Rob. 2053 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 Fifa could shorten 2018 bid list England's bid for the 2018 World Cup may have to pass an initial elimination vote because so many countries are interested in hosting the event. Fifa president Sepp Blatter said a short-list of candidate nations could be named before the host country is unveiled in 2011. England are desperate to host the competition they last staged in 1966. But they already face competition from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, Belgium/Holland and Spain. Blatter said Fifa could now follow the Olympics by whittling the list down from up to nine possible bid countries before choosing the winner. Link ------ This adds an interesting twist to the whole debate. Who makes your shortlist and why? Link to post Share on other sites
dave199 57 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 Canada is not gonna bid. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Rols 1902 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 Sounds like a reasonable idea _ the shortlist, not Canada refraining from biddding! Link to post Share on other sites
cfm Jeremie 2 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 Blatter should wait and see for how many countries will actually bid Link to post Share on other sites
Faster 545 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 Sounds like a reasonable idea _ the shortlist, not Canada refraining from biddding! Canada has no f-ing hope Link to post Share on other sites
dave199 57 Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 When I read this post this morning I thought the mentioning of Canada was made by a user here and didn't realize Blatter was the one who stated this and then I read this article about Canada's intentions on TSN.ca http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/news_story/?ID=223703&hubname= I still don't think we would win anyways. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord David 225 Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 My guess would be: Australia (A nice new frontier) Benelux (To make it interesting) England (Sentimental reasons, along with a multitude of new (and using existing of course) stadiums for the country) USA (Dramatically different to 1994 WC, what with all the new stadiums which fit well into capacity and FIFA requirements) So that will mean: Canada (Possible great expense, lack of new stadiums (though committed to build), need to prove themselves on the WC stage) China (All the stadiums necessary sure, but still need to prove themselves on the WC stage) Comoros (It was a joke bid ok? Get over it, sure they're committed to building a FIFA required stadium in their capital city, well good for them! ) Mexico (No real need for a WC a 3rd time, maybe try for latter WCs) Russia (Not enough experience, too big a country, logistical problem if Premier League cities are chosen as host cities, potential backlash if only to be held on the "western" side of Russia) Spain (Why does Spain need another WC especially given the other sporting events they're hoping to host) Link to post Share on other sites
Guardian 22 Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 Right now, Canada has a "crisis", when it comes to leadership in the national soccer program. That has exasperated further, when Canada did not go past the group stage in both the U-20 (on home soil) and the Women's World Cup this year. To have Canada wanting to bid for the 2018 World Cup at this time would be foolhardy. Despite that soccer has "more participants" overall than even ice hockey in the country, the national teams' showings in the world stage does not show it to me. It makes me wonder, if Canada is the "real holdout", when it comes to the popularity of the sport in the industrialized world. Link to post Share on other sites
NOC 6 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 The AFC Director was quoted this week as saying if Asia bids for the 2018 event, it will do so with one country only, so China will not be up against Australia. He said that Asia would need to do this in order to get behind the Asian candidate, and that he hoped it was Australia with the bid. Pulling out of the 2011 Womens World Cup was stratergy for Australia. Watch and see! Link to post Share on other sites
dave199 57 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 Pulling out of the 2011 Womens World Cup was stratergy for Australia. Watch and see! I totally agree. What other reason could there be for their withdrawal from the 2011 Women's World Cup? They must have believed this would benefit them in their run at the 2018 Men's version. Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1700 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 I totally agree. What other reason could there be for their withdrawal from the 2011 Women's World Cup? They must have believed this would benefit them in their run at the 2018 Men's version. Don't you guys get it? 2018 ain't gonna happen in Oz. That would be 3 southern hemisphere WCs in a row - and uh-uh. They'd be as foolish as Madrid is now. Link to post Share on other sites
dave199 57 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 Don't you guys get it? 2018 ain't gonna happen in Oz. That would be 3 southern hemisphere WCs in a row - and uh-uh. They'd be as foolish as Madrid is now. Did I say Australia was gonna win or that I favour them? NO!!! Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1700 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 well, I wouldn't even put them on my shortlist (for 2018). Link to post Share on other sites
dave199 57 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 well, I wouldn't even put them on my shortlist (for 2018). What does your shortlist look like? Link to post Share on other sites
baron-pierreIV 1700 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 What does your shortlist look like? I guess the US, the UK, China, Benelux and.... the Comoros!! (Of course, j/k on #5), Link to post Share on other sites
NOC 6 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 But China might not be bidding because it will be an AFC decision Now Way for USA! Aust V Eng, now that is a bid race Link to post Share on other sites
Kenadian 300 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 London 2012, Glasgow 2014, England 2018. Are there any big international sporting events in 2016 (besides the Olympics)? I think the UK is missing that year for the 2010-2020 decade. Oh yeah, Euro. Maybe Wales and Scotland could bid for Euro 2016. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Rols 1902 Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 London 2012, Glasgow 2014, England 2018. Are there any big international sporting events in 2016 (besides the Olympics)? I think the UK is missing that year for the 2010-2020 decade. Oh yeah, Euro. Maybe Wales and Scotland could bid for Euro 2016. Not quite 2016, but the 2015 Rugby World Cup is up for grabs (and, yes, England have expressed interest). Link to post Share on other sites
james 1 Posted November 29, 2007 Report Share Posted November 29, 2007 Not quite 2016, but the 2015 Rugby World Cup is up for grabs (and, yes, England have expressed interest). Someone should curtail this England interest in every games here and there. This is getting out of hand. I don't think I like this any more about England. Greed will always consume the rich. Link to post Share on other sites
olympiaki-agones 52 Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 I think the short list is going to be made by China, Australia and England. After all, Australia fits for the old rotation policy that Blatter was looking for. And also it is a good way to spread the sport in that side of the world. The same case of China. They are realising that the chinese market is huge and full of profits. For Beijing 2008 is nearly sold out. For England, I think it will be too much after Scotland got the Commonwealth Games. British taxpayers will be mad. Link to post Share on other sites
Rob. 2053 Posted November 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 The World Cup will be hugely profitable if it were in England; taxpayers won't be hit at all. Link to post Share on other sites
james 1 Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 The World Cup will be hugely profitable if it were in England; taxpayers won't be hit at all. Why do you think so, Rob? There is always unforeseen factor like accident. Link to post Share on other sites
Rob. 2053 Posted December 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Because most of the stadiums already exist. There's not a lot of building work that'll have to take place for England to host. If we do have to pay any tax I think it'll almost certainly be worth it as the money brought into the economy will far outweigh the cost of hosting. It has been estimated that the UK economy will be £1bn worse off through England's failure to qualify for Euro 2008. That shows how much influence football has on our economy and for that reason I'm sure a world cup on home soil would bring in a huge amount of money. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jensen1981 Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Because most of the stadiums already exist. There's not a lot of building work that'll have to take place for England to host. If we do have to pay any tax I think it'll almost certainly be worth it as the money brought into the economy will far outweigh the cost of hosting. It has been estimated that the UK economy will be £1bn worse off through England's failure to qualify for Euro 2008. That shows how much influence football has on our economy and for that reason I'm sure a world cup on home soil would bring in a huge amount of money. Where is the element of sport in your story anyway . England is rich, England has got all the stadiums, England gets the Olympics, England wants the Commonwealth Games, football is important for the UK economy, because England did not qualify for Euro 2008, they suddenly deserve a World Cup, etcetera, etcetera. One thing is for sure: An England bid on the World Cup 2018 would lack any legacy. Such a bid would lack the true essence of a World Cup bid: true sports. I think England should tone down a bit. They still talk as if Brittannia rules the waves........which isn't the case at all. They should know their place and improve their national football team first. And one last thing. People tend to forget it's not a United Kingdom bid, but an England bid. Link to post Share on other sites
Rob. 2053 Posted December 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Where is the element of sport in your story anyway . England is rich, England has got all the stadiums, England gets the Olympics, England wants the Commonwealth Games, football is important for the UK economy, because England did not qualify for Euro 2008, they suddenly deserve a World Cup, etcetera, etcetera. One thing is for sure: An England bid on the World Cup 2018 would lack any legacy. Such a bid would lack the true essence of a World Cup bid: true sports. Why will our bid lack true sport? My last two replies did because someone made a point about the taxpapyers not liking our bid which I corrected. If you want to go head-to-head on which of our countries has a bigger passion for football bring it on, but tbh I'd rather not have a dick size competition here. You know full well an England 2018 hosting will come with passionate fans and a country that knows football inside out, so don't pretend otherwise to score points. I think England should tone down a bit. They still talk as if Brittannia rules the waves........which isn't the case at all. They should know their place and improve their national football team first. And one last thing. People tend to forget it's not a United Kingdom bid, but an England bid. Nobody has forgotten it's an England bid. Your call for us to improve our national team before we bid seems to be the only "hole" you can pick in an England bid and that's perhaps why you're so keen to point it out again and again despite the fact that it's almost irrelevent (South Africa, Japan, the US and Korea have hosted recently or will host soon; they're not exactly world beaters). And as for your assertion that we talk as if "Brittannia rules the waves", that's just rubbish and it wreaks of something that someone with no decent, analytical thoughts would come up with to criticise our bid. If you want a decent discussion, you'll have to do better than that because I won't entertain a debate on those grounds. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.