Jump to content

!VamosSochi!

Members
  • Posts

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by !VamosSochi!

  1. Thank you all so much for your support!

    We have worked really hard for 2 years and did more than humanly possible.

    Now the Opening ceremony is over and only 10 hours are left before we present to the Session.

    We feel confident.

    We'll make it!

    Vamos!

    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!

    • Like 1
  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.

    • Like 1
  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. Nope.

    Euro '96 England...World Cup '98 France.

    Euro '16 France...World Cup '18 England.

    :PB)

    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 :blink:

  5. a rapidly developing football league that just won its first major European title 2 seasons ago.

    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.

    • Like 1
  6. Excuse me for having to go a bit off-topic here...

    is really not that great

    Nobody said that it was great, just 'not too bad'.

    the 1st round results are usually pretty close

    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. B)

  7. Plus keep in mind he was clearly unable to save Moscow's 2012 bid, which had nothing going for it either and in the end finished dead last in the voting.

    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. ;)

  8. Sochi had “absolutely nothing going for it” until Putin weighed in behind the bid campaign

    :D 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 :)

  9. The cities considered by the bid committee:

    - Moscow city and region (4 stadiums)

    - St. Petersburg

    - Yaroslavl

    - Sochi

    - Krasnodar

    - Rostov-Don

    - Kazan

    - others TBD

    TBD above has been detailed, it is:

    - Samara

    - Nizhny Novgorod

    - Volgograd

    - Saransk

    - Yekaterinburg

    - Kaliningrad

    16 venues altogether

  10. There is a simple solution to the isolation problem for Novosibrisk and Vladivostok, base a group in each. Fix the draw such that Russia, Brazil, England, Spain, Italy and Germany are based in the west but have 2 groups based exclusively in one of the remote cities. So Novosibrisk and Vladivostok would host the 5 matches and than two of the teams would be moved so that the games can still be simultaneously played and than each host the round of 16 cross overs.

    So using Germany's group's G and H

    In Novosibrisk have Togo, Switzerland, Korea and France

    In Vladivostok have Spain, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia

    Move the last game for G to Vladivostok and the last game of H to Novosibrisk and than the Spain-France game be played in Novosibrisk and the Ukraine-Switzerland in Vladivostok.

    So that each will have 7 matches and the teams wouldn't have to travel excessively and once the round of 16 is over all the teams would be based in western Russia.

    Thank you. Brilliant plan. Totally unrealistic, unfortunately, considering that e.g. winners of group G would have to do two transcontinental flights in one week :) Forget it, no need to bother.

  11. Ekaterinburg?

    Yuriatin?

    Novosibrisk?

    Archangel?

    There is a small probability of Ekaterinburg to be included and for the rest in your list - zero.

    Where is Yuriatin anyway? There is nothing similar in Russia. May be it is in Waziristan? :)

  12. Here are some facts

    We know from last year's Champions League final that getting travel documents to go to Russia is difficult

    Russia allowed visa-free entry to all ticketed spectators for the 2008 final - some 40 thousand British fans traveled for the match.

    At the same time the UEFA cup final was hosted in Manchester - UK refused to provide the same visa-free conditions for Russian fans.

    accommodation when you get there is frighteningly expensive.

    Moscow is indeed expensive, but it is only one of the 10 proposed host cities.

    Moreover it would be possible for the organizing committee to sign up hotels for a fixed price, as it has been done for the Sochi Games.

  13. because it is the first of its kind.

    As you may be aware Moscow has already staged the first of the kind back in 1998 anyway. B)

    It was called World Youth Games under the IOC patronage, not exactly the YOG.

    But in essense the Games was equivalent to and even bigger than what will now happen in Singapore.

    There was no media hype and associated commercial benefit then - Moscow did it purely to promote youth sports.

    Many of the several thousand participants grew up to become Sydney and Athens champions.

    Over 40 IOC members attended the event and praised it (coincedently Moscow got 44 votes this time).

  14. I tried to review any criticisms in the EC report on the two cities. Here they are:

    MOSCOW

    - questioned the high proposed average operating speed (60 km/h) on the Olympic transport network

    - believed the culture and education programs may be over-scoped

    - concern about the possible effect, if any, of the organisation of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi on the Youth Olympic Games marketing effort

    SINGOPORE

    - main area of risk concerned the construction of the proposed Youth Olympic Village project and new Equestrian venue within the timeframe available

    - believes that some (JMPA) details would have to be reviewed

    - has little recent experience of hosting large multi-sport events

    It looks to me like the quantity of criticisms are the same, the seriousness of Singapore risks is much higher ;)

  15. I have lived in Singapore for all my life not once have I heard of a prostitute offering sex on Orchard Road.

    Please stop questioning me on this subject, so that other people stop thinking I dislike Singapore.

    And also please stop misinterpreting me - I never said it was 'a prostitute offering sex' I said it was 'a pimp', in fact a very respectable-looking old lady.

    Enough said. Back to topic! :)

  16. in fact, can users please stop mudslinging Singapore again and again.. i'm singaporean and i'm pretty much uncomfortable with such half truths

    If you are talking about my posts they were always replies to other people's questions addressed to me. I never intended to offend Singapore and i am sorry if you felt that way. As I have said I like the city and wish you every success!..

    ...after this February I mean :)

  17. Please get your facts right .

    I did not want to get into this discussion, but again I am asked to.

    the chewing gum problem isn't as big as you portray it as.

    I never said it's a big problem, I said it's an unusual problem. I said the gum is restricted and it is - my facts are right.

    I'll have you know that bargaining is found only at the local WET MARKETS and a few other shopping streets.

    That is exactly what I said: in markets and small shops.

    Next of all, Singapore does not have pagodas next to high rises. The only place where you'll find pagodas are in Chinatown

    Singapore's Chinatown is a walking distance from the skyskrapers - my facts are right.

    Do you even know where is central Singapore ? The only place where you'll find these people are in the red light districts of Joo Chiat and Geylang which is in the East part of the island.

    The instance I described actually happened in Orchard road, very central. If you are not looking like a foreign tourist you may not even know this thing exists there. :)

  18. Perhaps Russia would like to help itself by returning Sochi to Turkery

    I see history is not your strong subject either :) As a matter of fact Sochi has never been a part of Ottoman Empire (present day Turkey)

    share with us the "similarities" you have observed between Beijing and Singapore?

    I did not want to state these, but you asked for it. I certainly cannot pretend to be objective, but this is what I felt similar in both places.

    Apart from the obvious ethnic relationship, both cities have the government very strongly imposing the rules of people's behavior. These rules are sometimes very unusual for outside visitors (e.g. as you probably know in Singapore chewing gum is restricted and corporal punishment is practiced).

    Next similarity is food: the spicy-greasy contents and people's habit of eating out en masse.

    In both cities a lot of consumer products is sold in markets and small shops, where the pricing is not fixed and you are expected to bargain.

    Beijing has now got its skyscrapers next to traditional pagodas looking similar to Singapore's.

    Funnily enough in both places I was offered prostitutes by a pimp walking in the very center of the city. Prostitutes of course exist in other places, including Moscow and Sochi, but there they are offered through classifieds, not in the street.

    Before making the list too long, I want to make clear that I liked my experiences in both cities and they were indeed different to some extent. But on the other hand I would say that those 'clueless' outsiders may have some reason for their opinion. :)

    I would rather Moscow organise 2014.

    Then Russia would have two Olympic Games in one year, an all-time record :)

  19. Singapore and Beijing are similar in that they belong in the same continent. Moscow and Sochi belong to the same country.

    I see you are fond of geography :) here is some geography fact for you: the country you refer to is actually larger than some continents B)

    No way does (Singapore) offer a similar experience as Beijing or Moscow.

    I see that logic is not your favorite subject :) Do you actually mean that Moscow and Beijing are alike more than Beijing and Singapore in terms of ambiance? Respectfully, it looks like you have never been to Moscow, to say nothing about Sochi. As a frequent visitor to all these cities, I believe they are worlds apart.

    nullifying the sovereignty of Singapore .

    Please do not bring out your inferiority complex, no offense was meant by putting Singapore in the same category as Beijing or Moscow.

×
×
  • Create New...