daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:14 PM   #7401
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
FIFA are considering postponing the decision on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups as they investigate allegations that two senior members offered to sell their votes.

Although some members are insistent the vote should go ahead on December 2 as planned, it is understood that a postponement is being talked about in senior circles of the world governing body.

Link
They (FIFA) are so naive--aren't they?
Gondolier no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:19 PM   #7402
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
They (FIFA) are so naive--aren't they?
Why?

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 05:33 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:32 PM   #7403
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
Well, 3/4ths of 75,000 is still like 58,000. That's still 10,000 more than your Canberra 48,000.

That's NOT even the point. World Cup 1994 is still the HIGHEST attended World Cup -- not even exceeded by RSA 2010. The WC in the US averaged (I think) 94% per game. And that was only with 24 teams.
All true, that doesn't mean FIFA should award the US just because they're bidding and because they happen to have lots of big stadiums built for a completely different sport. As I said before, the US will surely bid again, so FIFA might decide to overlook them for 2022 and pick a different bid insted. All the positives the US is offering will be there when they bid again, and FIFA know this.

Quote:
The Australian numbers really pale in comparison to another US tournament. Why should they go to a smaller country when going to the bigger one will be a sure success?
Why should they go to one which has hosted very recently for a middling footballing nation, given they have a rival bid coming from a country whose skills in organising international sporting events are as good and reliable as anyone's?

You're really doing Australia a disservice by dismissing their bid based on their population. Sydney 2000, the Melbourne GP, the Australian Open, the CWG in 2006, the Rugby World Cup in 2003 all prove Australia punches well above its weight when it comes to organising and attending sports events.

Quote:
Picking a bigger country is paramount to the success and capability of something as gargantuan as a World Cup. Consider: '02 - Japan AND Korea (about 160 million); '06 - a united Germany (90 mil); '10 - RSA (almost 50 mil); '14 - Brazil (right now, 176 million); almost certainly '18 - the UK (or england...whatever...silly splitting of hairs by some people - nearly 65 mil) -- and then they'd jump back to 20 million? Yeah...right.
Sounds like you're drawing a rather arbitrary line in the sand just to rule out Australia. Australian sports events are always well attended, despite the population. Beijing 2008 was in a country of 1bn but had many, many empty seats, a sight you rarely see at Australian stadiums. It's not about population but enthusiasm.

And, by the way, if you knew anything about the history of football you wouldn't say distinguishing between England and the UK is "silly splitting hairs".

Quote:
And it's even a non-debatable issue if Oz say, had a top 12 team...which it doesn't. The only reason Oz is in there and given a chance...so it doesn't become a runaway for the US. That's all when you come down to it.
The USA didn't even have a domestic league before it was awarded 1994. They're the last country to be criticising other countries in this process with regard to footballing development. Every nation bidding, even Qatar in some respects, is ahead of where the US was when they were awarded 1994.

The only reason Oz is in there and given a chance...so it doesn't become a runaway for the US? Oh really? I hate to say it, but you really aren't doing anything for the arrogant Yank stereotype. Both Australia and the US would organise a fantastic world cup; you know that really but are downplaying Australia to a ridiculous extent. I'm supporting Australia because they haven't hosted and are well capable of organising a great tournament (I'd be supporting the US were it the other way around), but am perfectly capable of recognising the US has a good bid at the same time.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 05:49 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:35 PM   #7404
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Why?
They didn't think this is going to happen? It's like clockwork...every bidding time for an Olympics or a WC, there will always be underhanded deals going on. Sometimes they get caught (as in now), sometimes they won't.

It's as natural as the setting sun. That's what happens when you throw it to open bidding. Why don't they just go ahead and "select" as they did anyway with 2010 and 2014, despite the "outward" appearances of a "race." I mean who is FIFA really kidding? They're just trying to out-IOC the IOC.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:39 PM   #7405
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,883
Likes (Received): 6445

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
The Australian numbers really pale in comparison to another US tournament. Why should they go to a smaller country when going to the bigger one will be a sure success?
You continue to make out like the World Cup coming to Australia wouldn't be successful. Need you be reminded of the Olympics in 2000, or the Commonwealth Games in 2006? Both had great attendance, both went off without a problem, both some of the most memorable games in history. Meanwhile, the US gave us Atlanta 1996...

Quote:
Solopoop, the 2 billion (highly inflated) viewing thing DOESN'T count because you DON'T expect those 2 billion viewers to be watching a Cameroon v. Paraguay game. And wherever in the world a WC is held, it will always be shown staggered arond the world. The only market that matters in a WC, television-wise, is Europe....just as in the Olympics, it is the US TV rights that bring in the big bucks.
Europe is not the only market that matters when it comes to televising the World Cup. China has more viewers than Europe and is growing faster. Key word, growth.

Quote:
Picking a bigger country is paramount to the success and capability of something as gargantuan as a World Cup. Consider: '02 - Japan AND Korea (about 160 million); '06 - a united Germany (90 mil); '10 - RSA (almost 50 mil); '14 - Brazil (right now, 176 million); almost certainly '18 - the UK (or england...whatever...silly splitting of hairs by some people - nearly 65 mil) -- and then they'd jump back to 20 million? Yeah...right.
That's not always the case. I could put money on the fact that Australia would sell out just about every single game - regardless of our smaller population. Not to mention it would have a good TV audience. That said, what we do lack in domestic population, we would make up for due to our proximity to Asia. Oh, and by the way, come 2022, Australia's population would be closer to 30 million.

Quote:
And it's even a non-debatable issue if Oz say, had a top 12 team...which it doesn't. The only reason Oz is in there and given a chance...so it doesn't become a runaway for the US. That's all when you come down to it.
cool story.
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 05:45 PM   #7406
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
And, by the way, if you knew anything about the history of football you wouldn't say distinguishing between England and the UK is "silly splitting hairs".
Oh, hogwash. It's just a rather specious attempt to give 4 more teams in their makeup. The IOC certainly doesn't buy that 4-sub-nations argument. It puts FIFA in the same league as the int'l beauty pageants who recognize all those little territories (MIss Marianas Islands, Miss Isle of Man, etc.) as separate nations so they will get their requisite 60+ nations since most of the moslem countries and a few holdouts, don't bother with them.


Quote:
The USA didn't even have a domestic league before it was awarded 1994. They're the last country to be criticising other countries in this process with regard to footballing development. Every nation, even Qatar in some respects, is ahead of where the US was when they were awarded 1994.
Uhmmm..there was another league prior to 1994...except it was not as well funded and put together as the post-1994 progeny. And so what? Qatar? Oh please, don't make me laugh.

And your rebuttal is equally bizarre as "Oz" deserves it more because it hasn't had it. Huh? So you're saying... you give Oz better chances because it hasn't hosted previously...but you're denigrating the great results of the 1994 U.S. hosting and that that shouldn't count? So "a first time" is good for one country...but negligible for another, i.e., the tangible results of the FIRST foray into that virgin territory should simply be washed off?

Is there a marker in the FIFA criteria which says that "virgin" territory comes first? Then why should the British Isles repeat? Why should Brazil repeat? What is it with the SSC water?

RobH...stick to GamesBids.

Last edited by Gondolier; October 17th, 2010 at 05:55 PM.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:00 PM   #7407
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
Is there a marker in the FIFA criteria which says that "virgin" territory comes first?
Equally, is there a marker in the FIFA criteria which says past hosting success should trump all else? Nope, didn't think so.

Quote:
And your rebuttal is equally bizarre as "Oz" deserves it more because it hasn't had it. Huh? So you're saying... you give OZ better chances because it hasn't hosted previously...but you're denigrating the great results of the 194 US hosting and that that shouldn't count? What is it with the SSC water?
Who said they shouldn't count? I didn't. They're certainly a plus for the US, but they shouldn't be a trump card when there is another very capable bid on the table. The US is a middling football nation, especially for its size and wealth. I personally feel, despite the capabilities of the country, that I wouldn't want to see somewhere where football is the 4th or 5th sport at best being awarded the World Cup every 24 years or so just because it's in the rather fortunate position of having big stadiums from another sport. It doesn't sit right with me. The US as a whole is only interested in football intermittently. I'd rather see what the Ozzies can do in 2022.

That's not to say the US isn't capable of hosting a great tournament, but they shouldn't expect to get into the cosy position they have (had?) with the Olympics, with regular hostings. That I can accept becase the US is an Olympic superpower (you, I suspect, know as well as anyone that I supported Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics). With the world cup the US should be afforded no such luxury.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 06:22 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:21 PM   #7408
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Equally, is there a marker in the FIFA criteria which says past hosting success should trump all else? Nope, didn't think so.
Well then, why did they award 2006 to Germany? 2014 to Brazil? And possibly your own UK for 2018? So if it applies to those nations, then why shouldn't the odds be in favor of the US again?


Quote:
Who said they shouldn't count? I didn't. They're certainly a plus for the US, but they shouldn't be a trump card when there is another very capable bid on the table. The US is a middling football nation. I personally feel, despite the capabilities of the country, that I wouldn't want to see somewhere where football is the 4th or 5th sport at best being awarded the World Cup every 24 years or so just because it's in the rather fortunate position of having big stadiums from another sport. It doesn't sit right with me. The US as a whole is only interested in football intermittently. I'd rather see what the Ozzies can do in 2022.
.
Middling...schmiddling. Before 2010, when was the last time Oz made the WC? The US has been, I believe, in the last six (6) WCs consecutively. Oz's appeareance in 2006 was their FIRST in 32 years. If it took them that long to return to the finals, then what's another 4 years to wait until 2026?

Anyway, my point is...for something as gargantuan as a 21st century World Cup, I think it will be stretching it for Oz. Uhmmm...think Athens 2004. And by your own argument, "altho the US is ready for 2022...and can wait another 4 years." Then maybe another four years' wait and growth for OZ would lead to an even better tournament in 2026...with a few million more people to fill the stands.

BTW, here's something from Wikipedia:

Quote:
The year 2004 marked the last season for the National Soccer League, Australia's first[citation needed] club based national league of any sport and in 2005 the A-League was launched. The A-League plays during summer, the traditional off-season, to avoid conflict with the more established football codes in publicity and facilities as well as being in line with European competition.

The A-League started off successful, with the 2006-07 regular season recording an average attendance of 12,927 people, although crowds are now dropping Most notably, Melbourne Victory averaged 27,728 people to their home matches (reduced to 21,105 for the 2009-10 regular season) throughout the season with a season record home-and-away crowd of 50,333 against Sydney FC at Docklands Stadium on Dec 8th, and a crowd of 55,436 watched the Victory beat Adelaide United 6-0 in the Grand Final, a record for a domestic club football (soccer) game in Australia. The 2010 Grand Final between Sydney FC and Melbourne (also played at Docklands Stadium) drew 44,560, over 10,000 less than Melbourne's first Grand Final. The 2009-10 regular season was considerably lower with an average attendance of 9,796. The 2010-11 regular season saw the lowest ever A-League crowd in Australia as only 2,037 turned up to see Gold Coast and Central Cost in Skilled Park.
Soccer popular in Oz? Not by those reports. If anything, it appears to be on the decline.

Last edited by Gondolier; October 17th, 2010 at 06:32 PM.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:35 PM   #7409
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
Well then, why did they award 2006 to Germany? 2014 to Brazil? And possibly your own UK for 2018? So if it applies to those nations, then why shouldn't the odds be in favor of the US again?
All of these countries have football as their national sport, something the US will never have in its favour. Brazil has won 5 world cups, Germany 3, England has won it once and has one of the the biggest domestic leagues in the world. The US, for its size and relative success in the game, doesn't compare. And 1994 is a lot more recent than 1966 or, in Brazil's case, 1950.

I didn't say the odds weren't in the US' favour either. I was simply stating what I'd like to see, and pointing out that you're downplaying the Oz 2018 bid to a ridiculous extent.

Quote:
And by your own argument, "altho the US is ready for 2022...and can wait another 4 years." Then maybe another four years' wait and growth for OZ would lead to an even better tournament in 2026...with a few more million people to fill the stands.
I happen to think the likelyhood of a repeat US bid, especially when it would be virtually uncontested in 2026, is much higher than the likelyhood of a repeat Australia bid when it may or may not have China as a rival. I wouldn't want to see FIFA overlook Australia. That's my opinion.

The US is an extraordinarily lucky nation when it comes to the World Cup and you shouldn't forget this when criticising its rivals. It's in a confederation with few real hosting rivals which gives it more opportunities to host than most other nations in the world, many of which are much more passionate about the sport. It also happens to have the right shape stadiums - not because there is any real need for a 70,000 seat soccer stadium in any city in the US, but because another sport happens to share similar pitch sizes! Indulge me for a second, but if baseball was the only game in town and NFL wasn't in existence, I just couldn't imagine the US being interested in hosting a world cup. They wouldn't go on a massive stadium building programme like Japan/Korea or South Africa, and most US citizens wouldn't be waxing lyrical about the US hosting. Whilst I know the US is very capable, I don't feel they should be given any special treatment becuase of this fortunate position - especially when general interest in the game remains on a par with other middling footballing nations and national excitement for the sport is so intermittant.

Australia, on the other hand, probably has a similar level of interest in the game overall, but is in a region with several capable hosts (in the shadow of China, Japan, Korea etc), and happens not to have a national sport which shares pitch sizes with soccer. The fact that the Australians are putting up a good fight against the US and are making a huge amount of effort to prove they can host is credit to them. I'd rather see what they can do than reward the US' good fortune again so soon after 1994.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 07:01 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:43 PM   #7410
_X_
Registered User
 
_X_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Geelong,Australia
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
Well then, why did they award 2006 to Germany? 2014 to Brazil? And possibly your own UK for 2018? So if it applies to those nations, then why shouldn't the odds be in favor of the US again?




Middling...schmiddling. Before 2010, when was the last time Oz made the WC? The US has been, I believe, in the last six (6) WCs consecutively. Oz's appeareance in 2006 was their FIRST in 32 years. If took them that long to return to the finals, then what's another 4 years to wait until 2026?

Anyway, my point is...for something as gargantuan as a 21st century World Cup, I think it will be stretching it for Oz. Uhmmm...think Athens 2004. And by your own argument, "altho the US is ready for 2022...and can wait another 4 years." Then maybe another four years' wait and growth for OZ would lead to an even better tournament in 2026...with a few more million people to fill the stands.
Hardly anything you post here make any sense mate honestly.
If you're going to criticise,at least have some facts that stand up.

BTW,I think you'll perfectly understand that 4255 days is a long way away.Australia's economy is BOOOOOOOOOOMING while some others are in a bit of strife.Did anyone say Parity

We offer a safe pair of hands-logistically,security wise,our sporting pedigree.Our debt levels are extremely low compared to many other developed countries

We'll win a fair fight,not for any other reason than we offer so much more than the USA.70 billion people will watch our World Cup,40 will watch yours
Amazing value for FIFAs sponsors,incredible legacy for World Football and 85% of the Globe sees the matches at great times
__________________
Valcke-"Qatar bought World Cup",Platini-" We can't air condition the beaches and the streets in Qatar",Chuck Blazer-"you can't air condition a whole country",Phillip Lahm-"Qatar decision'madness' ",Wenger-" Winter World Cup Would Cause Problems Between Clubs, Countries And FIFA"
_X_ no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:51 PM   #7411
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by _X_ View Post
Hardly anything you post here make any sense mate honestly...70 billion people will watch our World Cup,40 will watch yours
Uh..huh. I see...

And how much will Alpha Centauri pay for an Oz WC TV rights?
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 06:57 PM   #7412
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Indulge me for a second, but if baseball was the only game in town and NFL wasn't in existence, I just couldn't imagine the US being interested in hosting a world cup. They wouldn't go on a massive stadium building programme like Japan/Korea or South Africa, and most US citizens wouldn't be waxing lyrical about the US hosting. Whilst I know the US is very capable, I don't feel they should be given any special treatment becuase of this fortunate position - especially when general interest in the game remains on a par with other middling footballing nations and national excitement is so intermittant.

Australia, on the other hand, probably has a similar level of interest in the game overall, but is in a region with several capable hosts (in the shadow of China, Japan, Korea etc), and happens not to have a national sport which shares pitch sizes with soccer. The fact that the Australians are putting up a good fight against the US and are making a huge amount of effort to prove they can host is credit to them. I'd rather see what they can do than reward the US' good fortune again so soon after 1994.
well, I might indulge your scenario... but that doesn't mean I think that that's the way the dominoes will fall on December 2nd or whenever they finally decide this thing...and I would be agreeing to another unnecessary extravagance that Japan-Korea 2002 was; and the waste that Athens '04 was? I mean is it just to fulfill this dream of "rewarding a good fight" regardless of the deleterious effects afterwards or something truly tangible after? Wasn't that the sort of the logic behind returning the Olympic Games to where they were born, in Athens in 2004? And look at the remains that are in shambles and disuse today? Ever heard of "over-reaching"?

@ X, booming economy? Simple question: then why do you need a World Cup? Going by RobH's mindset, then should it not go to a region that is struggling in order to shore up that weakened area? Of course, forget the fact that a US World Cup will be financed entirely by private funds and that the last outing made some $45 million (I tihink) or so which gave birth to a successful league of now some 14 or so teams.

And then combining your two trends of thought... granted,of course, that the latter is absolutely distorted and twisted, it's OK to award a plum prize to a new region that really has a doubtful and declining following (see facts in Wikipedia report) but not one where it is growing, can still offer the largest market? Billion-dollar ventures such as a World Cup or an Olympics shouldn't be built on something as whimsical as "for the glory of sport." But that's just me; thinking too much about the cold, hard facts of waste and misallocation of funds that aren't mine. Silly me.

Last edited by Gondolier; October 17th, 2010 at 07:21 PM.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 08:14 PM   #7413
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
it's OK to award a plum prize to a new region that really has a doubtful and declining following (see facts in Wikipedia report) but not one where it is growing, can still offer the largest market?
Wasn't a country awarded the world cup only four years after its professional league had collapsed, and wasn't this country awarded it on the understanding it would set up a new one?

But you're not happy for FIFA to give Australia the same consideration, since declining attendences in an already existing professional league is obviously a much more serious problem than a league collapsing completely. How dare Australia ask for a world cup when its football league is in such a state?!

The US was given a world cup despite being a country of 200m with no professional league, and the game has grown in the country since 1994 on the back of it (though some claim another world cup is needed to ensure that continues, but let's not go there!). Some Americans would do well to remember this when they criticise another country for harbouring ambitions that the world cup could do the same for them, especially when that country has a much healthier footballing landscape than the US did back in 1988.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 09:29 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 10:08 PM   #7414
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,851
Likes (Received): 2401

OK, so I've read through all the arguments and the only sound one that favors Australia is Rob's argument with regards to being a first-time host and being able to spread soccer to a country where its league attendances are poor. It would be the 'emotional' pick or the 'choice of goodwill.' That makes sense, and that's a fair point. However, using the first-time host argument, you can't favor an English World Cup over a Russian one.

Quote:
they shouldn't expect to get into the cosy position they have (had?) with the Olympics, with regular hostings.
Rob, they don't expect to, they WANT to. Come off this 'US is looking for special treatment' farce of an argument. They were allowed to bid for 2022. They have just as much a right as anyone else to convince voters they would be the best host. Whether they also choose to do so in 2030, 2042, or 2054 is their prerogative.

X is normally pretty good poster, but he's being a completely blind homer if he thinks television contract revenues and convenience of viewing times will be better in an Australian World Cup. Europe and the US are the two biggest markets in generating revenue from television contracts. That is a FACT. Feel free to look it up.

Also, I understand that Asia has a large population base, but when FIFA negotiates television contracts with broadcasters and sponsors, population has virtually NOTHING to do with how much those contracts are worth. The reason for this is that the Asian population numbers are highly inflated by China. And it is a FACT that the Chinese will not watch a soccer tournament unless their team is in it. This is evidenced by the massive drop in Chinese ratings from 2002 to 2006/2010. So your argument that FIFA will make the most television revenue from a World Cup held in an Asian time zone just because Asia has a huge population doesn't hold up. There are massive countries like India, China, and Indonesia that make it seem like Asia is a more lucrative market than it actually is. When it comes to cold, hard dollars a World Cup held in Asia does not give FIFA any kind of financial advantage.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 10:31 PM   #7415
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
However, using the first-time host argument, you can't favor an English World Cup over a Russian one.
I was thinking of that. And using Rob's US v. Oz argument(s) in a UK v. USSR parallel, I wonder if he would still pick his UK over Russia. And that's what makes Rob's preference suspect to me. He would use them in a US v. Oz but they would also completely backfire for his own country in a UK v. USSR face-off.

As for "X," since I just joined this thread lately, anyone who quotes "70 billion people" and as you said, slippery-dog, deceptively and disingenuously citing a whole Asian continent for its numbers, is one to be COMPLETELY IGNORED.

Last edited by Gondolier; October 18th, 2010 at 12:36 AM.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 10:43 PM   #7416
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
However, using the first-time host argument, you can't favor an English World Cup over a Russian one.
Nobody said I had to be consistent, and I've already acknowledged this point. When your home team is playing, you want them to win whatever the circumstances, even if every other fan in the country wants the opposition to win. The analogy here isn't quite perfect because England's bid isn't unpopular (see this thread's poll), but you get my drift.

If I wasn't English I might be more consistent and support a different bid for 2018 (more likely the Belgium/Holland bid than Russia's if I'm honest), who knows?

I'm a selfish human being, like you are, and like most others in this thread are. We all want our own bids to win. I'll ignore the fact we've hosted before but happily argue for a first time host in 2022, Spaniards ignore the fact that their bid with Portugal is lopsided, Russians will insist racist banners are anything but, the Japanese will dismiss the notion of a repeat hosting so soon despite their country pushing the new continental frontiers argument when they bid for 2002. And some Americans, it seems, will happily reel off a list of statistics from 1994 - the world cup which led to the growth of the game in their country - and simultaneously dismiss bids which are asking for the same things the US asked for when it bid in 1988. As Jimmy Greaves said, 'it's a funny old game.'

In this sense, I'm probably more capable of making an objective assessment of the 2022 race than you are, and you're probably more capable of doing the same for the 2018 contest. Bizarre, but I reckon that's true when it comes to the crunch.

Quote:
Rob, they don't expect to, they WANT to. Come off this 'US is looking for special treatment' farce of an argument. They were allowed to bid for 2022. They have just as much a right as anyone else to convince voters they would be the best host.
Not disagreeing.

I was responding to certain posters' arrogance when it came to the US bid (an arrogance I see amongst some supporters of the English bid as well before you say anything), not the bid team itself. I can't and won't knock US Soccer for seeing an opportunity and going for it, even if I'd personally like another bid to win, and even if I'd personally rather see the US wait longer than 2026.

All I was saying was the US bid shouldn't expect special treatment, not that they were expecting it, and supporters, when criticising other bids, should recognise just how fortunate the US is to be able to offer what it can, given that none of the stadiums were built for soccer in the first place! Nothing controversial there. In other words, if FIFA decides to overlook the US for a number of cycles because it sees it as a large country with mediocre but nonetheless fairly solid footballing interest, then the US should accept that to be the case. In contrast to the Olympics, the US isn't a sporting superpower when it comes to football and it'd have little right to feel aggrieved if it's overlooked. Some posters in this thread though are acting as though the US' is the only bid in town and really downplaying Australia as though its bid is on a par with Qatar's; I don't like that attitude. The US may have the best bid technically, but that doesn't mean it's a shoe-in when there's also a very good Australian bid on the table.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 11:00 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 10:57 PM   #7417
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,851
Likes (Received): 2401

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Nobody said I had to be consistent, and I've already acknowledged this point. When your home team is playing, you want them to win whatever the circumstances, even if every other fan in the country wants the opposition to win. The analogy here isn't quite perfect because England's bid isn't unpopular (see this thread's poll), but you get my drift.

I'm a selfish human being, like you are, and like most others in this thread are. We all want our own bids to win.
Bullsh!t, speak for yourself. My statements have nothing to do with who I WANT to win, it's who I think WILL win, and who I think has the BETTER bid. And I listed the reasons why. Because I happen to live in America is irrelevant. And your admitted incapacity to be objective clearly indicates that we should deduce that all your comments on this subject are disingenuous and slanted. That brings nothing to the conversation when we're trying to discuss the merits and shortcomings of each bid. I didn't realize this was a rah-rah cheerleader pump-up-you-own-bid "I'm biased and don't care" thread. My mistake.

Quote:
The US may have the best bid technically, but that doesn't mean it's a shoe-in when there's also a very good Australian bid on the table.
Come off this 'shoe-in' nonsense, who the hell said America was a shoe-in? I don't know what the hell those FIFA voters are thinking. We're not mind-readers.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 11:22 PM   #7418
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
Bullsh!t, speak for yourself. My statements have nothing to do with who I WANT to win, it's who I think WILL win, and who I think has the BETTER bid. And I listed the reasons why. Because I happen to live in America is irrelevant. And your admitted incapacity to be objective clearly indicates that we should deduce that all your comments on this subject are disingenuous and slanted. That brings nothing to the conversation when we're trying to discuss the merits and shortcomings of each bid. I didn't realize this was a rah-rah cheerleader pump-up-you-own-bid "I'm biased and don't care" thread. My mistake.
If you say so; though I do find it odd that someone so objective becomes more animated when people criticise the US than when they criticise any other bid. I'm only saying what I'm seeing in this thread, and I've at least been able to admit to the fact that my arguments aren't necessarily consistent all the time or laced with bias, though I try to make them as objective as possible. If you want to stupidly declare that all my comments are "disingenuous" from that admission and pretend everyone else in this thread is arguing from a completely objective standpoint, then so be it, but I reckon you're smater than that.

And just because people are arguing from a position of support, that doesn't mean their points are any less valid. You're no more a neutral observer of this bidding race than many others in this thread, but your posts are some of the best. I really wasn't having a go in my last post (I'm sorry if it came across that way), just explaining my position, which isn't very different from yours as I can tell. I support the England bid, you support the US bid, and we're both trying to be as objective as possible despite this, which is as much as you can ask for in a thread like this I think.

Quote:
Come off this 'shoe-in' nonsense, who the hell said America was a shoe-in? I don't know what the hell those FIFA voters are thinking. We're not mind-readers.
I wasn't really talking about your posts which are on the whole pretty good and well reasoned. But there are certainly posts within the last two pages which are horribly downplaying Australia's bid whilst pushing the US' to the extent that that's the implication. Surely you can see that?

Anyway, this is getting way, way, way off topic now....apologies again if my post came across the wrong way.

Last edited by RobH; October 17th, 2010 at 11:42 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 11:42 PM   #7419
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,851
Likes (Received): 2401

Well no bid is perfect, and maybe I have not done a good enough job of bringing some of those imperfections regarding the US bid to light. Some concerns:

1) fairly recent host
2) league still has trouble selling-out matches (due in part to average marketing and suburban location of soccer specific stadiums)
3) two stadiums in the bid currently do not have rail service, meaning foreigners will have to take a bus, cab, or rental car
4) complicated visa restrictions set forth by federal government

So there you go. Now on a completely unrelated topic, I haven't read all the stories and frankly I'm not all that interested, because finding out that there is corruption in FIFA is about as shocking as finding out there's instability in Lady Gaga's brain. But what's this about British agents dressing up in Abe Lincoln hats and pretending to be from the American bid committee? Heard the Oceania guy was involved too...is this all BS or what?
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 17th, 2010, 11:46 PM   #7420
MysteryMike
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 0

I think for 2022, this corruption report was the most vital thing for the Australian bid, yes, the Oceania delegate maybe taken out of the vote, however anyone supporting Qatar will be seen as a clear bribe, as everyone knows the Qatar bid is an utter farce, and no way do they deserve it. So this means literally only Bin Hammam should vote for Qatar, anyone else seen to vote for Qatar will have media all over their rear ends investigating bank accounts and their private lives in so many ways that no way will their money be worth it. They are risking their very place on the executive committee. Supporters of the Russian bid, may also have similar concerns.

MysteryMike no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu