Official Football Thread

Yeah, the first 3rd of the season has gone well for QPR. But they need to keep it up the whole season to go up ...

If a certain Edmonton-born Maiden guitarist still follows football I guess he's quite delighted with Tottenham's recent form. 3-2 against Arsenal, through to the next round of CL and 2-1 over Liverpool in one week.
 
The England bid is in serious danger now. I don't want a country hosting the World Cup when corruption's attached to its choice.
 
It's fun to see arrogance crushed liked that.And it could be much worse than 4-0.

It gets worse minute by minute. 5-0... :P
 
snake plissken said:
5-0 in the end. Was like boys against men.
Click to expand...

Too bad I missed this game ... saw the goals and a couple of scuffles in the evening TV news, though. Real Madrid may have spent more cash on bringing in stars, but they don't seem to work together as a team as good as Barcelona. It does not show against weaker teams, but when up against a team witch matches them in "stardom", this makes the whole difference. The main creative dynamo of Barcelona (Xavi, Iniesta, Messi) have had some seasons together now, they know where to find each other - and they are deadly effective.

Forostar said:
The England bid is in serious danger now. I don't want a country hosting the World Cup when corruption's attached to its choice.
Click to expand...

I don't get what you mean here? The only direct link between one of the bidders (England) and the corruption-accused FIFA delegates is that they have been outed by a BBC journalist. Thus I am curious to know which country you don't want to see hosting the World Cup because of this?

Of course: If the accusation of corruption is taken as an insult by people in FIFA, the fact that a British TV channel is responsible might influence those FIFA representatives to vote against England, as revenge.
 
Forostar said:
The England bid is in serious danger now. I don't want a country hosting the World Cup when corruption's attached to its choice.
Click to expand...
If England's bid is in danger because the BBC has reported on corruption within FIFA and FIFA don't like it, then it speaks volumes for FIFA. England does not have corruption attached to it - FIFA does. It's already been proved that some FIFA delegates have taken a backhander or two for votes.
 
Albie said:
If England's bid is in danger because the BBC has reported on corruption within FIFA and FIFA don't like it, then it speaks volumes for FIFA. England does not have corruption attached to it - FIFA does. It's already been proved that some FIFA delegates have taken a backhander or two for votes.
Click to expand...

My point, in fewer words. Have a praise.
 
Still, I don't see where you are going. Those who are accused of corruption were not linked to the English bid (nor where they expected to vote for England). So unless those who tried to bribe them, wanted them to vote for England in return for money, there are no sensible reasons why it should harm the English bid. Thus - feel free to elaborate on why you think this would harm England's chances for hosting the 2018 World Cup.
 
Erm, pretty much what I was typing out.


A plus point for the England bid is that an independent report has suggested that holding the World Cup in England will be the most profitable. And we know how much FIFA like money (see above). ;)
 
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/last- ... ld-cup-bid

...Greatest legacy
And what are the chances for the Holland-Belgium bid? The Low Countries are sending their prime ministers and football legends to Zurich in a final effort to convince the Executive Committee that their bid will leave “the greatest legacy”.

Ruud Gullit, the president of the joint bid, says the outcome of the FIFA vote is anyone’s guess.

“There’s a lot of speculation about a whole lot of things. We don’t want to be involved in that discussion. I think we just have to see what’s going on with our bid. I think we have a very good bid, a very clear bid.”

FIFA’s reputation
That clarity, or transparency if you like, could work in Holland and Belgium’s favour. Just days before the crunch vote, a BBC documentary accused three prominent members of FIFA's executive committee of taking millions of euros in secret payments from a sports marketing firm. These allegations might well compromise the chances of the hot favourite, England, and swing the vote in favour of the Low Countries, reputedly the cleanest bidders.

Or the greenest. Two million bicycles will be freely available for football fans with tickets to travel to sustainable stadiums. These will have floodlights powered by wind turbines and pitches generating energy when players run on them.

Or the most compact and accessible. “We’re in the heart of Europe”, says the bid’s chief media officer, Rob de Leede.

“We have the key ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp and excellent airports in Amsterdam and Brussels. What’s more, once you arrive in our countries, there’s no need to board a plane anymore.”....
 
Like I say, if FIFA don't vote for England on the basis that the media in the UK has made allegations on FIFA corruption, then I don't care for what FIFA get up to. For all I care they can vote for whoever, to be honest as they aren't worth the effort.
 
OK, but I still don't know why you think England's bid is corrupted. There certainly was nothing to suggest that in the article you posted.
 
Forostar said:
“We’re in the heart of Europe”, says the bid’s chief media officer, Rob de Leede.
Click to expand...

You are the liver :p Spain is the head, France the heart, right hand Denmark, left hand Italy, right foot Greece, left foot Latvia. England is a flower that Denmark holds (stem disappeared)

 
The bid itself might indeed be in order.
Let me put it this way: If people (whoever that may be) bribe UEFA members to vote for England (which needs to be checked securely) then who'd like to be responsible to give the World Cup to England? Not UEFA, if they want to show they have clean hands.

A rumour might indeed spoil things, so if England will loose the World Cup, I hope it's not purely for wrong allegations.
 
Forostar said:
The bid itself might indeed be in order.
Let me put it this way: If people (whoever that may be) bribe UEFA members to vote for England (which needs to be checked securely) then who'd like to be responsible to give the World Cup to England? Not UEFA, if they want to show they have clean hands.
Click to expand...

But where do you have this from? The news about the alleged corruption has nothing to do with the English bid. Those who have allegedly received money were not expected to vote for England. From a neutral reader's perspective there is nothing in the news about this corruption that points to any one of the four bids. So why does this cast doubt on whether the English bid is "clean", but not the other three bids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top