World Cup 2018

[doz_magic_man]

England's media ruined any slim hopes the country had of hosting the World Cup. When one of the world's richest and most bent countries wants something, it usually gets it.

[Simon]

What an absolute joke. Claims that media accusations wouldn't affect the bid were utter crap. We got 2/22 votes, one presumably being from the Englishman on the board. The breakdown of results was NOT going to be announced. Only AFTER the decision was made was it announced that the broken down results would be released. If this isn't an obvious dig at the English bid I don't know what is. We did have the strongest commercial and technical bid. We had the lowest risk bid. In fact the 2 countries who won were the highest risk bids if I remember rightly.

Qatar is a random bit of desert full of wealthy oil people, and has shown no interest in the footballing world other than throwing buckets of money at this bid (and possibly into the pockets of FIFA executives).

I also find it odd that after England were eliminated, 2 of the backers of the Netherlands/Belgium bid then switched allegiance to Russia.

[Ash]

Apparently Qatar are going to build six of the stadiums in one city. I've also heard after the World Cup they are all going to be taken down, that is a great legacy. Sounds like a Pop-Up World Cup to me.

[theadore]

England's media ruined any slim hopes the country had of hosting the World Cup. When one of the world's richest and most bent countries wants something, it usually gets it.

Bollocks

Rather have a free press than the world cup.

[mrblackbat]

1) Russia
... Plus its bollock freezing.

I bet during the world cup in the summer it's hotter than it would be here.

[mrblackbat]

What an absolute joke. Claims that media accusations wouldn't affect the bid were utter crap. We got 2/22 votes, one presumably being from the Englishman on the board. The breakdown of results was NOT going to be announced. Only AFTER the decision was made was it announced that the broken down results would be released. If this isn't an obvious dig at the English bid I don't know what is. We did have the strongest commercial and technical bid. We had the lowest risk bid. In fact the 2 countries who won were the highest risk bids if I remember rightly.

Qatar is a random bit of desert full of wealthy oil people, and has shown no interest in the footballing world other than throwing buckets of money at this bid (and possibly into the pockets of FIFA executives).

I also find it odd that after England were eliminated, 2 of the backers of the Netherlands/Belgium bid then switched allegiance to Russia.

I think you're wrong; I don't think the media accusations did affect the bid at all. The lack of bribes did.

[Rover the Top]

All sour grapes. Institutionally England is a nation full of arrogant wankers, the FA and the press have both assumed that we would get the World Cup from the moment they announced we were going to try. I don't know who's taken bribes, I really don't care - in a fair vote we could still lose. There are reasons to hold it in Russia rather than the UK, and it doesn't matter where it's held if you watch it on TV.

[iamarover]

What an absolute joke. Claims that media accusations wouldn't affect the bid were utter crap. We got 2/22 votes, one presumably being from the Englishman on the board. The breakdown of results was NOT going to be announced. Only AFTER the decision was made was it announced that the broken down results would be released. If this isn't an obvious dig at the English bid I don't know what is. We did have the strongest commercial and technical bid. We had the lowest risk bid. In fact the 2 countries who won were the highest risk bids if I remember rightly.

Qatar is a random bit of desert full of wealthy oil people, and has shown no interest in the footballing world other than throwing buckets of money at this bid (and possibly into the pockets of FIFA executives).

I also find it odd that after England were eliminated, 2 of the backers of the Netherlands/Belgium bid then switched allegiance to Russia.

Apparently the other was one of the chaps on Panorama

[mrblackbat]

All sour grapes. Institutionally England is a nation full of arrogant wankers, the FA and the press have both assumed that we would get the World Cup from the moment they announced we were going to try. I don't know who's taken bribes, I really don't care - in a fair vote we could still lose. There are reasons to hold it in Russia rather than the UK, and it doesn't matter where it's held if you watch it on TV.

There are certainly reasons to hold it in Russia, but considering that the report on their bid indicated there were some major risks (all 13 stadiums need to be built, massive transportation issues, security issues) it does seem odd that they should win so comfortably.

For me though, the real indication of corruption is the 2022 decision.

[Rover the Top]

Building the stadiums is one of the reasons to hold it there - creates jobs and builds facilities for football in Russia. We wouldn't have got the Olympics if it was necessary to have everything built before making the bid. I think the motivation behind England's bid was an ego trip. Rightly or wrongly, FIFA want to use the World Cup to promote and develop the game around the world. Not show off who has already got the infrastructure in place. England only had the best bid by the standards they were working to.

[mrblackbat]

Building the stadiums is one of the reasons to hold it there - creates jobs and builds facilities for football in Russia. We wouldn't have got the Olympics if it was necessary to have everything built before making the bid. I think the motivation behind England's bid was an ego trip. Rightly or wrongly, FIFA want to use the World Cup to promote and develop the game around the world. Not show off who has already got the infrastructure in place. England only had the best bid by the standards they were working to.

No you're wrong, they had the best bid according to FIFA's own published report.

[Rover the Top]

Really? I've just read through their evaluation report, and I can't see where it says we have the best bid? It does point out that we're short of hotel rooms and won't meet the requirement for training facilities, though. There was also an issue about a potential clash with Wimbledon. Are you sure you're not just regurgitating a journalist's opinion that we had the best bid according to the reports?

[mrblackbat]

Really? I've just read through their evaluation report, and I can't see where it says we have the best bid? It does point out that we're short of hotel rooms and won't meet the requirement for training facilities, though. There was also an issue about a potential clash with Wimbledon. Are you sure you're not just regurgitating a journalist's opinion that we had the best bid according to the reports?

No, I'm looking at all the comments about what's bad with Russia's bid too. Ironic that we won't meet the requirement for training facilities yet have more than Russia too. The only thing that their bid is better than ours on is the hotel rooms. They also point out that any delay in the investment into internal air transportation in Russia will have a serious impact on their ability to hold the tournament.

[Rover the Top]

So it's you that's wrong. You're comparing the two reports and are giving YOUR opinion that the English bid looks the best. That's somewhat different to the reports themselves stating that the English bid is the best. For all you know, the accommodation situation may have been one of the most important factors to those voting. Not much point in having the stadiums but no one in them because there's nowhere to stay.

But that's drifting from the point. England's bid wasn't as perfect as the headlines would suggest. There's also a strong argument for saying Russia's bid fits more with FIFA's aims. We may still have lost without bribes and TV shows...

[mrblackbat]

So it's you that's wrong. You're comparing the two reports and are giving YOUR opinion that the English bid looks the best. That's somewhat different to the reports themselves stating that the English bid is the best. For all you know, the accommodation situation may have been one of the most important factors to those voting. Not much point in having the stadiums but no one in them because there's nowhere to stay.

But that's drifting from the point. England's bid wasn't as perfect as the headlines would suggest. There's also a strong argument for saying Russia's bid fits more with FIFA's aims. We may still have lost without bribes and TV shows...

I'm sorry, but you're talking rubbish; there's a risk factor indicated in the report one is medium (Russia) the other is low (England). Their own report indicates that one bid is stronger than the other.