PDA

View Full Version : English FA - Valid Concerns or Paranoid Dummy Spitting?



Sylar
04-12-2010, 11:34 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9256772.stm

Following the events of Thursday and the post-award autopsy, the acting chairman of the English FA has withdrawn his application for the permanent position, citing his distrust of FIFA officials as a key reason for doing so.

Is this a case of sour grapes, or does Roger Burden have a justifiable reason for doing so?

The incessant bating of FIFA which has been a campaign propagated by the English FA and English media has been described as a "stumbling block" in the success of the English 2018 bid by several members of the executive committee, who voted with their feet in the first round of Thursday's process.

Personally, I think this has been a very clever campaign by the English powers that be, despite it resulting in the probably loss of the World Cup to these shores. The expose of corruption in the corridors of power in Zurich created two potential outcomes for the English bid - it would either serve to force the hands of those executive members, pressuring them to alter their voting direction or vindicate the accusations of the investigation - or, it would give them an excuse to focus on, as soon as the results were announce, forcing a new campaign to execute an investigation into the heads of the most powerful footballing body on Earth.

There is polar divide appearing in opinion surrounding the outcome of the decision to award 2018 to Russia - there are those who feel that a series of kickbacks and corrupt purchasing of votes has lead to the first world cup in this region of the world. There are also those who felt the English bid, although technically excellent, with their array of facilities and infrastructure, was simply too accomplished, and not in need of a World Cup. Based on recent years, FIFA have a habit of awarding the competition to developing footballing countries (Germany aside). FIFA would claim that they attempt to use the arrival of a World Cup to a country to help develop the footballing image of that country - the masses of profits that they make from the 4-yearly competition is neither here nor there, as it is (in theory) reinvested into FIFA youth and development programmes and the provision of the best equipment and overarching officials who maintain the game and its integrity.

So is this the case in Russia, or does the acting head of the Football Association have a valid case? For me, the Panorama programme was less than conclusive - despite the hearsay and rumours, there was little validation given at any point, other than a list of names and numbers given, with no named source and no discussion as to further evidence.

However, does the case for corruption perhaps becomes a little more solidified when considering the award of the 2022 World Cup to the nation of Qatar? In a country with a population a little higher than that of Estonia, no existing footballing infrastructure, poor transport links and an extremely harsh summer climate, it begs the question what criteria has been used in the awarding of such a prestigious competition to such an unprepared nation, who presented such a technically void bid. The "legacy" of this world cup is going to leave several stadia within the country, with no remaining use once the World Cup crowds have come and gone. Preliminary discussions seem to suggest that the stadiums will be dismantled and award to other nations surrounding in the region - this seems a wholly unnecessary approach and will serve to create nothing other than a completely purpose built and featureless competition. Considering the competition facing Qatar, one must question what lead to the decision of the voting members to opt for such an unprepared and politically volatile region - the United States of America hosted a World Cup in recent living memory, as did both Japan and Korea - perhaps no real surprise that the latter 2 (even as sole bids) were not favourable outcomes. Consider though, the Australian and American bids for a moment - masses of good transport infrastructure and certainly in the case of the USA, many stadiums already prepared to host such a lucrative competition. I would expect that some form of investment would have been required to bring the Australian stadiums to a ready-state, though at nowhere near the significant investment which will be required in Qatar.

Which brings us back to the original question - is the decision of Roger Burden to walk away from his lofty position in the English footballing hierarchy validated by the refusal of FIFA to release any information regarding voting patterns - with such large amounts of money at stake to regions/countries, clarity must be key with the voting process and those who participate, to ensure a fairness is applied across the board - unless the process is made to be transparent, these accusations are not going to quickly evade Blatter et al - the decision to vote with his feet will leave Burden open to accusations of "spitting the dummy", but his concerns remain valid until proven otherwise.

ScottB
04-12-2010, 11:41 AM
I think there is a bit of both at play here.

At the end of the day, who didn't think this was how the tournament bidding played out? The English themselves got done for handing out free Louis Vitton handbags after all, so they were hardly embarking on a holier than though campaign. So the question has to be asked, why weren't they doing the same deals that the other nations were?

But far more than that, I think most of FIFA has a distaste for England, particularly their constant 'footballs coming home, our fans love the game more than anyone else' stuff that they really need to stop, and of course the media campaign that has been taking shots at FIFA for the last year plus. People aren't likely to vote for you after you've spent a lot of effort telling the world they are corrupt. Quite what the BBC hoped to achieve with showing Panorama so close to the vote I have no idea, it was hardly going to change anything for the better, and has been suggested, had the vote been closer, it could be argued that that one show could have directly cost the country thousands of jobs and billions of pounds.


I doubt England will ever host the tournament as long as Blatter is in charge.

Hibbyradge
04-12-2010, 11:53 AM
I doubt England will ever host the tournament as long as Blatter is in charge.

I think you may be right.

Blatter is 74 now.

The next World Cup that England can bid for will be held in 2026, by which time, if he's spared, Sepp will be 90.

I doubt he'll still be the President of FIFA. :wink:

ScottB
04-12-2010, 11:58 AM
I think you may be right.

Blatter is 74 now.

The next World Cup that England can bid for will be held in 2026, by which time, if he's spared, Sepp will be 90.

I doubt he'll still be the President of FIFA. :wink:

I thought it was 2030 till they could bid again cause of the rules? Which will be the 100th anniversary of the tournament, some have suggested giving that one to Uruguay.

Indeed he should be gone, I think he's going next year actually, but hasn't he hand picked the Qatari guy to replace him? Might well see Blatter's views continue, and there's plenty other guys high up in FIFA and UEFA who would appear to have no great love for the English.

Hibbyradge
04-12-2010, 11:59 AM
I'm pretty sure that the decision making process isn't transparent and that FIFA have their own agenda, but I don't think there is any particular anti-English bias.

On this occasion, FIFA may well have been irritated by Lord Whatshisname's allegations of corruption and the more recent Panorama allegations, but you must remember that Spain. Portugal, Holland and Belgium all lost out too.

Not to mention the USA, Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Russia and Qatar are huge markets for football. Money is at the heart of these decisions, imo.

Gettin' Auld
04-12-2010, 12:00 PM
I think there is a bit of both at play here.

At the end of the day, who didn't think this was how the tournament bidding played out? The English themselves got done for handing out free Louis Vitton handbags after all, so they were hardly embarking on a holier than though campaign. So the question has to be asked, why weren't they doing the same deals that the other nations were?

But far more than that, I think most of FIFA has a distaste for England, particularly their constant 'footballs coming home, our fans love the game more than anyone else' stuff that they really need to stop, and of course the media campaign that has been taking shots at FIFA for the last year plus. People aren't likely to vote for you after you've spent a lot of effort telling the world they are corrupt. Quite what the BBC hoped to achieve with showing Panorama so close to the vote I have no idea, it was hardly going to change anything for the better, and has been suggested, had the vote been closer, it could be argued that that one show could have directly cost the country thousands of jobs and billions of pounds.


I doubt England will ever host the tournament as long as Blatter is in charge.
Dunno about it annoying FIFA, but that sure gets on my wick!!

lapsedhibee
04-12-2010, 12:20 PM
I think most of FIFA has a distaste for England, particularly their constant 'footballs coming home, our fans love the game more than anyone else' stuff that they really need to stop


Dunno about it annoying FIFA, but that sure gets on my wick!!

:agree: Beckham and his 'fitba's in our DNA' made me retch. And I don't really believe that he has much of a clue what DNA is.

brog
04-12-2010, 12:22 PM
I think there is a bit of both at play here.

At the end of the day, who didn't think this was how the tournament bidding played out? The English themselves got done for handing out free Louis Vitton handbags after all, so they were hardly embarking on a holier than though campaign. So the question has to be asked, why weren't they doing the same deals that the other nations were?

But far more than that, I think most of FIFA has a distaste for England, particularly their constant 'footballs coming home, our fans love the game more than anyone else' stuff that they really need to stop, and of course the media campaign that has been taking shots at FIFA for the last year plus. People aren't likely to vote for you after you've spent a lot of effort telling the world they are corrupt. Quite what the BBC hoped to achieve with showing Panorama so close to the vote I have no idea, it was hardly going to change anything for the better, and has been suggested, had the vote been closer, it could be argued that that one show could have directly cost the country thousands of jobs and billions of pounds.


I doubt England will ever host the tournament as long as Blatter is in charge.

Exactly right, oh & of course they wined & dined all the FIFA delegates, played friendlies in Egypt & Trinidad & were about to do so in Malaysia. In the commercial world that's regarded as bribery. Oh & they also did a deal with Soth Korea for 2022, which SK reneged on just like England reneged on their deal with Germany for 2006. The icing on the cake however was when they sent Prince William only 2 days after his Uncle Andrew was exposed as being a strong supporter of bribery & corruption!!
I'm sure FIFA, or some of the delegates are corrupt & the voting process is a joke, why are you allowed to vote for your own country when other countries, eg Belgium, Portugal & Australia are not even represented? However the hypocrisy of England in portraying themselves as whiter than white is sickening. I was broadly supportive of their bid but I enjoyed seeing the smug look wiped off Cameron's face for a while.

Geo_1875
04-12-2010, 01:30 PM
They just can't understand why people don't love them as much as they do themselves. And as for handing out goody bags to the delegates. A big wedge of readies would have been more effective.

greenginger
04-12-2010, 02:12 PM
Back in 2007 John Mcbeth won the election for the " Home Nations" position as one the Fifa vice presidents much to Englands annoyance as they wanted their own man on the inside to help their W. C. bid.

John Mcbeth jumps in with "two Feet" saying how he is going to fight corruption on FIFA and hints at his targets.

Jack Warner plays the race-card and receiving no support from other FIFA members Mcbeth is forced to resign allowing the England rep to get his position.

This just made Warner and Co. think themselves untouchable and continue with their corrupt dealings.
England reaped what they sowed when they failed to support John Mcbeth's efforts to clean up Fifa.

PS. I don't think he had a snowballs chance of succeeding but thats not the point.

marinello59
04-12-2010, 03:13 PM
They just can't understand why people don't love them as much as they do themselves. And as for handing out goody bags to the delegates. A big wedge of readies would have been more effective.

I think that comment would apply to virtually every nationality wouldn't it?

discman
04-12-2010, 03:37 PM
Back in 2007 John Mcbeth won the election for the " Home Nations" position as one the Fifa vice presidents much to Englands annoyance as they wanted their own man on the inside to help their W. C. bid.

John Mcbeth jumps in with "two Feet" saying how he is going to fight corruption on FIFA and hints at his targets.

Jack Warner plays the race-card and receiving no support from other FIFA members Mcbeth is forced to resign allowing the England rep to get his position.

This just made Warner and Co. think themselves untouchable and continue with their corrupt dealings.
England reaped what they sowed when they failed to support John Mcbeth's efforts to clean up Fifa.

PS. I don't think he had a snowballs chance of succeeding but thats not the point.



Paraphrased from Wikipedia:

Friendly between Trinadad and Tobago and Scotland at ER 30/5/2004 Warner wants the cheque for the match made out to him personally,Mcbeth says no Warner goes round other officials,they all say no.......that man has a long memory

Go check it out yourself,corrupt as they come:cool2:

Hibs90
04-12-2010, 04:20 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9256772.stm

Following the events of Thursday and the post-award autopsy, the acting chairman of the English FA has withdrawn his application for the permanent position, citing his distrust of FIFA officials as a key reason for doing so.

Is this a case of sour grapes, or does Roger Burden have a justifiable reason for doing so?

The incessant bating of FIFA which has been a campaign propagated by the English FA and English media has been described as a "stumbling block" in the success of the English 2018 bid by several members of the executive committee, who voted with their feet in the first round of Thursday's process.

Personally, I think this has been a very clever campaign by the English powers that be, despite it resulting in the probably loss of the World Cup to these shores. The expose of corruption in the corridors of power in Zurich created two potential outcomes for the English bid - it would either serve to force the hands of those executive members, pressuring them to alter their voting direction or vindicate the accusations of the investigation - or, it would give them an excuse to focus on, as soon as the results were announce, forcing a new campaign to execute an investigation into the heads of the most powerful footballing body on Earth.

There is polar divide appearing in opinion surrounding the outcome of the decision to award 2018 to Russia - there are those who feel that a series of kickbacks and corrupt purchasing of votes has lead to the first world cup in this region of the world. There are also those who felt the English bid, although technically excellent, with their array of facilities and infrastructure, was simply too accomplished, and not in need of a World Cup. Based on recent years, FIFA have a habit of awarding the competition to developing footballing countries (Germany aside). FIFA would claim that they attempt to use the arrival of a World Cup to a country to help develop the footballing image of that country - the masses of profits that they make from the 4-yearly competition is neither here nor there, as it is (in theory) reinvested into FIFA youth and development programmes and the provision of the best equipment and overarching officials who maintain the game and its integrity.

So is this the case in Russia, or does the acting head of the Football Association have a valid case? For me, the Panorama programme was less than conclusive - despite the hearsay and rumours, there was little validation given at any point, other than a list of names and numbers given, with no named source and no discussion as to further evidence.

However, does the case for corruption perhaps becomes a little more solidified when considering the award of the 2022 World Cup to the nation of Qatar? In a country with a population a little higher than that of Estonia, no existing footballing infrastructure, poor transport links and an extremely harsh summer climate, it begs the question what criteria has been used in the awarding of such a prestigious competition to such an unprepared nation, who presented such a technically void bid. The "legacy" of this world cup is going to leave several stadia within the country, with no remaining use once the World Cup crowds have come and gone. Preliminary discussions seem to suggest that the stadiums will be dismantled and award to other nations surrounding in the region - this seems a wholly unnecessary approach and will serve to create nothing other than a completely purpose built and featureless competition. Considering the competition facing Qatar, one must question what lead to the decision of the voting members to opt for such an unprepared and politically volatile region - the United States of America hosted a World Cup in recent living memory, as did both Japan and Korea - perhaps no real surprise that the latter 2 (even as sole bids) were not favourable outcomes. Consider though, the Australian and American bids for a moment - masses of good transport infrastructure and certainly in the case of the USA, many stadiums already prepared to host such a lucrative competition. I would expect that some form of investment would have been required to bring the Australian stadiums to a ready-state, though at nowhere near the significant investment which will be required in Qatar.

Which brings us back to the original question - is the decision of Roger Burden to walk away from his lofty position in the English footballing hierarchy validated by the refusal of FIFA to release any information regarding voting patterns - with such large amounts of money at stake to regions/countries, clarity must be key with the voting process and those who participate, to ensure a fairness is applied across the board - unless the process is made to be transparent, these accusations are not going to quickly evade Blatter et al - the decision to vote with his feet will leave Burden open to accusations of "spitting the dummy", but his concerns remain valid until proven otherwise.

tl;dr :wink:

Part/Time Supporter
04-12-2010, 04:26 PM
My view of Panorama is that it was scheduled for months in advance. They wanted to run a "FIFA corruption" story in the week of the World Cup decision and scrounged up whatever old stories they could put together (a bit like the Iraq WMD dossiers!), rather than actually investigating something on an ongoing basis and then breaking the story whenever something significant was found (as the Sunday Times did).

I think the FA are trying to create a "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario, but I don't think anyone outside England is listening really. The threats to break away from FIFA are laughable. The Home Nations already did that before the War, which is why none of them were involved before 1950.

basehibby
04-12-2010, 04:45 PM
I think the concerns are valid - the success of the Russia bid is one thing as they are a major football nation who have never hosted the tournament and undoubtably have the resources to put on a decent WC.
But the success of the Quatar bid is something else altogether - on the face of it they have absolutely no right to be jumping the queue on other more worthy nations and you've got to suspect that palms have been heavilly greased with the proceeds from high grade petroleum.
The Quatar bid of course puts the whole FIFA set up under suspicion and, given Russia's reputation as a state fueled by gangsterism and corruption, also makes the success of their bid seem a lot more suspicious than it would in isolation.

basehibby
04-12-2010, 04:51 PM
My view of Panorama is that it was scheduled for months in advance. They wanted to run a "FIFA corruption" story in the week of the World Cup decision and scrounged up whatever old stories they could put together (a bit like the Iraq WMD dossiers!), rather than actually investigating something on an ongoing basis and then breaking the story whenever something significant was found (as the Sunday Times did).

I think the FA are trying to create a "heads we win, tails you lose" scenario, but I don't think anyone outside England is listening really. The threats to break away from FIFA are laughable. The Home Nations already did that before the War, which is why none of them were involved before 1950.

:agree: It seems to me that the Panorama program was scheduled specifically for the self agrandisement of TV executives who could then gloat over bigger ratings. I don't think there's a shred of nobility in the decision to air the program when they did - the story of corruption in FIFA was already years old and the program schedulers should hang their heads in shame at their selfishness.

If it had been a Scottish bid which had been sabotaged in this way I would be outside the BBC right now demanding their heads on a platter.

Sylar
04-12-2010, 05:16 PM
tl;dr :wink:

Sorry, you've lost me...

Dashing Bob S
04-12-2010, 05:21 PM
:agree: It seems to me that the Panorama program was scheduled specifically for the self agrandisement of TV executives who could then gloat over bigger ratings. I don't think there's a shred of nobility in the decision to air the program when they did - the story of corruption in FIFA was already years old and the program schedulers should hang their heads in shame at their selfishness.

If it had been a Scottish bid which had been sabotaged in this way I would be outside the BBC right now demanding their heads on a platter.

Or even a blatter.

magpie1892
04-12-2010, 05:39 PM
Paraphrased from Wikipedia:

Friendly between Trinadad and Tobago and Scotland at ER 30/5/2004 Warner wants the cheque for the match made out to him personally,Mcbeth says no Warner goes round other officials,they all say no.......that man has a long memory

Go check it out yourself,corrupt as they come:cool2:

I was at that game in the posh seats. After the game in the lounge I was talking to a communications lassie from the SFA who was not a minion by any means but nowhere near senior enough to have access to the SFA match fee chequebook.

Warner comes up, interrupts her and asks her about the match fee. She replies 'you'll need to speak to David [Taylor] about that.' Warner replies: 'I've already asked him.'

Lol.

The SFA lassie was the third of four people that night he asked about the match fee. In two of these approaches he asked for the cheque to be made out to him personally.

I'm English, but really, more fool Willie, Cameron and Beckham for trusting a racist, duplicitous thief with decades of form and a hatred of England/white people.

Part/Time Supporter
04-12-2010, 05:55 PM
I was at that game in the posh seats. After the game in the lounge I was talking to a communications lassie from the SFA who was not a minion by any means but nowhere near senior enough to have access to the SFA match fee chequebook.

Warner comes up, interrupts her and asks her about the match fee. She replies 'you'll need to speak to David [Taylor] about that.' Warner replies: 'I've already asked him.'

Lol.

The SFA lassie was the third of four people that night he asked about the match fee. In two of these approaches he asked for the cheque to be made out to him personally.

I'm English, but really, more fool Willie, Cameron and Beckham for trusting a racist, duplicitous thief with decades of form and a hatred of England/white people.

As George W Bush tried to say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related): "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

Sioux
04-12-2010, 05:56 PM
.

Russia and Qatar are huge markets for football. Money is at the heart of these decisions, imo.

Sorry but how does Qatar equate to a huge market? It's population is substantially less than greater Manchester.

It is an utter nonsense for anyone who voted for Qatar to suggest that it offers anything at all.

Surely a world cup should be awarded to a nation's football supporting people not a just a bunch of overwealthy families who rule a very small nation.

It is unlikely that Qatar's football association is of greater significance that the SJFA! Sorry, I think this a disgraceful corrupt decision.

magpie1892
04-12-2010, 06:04 PM
As George W Bush tried to say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related): "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

Indeed.

nonshinyfinish
04-12-2010, 06:06 PM
I think that comment would apply to virtually every nationality wouldn't it?

:agree:

nonshinyfinish
04-12-2010, 06:07 PM
Sorry, you've lost me...

Abbreviation of 'too long, didn't read.' It's an internet thing.

magpie1892
04-12-2010, 06:08 PM
Sorry but how does Qatar equate to a huge market? It's population is substantially less than greater Manchester.

It is an utter nonsense for anyone who voted for Qatar to suggest that it offers anything at all.

Surely a world cup should be awarded to a nation's football supporting people not a just a bunch of overwealthy families who rule a very small nation.

It is unlikely that Qatar's football association is of greater significance that the SJFA! Sorry, I think this a disgraceful corrupt decision.

Qatar has a population of 1.7m. Of that figure, about 300,000 are Qatari, smaller than the population of Auld Reekie. The rest are European/US/Oz, etc. expats, Filipino service and shop staff and then a million guys from the Indian subcontinent, more or less indentured, who build the roads, the skyscrapers and will build the stadiums for 2022, etc., for about GBP1.30/hour.

So in the case of 2022, FIFA is doing its bit for the furtherance of slave labour.

Good work.

discman
04-12-2010, 06:11 PM
Sorry but how does Qatar equate to a huge market? It's population is substantially less than greater Manchester.

It is an utter nonsense for anyone who voted for Qatar to suggest that it offers anything at all.

Surely a world cup should be awarded to a nation's football supporting people not a just a bunch of overwealthy families who rule a very small nation.

It is unlikely that Qatar's football association is of greater significance that the SJFA! Sorry, I think this a disgraceful corrupt decision.


Thats family singular,been at it since 1971,Mr &Mrs Al Thani :greengrin

Oh and I agree, on all points:cool2:

Sylar
04-12-2010, 06:12 PM
Abbreviation of 'too long, didn't read.' It's an internet thing.

I suspected it would be something as childish as that - cheers.

Kaiser1962
04-12-2010, 06:38 PM
My tuppence worth is that for all those who have come out in the media claiming they either knew or were told that Russia had won the nomination, hinting at corruption, vote rigging and fixing, then no-one told Vladimir Putin. I would have thought that Putin, as a former head of the KGB, would, more than anybody, have had an inside line on what was happening if indeed this was the set-up some would have you believe. As soon as he found out he was basically on the first plane to Zurich when only the day before he was getting his excuses in first , basically the same as England are doing now, and claiming that Russia itself was the victim of the stitch up.
I am actually disappointed that England didn't get it but can see the reasons that they gave it to Russia

Of course it could all be a smoke screen of deniability and double bluff.....:greengrin

Cropley10
04-12-2010, 08:37 PM
FIFA is now exposed as being totally corrupt and unaccountable. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, apparently.

Russia deserve a World Cup, so does England, Qatar doesn't - not in any lifetime, IMHO. But the fact that Australia were ignored, is a travesty.

FIFA need to be overhauled the way the IOC have been.

Personally I think Scotland should bid for the World Cup, with England - even Wales. It was this island, these British Isles that started football, not China FFS. Britain would put on a mega World Cup, with such rich history, and great stadia.

whiskyhibby
04-12-2010, 08:41 PM
Vaild concerns........Yes...............FIFA Makes the Mafia look like amateurs


However its a pity that they only seemed to have these concerns after the vote went against them , so they got what they deserved Sweet F.A.


:shocked::3wise smi:3wise smi

nonshinyfinish
04-12-2010, 08:52 PM
Vaild concerns........Yes...............FIFA Makes the Mafia look like amateurs


However its a pity that they only seemed to have these concerns after the vote went against them , so they got what they deserved Sweet F.A.


:shocked::3wise smi:3wise smi

Indeed. Last week Panorama were being slated for exposing FIFA's corruption, now the FA, the media and everybody else are squealing about...FIFA's corruption.

And the beat goes on.

joebakerforever
04-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Perhaps another reason England were bombed out could be traced to the FA's clammy hand in 1966 which ensured all England's matches were played at Wembley.

Their semi against Portugal was scheduled for Goodison but was conveniently changed to Wembley.

Aye English corruption was never a problem in 1966 my arse !

woody47
04-12-2010, 10:48 PM
There is and always has been, IMO, dodgy goings on with FIFA.

However I for one really don't give a flying one that engerland didn't get the world cup played there. Mostly because they actually thought they were entitled to get it - just like they think they are entitled to win the bl00dy thing every time they enter this and any other competition they enter.

Now that no one has voted for them the dummy is well and truly spat out. :dummytit: Maybe now they might realise how much the rest of the world actually despise their arrogance and that has been proven with the amount of votes they got. :bye::bye::bye:

Speedy
05-12-2010, 02:26 AM
FIFA is now exposed as being totally corrupt and unaccountable. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, apparently.

Russia deserve a World Cup, so does England, Qatar doesn't - not in any lifetime, IMHO. But the fact that Australia were ignored, is a travesty.

FIFA need to be overhauled the way the IOC have been.

Personally I think Scotland should bid for the World Cup, with England - even Wales. It was this island, these British Isles that started football, not China FFS. Britain would put on a mega World Cup, with such rich history, and great stadia.

To answer the original question, I'd say it was the latter.

I don't have any argument to suggest that Qatar suggests a world cup but I think it would be viewed as a 'Middle East bid' rather than singling out the potential market as Qatar.

You aren't the first person that has said that about Australia but what makes you say that? They don't give a crap about football, why should they get it?

A British bid would never happen and to be honest I don't think Britain could offer anything that England couldn't.

magpie1892
05-12-2010, 07:30 AM
Perhaps another reason England were bombed out could be traced to the FA's clammy hand in 1966 which ensured all England's matches were played at Wembley.

Their semi against Portugal was scheduled for Goodison but was conveniently changed to Wembley.

Aye English corruption was never a problem in 1966 my arse !

Playing an England game scheduled for an English venue at another English venue. What underhand and 'clammy' 44-y-o machinations are these?

Yes, this was probably the reason.

magpie1892
05-12-2010, 07:37 AM
You aren't the first person that has said that about Australia but what makes you say that? They don't give a crap about football, why should they get it?

To be honest, I'd wager there are more people in Australia that 'give a crap' about football than in Qatar where, as has been noted, there are only 300,000 Qataris in total.

Compare the leagues. The A-League has its problems, undeniably, but it's far stronger in standard and attendance than the Qatar top flight.

It's yet another reason why Qatar should not be getting this competition, to add to the burgeoning list.

Now there's talk of playing the competition in January. So the European leagues must all bend to accommodate a tiny wee dustbowl in the Gulf. One imagines the English and Spanish (and Belgian, and NL) clubs might be somewhat intransigent...

Something tells me this is not over yet.

ScottB
05-12-2010, 02:36 PM
So now Boris Johnson has announced he is taking back his offer to give Sepp Blatter and co free accommodation in a posh London hotel during the Olympics.

Cause that offer couldn't possibly be seen as a bribe could it... :rolleyes:

Speedy
05-12-2010, 03:14 PM
To be honest, I'd wager there are more people in Australia that 'give a crap' about football than in Qatar where, as has been noted, there are only 300,000 Qataris in total.

Compare the leagues. The A-League has its problems, undeniably, but it's far stronger in standard and attendance than the Qatar top flight.

It's yet another reason why Qatar should not be getting this competition, to add to the burgeoning list.

Now there's talk of playing the competition in January. So the European leagues must all bend to accommodate a tiny wee dustbowl in the Gulf. One imagines the English and Spanish (and Belgian, and NL) clubs might be somewhat intransigent...

Something tells me this is not over yet.

From what I've read the number of citizens are nearer 500k-600k and its population is growing pretty fast.

I really don't think there are many 'soccer' fans in Australia. I was there when the world cup was on. The general impression I got was that they wanted the team to do well so I suppose my previous statement wasn't completely accurate but I'd probably compare it to us wanting the Scottish curlers to do well in the commonwealth games.

magpie1892
05-12-2010, 03:45 PM
From what I've read the number of citizens are nearer 500k-600k and its population is growing pretty fast.

I really don't think there are many 'soccer' fans in Australia. I was there when the world cup was on. The general impression I got was that they wanted the team to do well so I suppose my previous statement wasn't completely accurate but I'd probably compare it to us wanting the Scottish curlers to do well in the commonwealth games.

I live here, and it's the figure I quoted, most likely a bit less (some people reckon 200-250,000). The population is growing fast - with expats, mainly from the Philippines and the Indian sub-continent, i.e. slave labour, not huge football fans and not in the economic market to go to the game on their sixty quid a week.

Melbourne Heart average 14,000+. The curling at Ingliston gets, what, 14? Not an accurate comparison.

I've been to the football here. It's desperate, with crowds generally in the high three figures or, for an important derby, sometimes three or four thousand. Averages in the A-League are far higher (9,000 odds). Significantly more Australians go to the football in total, maybe 8-10x as many. Also worth remembering that some of the A-League teams are thousands of miles apart so not much in the way of the travelling support. In Qatar, literally half of the top flight clubs have grounds within walking distance of my flat in Doha. Well, you can walk in winter.

The locals love football, yes. They watch the Premiership and La Liga. I'm not really sure that counts as 'passion'. Passionate supporters go to the game unless they have a good excuse not to.

Betty Boop
05-12-2010, 06:16 PM
I live here, and it's the figure I quoted, most likely a bit less (some people reckon 200-250,000). The population is growing fast - with expats, mainly from the Philippines and the Indian sub-continent, i.e. slave labour, not huge football fans and not in the economic market to go to the game on their sixty quid a week.

Melbourne Heart average 14,000+. The curling at Ingliston gets, what, 14? Not an accurate comparison.

I've been to the football here. It's desperate, with crowds generally in the high three figures or, for an important derby, sometimes three or four thousand. Averages in the A-League are far higher (9,000 odds). Significantly more Australians go to the football in total, maybe 8-10x as many. Also worth remembering that some of the A-League teams are thousands of miles apart so not much in the way of the travelling support. In Qatar, literally half of the top flight clubs have grounds within walking distance of my flat in Doha. Well, you can walk in winter.

The locals love football, yes. They watch the Premiership and La Liga. I'm not really sure that counts as 'passion'. Passionate supporters go to the game unless they have a good excuse not to.

I've yet to see you post anything positive about Qatar. Why do you live there, if you don't mind me asking ?

Devonhibs
05-12-2010, 07:41 PM
In my current job I meet people who are quite high up in very prominent world wide companies and I was discussing this with one senior executive with an American Corporation who have had dealings with FIFA. His assessment is they are very much an old boys network and are very resistance to change - thats a major stumbling block with the goal line technology thing. The person I was talking to have taken onboard a manager who came from FIFA. He left as he was frustrated with the impossibility of changing how they approached and thought of things - his problem was he was younger and more dynamic. Another thing he said was when you deal with FIFA at a corporation level, the business side of things are very much one way - ie what can FIFA get out of it with very little give and take the other way. The last thing he said was, the primary concern of FIFA when considering where to hold an event, was how they can avoid paying any sort of tax on the earnings they make from the project.

Beefster
05-12-2010, 08:03 PM
To be honest, I'd wager there are more people in Australia that 'give a crap' about football than in Qatar where, as has been noted, there are only 300,000 Qataris in total.

If you quote the population of England or Scotland, do you remove the numbers of non-native inhabitants? I'm not sure the relevance of how many folk in Qatar are Qatari.

The fact is that the nation claims to have the capability to host a World Cup so why not let them? It may be hot but then a lot of places are. It'll be a lot more convenient to travel between venues than Australia or Russia would have been / will be.

sesoim
05-12-2010, 10:17 PM
FIFA stink. They reflect what goes on all round the world though, fat rich old men in an exclusive club who take huge fat envelopes for favours. The decent nations should get together to pull away from FIFA and set up a seperate competition where corrupt old men have no say. The danger is that the same thing will happen again, but FIFA deserve a scare. Their stubbornness over important issues like diving and video evidence, and their anti-Euro stance in terms of World Cup quotas smacks of a bunch of lazy ignorant arrogant men who don't care about football, only backhanders.

sesoim
05-12-2010, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE=woody47;2654686]There is and always has been, IMO, dodgy goings on with FIFA.

However I for one really don't give a flying one that engerland didn't get the world cup played there. Mostly because they actually thought they were entitled to get it - just like they think they are entitled to win the bl00dy thing every time they enter this and any other competition they enter.

Now that no one has voted for them the dummy is well and truly spat out. :dummytit: Maybe now they might realise how much the rest of the world actually despise their arrogance and that has been proven with the amount of votes they got. :bye::bye::bye:[/QUOTE


To be fair, if England had copyrighted football then they could have chose to host it in England every four year if they wanted to. I'm no great fan of the English FA, but why should Germany, Italy and a few others be allowed to host the WC two or three times but England get overlooked and outvoted by the likes of Belg+Holl?

And as for the other vote, there are only a few countries that are really suitable to host the World Cup, and giving one to Qatar is bizarre. The decisions remind of the British government - the rich folk are always looked after, foreigners are handed expensive houses in cities while folk like me sit on council house waiting lists for years, and the corrupt always find ways to cheat the system.

magpie1892
06-12-2010, 05:33 AM
I've yet to see you post anything positive about Qatar. Why do you live there, if you don't mind me asking ?

In four words: 'good job, good money'.

There are many positives about Qatar, just that none of them apply to the topic of discussion. The positives: tax-free, beautiful weather in winter, no visible crime, everyone seems to get along, and, on a more social level, everyone works. The government knows that the big selling point is the lack of income tax. There is precious little else to recommend the most boring country I've been in (and I've been around). If they did introduce income tax at, say, 20%, the place would empty. They know this.

The negatives all seem to stack up against the barmy idea of having a world cup here. I guess this is why all you've heard from me is negatives.

magpie1892
06-12-2010, 05:44 AM
If you quote the population of England or Scotland, do you remove the numbers of non-native inhabitants? I'm not sure the relevance of how many folk in Qatar are Qatari.

The fact is that the nation claims to have the capability to host a World Cup so why not let them? It may be hot but then a lot of places are. It'll be a lot more convenient to travel between venues than Australia or Russia would have been / will be.

I was proving (I hope) that there are more people in Australia than Qatar that 'give a crap' about football. The relevance of the Qatari:Expat proportion is because the latter are highly transient and, in the main, could in no way afford to go to the games. Thus the tourna,ent coming here is only of benefit to a number of locals which is less than the population of Edinburgh. I don't see that as particularly inclusive.


the nation claims to have the capability to host a World Cup so why not let them?But Australia/Korea/Japan/USA have the capability, so why not let them? Yours is not a convincing argument; was it Qatar's turn? The fact of the matter is that the Qatar bid was deemed the poorest by FIFA and the highest risk of the nine bids submitted yet got the gig.

My argument was that Qatar, as the FIFA report shows (to some extent), is not suited to host the competition on numerous levels which have been discussed here and worldwide.

Short distances between stadiums is a pretty tenuous selling point.

For the nth time: 'it may be hot' doesn't cover it. It's going to make for a dull and miserable fan experience - this is the primary reason why this decision should be re-examined. There are many others.

Septimus
06-12-2010, 07:24 AM
This has all proved one thing beyond doubt. When it comes to the Bad Losers League England are world class.

Beefster
06-12-2010, 09:05 AM
I was proving (I hope) that there are more people in Australia than Qatar that 'give a crap' about football. The relevance of the Qatari:Expat proportion is because the latter are highly transient and, in the main, could in no way afford to go to the games. Thus the tourna,ent coming here is only of benefit to a number of locals which is less than the population of Edinburgh. I don't see that as particularly inclusive.

But Australia/Korea/Japan/USA have the capability, so why not let them? Yours is not a convincing argument; was it Qatar's turn? The fact of the matter is that the Qatar bid was deemed the poorest by FIFA and the highest risk of the nine bids submitted yet got the gig.

My argument was that Qatar, as the FIFA report shows (to some extent), is not suited to host the competition on numerous levels which have been discussed here and worldwide.

Short distances between stadiums is a pretty tenuous selling point.

For the nth time: 'it may be hot' doesn't cover it. It's going to make for a dull and miserable fan experience - this is the primary reason why this decision should be re-examined. There are many others.

I'm not trying to make the case for it being hosted in Qatar. I'm just bored with folk whining about the decisions. The same happened from the time South Africa got the tournament until it actually started.

Tesco must be running out of sour grapes this week.

magpie1892
06-12-2010, 09:51 AM
I'm not trying to make the case for it being hosted in Qatar. I'm just bored with folk whining about the decisions. The same happened from the time South Africa got the tournament until it actually started.

Tesco must be running out of sour grapes this week.

I'm less whining about the decision and more saying it stinks to high heaven. I'm not Oz, Korean, Japanese or American so I'll pass on the sour grapes.

But I do live in Qatar, which is why I am very concerned about what sort of experience the fans and players are going to have here - and that a mediocre or failed tournament might do more harm than good for the country and the region. It's damaged FIFA as well which is a shame as the organisation can and should be a force for good through football, rather than the person fief of creatures like Blatter and the racist thief Warner.

Blatter wants re-elected as President next year, at age 75. By then, he'll have been on the ExCo for 23 years. Even if he were pure as the driven snow, I just don't see how that's healthy. Again, there's no sour grapes required.

Should have been Egypt.

p.s. If you're bored with people 'whining' about it, then maybe avoid threads where people are 'whining' about it?

Speedy
06-12-2010, 04:22 PM
I live here, and it's the figure I quoted, most likely a bit less (some people reckon 200-250,000). The population is growing fast - with expats, mainly from the Philippines and the Indian sub-continent, i.e. slave labour, not huge football fans and not in the economic market to go to the game on their sixty quid a week.

Melbourne Heart average 14,000+. The curling at Ingliston gets, what, 14? Not an accurate comparison.

I've been to the football here. It's desperate, with crowds generally in the high three figures or, for an important derby, sometimes three or four thousand. Averages in the A-League are far higher (9,000 odds). Significantly more Australians go to the football in total, maybe 8-10x as many. Also worth remembering that some of the A-League teams are thousands of miles apart so not much in the way of the travelling support. In Qatar, literally half of the top flight clubs have grounds within walking distance of my flat in Doha. Well, you can walk in winter.

The locals love football, yes. They watch the Premiership and La Liga. I'm not really sure that counts as 'passion'. Passionate supporters go to the game unless they have a good excuse not to.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_league) they have averaged 8.6k this year. Melbourne has a population of about 4million people so that's not really a lot, even if you were to assume MV were to get 15k-20k as well.

I'm not saying I think it should have been given to Qatar but I don't understand why so many people over here are saying Australia should've got it.

And the point I was making with the curling comparison is that people generally seemed to want them to do well but they weren't that bothered either way, which is pretty much the attitude when Rhona whatever her name is won the gold a few years ago.

Bostonhibby
06-12-2010, 04:30 PM
Valid concerns that most interested parties should have about the morally bankrupt but financially well heeled untouchable gang that FIFA always were, but Blatter has brought it to an art form.

Anyone could have taken them on at any time, and good for the BBC for producing what others could have but didn't, just imagine SKY falling out with the football mafia and what it would mean for SKY revenue not to turn a blind eye.

England/ Nah, had they won they would have been counting the revenue and singing FIFA's praises, after all we wheeled out 2 or 3 serious figureheads all under the auspices of the current way of doing it. If they did not want it to look like sour grapes the time for protest, withdrawal or anything else was before the bid, refuse to participate and say why or you just perpetuate it.

magpie1892
06-12-2010, 06:16 PM
Valid concerns that most interested parties should have about the morally bankrupt but financially well heeled untouchable gang that FIFA always were, but Blatter has brought it to an art form.

Anyone could have taken them on at any time, and good for the BBC for producing what others could have but didn't, just imagine SKY falling out with the football mafia and what it would mean for SKY revenue not to turn a blind eye.

England/ Nah, had they won they would have been counting the revenue and singing FIFA's praises, after all we wheeled out 2 or 3 serious figureheads all under the auspices of the current way of doing it. If they did not want it to look like sour grapes the time for protest, withdrawal or anything else was before the bid, refuse to participate and say why or you just perpetuate it.

Sorry, my error, I did mean MV. Either way, significantly more people watch the domestic product PER CAPITA in Oz than Qatar.

As to the above, I agree with your third par. Had England got it there would not have been a whisper. This much is human nature, I think.

I say again (and again, and again), that Russia got the gig is not the issue, it's the seemingly personal and duplicitous way in which England was humiliated that grates. I'd have been happy(ish) had either of NL/BE or E/P got it but can countenance neither the manner in which Russia got it nor the fact that 'fair play FIFA' think that a routinely racist (see that West Brom player's valediction from the Locomotiv Moscow 'fans'), routinely violently homophobic (take your pick from the internet) and utterly corrupt and murderous (take your pick) 'mafia state' is the place to take the WC.

As for Qatar, the same questions can be posed again, plus many more. We need only stop at the heat, the size of the place, the fact that this is a very unattractive country and, subjectively, a very boring one.

Who will get 2026? The Moon?

goosano
06-12-2010, 06:23 PM
Read the book FOUL!-The secret world of FIFA:Bribes vote rigging and ticket scandals by Andrew Jennings the guy who was featured on Panorama. FIFA are unaccountable especially at the top level. They have a lack of transparency. As stated they are in it for the money and it is an old boys network. The behaviour of individuals like Jack Warner beggers belief. Jennings makes many allegations that would be libellous if false.

Has he been sued?-nope

magpie1892
06-12-2010, 06:38 PM
Read the book FOUL!-The secret world of FIFA:Bribes vote rigging and ticket scandals by Andrew Jennings the guy who was featured on Panorama. FIFA are unaccountable especially at the top level. They have a lack of transparency. As stated they are in it for the money and it is an old boys network. The behaviour of individuals like Jack Warner beggers belief. Jennings makes many allegations that would be libellous if false.

Has he been sued?-nope

Jennings fielded '***** off' from Warner as a response to legitimate enquiries. About an hour later, Warner gave a speech about how 'no foreigner, especially no white foreigner' would impact on his, er, 'progress'. This is all on record of course, and YouTube.

Sepp Blatter is 74. Next year, aged 75, he seeks re-election (again) as FIFA President. At this time, he will have been on the ExCo for 23 years and having decided the location for six consecutive World Cups. As I have previously said, even if Blatter were lillywhite, this is not healthy for even a semblance of transparancy or 'fair play'.

That there needs to be an 'Arab' WC is not in doubt for me. Picking Qatar is a total affront to sense and sensibility. I am better informed than most in this regard to make this judgement. Egypt, then. Just put your hand up. Agreeable (just) summer climate; size, population, some infrastructure, appeared at WC, seven times CONA champions (three in a row), love of the game and the figures to prove it, etc.

Football does not belong to Blatter, though surely he thinks it does. The less said about number two (in all senses) Warner the better.

On this thread we have a number of people getting their kill about England not getting 2018, and that's not a problem at all - I laugh like a drain at Scotland's ineptitude as surely as Scottish fans did when Lampard's 'goal' against Germany in June was not given. That's not a problem.

Be contrary, hate England, fill your boots. It's not an issue. But answer me this: can you not smell something unpleasant?

Many can. Something has got to give as the current situation is untenable for much longer.

Kaiser1962
06-12-2010, 07:12 PM
There may be a bit of skulduggery going on but England appeared to be fully aware that was how deals were done. Boris Johnson withdrawing the freebie hotel that he offered to the FIFA committee stinks even worse of hypocrisy and that the English seem to be getting upset not because Russia won but appear to be conceding that their bribes werent good enough and that appears to rankle even more.
I am by no means anti English and, personally, would have been delighted if England had got the 2018 WC but they didnt and I can understand the reasons that it went to Russia, Qatar is a bit different but that said they have 12 years to do it so good luck to them.




Jennings fielded '***** off' from Warner as a response to legitimate enquiries. About an hour later, Warner gave a speech about how 'no foreigner, especially no white foreigner' would impact on his, er, 'progress'. This is all on record of course, and YouTube.

Sepp Blatter is 74. Next year, aged 75, he seeks re-election (again) as FIFA President. At this time, he will have been on the ExCo for 23 years and having decided the location for six consecutive World Cups. As I have previously said, even if Blatter were lillywhite, this is not healthy for even a semblance of transparancy or 'fair play'.

That there needs to be an 'Arab' WC is not in doubt for me. Picking Qatar is a total affront to sense and sensibility. I am better informed than most in this regard to make this judgement. Egypt, then. Just put your hand up. Agreeable (just) summer climate; size, population, some infrastructure, appeared at WC, seven times CONA champions (three in a row), love of the game and the figures to prove it, etc.

Football does not belong to Blatter, though surely he thinks it does. The less said about number two (in all senses) Warner the better.

On this thread we have a number of people getting their kill about England not getting 2018, and that's not a problem at all - I laugh like a drain at Scotland's ineptitude as surely as Scottish fans did when Lampard's 'goal' against Germany in June was not given. That's not a problem.

Be contrary, hate England, fill your boots. It's not an issue. But answer me this: can you not smell something unpleasant?

Many can. Something has got to give as the current situation is untenable for much longer.

--------
06-12-2010, 08:44 PM
You want an example of a crook running FIFA?

Try Stanley Rous for size.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/fifa.html

Part/Time Supporter
06-12-2010, 09:11 PM
Two things need to be remembered in all the criticism of FIFA.

1) The words pot and kettle come to mind when anyone from the FA criticises FIFA bureaucracy and domination by certain vested interests and cliques.

2) The FA (and the other three UK associations) has more power as of right within FIFA than any other individual association. The home nations basically control the International Board, which controls the laws of the game, and have a guaranteed FIFA vice-president between them. That's far more real and measurable power than Germany, Brazil, Italy and so on. The singular failure of the FA to use that power and influence reflects far more on them than it does on FIFA.

Sas_The_Hibby
06-12-2010, 09:56 PM
Or even a blatter.

I'm sorry but I just find these sort of puns unaksepptable :offski: