thatsnotmypuppy Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 As promised - I give you the 2026 GB World Cup Applicant Report. We have a seven country shortlist - The seven short listed bids in alphabetical order are Australia, Chile, Morocco, New Zealand, Scandinavia, Spain and Turkey/Greece. The complete round 2 requirements will be announced shortly. 2026 Applicant Report Thank you.
thatsnotmypuppy Posted December 15, 2007 Author Report Posted December 15, 2007 I think 'snub' is a bit strong. Morocco has gone forward - thus Africa is represented. The plan James put forward this time was too far fetched and seemed unfeasible - it is not a comment on his character. If the NIgerian plan was strong, it would have made the shortlist. I sincerly hope he joins in the next competition.
Aronious Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 To be honest although i have read all the books, i've not yet stopped to compare them...so by saying "snub" is maybe a little rash, yes.
ghost1 Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 Although Bulgaria-Romania is out, I have to say I enjoyed this comp very much and I suggest that all future comps here should be done exactly the same way, with application reports and shortlists. Oh, now I'm going to read the report...
NYCD 2012 Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 Just wondering who is doing Morocco ? Krow ?
james Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 Nigeria snubbed once again! Go us! HUH!
james Posted December 15, 2007 Report Posted December 15, 2007 Those shortlisted apart from Australia never followed the rules. What are we talking about here? Two pages required and I can see some 3 to 6 pages presented. Outline was demanded and I can see people presenting full details.PLZ! Watch how you shortlist.
Aronious Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 Those shortlisted apart from Australia never followed the rules. What are we talking about here? Two pages required and I can see some 3 to 6 pages presented. Outline was demanded and I can see people presenting full details.PLZ! Watch how you shortlist. I dont think a few extra pages would have made a difference to the short-list really. Besides the New Zealand followed the rules. I presented a 2page report with a front and back cover, which makes 4pages, or 2sheets of paper had it been printed. tough tiddies...is that the expression?
james Posted December 16, 2007 Report Posted December 16, 2007 I dont think a few extra pages would have made a difference to the short-list really. Besides the New Zealand followed the rules. I presented a 2page report with a front and back cover, which makes 4pages, or 2sheets of paper had it been printed.tough tiddies...is that the expression? No! 2 is 2 not 4. Truth is truth not a lie
thatsnotmypuppy Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Posted December 17, 2007 James - see the very first post in the main thread. After nominations close we will move forward with a simple two page 'mini bid book' - just an outline of which cities and venues will be included in your bid, the logo and what theme if any you will commit to. Nowhere have I said it must be two pages. That was the minimum requirement. At any point you could have seeked clarification on this point and resubmitted your own bid. You never complained until after the fact - even though bid brochures were constantly being uploaded daily. A few bids did go a bit overboard - but the only information I took into consideration were the planned stadiums - if they are new or existing - and the basic introduction information. No amount of pictures or clever graphics swayed my decision. As you can see - your bid, my bid and Ghost1's bids were all knocked out because our three plans seemed unrealistic considering the countries they came from. This is a fantasy competition, but one based on real infrastructure. I really want you to submit an Abuja or Lagos bid in our next competition. There were just too many unknown cities in the Nigerian bid, and too many new venues. Nearly every other bid had a few FIFA classed stadiums already there (Nigeria's only FIFA approved stadium is in Abuja - and since it has the athletics track it is not even a 4 star venue according to FIFA's requirements). However thanks to your bid I am now a little more aware of some of the bigger cities in Nigeria. Complaining will not change the facts and I judged your bid on the exact same criteria as everyone elses regardless of how large their brochures were. Furthermore I had to end my own bid as I couldn't knock yours out and keep one as fanciful as my own in as well - which sucks as I was nearly done with my second bid book. But I had to be honest, open and fair. I suggest you show some maturity and good sportsmanship, congratulate the second round countries and bid organisers and get planning for the next competition.
arwebb Posted December 17, 2007 Report Posted December 17, 2007 Having taken a brief look at the applicant report and the shortlisted bids, there are some strong proposals there. There are some minor issues with all of them and major issues with one or two, but the voters will have a difficult choice to make. Personally, I think the Australian bid is the strongest, but I await arguments for or against them all.
Faster Posted December 17, 2007 Report Posted December 17, 2007 I have a problem with the assertion of transportation problems with my bid, the distances are no more unreasonable than the US in 1994 or Korea/Japan in 2002.
Aronious Posted December 18, 2007 Report Posted December 18, 2007 Personally, I think the Australian bid is the strongest, but I await arguments for or against them all. Being a bidder i probbaly shouldnt comment....However, i think the Australian bid isnt as strong as it could be. By that, i mean, if we were to compare it to the likely 2018 plan, i wouldnt see its proposal being as strong. Mainly due to stadium choice. A real world Australian bid is unlikely to include AMII Stadium. Its an oval, viewing is crap, and the pitch would NEVER get past FIFA. It is way to dangerous. Darwin over Tasmania? 2 stadiums in Queensland and only 1 in NSW (considering there are 3 very successful football clubs in NSW and only 1 in Queensland)....
Sir Rols Posted December 18, 2007 Report Posted December 18, 2007 Being a bidder i probbaly shouldnt comment....However, i think the Australian bid isnt as strong as it could be. By that, i mean, if we were to compare it to the likely 2018 plan, i wouldnt see its proposal being as strong. Mainly due to stadium choice.A real world Australian bid is unlikely to include AMII Stadium. Its an oval, viewing is crap, and the pitch would NEVER get past FIFA. It is way to dangerous. Darwin over Tasmania? 2 stadiums in Queensland and only 1 in NSW (considering there are 3 very successful football clubs in NSW and only 1 in Queensland).... Okay, just a few comments. If you read it properly, you'll see that NSW has TWO stadiums in the plan _ Sydney and Newcastle, covering the state's most populous area and the region with all the three clubs (Sydney United, Newcastle Jets, Central Coast Mariners). And no-one could suggest Gosford should get a stadium in precedence over Newcastle. In fact, each of the three populous Eastern States (Vic, NSW and Qld) get two stadiums in the plan. I know Puppy would have allowed us to place two stadiums in each of two cities under his rules, in which case we could have brought Aussie Stadium into play as well for Sydney, but we instead stuck by the FIFA only one city with two stadiums rule _ and gave Melbourne that honour. Darwin is much closer to the Asian market, with much easier international transport links than Tassie. Ditto Townsville. Tasmania's far more of a backwater than either of the two northern cities. Anyway, Tasmania over the tropics in the middle of Australian winter (or at best, late autumn)? You've gotta be kidding me! As for Adelaide _ I would never have allowed the beautiful Adelaide Oval to get ripped up _ probably the most beautiful ground in the world (but also an oval cricket field). We can throw money at AAMI. Let the AFL pay part of it!
Aronious Posted December 18, 2007 Report Posted December 18, 2007 well explained...but..... As for Adelaide _ I would never have allowed the beautiful Adelaide Oval to get ripped up _ probably the most beautiful ground in the world (but also an oval cricket field). We can throw money at AAMI. Let the AFL pay part of it! I've had this discussion many of times and AMII simply doesnt pass. Hindmarsh is too small and has no potential expansion capabilities. Adelaide oval will be redoveloped...soon but still isnt suitable. SA's best hope is a new stadium. The SA government and the AFL should stop throwing money at AMII. They are just following in the foot steps of Subiaco and the WAFL. Let AMII run itself into the ground than work on a new greenfield stadium suitable for AFL and rectangular field sports. Mega Santos Upgrade?
james Posted December 19, 2007 Report Posted December 19, 2007 cry baby I guess, you don't want to hear me cry. It's of no use crying at all.
Aronious Posted December 20, 2007 Report Posted December 20, 2007 I guess, you don't want to hear me cry. It's of no use crying at all. when did i say that? I think we have a new turkey gobbler...ah the memories!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.