As far as Eastern states go, I'd say it's fairly successfull.Liberaliter said:
Definitely not "crappy".
And the world cup goes to...Qatar?
- Thread starter jez29
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Definitely not "crappy".
Good?
If they had it here in England I would be annoyed because I'd never hear the end of it. This way people will shut up in a week.
If they had it here in England I would be annoyed because I'd never hear the end of it. This way people will shut up in a week.
World's second nominal GDP per capita. They have a lot of money. They don't have too many people.Liberaliter said:
Still, I read that as successfull.
Qatar shouldn't have won it
The only reason they did is they are oil rich and could bride FIFA
FIFA is corrupt- this is why England never had a chance even though technically they had the best bid by a mile.
On other hand i do think it's good the World cup is going to Russia and i hope it promotes tolerance in their football scene which has been marred in recent years by racist incidents.
The only reason they did is they are oil rich and could bride FIFA
FIFA is corrupt- this is why England never had a chance even though technically they had the best bid by a mile.
On other hand i do think it's good the World cup is going to Russia and i hope it promotes tolerance in their football scene which has been marred in recent years by racist incidents.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to host it....
Do some research. It's a statistical fact that whenever a country hosts the olympics or the world cup or any world-wide event the economical repurcussions are drastic and devestating. For X number of hears the budget has to be built around preparing a stadium up to international specifications usually hiring contractors from around the world specialized enough to build these structures. And the pricetag is steep. It takes a significant amount of money to put one of these things in. Then when the event does come, you have a massive influx of revenue, but that has to be tempered by expenses. All governmental services have to be active, as well as significant additions to law enforcement and emergency medical and fire services. And while the event does offset that, AFTER the event the city/country hosting it is stuck with a huge stadium with no practical use anymore and left to pick up the tab on their own, however many years that may take. And you know it's not going to be the politicians that pay all that back.
So let Qatar host it if they want >.> In the end they'll be doing more damage to themselves than good, and if they really ahve such deep pockets, maybe they can get off pretty well.
Do some research. It's a statistical fact that whenever a country hosts the olympics or the world cup or any world-wide event the economical repurcussions are drastic and devestating. For X number of hears the budget has to be built around preparing a stadium up to international specifications usually hiring contractors from around the world specialized enough to build these structures. And the pricetag is steep. It takes a significant amount of money to put one of these things in. Then when the event does come, you have a massive influx of revenue, but that has to be tempered by expenses. All governmental services have to be active, as well as significant additions to law enforcement and emergency medical and fire services. And while the event does offset that, AFTER the event the city/country hosting it is stuck with a huge stadium with no practical use anymore and left to pick up the tab on their own, however many years that may take. And you know it's not going to be the politicians that pay all that back.
So let Qatar host it if they want >.> In the end they'll be doing more damage to themselves than good, and if they really ahve such deep pockets, maybe they can get off pretty well.
I am dissapointed with the fact that the world cup won't be held in England, it would of been good with the already built stadiums and passionate fans (not the stupid hooligans, they are all a bunch of dicks), but good for Russia, i like the fact that the world cup is being held in another nation, like south Africa for example, who have never had it.
my problem is i'm sure there is some corruption in there. panorama exposed it and were right to do so, but after that there was no way we were going to get it. As for Quatar, that only raises my suspicions. Do they even have a national team? lol. USA deserved it more as japan and korea recently had it in 2002.
my problem is i'm sure there is some corruption in there. panorama exposed it and were right to do so, but after that there was no way we were going to get it. As for Quatar, that only raises my suspicions. Do they even have a national team? lol. USA deserved it more as japan and korea recently had it in 2002.
So the poor human rights record of Qatar was obviously not enough to exclude it from this?? Shame and dishonour on the committee for all eternity and all that other stuff...
Sure, they're better than many Arab countries in terms of human rights compliance, but they're FAR from perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar
Maybe we should start doing that in the UK. Might control immigration a bit. Oh wait... that's pretty much a total breach of human rights. Maybe that's why they don't do it here.
Doh!
Sure, they're better than many Arab countries in terms of human rights compliance, but they're FAR from perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Qatar
Yeah... but what they're NOT telling you is that nobody can get into the country without a "sponsor". And once you come IN for that sponsor, they have a massive amount of control over you. You can't work for anybody else. You can't leave without their permission. Even if they let you leave the country, they can forbid you coming back for YEARS. I'm not surprised they can keep the population down.Liberaliter said:
Maybe we should start doing that in the UK. Might control immigration a bit. Oh wait... that's pretty much a total breach of human rights. Maybe that's why they don't do it here.
Doh!
If they think I'm going to Russia, they got another thing coming..
Also, the next time England could host the world cup is in 2030
I'll be 37....
Also, the next time England could host the world cup is in 2030
I'll be 37....
well Qatar being in the world surely means its eligible to host a "world cup" is it not fair for these competitions to be held in places other than central europe and south america?, where a vast majority of them have been held already. Lets face it this has been a monpoly for the usual faces for too long, just because its a bit "risky" is not a good enough reason for it not to go somewhere, i think because south africa went so well it has opened up oppertunites for others who perhaps won't have been considered before. As for the potential booze ban, i dont think its fair to go to another country and expect it to change the law just cause you showed up with all your mates, it is possible to enjoy football without beer (really it is!). So stop all your whining just cause its far away from you and you won't be allowed to act like a drunkin' lout while you're there, sake man up already.
also being scottish makes watching england fail once again is enjoyable.
also being scottish makes watching england fail once again is enjoyable.
Ah, so we have some of the moaners we had in summer who kept on crying 'I hates football' gleefully having another go. Brilliant, that's not as tiring as the massive fans at all...
Good on Russia though. Wonder how Qatar will be...
1. It would've been countrywide (unlike the LONDON olympics), so the entire english nations resources could've been put to good use.
2. The infrastructure for the world cup already more or less exists here. Plenty of massive stadiums, plenty of hotels etc. No so for the olympics, which is being built from the ground up, pretty much.
3. It would have much more support from the populace, I think. Football is way more popular than the olympics at any rate.
Good on Russia though. Wonder how Qatar will be...
I doubt we'd have fucked up the football anywhere near as the olympics, for the following reasons:Cpt_Oblivious said:
1. It would've been countrywide (unlike the LONDON olympics), so the entire english nations resources could've been put to good use.
2. The infrastructure for the world cup already more or less exists here. Plenty of massive stadiums, plenty of hotels etc. No so for the olympics, which is being built from the ground up, pretty much.
3. It would have much more support from the populace, I think. Football is way more popular than the olympics at any rate.
Massively disappointed we didn't get it (Australia). If FIFA wanted to take the cup somewhere new, i thought we would have been a good choice. Without the problems of heat, congestion, alcohol restrictions, travel restrictions, human rights violations......
Congrats to Russia though.
Congrats to Russia though.
We could do what China did and use the entire country's resources for the Olympics anyway. Just because it's not your city doesn't mean it's not still your country. And it would mean embarrassment for all, not just Londoners >.>Stephanos132 said:
You have a good point.
I'd say it's about the same, especially as there is some football in the Olympics. Sure it's not the familiar faces of professional football but it gives fans of all sports something to root for. Although we would get owned at more than just one sport then...
Corruption is at the heart of FIFA.
They are a self serving body. Qatar is an organisation with no footballing history or interest, however they have rather a lot of cash and are willing to bend to FIFA's demands.
The climate is totaly unsuited to football anyway.
They are a self serving body. Qatar is an organisation with no footballing history or interest, however they have rather a lot of cash and are willing to bend to FIFA's demands.
The climate is totaly unsuited to football anyway.
We run the Premier League (and the rest of the football league) without much of a hitch every week, I'm fairly sure when it comes to running a series of football games and getting people to them we have that pretty much spot on.Cpt_Oblivious said:
Sure there's somewhere recently that has no drinking (maybe Dubai?) but set up designated drinking areas for an event of some kind. I can't find any info on this though so I'm beginning to suspect I made it up.toriver said: