gonzo Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 I can't help but feel this was FIFA's way of screwing us over after the BBC basically accused them of being a corrupt bunch of ****s. This will be all over the papers tomorrow and you can bet there will be a lot of bile directed towards the BBC. Their programme couldn't have been shown at a worse time really. It doesn't make sense as FIFA have actually said, on the record, that the English bid was the ONLY one which would definitely have met all of their profit targets. But, Russia? They are rife with corruption, crowd violence and racism at football. What sort of message does that send out exactly? Not to mention the amount of air travel that will be required during the tournament because of Russia being so fecking massive. In an age when reducing your carbon footprint is supposed to be a priority for all. It's an absolute joke really. Shame on FIFA, I think they really f*cked up on this one. Any of the bids would have been better than Russia (and that's taking into account that I'm not keen on jointly hosted bids either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Its called having a broadcaster independent of government and owner. Occasionally that lack of control can bite you in the arse but I sure as hell wouldnt swap it for any of the US networks editorial policy. The BBC is not independent of govt in my opinion as it needs them to collect the licence, perhaps unaccountable to govt would be a more appropriate word. The US networks are pretty much like the UK networks. Some are liberal (like ABC) some are not (FOX). Anyway, this is about politics in footall not the media. I think the decision was already made before the Times and BBC made their 'revelations'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Wonder if anyone has thought about setting up a breakaway from FIFA? Would be great to have an alternative. UEFA for example always seem to have a tense relationship with FIFA. I wouldn't want the multiple titles and competitions like in boxing - but an organisation to replace FIFA could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Why the fVk should they? It's not really that hard to understand, our chances of hosting an event worth millions of pounds rested in the hands of 22 men - best not **** them off. There is no reason why they couldn't have aired the programme next week to give England (the people who pay their wages) the best chance possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 It's not really that hard to understand, our chances of hosting an event worth millions of pounds rested in the hands of 22 men - best not **** them off. There is no reason why they couldn't have aired the programme next week to give England (the people who pay their wages) the best chance possible. it was supposed to be 24 men...but 2 were sent away...even a replacement came in and was sent back as it would have meant no tie vote would have been possible..therefor, blatter would never have had the chance of having the deciding vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 It's not really that hard to understand, our chances of hosting an event worth millions of pounds rested in the hands of 22 men - best not **** them off. There is no reason why they couldn't have aired the programme next week to give England (the people who pay their wages) the best chance possible. Non-one knows what happened. Could be that the FA heard in advance that England were being squeezed out by the corrupt delegates and that our only chance was to blow corrupt mess open so they asked the BBC to bring forward the programme /make it in the first place. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Non-one knows what happened. Could be that the FA heard in advance that England were being squeezed out by the corrupt delegates and that our only chance was to blow corrupt mess open so they asked the BBC to bring forward the programme /make it in the first place. . the look on their faces when just before the results were read..and the fact we threw in the prime minister, the future king and more money than anyone else...suggest they thought they could and would win....and not knew they were being squeezed out.. it has been confirmed by beckham that the BBC thingy WAS an issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 the look on their faces when just before the results were read..and the fact we threw in the prime minister, the future king and more money than anyone else...suggest they thought they could and would win....and not knew they were being squeezed out.. it has been confirmed by beckham that the BBC thingy WAS an issue.... Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 the look on their faces when just before the results were read..and the fact we threw in the prime minister, the future king and more money than anyone else...suggest they thought they could and would win....and not knew they were being squeezed out.. it has been confirmed by beckham that the BBC thingy WAS an issue.... TBH I really don't blame the BBC. If FIFA had done the corrupt stuff then that's fifa's problem, not the BBC for exposing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 TBH I really don't blame the BBC. If FIFA had done the corrupt stuff then that's fifa's problem, not the BBC for exposing it. agree..just wish the beeb kept quiet and waited till tonight (either way).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 (edited) I can't help but feel this was FIFA's way of screwing us over after the BBC basically accused them of being a corrupt bunch of ****s. This will be all over the papers tomorrow and you can bet there will be a lot of bile directed towards the BBC. Their programme couldn't have been shown at a worse time really. It doesn't make sense as FIFA have actually said, on the record, that the English bid was the ONLY one which would definitely have met all of their profit targets. But, Russia? They are rife with corruption, crowd violence and racism at football. What sort of message does that send out exactly? Not to mention the amount of air travel that will be required during the tournament because of Russia being so fecking massive. In an age when reducing your carbon footprint is supposed to be a priority for all. It's an absolute joke really. Shame on FIFA, I think they really f*cked up on this one. Any of the bids would have been better than Russia (and that's taking into account that I'm not keen on jointly hosted bids either). The Russian bid probably showed them extracts Rocky 4 just before the votes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8xHjC27YvM Edited 2 December, 2010 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Non-one knows what happened. Could be that the FA heard in advance that England were being squeezed out by the corrupt delegates and that our only chance was to blow corrupt mess open so they asked the BBC to bring forward the programme /make it in the first place. . I seriously doubt that was the case, strange tactics if it was. The Panaorama show would have had two effects, the corrupt FIFA people featured would be annoyed but, more importantly, the decent FIFA reps would be even more annoyed at their organisation being branded corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Why didn't Putin bother going to the selection process? Because he didn't need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Why didn't Putin bother going to the selection process? Because he didn't need to. He threatened to judo chop Blatter if they didn't give Russia the WC, he just turned up to remind him of the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Why didn't Putin bother going to the selection process? Because he didn't need to. He had already used his powers of persuasion and knew they would get it! unlike our lot who believed the delegates were there to be convinced by presentations and facts and managed to get a mighty 2 votes of the 22 available and even one of those was an Englishman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 In case anyone is interested here is how the votes went Round 1 England 2 votes, Netherlands/Belgium 4 votes, Spain/Portugal 7 votes and Russia 9 votes. No overall majority reached, so the candidate with least amount of votes, England, eliminated. Round 2 Netherlands/Belgium 2 votes, Spain/Portugal 7 votes and Russia 13 votes. Russia obtained an overall majority, so awarded the tournament. Interesting how 2 people who voted for Netherlands/Belgium in the first round then voted for Russia in the 2nd round even though Netherlands/Belgium were still in it. Looking at the votes that way it could appear that the voters wanted England to be last hence why then changed their votes after we were out.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian firefly Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 russia was always favourite over us for so many reasons ££££££s in back pokets what it could do for russia not wht russia could do for world cup but qatar manila or jamacia might as well bid for the winter olympics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Looking at the winning bids it appears all FIFA care about is how much cash is spent on shiny new stadiums... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-z2jtUS9-Y&feature=related Qatar are supposed to be spending 40billion on transport links alone, what's a few mill in the back pocket of the odd FIFA rep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 FIFA cares about FIFA. Presentations, votes, etc, it doesn't matter. Stand by for India and China hosting a WC soon.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 **** me, we really are the worst losers in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 New world order peoples, FIFA just like the FIA want to break into to new emerging markets and these markets are gonna pay handsomely for the priviledge. Tradition counts for sweet FA when it comes to cold hard cash which is all that this (and most other things) boil down to. Russia is going to be a thorn in FIFA side when they have to deal with all the potential racists when the African nations come to town. It aint going to be pretty. Sad but true!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Hasn't everyone thought it would be in Russia for the last three years though? The bid process was always going to be a bit of a sham. Anyhoo, football tournament in the summer months in Qatar? Probably going to be quite warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Stand by for India and China hosting a WC soon.. What would be wrong with that? The two most populous nations on earth hosting the most popular annual tournament would be great for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 What would be wrong with that? The two most populous nations on earth hosting the most popular annual tournament would be great for the game. Dam right, we've had our day, now time for the rest to have a pop. We so have the 'we're the still the best' Victorian hangover to get to grips with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Dam right, we've had our day, now time for the rest to have a pop. We so have the 'we're the still the best' Victorian hangover to get to grips with. Victorian hangover.. What a load of guff We had the best bid.. Scored the highest in the report... Then lost the vote.. Heavily.. It is becoming more evident that the BBC (rightly or wrongly) did us no favours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Victorian hangover.. What a load of guff We had the best bid.. Scored the highest in the report... Then lost the vote.. Heavily.. It is becoming more evident that the BBC (rightly or wrongly) did us no favours I don't think it is just the fault of the Panorama or the scandal that came out in the paper. It is the media in whole giving the world the impression that we are owed a world cup, thats where most of this guff has come from, we are the best etc etc and if we don't get it then there must be something wrong etc as how can anyone ever look over us ??? Thats the problem mate, the overall arrogance. That said, now that the fact that we never got past the first round, thats a bit of a kick in the teeth and i would have thought it would be closer this and the fact that Qatar have been picked for 22 is what leads me to believe there are still plenty of backhanders around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Victorian hangover.. What a load of guff We had the best bid.. Scored the highest in the report... Then lost the vote.. Heavily.. It is becoming more evident that the BBC (rightly or wrongly) did us no favours And that we did but 1. we won on the moral standpoint exposing the dodgy bunch of old boys network 2. Russia probably did what we used to do (behind the scenes) 3. we DO still have an air of greatness that is linked to the past (your comments alude to that) and it's only natural coz we use to be epic, alas no more, we now have a conscious/prolific investigative press that is not state owned, give me that above a world cup ps I love the word guff, not used enough if you ask me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 I'm glad we're not hosting it. Thanks 13 years of Labour we can't afford to host it. It's a pity we're lumbered with the Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 What have BBC actually proved as fact ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 What have BBC actually proved as fact ? The BBC made it all up for a cheap TV ratings hit. Anyway nearly as many people worldwide will watch a British wedding next year than the world cup and we won't have to pay a governing body extortiante monies to host it - woohoo!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 (edited) What have BBC actually proved as fact ? That FIFA is deeply and irretrievably corrupt. If there were nothing but unsubstantiated allegations in the film, you could go along and watch the BBC being roasted by FIFA lawyers at the Courts of Justice. I don't think you quite understand the process of making programmes like this. Nothing - but NOTHING - gets on the air without a lawyer asking for substantiating material that he/she can stand up in court and successfully defend. By the same token, where are the libel lawsuits from a bunch of EXTREMELY wealthy individuals defending their 'honour'? With our libel laws tilted so heavily in favour of plaintiffs, they'd have yet another easy payday if the BBC had, as someone bizarrely put it, 'made it all up'. And why all the attention on the BBC? Did no one see the Channel Four News story this week on how about 50% of games in the Russian leagues are fixed? Or the Sunday Times exposes, etc etc. Edited 2 December, 2010 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 That FIFA is deeply and irretrievably corrupt. If there were nothing but unsubstantiated allegations in the film, you could go along and watch the BBC being roasted by FIFA lawyers at the Courts of Justice. I don't think you quite understand the process of making programmes like this. Nothing - but NOTHING - gets on the air without a lawyer asking for substantiating material that he/she can stand up in court and successfully defend. By the same token, where are the libel lawsuits from a bunch of EXTREMELY wealthy individuals defending their 'honour'? With our libel laws tilted so heavily in favour of plaintiffs, they'd have yet another easy payday if the BBC had, as someone bizarrely put it, 'made it all up'. And why all the attention on the BBC? Did no one see the Channel Four News story this week on how about 50% of games in the Russian leagues are fixed? Or the Sunday Times exposes, etc etc. Everyone knew FIFA was corrupt anyway - there was nothing startling or urgent in this flacid programme. The Beeb clearly took a pseudo-commercial decision to time this programme for maximum publicity and I think it is perfectly legitimate to question whether a compulsorily funded public broadcaster should be doing that where it, arguably, works against the best interests of the public. That said, I don't think it had a substantive effect on the outcome. It has been well known that Blatter wanted the WC in Russia, ergo it is going to be in Russia. I'm still interested in when games are going to be played in 2022. Are any going to be played in the afternoon? It'll be, what, 45c there in June or July? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Verbal is right. Check out the Said & Done column in the Observer every week for just how much they get away with. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/series/saidanddone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 Everyone knew FIFA was corrupt anyway - there was nothing startling or urgent in this flacid programme. The Beeb clearly took a pseudo-commercial decision to time this programme for maximum publicity and I think it is perfectly legitimate to question whether a compulsorily funded public broadcaster should be doing that where it, arguably, works against the best interests of the public. That said, I don't think it had a substantive effect on the outcome. It has been well known that Blatter wanted the WC in Russia, ergo it is going to be in Russia. I'm still interested in when games are going to be played in 2022. Are any going to be played in the afternoon? It'll be, what, 45c there in June or July? My post was in response the delldays' 'what's a fact' question, not whether we investigative journalists on here 'already knew' everything. Of course we did - this is a message board after all! I'm not defending the BBC here, more the right for some pretty professional journalists in the News and Current Affairs department to be able to do their jobs without fear or favour. As for the 'pseudo-commercial' timing, how is your position a moral advance on that - aren't you calling for a 'pseudo commercial' decision to suppress a report until any commercial disadvantage is null? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 At least after the 2022 World Cup, Qatar will have some cracking stadiums to stone women in. The A/C will keep them comfortable while they wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 FIFA cares about FIFA. Presentations, votes, etc, it doesn't matter. Stand by for India and China hosting a WC soon.. and why not? FIFA want to take the game global and what better way? In the end who gives a **** where it is held, how about we focus on winning the thing, that's the best way to stick two figers up at FIFA, if you feel you need to. Personally I'm glad we don't have Blatter and his ****ish mates earning £3blillion tax free at our expense. With the next tweleve years of events sorted our media has a free run at exposing any FIFA curruption without getting the sort of hostility Panarama is getting, as if that made one iota of a difference as to who won this bid. Russia own it months ago. Legacy is all FIFA are concerned with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 December, 2010 Share Posted 2 December, 2010 My post was in response the delldays' 'what's a fact' question, not whether we investigative journalists on here 'already knew' everything. Of course we did - this is a message board after all! I'm not defending the BBC here, more the right for some pretty professional journalists in the News and Current Affairs department to be able to do their jobs without fear or favour. As for the 'pseudo-commercial' timing, how is your position a moral advance on that - aren't you calling for a 'pseudo commercial' decision to suppress a report until any commercial disadvantage is null? TBH, I only read the last couple of posts so I may well be missing the context in which people are posting at the moment. I'm not really trying to claim any moral advancement with my point; merely noting that pragmatically some people might say that the Beeb has shat on its own doorstep (and that of many who fund it) somewhat on this occassion in achieving a pyrrhic victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 That FIFA is deeply and irretrievably corrupt. If there were nothing but unsubstantiated allegations in the film, you could go along and watch the BBC being roasted by FIFA lawyers at the Courts of Justice. I don't think you quite understand the process of making programmes like this. Nothing - but NOTHING - gets on the air without a lawyer asking for substantiating material that he/she can stand up in court and successfully defend. By the same token, where are the libel lawsuits from a bunch of EXTREMELY wealthy individuals defending their 'honour'? With our libel laws tilted so heavily in favour of plaintiffs, they'd have yet another easy payday if the BBC had, as someone bizarrely put it, 'made it all up'. And why all the attention on the BBC? Did no one see the Channel Four News story this week on how about 50% of games in the Russian leagues are fixed? Or the Sunday Times exposes, etc etc. I was being ironic/sarcastic but very well summed up, Auntie would not have even gone there if they thought they'd get a pasting in the courts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I was being ironic/sarcastic but very well summed up, Auntie would not have even gone there if they thought they'd get a pasting in the courts Ah, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Ah, my apologies. Nay problemo Verbal, I always find it a tough one trying to get over tone and expression on a message board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 What I can't believe is how little support England and Australia had. Even the US were nearly a first round elimination, although they did somehow make it to the final round. Another point about Qatar is that they are an extremenly poor side. I don't want them in the WC. A condition of the Qataris hosting the World Cup should be that the national team forfeits the right to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I remember Brian Clough's comments about world football, and that "we can't have nations of spearthrowers telling us how to run the game". Unfortunately that is now partl of the problem with FIFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 The BBC didn't change the vote but it gave the Waiverers a damn good excuse for them to explain why they didn't vote for the strongest technical bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I don't think it is just the fault of the Panorama or the scandal that came out in the paper. It is the media in whole giving the world the impression that we are owed a world cup, thats where most of this guff has come from, we are the best etc etc and if we don't get it then there must be something wrong etc as how can anyone ever look over us ??? Thats the problem mate, the overall arrogance. That said, now that the fact that we never got past the first round, thats a bit of a kick in the teeth and i would have thought it would be closer this and the fact that Qatar have been picked for 22 is what leads me to believe there are still plenty of backhanders around. Yes there is some arrrogance there and yes it is good to put the WC where it has not been before BUT if a country scores top of all the measurable criteria (on some Russia were down in the 55% range) doen't it seem odd that it only gets two votes out of 22 when it comes to the personal assessments. Just makes you wonder what persoanl criteria were used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 That FIFA is deeply and irretrievably corrupt. If there were nothing but unsubstantiated allegations in the film, you could go along and watch the BBC being roasted by FIFA lawyers at the Courts of Justice. I don't think you quite understand the process of making programmes like this. Nothing - but NOTHING - gets on the air without a lawyer asking for substantiating material that he/she can stand up in court and successfully defend. By the same token, where are the libel lawsuits from a bunch of EXTREMELY wealthy individuals defending their 'honour'? With our libel laws tilted so heavily in favour of plaintiffs, they'd have yet another easy payday if the BBC had, as someone bizarrely put it, 'made it all up'. And why all the attention on the BBC? Did no one see the Channel Four News story this week on how about 50% of games in the Russian leagues are fixed? Or the Sunday Times exposes, etc etc. I dont suppose for one moment "they made it all up" however despite your passionate defence of the programme makers they do get things wrong in these programmes e.g. their accusations around Band Aid and the apologies they had to give to Geldof etc..and the timing of the programme was very poor because they knew what effect it would have whether you choose to believe the content or not. Your point about corruption and courts are interesting as well, Fergie, Bond, Allardyce etc all blew hot air over the expose around alleged bungs etc bt I do not recall any claims for libel coming to court just Fergie continuing to ignore the rules by refusing to speak to the BBC. Corruption is not the sole domain of FIFA we only need to look closer to home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 (edited) I dont suppose for one moment "they made it all up" however despite your passionate defence of the programme makers they do get things wrong in these programmes e.g. their accusations around Band Aid and the apologies they had to give to Geldof etc..and the timing of the programme was very poor because they knew what effect it would have whether you choose to believe the content or not. Your point about corruption and courts are interesting as well, Fergie, Bond, Allardyce etc all blew hot air over the expose around alleged bungs etc bt I do not recall any claims for libel coming to court just Fergie continuing to ignore the rules by refusing to speak to the BBC. Corruption is not the sole domain of FIFA we only need to look closer to home. I agree about Band Aid. It was very poor journalism and shouldn't have got past editorial checks, let alone legal ones. Unfortunately, this will happen from time to time, when someone either screws up the investigation through inexperience or overzealousness or simply being too credulous. But that's my point: the penalty for getting it wrong is a hefty legal settlement and the humbling requirement to give an on-screen apology. Is that the case here? I would bet my mortgage on that not being so - otherwise we'd have heard the squeals of complaint and legal threat long before now. I think with their reputation and record, not one of those money grubbing cronies on 'ExCo' at FIFA would dare step into a courtroom to face any kind of cross-examination. As for timing, well it's called a 'peg' in the business - you tend to publish or broadcast around related events for topicality. It's a long established tradition and I see no reason to change it. And no, I agree, FIFA doesn't have a monopoly in corrupt practices - unfortunately, it DOES have a monopoly on world football. Vast kick-backs, private numbered Swiss accounts, threats and ego-massaging all have a role, no doubt, in a decision which led to two rich autocratic states being awarded successive world cups. Depressing as this all is, I'm also willing to bet that this will all unravel before FIFA's eyes. Russia is gambling on building a national infrastructure on the back of the 2018 tournament - but that will be wrecked by the same mafia who bleed the country dry now; and Qatar is your typical deeply misogynistic Wahhabi state which has floated the ludicrous idea of building air-conditioned bubbles to play in and then ship them off to Africa. Pie in the Sky doesn't begin to describe it. Impending disaster does. Good. Edited 3 December, 2010 by Verbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I don't think it is just the fault of the Panorama or the scandal that came out in the paper. It is the media in whole giving the world the impression that we are owed a world cup, thats where most of this guff has come from, we are the best etc etc and if we don't get it then there must be something wrong etc as how can anyone ever look over us ??? Thats the problem mate, the overall arrogance. That said, now that the fact that we never got past the first round, thats a bit of a kick in the teeth and i would have thought it would be closer this and the fact that Qatar have been picked for 22 is what leads me to believe there are still plenty of backhanders around. This is the real issue. Let's not kid ourselves that it's our arrogance. The media is a problem, but only because they are doing exactly what a free media should be doing and showing up FIFA for what they are. Looking at the reasons why Russia and Qatar should not be handed the WC, it only leaves one stand out reason why they were. I'm pretty sure the Russian and Qatar 'free' media would not be allowed to run any kind of investigation, and would never report any backhanders even if they knew they were happening. We roll out royalty, the PM and Beckham...they roll out Abramovich......... I'm disappointed we failed, although IMHO our bid was flawed by trying to spread the WC into far flung corners of the country - 43,000 stadium in Plymouth? FFS, do me a favour. That aside, considering the current global financial issues and climate change, does it really show FIFA as being in touch with reality when they give the WC to Russia where there will be significant air travel, and Qatar who will spend billions and billions on stadia that will be taken down (apparently they'll be 'given' to neighbouring countries...how's that going to work?). I could understand Spain / Portugal or Holland / Belgium for 2018 (decent stadiums already in place), and Australia for 2022 (although air travel would still be a major issue, but stadiums are in place and it's a new continent for the WC), but Qatar and Russia? I wonder why they landed it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 Just makes you wonder what persoanl criteria were used.what can I and my own federation get in return for my vote. I suspect the UK press will be keeping a close eye on Russian friendlies over the next ten years and if at all possible the income generated from these games. Mind you how do you track bribes when they could extend to building contracts, TV contracts, advertisements and pretty much anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 I agree about Band Aid. It was very poor journalism and shouldn't have got past editorial checks, let alone legal ones. Unfortunately, this will happen from time to time, when someone either screws up the investigation through inexperience or overzealousness or simply being too credulous. But that's my point: the penalty for getting it wrong is a hefty legal settlement and the humbling requirement to give an on-screen apology. Is that the case here? I would bet my mortgage on that not being so - otherwise we'd have heard the squeals of complaint and legal threat long before now. I think with their reputation and record, not one of those money grubbing cronies on 'ExCo' at FIFA would dare step into a courtroom to face any kind of cross-examination. As for timing, well it's called a 'peg' in the business - you tend to publish or broadcast around related events for topicality. It's a long established tradition and I see no reason to change it. And no, I agree, FIFA doesn't have a monopoly in corrupt practices - unfortunately, it DOES have a monopoly on world football. Vast kick-backs, private numbered Swiss accounts, threats and ego-massaging all have a role, no doubt, in a decision which led to two rich autocratic states being awarded successive world cups. Depressing as this all is, I'm also willing to bet that this will all unravel before FIFA's eyes. Russia is gambling on building a national infrastructure on the back of the 2018 tournament - but that will be wrecked by the same mafia who bleed the country dry now; and Qatar is your typical deeply misogynistic Wahhabi state which has floated the ludicrous idea of building air-conditioned bubbles to play in and then ship them off to Africa. Pie in the Sky doesn't begin to describe it. Impending disaster does. Good. All I am saying is perhaps the "peg" as you call it should have been the evening after the vote not two days before because if there were any waverers as someone else has uggested it gave them the excuse they needed as well as ammuniiton to the opposing bids. On a slightly seperate note for Qatar the air conditioned stadia may be fine but what about training sessions, how the hell are they going to work - start at 5 in the morning and be wrapped up by 9 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jones91 Posted 3 December, 2010 Share Posted 3 December, 2010 The A/C will keep them comfortable while they wait. Is this not classed as indoor football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now