We'll have to play dirty to get it. There might be politicians who believe that the ends justify the means . . . . .The Government have not gone into this process blind.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] 2030 World Cup
- Thread starter Randy McNob
- Start date
We'll have to play dirty to get it. There might be politicians who believe that the ends justify the means . . . . .The Government have not gone into this process blind.
And UEFA and the IOC are shining examples of moral rectitude?
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,887
I suspect the UK & Ireland may put in for both the 2030 and 2034 tournament.
The only thing I don't enjoy about these bids is the divine right assumptions, such as the one we saw when it eventually went to Russia who hosted it well.
It's happening now. England is not the only nation who could host the Euros at short notice.
The only thing I don't enjoy about these bids is the divine right assumptions, such as the one we saw when it eventually went to Russia who hosted it well.
It's happening now. England is not the only nation who could host the Euros at short notice.
Cynical perhaps, but I think this is purely a political move for Johnson to show how much he wants the UK to stay together.
He'll be long gone from power by 2030 and I doubt he gives a shit whether we win the bid or not, purely optics IMO.
He'll be long gone from power by 2030 and I doubt he gives a shit whether we win the bid or not, purely optics IMO.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,262
Why do we bother? Just look at the last 4 hosts - South Africa, Brazil, Russia, Qatar. All paragons of virtue, clean as a whistle, four lands where the word 'bribery' is unheard of.
severnside gull
Well-known member
More populist bollocks from Johnson
severnside gull
Well-known member
On that basis we will fit right in.
Sorrel
Well-known member
Don't think we will win the bid - but the important point is that the "we" consists of five nations, not just England. That gives it a much better chance of success.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,262
Their former President Sarkozy was just given a 3 year jail term for bribery of a magistrate. I'd say the odds on it being France are drifting.
The last bid cost around 19m and England were voted out at the first opportunity with just 2 votes from 22 and this was how many years/decades ago? Only a moron will believe this is a genuine bid.
SweatyMexican
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 4,155
Give me the £2.8 million and I’ll get us the same number of votes we were going to get anyway.
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,873
The best that could have been said about the last one was that we waltzed into it with a genuinely world beating level of naivety and exceptionalism; the belief that Beck, Wills and Cameron could swing it with some palm pressing (and a laughably cute level of schmoozing) while the Russian and Qatar teams were running out of brown envelopes and dodgy bank accounts - it's almost nostalgic to think of that time. The FA and the Govt of the time thought they had a chance.
This current proposal is far, far worse, in that it is knowingly, deliberately shit. It's designed solely to get tongues wagging and no more, and it deserves no more serious attention than it already has had.
The thing with a UK + Ireland bid is that, bribery or no bribery, no one wants it.
Direct qualification for 5 European nations means less spots for the rest of Europe and no other FA wants that, FIFA dont want it, big fat TV companies and sponsors dont want it - no one wants big nations to miss out just because you want to bring along shite football "nations" like NI, Scotland and Wales. And Ireland. And England. You can bring along one of your buddies, but five? No thank you.
Direct qualification for 5 European nations means less spots for the rest of Europe and no other FA wants that, FIFA dont want it, big fat TV companies and sponsors dont want it - no one wants big nations to miss out just because you want to bring along shite football "nations" like NI, Scotland and Wales. And Ireland. And England. You can bring along one of your buddies, but five? No thank you.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
The other crucial factor with those 4 nations being awarded it - they ALL needed major investment in building new stadiums, or upgrading current ones, plus the surrounding infrastructure. That meant multi-multi million dollar building contracts being dished out all over the shop in various host cities, and the $$$$ involved in all that (many of which ended up as white elephants, of no use whatsoever after the Tournament).
The stadiums in England are already up to scratch, there's at least 20 across the country that could easily host World Cup games. We wouldn't need to put down a single new brick to lay on a World Cup. Thats not what FIFA want, at all.
We could host the entire tournament in London if we wanted.
Wembley
Twickers
WHL
Emirates
Olympic Stadium
Stamford Bridge
Is 6 stadiums enough, I know they need to be 40k capacity
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Nah. Russia had 12 stadiums in a 32 team tournament. By the time we get to 2030, there'll probably be 48 teams.
And you can forget Twickers. The RFU rugby snobs would NEVER allow their HQ to be used by 'football fans'. Spurs approached them while the new WHL was being built, but were given short shrift.
Stamford Bridge is a dump
Dave Fishwick
Well-known member
could the Amex host some games? Already have experience of hosting a major event and will get some matches in the Womens Euros as well