Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


!VamosSochi! last won the day on November 28 2010

!VamosSochi! had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    third planet from Helios

!VamosSochi!'s Achievements


Silver (4/16)



  1. This is my post back from 2007. It's now again 10 hours before we present. Another bid seems like another world. This time our bid is less strong and our competition is more fierce. Still Russians never give up. Tomorrow we'll be with the shield or on top of it. Vamos!
  2. Yevgeny Lovchev won 52 caps for Russia. Here is what he says in The Times today. I always had a special passion for English football. It started with the 1966 World Cup. In the old Soviet Union, that was the first World Cup that we could watch on TV. I played against England in a friendly in Moscow in 1973, when we lost 1-0. And I once enjoyed a nice chat with Sir Alfred Ramsey at a post-match banquet in Kiev. So I have fond memories, and I have great respect for football in England, too. But for all that, I strongly believe Russia needs a World Cup much more than England or its other Western European rivals. Russia should stage the tournament in 2018. First of all, Russia, or the whole of Eastern Europe for that matter, has never hosted a World Cup. For Fifa, it is very important to make football a truly global sport and that is why it was so adamant to stage the first World Cup in Africa this year. And bringing the World Cup to Russia would make it an integral part of the world because for many decades, since the end of the Second World War, Eastern Europe has been isolated in many ways. The World Cup would help to bring that to an end. So it would help Fifa and help Russia, too. Russia needs a World Cup to improve its infrastructure, to build modern stadiums, hotels and airports, to build new motorways. Without the World Cup it would take much longer for our country to create all these necessities. England does not need a World Cup to improve its infrastructure. I have been to England many times, so I know first hand that it has everything in place. And staging the tournament in a country like England would do little to enhance the global growth of our game. You could argue that it would be a big risk to stage the World Cup in Russia simply because most of the infrastructure must be built from scratch. But, in my opinion, we have a very stable political situation and stable Government, we have President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who will be leading our country for many years to come and will be in charge in 2018. They are both fully committed to this World Cup project. I do not see any negative aspects of Russia's bid. Some say that Russia has racist problems; a lot has been said about the treatment of Peter Odemwingie, the West Bromwich Albion striker. But let me make one thing clear: I've known Odemwingie since his youth days, when he played for the CSKA Moscow youth academy, and he was never treated differently from any other player. We have a lot of black players in Russia and fans abuse them, just as they abuse Russian players, when they do not perform well. Just ask Vágner Love, the Brazil striker, what it is like to play here; he is adored by CSKA fans. In short, the racial problem is one of many big myths about Russia. And that is another reason why we should host the World Cup — to clear many misconceptions about our country and bring it closer to the rest of the world. It could be a better football world after a World Cup here, too.
  3. published today by insideworldfootball.biz FIFA's 2018/2022 inspection team has hit the road. With less than four months to go, the race to stage the next World Cup but one is finally steaming towards the top of the 24 FIFA Executive Committee members' in-trays. At this point, with contenders jostling for position ahead of the final push, I thought it would be a good time to attempt to assess the state of play in this 2018 contest: Who would be likely to back whom if the all-important vote were tomorrow rather than in December? The following stab at the first-round outcome is what I have come up with. In some cases, my score-sheet is based on no more than a hunch; in others, on something more substantial. For now, I am assuming that Sepp Blatter, the FIFA President, however he might influence the result in other ways, confines himself to exercising a casting vote if and when required. This leaves 23 votes to distribute between the five runners and this, in ascending order, is where I currently have them falling: ● Belgium/Holland - Two Votes: D’Hooghe and Chung ● United States - Three Votes: Blazer, Warner and Salguero ● England - Five Votes: Thompson, Adamu, Erzik, Bin Hammam and Ogura ● Spain/Portugal - Six Votes: Villar Llona, Leoz, Grondona, Teixeira, Hayatou and Abo Rida ● Russia - Seven Votes: Mutko, Lefkaritis, Anouma, Beckenbauer, Platini, Makudi and Temarii If this were the first-round outcome, and assuming FIFA adopts an Olympic-style "devil-take-the-hindmost" voting system, I would expect Russia to win comfortably, probably on the second round, as supporters of other candidates realised the writing was on the wall and moved to endorse the concept of a World Cup in Eastern Europe. For this reason, it is vital, I think, for other contenders to do everything they can to prevent Russia from establishing a first-round lead. Happily for them, there is still plenty that can happen that might lead to a very different first-round result. Firstly, it might not be a five-horse race. The US could yet decide to focus solely on 2022. However, since South Africa, I have twice heard rumours of a head of steam building up behind the US's 2018 bid. If those stories turn out to have substance, you would have to regard US hopes for 2018 as still very much alive. All the more so as European ExCo members whose countries are 2018 candidates have a built-in incentive to vote for the US should their own bid be eliminated first: a US victory in 2018 is the only way European candidates can remain in the race for 2022. Also, while I would be surprised if England, Russia and Holland/Belgium folded their cards before the vote, I am still not utterly convinced that Spain/Portugal will remain in the race come what may. If either or both the US and Spain/Portugal pulled out before decision day, I think it could put a very different complexion on the race. Secondly, even if my assessment of those who might be inclined to vote for Russia now is spot on (and you can judge for yourselves the likelihood of that), there is plenty of scope for opinions to change before December. England, I would think, must be hoping that Thailand's Worawi Makudi and Germany's Franz Beckenbauer will vote for them rather than Russia. I would also expect them to be optimistic about landing the vote of Issa Hayatou, President of CAF, the African Football Confederation, partly because the English FA backed the Cameroonian in his unsuccessful challenge for the FIFA Presidency in 2002. Shuffle those votes around accordingly and you get a very different first-round result. Russian bid leaders must also be hoping for a change in the weather - which has seen the Moscow region hit by a record heatwave - before the FIFA inspection team arrives in Russia on August 16. By the same token, however, I wonder about the depth of commitment of some of those whose votes I have allocated to England. Both Mohamed Bin Hammam, a Qatari, and Japan's Junji Ogura will presumably be concerned to maximise the prospects of their respective countries in the simultaneous 2022 contest. Logically, the best way to do that might well be to vote for two, or even three different candidates in different rounds of the 2018 race. After all, each of the 2018 bidders has an ExCo member who might then be more favourably disposed towards the Japan/Qatar bids in the 2022 contest.
  4. I understand that it is not impossible, but is it less likely? I mean France is located so that all the three Western European bids for FWC2018 are their neighbours
  5. Do you think that election of France to host EURO 2016 damages the chances of three Western European (and therefore benefits Russia's) bids for FWC 2018?
  6. To be quite correct, Russian clubs won three major European titles in the last five years: 1) 2005 UEFA Cup by CSKA, 2) 2008 UEFA Cup by Zenit, and 3) 2008 UEFA Super Cup by Zenit. Russian League is ranked 6th by UEFA, but more importantly the top five are all in the Western part of Europe. So Russia is the top league in this huge geography (Eastern Europe and Central/Northern Asia) that is a development priority for both UEFA and FIFA. Each of the stadiums Russia proposes will have a tenant club, that is currently playing in either the Premier or the First (second highest) divison. I am not saying that there won't be problems with several 40-thousand seaters while the average current attendance is around 20 thousand. My point is that post-WC they will not be classical 'white elephants' seen many times in recent sports events history.
  7. Excuse me for having to go a bit off-topic here... Nobody said that it was great, just 'not too bad'. This statement is not quite correct. Here is the statistics: In the first round of the 1996 host election the worst result (Belgrade) was only 37% of the best (Atlanta). In the first round of the 2000 host election the worst result (Istanbul) was only 22% of the best (Beijing). In the first round of the 2004 host election the worst result (Buenos Aires) was 50% of the best (Athens). In the first round of the 2008 host election the worst result (Osaka) was only 14% of the best (Beijing). In the first round of the 2012 host election the worst result (Moscow) was 68% of the best (London). In the first round of the 2016 host election the worst result (Chicago) was 64% of the best (Madrid). This tells us that the 2012 election was the toughest and closest in (recent) history.
  8. Let me please inform you of some facts you may not be aware of: 1. V.Putin never came to Singapore to save Moscow's bid, he just sent his video address and his prime-minister instead. That is a sharp contrast to London, Paris and Madrid, who brought their heads-of-state. 2. Moscow-2012 indeed finished last, but that round results were smth like: London - 22, Paris - 21, Madrid - 20, New York - 18, Moscow - 15. Not too bad considering the widely-accepted fact that it was the toughest bidding competition in the Olympic history.
  9. Not a secret any more. Eevrybody now knows about it and tries to use the 'head-of-state' factor to get an advantage.
  10. I would estimate V.Putin's influence as a half-a-dozen votes or so. Of course it was decisive given the closeness of the final result, but the statement above is definitely far from reality
  11. Quite a lot of information has become available there...
  12. you have impressed me as a knowledgeable person

  13. TBD above has been detailed, it is: - Samara - Nizhny Novgorod - Volgograd - Saransk - Yekaterinburg - Kaliningrad 16 venues altogether
  14. it's fictional and we are bidding for real fwc
  • Create New...