Search results

So why did we poll fewer votes than the Dutch bid?

Nobody is criticising the BBC for highlighting corruption, they are criticising the BBC for their TIMING. I agree, in hindsight the bid was a lost cause months ago, but it is also a fact that more votes were lost by our media. Under the guidance of Blatter, the FIFA delegates are fickle and...

England 2018 bid sunk by media, says Japan's Ogura BY David Bond BBC sports editor in Zurich Japan's Fifa executive committee member has told the BBC that England's World Cup bid humiliation may have been a result of a backlash against the British media. Junji Ogura, long considered one...

If this is FIFA's objective then why then don't they come out and say that, and only invite bids from developing nations? It would save the likes of us from submitting a pointless bid.

Send me your password and I'l try it from here.

So if Blatter told delegates not to vote for England, I assume this was because of our media? Which includes the BBC. I agree no one individual allegation resulted in our failure, but I really can't imagine any other country shooting themselves in the foot like we do.

Reckon the Aussies would play us, they are pretty pissed off, too. We could start up the football ashes.

Is this tongue in cheek? Ridiculously harsh! Public speaking isn't his natural forte and I think he did superbly well.

Yes, otherwise there would be no point in digging it to it now, after the event, would there? And we all hope FIFA get a good turning over now. Anyway, I can't agree that it was wise to broadcast three days before the vote. You and others can. Meh.

The world will sit up and take notice if they are presented with FACTS at any time! Get over your grapes theory.

Depends if any of the other Wombles turn up.

Missing the point again. By all means investigate, but it is the THREE DAYS BEFORE that was an issue. The programme was largely made up of OLD NEWS.

Yes, I have heard this sour grapes theory. Who exactly would compaint of it? And even if they did, so what? "Oh, we can't broadcast after the event, people might call us names!" :lolol:

I don't see what going out first has to do with it? We don't know what each delegate based their vote on so it is impossible to say whether the media scuppered our chances, but I wouldn't put it past some of these delegates to hold a petty grudge.

The question is not whether corruption should be investigated but whether it is a good idea to broadcast the results three days before a vote to host the World Cup in which your host nation is competing. We know FIFA delegates do get swayed late in the day after what happened in the voting for...

But clearly it does get a say in when to broadcast it.

Of course, the Sunday Times didn't help, either, but then they are owned by Rupert Murdoch so we were never going to get any favours there.

I still haven't heard any explanation for why those chose to air what turned out to be OLD NEWS three days before the announcement. Poor show, BBC.

The wall did its job.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the program, but if it contained mostly old news, what was the BBC's reason for airing it three days before the winner is to be announced? I don't understand their motivation for derailing any last hope we may have had.