broadcasting began


1960-Europe-Rome
1964-Asia-Tokyo
1968-Americas-Mexico City
1972-Europe-Munich
1976-Americas-Montreal
1980-Europe-Moscow
1984-Americas-Los Angeles
1988-Asia-Seoul
1992-Europe-Barcelona
1996-Americas-Atlanta
2000-Asia-Sydney
2004-Europe-Athens
2008-Asia-Beijing
2012-Europe-London
2016-Americas-Rio de Janiero

6 Europe,5 Americas,4 Asia


----------



## fayzeen

after Japan presentation Michel Platini congratulate Japan team on the stage because they show his image twice in the presentation


----------



## Mr.Underground

Presentation votes:

1. QATAR: 10/10: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/newsid=1343821/index.html

2. JAPAN: 8/10: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/newsid=1343823/index.html

3. SOUTH KOREA: 7/10 http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/newsid=1343820/index.html

4. AUSTRALIA: 4/10 http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/newsid=1343803/index.html

5. U.S.A.: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/bidders/live/newsid=1343822/index.html

5 adjectives.

Qatar: Astonishing and magic
Japan: Tecnologic
South Korea: Asiatic
Australia: Funny and young
U.S.A.: Realistic and traditional


----------



## n_pon88

before todays presentation i really didn't give the Japanese bid a second thought, but now i'm really intrigued by the whole Japanese bid. I'm guessing like most people that it was 'to soon' but they actually addressed this concern. so now I'm really routing for japan! before this i wanted Australia to get it


----------



## Mr.Underground

USA presentation was bori, Australian onea was more a touristic presentation, a video to say "Guys, come in Australia", very funny but with 0 info about WC, an empty video.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

My top 5 presentations
Australia: 6/10
Korea: 7/10
Qatar: 8/10
United States: 9/10 (lots of emotion)
Japan: 9/10


----------



## AlekseyVT

Will737 said:


> ^^Well whatever the hell they are then.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef - how can you say that it isn't one of the most beautiful places on earth?


I agree with you. But such a place was given to our world by the nature or by God if you want. The government's challenge is to keep these places in great conditions.

I'm skeptical with respect to the Qatar football bid, but we also can not ignore the progress of the infrastructure in this country. It just speaks of the Qatari nation.


----------



## Big Cat

*It seems Russia is giving up - Putin won't go to the Zurich for the World Cup venue vote!!!*


----------



## AlekseyVT

Big Cat said:


> *It seems Russia is giving up - Putin won't go to the Zurich for the World Cup venue vote!!!*


Listen, the day before yesterday I'm congratulated our opponents and wished good luck to Brits. We all understand it.


----------



## Mr.Underground

AlekseyVT said:


> Listen, the day before yesterday I'm congratulated our opponents and wished good luck to Brits. We all understand it.


Do you show the white flag? hno:

Do you think Russia will lose?


----------



## Big Cat

AlekseyVT said:


> Listen, the day before yesterday I'm congratulated our opponents and wished good luck to Brits. We all understand it.


Do you know the main reasons for the possible defeat?


----------



## Mr.Underground

Big Cat said:


> Do you know the main reasons for the possible defeat?


Distance between venues and too many stadia to build could be the problems for Russia, that is a so fascinating bidder.


----------



## Big Cat

That's the best bidder!


----------



## Mr.Underground

Big Cat said:


> That's the best bidder!


And I agree.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Mr.Underground said:


> Do you show the white flag? hno:
> 
> Do you think Russia will lose?


Yes. Let's imagine that in Euro2012 Russian team will play in one group against England, Spain and Netherlands. Of course, we all (Russian fans) expect to see a serious struggle in the matches. But a week before the start of tournament, we learn that our leaders (Arshavin, Zhirkov or Pavlyuchenko) will not play for the our team. Of course, there will be some theoretical chances to pass group round in this case, but everyone understands that this will unreal.


----------



## Mr.Underground

AlekseyVT said:


> Yes. Let's imagine that in Euro2012 Russian team will play in one group against England, Spain and Netherlands. Of course, we all (Russian fans) expect to see a serious struggle in the matches. But a week before the start of tournament, we learn that our leaders (Arshavin, Zhirkov or Pavlyuchenko) will not play for the our team. Of course, there will be some theoretical chances to pass group round in this case, but everyone understands that this will unreal.


Which is the reason for Putin changed his mind and didn't move to Zurich? He understoo that England is so strong or other reasons?


----------



## CologneOujda

Australia: 4/10 were was football in the presentation?
Qatar: 8/10 
South Korea: 9/10
USA: 7/10
Japan:10/10

I don't know were some here saw emotion in the US Bid. It was like a boring business presentation with too much emphasize on how much money Fifa can make if they choose the US.
Japan was the best imo. They brought some new wind with their ideas. Especially those mega 3D screens and these phones. It would be an awesome world cup for the fans.


----------



## DenilsonUK

*Birmingham Fans Invade Pitch After Cup Win*



SKY News said:


> Birmingham City fans have invaded the pitch and thrown flares at rival Aston Villa supporters following their Carling Cup win.
> 
> Riot police moved in to quell the violence that erupted minutes after Birmingham won 2-1 at its St Andrews stadium.
> 
> The invasion comes just hours before Fifa decide if England is fit to host the 2018 World Cup.
> 
> Sky news sports reporter Chris Skudder, who was at the game, said: "This is not what the 2018 bid team wanted to happen tonight.
> 
> "It's been a very volatile fixture down the years.
> 
> "My understanding is there were concerns from the FA and the 2018 team with this fixture coming so close to the vote in Zurich - it wouldn't be helpful knowing the history of the fixture.
> 
> "What we saw at the end were not the kind of scenes they would have wanted to see in Zurich.
> 
> "While we didn't see violence in the scenes it was not far from that."
> 
> Sky News sports correspondent Ian Dovaston, in Zurich, said: "David Cameron and Prince William, both Villa fans, will be sorely disappointed that those scenes are happening.
> 
> "But I think its one that can be written out as a fairly random incident."


It all looked like handbags but I wonder how this will affect tomorrows decision... :shifty:


----------



## RobH

So rare in this country now but horrible timing. Bloody idiots.


----------



## Hansadyret

Good presentation by USA, they brought some of their best speakers.
The only problem i see with that bid is the huge distances.


----------



## DenilsonUK

The thing with pitch invasions is that it's usually just a handful of idiots who run on first for the shits and giggles but as soon as the young'uns see it they follow suit and run on themselves - making things look _alot_ worse than they actually are. Then as soon as the media get hold of it they're on it straight away claiming fans have been 'rioting'. Or at least that's the case when it has happened in my time following Carlisle Utd when there is pitch invasions nigh on every season.

Obviously I can't condone the throwing of flare(s), though.


----------



## MysteryMike

On a day when rival bidders somberly pleaded to being peace to war-torn regions with a World Cup, Australia went for a vastly different strategy of playfulness and humour in Zurich.

Presenting first of five bidders, Paul Hogan was among a roll-call of Aussies whose fame abroad was harnessed to re-inforce Australia’s nature as friendly hosts.

At the core of the 30-minute presentation was a Phillip Noyce-made film about the adventure of a cartoon kangaroo stealing the World Cup and being chased around the country by a Mad Max character.

Oddly enough, he’d been dispatched personally by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Major iconic Australian imagery was ticked off during the pursuit.

The kangaroo surfed into a Bondi Beach patrolled by Ian Thorpe, swam in the Barrier Reef and Sydney Harbour (yes, swam), ran along with Cathy Freeman on the Great Ocean Road and played with indigenous kids at Uluru.

By the end the pursuing Mad Max character finally caught up with the Roo, and when the mysterious bike rider whipped off his helmet it was Hogan.

He swiftly whipped on a a Crocodile Dundee hat and reclaimed the World Cup..

Absent from the presentation, Prime Minister Gillard apologised to FIFA for the mischievous Kangaroo: "We want the World Cup, but not that way."

It was a stereotypical, colourful and ever-so-slightly cheesy representation of Australia. But that was, apparently, the FFA plan.

First off the mark, Australia’s bid team aimed at firmly claiming the 'fun' end of the scale.

They did that but perhaps at the expense of delivering a compelling reason for any swing voters to tick Australia’s box in voting later tonight.

Speeches were simple and re-delivered key messages but the most convincing words came from Lowy when he moved off script.

Speaking candidly to the FIFA executive committee members by asking them to make a decision based on more than statistics.

"One thing can not be put on paper, it is emotions," Lowy said.

"You can see how emotional I am about the game and you will see how emotional Australia is about the game."

The involvement of supermodel Elle MacPherson was brief and played a little awkward. Her role was to thank Lowy for his contribution to Australian football but unsurprisingly it wasn’t overly convincing. The Body’s bombshell factor was not to be seen either with a demure black dress.

FFA chief executive Ben Buckley made a pointed barb towards rivals Qatar, who will have to air-condition their stadiums due to the 40-plus degree temperatures if they win the 2022 bid.

"All our venues will enjoy a natural climate," Buckley declared.

Governor General Quentin Bryce spoke eloquently about Australia’s commitment to hosting a strong World Cup.

A passable presentation but perhaps lacking in the power of vision and emotion.

IN A WORD: Shrimp-on-the-barbie

SCORE: 7.5

KOREA

This was a very long half hour - worthy but verging on the depressive. Please give us the World Cup or you might end up with World War III was the gist of the many long speeches from current and former politicians - no pressure on FIFA's ExCo then.

The imagery was stark - constant reminders of how Korea has been divided for 65 years and seemingly constantly on the verge of military confrontation. There was little of Seoul's neon brightness in evidence, and the ExCo could have been forgiven for feeling a little worn down by the sheer worthiness of it all.

Even the videos were short and uninspired. Not a winning contribution.

IN A WORD: Grim

SCORE: 5.5

AMERICA

Of all the people, of all the speeches, you'd put your house on Morgan Freeman delivering a perfect pitch to the ExCo - but somehow the Academy Award winner missed out a page and stumbled badly. It was a rare glitch, though, in a smooth and very persuasive half-hour. Any presentation helps from a video from the US President, but the speech of US player Landon Donovan was just as impressive.

The statistics were impressive across the board - participation, TV audiences, attendances. Yet the films made great play of the progress soccer has made in the US since the 1994 World Cup there - the not so subtle message being, imagine what we could do with another one.

And then they introduced the trump card at the end, Bill Clinton - only for the former President to deliver a monotonous and rambling speech that had little to do with America or even football. When an Oscar winner and the most successful political performer of the modern age both get it wrong, the US bid might wonder if it's fated.

IN A WORD: Cut!

SCORE: 7

JAPAN

When an English CEO of Sony got up to talk and spoke about playing rugby at private school, you got the sense Japan’s bid was just a bit off the rails.

But as the boss of a leading technology company, the executive’s role was in keeping with the only real selling point of the Japanese bid: whiz-bang new gadgets.

Japan’s major promise for 2022 is to roll out a new technology that’d allow people around the world to watch games via 3D holographs in their home stadiums.

They’d set down a massive glass screen on Wembley’s field, for example, and watch Princess Leia-like players running around. The fact that if such technology exists by 2022 other nations could deploy it as well was ignored.

So too, largely was the fact Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup. What World Cup?

"Our bid is very, very simple," said the optimistic Japanese bid chief.

He should have said: "Help me Obe-Wan. You’re my only hope".

IN A WORD: Advertising

SCORE: 4

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/aussie-bid-hits-the-right-pitch/story-fn75ie93-1225964293692

and I have a personal score for one bid in particular

Qatar - utter rubbish, a squiggle to show unproven technologies, using another countries national team to promote your football, showed skyscrapers popping up and desert as some of sort of tourist attractions, I saw China's television time being 11.30pm to midnight if broadcast there, fans been squashed into a perfect area for terrorism, I don't think anyone was convinced by that video of the garbage bid that this truly is anything but an extreme risk piece of trash that nobody should touch with a ten foot pole. Try qualifying for a world cup first. 

SCORE: 0


----------



## _X_

:lol:

It was a joke when Qatar showed the broadcast catchment
The absolute majority of matches hit the biggest market at 3am-how is that primetime

Australia-the last piece in the puzzle


----------



## CologneOujda

^^^^ WTF is with this ratings? Japan 4 and Australia 7.5?:lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Hansadyret said:


> Good presentation by USA, they brought some of their best speakers.
> The only problem i see with that bid is the huge distances.


http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2010...-bids-usa-voting-day-favorite-australia-qatar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/01/world-cup-2022-qatar-usa


----------



## Trelawny

So the Kangaroo the Australian Icon ruined their bid. Lol joy. :lol:


----------



## Axelferis

Japan presentation is a shame! :rant:

they present their technology trough sony like they would present the ps5 at E3 !!!


----------



## Axelferis

double post


----------



## MysteryMike

_X_ said:


> :lol:
> 
> It was a joke when Qatar showed the broadcast catchment
> The absolute majority of matches hit the biggest market at 3am-how is that primetime
> 
> Australia-the last piece in the puzzle


Australia is the last continent on the planet that hasn't hosted it, Qatar FAIL for the vote riggers with the extreme risk report. FIFA wants to develop Chinese football not put them to asleep again for another world cup.


----------



## _X_




----------



## MysteryMike

When the United States was awarded the 1994 World Cup the national team hadn't qualified for a World Cup since 1950. In fact, there were rumblings that had the U.S. not qualified for the 1990 World Cup FIFA would have taken the 1994 hosting rights away and given them to another country. There was no professional outdoor soccer league in 1994 and even now some lament the lack of atmosphere at the stadiums during the tournament, despite the seats at all the large stadiums being packed.

FIFA took a chance when they awarded the U.S. the 1994 World Cup and it spurred a growth of the game in the U.S. that led to the creation of Major League Soccer and can be attributed for much of the sports' success now. One thing that the U.S. bid committee has made clear is how successful the 1994 World Cup was in building up the sport in the U.S. and how hosting the 2022 World Cup would take the sport to whole new levels in the country, which is a fair argument. Isn't it just as fair of an argument that other countries should have the opportunity to take the step that the U.S. took in 1994 before the U.S. gets another turn though?

Japan and South Korea's bids have been dismissed by many because the two countries joint-hosted the 2002 World Cup, but how about Qatar? Well they have several problems facing there bid and many have attributed their continued competition in the bidding a farce, but that still leaves Australia.

Like the U.S., Australia has a burgeoning national soccer league. The A-League was created in 2005 and just months later the Australian national team defeated Uruguay in a penalty shootout in front of 82,000+ Aussies to secure their first spot in a World Cup since 1974. With the growth of the game in a country that some have called the most sports mad per capita in the world, taking the World Cup to Australia for the first time ever is an intriguing possibility.

Unlike some other bidders, there is no chance of the World Cup stadiums becoming white elephants following the event thanks to the growth of the sport in Australia and the prominence of rugby and Australian Rules Football that will keep stadiums in use for decades. Australia has also proven to be a fantastic host of mega-events after a stunning 2000 Olympics in Sydney and 2003 Rugby World Cup among other events. Cities like Melbourne and Sydney are recognized around the world and as a modern, first world country, there are few infrastructure or transportation problems.

With a strong bid, from stadiums to infrastructure, and the ability to spread the game to a new country, why shouldn't Australia host the World Cup in 2022? Not only would Australia host the even for the first time, but it would be the first time that the Oceanic region got to host a World Cup, even if for football reasons Australia is considered part of Asia by FIFA. Fresh off of taking the event to Africa in 2010 and returning the event to South America for the first time in decades, the World Cup can go to Australia and Oceania for the first time in 2022, the same way that the U.S. got their first go around in 1994.

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2010...us-2022-world-cup-host-some-make-it-out-to-be


----------



## hngcm

_X_ said:


>


What's wrong with the skin on her left hand? (look at the thumb...)


----------



## Trelawny

It's probably so much make up she put on to hide her ugliness. Even though with the make is a 6/10.


----------



## MysteryMike

*Prince warms to Australian Cup bid*










Prince William has shown his faith in Australia's World Cup bid by saying the nation must be one of the favourites to land the 2022 tournament.

The second in line to the British throne is also the president of the Football Association and has been busy in Zurich this week lobbying for England to host the 2018 edition.

He told Governor General Quentin Bryce in their brief catch-up that Australia had to be a good shot at toppling the likes of the USA, Qatar, South Korea and Japan in Thursday's vote.

http://www.skynews.com.au/sport/article.aspx?id=546579&vId=


----------



## MysteryMike

*Australia would make great host: Olsen *

Former Ajax, Manchester United and Denmark World Cup footballer, Jesper Olsen, has thrown his support behind Australia’s bid to host the World Cup in 2022.

Although Olsen said it was too difficult to predict which nation would win the right to host the 2022 event, he was confident that Australia had made a strong application and would be a worthy winner. “I know Australia would put on a fantastic show and it would be a great place to have the World Cup,” Olsen said.

“If Australia got it I think it would prove to be a historical World Cup because you seem to be great at putting together huge events and it would just be fantastic.”

A member of Denmark's team at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, Olsen identified the United States as Australia's greatest danger when the FIFA announcement for 2022 is made early on Friday morning (AEST) - even though the North American giant hosted the Cup in 1994. Qatar is also rated a strong contender.

“The United States is probably the only country that stands in Australia’s way, but by 2022 Australia will be a major player in world football and that can only help its chances,'' he said.

“There are so many factors that the members of the selection panel will look at including, sponsorship, money, television rights, time zones and global reach.

“But I also believe that when choosing the host nation 12 years in advance you have to look where the growth is, and I believe Asia is that place and Australia is as strong as any other country in that region.”

The Danish left-winger was complimentary of Australia’s bid and suggested that not much else could have been done to improve their chances.

“The Football Federation of Australia has done an excellent job just to get past the application stage and down to the final five. I don’t think they can do much more than what they have done,” he said.

Reflecting on his past seven years in Australia, Olsen said he had watched participation rates in football grow to an all-time high.

“Since I have been here grass roots football has gone from strength to strength and if the Australia bid is successful it will accelerate that development,” he said.

“There are so many kids that are playing at the moment, it is the highest participated sport and these kids will be the ones playing in 2022.

“It’s all about the development of the game in this country in the next 12 years. The infrastructure would change so much if we were successful in our bid, there would be more help towards football as a whole so we could succeed on a major stage.”

The benefits associated with hosting the World Cup would be enormous with supporters from all over the world expected to flock to Australia. South Africa, who hosted the 2010 event, recorded attendances of over three million for the month-long tournament.

“I don’t think you can measure how important it is. It will be the biggest thing that would have ever happened to football in this country,'' Olsen said.

“The infrastructure of the game would change and the spotlight of the world would be turned on Australia. You simply cannot describe how huge it would be for football here.”

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/soccer/3228-olsen-australia-would-make-a-great-host


----------



## _X_

Good stuff


----------



## Bolsilludo

_Source: http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33937_


----------



## MS20

Even though I live in Australia, the bid presentation by the US was outstanding.


----------



## slipperydog

MS20 said:


> Even though I live in Australia, the bid presentation by the US was outstanding.


I didn't think it had the wow factor of some of the others, but it hammered home the main points, backed it up with statistics, and offered a concise, easy-to-understand vision of how the cup could impact both the American and international soccer platforms. Thought it simply did what it was designed to do, which was reiterate the strengths and play up FIFA's role in making it a success.


----------



## MS20

slipperydog said:


> I didn't think it had the wow factor of some of the others, but it hammered home the main points, backed it up with statistics, and offered a concise, easy-to-understand vision of how the cup could impact both the American and international soccer platforms. Thought it simply did what it was designed to do, which was reiterate the strengths and play up FIFA's role in making it a success.


Agreed. That's what really appealed to me, there were no gimmicks. It was a proposal in every sense of the word. Not to mention the presentation was sound and seamless (unlike Australia which I thought fell flat a few times). 

For me anyway, USA 2022 was the most convincing, and made most sense. Whether FIFA officials will agree is another matter.


----------



## _X_




----------



## antriksh_sfo

rsol2000 said:


> Russia 2018
> USA 2022


It will be:
1. England or Russia Close race for 2018
2. USA, followed by Japan


----------



## irving1903

i'm not gonna lie during the US Bid when they showed scenes from the bars across the country this summer i got really emotional. I guess it made me feel like i was apart of the bid. 

weird ? lame ? idk. but i was happy. even if we don't get it, i'm proud of how far we've come since 94


----------



## _X_

irving1903 said:


> i'm not gonna lie during the US Bid when they showed scenes from the bars across the country this summer i got really emotional. I guess it made me feel like i was apart of the bid.
> 
> weird ? lame ? idk. but i was happy. even if we don't get it, i'm proud of how far we've come since 94


And so you should be mate,the game has woken up over there.Sure, a few problems still exist but it looks like everything is heading in the right direction for the sport in the USA.
I wish you guys a little luck,just not too much


----------



## MysteryMike

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3541...23/2227161/who-should-host-the-2022-world-cup


----------



## irving1903

_X_ said:


> I wish you guys a little luck,just not too much


good luck to yall aswell :cheers1:


----------



## Baiba

When Latvia won America, somebody remember?


----------



## Walbanger

This sums up the 2022 Bidding proccess for me.

Qatar =









FIFA =









Korea =









Japan (specifically their 3D tech) =









Meanwhile in 2022...

USA = 




Australia =












and always remember Uruguay =


----------



## antriksh_sfo

*USA* Rocks

Unity in Diversity: Morgan Freeman, Landon, Bill, Sunil depict the Mosaic of a truly diversified Nation with equal opportunity and respect given to every individual irrespective of Race/Religion/Creed.

The Poise of Presentation: Bill through his oratory Skills *"Give us the Honour We'll do our Best"* and Landon's "Journey of a child in realising one's destiny" was put candidly and should be bring the WC back to USA hands down.

Its time for USA to make it happen again and rewrite the records in 2022.
*All the best USA - THE GAME IS IN US.*

Dallas, Houston, LA rock.


----------



## Shumbi

I'll be pleasantly surprised if they don't give 2022 to USA.
USA is the market FIFA has coveted for decades and offers big $$$ and that's what it's about with FIFA (They gave 1986 to Colombia for narco $$).

China want's 2026 and FIFA knows this so they won't want to give it to an Asian country which rules out all but USA. I've already prepared myself for this result.

2018 will go to England.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

irving1903 said:


> i'm not gonna lie during the US Bid when they showed scenes from the bars across the country this summer i got really emotional. I guess it made me feel like i was apart of the bid.
> 
> weird ? lame ? idk. but i was happy. even if we don't get it, i'm proud of how far we've come since 94


You should have seen the offices, forutunately being in the morning hrs, the galley used to be filled with everyone, Hispanics, Asians, Women and everyone rooting for the Star & Stripes, dismay at disallowed goals much akin to the delberate rebuttal in 2002 from entering the SF. Though it was US open time, still guys changed to Soccer telecast on ESPN / ABC on large 60" screens.


----------



## antriksh_sfo

Shumbi said:


> I'll be pleasantly surprised if they don't give 2022 to USA.
> USA is the market FIFA has coveted for decades and offers big $$$ and that's what it's about with FIFA (They gave 1986 to Colombia for narco $$).
> 
> China want's 2026 and FIFA knows this so they won't want to give it to an Asian country which rules out all but USA. I've already prepared myself for this result.
> 
> 2018 will go to England.


Last yr's friendlies at Dallas Cowboys stadium were sold out as hot cakes. Unfortunatley could not get the tickets though my friend got 2 only and went with his aunt and they paid big time for that.


----------



## Lord David

Did South Korea really plead for the WC based on a possible World War III or another Korean War?

That's just absurd, if anything, this should have played out like Seoul's 1988 Olympics bid where Pyongyang wanted to co-host. In this case it would be North Korea wanting to co-host some matches in a joint bid (which of course never happened, however I wouldn't be surprised if NK wanted to co-host AFTER South Korea wins the right to host the 2022 WC, assuming of course they do).

The eventual fallout would be NK simply boycotting the 2022 WC and staging it's own event as a distraction. But then again, another Korean War could happen well before then and the eventual fate of NK decided once and for all.


----------



## MysteryMike

8 hours and 56 minutes to go, till decision time :banana: 

Come on England, Come on Australia!!!


----------



## Andaluc

Go Iberia!! Vamos Iberia!!

some small things.....without importance

We are the *World Champions*

We are the *European Champions *(like a World Cup without Brasil and Argentina)

We have the biggest stadium in Europe (Nou Camp)

We have the football temples

We have the most popular clubs in Europe. Real Madrid and Barça. 

1. *FC Barcelona *– 57,8 (mll supp)
2. *Real Madrid *– 31,3
3. Man. United – 30,6
4. Chelsea – 21,4
5. Bayern Munich – 20,

most successful club in the world. 9 Champions League. Real Madrid

Most successful club in this decade. Barcelona.

Tourist in Spain (52 mill in 2009, 57 mill in 2009)

World Cup Spain 1982, Barcelona 1992, Portugal 2004..etc...


----------



## AlekseyVT

Well, finally I can relax and watch presentations without any unnecessary exciting emotions.


----------



## parcdesprinces

@Andaluc: 
You forgot your greatest achievement: European unemployment rate champions !


----------



## nomarandlee

Lord David said:


> Did South Korea really plead for the WC based on a possible World War III or another Korean War?
> 
> That's just absurd, if anything, this should have played out like Seoul's 1988 Olympics bid where Pyongyang wanted to co-host. In this case it would be North Korea wanting to co-host some matches in a joint bid (which of course never happened, however I wouldn't be surprised if NK wanted to co-host AFTER South Korea wins the right to host the 2022 WC, assuming of course they do).
> 
> The eventual fallout would be NK simply boycotting the 2022 WC and staging it's own event as a distraction. But then again, another Korean War could happen well before then and the eventual fate of NK decided once and for all.


Agreed. I feel such appeals are shamelessly manipulative and shallow that we have seen in other IOC/FIFA presentations in matters that nations should be be more then willing to do for a higher principle then winning a tournament. Political liberalization (2008 China), averting war (South Korea), or bringing "West-Islamic world together" (Qatar, Istanbul) are issues that people from those nations should want from themselves and not be used as emotional blackmail on outsiders.


----------



## Andaluc

parcdesprinces said:


> @Andaluc:
> You forgot your greatest achievement: European unemployment rate champions !


Envy? hno:


----------



## _X_

Andaluc said:


> Envy? hno:


Gotta be happy with the Portugese economy:banana:


----------



## MysteryMike

nomarandlee said:


> Agreed. I feel such appeals are shamelessly manipulative and shallow that we have seen in other IOC/FIFA presentations in matters that nations should be be more then willing to do for a higher principle then winning a tournament. Political liberalization (2008 China), averting war (South Korea), or bringing "West-Islamic world together" (Qatar, Istanbul) are issues that people from those nations should want from themselves and not be used as emotional blackmail on outsiders.


South Korea used the same lines in 2002 and FIFA actually gave them 2 games to take over to North Korea. I don't believe they've heard back even now except via missile. Qatar's bid is a total sham. Not only is their bid the worst of all time, with so many technical flaws that myself making a Boeing 747 would have less issues to deal with but their whole story is just embarrassing.


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> Now he's sucking up to FIFA, saying their clean "despite what others may say" - what a jerk - and now a video, erm, half an hour guys!!!


Flattery will get you everywhere!

The Iberian bid president spent his entire speech flattering FIFA and its work in general and then the ExCo members in particular. This is a man who knows and understands FIFA perfectly. He knows what he's doing. He knows how well his words will play. Very, very clever. Because, sadly, I suspect that an appeal to the ExCo members' vanity and a forceful defence of their integrity will hold more sway than a well presented bid ever could.

Also very clever that he praised all the other bids before pointedly alluding to the Sunday Times / Panorama allegations - clearly an attempt to damage the England bid while appearing to praise it.

Overall, a much more professional bid than the BeNe bid. Unlike the BeNe bid, they stuck to the point and communicated the key strengths of the bid.

A bit dry, though. Not much of an appeal to the heart.


----------



## RobH

Here we go!


----------



## Aka

You know one day you'll be singing "God save the King" for this guy, right?


----------



## Steel City Suburb

c'mon!


----------



## eomer

According to BFMTV, Eurosport and France Info: 
- England seems now ahead (again ?) for 2018: Russia's bid seems too weak about transportation and hotels and FIFA doesn't want combined bids any longer.
- USA should get 2022 because FIFA expect a Chinease bid for 2026...and because Blatter still pretend that 2018 should have been hosted in CONCACAF. 
- After 2018, FIFA WC won't come back to Europe before 2034: it's generally admited that the 100 years WC in 2030 will took place in Uruguay and Argentina. So, if England wants to host WC, it's 2018.


----------



## Aka

Torres... Nani...


EDIT: Nani again...


----------



## RobH

This is as good as London 2012's so far. I'm so impressed with this, really happy.


----------



## RobH

BACK OF THE NET!!


----------



## Madman

RobH said:


> Someone unplug this guy!! Jeesh, this is going on and on and on


Aye, that guy (head of Spanish FA?) came off as just desperate and creepy with his whole FIFA delegates are such hard workers and victims of media persecution blah blah blah.....

Despite that its a toss up between Spanish and the English presentations, wonder what Russia's will be like (hopefully much more interesting than their moscow olympic bid presentation)


----------



## T74

query for the wiser minds out there (esp those who haven't been hitting the red tonight like me  )

will the exco delegates know the confirmed 2018 result before they start voting for 2022?

if so, what happens if England gets up? Seems they have a wet sail over the last few days, and by some miracle may be back in the game.

if Spain fails to win, what happens to the Qatari deal?


----------



## MysteryMike

Screw Qatar and Spain/Portugal cheating scum vote riggers. 

Come on England far out David Cameron was good.


----------



## JimB

Quite good by England.

In terms of effectiveness, on a par with Iberia's presentation, I'd say, though I'd have preferred them to be slightly more humble. The presentation occasionally came across as boastful, IMO.

One question:

The promise to spend as much as FIFA on football development around the world..........................isn't that a form of bribery?????


----------



## RobH

I'd say it was far superior to Iberia's presentation. The best I've seen, and that includes yesterday's as well. I'm very, very pleased with that, and so was the presentation hall judging by the reception.


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

MysteryMike said:


> Screw Qatar and Spain/Portugal cheating scum vote riggers.
> 
> Come on England far out David Cameron was good.


Screw YOU hooligan!


----------



## Steel City Suburb

CiudadanoDelMundo said:


> Screw YOU hooligan!


Hooligan!

Thats a bit strong.


----------



## Aka

MysteryMike said:


> Screw Qatar and *Spain/Portugal* cheating scum vote riggers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakULauq788&t=6m0s


----------



## RobH

Calm down girls, Russia's up next...


----------



## Andaluc

Villar (head of Spanish Federation) is the most boring person ... but he is an old fox.


----------



## DenilsonUK

RobH said:


> BACK OF THE NET!!












I thought it was decent and one of the best so far of the two days. If there was one thing I didn't like it was Andy Anson's wry, paedo-like, smile after he'd say something sucking upto FIFA. But hey, if it's got to be done, it's got to be done... :lol:

Fair play to David Cameron as well, I despise the bloke but he came across very well there. It looks so much better with someone standing speaking without any kind of notes to assist them.


----------



## CiudadanoDelMundo

Aka said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DakULauq788&t=6m0s


:shocked:


----------



## Aka

He missed.


----------



## CologneOujda

Russian accent is awesome!


----------



## Andaluc

2018 classical country (England or Spain)

2022 new market (Oz, Qatar, Japan..)


----------



## Aka

"IUFA"?


----------



## neufert

Ok guys, I see what you mean:

If Spain/Portugal wins isn´t fair due to that english media spreaded rumour of vote collusion.
If Russia wins isn´t fair ´cos they don´t have enough infrastructures.
And of course the Netherlands/Belgium bid hasn´t got any chance.

Conclusion: _(ironic mode on)_ The only fair winner is England since London 2012 isn´t enough, heheh 

I almost forget it, in 2022: Australia; in 2026: USA. That would be great! _(ironic mode off)_


----------



## RobH

Whoever wins questions have to be asked about the process and FIFA's transparency, and that includes England.


----------



## Ecological

England nailed that ... 

Just some quotes



> From Paul in Christchurch, via text: "Watching this with a lump in my throat! Come on Fifa, give it to us!"





> With lots of clips of foreign Premier League players throughout, and of foreign fans too, England are clearly trying to press home that their bid is a global affair. That's a wrap - and Fifa president Sepp Blatter thanks the England delegation for an "excellent remarkable presentation".





> "This is a very strong presentation from England.





> "Wow that was passionate from Becks, almost tears in my eyes. Come on England... Come on Fifa!"





> From BBC Brazil's Jair Rattner in Lisbon: "A Portuguese commentator on Channel TV1 is claiming the English presentation is inferior to the Iberian one: "To say the best players are in England should be called blasphemy."





> "Football so proud. We did our best. We should be proud whatever way this goes. But gosh, don't we deserve to win it after that?! Amazing."





> "Spanish media on the English presentation highlights the presence of football stars, in particular David Beckham and Sir Alex Ferguson, calling them the 'heavy artillery'.


----------



## Aka

Andrei was such a beautiful kid.


----------



## infolex

I'm cheering for NL/BE. Or should I say I'm against russian and english bid since they don't deserve to host wc in 2018/22? Having both, Olympic games & wc in such a short period of time is in my opinion stupid/unfair. 

That's why: *GOGO NL/BE*


----------



## railcity

"Russia with its amusing culture...." :lol:


----------



## antigoon99

go Holland/Belgium bid!!!

:dance:


----------



## nomarandlee

Anyone got a live link?


----------



## Aka

nomarandlee said:


> Anyone got a live link?


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


----------



## RobH

A solid second to England's superb presentation so far. Nice videos, well thought-out speeches, some very nice CGI, but not as slick as England's and the narrative not quite as strong (which is surprising).

I think Russia might have done enough to pull this off.


----------



## Andaluc

From BBC Brazil's Jair Rattner in Lisbon: "A Portuguese commentator on Channel TV1 is claiming the English presentation is inferior to the Iberian one: "To say the best players are in England should be called blasphemy"


The best and mediatic players are in Spanish Liga Xavi, Messi, C Ronaldo, Casillas, Iniesta, Forlan, Beckham ...and was in Liga Zidane, Maradona, Di Stefano, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, J Cruyff, ...


----------



## RobH

nomarandlee said:


> Anyone got a live link?


There's only about 2 mins of it left. Bad timing. :lol:


----------



## CologneOujda

RobH said:


> A solid second to England's superb presentation so far. Nice videos, well thought-out speeches, some very nice CGI, but not as slick as England's and the narrative not quite as strong (which is surprising).
> 
> I think Russia might have done enough to pull this off.


I think the slickness has to do with the language barrier. If everyone could have talked in his own language they would be good aswell.


----------



## nomarandlee

RobH said:


> There's only about 2 mins of it left. Bad timing. :lol:


Oh. :bash:

What about for the actual announcement?


----------



## Aka

nomarandlee said:


> Oh. :bash:
> 
> What about for the actual announcement?


16 CET


----------



## RobH

3pm, so just over three hours away


----------



## RobH

England 10/10 - better than I thought it would be, much better.

Russia 9/10 - solid, very well done indeed, but never quite reached the levels England's did.

Spain/Portugal 7/10 - One very good video, and a rambling sychophantic speech.

Holland/Belgium - didn't see it.


----------



## kidrobot

Noone cares about your marks, RobH. The members of the commitee know better.


----------



## RobH

kidrobot said:


> Noone cares about your marks, RobH. The members of the commitee know better.


Then don't read them you


----------



## JimB

Excellent presentation by Russia.................

...........until the Deputy Prime Minister started to speak. He was awful.

Otherwise, very impressive. A powerful message, well delivered. And a good idea that they made the effort to speak in English. Being able to understand the speaker as he / she speaks has greater impact, I think, then when listening, second hand, to a translator.


----------



## Hansadyret

Must be such a difficult decision for FIFA this, all the European bids are strong.


----------



## Will737

FUCKING NERVOUS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK UP THE RESULT WHEN I WAKE UP! I am fairly certain Australia won't win. I just don't want it to go to a country that has already hosted it before or Qatar which only leaves...Australia. Why doesn't FIFA give a new country a go? Everything would be much better and interesting if countries that have already hosted (e.g for 50 years) couldn't bid when there is a nation that has never hosted bidding


----------



## Ecological

I tell you something. I wish FIFA would read this thread. The general Russian public need a reality check. They need to staple their nose to their forehead. All angst on these forums are from them.


----------



## JimB

neufert said:


> Ok guys, I see what you mean:
> 
> If Spain/Portugal wins isn´t fair due to that english media spreaded rumour of vote collusion.
> If Russia wins isn´t fair ´cos they don´t have enough infrastructures.
> And of course the Netherlands/Belgium bid hasn´t got any chance.
> 
> Conclusion: _(ironic mode on)_ The only fair winner is England since London 2012 isn´t enough, heheh
> 
> I almost forget it, in 2022: Australia; in 2026: USA. That would be great! _(ironic mode off)_


Was that supposed to be funny or clever? You do appreciate that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?

More to the point, what provoked such a post?

Had it escaped your notice that the majority English posters on this board have been complimentary of the other bids? The only European bid which, IMO, does not deserve to win is Iberia. And that's not because there's anything wrong with the technical aspects of the bid. In many respects, it's an outstanding bid.

However, as previously stated, the two main weaknesses are that:

1. Spain already hosted a World Cup relatively recently. It's not Spain's turn.

2. If there must be joint bidders, they should both be countries that could not otherwise host the World Cup alone. And the bid should be on the basis of an equal partnership. Clearly, in the Iberian bid, Portugal is a very junior partner which will only provide two cities and three stadiums.


----------



## timmy- brissy

Andaluc said:


> From BBC Brazil's Jair Rattner in Lisbon: "A Portuguese commentator on Channel TV1 is claiming the English presentation is inferior to the Iberian one: "To say the best players are in England should be called blasphemy"
> 
> 
> The best and mediatic players are in Spanish Liga Xavi, Messi, C Ronaldo, Casillas, Iniesta, Forlan, Beckham ...and was in Liga Zidane, Maradona, Di Stefano, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, J Cruyff, ...


And that's great but you didn't showcase that at all, you should of been better prepared next time.


----------



## timmy- brissy

kidrobot said:


> Noone cares about your marks, RobH. The members of the commitee know better.


Sheesh chill yourself out, it's only a opinion ffs.


----------



## Jonesy55

Decision day for 2018, obviously I would love to see it in my country but I'd also be very interested in a Russian world cup, they would be my next favourite.


----------



## RobH

Thank you Tim, it was my opinion on the presentations and the presentations alone; I didn't claim it was anything other than that. Perhaps kidrobot would actually like to contribute to the thread?


----------



## RobH

So, genuine guesses please, who do you *think* will win?

I reckon:

2018 Russia.
2022 After the presentations, probably USA.


----------



## kidrobot

I'm contributing to the thread by NOT posting my stupid marks.
Writing 


> Russia 10/10 - better than I thought it would be, much better.
> England 9/10 - solid, very well done indeed, but never quite reached the levels Russia's did.


doesn't really contribute to the thread.


----------



## Madman

2018: Russia
2022: Australia - though their tongue-in-cheek presentation might not be as persuasive as the US's


----------



## _X_

Only saw the final 2
Englands was outstanding-as good or better than Qatars-except you know that it was realistic and worthy
Russia was fantastic until the final speaker who struggled not only with the language(understandably) but in much the same manner as Clinton yesterday-rambled off track
England-9.5
Russia-8


----------



## Ecological

You're fucking petty moaning doesn't. Piss off if you've got nothing to say.


----------



## JimB

kidrobot said:


> I'm contributing to the thread by NOT posting my stupid marks.
> Writing
> 
> doesn't really contribute to the thread.


It contributes opinion...........which, if you hadn't already realised, is one of the primary roles of forums such as this.


----------



## timmy- brissy

To be honest i don't care who wins. If England wins great the Home of Football has finally got the justice and got the WC. If Russia wins great, i'm sure they'll host a special World Cup and invest a lot of money. Either way i'm not bothered so good luck to England and Russia .


----------



## Ecological

Lets face it. Bids and Presentation (AKA the only things that matter)

England wins both hands down.

The only stumbling block is growth into a new market and FIFA's delegation wanting to punish the nation for the Media ousting them which to me would be mightly unfair.


----------



## RobH

*BBC sports news correspondent James Pearce on Twitter:* "If Fifa stick to their word and keep the numbers for each round of voting secret then this process will be less transparent than ever. In the past Fifa have released the voting numbers for each round."


----------



## JimB

Mo Rush said:


> Apparently not.


Yeah.....I just read what Rob posted.

But it's still possible that the info will be leaked into the public domain, I would have thought.


----------



## railcity

Mike____ said:


> this fifa stuff is so boring :/


So boring that we have already 460 pages...


----------



## AlekseyVT

_X_ said:


> Russia was fantastic until the final speaker who struggled not only with the language(understandably) but in much the same manner as Clinton yesterday-rambled off track.





JimB said:


> Totally agreed.
> 
> A great pity because Russia's was otherwise the most compelling of the presentations, IMO (am I allowed to say that, kidrobot? Did it contribute anything to the thread?  ).


Unfourtunately, I can not watch TV at the workplace. But if was really so, then it only proves that Mr. Putin on his place would have looked much stronger. hno:


----------



## _X_

AlekseyVT said:


> Unfourtunately, I can not watch TV at the workplace. But if was really so, then it only proves that Mr. Putin on his place would have looked much stronger. hno:


Absolutely agree.Apparently it was he who nearly single-handedly got Sochi


----------



## WFInsider

*Go Russia 2018 !*

Best presentation! Best choice! For FIFA! For World Football!


----------



## stevensp

im quite nervous
I really happy belgium-netherlands will win.. 
it would be nice.. everything close to eachother.. a great WC for sure...
maybe not the most fancy one.. but a great atmosphere for sure.. in the whole 2 countries entirely, not only around the stadiums...


----------



## Ecological

I tell you something ... If Spain win this i'll be gobsmacked. Their press are reporting they have 9 votes in the bag already ... 

That leaves just 13 to fight for between the other 3 ...
:nuts:


----------



## _X_

Ecological said:


> I tell you something ... If Spain win this i'll be gobsmacked. Their press are reporting they have 9 votes in the bag already ...
> 
> That leaves just 13 to fight for between the other 3 ...
> :nuts:


They have 8.Their problem is that thats about as good as it gets.The anti Qatar-Spain sentiment is very strong
The advantage of having so many votes early is the ability to orchestrate the early departure of a dangerous opponent.
The final two for '18 will be Spain and-England/Russia
It can't be England and Russia in the final two
Same in '22,Qatar will make the final two---but its highly unlikely they will win


----------



## Ecological

*BBC Sport:* We haven't had much in the way of info from Zurich since the presentations ended - blame Fifa's secret ballot for that. But, with just over an hour to go until the winners are announced, here's some breaking news - and it is quite encouraging too. BBC Sport's editor David Bond says a Fifa executive committee member has told him that England's presentation has made a "big difference". How big? We will have to wait and see...


----------



## RobH

I'm not getting my hopes up


----------



## Schmeek

Forget 'how big' - I'm more concerned whether it's a positive or a negative difference..

The BBC should stay waaaay cear of Zurich as well!


----------



## RobH

It's not going to be a negative difference. It was an astounding presentation. Either it's made a positive difference or it's made none at all, I'm quite confident of that. But as I said, not getting my hopes up.


----------



## ross_the_man

Question: Who would actually be willing to travel to Qatar for the world cup? There is supposed to be a party atmosphere during the world cup, but the only place you're allowed to celebrate in is a hotel room? How stupidly lame. Sorry Blatter, but you're a piece of shit if 2018 goes to Russia and 2022 goes to Qatar.


----------



## Schmeek

Well the story I heard on the news breaking at lunch time was that a comittee member was overheard saying 'this changes everything', not that it made a 'big difference'. These may be two seperate stories/incidents. Anyway, I'm with you actually, how anyone can percieve a negative from our presentation I don't know. But I'm well aware I watched it with my 'England' goggles on, and I get the impression the people we are dealing with here are slightly....unpredictable.


----------



## gezza

ross_the_man said:


> Question: Who would actually be willing to travel to Qatar for the world cup? There is supposed to be a party atmosphere during the world cup, but the only place you're allowed to celebrate in is a hotel room? How stupidly lame. Sorry Blatter, but you're a piece of shit if 2018 goes to Russia and 2022 goes to Qatar.


For me, I am at the stage of just wanting anyone but the Doha bid.


----------



## Ecological

According to Talksport. We have Japan's vote as we stuck by their side for trying to oust Blatter a few years back.


----------



## Schmeek

Also, forgot to mention earlier - really irritated by the fake 'goal' celebrations in our vid. Why do they always do that? You could just imagine the director going "Action!" then all the actors just put their arms up and go 'yeah!!!'. I hate it. I never celebrate a goal like that if it is my team. And neither does any other proper fan I know. Why the temptation to make this appear more civilised? Football is about passion, and there is no other moment I know that arises on this planet (haven't won the lottery yet) where I can lose myself like I do celebrating a goal.


----------



## Ecological

It should also be noted the England bid team made sure the only city they didn't mention in their bid was Birmingham after last nights violence.


----------



## Andaluc

In spanish news

9 votes for Iberia

España y Portugal contarían con (1)Texeira, de Brasil, (2)Mohamed Hammam (Qatar), (3)Senes Erzik (Turquía), (4)Julio Grondona (Argentina), (5)Jacque Anouma (Costa de Marfil), (6)Hayatou (Camerún), (7)Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay), (8)Hany Abo Rida (Egipto) y (9) Villar (España)


----------



## -Corey-

OMG i hope the US win


----------



## gezza

amrja said:


> Go to hell you ignorant idiot. A bit sore because things aren't going well are we?


Have they not aired terrorist rants on their network?? Knob head.


----------



## romano89

ok, it's starting...


----------



## Motorways

Several twits unofficially reporting Russia as the winner...


----------



## amrja

gezza said:


> Have they not aired terrorist rants on their network?? Knob head.


They're fucking journalists, if it gets sent in to them its their job to air it. Are every news organisation out there who have carried that video as well terrorists? Prick.


----------



## timmy- brissy

Qatar would be awful, US and Oz for 2022.


----------



## alterego0113

gezza said:


> Roman Ab.. seen laughing in the hallway.


Yeah, also Cameron has been seen breathing. Wonder what that means ? :lol:


----------



## Aka

It's confirmed:

Russia and Qatar.


----------



## fayzeen

Russia 2018
Qatar 2022


----------



## -Corey-

It's starting!


----------



## jonnyboy

bbc say england not one it!


----------



## gezza

amrja said:


> They're fucking journalists, if it gets sent in to them its their job to air it. Are every news organisation out there who have carried that video as well terrorists? Prick.


Oh so all networks are allowed to air content that incites violence and hatred are they. You are a complete ****.


----------



## dacrio

england eliminated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aaaaaaaaahahha


----------



## Mr. Fitz

It's not confirmed fucking idiots


----------



## romano89

c'mon england and australia!!


----------



## dacrio

Mr. Fitz said:


> It's not confirmed fucking idiots


go to bbc or skysport
it's official


----------



## Injeanious

Mr. Fitz said:


> It's not confirmed fucking idiots


BBC source is Gary Linekar.


----------



## soup or man

Ok it's actually starting..

2018 goes to....

......

Talk talk talk....onward with the results!


----------



## GulfArabia

O.O


----------



## -Corey-

:S OMG


----------



## ranlada

Russia 2018 :banana: :banana:


----------



## Fern

Injeanious said:


> Skybet odds have dropped both Russia and Spain down to a long 11/1 (and Holland 66/1)
> 
> Read into that what you will!


English sources as reliable and unbiased as always...
Congrats to Russia


----------



## hamasaki

Russia and Japan

I hope it


----------



## Fab87

*THIS SUCKS!*


----------



## romano89

i'm really sorry for england...they litteraly stole the world cup off it hno:


----------



## AlekseyVT




----------



## Richo83

Russia is a continent now? Screw fifa.


----------



## timmy- brissy

AlekseyVT said:


>


Alright you won congratulations but be a bit more gracious in victory because you're coming across as a ****.


----------



## Fab87

GulfArabia said:


> eastern europe's first
> 
> time for the arab world's first


the moon will follow next? i am about to throw up


----------



## crazyalex

^^Communism, Mafia,

WTF ami reading


----------



## gezza

romano89 said:


> i'm really sorry for england...they litteraly stole the world cup off it hno:


Gutted for England - FIFA is corrupt to the core.


----------



## dacrio

qatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahha


----------



## GulfArabia

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR


----------



## AJIekc

QATAR


----------



## hamasaki

Qatar......


----------



## Aka

2202 (two twenty two :nuts to Qatar!


----------



## Cafetëro

Now australia for 2022!!! please!!!


----------



## Fern

T74 said:


> sorry Spain and Portugal, have to collude with more voters next time


How can people believe in such ridiculous rumours??


----------



## Bolsilludo

*Qatar won the host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup!!!
Congratulations!!!*










*Meanwhile in Australia...*


----------



## Benn

Qatar, now there is a shocker.


----------



## SVN2007

CATAR !!!


----------



## nomarandlee

FIFA is a joke.

It's a official!!!!!! :banana:


----------



## Walbanger

Bitterly disappointed, gutted...


----------



## Askario

Russia 2018!


----------



## -Corey-

Corruption!


----------



## GulfArabia

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR

QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR QATAAAAR


----------



## AlekseyVT

PaulFCB said:


> Communism, Mafia, Bribe, SEPP BLATTER: Power.
> I'm sorry but when it comes to Russia, I can never trust a country with such a communist past.


We will be happy if such Brits as you don't come in our country!


----------



## skytrax

And for 2022, the winner is: Qatar


----------



## DIF1891

World Cup - RIP

Murdered by corrupt FIFA


----------



## T74

Sorry USA, you really did a great bid

I'm proud of our bid team, we came a long way in 18 months

12 years for the worst world cup ever


----------



## swifty78

If only Australia had "OIL MONEY"


----------



## RahalInter

Wort ever desicion, dumbasses fcking fucktards, die in hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## zdaddy233

Very poor, shortsighted decision.


----------



## PaulFCB

I don't know why, but I have a feeling Qatar won't get to host it and Russia will find a way to host 2 World Cup's :lol:


----------



## kichigai

Congratulations to the city of Doha on winning the 2022 world cup


----------



## Richo83

Two absolutely shocking decisions.


----------



## AlekseyVT

Richo83 said:


> Russia is a continent now? Screw fifa.


Yes. It's a biggest that any continent!


----------



## Big Cat

HOLLY SHIT - Qatar  :lol:


----------



## n_pon88

FIFA IS SOOOOO CORRUPT! SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE


----------



## CorliCorso

Wow. FIFA don't even hide it.


----------



## SeñorGuillermo

FIFA WORLD CUP 2014 BRASIL
FIFA WORLD CUP 2018 RUSSIA
FICA WORLD CUP 2022 QUATAR


----------



## Big Cat

But RUSSIA is very OK!


----------



## Cafetëro

Qatar???? WTF football is not anymore what it should be....


----------



## amrja

QQQQAAAAAATTTTAAARRRRR!!!!

:banana::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## aaronaugi1

This won't go away for a while. FIFA has made a joke of themselves.


----------



## SeñorGuillermo

Congratulations to Russia and Qatar.


----------



## gezza

PaulFCB said:


> I don't know why, but I have a feeling Qatar won't get to host it and Russia will find a way to host 2 World Cup's :lol:


The most CORRUPT organisation on earth. I hope they burn for this. This could well be the darkest day in the history of sport. Fck FIFA heads must roll.


----------



## TheoG

Well this just confirms everything we've ever speculated about FIFA, England not getting past the first round and Qatar winning. You've got to be f*cking joking


----------



## coth

-Corey- said:


> Corruption!


Just face it. Those were two best bids. Want you it or not britain, australia, spain and usa had no chances to beat them (by bid quality and visions offered by them, real vision that will come truth).


----------



## -Corey-

I cant believe Qatar has won. WTF omg, this is called corruption! they were the worst bid!


----------



## PaulFCB

In 11 1/2 years a lot can happen, I still think we won't see Qatar host any World Cup .


----------



## MoreOrLess

Sweet jesus I didnt think FIFA would have the balls to go for the qatar bid, pretty much kills any credibility this process had stone dead.


----------



## crazyalex

Qatar won hno:

oh lol Qatarson333 already got banned


----------



## eomer

Benn said:


> Qatar, now there is a shocker.


I can understand Russia 2018 instead of England but Qatar 2022 is absolutly crazy and ridiculous. The gas and the oil...no need to have a good bid with tradition, venues, fans, good players in your championship, hotels, transportation systems...


----------



## DimitriB

FIFA is only intrested in DOLLARS !!!! So result : 2022 Qatar !
The bid for 2018 would always going between Russia and England. England was my favourite, but Russia can make it work !


----------



## RobH

aaronaugi1 said:


> This won't go away for a while. FIFA has made a joke of themselves.


There's been enough wrong with this vote for FIFA to find itself in a very uncomfortable position whoever won.


----------



## Fab87

*THANK GOD THE WORLD WILL FINISH IN 2012...**** OFF*


----------



## URSUS

Qatar??!?! Sorry but thats just rediculous... If the world cup is to come to the middle east it should be in a real country. A UAE - Bahrain - Qatar joint bid would have been good. Qatar is a small CITY (DOHA) and nothing else. Lets have the next world cup in Singapore then...


----------



## soup or man

Well I'll be damned....


----------



## WFInsider

Russia is a best choice in 2018!

It was supposed to be there. The only country in Europe remained, and can host WC alone - Russia!

As for Qatar, really a shocking decision. Australia was my choice. But still, CONGRATULATIONS!


----------



## coth

-Corey- said:


> Im glad Russia won, but I mean Qatar?? The best bid? Better than the US or AUstralia?? That's bs.... I don't want to offend anyone, but there was corruption with the decision.


It is. Qatar has more free money to make best games than anyone else. Even Russia won't offer what Qatar is able to do.


----------



## Ecological

gezza said:


> Breakaway organisation now please. Time for FIFA scum to go.


Couldn't agree more.

How can the approve Englands bid better then all, give it 100% in 5 over riding factors and then also profitablity and then say their presentation was the best to knock it out in the first FUCKING ROUND.

this is a piss take.


----------



## RobH

FIFA needs a complete clean up, we already knew this. Russia is an understandable decision, I'm bemused by Qatar, but I suppose best of luck to them.


----------



## ESMAwar

ranlada said:


> Russia -> :banana:
> Qatar -> :hilarious


Come on people. 
12 years is a soooo long time to improve all the soccer in Qatar.

Congratulations to Russia and Qatar!


----------



## Kngkyle

Guess the silver lining here for the US is that if for some reason Qatar isn't able to do it then the US can easily host last minute since all of our stadiums are built.


----------



## soup or man

I have zero problems with Russia hosting. But Qatar is roughly the size of the city of Los Angeles. And while I am FOR countries that have never hosted an event on this scale, Qatar is a huge risk. The heat being the main problem. I know a lot can happen from now and 2022 but Qatar is a mammoth risk.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

World Football needs a new Governing body. Not this FIFA bs.


----------



## gezza

DenilsonUK said:


> Well done, Russia. I'm sure you'll host a brilliant World Cup. :applause:
> 
> As for Qatar... :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> The amount of money passed from Qatarian (?) hands to FIFA's must be unreal. An absolute joke a decision. The 'big' nations need to group together and sort something out, FIFA is corrupt to it's core.


Too right mate - the FA should be making some phone calls right now. First calls to the US and Aus I'd say.


----------



## timmy- brissy

coth said:


> Just face it. Those were two best bids. Want you it or not britain, australia, spain and usa had no chances to beat them (by bid quality and visions offered by them, real vision that will come truth).


Bullshit! England had the best bid, i didn't even want them due to cuts in the country but they had the best bid. I'm not so angry for Russia congrats on your win i'm sure you'll do well. However Qatar is a disgrace of the highest order at least Russia actually has good teams and players and stadia but Qatar it has less then 2m people and who wants to walk around 45c? Awful..


----------



## invincible

CologneOujda said:


> Well Qatar is the best choice for european football fans because of the time difference.
> I think most of the people here don't want to watch football at 4 in the morning.


Meh, we've been doing that in this part of the world for every major event. You'll all survive. The 2006 tournament was in the middle of my university exams and 2010 I had a 9-5 job.

Anyway, good on Russia but Qatar is just a big WTF for me. USA I would have been happy with (good excuse to do some travel then) and Australia of course but this decision for 2022 is just terrible.


----------



## Scba

I'm not even saying this as an arrogant American, but I can totally see Qatar having to back out at some point if all of their stuff doesn't get built quickly and solidly. It could still default to here.


----------



## Motorways

So now World cups are giving to medium sized cities as Doha?

Great, i want next world cup to be giving to N.Y. oh wait, maybe it´s too large, better to Kobe, Kaohsiung, Barquisimeto, Guigang, Vadodara, Tijuana or to Belem. All with a larger population than the whole Qatar.


----------



## Livno80101

This is killing of football/soccer. Huge embarrassment for real football fans. All stadiums will be built in 10 miles circle. Eslewhere, thouse would be placed or in Saudi Arabia or in sea.

Embarrassing. And I am shocked that I wont see WC matches in USA. Really shocked. 

Money. hno:

And for Russia - normal. Huge soccer expanding nation, great league, better and better infrastructure. That's nice.


----------



## mj12

Finally !! Qatar won i can't beblieve :nuts: ... by the way i love australia


----------



## MarcoSousa

In what world were you living in the last few years???

FIFA=$$$$


----------



## MoreOrLess

Fooby said:


> I have to say congratulations to Russia even though I am very disappointed that England lost, Russia had a very good and worthy bid. (even if it does mean building white elephants)
> 
> The Qatar decision makes me physically angry at the corruption and incompetence within FIFA. Only a organisation blinded by oil money could think that the world cup could be hosted well by a tiny country of less than 2m with one city and summer temperatures over 50c. The campaign for the reformation or replacement of FIFA starts here.


The Russians bid certainly had the merit to deserve hosting but the Qatar decision pretty much throws the credibility of the whole process down the toilet.

I'm actually glad in a way since this makes public what everyone always suspected was true in private.


----------



## CharlieP

PaulFCB said:


> Or Vaduz/Liechtenstein 2026 FTW! :lol: :cheers:


European countries can't bid for 2026 under the new rotation policy (and Asian countries can't bid for 2026 or 2030).

Panama 2026
Luxembourg 2030

:lol:


----------



## No1

haha
how this is good
I congratulate the mother Russia


----------



## gezza

MoreOrLess said:


> The Russians bid certainly had the merit to deserve hosting but the Qatar decision pretty much throws the credibility of the whole process down the toilet.
> 
> I'm actually glad in a way since this makes public what everyone always suspected was true in private.


Lets hope this is the straw that breaks the camels back. Enough is enough, FIFA must go.


----------



## No1

CharlieP said:


> European countries can't bid for 2026 under the new rotation policy (and Asian countries can't bid for 2026 or 2030).
> 
> :lol:


lol or not 
England have to realize where england place is in the world
хаха
I can not stop laughing


----------



## GulfArabia

you don't know Qatar, hopfully u will change your mind when u see it


----------



## soup or man

So which one of you did this?

From wikipedia.



> It was announced on the 2nd December 2010 by FIFA, that Qatar will not host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. .
> 
> It is generally believed that a desert is a great place for a World Cup during the Summer....
> 
> Who the **** is Qatar?


----------



## SASH

It's a disgrace that of all great football nations, the Netherlands is the only one who never hosted a Worldcup! uke:


----------



## AlekseyVT

AlekseyVT said:


> *I THANK EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED OUR BID!!!!!
> 
> WE'RE WAITING YOU IN RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


^^^^^^

Without army of British and American trolles, of course!


----------



## Bolsilludo

2014 Brazil
2018 Russia
2022 Qatar
2026 USA
2030 Uruguay & Argentina


----------



## Fooby

SASH SCF said:


> It's a disgrace that of all great football nations, the Netherlands is the only one who never hosted a Worldcup! uke:


The Netherlands is notoriously transparent and incorruptible, so they never had a chance.


----------



## AlekseyVT

*MOD, OUR BID WON! MAY BE, YOU FINALLY OPEN RUSSIAN THREAD!!!!!*


----------



## Ecological

Put it into perspective.

England who take 100,000's of thousands of fans abroad, who have the biggest league in the world, who have introduced kick racism out of the game, introduced all seater stadiums and superior security then any other nation, who've continually funded these fucking cheats and we still dont get it. 

What more is there to do then withdraw all funding and breakaway from FIFA with Australasia and Asian Countries. Most of Africa will then follow then we will see where these mugs are. 

Qatar haven't even played in a world cup. Why should there people ever get to see a world cup ahead of 60 million Football loving English fans.

ITS A FUCKING DISGRACE.


----------



## MoreOrLess

gezza said:


> Lets hope this is the straw that breaks the camels back. Enough is enough, FIFA must go.


Sadly I think thats what needs to happen, a massive withdrawl from FIFA by the major nations and the establishment of a new organisation.


----------



## TataMuminka

You know, it's none of my business but why would a country with a population of 1.5 million build 12 stadiums able to serve over 600 thousand people is beyond me.


----------



## CorliCorso

To be honest, I can't blame the FIFA delegates for voting the way they did. No-one wants to be force-fed crude oil or polonium 210, after all.


----------



## slipperydog

I'll still watch on TV, but there's NFW I'm shelling out cash to attend that one. I feel sorry for the players, it will be like being sent to hell for a month.


----------



## Motorways

AlekseyVT said:


> *I THANK EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED OUR BID!!!!!
> 
> WE'RE WAITING YOU IN RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


it will be our pleasure to visit your beautiful country while you host the best WC ever! 

congrats from Spain! :banana::cheers::banana:


----------



## JimB

crazyalex said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha,arrogant English pricks !! Well done Birmingham City!!!


You accuse us of arrogance. Yet you seem to ignore the fact that the vast majority of English people on this board have been nothing but complimentary about the Russian bid and have congratulated Russia on its success.

It's a great pity that you are unable to show as much good grace and generosity as the English. I sincerely hope that not all Russians are like you.

Shame on you.


----------



## MarcoSousa

Do you remember Lord Triesman?

"accusing Spain and Russia of trying to bribe referees"

"He suggested that Spain may withdraw its bid to host the 2018 World Cup if Russia, which also wants to stage it, helps it to bribe referees in this summer's tournament."


----------



## love-qatar

i would like to say THANK YOU FOR ALL WHO REDUCED FROM THE BID what ever they said who ever he is in this form finally we win we git it
and wait for Qatar 2022


----------



## kichigai

Nauru 2026
Tonga 2030


----------



## matthemod

AlekseyVT said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Without army of British and American trolles, of course!


Nice to see you being gracious in victory.


----------



## TheoG

It kinda reminds me of the SSC mock-up we did on here. You know, Qatar Son 333 creating multiple accounts and cheating to get Qatar through round 1...

At least I have a good excuse to learn Russian now 
Congrats Russia, see you in 2018


----------



## aaronaugi1

crazyalex said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha,arrogant English pricks !! Well done Birmingham City!!!


****.


----------



## japanese001

I was rooting for the U.S. and Australia.
Is the next India?


----------



## RobH

MarcoSousa said:


> Do you remember Lord Triesman?
> 
> "accusing Spain and Russia of trying to bribe referees"
> 
> "He suggested that Spain may withdraw its bid to host the 2018 World Cup if Russia, which also wants to stage it, helps it to bribe referees in this summer's tournament."


No, he said to a friend in confidence that he'd HEARD RUMOURS that this was going on, not that he believed them. He didn't know his friend had a tape recorder on her.

We've gone over this time and time again.


----------



## Ecological

England finished 4th out of 4 ... says it all about corrupt FIFA.


----------



## JimB

SASH SCF said:


> It's a disgrace that of all great football nations, the Netherlands is the only one who never hosted a Worldcup! uke:


To be fair, Holland could never host a World Cup on its own. The notion of joint bids is very recent. And, in a fair fight, Russia had at least as good a case as Holland / Belgium.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Ecological said:


> Put it into perspective.
> 
> England who take 100,000's of thousands of fans abroad, who have the biggest league in the world, who have introduced kick racism out of the game, introduced all seater stadiums and superior security then any other nation, who've continually funded these fucking cheats and we still dont get it.
> 
> What more is there to do then withdraw all funding and breakaway from FIFA with Australasia and Asian Countries. Most of Africa will then follow then we will see where these mugs are.
> 
> Qatar haven't even played in a world cup. Why should there people ever get to see a world cup ahead of 60 million Football loving English fans.
> 
> ITS A FUCKING DISGRACE.


Sadly I think alot of the reason for FIFA's desent(well further desent) into corruption has been driven by the increased importance of North American, African and Asian membership. Football administration is a pretty dirty business everywhere but at least in the devolped/established nations theres some accountability.


----------



## AlekseyVT

PaulFCB said:


> I want to see how I can get from Moscow to Kazan if I want to see 2 games in 2-3 days, I will have to stay 24 hours on a train? FIFA is a big joke.


It will be more better if you personally will watch WC2018 in the British pub! :lol:


----------



## Ecological

I HOPE BBC TAKE FIFA TO THE SEWERS AND WASH AWAY ALL THE FILTHY SHIT THAT DESTROYS OUR BEAUTIFUL GAME.


----------



## timmy- brissy

crazyalex said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha,arrogant English pricks !! Well done Birmingham City!!!


:lol: I'd like to know what Odemwinge thinks about this, wasn't he abused because he was black? And now he's doing great in the PL? Also we have your best players in our league, so stfu.


----------



## Sochi NEW Dubai

RUSSIA 2018


----------



## Walbanger

JimB said:


> *To be fair, Holland could never host a World Cup on its own*. The notion of joint bids is very recent. And, in a fair fight, Russia had at least as good a case as Holland / Belgium.


True, Holland is to honest to pull a Qatar.


----------



## Soviet Dissident

United Kingdom to stage 2016 European Championship. I am sure it is already decided solution.


----------



## TEBC

Go BRIC!!!!!

Sochi 2014
Brazil 2014
Rio 2016
Russia 2018!!


----------



## Rekarte

*Russia!*:banana:


----------



## Thermo

hno: hno: hno: hno:


----------



## gramercy

TataMuminka said:


> You know, it's none of my business but why would a country with a population of 1.5 million build 12 stadiums able to serve over 600 thousand people is beyond me.


maybe to see 12 beheadings at the same time

sorry, wrong country


----------



## RobH

Soviet Dissident said:


> United Kingdom to stage 2016 European Championship. I am sure it is already decided solution.


No, it's in France.


----------



## nikolina_fan

Soviet Dissident said:


> United Kingdom to stage 2016 European Championship. I am sure it is already decided solution.


In handball?


----------



## Kngkyle

So the 2022 World Cup goes to a country the size of Oklahoma City with next to no football experience.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Walbanger said:


> True, Holland is to honest to pull a Qatar.


No way the level of bribes needed could be covered up in a country like the Neatherlands.


----------



## Andaluc

*Congrat from Spain to Russia and Qatar!*

We lose in the bid.. but we will win the Cup!! 

But W. Europe without World Cup ? 

From Germany 2006 just to XX 2026?? Incredible!!! crazy...


----------



## JimB

Well, one other thing has definitely been clarified by the votes:

Contrary to FIFA recommendations, there is absolutely no need for a bidding nation to ensure a wide and even geographical spread of stadiums.

The vast majority of stadiums in Qatar will be in one city. And all but one of Russia's host cities are in the west of the country. Even the one in the east, Yekaterinburg, is at the very western edge of the east!

So, if England ever decides to bid again (and that is highly doubtful, given that they didn't even get past the first round), we could use five or six stadiums in London and another four in the Manchester / Liverpool area!


----------



## Aka

dacrio said:


> BBC Sport understands England were eliminated in the first round of voting, with Russia earning an absolute majority (12 votes) in round two.


Collusion between England and Russia in round 2? :lol:


----------



## MoreOrLess

If I were Russian I'd be worried about whether FIFA will still exist in its current form by 2018.

Besides the obviously negative attension that Qatar winning 2022 will generate awarding two WC's looks like it may have backfired massively to me. Pretty much everyone seems to be pissed off with these results, perhaps most importantly though the most important footballing nations will be. I will not be at all supprized if both winning bids were backed by members from devolping footballing nations. 

To me thats a potentially very dangerous situation for FIFA, what they fear most is IMHO not negative publicity since afterall there not accountable to anyone(plus unlike the Oylimpics Football's popularity is so great it can withstand almost any level of corruption being exposed) but rather a spilt in power, espeically the western european nations turning agenst them.


----------



## PejatBR

Congraculations to Russia and Qatar

When Blatter opened the envelope and said : "And the winner is..."
It should be: "And who paid more is..."

Well FIFA is doing the same with the WC that the FIA is doing with F1.
Making it more international and boring.


----------



## fayzeen

Qatar 2022






watch Mr bill clinton he was smile ... he accept the loss as man


----------



## JimB

Mr Trebus said:


> England had by far the most deserving bid and should have got it but nevermind..we should have just paid them off like the corrupt russians did.Russia has given nothing to Football and Qatar:lol::lol::lol::lol:


Oh, do shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## RobH

nikolina_fan said:


> :lol: Nice. I like Burton, especailly on Football Manager.


Sorry, Burton is the planned England football academy, I should have explained

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9207002.stm


----------



## Ekumenopolis

mdhar.v12 said:


> One can easily predict from the selection of Qatar2022..that* 2026* world cup will be in *Zambia* and *2030* will be in *Brunei*..............and 2050 on *Moon*:nuts::nuts::nuts:


In that case WC 2050 will rock! From this day i support FIFA World Cup Moon 2050!


----------



## -Corey-

Well Is Qatar! who knows if the country will even exist in 2022!


----------



## dacrio

Aka said:


> Collusion between England and Russia in round 2? :lol:


it seems :lol:


----------



## Red85

Ecological said:


> Put it into perspective.
> 
> England who take 100,000's of thousands of fans abroad, who have the biggest league in the world, who have introduced kick racism out of the game, introduced all seater stadiums and superior security then any other nation, who've continually funded these fucking cheats and we still dont get it.
> 
> What more is there to do then withdraw all funding and breakaway from FIFA with Australasia and Asian Countries. Most of Africa will then follow then we will see where these mugs are.
> 
> Qatar haven't even played in a world cup. Why should there people ever get to see a world cup ahead of 60 million Football loving English fans.
> 
> ITS A FUCKING DISGRACE.


QFT

Money money money 

LMAO here. 

I was hoping England would have got it. Best venue's, best admosphere, home of the game and the final at the most sacred ground in all history of football. 
But no, it stead of going for that they go for money and mafia, and oil dollars and slavery. Slavery in Qatar because all the stadiums will be build by brought in Pakistanies, Indians and Indonesians who work for a 50 dollar wage a month. Enhance the buildingsites of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Bahrein. Seriously, what does a WC in a country with 2 million inhabitants do? What in the name of blatter will they do after the WC with all these stadiums?


----------



## Aka

-Corey- said:


> Well Is Qatar! who knows if the country will even exist in 2022!


That's actually a very good question! What happens if a country ceases to exist after being awarded the World Cup?


----------



## Mr Trebus

shahmeer said:


> So what is so special about it :nuts:


being a pakistani you obviously love corruption as seen in the cricket.Wtf would you know about football anyway?


----------



## JimB

Aka said:


> That's actually a very good question! What happens if a country ceases to exist after being awarded the World Cup?


FIFA stage it in their arses.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

The Qatar result proves that FIFA is corrupt to its core. I'm all for new hosts instead of the same old boring places but this has gone too far. It doesn't make sense. A new low for the utter shambles that is FIFA.


----------



## timmy- brissy

How can Doha host it when only 2 stadiums are aloud for 1 city. So that how many cities has Qatar got? Football has become a joke, i will not be watching 2022 WC because it displays what's wrong with this world.


----------



## -Corey-

According to SKy Sport News, England just got 2 votes!


----------



## JimB

Mr Trebus said:


> being a pakistani you obviously love corruption as seen in the cricket.Wtf would you know about football anyway?


Are you actively trying to get yourself banned? Way to go, if you are.


----------



## coth

gramercy said:


> i dont even bother to see this from the point of view of qatar (dictatorship, oil money, tons of money vasted)
> 
> but
> 
> FIFA has multi-billion dollar industries supporting the event and the whole sport
> 
> wouldnt Adidas etc. be happier with a 320 million market like USA hosting the event? think of the publicity soccer would have gotten in the USA
> 
> 
> bunch of corrupt "sport diplomats" turn my stomach (like our head of state the c.sucker)


USA is already a developed market. You will hardly make anyhow more from what you have right now there. And it's easier for a foreign visitor to visit Qatar than USA with complicated visa requirements. From investor's point of view Russia and China are best options of course. Because that means expanding potential markets.


----------



## fayzeen

coth congratulations from Qatar


----------



## Mr. Fitz

Russia and Qatar how corrupt can you get? 2022 will be the shittest world cup of all time.


----------



## mdhar.v12

One would be watching football game along with *Osam bin laden*,*Ayman al-Zawahiri*, and other top *Al-Qaeda* members.........**** *FIFA*


----------



## slipperydog

Final round: Qatar 14, USA 8


----------



## gezza

Mr Trebus said:


> Well 'congratulations' hno:to Russia and qatar..neither deserved to win or had the best bid but money talks.Russia will build some good stadiums but brown envelopes with a corrupt and odious organisation like FIFA got it over the line.
> 
> England invented the game, spread it around the world and has the most popular and watched and financially successful league in the world with a huge number of the worlds best players in magnificent stadia in a modern multicultural country with great infrastructure backed by a great bid presentation but alas it wasnt enough.:nuts:
> 
> *The only comforting thing from my perspective thing is that when an obscure middle eastern country of under 1 million people:lol: whose technical report lamented and highlighted the ridiculous barren inadequacies of its bid wins the world cup you know what a crock of corrupt slimeballs FIFA are:bash:
> It will be brilliant having 12 grounds in one city and playing in 44 degree heat in a mono cultural country with no football interest or heritage..Brilliant work FIFA you *****.*


You could not have put it better - sums up the views of millions..


----------



## Aka

I wonder what would've happened if all bids were for both 2018 and 2022 until the end.


----------



## London_Canary

-Corey- said:


> According to SKy Sport News, England just got 2 votes!


That's an insult to Fifa's integrity as much as much as anything, really can't fault Englands bid team here, they did all they could but Fifa simply weren't interested from the start. It's disgraceful how a nation who has done so much for this sport can be snubbed by the clowns at Fifa.


----------



## rantanamo

The direction of Formula 1


----------



## Mr Trebus

JimB said:


> Are you actively trying to get yourself banned? Way to go, if you are.


sorry dad.


----------



## Axelferis

Axelferis said:


> -russia
> - quatar



i predicted it :cheers:


----------



## Kampflamm

Average high in Qatar in July: 46°C. This will be the crappiest WC ever.


----------



## isakres

Both will be interesting WC, but im excited specially for Qatar 2022!


----------



## Jonesy55

Congratulations Russia and Qatar!

Russia was a good bid, the country has a good football tradition and its good that eastern Europe will host the tournament for the first time. Obviously I hoped that England would win and I thought that our bid was also good but I'm not distraught, Russia 2018 will be a good tournament I'm sure.

As for Qatar, hmmm, holding the WC in a tiny nation with one city and no football tradition is a bizarre choice imo. If FIFA wanted a tournament in MENA region then Iran, Morocco, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia have much stronger football traditions and multiple cities though there would clearly be financial or 'other' issues with those countries.

I could even understand a joint gulf bid with UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait but to give the WC to Qatar alone seems odd to me.

Looking at Google maps the non-Doha stadium locations seem to be in the middle of barren desert with no town or city in sight! I'm sure they will build the stadiums and infrastructures well, they have plenty of money after all but it will be a strange tournament.


----------



## fayzeen

Qatar celebrations


----------



## JimB

-Corey- said:


> According to SKy Sport News, England just got 2 votes!


England have to ask themselves some very searching questions.

They have a very strong and compelling bid. They have more development programmes around the world than any other nation, helping to spread the gospel of football and giving opportunities and training to young people who might otherwise not get the chance. They offer FIFA the probability of the most commercially successful bid. They have fantastic stadiums and infrastructure. They have a huge and passionate fan base. It is the safest possible bid.

Yet they never seem to secure many votes. The strength of England's bid doesn't seem to count very much among FIFA delegates. Perhaps the strength of England's bid is also its weakness? FIFA likes to think that it is taking football to new markets and helping to make a better world as a result. That's fine and Russia is a worthy winner. But should that always be FIFA's ideal?

What of the next World Cup in Europe? If England bids, it will still have the same strengths. Will FIFA say again that they have to take the World Cup to countries where football isn't so well developed? Because, if so, England will never again host the World Cup. Or, at least, not for a thousand years.

So what can England do?


----------



## Walbanger

London_Canary said:


> That's an insult to Fifa's integrity as much as much as anything, really can't fault Englands bid team here, they did all they could but Fifa simply weren't interested from the start. It's disgraceful how a nation who has done so much for this sport can be snubbed by the clowns at Fifa.


Though I have no problem with Russia 2018, it hurts all losers. 
Got to wonder what FIFA's aversion to England is, they fricken made the Game.


----------



## slipperydog

USA received 3 votes in 1st round, 5 in 2nd round, 6 in 3rd round, 8 in last round


----------



## slipperydog

First round: Australia 1, Japan 3, USA 3, Korea Republic 4, Qatar 11


----------



## Aka

JimB said:


> So what can England do?


Get more oil and be more friendly with other nations people. Oh! And get more oil.


----------



## Kampflamm

Population of:
Qatar (entire country!): 1,696,563
London (Urban): 8,278,251 
Greater Manchester: 2,240,230
Metro Liverpool: 1,103,089


----------



## AdidasGazelle

JimB said:


> England have to ask themselves some very searching questions.
> 
> So what can England do?


Start passing brown envelopes around.


----------

