Jump to content

Ansem

Members
  • Posts

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ansem

  1. Just now, baron-pierreIV said:

    Yes, it comes on at 2pm EST.  But the majority of the sponsors will still be US; and the population base of course, should determine the distribution of venues and games.  Obviously, the Canada and France teams will open in Canada.  

    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

  2. 5 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    LOL.

    Canada will get at most 3 cities (and maybe one semi-final).  

    Official opener:  at the new Los Angeles Rams stadium

    US sites: NY area, Los Angeles, Chicago, SF Bay Area, Boston, Miami or Orlando areas, Dallas or Houston

    semi-finals: Azteca Stadium and  either LA Memorial or Montreal.  Semi-finals stages will also depend on which, if any of the host nation teams, advance,  

    Finals: MetLife Stadium in NY metro area. 

    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

  3. On 4/8/2017 at 4:35 PM, LatinXTC said:

    Nor are Canada's stadiums on par with the US ones. Hell I'd even be bold to say that they pale in comparison to Mexico's. Mexico has at least one 80,000+ capacity stadium for soccer specific games and at least 2 50,000+ ones. The best soccer stadium Canada can offer is BC Place in Vancouver. Everything else bigger than 50,000+ capacity is designed for other sports that will give s**t views for people who would pay top dollar for a ticket.

    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

    On 4/8/2017 at 4:35 PM, LatinXTC said:

    Let's just dump all of the matches no one will care about to Canada, like Ivory Coast vs Iran lol.

    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

  4. On 4/8/2017 at 3:47 AM, LatinXTC said:

    Oh f**k this stupidass decision. The US DOES NOT need a joint bid with any country. With all of its 30+ NFL stadiums readily available and easily converted for a soccer game it can handle a World Cup twice its current size. If anything Canada and Mexico need each other to cut the costs of hosting the event, especially with their now expanded roster. I'm already rooting for any bid to defeat this ridiculous 3-way bid.

    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

  5. 23 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Wow, so childish and immature posting images like that.  Glad to see I've rubbed off on you :D

    ..is exactly what someone with an inferiority complex would say.  Thank you for proving my point B):lol::P

    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

  6. 6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Little bit.  I think the key difference is that certain other someone is mostly just trying to blow smoke up your ass.  This one has a giant stick up his ass.  Most likely a hockey stick, of course.  Again, MASSIVE inferiority complex.  He's not so much RuFF as he is RuFF around the edges :lol:.  And like I said earlier, he actually has a lot of baron in him as well

    Says the kid posting childish images. MASSIVE superiority complex

  7. 7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Will the votes actually reflect that they mean it?

    definitely, hence the USSF needing Mexico and Canada to get the votes they wouldn't on their own, especially now.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    It's not the end all be all you seem to want it to be.

    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.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    How are we sure a future Canadian president wouldn't come along and be just as much of a fire starter as Trump is, considering as you say no one could have seen this coming?

    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.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    That you're bringing up terrorist attacks in relation to Trump's ban is extremely ignorant.  Did a specific incident set him off?

    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.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    And you're going to try and predict what the response would be to an attack in 2026 when Trump will have long been out of office?

    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.

    7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    And not for nothing, we all saw the chaos that came from the original travel ban.  Now here's this new travel ban, which has been modified.  Who knows what form the next one will take.  So unless you think you can predict the future, don't offer this up like it's the new normal in the United States and will be for years to come.  Unpredictable is the right word to use right now, but this is the usual spin from you.  And it's ridiculous to argue with you on it.

    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.

    8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    From the organization that awarded a World Cup to Qatar, they wish "something major going wrong" would be the accessibility of a particular country.  You're not doing a cost-benefit analysis or assessing risk.

    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.

    8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You're isolating 1 particular factor and trying to blow it out of proportion.  It's obvious this will get taken into account, but it gets weighed along with everything else that goes into the decision.  And you keep posting about this issue as if you think I'm ignoring it.

    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.

    8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    How about we meet in the middle here, and I know that's difficult for you because you really really want to frame this to where a US bid in anything becomes a non-starter.  Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not going to happen.  Maybe FIFA or the IOC believe all this is an acceptable risk, especially so far as the 2026 World Cup is concerned where Trump is long gone.  

    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.

    8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Either way, you know as well as I do that Paris was likely to beat LA for 2024 before all this happened.  Nothing that has happened in the past few months has significantly altered those odds.  Perceptions may have changed, but you are one of the last people on these forums that should be speaking for what the IOC is likely to take into account as risk.

    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.

    8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    I'm done with this.  If you want to root against the United States because you're Canadian and see this as an opportunity for Canada to capitalize, go for it.  But stop with this bullshit where you're going to be the guy who has to point the finger every time something negative about the US comes to light and pretending you're all about "facts" when clearly you have an agenda

    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

  8. 1 hour ago, Nacre said:

    I thought the Olympic Stadium could no longer host 70,000 seats after the latest reconstruction, but I could be wrong

    There was no reconstruction other than the roof. Theorically, they could reconfigure to the 1976 configuration which allowed over 71k seats.

    2 hours ago, Nacre said:

    In any case Canada would need to a build a new stadium for the other semi-finals. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium are not big enough.

    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.

    2 hours ago, Nacre said:

    I seriously question the value for money for Canada compared to hosting the winter games in Calgary. You can argue Canada would only need another two or three stadiums, but three unneeded stadiums is still three too many.

    2018 will be the start of the CPL, Canadian Premier League, our own division 1 league.

    No stadium will be unneeded 

  9. 1 hour ago, RuFF said:

    Okay. Well, for what it's worth Paris is too good for the IOC, too. That would apply to any city that potentially legitimizes the IOC in its current form. However, that doesn't mean one can't examine the merits of the bids especially in terms of how it could help change the image of the IOC should the IOC choose to change its culture and align it with what we all already know to be true. Sure, blah blah and trash talk RuFF, but just like the question I would pose to parisians if they think their tax payer bucks would b it be used for the games, I can assure a pretty unanimous answer if you ask people, especially everyone on this thread... is the IOC corrupt and/or out of touch. 

    We all know that answer so based on that for anybody to say that the IOC deserves not to have global cities competing for their games is absolutely not out of line. 

    So id ask the parrot FYI who squaks her gassy mouth, do you think Paris should legitimize what the IOC is doing? 

    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 :D

    • Like 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Donald Trump said he wants to build a wall.  Is there a wall?  No.  Will there be a wall?  Maybe.  And yes, that's your personal opinion.  We all get that, but don't quote an article and keep saying "facts" and then make this about your opinion.  I know what Infantino said.  I believe him when he says he would hold that against a US bid.  But much like all the nonsense that gets quoted with Thomas Bach, the actions of the voters may or may not follow from what their leader said.  Even still, as noted, we've got a ways off from the vote.  Donald Trump will not be president in 2026.  Yea, the American political landscape could get a whole lot uglier and if it does, you're 100% right that it could jeopardize a US World Cup bid.  But unless you have the ability to predict the future, all you're doing is offering your best guess at what will go down 3 years from now.

    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.

  11. 1 minute ago, zekekelso said:

    You keep using words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. 

    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.

  12. 4 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    LOL.  Facts.  Like you should talk.  You don't like facts so much as you like cherry picking which facts you want to present.  Doesn't make you wrong.  Just means there's more sides to an argument than the ones you want everyone to see.

    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.

    7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    When you quote parts of an article and not the whole thing, then by definition you are omitting.  Post the link and let me read the article.  Don't do your usual bullshit where you put parts of it in bold or highlight certain text as if you're shoving parts of it in my face and choosing the points you want for emphasis.  That's extremely disingenuous of you.

    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.

    9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Good for direct quotations.  I'm not doubting that those things were said, but when it comes to FIFA and the IOC, sometimes what they say and what their actions speak are not 1 in the same.  Again, I am not doubting the obstacles that Trump is potentially creating here and what it might do for a potential solo US bid.  But don't sell us this line where the United States is the weak link simply because you say so and because a couple of quotes from FIFA give you confirmation bias.  That's why I'm saying let's hear this from someone who isn't you and who doesn't have an inferiority complex here.

    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.

     

  13. 1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

    1) It would be nice to hear it from someone who isn't you who is actively rooting for the United States to falter or at the very least someone who doesn't have an inferiority complex when it comes to Canada versus the United States.

    You don't like facts

    1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

    2) Would be nice if you didn't omit paragraphs which counter your argument.  Can't use the above link, but since it was sourced from elsewhere, let's use this..

    Donald Trump travel ban could prevent USA from hosting 2026 World Cup

    I quoted an American website quoting Infantino himself. Didn't omitted anything.

    Quote

    The United States is favourite to win the right to host the 2026 World Cup, either on its own or in a cross-border bid with either, or both, Mexico and Canada.

    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...