Nevermind England. Try again sometime :)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201012115845070
Mr Mercury
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Serry...
Damn!
Sebastian
Great. I want to be there. Also Qatar!
JoxerTheDeityPirate
it didnt take long for the Scottish mocking did it? lol
however,i had a nice little bet on the Russia bid the other day so i am happy.
and who says money doesnt talk,how the hell did Qatar win 2022? a country that has alcohol bans/imprisonment and 40 degree tempetures in July and who's team has never played in a world cup,FIFA more corrupt than X-factor!
thankfully this wont be an issue to any skirt wearers north of Hadrians Wall as the Scots wont even make it there :-D
however,i had a nice little bet on the Russia bid the other day so i am happy.
and who says money doesnt talk,how the hell did Qatar win 2022? a country that has alcohol bans/imprisonment and 40 degree tempetures in July and who's team has never played in a world cup,FIFA more corrupt than X-factor!
thankfully this wont be an issue to any skirt wearers north of Hadrians Wall as the Scots wont even make it there :-D
YourValentine
I am sorry for England but Russia is a good choice imo. Why did they have to pick two hosts in one procedure? England could have hosted 2022. Quatar is a joke. What has Quatar to do with football? They never even played the world cup. Last week it was still the worst presentation and all of a sudden they won.
Sebastian
While they may be a joke for some extent, that whole bidding process was absurd IMO: the States ... they haven't got enough football tradition to host two cups in a 30-year period IMO, and it's nice for once to have a global sport that's not dominated by them; Australia? They're probably not a much more logical choice than Qatar, are they?. Japan or South Korea... see my US point. It's nice to give other nations a chance... after two cups in Germany, two in France, two in Brazil, two in Mexico, two in Italy... it's nice to have one in Russia, after all, they DO have a football tradition (well, the Soviet Union did).
I'd love to live enough to attend a world cup in Serbia or Czech Republic, or maybe Hungary if they're ever as good as in the good old days. So, no offence to Yanks or people from the Far East, but I'd rather have a world cup in Qatar, Cyprus or Papua New Guinea than another one in the States, Korea or Japan.
I'd love to live enough to attend a world cup in Serbia or Czech Republic, or maybe Hungary if they're ever as good as in the good old days. So, no offence to Yanks or people from the Far East, but I'd rather have a world cup in Qatar, Cyprus or Papua New Guinea than another one in the States, Korea or Japan.
JoxerTheDeityPirate
^at least in Australia you wouldnt get jail for drinking a beer!
Sebastian
AFAIK, the no drinking thing is only during Ramadan and only if done in public. I love the fact Muslim nations are finally, slowly, getting more accepted. They're humans, just like us, and they deserve to be respected, admired and given opportunities. Plus, from what I've seen, the National Stadium in Doha is gorgeous, and Al Rayyan is a great city. Not everybody's got to be in love with London or New York.
Bo Rhap
Qatar has more insects than England.
Well.....maybe not.
Well.....maybe not.
greaserkat
Sebastian wrote: While they may be a joke for some extent, that whole bidding process was absurd IMO: the States ... they haven't got enough football tradition to host two cups in a 30-year period IMO, and it's nice for once to have a global sport that's not dominated by them; Australia? They're probably not a much more logical choice than Qatar, are they?. Japan or South Korea... see my US point. It's nice to give other nations a chance... after two cups in Germany, two in France, two in Brazil, two in Mexico, two in Italy... it's nice to have one in Russia, after all, they DO have a football tradition (well, the Soviet Union did).
I'd love to live enough to attend a world cup in Serbia or Czech Republic, or maybe Hungary if they're ever as good as in the good old days. So, no offence to Yanks or people from the Far East, but I'd rather have a world cup in Qatar, Cyprus or Papua New Guinea than another one in the States, Korea or Japan.
France has only hosted the World Cup once.
I understand your point about the States not having enough football tradition to host the World Cup twice in a 30 year period; however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since. And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
I'd love to live enough to attend a world cup in Serbia or Czech Republic, or maybe Hungary if they're ever as good as in the good old days. So, no offence to Yanks or people from the Far East, but I'd rather have a world cup in Qatar, Cyprus or Papua New Guinea than another one in the States, Korea or Japan.
France has only hosted the World Cup once.
I understand your point about the States not having enough football tradition to host the World Cup twice in a 30 year period; however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since. And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
Sebastian
> France has only hosted the World Cup once.
1938 and 1998. That's twice.
> however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since.
Yes. And it was a beautiful cup (regardless of the whole Maradona incident), and the big Yank productions were great for the whole show, even the colours worn by the referees, etc... but still, I think other nations should be given the chance before having it again dominated by the States (as it tends to happen with nearly every other major sport). Otherwise we should simply have all world cups in Hollywood and get Morgan Freeman to be the referee, with Tracy Jordan handing the trophy and Diana Ross lip-synching.
> And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
No argument there. However, there are other countries in the world, also with a huge football fan base, and also with enough motivation (even if with more limited resources) . Before giving the States another World Cup (or before giving another one to Spain, Mexico, Italy, Japan, South Korea or even Argentina), I think they should give a chance to those who haven't been able to host it ever. Countries like Netherlands (three times runners-up), Belgium (once in the semis, loads of good teams for decades), Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal, Turkey... sure, they're not Italy or Brazil, but football's much more than just Italy and Brazil.
1938 and 1998. That's twice.
> however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since.
Yes. And it was a beautiful cup (regardless of the whole Maradona incident), and the big Yank productions were great for the whole show, even the colours worn by the referees, etc... but still, I think other nations should be given the chance before having it again dominated by the States (as it tends to happen with nearly every other major sport). Otherwise we should simply have all world cups in Hollywood and get Morgan Freeman to be the referee, with Tracy Jordan handing the trophy and Diana Ross lip-synching.
> And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
No argument there. However, there are other countries in the world, also with a huge football fan base, and also with enough motivation (even if with more limited resources) . Before giving the States another World Cup (or before giving another one to Spain, Mexico, Italy, Japan, South Korea or even Argentina), I think they should give a chance to those who haven't been able to host it ever. Countries like Netherlands (three times runners-up), Belgium (once in the semis, loads of good teams for decades), Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal, Turkey... sure, they're not Italy or Brazil, but football's much more than just Italy and Brazil.
greaserkat
Sebastian wrote: > France has only hosted the World Cup once.
1938 and 1998. That's twice.
> however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since.
Yes. And it was a beautiful cup (regardless of the whole Maradona incident), and the big Yank productions were great for the whole show, even the colours worn by the referees, etc... but still, I think other nations should be given the chance before having it again dominated by the States (as it tends to happen with nearly every other major sport). Otherwise we should simply have all world cups in Hollywood and get Morgan Freeman to be the referee, with Tracy Jordan handing the trophy and Diana Ross lip-synching.
> And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
No argument there. However, there are other countries in the world, also with a huge football fan base, and also with enough motivation (even if with more limited resources) . Before giving the States another World Cup (or before giving another one to Spain, Mexico, Italy, Japan, South Korea or even Argentina), I think they should give a chance to those who haven't been able to host it ever. Countries like Netherlands (three times runners-up), Belgium (once in the semis, loads of good teams for decades), Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal, Turkey... sure, they're not Italy or Brazil, but football's much more than just Italy and Brazil.
My mistake, for some reason I thought it was Italy, which they actually hosted the one before in '34.
I agree with you; however; from the actual countries that had a bid for the 2022 World Cup the U.S. was clearly the best candidate. Other countries that have never had a World Cup should host a world cup if they have the opportunity to but Quatar has not even played in a world cup.
1938 and 1998. That's twice.
> however, when it was hosted here in '94 it created record crowds to stadiums that have not been broken since.
Yes. And it was a beautiful cup (regardless of the whole Maradona incident), and the big Yank productions were great for the whole show, even the colours worn by the referees, etc... but still, I think other nations should be given the chance before having it again dominated by the States (as it tends to happen with nearly every other major sport). Otherwise we should simply have all world cups in Hollywood and get Morgan Freeman to be the referee, with Tracy Jordan handing the trophy and Diana Ross lip-synching.
> And even though "Americans" might not love football as the rest of the world, there is a huge football fan base here in the States that would have flocked to the stadiums and fill them up just as they did in 1994.
No argument there. However, there are other countries in the world, also with a huge football fan base, and also with enough motivation (even if with more limited resources) . Before giving the States another World Cup (or before giving another one to Spain, Mexico, Italy, Japan, South Korea or even Argentina), I think they should give a chance to those who haven't been able to host it ever. Countries like Netherlands (three times runners-up), Belgium (once in the semis, loads of good teams for decades), Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal, Turkey... sure, they're not Italy or Brazil, but football's much more than just Italy and Brazil.
My mistake, for some reason I thought it was Italy, which they actually hosted the one before in '34.
I agree with you; however; from the actual countries that had a bid for the 2022 World Cup the U.S. was clearly the best candidate. Other countries that have never had a World Cup should host a world cup if they have the opportunity to but Quatar has not even played in a world cup.
Sebastian
They've still got the chance to qualify for 2014 and/or 2018, so they wouldn't be first timers at their own tournament. For all we know, maybe they can win on 2018 and be both reigning champions and hosts :)
Now, seriously, I wanted Germany to win 2002 because they'd be hosting and being reigning champions in '06. What a shame Oliver (one of the very best ever) chose to mess up precisely on that occasion.
For me, the World Cup (and other events such as the Olympics) has several benefits for the economy and the way the world sees a country (or city), so it's a great way to encourage people being aware of each other, etc. Loads of people didn't know or didn't care about South Africa until some months ago. Loads of people (me included, up until a couple of years ago) only knew Hungary existed thanks to their football. When I went to Yokohama (oh, those good old days), there were people from all over the world visiting just to see the stadium where the final was played.
So, choosing a host works, IMO, for two very noble causes: have a place where people can go and play the beautiful game, and at the same time turn the eyes of the world on it, lessen racism and ignorance. Thousands of people worldwide have just (in the last twenty-four hours or so) learnt the name of a country they didn't know about before. That's a big triumph IMO.
The States were a great host and would certainly be again: they've got the chops, the technology, the money, the people... but it's great to give other people a chance to show they can do it too. And hopefully, Qatar will not disappoint. Neither will Russia, of course.
Now, seriously, I wanted Germany to win 2002 because they'd be hosting and being reigning champions in '06. What a shame Oliver (one of the very best ever) chose to mess up precisely on that occasion.
For me, the World Cup (and other events such as the Olympics) has several benefits for the economy and the way the world sees a country (or city), so it's a great way to encourage people being aware of each other, etc. Loads of people didn't know or didn't care about South Africa until some months ago. Loads of people (me included, up until a couple of years ago) only knew Hungary existed thanks to their football. When I went to Yokohama (oh, those good old days), there were people from all over the world visiting just to see the stadium where the final was played.
So, choosing a host works, IMO, for two very noble causes: have a place where people can go and play the beautiful game, and at the same time turn the eyes of the world on it, lessen racism and ignorance. Thousands of people worldwide have just (in the last twenty-four hours or so) learnt the name of a country they didn't know about before. That's a big triumph IMO.
The States were a great host and would certainly be again: they've got the chops, the technology, the money, the people... but it's great to give other people a chance to show they can do it too. And hopefully, Qatar will not disappoint. Neither will Russia, of course.
spandan
If Israel qualifies for World Cup 2022 in Qatar, the Qatar sheikh says that as per the FIFA rules and regulations, they can play. Oh, how generous!
Let's hope Israel qualifies for 2022!
Let's hope Israel qualifies for 2022!
Sebastian
And wins!