Jump to content

Ansem

Members
  • Posts

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ansem

  1. Mexico getting the opening at Azteca makes sense: Strongest CONCACAF team which would show the strength of our region in the very first game.
  2. We're debating in our soccer thread about who gets the opening game, semi-finals, 3rd place game and finals. Should be interesting.
  3. Again, you don't know. Let's wait for the announcement. Details are likely to come later. For the rest, you're just making assumptions at this point
  4. Let's wait to see the bid itself. No one has a clue what's in it. It's not a US bid with 2 other federations but a 3 country CONCACAF bid. To many details we don't know about: who's the lead? CONCACAF or the 3 nations? How the sites will be determined? etc... So far it sounds like CONCACAF might play a heavy hand in it's organization using input from all 3 nations so far. So we'll know more in the coming weeks however, anyone thinking this bid will be a USSF led bid are in for a disappointment
  5. Montreal Olympic Stadium is the biggest. It most likely will be renovated and reconfigured to the 1976 Olympic games setting. During those games, the final game of the soccer tournament could sit 72k fans. Realistically, it should be a semi-final stadium. The Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton can be easily expanded to over 70k seats and Calgary is looking to replace their stadium for the Stampeders. In our soccer forum, we're thinking that these stadiums will be used if it's 4 stadiums per countries for a total of 12: Montreal Olympic Stadium Edmonton Commonwealth Stadium Vancouver BC place Toronto BMO Field or the Skydome Azteca has the advantage to host the final game. *I doubt you ever saw a soccer game in one of those 4 stadiums, so your opinion is just that That's not how it works. The draw for the groups are assigned to stadiums, so it will be random. The only thing I could see FIFA manipulate is making sure that the 3 countries plays in separate groups and that they play all their games in their home country before the knockout stage
  6. They actually did. Insiders said that a solo US bid would have had a harder time getting the necessary votes to win and that 3 separate bids in CONCACAF would have made it worse by dividing the votes allowing a bid from Morocco to win. The USSF knew full well a solo bid had little chance to win
  7. Had to sunk to your level. I get why it's so funny. Oh...exactly what someone with a superiority complex would say. Thanks for proving my point
  8. Says the kid posting childish images. MASSIVE superiority complex
  9. You do know that's a am American brand and that's not even true maple syrup
  10. Wow...Real mature! You're proving my point buddy
  11. It's alright, go back to Fox News
  12. definitely, hence the USSF needing Mexico and Canada to get the votes they wouldn't on their own, especially now. What I want is irrelevant, I'm not the one issuing a racist travel ban. Personally, and that's my opinion, it's refreshing for these kind of events to go somewhere new and FIFA mandate is to grow the game. We don't have a President. We have a Prime Minister. Our political system makes it easy to remove a nutjob as Prime Minister where yours doesn't. We don't vote for the Prime Minister. We vote for our local Member of Parliament. The party that wins the most seats win the election. That same party choose its leader and that leader becomes "Prime Minister" in this case, Justin Trudeau. If Trudeau goes nuts, the party can fire him as leader and he'd be downgraded as a Member of Parliament. Then the party would choose a new Prime Minister. A Trump wouldn't last 2 years in Canada. He's the one using hypothetical, fictional and out of context terrorist attacks to justify his racist ban, not me. Gun control would save more lives than this racist travel ban. Americans are known to "overreact" when stuff like this happen. Sorry but 9/11 was a huge overreaction that costs Trillions to you taxpayers. Yes overreaction, especially with that illegal Iraq war...completely destroying an entire nation that was never a threat to the United States based on fabricated evidence. Quite frankly, I could care less about what the US do with their borders. Every countries are entitled to do whatever they want with it and people should just spend their money elsewhere by choosing other vacation spots. It's just funny that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not only those 6 countries that are condemning the racist ban, the whole world is (except Israel), same for that ridiculous wall with Mexico. It's clearly a discrimination exercise and that's not a good message to send when trying to get tournaments or events based on peace, respect and solidarity. The US have the right to ban whoever they want, but the world has the right to say, we're not having our mega party over there. All 203 (or 209) federations will vote for the 2026 tournament in 2020. Good luck convincing Central and South America (those bad hombres...), Africa & Asia (FIFA biggest voting block where the Middle-East is along with the Chinese block), and even the UEFA (Merkel and the EU are just terrible and vive Brexit...) to side with the United States. Qatar first of all, out-manoeuvered and most likely out bribe the US in 2010. According to Sepp Blatter, a deal was made backstage to have Russia in 2018 and the US in 2022. So can we stop pretending the US didn't play the same game as everyone else? At the last minute, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, UEFA President Michel Platini got the Qatari in the room with Sepp Blatter and pushed for Qatar instead. It was a secret ballot and votes switched from the US to Qatar. That FBI crackdown of FIFA was most likely a way to retaliate. Second, Qatar has most likely poured way more money into FIFA and soccer than the USA ever will. They own and sponsor the world top teams like Barcelona. In term of money and infrastructure, there was virtually no risk. Then you have political stability as it's a monarchy. We all know they have questionable human rights and I believe the extreme treatment of their foreign workers blindsided everyone, including FIFA. Not because they care about humans rights but they care about their image and this was a PR disaster for them. From a cost-benefits analysis and risk assessment point of view, Qatar made sense from FIFA's perspective but they failed to take into account that poor human rights would end up burning them and although they contemplated backtracking from 2022, it was too late. After Brazil, Russia and Qatar problems, Infantino has been clear about doing business differently. Developing countries and those with poor human rights will have a hard time getting tournaments going forward. Again, not because FIFA cares, but because the #1 thing they care about is their image. Which brings me to the US. Unless the president himself signs a paper stating that no bans would be in effect during a World Cup tournament (no matter what happens until then), in advance of the vote, as Infantino and UEFA President said, it will be held against the US. Most Americans are minimizing it and are either not inform or oblivious to the rest of the world take on it. In regard of 2026, it's the world who will be judging those bids. It's wishful thinking that nations will just forget about it. Acceptable risk? Top 2 FIFA men just said that a ban as a non-starter. Unless they get a guarantee, it will absolutely be held against the US. The IOC would be the one more willing to take a chance ahead of FIFA. The US influence is FIFA is really not a big as you think and unlike the IOC, finding bids is far from being a problem for them. I just said that the IOC would be more willing to accommodate the US. The US influence in the Olympic movement is undeniable, hence not being surprise that people within the IOC supports awarding both Paris and LA for 2024 and 2028. FIFA however, is entirely different beast. Like it or not, the US influence in FIFA is really not that big. You're done being told that sometimes (just sometimes) you're country is in the wrong and at a disadvantage on some stuff. Can't be #1 in everything, right? But I understand you're frustration and where it comes from. Canada? My only argument was that we could host it, but hey, it's alright when Americans can keep ridiculing and pointing out everything wrong with other nations and how they will never measure up to them, but I'm supposed to just lower my head and accept that...ok. Well I don't and when I do the same thing in reverse, people just can't handle it and that's fine...even unbelievably entertaining. Go back to my first post on this thread and tell me I was the one starting this BS that you find so vexing. Or don't, I don't care
  13. There was no reconstruction other than the roof. Theorically, they could reconfigure to the 1976 configuration which allowed over 71k seats. Commonwealth can be easily expended to beyond 70k. That stadium is huge as is and have lots of space for more seats. BC place can't so the new Calgary stadium being planned could be designed for a semi-final. 2018 will be the start of the CPL, Canadian Premier League, our own division 1 league. No stadium will be unneeded
  14. Pfff -See you later USA! Respectfully, IOC and FIFA
  15. Bargaining? Really? You sound like you're going through the 5 stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) You're halfway there towards acceptance
  16. The US Travel ban sets a dangerous precedent. That ban was written overnight by a president who didn't even bother telling is own people, and some of them found out the next morning about that order...This bring uncertainty, and that's never attractive for events of this magnitude, project management or business. Sure, no one can predict what the future holds and yes Trump will be out of there by 2025 at the latest. We all get that. What FIFA is saying is that today's action still does have an effect. The US are seen by the rest of the world as "unpredictable". Last year, France had 2 brutal terrorists attacks (Paris and Nice) and some of those criminals were not even from France. Did France issue a travel ban targeting Muslim countries? No. Like the British say, "they kept calm and carry on". Can you honestly tell me that the same thing happens in spring 2026 (US 250th anniversary of all years) in Manhattan and Miami by outsiders from that part of the world that US politicians won't reintroduce the ban? Maybe they won't, but it's reasonable to have that doubt that they would indeed reintroduce such ban and there's no way that a soccer tournament takes priority over national security in the United States. A year ago a Trump president was deemed impossible and it happened regardless. How sure are we another "unpredictable" president won't be in charge after him? A year ago, I would have said no way but today, I honestly have no clue, same for the rest of the globe. This is where FIFA is coming from. Regardless of them being corrupted, hypocrites, criminals and a joke of an organization, they still have this "cost-benefits analysis and risk assessment" approach to a world cup, yes even in regards to Qatar. Awarding the tournament to the USA increases the risk of something major going wrong (like banning the entire Iranian team from entering the US). Hence, Paris will most likely win the 2024 Summer Games. It's less risky than LA and the IOC are less likely to take such a risk with their games on LA. There's a risk assessment in every project undertaken and the US just became "riskier" on that specific front. Does that mean they have no chance in hell? No, but hopefully you understand why yesterday, awarding mega events to the US was a no-brainer and now became "riskier". It's normal for FIFA and IOC to take a harder look at their options (which they have). That's how business work as well.
  17. Olympics should be on a deserted neutral Island with all the necessary infrastructure built there. Than the world could get to that location and enjoy the game ending this drama...
  18. Infantino said in London on Thursday: "When it comes to FIFA competitions, any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious." Iran regularly qualifies for the World Cup as it is, he's saying that a scenario where Iran qualifies but the team, their fans and officials from Iran not being able to enter said country will not be allowed. FIFA isn't criticizing said ban, but they are clearly saying you can't expect to have it both ways.
  19. You're funny. I quoted the entire article. If I had found that British article I would have quoted the entire thing too. As for both side of the argument, you're one to talk yourself. I've heard all the reasons why the USA can host, yet you hate the other side of it on why they shouldn't host. Same for Canada, I keep hearing all the reasons we can't host, so I present the arguments on why we actually can host without dismissing the challenges for a Canadian bid. No bid is ever perfect. I posted the ESPN link and entire article. You're nitpicking over 1 personal opinion from a journalist which wasn't the point of the overall article. The main point is now that the top 2 man in FIFA have now said on record that the Trump ban will hurt a US bid. So you'll gladly take a journalist opinion saying that the US are favorites but dismiss an opposing opinion saying that it's the weakest link of a North American bid. Ok. Perhaps I should have clarified that the weakest link comment was my personal opinion, but it's based on the fact that the top FIFA man literally said BAN=NO CUP.
  20. You don't like facts I quoted an American website quoting Infantino himself. Didn't omitted anything. That's a journalistic opinion. It's not based on facts nor a direct quotation from a FIFA official. You already have 2 of the most powerful man in FIFA saying the opposite of what that journalist is saying based on his opinion. Hell, even Gulati, head of the USSF and member of the FIFA Council himself said the same thing multiple times.If that was true, why on earth is the USSF seeking to co-bid in the first place?
×
×
  • Create New...