Liverpool FC Forum

by **burjennio** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:09 am

From ze BBC:

Fifa abandons World Cup rotation

A number of strong contenders are expected to bid for 2018
Fifa has dropped its policy of rotating the World Cup between continents, opening the way for England to bid to stage the tournament in 2018.
The Football Association said the news was "very encouraging" and said there was a strong case for England to bid.

Chief executive Brian Barwick said: "It is exactly what we were hoping for and we will now discuss a timetable for a potential bid."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said an FA bid would have full government support.

Interview: Fifa boss Sepp Blatter

"I am delighted that Fifa have opened the door for the World Cup to come back to England," he said. "By 2018, it will be 52 years since England hosted the World Cup.

We will make it our mission to persuade other countries to back us in bringing the World Cup back to England

PM Gordon Brown

"The nation which gave football to the world deserves to have the greatest tournament back on these shores.

"With the Olympics in 2012, possibly the Commonwealth Games in 2014, the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and the Cricket World Cup in 2019, a Football World Cup in 2018 would crown what I believe can be the greatest decade ever for British sport.

"If the FA decide to go ahead and bid for the tournament, they know they will have the full support of the government behind them, and we will make it our mission to persuade other countries to back us in bringing the World Cup back to England."

England are likely to face stiff competition though, with the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg already making a joint offer to host the event, while China, Australia, Mexico, the United States, Russia and Spain have also expressed interest.

Countries belonging to confederations that hosted the two preceding tournaments are barred from applying.

For 2018, that would rule out bids from Africa or South America, with South Africa hosting the tournament in 2010 and Brazil poised to be confirmed as 2014 hosts this week.

606: DEBATE
Would you like to see the World Cup in England?

Barwick added: "We have already received tremendous support from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the government, and we all recognise the importance of government support in any bidding process.

"We realise there will be strong competition involved in any bidding process, but we know that England has fantastic stadiums, a unique tradition and passion for the game and also a very strong infrastructure already in place.

"If we do bid, and England is awarded the 2018 World Cup, I'm sure it would be brilliant for English football and the whole country."

Fifa executive members realise an English bid will be a strong one

BBC Sports Editor Mihir Bose
BBC Radio 5 Live's sports news correspondent Gordon Farquhar said Fifa thought it had made a "tactical mistake" in its rotation policy in that the continents were deciding internally who their candidates should be.

"It worked OK for Africa because there was competition but for South America, they all stood squarely behind Brazil and that was the only candidate put forward.

"I think there's a concern that when you do that you don't get the best possible outcome because you don't have candidates competing against one another."

With four continental bodies able to bid for 2018 (Asia, Oceania, Concacaf and Europe) Farquhar believes there will be a 2018 bid from Australia.

"Who knows, there is the prospect of the US or even Canada, Jamaica or Mexico coming forward from Concacaf," he added.

Do you thing Baddiel and Skinner will still be alive to make another single?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:17 pm

Poor choices for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups IMO.

South Africa and Brazil lack quality infrastructure to host such huge events.

Australia should have been selected for 2010 and the USA for 2014, and England for 2018.

A little Anglo-centric I know, but they've got the facilities.

by **burjennio** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:31 pm

Dont mind Brazil, they have plenty of time to get it right by 2014, South Africa is a bit dodgy, lets have a world cup in one of the murder capitals of the world

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:26 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:Poor choices for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups IMO.

South Africa and Brazil lack quality infrastructure to host such huge events.

Australia should have been selected for 2010 and the USA for 2014, and England for 2018.

A little Anglo-centric I know, but they've got the facilities.

you cant say that manhatten, usa had it like 10 years ago didnt they?

I think Brazil will be fantastic for the world cup. great vibrancy and atmosphere there, some massive stadiums and it has to help the economy...

South Africa, well i dunno about that, never been there, but they deserve to have it held there.

then come 2018 we get it! yay? Well since the olympics is costing us 9 BILLION!!!!!!! and just to ask to hold the worlcd cup ehre is gonna run us into 10 million... i dunno.

wembley is packed enough as it is...

by **The Manhattan Project** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:07 am

The Summer Olympics has become a monster. Too big, too expensive. It always requires enormous construction projects with no promise that anything will be done with the facilities afterwards. The British government are fooking crazy to spend ten billion on it. No city in the world should big to host that debacle until the IOC downscale it.

The IOC should cut the following events: Diving, Synchronized swimming, Water polo, Archery, Badminton, Baseball, Canoeing, Cycling, Field hockey, Soccer, Fencing, Handball, Rowing, Sailing, Shooting, Softball, Table Tennis, Tennis, Volleyball and Weightlifting.

Some Track and Field events should be cut too.

The new procedure for the IOC should be to have ALL Olympic organisations from every country in the world contributing some funding towards every games. This will reduce the burden on individual cities and nations. The Olympics would also have to either refurbish and use existing facilities in the host city, or build new facilities in cities that do not possess them and need them for urban redevelopment with a special priority placed on what they will be used for AFTER the games.

by **burjennio** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:21 pm

What about the olympics is turned into one single event, where each country selects one combatant in a fight to the death until only one remains standing - this will of course be free on BBC so finally the licience fee will be worth paying

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:19 pm

I would HATE to see the USA get the world cup again - nearly the whole world loves football so FIFA give it to the one country that doesn't give a f**k about it!

Tickets should be given extremely cheap to locals in South AFrica who shouldn't be able to sell them (I.D. required to access game with cheap ticket) as it would be terrible to see the world cup go to africa and no africans at the games.

England must be a dead cert for 2018 world cup.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:07 pm

Big Niall wrote:England must be a dead cert for 2018 world cup.

I don't think so at all. I believe Russia, Australia, the yanks, Spain, China, Mexico and the Benelux countries are considering whether or not to bid.

by **RUSHIE#9** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:49 pm

The 2010 World Cup in South Africa could become a bit of a nightmare I fear.
Although I've never been there I do wonder if they'll have the infrastructure to host such an event (as Manhatten says). No doubt they'll be working on this till then. Another problem that could prove 'troublesome' is the crime down there. Now I may be doing the country of South Africa a disservice (I Apologise to any South Africans on here if I am) but just this weekend I heard a story from one of my Aunties regarding my cousin whose not long been down there.
Now my cousin (who's a soldier) had gone to South Africa on some sort of army training camp (don't know where abouts). Whilst there three of his mates from the camp had gone down the beach on one of their days off and whilst down there all three of them were mugged at knife point on the beach by young lads. Now if that's gonna happen to three soldiers then thousands of foreign footie fans are surely gonna be easy pickings.

P.S.
No p!ss taking of three soldiers gettin robbed by young kids either!!! :no

by **LFC2007** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:13 am

RUSHIE#9 wrote:The 2010 World Cup in South Africa could become a bit of a nightmare I fear.
Although I've never been there I do wonder if they'll have the infrastructure to host such an event (as Manhatten says). No doubt they'll be working on this till then. Another problem that could prove 'troublesome' is the crime down there. Now I may be doing the country of South Africa a disservice (I Apologise to any South Africans on here if I am) but just this weekend I heard a story from one of my Aunties regarding my cousin whose not long been down there.
Now my cousin (who's a soldier) had gone to South Africa on some sort of army training camp (don't know where abouts). Whilst there three of his mates from the camp had gone down the beach on one of their days off and whilst down there all three of them were mugged at knife point on the beach by young lads. Now if that's gonna happen to three soldiers then thousands of foreign footie fans are surely gonna be easy pickings.

P.S.
No p!ss taking of three soldiers gettin robbed by young kids either!!!

I think the infrastructure will be in place by 2010, they are under immense pressure given what a mammoth event it is.

This is an advertising opportunity from South Africa to the rest of the world, I reckon they will do their utmost to make the most of it. A significant part of this means ensuring the safety of visiting supporters, and demonstrating that they have the infrastructure to cope with the influx of fans.

There will always be criminals who seek to exploit these events, but I think the SA authorities will crackdown enough to ensure a fuss isn't made about it.

by **Kharhaz** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:25 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:The Summer Olympics has become a monster. Too big, too expensive. It always requires enormous construction projects with no promise that anything will be done with the facilities afterwards. The British government are fooking crazy to spend ten billion on it. No city in the world should big to host that debacle until the IOC downscale it.

The IOC should cut the following events: Diving, Synchronized swimming, Water polo, Archery, Badminton, Baseball, Canoeing, Cycling, Field hockey, Soccer, Fencing, Handball, Rowing, Sailing, Shooting, Softball, Table Tennis, Tennis, Volleyball and Weightlifting.

Some Track and Field events should be cut too.

The new procedure for the IOC should be to have ALL Olympic organisations from every country in the world contributing some funding towards every games. This will reduce the burden on individual cities and nations. The Olympics would also have to either refurbish and use existing facilities in the host city, or build new facilities in cities that do not possess them and need them for urban redevelopment with a special priority placed on what they will be used for AFTER the games.

As long as us in the north aint taxed for it I couldnt give a monkeys, the only benefit I see for the olympics is that southern England will be benefitting from the retail sales generated by the athletes and supporters staying there. And judging by the amount we are going to spend on it there will be very little profit to be made.

by **Big Niall** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:25 pm

Platini doesn't seem to support England. WE all know politics plays a big part on who will win it.

I don't know if it is a French thing or what but I don't see the competition. There is talk of netherlands/belgium but that is two countries and even combined they still don't have the stadia England does.

by **Owzat** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:33 pm

It's a nice idea to share the World Cup about, give everyone a chance to host it. But what about the fans? Only one team hosts it, or at least only one SHOULD, and get automatic qualification. Are we suggesting that the locals get more tickets than fans of the two teams involved? And that in some stadia probably only about 30k so even less tickets? I say the fans should take precedence over the locals, thus negating this 'share around' ideal. Fans of some countries who might only qualify once EVER should get tickets and so the bigger the stadia the better. Split the tickets 45%-45% between the two teams and 10% for any other purposes.

The rotation would never work for the lack of facilities and simply so few countries are equipped to host outside of Europe. Brazil have won it most so it would be unfair if they weren't hosts every now and again, although you could argue their fans have had more than their fare share of enjoying the World Cup! (in terms of success) I don't suggest England hosts it more than fair share, but perhaps they should regularly assess every country on the below factors, compile a list of countries up to hosting and pick from them on a relatively random basis (take out the last two hosts from each draw made so you can host it only every third rotation maximum)

- Stadia : With eight groups you'd want six or eight minimum of minimum size which I suggest be 40k. If fans of any country got 45% of the tickets to their matches that would be 18k which is not a lot, but not bad.

- Accommodation. Each base for teams would need to be able to put up a lot of fans, assuming the stadium has 40k capacity then can some countries cope with the additional bodies?

- Transport. There would need to be a set-up capable of dealing with full houses, even London is worried about the transport situation for the Olympics!

- Security. Probably as important is the well being of fans, players, management and officials. The police have to have the resources, manpower and be pretty well drilled in dealing with problems between fans etc. And I don't advocate the Italian police policy of hit first, ask questions later. While English 'hooligans' get branded the worst, our police deal adequately with problems while other countries are more heavy handed or simply incapable.

I would say the above four alone narrows it down to maybe 20 or 30 countries capable of meeting each criterion - on a single host basis. My concern about co-hosting is the size of the stadia in particular, the big clubs in Europe will have a large capacity but how many big clubs do Switzerland and Austria boast?

Austrian/Swiss stadia capacities

*This is not a complete list, just some of the major teams and national stadiums to show the sizes of the stadia in Euro 2008 which you can compare with the Premiership

AUT 53,008 - ERNST HAPPEL STADION
SWI 42,500 - FC Basel*
AUT 32,000 - SK Austria Karnten
SWI 32,000 - STADE DE SUISSE
AUT 31,100 - FC Red Bull Salzburg
SWI 26,500 - FC Zurich
AUT 21,328 - LASK Linz
SWI 20,187 - FC Sion
SWI 17,666 - Grasshopper Zurich
AUT 17,500 - Rapid Vienna
AUT 17,100 - SV Mattersburg
AUT 15,400 - Sturm Graz/Grazer AK
SWI 15,000 - FC Luzern
AUT 12,000 - Admira Wacker
SWI 12,000 - Neuchatel Xamax
AUT 11,800 - Austria Vienna
SWI 11,300 - FC St Gallen
SWI 10,300 - FC Thun

All resourced from wikipedia.org, although the highest capacity list for Europe suggests FC Basel is not 42,500 (yet, will be for 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_stadiums_by_capacity

So our finals will be held in co hosts with ONE stadium over 50k capacity so fans lose out again, possibly getting 30% maybe of the tickets which is a paltry 15k in a 50k stadium. Something needs to be done about ticket allocation

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:16 am

about ten years ago the Irish government paid a million pounds for a study to see whether we could host the olympics.

Easiest million quid some expert ever made.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:17 am

I expect China will bid sometime soon but I think tradition is such a big thing.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bringing back the world cup - Contential rotation dropped

Who is online