Jump to content

YOUR VOTE ON THE 2000 OLYMPICS


Attila

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think "hooliganism" hurt the Brit 2006 WC bid far more than anything could help it.

Yes, that is probably true.

England's bid and facilities for 2006 WC were superior to Germany and South Africa. But during the Euro 2000 football tournament, there was a lot of hooliganism and very bad behaviour from England fans, which destroyed England's chances of winnning 2006, the vote being made very soon after Euro 2000 was over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned the British bid for 2006. There was a gentlemen´s agreement, between England and Germany. Germany promised, helping the English football association in hosting the Euro 96 and England promised in supporting Germany for 2006.

The German Football Association kept its promise, England not.

The British WC bid was not superior to the German or South African bid. You can´t always mention "Hooliganism" as a keyground for England´s defeat. It could influence a bidding process, but it doesn´t decide a bid. Remember the Germans, who beat the French Police officer Daniel Nivel in 1998,and the riots between German and English hooligans during the Euro 2000.Every bigger country has some idiots, making riots.

If I remember the final election of the WC 2006, Marokko first failed, followed by England. Brasil withdrew, because they wanted to support South Africa ( hihi, Brazil thought, that they could bid for 2010 again- with the help of the African continent).

Germany won with one vote more than South Africa.

In 2006, the world is invited in seeing fabulous football in Germany. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned the British bid for 2006. There was a gentlemen´s agreement, between England and Germany. Germany promised, helping the English football association in hosting the Euro 96 and England promised in supporting Germany for 2006.

The German Football Association kept its promise, England not.

The British WC bid was not superior to the German or South African bid. You can´t always mention "Hooliganism" as a keyground for England´s defeat. It could influence a bidding process, but it doesn´t decide a bid. Remember the Germans, who beat the French Police officer Daniel Nivel in 1998,and the riots between German and English hooligans during the Euro 2000.Every bigger country has some idiots, making riots.

If I remember the final election of the WC 2006, Marokko first failed, followed by England. Brasil withdrew, because they wanted to support South Africa ( hihi, Brazil thought, that they could bid for 2010 again- with the help of the African continent).

Germany won with one vote more than South Africa.

In 2006, the world is invited in seeing fabulous football in Germany. :)

Germany hosting the 2006 world cup is a tragedy for 2 reasons:

1) It highlights once again how a developing and upcoming country, like South Africa has once again been denied the chance to host an important sporting event, in favour of a modern, well established country that will not beneftit to the same extent as SA would have.

2) The second down point is that a country with a undesirable history of white supremacy and persecution under the Nazi's who promoted their belief that "white, blond hair, blue-eyed people" are superior to other races/ religions, has been chosen above a country recently freed from apartheid, where blacks are finally considered equal to whites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit u Sir, your arguments are real British : Full of Antigerman stereotypes  :angry:

Germany will host a fantastic soccer world cup - and your are invited in celebrating with open, friendly sportsfascinated Germans. We are trying our very best in becoming fantastic hosts- and we WILL host an unforgetable event!!

But I think -a world open Germany- would not fit into your stereotyped idea of Germany. My generation can´t take the responsibility for the cruel Nazi crimes. My generation will welcome the World.The Germany 2006 slogan is " A time to make friends"- we are doing our best

:P

Last but not least: South Africa had two European "rivals" :Germany and .....England ; )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suit u Sir, your arguments are real British : Full of Antigerman stereotypes  :angry:

Germany will host a fantastic soccer world cup - and your are invited in celebrating with open, friendly sportsfascinated Germans. We are trying our very best in becoming fantastic hosts- and we WILL host an unforgetable event!!

But I think -a world open Germany- would not fit into your stereotyped idea of Germany. My generation can´t take the responsibility for the cruel Nazi crimes. My generation will welcome the World.The Germany 2006 slogan is " A time to make friends"- we are doing our best

:P

Last but not least: South Africa had two European "rivals" :Germany and .....England ; )

But, I'm not British, and I am not caucasian.

I was born in India, then my parents emigrated to the UK.

So I do not at all feel "jealous" that germany was awarded the 2006 WC over England. I do not feel any personal bitterness towards Germany- none of my grandfathers was a prisoner of war, none of my relatives were killed by the luftwaffe, during the blitzkreig. etc.......

The only country i really feel any patriotism towards is India, which is why I'm a staunch supporter of New Delhi 2010 Commonwealth games.

The point i'm trying to make is that you have to admit that South Africa (and other less prosperous countries) deserve the chance to host important sporting events, and that they would benefit to a  much greater extent than countries like UK and Germany. I did not say UK deserved to win- my previous posts simply stated reasons why Britain's bid was damaged- by hooligans.

And as for my comments may I point out to you that I said "Germany has an undesirable history, " which does not imply that the country is still being run by racist caucasian nazi's. I studied German at school for 5 years and I've been to germany, and know that there are a good deal of immigrants, especially from Turkey.

But sadly your people have a cruel stereotype attached to them, which people still believe- of cruel, emotionless, prejudiced caucasians. ( I don't believe this - but many people still do).

The point I'm trying to make is that FIFA should give developing countries like South Africa (a black nation) and Brazil chances to host events, instead of repeatedly awarding events to prosperous caucasian countries like Spain (1982), Italy (1990), USA (1994), France (1998), and now Germany (2006).

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I'm not British, and I am not caucasian, so this idea about me  being angry towrards Germans is impossible.

I was born in India, then my parents emigrated to the UK.

So I do not at all feel "jealous" that germany was awarded the 2006 WC over England. I do not feel any personal bitterness towards Germany- none of my grandfathers was a prisoner of war, none of my relatives were killed by the luftwaffe, during the blitzkreig. etc.......

The only country i really feel any patriotism towards is India, which is why I'm a staunch supporter of New Delhi 2010 Commonwealth games.

The point i'm trying to make is that you have to admit that South Africa (and other less prosperous countries) deserve the chance to host important sporting events, and that they would benefit to a  much greater extent than countries like UK and Germany. I did not say UK deserved to win- my previous posts simply stated reasons why Britain's bid was damaged- by hooligans.

And as for my comments may I point out to you that I said "Germany has an undesirable history, " which does not imply that the country is still being run by racist caucasian nazi's. I studied German at school for 5 years and I've been to germany, and know that there are a good deal of immigrants, especially from Turkey.

But sadly your people have a cruel stereotype attached to them, which people still believe- of cruel, emotionless, prejudiced caucasians. ( I don't believe this - but many people still do).

The point I'm trying to make is that FIFA should give developing countries like South Africa (a black nation) and Brazil chances to host events, instead of repeatedly awarding events to prosperous caucasian countries like Spain (1982), Italy (1990), USA (1994), France (1998), and now Germany (2006).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from an article by Brian Glanville from the August 2000 edition of World Soccer:

DEMPSEY SAVED US FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Charles Dempsey has been excoriated rather than venerated, but for my money he emerged from the 2006 World Cup as hero and saviour. In brief, a saviour from South Africa.

The motives for his crucial abstention, his defiance of the Oceanics, and of his own misguided New Zealand sporting establishment may have been somewhat complex, but they clearly had nothing to do with bribery.

The idea of South Africa - a country of 60,000 murders a year and rising, and whose confused government may by 2006 have let the economy slip into freefall - putting on the World Cup freezes the blood.

Any thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is taken from an article by Brian Glanville from the August 2000 edition of World Soccer:

DEMPSEY SAVED US FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Charles Dempsey has been excoriated rather than venerated, but for my money he emerged from the 2006 World Cup as hero and saviour. In brief, a saviour from South Africa.

The motives for his crucial abstention, his defiance of the Oceanics, and of his own misguided New Zealand sporting establishment may have been somewhat complex, but they clearly had nothing to do with bribery.

The idea of South Africa - a country of 60,000 murders a year and rising, and whose confused government may by 2006 have let the economy slip into freefall - putting on the World Cup freezes the blood.

Any thoughts on this?

What about Tianemen Square, Beijing in 1989. The way that the Chinese military crushed hundreds of student was truly appauling, yet they still went on to be awarded the 2008 olympics.

Zimbabwe has massacred white farmers, and Mugabe continues to dispose of fellow Zimbabwean black people who oppose his authority or question his rule- yet they were co-hosts for the 2003 Cricket world cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is taken from an article by Brian Glanville from the August 2000 edition of World Soccer:

DEMPSEY SAVED US FROM SOUTH AFRICA

Charles Dempsey has been excoriated rather than venerated, but for my money he emerged from the 2006 World Cup as hero and saviour. In brief, a saviour from South Africa.

The motives for his crucial abstention, his defiance of the Oceanics, and of his own misguided New Zealand sporting establishment may have been somewhat complex, but they clearly had nothing to do with bribery.

The idea of South Africa - a country of 60,000 murders a year and rising, and whose confused government may by 2006 have let the economy slip into freefall - putting on the World Cup freezes the blood.

Any thoughts on this?

What about Tianemen Square, Beijing in 1989. The way that the Chinese military crushed hundreds of student was truly appauling, yet they still went on to be awarded the 2008 olympics.

Zimbabwe has massacred white farmers, and Mugabe continues to dispose of fellow Zimbabwean black people who oppose his authority or question his rule- yet they were co-hosts for the 2003 Cricket world cup.

Actually, thousands died at Tianeman Square in '89, not hundreds.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, thousands died at Tianeman Square in '89, not hundreds.....

Exactly !!!

Yet, the IOC ignored this fact when giving Beijing the 2008 summer olympics. Also, with the outrageous behaviour of Robert Mugabe towards both black and white people in Zimbabwe, the country should not have been allowed to host some of the Cricket world cup matches in 2003.

So, given this, I do not see why SA should be singled out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
With Athens 2004 nearly upon us, I can't believe it has been almost 4 years since Sydney 2000. In fact, I'm watching my recording of the opening and closing ceremonies of those Games.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2) The second down point is that a country with a undesirable history of white supremacy and persecution under the Nazi's who promoted their belief that "white, blond hair, blue-eyed people" are superior to other races/ religions, has been chosen above a country recently freed from apartheid, where blacks are finally considered equal to whites.

:(  You shall watch you words ...

there's NO need to compare the Nazi's with the new federal and democratic, well working and with much proof open minded and engaged for many cultures sort of Germany in present time.

I was shocked reading such a statement from a guy who should be more educated in what is going on in europe and the world.  :shocked:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's any consolation, the German stereotype in Canada is that Germans area dispassionate, intelligent people with a high attention to detail. Its generaly a positive stereotype ("German car" has a positive connotation while American cars are seen as cheap and poorly made).

I don't think you could blame Germans of today for the Nazi holocaust... you couldn't even blame Germans of the day. If they were to stand up to the Nazis they and their family would be slaughtered, or at least "disappear"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Acctually, there was several bomb blast attemps in Sydney during the period of the games, and so far, this has been the only story made, truely public. I believe there was some 1500 threats made over the 16 days, and all 1500 attemps where foiled, in some form. This is why Athens is spending big on security.

I think that Australias (and NZ) isolation from the rest of the world keeps the two nations reletiverly safe from major attacts.

Going over the names that bid against Sydney for the 2000 games, does anyone really believe that anyone could have acctually beaten Sydney for the rights to host.

Berlin, i dont think is seen by many, as a very clean city, but i could be mistaking

Beijing, has its problems as we all know

Manchester, Maybe London should have bid, imo

Istanbul, Another failed attempt

Maybe if some of the cities bidding for 2012 had gone for 2000, do you believe that they would have beaten Sydney?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe if some of the cities bidding for 2012 had gone for 2000, do you believe that they would have beaten Sydney?

Interesting question.

NYC _ No, not straight after Atlanta

Madrid _ No, too soon after Barcelona

Mocsow _ No. Only 20 years after 1980? And at the time of the bid (1993) Russia was still in turmoil after the 1`991 coup and fall of the Communist Party etc.

London _ Could it have done better than Manchester. I don't think so necessarily if it was bidding against new frontiers cities like Sydney and Beijing

Paris _ Perhaps. 100 years since the first Paris Games could have been attarctive. But then again, eight years since Albertville.

On consideration, it don't think any oif them would have made much difference to the result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I think Sydney's only real challenger was ever going to be Beijing, the last post by Roltel explains why other cities/ countries would probably not have won the 2000 bid.

But looking at the close result 45 (sydney)- 43 (beijing), I think sydney was the only Australian city that could have won the 2000 bid. Any other city- Brisbane, perth, Melbourne would have lost to beijing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brisbane and Melbourne could have won. They mainly lost there previous attempts because of strong European and Asian backing for the 1996 and 1992 games.

Melbourne and Sydney i believe both could have still beaten Beijing in the 2000 race. Though i atleast thought Berlin would have finished 2nd in 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brisbane and Melbourne could have won. They mainly lost there previous attempts because of strong European and Asian backing for the 1996 and 1992 games.

Melbourne and Sydney i believe both could have still beaten Beijing in the 2000 race. Though i atleast thought Berlin would have finished 2nd in 2000.

Melbourne and Brisbane would definetly not have beaten beijing, because in the 1992/ 1996 races they came 3rd and 4th.

In the mid 1980's - early 1990's when the 3 Australian bids were being planned, sydney was the only feared australian bid. It was the only city which posed a serious threat, to other candidate cities, or to put it another way, tother cities really did not want to bid against.

An example of this is regarding the 1996 olympic bid, in which melbourne was put forward as the australian candidate. Before the announcement, there was speculation that in the Atlanta and toronto camps that Sydney would bid for 1996. When it was announced that Sydney would NOT be the Australian candidate, people in Atlanta celebrated, and held up banners saying "thank god." And they were right- atlanta did win the race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, Australia feared...... the only time we have ever been feared by anyone is when we beat NZ in the Bledisloe Cup a few times in a row......

Though i was surprise Sydney didnt go for 1996, i think they could have steam rolled Atlanta. Maybe having the games in 2000 had more importance to it. Preety funny how a guppy country like Australia ended up with the games of the new millenium....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...