Jump to content

Us To Bid For Wc 2018


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There is no sex appeal to an English World Cup, I would much rather see the tournament in Spain or China or Australia than either the United States of America or England. So what that England has the history of football, I would rather see a a World Cup in a area with more interest, intrigue and a far more interesting culture than the rather bland English experience. History is boring and not worth the paper it is written on. Norway has the longest history of winter sport, most of them were invented in this country, yet you do not see the Norwegian Olympic Committee using the, "its apart of our history, we have the history" approach to guilt the IOC to give use more Olympic Winter Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it's his opinion. A bit of a stupid one, but I'm not going to argue. People said London didn't have the sex appeal of Paris in the run up to the 2012 decision, so I'll take it as a good omen that something as subjective and ultimately meaningless as "sex appeal" is the only criticism you can find in a potential England bid (and presumably, the only reason you can find not to support it).

I bet you that South Africa and Brazil would swap some of theirs in a flash for the infrastructure and stadiums of England. We certainly wouldn't have threads suggesting Australia and the USA could step-in to host 2010 and 2014 if the only concern for the Africans and South Americans was sex appeal!!

I think you get my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they want to bid, just do it. I don't think they could beat an English bid but you don't know.

I still believe that 2018 is too soon after they host 1994. I want US hosting 2026 when they will have more experience in "soccer".

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no sex appeal to an English World Cup, I would much rather see the tournament in Spain or China or Australia than either the United States of America or England. So what that England has the history of football, I would rather see a a World Cup in a area with more interest, intrigue and a far more interesting culture than the rather bland English experience. History is boring and not worth the paper it is written on. Norway has the longest history of winter sport, most of them were invented in this country, yet you do not see the Norwegian Olympic Committee using the, "its apart of our history, we have the history" approach to guilt the IOC to give use more Olympic Winter Games.

You think China has more sex appeal?? Well,I guess there's no accounting for taste is there!! :blink:

Call me old fashioned,but if I wanted to see sex on the pitch,I'd trawl the various porno websites until I could find something that would whet my appetite along the lines of 'Evie does England' or 'Nellie does Norway'! :huh:

As it is,I just like to see a good game of football played out there in those vast,crowd-packed stadiums. And we English love a good game of football,even if we're not always very good at it (too often unfortunately).Love of the game and skill at kicking a ball is what counts with me and most other football fans and you would be guaranteed of at least getting the former in an English World Cup! We may not be the sexiest and forget the history,but we have the most numerous,most knowledgeable and most enthusiastic and most experienced football fans in the world as well as some of the best stadiums!

Doesn't that count for something?? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily a question of "sex appeal", as ridiculous an idea as that is. You couldn't argue with the fact that a Chinese or Australian World Cup would have a certain novelty value that an English one wouldn't. But, to say that they would have more of a wow factor than the nation which gave football to the world? Please. I wonder what some people are on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston, more cosmopolitan, nicer & more 'worldy appeal' than Dallas? :blink:

While no Texas city really warrants those type of descriptions, especially outside of the United States, Dallas seems to be the more iconic city of Texas. Certainly sentiment even echoed by the USOC by scrapping Houston from the domestic race. And while Houston may be larger than Dallas (city proper wise), metropolitan speaking, Houston is smaller than Dallas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I think Houston would be chosen over Dallas because its bigger, more worldly appeal and is a nicer more cosmopolitan city.

No way Houston gets selected over Dallas, not with Jerry Jones opening up the largest stadium square footage wise in history. The new Cowboys Stadium is being designed with the intention of being able to accomodate a World Cup match with 100,000 spectators. I wouldn't rule out Dallas and Houston both being selected though.

Is it also true that the Rose Bowl can no longer be used because FIFA no longer permits World Cup games to be played in bleacher stadiums?

Here's my stadiums for a World Cup

Los Angeles - Memorial Coliseum

New York - New Giants/Jets Stadium

Dallas - New Cowboys Stadium

San Francisco - New 49ers Stadium

Washington - FedEx Field

Miami - Dolphins Stadium

Chicago - Solider Field

Boston - Gillette Stadium

Seattle - Qwest Field

Cincinnati - Paul Brown Stadium

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this'll probably get Baron crowing. To be honest I'm surprised he hasn't posted about it already.

Blatter knocks England 2018 hopes (BBC Sport)

Though of course, it's nowhere near being as clear cut as Blatter would like it to be.

It's also somewhat ironic that on the same day as he made these comments, he also hailed British stadia after the business in Lens last week and the strides we have made to eradicate fencing from our grounds.

Blatter critical of Lens' stadium

So we must be doing something right. Knock us one minute, praise us the next. That's Sepp Blatter for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, remember that Blatter said that it will be played on the CONCACAF region, so the USA can't celebrate early. That means that other country can participate on the bidding, surely it will be Mexico & Canada.

Surely? SURELY? What expired drugs are u on, rav3n? :blink:

Guess what? If it's Canada or Mexico, I will ask Congress to pass a law that no Canadian or Mexican flights carrying World Cup people fly OVER the US!! Ha!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as a dislike Blatter, all he's doing is telling us what's going to happen i.e. there will be a vote as to whether rotation should continue. As we don't know the likely result of the vote there is no reason for Europeans to be downbeat nor for Americans to get too cocky.

I hope common sense prevails and 2018 is opened up. And before I get flamed I'll say this: If the U.S. wins 2018 fair and square with all the nations who want to host bidding, I wish them the best of luck, and they'd obviously do a fantastic job.

HOWEVER, if they win because FIFA deem it to be CONCACAF's turn, I'll be more than a bit annoyed. The rotation was originally put in place to make sure Africa (and subsequently South America) got a chance to host. There's no way the World's richest and most powerful nation needs this sort of leg-up, especially as their only real "rivals" are Mexico and Canada!

Bear in mind that if FIFA decides to pursue the fixed rotation policy in the long term, the big European footballing nations will only host a World Cup once every 150 years or so and the US (a middling footballing power at best) would be given a virtual bye every 16-20 years! That's completely screwed up, whichever way you look at it.

I still maintain that the most sensible solution other than having no official rotation policy would be to award Europe every third tournament. That, in my mind, seems to reflect best the balance of footballing power in the world at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read my post Quintana?

If the U.S. wins 2018 fair and square with all the nations who want to host bidding, I wish them the best of luck, and they'd obviously do a fantastic job.

Right, got that out the way (again). But that's not the point. Whether you think I and others have been cocky or not, do you not agree that it'd be a ridiculous situation to have only CONCACAF nations bidding for 2018 when it is clear there is a lot of interest outside of that continent as well? That's the issue I'm talking about; not who should host, but the way they're picked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the FIFA's right to host the WC wherever they want to. It is after all their tournament. If they want another World Cup in the Concacaf region after 24 years and at least one Concacaf member is more than willing to play the host than they have every right to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...