Sorry, but I entirely disagree with your assessment of Qatar as a suitable venue for the world's premier football tournament.
Blatter
- Thread starter remembercolinlee
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sorry, but I entirely disagree with your assessment of Qatar as a suitable venue for the world's premier football tournament.
Because they don't have enough supporters to do so yet, having only formed five years ago.
Utterly dishonest questions. Why not just admit that you were wrong?
San Jose will continue to play some games in those stadiums. Their situation hasn't changed, so you were incorrect in claiming that it had.
The season is halfway through and the World Cup is sandwiched into the middle of it.
It would be premature to use those stats.
Except that nobody was making a comparison with the NFL, whose average attendances far outstrip the MLS.
The same can't be said for the NHL.
And I clearly wasn't talking about the national side of either the USA or Qatar.
Any increase in the game's standing in that country would be negligible on the world scale, which cannot be said for North America or the Japan/South Korea World Cup.
Any improvement would be an irrelevance, for a wide variety of reasons.
The minimal population, a large number of which is transient, the fact that football is already the top sport in that country and far better candidates in the same region are merely starting points.
The other obvious points against the bid weren't a factor in other World Cups.
Qatar would've been a very poor choice without these corruption allegations coming to light. With them, it's a disaster.
No, it is not completely pointless - you have failed to see the bigger picture because you are focused on the narrow view of corruption is the source of all of FIFA's ills that you can't see all the other illogical reason FIFA would award the tournament to them. For example...
We're doing Qatar a favour by awarding them the World Cup = Arrogance
Awarding the World Cup to Qatar will improve football in the entire Middle East = Delusion
Qatar won't charge tax on FIFA's income for the tournament = Greed
If we give Qatar the World Cup, they'll owe us a favour = Self-interest
Qatar have never had the World Cup before, why not let them have one now? = Negligence
None of those attributes can be said to be corrupt, but they are all negative and in the case of overlooking their own selection criteria on fan safety downright dangerous.
Also, when the hell did I try and politicise the subject? Citing a number of reasons and examples to show that FIFA are a bunch of deluded, greedy, arrogant cretins is hardly politicising the subject - it's calling FIFA a bunch of deluded, greedy, arrogant cretins. Most of all, it's not evasive, simply because I've been attacking FIFA from another angle the whole time.
Also, and I'm throwing this to anyone reading this thread, were any of you aware that Morocco were caught trying to bribe FIFA officials to help them stage the 2010 World Cup? How did that one get swept under the rug?
I've not made any sort of assessment. If FIFA had a list of criteria before the bid process that Qatar failed to meet then your assessment is correct and HBIC is wrong. And perhaps FIFA ought to have such a list. But if they didn't and Qatar put in a compliant bid then they are entitled to win.
If the players might die from the heat is not on the list of criteria, it should be. As should the fact that Gay and lesbian fans could be bfreaking the law despite being legally married.
Fan safety is on the list of criteria, but FIFA are happy to ignore that one: South Africa and Brazil are two of the most crime-ridden countries in the world but apparently that wasn't of any concern to FIFA, although it could be worse - Libya were bidding for the 2010 tournament at one point, and what better symbol of the beautiful game than seeing Colonel Gaddafi watching the opening game of the World Cup in Tripoli?
We seem to have almost agreed here, somehow! Yes, I'm focused on corruption, because that's the sole reason Qatar was given the 2022 WC.
I'll try to go through your points. Firstly, a question. Why is there corruption? What is far and away the major cause of it? Answer - greed! Therefore, it is no difficult stretch to conclude that corruption = greed.
We're doing Qatar a favour?? What planet are you on?? Let's try, Qatar paid more and bought more votes than the others. Qatar is doing US (I.e, Blatter and cronies) a favour.
Improving football in the Middle East? A noble aim, I'm sure. But why Qatar? Answer - money.
If we give Qatar the WC they'll owe us a favour? Possible. But, far more likely that we'll award the WC to Qatar because they filled up our bank balances.
Qatar have never had the WC before? Oh dear, how negligent! Neither have The Galápagos Islands. Why not give it to them?? Possibly because they don't have any oil or money? Come on, that is just downright laughable.
If you read back over your posts on many subjects, it is clear that you try to throw a political slant on almost anything.
Now in fairness, the Galapagos Islands wouldn't be feasible (transport, infrastructure) for one thing, and I doubt the Ecuadorian people would be pleased that the world cup was restricted to such a small part of the nation.
I don't think Lampard would like being done for pace by the local wildlife, either.
You should look up less definitions, Thesaurus boy.
Your brain seems to be clogged up with Bull ****, since that is all that has spewed out of your mouth in this thread.
Your arguments against "Soccer" becoming a big sport in the US are ridiculous.
It is in its infancy. America is notoriously rogue when it comes to world sports and has always liked to create its own sports so that they can pat each other in the back and say how awesome they are at said sport (failing to realise that they are the best at it because no one else plays it).
The fact that "Soccer" has got anywhere near the attention it has in recent years is incredible.
Definitions aren't in the thesaurus, they're in the dictionary.
Not very bright, are you?
Didnt say they were
ahhh you obviously dont know what a thesaurus is......let me tell you...
A Thesaurus is a tome that is utilised in order to extract alternate words for similar definitions.
And may I say you are the most voluminous collection of Ordure of a homo sapien that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter
Didnt say they were
ahhh you obviously dont know what a thesaurus is......let me tell you...
A Thesaurus is a tome that is utilised in order to extract alternate words for similar definitions.
And may I say you are the most voluminous collection of Ordure of a homo sapien that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter
And the fact remains that a dictionary is a tome that contains definitions, while a thesaurus is a tome that contains synonyms.
Given you don't seem to know that obvious fact, you probably should change your username to Ownedanki.
Hilarious, repeat the joke I made earlier!
I didnt dispute either fact, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Is it because I said you should look up less definitions, then called you thesaurus boy in the same sentence (because you seem to use long winded words and sentences to say something fairly simple and ******ed) and you misunderstood and thought that I thought that thesauri had definitions in them?
Is that what happened?
In that case you should change your name to Previouslypossessedhomosapienwithinthelondonboroughofcroydon
It's a lot more sordid than that.
The presumption within FIFA was that Blatter would stand aside and allow Platini to replace him in 2015, which is why Platini was toeing the party line for the last election by asking the UEFA nations to back Blatter for his (unopposed) re-election in 2011. Now that Blatter has done a u-turn and says he will stand for re-election next year, it's no wonder that Platini is no longer backing him - because Blatter has stabbed him in the back by reneging on their deal, and he's done it with less than a year before the election which has scuppered Platini's plans.
The question is what does Platini do now: does he stand on his own, or does he throw his influence behind Jerome Champagne's bid?
Thanks for clearing up what we already suspected. Toodle pip!