Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s big news is Blatter and where the story goes from

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s big news is Blatter and where the story goes from here

ABC news reporting that Blatter being investigated by FBI & US prosecutors http://t.co/VmImLZaUjL

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    The git delayed the ComRes poll until tomorrow
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    I remember when the Sunday Times published the stories about FIFA last year, FIFA was run like the Borigas Papacy
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @NicoHines: There's no bribe big enough to save Qatar's World Cup now http://t.co/xB5Iz07JWs
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    I remember when the Sunday Times published the stories about FIFA last year, FIFA was run like the Borigas Papacy

    Bit like the EU then.

    Hopefully both of these corrupt organizations will be no more very soon.
  • Please tell me that they have delayed the poll because their pretendy numbers wouldn't get the coverage they 'deserve' tonight.

    I may die laughing.
  • Scott_P said:

    @NicoHines: There's no bribe big enough to save Qatar's World Cup now http://t.co/xB5Iz07JWs

    They will try the 'think of all the dead workers, did they die in vain?' line.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ouch

    @martynziegler: Qatar FA chief: “We would urge Mr Dyke to... concentrate on delivering his promise to build an England team capable of winning the 2022 WC."
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    SICINFIFAP?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978

    Please tell me that they have delayed the poll because their pretendy numbers wouldn't get the coverage they 'deserve' tonight.

    I may die laughing.

    This is the tweet from Tom, who is the head of political polling at ComRes, tweeted shortly after Sepp quit

    @tom_ComRes: With all the breaking news our first post election VI poll for @DailyMailUK is being postponed for a day. All adds to the palpable suspense!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    QICAWNHTWC
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    FalseFlag said:

    Sandpit said:

    Disraeli said:

    Now that Blatter has gone, does this mean that those who are campaigning against the Qatar world cup have a realistic chance of forcing a re-vote on where to hold the World Cup in 2022?

    One possible scenario is that if it is proven that bribes swung the vote for Russia in 2018 against England, it could be decided that it's too late to switch the World Cup in 2018, but it's only fair that England get their turn in 2022. It would be unfortunate/convenient if this meant that Qatar has to be cancelled.
    England could host the World Cup at literally a moment's notice for a summer tournament - the infrastructure, stadia and transport are all there already. The only outstanding problems would be other booking for concerts etc and the ground staff being happy with the pitches. Oh, and the sponsors, but who gives a flying fcuk about them any more.
    Salt Lake still got to hold the Winter Olympics, I don't see why an exception would be made for Qatar. Besides it won't be changed and it is ignorant believe it will be.
    Think you will find that you are the ignorant one.

    Besides, what does a caring person like you make of the human rights abuse out there?
    I thought I have been very vocal about opposing our support for radical salafist groups in the region, or indeed our support for the Ukrainian government and their human rights abuses, much to some posters obvious annoyance.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Scott_P said:

    Ouch

    @martynziegler: Qatar FA chief: “We would urge Mr Dyke to... concentrate on delivering his promise to build an England team capable of winning the 2022 WC."

    England will have a team capable of winning it in 2022, though not if it is in Qatar.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    @tom_ComRes: With all the breaking news our first post election VI poll for @DailyMailUK is being postponed for a day. All adds to the palpable suspense!

    The only acceptable phrase including pollsters and suspense would also involve yardarms right now
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Not exactly a reliable publication.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FalseFlag said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Sandpit said:

    Disraeli said:

    Now that Blatter has gone, does this mean that those who are campaigning against the Qatar world cup have a realistic chance of forcing a re-vote on where to hold the World Cup in 2022?

    One possible scenario is that if it is proven that bribes swung the vote for Russia in 2018 against England, it could be decided that it's too late to switch the World Cup in 2018, but it's only fair that England get their turn in 2022. It would be unfortunate/convenient if this meant that Qatar has to be cancelled.
    England could host the World Cup at literally a moment's notice for a summer tournament - the infrastructure, stadia and transport are all there already. The only outstanding problems would be other booking for concerts etc and the ground staff being happy with the pitches. Oh, and the sponsors, but who gives a flying fcuk about them any more.
    Salt Lake still got to hold the Winter Olympics, I don't see why an exception would be made for Qatar. Besides it won't be changed and it is ignorant believe it will be.
    Think you will find that you are the ignorant one.

    Besides, what does a caring person like you make of the human rights abuse out there?
    I thought I have been very vocal about opposing our support for radical salafist groups in the region, or indeed our support for the Ukrainian government and their human rights abuses, much to some posters obvious annoyance.
    When you say "our" you mean Russia? Surely?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    On what possible grounds?

    *innocent face*
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.

    Brazil and South Africa too.

    As long as they ban the vuvuzela...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.

    Surely Brazil could scrape one together?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Where the story goes from here?

    - Blatter wouldn't have gone without serious pressure. Either he's in the firing line directly or he knew far too much about others that are. Who knew what? And who will sing?
    - Who takes over and on what mandate?
    - Will the Associations that backed Blatter accept the need for reform or will it have to be forced by the rest using financial pressure?
    - What impact on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups? Were there irregularities in the bidding and how serious? Will they have to be re-run? Will losers sue? In theory, England ought to be a contender for 2018 if it is re-awarded; in practice, I suspect the FA has too many enemies and that another big European country which could stage the Cup at short notice would get it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978

    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.

    Brazil and South Africa too.

    As long as they ban the vuvuzela...
    Brazil are still paying for the last world cup, there would be riots again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    I should clarify, England, America and Germany are the only countries who can host a world cup on short notice AND WOULD WANT TO
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    FalseFlag said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Sandpit said:

    Disraeli said:

    Now that Blatter has gone, does this mean that those who are campaigning against the Qatar world cup have a realistic chance of forcing a re-vote on where to hold the World Cup in 2022?

    One possible scenario is that if it is proven that bribes swung the vote for Russia in 2018 against England, it could be decided that it's too late to switch the World Cup in 2018, but it's only fair that England get their turn in 2022. It would be unfortunate/convenient if this meant that Qatar has to be cancelled.
    England could host the World Cup at literally a moment's notice for a summer tournament - the infrastructure, stadia and transport are all there already. The only outstanding problems would be other booking for concerts etc and the ground staff being happy with the pitches. Oh, and the sponsors, but who gives a flying fcuk about them any more.
    Salt Lake still got to hold the Winter Olympics, I don't see why an exception would be made for Qatar. Besides it won't be changed and it is ignorant believe it will be.
    Think you will find that you are the ignorant one.

    Besides, what does a caring person like you make of the human rights abuse out there?
    I thought I have been very vocal about opposing our support for radical salafist groups in the region, or indeed our support for the Ukrainian government and their human rights abuses, much to some posters obvious annoyance.
    When you say "our" you mean Russia? Surely?
    Who do you mean?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    In the spirit of the age, surely Scotland could host the World Cup.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Jonathan said:

    In the spirit of the age, surely Scotland could host the World Cup.

    At least they would qualify...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Bit depressing that Blatter is the main news now rather than Charles Kennedy.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Where the story goes from here?

    - Blatter wouldn't have gone without serious pressure. Either he's in the firing line directly or he knew far too much about others that are. Who knew what? And who will sing?
    - Who takes over and on what mandate?
    - Will the Associations that backed Blatter accept the need for reform or will it have to be forced by the rest using financial pressure?
    - What impact on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups? Were there irregularities in the bidding and how serious? Will they have to be re-run? Will losers sue? In theory, England ought to be a contender for 2018 if it is re-awarded; in practice, I suspect the FA has too many enemies and that another big European country which could stage the Cup at short notice would get it.

    The English media and the FA have been proved correct, not sure we have that many enemies that we would not get it.

    If Platini is in the betting to be new head of FIFA then lay him, he is as bent as the rest. He voted for Qatar, presumably under pressure from the French government as Qatar have major investment there, very soon after his son was made CEO of a big Qatari sportswear company.

    Coincidence? Maybe the Feds will find out, but I very much doubt he would be allowed to head up FIFA
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited June 2015

    I should clarify, England, America and Germany are the only countries who can host a world cup on short notice AND WOULD WANT TO


    America couldn't - it might prejudice their criminal investigations. "They only did this to take the World Cup" etc nonsense.

    And since Germany will get to win it, it's only fair that leaves us to host it.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Jonathan said:

    In the spirit of the age, surely Scotland could host the World Cup.

    They sadly don't have the number of pre-requisite stadia.

    Perhaps, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should bid together.

    They could have the slogan "Better Together"
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Scott_P said:

    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.

    Surely Brazil could scrape one together?
    Yes but they've only just done so. It'll go elsewhere if it can (and it can).

    I don't think S Africa stands a chance. It was a thoroughly unenjoyable WC with all the noise and has also hosted too recently (it wouldn't even have been able to bid for 2018 had they wanted to, on the rotation principle). Besides, there are questions about how they won.

    Realistically, if 2018 is taken from Russia, it'll be another European country, partly because it's Europe's 'turn' but more because that's where the countries which have the infrastructure to do it at short notice are.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Ahem....I said as much on the previous thread

    "His lawyer has probably received some interesting calls."

    It was inevitable. Maybe this will get the point across to those at the top of organisations. The whole point of being a leader, the whole reason you get the money and the glory and the fancy cars and the rest of it is because THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU. You are responsible and saying that you didn't know and you can't be expected to monitor everyone and so on and so forth with every feeble excuse known to man just doesn't cut it.

    It's painful and pathetic how this basic, old-fashioned lesson has to be relearnt every few years or so.

    And @Charles: the stupid Swiss bank you mentioned was Wegelin Bank.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Looks like, England, America and Germany are the only ones who could hold a world cup on short notice.

    Brazil and South Africa too.

    As long as they ban the vuvuzela...
    Brazil are still paying for the last world cup, there would be riots again.
    The stadiums are built now, and we all love a Brazillian!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I should clarify, England, America and Germany are the only countries who can host a world cup on short notice AND WOULD WANT TO

    Russia meets those criteria
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Where the story goes from here?

    - Blatter wouldn't have gone without serious pressure. Either he's in the firing line directly or he knew far too much about others that are. Who knew what? And who will sing?
    - Who takes over and on what mandate?
    - Will the Associations that backed Blatter accept the need for reform or will it have to be forced by the rest using financial pressure?
    - What impact on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups? Were there irregularities in the bidding and how serious? Will they have to be re-run? Will losers sue? In theory, England ought to be a contender for 2018 if it is re-awarded; in practice, I suspect the FA has too many enemies and that another big European country which could stage the Cup at short notice would get it.

    The English media and the FA have been proved correct, not sure we have that many enemies that we would not get it.

    If Platini is in the betting to be new head of FIFA then lay him, he is as bent as the rest. He voted for Qatar, presumably under pressure from the French government as Qatar have major investment there, very soon after his son was made CEO of a big Qatari sportswear company.

    Coincidence? Maybe the Feds will find out, but I very much doubt he would be allowed to head up FIFA
    The FA bid team opposed investigations into FIFA, wrongly, but on the basis it would and did earn us many enemies in world football.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Scott_P said:

    I should clarify, England, America and Germany are the only countries who can host a world cup on short notice AND WOULD WANT TO

    Russia meets those criteria
    Nah, from a few days ago

    The number of training sites has been reduced to 37 from 48, and the seating capacity of two out of 12 total stadiums selected to host the matches has been slashed by some 22 percent.

    MOSCOW — The Russian government has cut its budget for the 2018 World Cup by more than US$70 million. When Russia won the bid to host the event, its economy was booming. But under the pressure of Western sanctions and low oil prices, the economy has suffered over the past year and concerns are high about the financial burden of the World Cup

    http://buenosairesherald.com/article/190167/russia-slashes-world-cup-budget-again
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    In the spirit of the age, surely Scotland could host the World Cup.

    They sadly don't have the number of pre-requisite stadia.

    Perhaps, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should bid together.

    They could have the slogan "Better Together"
    Nah it would be great. Brazil vs. Argentina in a group playoff at Inverness Caledonian Thistle and just to make a point keep the schedule so the match is played in the run up to Xmas.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited June 2015
    It's not just ABC News - the NY Times (who have been far ahead of other media outlets on the FIFA probe) are also reporting that the US investigation is now at the door of Blatter. They got their hands on the FIFA general secretary yesterday, so Blatter is the next step.

    An FBI spokesman was quoted (and I'm paraphrasing) that now the struggle to survive is beginning among those indicted or awaiting extradition to the US, the first to flip gets the best deal, and the FBI will probably not need to take FIFA apart step by step.

    Qualifying for 2018 is only 2 months away, so removing the Russia cup may be problematic. 2022 may well be on the table, depending on whether Blatter can be a king maker..
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    FalseFlag said:

    Where the story goes from here?

    - Blatter wouldn't have gone without serious pressure. Either he's in the firing line directly or he knew far too much about others that are. Who knew what? And who will sing?
    - Who takes over and on what mandate?
    - Will the Associations that backed Blatter accept the need for reform or will it have to be forced by the rest using financial pressure?
    - What impact on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups? Were there irregularities in the bidding and how serious? Will they have to be re-run? Will losers sue? In theory, England ought to be a contender for 2018 if it is re-awarded; in practice, I suspect the FA has too many enemies and that another big European country which could stage the Cup at short notice would get it.

    The English media and the FA have been proved correct, not sure we have that many enemies that we would not get it.

    If Platini is in the betting to be new head of FIFA then lay him, he is as bent as the rest. He voted for Qatar, presumably under pressure from the French government as Qatar have major investment there, very soon after his son was made CEO of a big Qatari sportswear company.

    Coincidence? Maybe the Feds will find out, but I very much doubt he would be allowed to head up FIFA
    The FA bid team opposed investigations into FIFA, wrongly, but on the basis it would and did earn us many enemies in world football.
    Tell us who they are. Russia and Qatar I grant you, name the rest.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    "Qatar will not be able to mount a legal challenge to Fifa if football's governing body strips it of the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. As controversy continues to rage over allegations of corruption surrounding the bid process, it has emerged that Qatar agreed to sign away its right to take any form of legal action against Fifa when it made its original tender for the tournament in 2010.

    The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that a mechanism is available to football's governing body to order a new vote whereby infringements of its code of ethics are cited."

    http://tinyurl.com/pa8ebag
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    AndyJS said:

    Bit depressing that Blatter is the main news now rather than Charles Kennedy.

    ?
    Wouldn't it be better if Kennedy were still alive?
    As for Blatter... He accepted triumphally in English but resigned impenetrably in French.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    AndyJS said:

    Bit depressing that Blatter is the main news now rather than Charles Kennedy.

    ?
    Wouldn't it be better if Kennedy were still alive?
    As for Blatter... He accepted triumphally in English but resigned impenetrably in French.
    I suspect that in years to come Kennedy will be thought of in better terms than Blatter.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Tim_B said:

    It's not just ABC News - the NY Times (who have been far ahead of other media outlets on the FIFA probe) are also reporting that the US investigation is now at the door of Blatter. They got their hands on the FIFA general secretary yesterday, so Blatter is the next step.

    An FBI spokesman was quoted (and I'm paraphrasing) that now the struggle to survive is beginning among those indicted or awaiting extradition to the US, the first to flip gets the best deal, and the FBI will probably not need to take FIFA apart step by step.

    The standard FBI playbook, of which there have been numerous examples over recent years. Indeed, the standard playbook of any half-decent prosecutor anywhere.

  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    SICINFIFAP?

    Even the head of the UN is only a secretary general. Whenever a company builds a giant head office and its chief calls himself president and behaves like royalty you know it is in trouble.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Disraeli said:

    "Qatar will not be able to mount a legal challenge to Fifa if football's governing body strips it of the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. As controversy continues to rage over allegations of corruption surrounding the bid process, it has emerged that Qatar agreed to sign away its right to take any form of legal action against Fifa when it made its original tender for the tournament in 2010.

    The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that a mechanism is available to football's governing body to order a new vote whereby infringements of its code of ethics are cited."

    http://tinyurl.com/pa8ebag

    It's whether the political will is there to do this. If Qatar is stripped of the World Cup, why not Russia?

    And can anyone be certain that the people left at Fifa are any more ethical than those who have gone. It takes more than a resignation or two to change the culture and mores of an organisation/

  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    I remember when the Sunday Times published the stories about FIFA last year, FIFA was run like the Borigas Papacy

    Being run like the BBC would be bad enough.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited June 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
    Erm the WWC who don't vote Labour are more likely to be in the anti-EU minority than the WWC who do vote Labour, right?

    Unless Shy pro-EU Kippers
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
    Erm the WWC who don't vote Labour are more likely to be in the anti-EU minority than the WWC who do vote Labour, right?

    Unless Shy pro-EU Kippers
    Right now maybe, but after a referendum campaign which is focussed on immigration, patriotism and lining up against the big-business fat cats, I wouldn't be surprised to see much of the Labourish WWC turn on the issue too, like in Scotland, and Labour could be in deep trouble if they're on the wrong side of that IMO.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2015

    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
    I take the point, but it's not entirely implausible is perhaps closer to what I meant - it has some decent-ish stadiums, it has some big -ish teams and some footballing tradition, and it had shown willing to foot the bill for big sporting events which, despite some controversy, mostly went off ok. People don't do a double take and then assume of course bribes were involved at the thought of it being there (not that bribes might not have taken place regardless), there being literally no other reason it makes sense.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Danny565 said:

    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
    Erm the WWC who don't vote Labour are more likely to be in the anti-EU minority than the WWC who do vote Labour, right?

    Unless Shy pro-EU Kippers
    Right now maybe, but after a referendum campaign which is focussed on immigration, patriotism and lining up against the big-business fat cats, I wouldn't be surprised to see much of the Labourish WWC turn on the issue too, like in Scotland, and Labour could be in deep trouble if they're on the wrong side of that IMO.
    A pretty low opinion of working class people. It is businesses which employ the working class people. In my neck of the woods that's BMW and Honda. In Sunderland it would be the Nissan Renault alliance.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
    Erm the WWC who don't vote Labour are more likely to be in the anti-EU minority than the WWC who do vote Labour, right?

    Unless Shy pro-EU Kippers
    Right now maybe, but after a referendum campaign which is focussed on immigration, patriotism and lining up against the big-business fat cats, I wouldn't be surprised to see much of the Labourish WWC turn on the issue too, like in Scotland, and Labour could be in deep trouble if they're on the wrong side of that IMO.
    A pretty low opinion of working class people. It is businesses which employ the working class people. In my neck of the woods that's BMW and Honda. In Sunderland it would be the Nissan Renault alliance.
    Surely many of the people who voted for Scottish independence will have been employees of some of the big businesses who were hysterically against it.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
    I take the point, but it's not entirely implausible is perhaps closer to what I meant - it has some decent-ish stadiums, it has some big -ish teams and some footballing tradition, and it had shown willing to foot the bill for big sporting events which, despite some controversy, mostly went off ok. People don't do a double take and then assume of course bribes were involved at the thought of it being there (not that bribes might not have taken place regardless), there being literally no other reason it makes sense.
    I agree it's not implausible, but if they are seen to have bribed EUFA officials then things may change.

    As an example of the priorities of FIFA anyone remember when Nicolas Bendtner was fined £80,000 for bearing his boxer shorts displaying the Paddy Power name, yet clubs and associations where the fans have been found guilty of disgusting racism, monkey chants etc, have been fined £5,000.

    Obviously they don't care about racism but Paddy Power were not a sponsor so had to be punished, racism they are not too bothered about.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Sepp Blatter is now calling for term limits for all officers and members of the FIFA Congress. Next thing you know he will find religion
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
    I take the point, but it's not entirely implausible is perhaps closer to what I meant - it has some decent-ish stadiums, it has some big -ish teams and some footballing tradition, and it had shown willing to foot the bill for big sporting events which, despite some controversy, mostly went off ok. People don't do a double take and then assume of course bribes were involved at the thought of it being there (not that bribes might not have taken place regardless), there being literally no other reason it makes sense.
    I agree it's not implausible, but if they are seen to have bribed EUFA officials then things may change.

    As an example of the priorities of FIFA anyone remember when Nicolas Bendtner was fined £80,000 for bearing his boxer shorts displaying the Paddy Power name, yet clubs and associations where the fans have been found guilty of disgusting racism, monkey chants etc, have been fined £5,000.

    Obviously they don't care about racism but Paddy Power were not a sponsor so had to be punished, racism they are not too bothered about.
    That was really the point I was tryingh to make - it's a question of wiggle room. If the Russians did something seriously wrong, and that can be proven, then it becomes problematic, but given who they are and their position, if things are murkier and more in the allegation stage with only minor infractions actually proven, replacement calls can be resisted easier.

    Good night all
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    EPG said:

    Danny565 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Great idea...

    @patrickwintour: Burnham says Labour must learn lessons of Scottish referendum and run its own pro Europe referendum campaign http://t.co/FDmQhy7Wan

    Oh God. I fear any substantial campaign in favour of the EU from Labour (whether jointly with the Tories or not) will go down like a cup of cold sick with their remaining white working class voters.
    Erm the WWC who don't vote Labour are more likely to be in the anti-EU minority than the WWC who do vote Labour, right?

    Unless Shy pro-EU Kippers
    Right now maybe, but after a referendum campaign which is focussed on immigration, patriotism and lining up against the big-business fat cats, I wouldn't be surprised to see much of the Labourish WWC turn on the issue too, like in Scotland, and Labour could be in deep trouble if they're on the wrong side of that IMO.
    A pretty low opinion of working class people. It is businesses which employ the working class people. In my neck of the woods that's BMW and Honda. In Sunderland it would be the Nissan Renault alliance.
    Surely many of the people who voted for Scottish independence will have been employees of some of the big businesses who were hysterically against it.
    Hysterically?
    Every one who votes ... well most... are dependent on wages I suppose. It does not stop some voting for left wing anti business parties.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Danny565 20% of Labour supporters would vote Out in most polls 40-45% of Tories, most anti EU ex Labour wwc voters will already be voting UKIP
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 20% of Labour supporters would vote Out in most polls 40-45% of Tories, most anti EU ex Labour wwc voters will already be voting UKIP

    Exactly

    The WWC will vote for many reasons, and if anything are less politically homogenous than the Southern golf and Daily Mail set, but the ones who still vote Labour rather than Ukip or Conservative are surely sympathetic to the Blair view of the world, no?
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    edited June 2015
    Tim_B said:

    Qualifying for 2018 is only 2 months away, so removing the Russia cup may be problematic.

    I'm no football expert, but surely the qualifiers can go ahead as normal, and if the 2018 host has to change, so be it.

    Edit: except that Russia wouldn't qualify (not needing to, as things stand), but presumably they would boycott the replacement in protest anyway. Complication could arise if the eventual host failed to qualify.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    EPG Exactly, if they still voted for Ed Miliband's Labour I can't see them as natural kippers
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
    I take the point, but it's not entirely implausible is perhaps closer to what I meant - it has some decent-ish stadiums, it has some big -ish teams and some footballing tradition, and it had shown willing to foot the bill for big sporting events which, despite some controversy, mostly went off ok. People don't do a double take and then assume of course bribes were involved at the thought of it being there (not that bribes might not have taken place regardless), there being literally no other reason it makes sense.
    It was just about believable. Which is why it really was stupid for the corrupt b*stards to take the piss and go for Qatar.
  • NeilVW said:

    Tim_B said:

    Qualifying for 2018 is only 2 months away, so removing the Russia cup may be problematic.

    I'm no football expert, but surely the qualifiers can go ahead as normal, and if the 2018 host has to change, so be it.

    Edit: except that Russia wouldn't qualify (not needing to, as things stand), but presumably they would boycott the replacement in protest anyway. Complication could arise if the eventual host failed to qualify.
    Only real issue is that Russia wouldn't be in them and the actual host country would. But if you are stripping them of the tournament, you think their FA is dodgy enough to kick them out. Or they may 'boycott' in protest anyway.
  • pbr2013pbr2013 Posts: 649

    NeilVW said:

    Tim_B said:

    Qualifying for 2018 is only 2 months away, so removing the Russia cup may be problematic.

    I'm no football expert, but surely the qualifiers can go ahead as normal, and if the 2018 host has to change, so be it.

    Edit: except that Russia wouldn't qualify (not needing to, as things stand), but presumably they would boycott the replacement in protest anyway. Complication could arise if the eventual host failed to qualify.
    Only real issue is that Russia wouldn't be in them and the actual host country would. But if you are stripping them of the tournament, you think their FA is dodgy enough to kick them out. Or they may 'boycott' in protest anyway.
    F**k em. If they got it through bribery then they should be stripped of it. Seems obvious to me.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Ming Campbell:

    Campbell said: “Mr Salmond’s intervention is ill judged. Today is a day for fond memories and respect. Anything else today is out of order.”

    Asked whether Kennedy supported Scotland’s continued membership of the UK, Campbell said: “Of course Charles did. He was a federalist. The important thing to remember is that federalism necessarily involves being part of the UK. You can’t be a federalist and want independence at the same time. Charles was a classic Liberal home ruler within the UK. Federalism necessarily involves being within a whole.”


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/menzies-campbell-alex-salmond-charles-kennedy
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Re Fifa: there must be a small risk of destroying international football as we know it. The clubs do not like it and Uefa does not need it. Cynics from both saw the World Cup as a means of subsidising the poorer football regions while risking injury to their players.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited June 2015

    Re Fifa: there must be a small risk of destroying international football as we know it. The clubs do not like it and Uefa does not need it. Cynics from both saw the World Cup as a means of subsidising the poorer football regions while risking injury to their players.

    In the same way as we have a big divide between England and Scotland after the GE. In world football there is a huge gulf between the developing world and Europe. Many countries in Africa and South America, see all their players been bought up by European clubs, then the clubs don't want their superstars travelling to internationals, and they don't want World Club Cups or African Nations etc interrupting the big domestic leagues and most important of all the Champions League.

    The feeling in many African countries is that at least we are seeing some money coming our way thanks to Blatter's commitment to spread the game.

    How UEFA / Fifa can move forward and try to heal this, while also cutting out the terrible corruption that has been and is occurring e.g the scandal of fake friendlies in Africa.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    abc - "Blatter, said he will serve as president until a new one is elected."


    Unless the FBI and U.S. prosecutors currently investigating him move faster. :lol:
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,737
    Betting post; he's not currently listed, but Romario may well be worth backing at very long odds. World Cup winner and Golden Ball winner. Now an extremely successful socialist politician in Brazil who won the most votes ever in a Senate in Rio. Is so popular mainly because he ran on an anti-corruption ticket speaking out against the corruption which went on around the Brazil World Cup. Also claimed 2018 World Cup was 'stolen' from England, Asa non-European who has a reputation as an independent voice, he'd have a lot more credibility than a UEFA candidate who'd be seen as an elite candidate forced on the poorer nations who backed Blatter because despite being a dodgy old sod, he shoved a lot of development money their way. Problems; does he want it? No base within FIFA and is very outspoken, may blow up - although he seems to have matured and isn't liable to blow a gasket as he was as a player. Unlikely to win, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a groundswell of support for him which caused his odds to tumble before he says he's flattered but uninterested or he's trampled by the machine.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    To those who say England might get any rescheduled world cup, can we really be sure that our own FA is unsullied by the scandal?

    True, it might be that it is less corrupt than others. But we were one of the countries pushing for FIFA to be investigated, and people will be looking very hard at us.

    There was the strange summary of the Garcia Report that accused England of behaving improperly. Whilst Garcia disowns that summary, there must be something in the report to back up that accusation, or Hans-Joachim Ecker will be in trouble.

    In fact, should not the Garcia Report be released in full now?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    Why on earth would we want the bloody World Cup?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    MattW said:

    Why on earth would we want the bloody World Cup?

    That's sort of my view as well. The Olympics cost an f'ing fortune for a two-week party (which we all had to pay for) and the most blooming expensive regeneration in history.

    If sports fans want these events, sports fans should pay for them, not the rest of us.

    (/grumpy git mode)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    " ... so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits."

    Let's hope that's right. But if not, can we send you the bill?

    No?

    Meanwhile, the majority of us who have only a minor interest in football, or none at all, will have to suffer so you can get your couple of weeks of disappointment as the home nations get chucked out.

    No thanks.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Claire_Phipps: "ABC News quoted a source saying there is now a race to see who will turn against Blatter first to save themselves" http://t.co/QaaAK2rhIP
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    edited June 2015

    abc - "Blatter, said he will serve as president until a new one is elected."


    Unless the FBI and U.S. prosecutors currently investigating him move faster. :lol:

    The US doesn’t have an extradition treaty with everyopne though, does it. Look at Polanski and Assange.

    I wonder which Embassy Blatter will end up in!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    edited June 2015

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    I don't see that. This is a sport which is corrupt on a worldwide scale, which generates spin off violence, which has to have schoolchild style behaviour contracts in place to regulate the bahaviour of its players, and which has given rise to open ended measures for controlling movement on suspicion.

    Why would we want anything to do with it at all?




  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    " ... so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits."

    Let's hope that's right. But if not, can we send you the bill?

    No?

    Meanwhile, the majority of us who have only a minor interest in football, or none at all, will have to suffer so you can get your couple of weeks of disappointment as the home nations get chucked out.

    No thanks.
    But think about the impact on the deficit of all those WAGs descending on Bond Street...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    MattW said:

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    I don't see that. This is a sport which is corrupt on a worldwide scale, which generates spin off violence, which has to have schoolchild style behaviour contracts in place to regulate the bahaviour of its players, and which has given rise to open ended measures for passport confiscation.

    Why would we want anything to do with it at all?
    Because it makes small people feel big because they belong to a 'club'. It fills a hole in the lives of idiots, and the wallets of the corrupt.

    So it's not like F1 at all.

    Ahem.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    The comedy continues with Glasgow's Labour Council and their bizarre decision to stage #OrangeFest in the centre of Glasgow this weekend. SLAB is now being dragged into the mire of sectarian politics on the opposite side to their usual bias. I'm sure this will help their recovery.

    Or provide a Blatter moment for Gordon Matheson.

    https://twitter.com/eamonolenin/status/605865379722698752
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    BTW How is transparency doing at the IOC?

    I genuinely don't know, though the people involved in that seem to be more 'old money'.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    " ... so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits."

    Let's hope that's right. But if not, can we send you the bill?

    No?

    Meanwhile, the majority of us who have only a minor interest in football, or none at all, will have to suffer so you can get your couple of weeks of disappointment as the home nations get chucked out.

    No thanks.
    In the 2018 bid the only new stadiums suggested Nottingham and Bristol. A few others were going to be expanded slight...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    eek said:

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    " ... so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits."

    Let's hope that's right. But if not, can we send you the bill?

    No?

    Meanwhile, the majority of us who have only a minor interest in football, or none at all, will have to suffer so you can get your couple of weeks of disappointment as the home nations get chucked out.

    No thanks.
    In the 2018 bid the only new stadiums suggested Nottingham and Bristol. A few others were going to be expanded slight...
    And who pays for that?

    As a matter of interest, how much did the Wembley Stadium redevelopment cost the taxpayer. I know the FA are in it up to the hilt, but weren't reduced-interest loans given out by the government along with grants?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    edited June 2015
    MattW said:

    BTW How is transparency doing at the IOC?

    I genuinely don't know, though the people involved in that seem to be more 'old money'.

    Award-winningly well, if you can believe the organisation awarding it:
    http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-receives-award-for-governance-and-transparency/244711

    And they are publishing stuff for transparency:
    http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2015/4/2/ioc-publishes-compensation-policy-seeks-transparency
    In an unprecedented move for an international sports organization, the IOC said it had approved the IOC Ethics Commission's proposal and demand to make it public as part of its Agenda 2020 reforms process.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited June 2015
    NeilVW said:

    Tim_B said:

    Qualifying for 2018 is only 2 months away, so removing the Russia cup may be problematic.

    I'm no football expert, but surely the qualifiers can go ahead as normal, and if the 2018 host has to change, so be it.

    Edit: except that Russia wouldn't qualify (not needing to, as things stand), but presumably they would boycott the replacement in protest anyway. Complication could arise if the eventual host failed to qualify.
    UEFA qualifying for the world cup doesn't start for another year and a bit - as long as it stays in Europe that's the only bit that would need to change. Plenty of time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952
    Scott_P said:

    @Claire_Phipps: "ABC News quoted a source saying there is now a race to see who will turn against Blatter first to save themselves" http://t.co/QaaAK2rhIP

    Let the FBI televise it. Imagine the bungs on those rights...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    " ... so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits."

    Let's hope that's right. But if not, can we send you the bill?

    No?

    Meanwhile, the majority of us who have only a minor interest in football, or none at all, will have to suffer so you can get your couple of weeks of disappointment as the home nations get chucked out.

    No thanks.

    Only one home nation would take part and it would probably make it to the quarter or semi finals. TV viewing figures indicate that England football games are among the most watched programmes broadcast, so my guess is that there would be a fair amount of interest. And I am not sure where the suffering comes in. If you don't want to watch football no-one forces you to. As you know, there are plenty of other options. Or you could go for a walk in one of the many places in the UK where the World Cup would have no impact whatsoever.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    MattW said:

    Why on earth would we want the bloody World Cup?

    That's sort of my view as well. The Olympics cost an f'ing fortune for a two-week party (which we all had to pay for) and the most blooming expensive regeneration in history.

    If sports fans want these events, sports fans should pay for them, not the rest of us.

    (/grumpy git mode)
    Rio building a golf course due to the introduction of golf into the Olympics is, I hope, the final excess of international sporting events. Very few countries now have the capacity or funds to host them and they invariably leave a trail of white elephants. The Olympics needs to slim down the number of events and football tournaments need to make greater use of a smaller number of stadia etc.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    MattW said:

    The difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is that we already have everything in place. The stadiums and the infrastructure all exist, so the costs will be minimal and will be recoverable through sponsorships, TV rights and visits. There's also a more widely-shared benefit as most of the games would take place out of London and the south-east.

    I don't see that. This is a sport which is corrupt on a worldwide scale, which generates spin off violence, which has to have schoolchild style behaviour contracts in place to regulate the bahaviour of its players, and which has given rise to open ended measures for controlling movement on suspicion.

    Why would we want anything to do with it at all?

    We have plenty to do with it already. Starting with inventing it.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952
    One thing I was idly wondering about: presumably the US Treasury or Justice gets to keep the (so far) nine-figure sums in agreed fines of money mis-appropriated from FIFA? Hardly great news for football...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504



    Only one home nation would take part and it would probably make it to the quarter or semi finals. TV viewing figures indicate that England football games are among the most watched programmes broadcast, so my guess is that there would be a fair amount of interest. And I am not sure where the suffering comes in. If you don't want to watch football no-one forces you to. As you know, there are plenty of other options. Or you could go for a walk in one of the many places in the UK where the World Cup would have no impact whatsoever.

    "TV viewing figures indicate that England football games are among the most watched programmes broadcast"

    "Among the most watched"

    Good. Let's give similar amounts of money to BGT.

    Instead of telling me to go for a walk (something I'd love to do, but I've got a little something keeping me at home atm), I've got a better idea: why can't everyone who wants to watch football live just fly out to another country that will host it and pay for it (including the bungs).

    And the world cup does have an impact (in fact, football does). It's ever-present on the TV and the news.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,712
    Can't we just ban football?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    kle4 said:

    Well the Times say the Russian and Qatari world cups are in doubt.

    Whatever shenanigans may or may not have gone down, Russia is a plausible world cup location and would throw its toys majorly out of the pram were it to be taken away, turning the event even more political than it would already be were Qatar to have the world cup taken away, so purely on a 'is it worth the trouble' basis, short of footage of Putin putting Fifa members in headlocks until they agreed to vote for Russia, I'd have thought that one would be safe.

    Qatar really seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back with a lot of this stuff, it was just too troublesome in so many different ways to take seriously.
    Russia is a plausible World Cup location?

    It is rife with vicious racism and hooliganism, it would be like having the World Cup here in 1978.
    Russia will make a good job of it , and as ever we will have much whinging as some pretentious minnow teams with delusions of grandeur make their usual early exit after having been given an easy qualifying group.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: Oh for goodness' sake. "Labour’s problem was never primarily a deficient leader but a dying party." Mary Riddell http://t.co/eJ4ZHWTNK9
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2015



    Only one home nation would take part and it would probably make it to the quarter or semi finals. TV viewing figures indicate that England football games are among the most watched programmes broadcast, so my guess is that there would be a fair amount of interest. And I am not sure where the suffering comes in. If you don't want to watch football no-one forces you to. As you know, there are plenty of other options. Or you could go for a walk in one of the many places in the UK where the World Cup would have no impact whatsoever.

    "TV viewing figures indicate that England football games are among the most watched programmes broadcast"

    "Among the most watched"

    Good. Let's give similar amounts of money to BGT.

    Instead of telling me to go for a walk (something I'd love to do, but I've got a little something keeping me at home atm), I've got a better idea: why can't everyone who wants to watch football live just fly out to another country that will host it and pay for it (including the bungs).

    And the world cup does have an impact (in fact, football does). It's ever-present on the TV and the news.
    I wouldn't get too agitated about it. I think that we would be quite unlikely to have a successful bid for the World Cup, being the most outspoken in favour of boycott. The Premier League is considered too dominating also.

    I can see Russia 2018 going ahead, but Qatar 2022 being re-run, not least because it was never a bid for a Northern Hemisphere winter tournament.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504

    Can't we just ban football?

    Didn't Oliver Cromwell essentially try that?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    As Matt says in the Telegraph today: football has ruined money.
Sign In or Register to comment.