Mr. P, the triple approach seems really odd to me. I thought the point of hosting it in one (or occasionally two) countries was to help cut travel costs for fans. That world cup will be spread across thousands of miles. However, at least it isn't as dodgy as Russia or Abu Dhabi.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
Guardian liveblog says it will need to be confirmed by FIFA Council, but both Japan and South Korea automatically qualified when they were joint hosts, so with 48 teams seems very likely.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
It will also lead to the potential for another disgrace of Gijón with three team groups.
The seeding will be interesting too. I guess they'll have at least four pots of eight teams (perhaps a fifth pot of 16 teams) and pair the groups (e.g. 1, 4, 5 paired with 2, 3, 5).
Logistically, that is going to be hell of task. Massive distances between cities and across borders.
I think it's about the same as Brazil in terms of distances, the issue will be if group games get split between Mexico and the US/Canada. Also, what happens in terms of the hosts being already qualified, seems mental to have three already qualified teams.
I would have thought that Groups would be organised to reduce travelling. Eg one group is based on the US East Coast plus Toronto, another on the West Coast plus Mexico City. Bit hard on Vancouver of course! Just hope a Latino team doesn’t try to go overland from Mexico to the US.
Abu Dhabi is that lovely place where we race F1 cars in November. Qatar is that horrible place where the World Cup will be in 2022, if they manage to finish building the stadia and infrastructure.
I recently had an Amazon review of my latest e-book 'our foolish ways' that was so over the top, I suspected it was someone like you taking the piss. It was worthy of Mr T. Mr Dancer is probably the one who would be able to spot them, though.
Logistically, that is going to be hell of task. Massive distances between cities and across borders.
I think it's about the same as Brazil in terms of distances, the issue will be if group games get split between Mexico and the US/Canada. Also, what happens in terms of the hosts being already qualified, seems mental to have three already qualified teams.
I would have thought that Groups would be organised to reduce travelling. Eg one group is based on the US East Coast plus Toronto, another on the West Coast plus Mexico City. Bit hard on Vancouver of course! Just hope a Latino team doesn’t try to go overland from Mexico to the US.
We'll be 10 years into the Trumpreich by then, Mexico will be a giant prison camp!
As ever, T May is answering a question with a question. Does she know it's called "Prime Minister's Questions" for a reason?
For the first time in a few weeks I call that PMQ's a solid win for TM
She did better than last week. Both got in powerful punchlines. However, she spoils it when she is winning, by then referring back to the last Labour government (8 years ago) and everyone groans.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
It will also lead to the potential for another disgrace of Gijón with three team groups.
Three team groups? With an extra knock-out round?
Yes.
So two group matches or four group matches per team?
Two group games, top two through to round of 32. Knockout from there. It's stupid.
My ideal World Cup would be:
Eight groups of four. Group winners qualify for second group stage. Two group winners from stage 2 play in the final. The side with the best record in the group stages win if the final is a draw after extra time.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Wembley Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good) Villa Park Hillsborough Old Trafford Anfield Millennium Stadium Aviva Stadium Parkhead Murrayfield St James Park Stadium of Light
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Murrayfield would be a near certainty in any Scots/UK bid – as it's in Edinburgh, where the shopping and nightlife is good (a major consideration for Fifa families).
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Isn't there a rule about there not being more than x host stadia in one city? Pretty sure that Glasgow wouldn't be allowed three.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Wembley Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good) Villa Park Hillsborough Old Trafford Anfield Millennium Stadium Aviva Stadium Parkhead Murrayfield St James Park Stadium of Light
I'd add new WHL (three in London, which is the limit) and the Etihad. 14 in total. Unfortunately we'd end up with the Olympic Stadium featuring somehow with it's dire atmosphere.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
It will also lead to the potential for another disgrace of Gijón with three team groups.
Three team groups? With an extra knock-out round?
Yes.
So two group matches or four group matches per team?
Two group games, top two through to round of 32. Knockout from there. It's stupid.
My ideal World Cup would be:
Eight groups of four. Group winners qualify for second group stage. Two group winners from stage 2 play in the final. The side with the best record in the group stages win if the final is a draw after extra time.
That's a smart format – I would add in a round of 16 as in some groups you would end up with two strong teams in the same group.
Eight groups of four
Top two qualify for round of 16 (winners vs runners up from paired group)
Then into final group stage of eight as you suggest.
Better ranking splitting draws AET in the final is an awesome idea.
It looked planned the way it occurred. Not spontaneous. It smacks of a hollow stunt that most people will see through.
I think the Mace being moved has more symbolism. Michael Heseltine and John Mcdonnell have both centered their protests on the Mace. Interestingly John Mcdonnell did his Mace turn against his own Government!
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Isn't there a rule about there not being more than x host stadia in one city? Pretty sure that Glasgow wouldn't be allowed three.
It was two but the limit has been raised to three for 48 team world cups.
Following on guardian live blog, don't understand what that was about. Why did he want the House to sit in private?
Took exception to yesterday procedures
Every single SNP MP made a point of order at the end yesterday so you would have thought they had it out of their systems but apparently not.
That said, it did seem that Bercow effectively ignored the rules for convenience, which is a little ironic given his answer to all of those points of order was that whilst the debate yesterday was unsatisfactory, it did not break any rules.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
The danger would be that we'd have two nations as part of the bid that only had one stadium each, that's a precedent that FIFA don't want to set.
The bigger issue is probably the Welsh, Scottish and Irish associations wanting nothing to do with the English FA due to fears it might affect their independence.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
To do an ENG/SCO/WAL treble bid we'd need to invest in a second Welsh ground – almost certainly the Liberty Stadium in Swansea as the Millennium Stadium will be used for sure in Cardiff.
It would require some – but not ridiculous – investment to take it up to 34,000 capacity or so.
You can't have a host nation with just one venue – not allowed by Fifa rules AIUI.
Abu Dhabi is that lovely place where we race F1 cars in November. Qatar is that horrible place where the World Cup will be in 2022, if they manage to finish building the stadia and infrastructure.
Qatar is that lovely place which still has the death penalty in place for Muslim gay men and anyone who has sex outside marriage.
Abu Dhabi just locks them up for up to 14 years.
Isn't it shocking that a country which has capital punishment for having sexual relations with the wrong person - or just the suspicion of it - is hosting the football World Cup. And yet there is little comment about it.
Or is it just we are happy to turn a blind eye in some countries while expressing outrage when it happens in others.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
The danger would be that we'd have two nations as part of the bid that only had one stadium each, that's a precedent that FIFA don't want to set.
The bigger issue is probably the Welsh, Scottish and Irish associations wanting nothing to do with the English FA due to fears it might affect their independence.
Yup, England can host a world cup on its own which also helps.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
To do an ENG/SCO/WAL treble bid we'd need to invest in a second Welsh ground – almost certainly the Liberty Stadium in Swansea as the Millennium Stadium will be used for sure in Cardiff.
It would require some – but not ridiculous – investment to take it up to 34,000 capacity or so.
You can't have a host nation with just one venue – not allowed by Fifa rules AIUI.
Can't we just reclassify Liverpool as being in Wales?
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
We might as well scrap qualifying then, just have everybody go and have a better format when there.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
To do an ENG/SCO/WAL treble bid we'd need to invest in a second Welsh ground – almost certainly the Liberty Stadium in Swansea as the Millennium Stadium will be used for sure in Cardiff.
It would require some – but not ridiculous – investment to take it up to 34,000 capacity or so.
You can't have a host nation with just one venue – not allowed by Fifa rules AIUI.
Can't we just reclassify Liverpool as being in Wales?
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
We might as well scrap qualifying then, just have everybody go and have a better format when there.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
Even entire continents would struggle to schedule fixtures between 211 teams in a six week period!!
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Centenary of the inaugural World Cup. It would be nice for Uruguay to host it but they'd need Argentina and Chile too.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
To do an ENG/SCO/WAL treble bid we'd need to invest in a second Welsh ground – almost certainly the Liberty Stadium in Swansea as the Millennium Stadium will be used for sure in Cardiff.
It would require some – but not ridiculous – investment to take it up to 34,000 capacity or so.
You can't have a host nation with just one venue – not allowed by Fifa rules AIUI.
Can't we just reclassify Liverpool as being in Wales?
Well Wales have used it as a home ground in the past!
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
We might as well scrap qualifying then, just have everybody go and have a better format when there.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
Even entire continents would struggle to schedule fixtures between 211 teams in a six week period!!
You could just do a pre-qualifying tournament for smaller nations like the cricket world cup used to do.
Following on guardian live blog, don't understand what that was about. Why did he want the House to sit in private?
Took exception to yesterday procedures
Every single SNP MP made a point of order at the end yesterday so you would have thought they had it out of their systems but apparently not.
That said, it did seem that Bercow effectively ignored the rules for convenience, which is a little ironic given his answer to all of those points of order was that whilst the debate yesterday was unsatisfactory, it did not break any rules.
Don't be a thick turnip, Westminster has just torn up devolution, there will be far more trouble to come for sure.
It looked planned the way it occurred. Not spontaneous. It smacks of a hollow stunt that most people will see through.
I think the Mace being moved has more symbolism. Michael Heseltine and John Mcdonnell have both centered their protests on the Mace. Interestingly John Mcdonnell did his Mace turn against his own Government!
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Wembley Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good) Villa Park Hillsborough Old Trafford Anfield Millennium Stadium Aviva Stadium Parkhead Murrayfield St James Park Stadium of Light
I'd add new WHL (three in London, which is the limit) and the Etihad. 14 in total. Unfortunately we'd end up with the Olympic Stadium featuring somehow with it's dire atmosphere.
One has at least to respectfully ask the question about Croke Park and perhaps even 1-2 other of the larger GAA venues.
In spreading things about, stadia of around 30k capacity are eligible and appropriate for third seed vs fourth seed games, so one could try and work in a SW venue (though I can't think of one further West than St Mary's)
Our problem is ruling out stadia rather than ruling in.
I think 32 teams is enough. Since its inception, 79 teams have played at the finals. I can't imagine expanding it to 48 teams will make much difference. It'll just mean the same middling teams qualifying regularly.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Wembley Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good) Villa Park Hillsborough Old Trafford Anfield Millennium Stadium Aviva Stadium Parkhead Murrayfield St James Park Stadium of Light
I'd add new WHL (three in London, which is the limit) and the Etihad. 14 in total. Unfortunately we'd end up with the Olympic Stadium featuring somehow with it's dire atmosphere.
One has at least to respectfully ask the question about Croke Park and perhaps even 1-2 other of the larger GAA venues.
In spreading things about, stadia of around 30k capacity are eligible and appropriate for third seed vs fourth seed games, so one could try and work in a SW venue (though I can't think of one further West than St Mary's)
Our problem is ruling out stadia rather than ruling in.
Abu Dhabi is that lovely place where we race F1 cars in November. Qatar is that horrible place where the World Cup will be in 2022, if they manage to finish building the stadia and infrastructure.
Qatar is that lovely place which still has the death penalty in place for Muslim gay men and anyone who has sex outside marriage.
Abu Dhabi just locks them up for up to 14 years.
Isn't it shocking that a country which has capital punishment for having sexual relations with the wrong person - or just the suspicion of it - is hosting the football World Cup. And yet there is little comment about it.
Or is it just we are happy to turn a blind eye in some countries while expressing outrage when it happens in others.
No, it's more an inability to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. I'm sure there'll be plenty of comment on Qatar as a host over the next four years.
I very much hope that they do get to keep the World Cup. It'll do no end of good for the world to see how poor a spectacle it'll be, with the lack of fans.
They have been predicting Theresa May's political demise for some time now -although clearly -barring some Falklands like transformation in her fortunes, the Tories are not going to allow her to fight another general election.
As to the author's big red number, I believe that the Tories would be best to elect a current non runner as the next leader. Not Boris Johnson who is a vote winner for the opposition. Not Sajid Javid who looks like a Bond villain who has lost his cat. Not Rees Mogg who sounds as he has a had a pineapple rammed up his arse.
My red number would be next to Dominic Raab closely followed by Matt Hancock. They would be the sensible choice but with all the current wind and bluster sense may not be the deciding factor.
The 48 team/3 hosts World Cup makes it likely that England/Scotland/Wales launch a joint bid for 2030.
Yes, I was about to say that too. FIFA doesn't much like England, but I think the celtic fringes will get us some sympathy. Wales only has one stadium worthy of use and Scotland two, out of 15, 12 would be in England.
Scotland would have 3/4 stadiums.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
Wembley Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good) Villa Park Hillsborough Old Trafford Anfield Millennium Stadium Aviva Stadium Parkhead Murrayfield St James Park Stadium of Light
I'd add new WHL (three in London, which is the limit) and the Etihad. 14 in total. Unfortunately we'd end up with the Olympic Stadium featuring somehow with it's dire atmosphere.
One has at least to respectfully ask the question about Croke Park and perhaps even 1-2 other of the larger GAA venues.
In spreading things about, stadia of around 30k capacity are eligible and appropriate for third seed vs fourth seed games, so one could try and work in a SW venue (though I can't think of one further West than St Mary's)
Our problem is ruling out stadia rather than ruling in.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
We might as well scrap qualifying then, just have everybody go and have a better format when there.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
Even entire continents would struggle to schedule fixtures between 211 teams in a six week period!!
You could just do a pre-qualifying tournament for smaller nations like the cricket world cup used to do.
Does anyone know if that means all three of Canada, USA and Mexico automatically qualify?
I believe all three qualify because the World Cup will now feature 48 teams.
That's bloody stupid number. 32 is more than enough.
That's easy for you to say when you support a major footballing nation. Millions of avid fans worldwide have almost no chance of seeing their country at a World Cup when it is limited to 32 places. The key, as @tlg86 suggests downthread, is coming up with a better format.
We might as well scrap qualifying then, just have everybody go and have a better format when there.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
Even entire continents would struggle to schedule fixtures between 211 teams in a six week period!!
You could just do a pre-qualifying tournament for smaller nations like the cricket world cup used to do.
The cricket world cup still does.
Yes unfortunately it is a year in advance. They should dovetail them.
Comments
Bit of a nonsense all round.
Just hope a Latino team doesn’t try to go overland from Mexico to the US.
I recently had an Amazon review of my latest e-book 'our foolish ways' that was so over the top, I suspected it was someone like you taking the piss. It was worthy of Mr T. Mr Dancer is probably the one who would be able to spot them, though.
As KLE said Pathetic
How many slots will Europe get.
I confess to feeling much less enthusiastic about this coming one. 52 years of hurt is turning into 52 years of indifference.
Good joke about Labour Live too
I suspect Sun Politics would agree.
Bercow in a right tangle. Apparently doesnt know the rules.
China has to have a chance for 2030 or 2034.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem of including RoI in a joint bid. Games in Cardiff, Dublin and Glasgow would be good.
(Avoids obvious joke about Scotland and Wales being over the moon to qualify).
SNP have left
My ideal World Cup would be:
Eight groups of four.
Group winners qualify for second group stage.
Two group winners from stage 2 play in the final. The side with the best record in the group stages win if the final is a draw after extra time.
Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden, and possibly Murrayfield.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6518731/commons-speaker-john-bercow-is-accused-of-being-sexist-comments-to-female-minister/
Emirates (or the other lot's ground if the pitch is any good)
Villa Park
Hillsborough
Old Trafford
Anfield
Millennium Stadium
Aviva Stadium
Parkhead
Murrayfield
St James Park
Stadium of Light
Eight groups of four
Top two qualify for round of 16 (winners vs runners up from paired group)
Then into final group stage of eight as you suggest.
Better ranking splitting draws AET in the final is an awesome idea.
I think the Mace being moved has more symbolism. Michael Heseltine and John Mcdonnell have both centered their protests on the Mace. Interestingly John Mcdonnell did his Mace turn against his own Government!
"35 I think"
Sorry, you're right, I'm out of date.
That said, it did seem that Bercow effectively ignored the rules for convenience, which is a little ironic given his answer to all of those points of order was that whilst the debate yesterday was unsatisfactory, it did not break any rules.
It would require some – but not ridiculous – investment to take it up to 34,000 capacity or so.
You can't have a host nation with just one venue – not allowed by Fifa rules AIUI.
Abu Dhabi just locks them up for up to 14 years.
Isn't it shocking that a country which has capital punishment for having sexual relations with the wrong person - or just the suspicion of it - is hosting the football World Cup. And yet there is little comment about it.
Or is it just we are happy to turn a blind eye in some countries while expressing outrage when it happens in others.
FIFA aren't doing it for any other reason than to make more money.
Even entire continents would struggle to schedule fixtures between 211 teams in a six week period!!
In spreading things about, stadia of around 30k capacity are eligible and appropriate for third seed vs fourth seed games, so one could try and work in a SW venue (though I can't think of one further West than St Mary's)
Our problem is ruling out stadia rather than ruling in.
Who can forget women of the people Mhairi Black travelling first class.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/paisleys-snp-mps-defend-travel-8925654
Ian Blackford's gonna feel sicker than a cyclist with piles.
All but one of these trips was a Business UK ticket, with the other, a £108 economy seat flying from the city’s Stansted Airport to Glasgow Airport.
I very much hope that they do get to keep the World Cup. It'll do no end of good for the world to see how poor a spectacle it'll be, with the lack of fans.
As to the author's big red number, I believe that the Tories would be best to elect a current non runner as the next leader. Not Boris Johnson who is a vote winner for the opposition. Not Sajid Javid who looks like a Bond villain who has lost his cat. Not Rees Mogg who sounds as he has a had a pineapple rammed up his arse.
My red number would be next to Dominic Raab closely followed by Matt Hancock. They would be the sensible choice but with all the current wind and bluster sense may not be the deciding factor.