Who will host the 2014WC?

[DoyleG]

The list is countries that are suitabel but have never hosted it before.

And post construtive remarks, not the BS seen on some other threads.

[ursula]

Could you answer why you think the WC will go to a country that's never hosted it before? Personally, I have my doubts...

[Alberto]

Originally posted by DoyleG
I have attached a poll with a list of countries that are suitable, but have never hosted the world cup.

Please post constructive remarks.

Okay, here goes.

China. No. they can certainly organize and host the world cup, but I am morally opposed to their hosting based on their blatant disregard for human rights.

Australia, I would like to see Australia host. They would do an excellent job. Oz is a very positive place with enthusiastic fans. They have the stadia and infrastructure.

One question, would the world cup interfere with the VFL season?

Canada, marginal choice. Lots of issue regarding the fields. Most are synthetic and not grass.

Question on whether the CFL would move their season back a month to start in the middle or early part of July.

Infrastructure clearly exists. Stadia do need work though. Clearly workable.

[saabrian]

I think either the USA or Canada will host the 2014 World Cup. Since the 2010 World Cup will be (er, should be) in Africa, FIFA will want a "safe" choice for 2014. A North American WC ensures that most of the matches will be good time-of-the-day-wise in relation to Europe, which will satisfy UEFA.

Now if they decide to screw Africa and give 2010 to the US, then all bets are off for 2014.

[WarrenWallace]

I saw on the scrolling line on CNN Headline News that China is now thinking about bidding for 2014. That would be too quick to have the games back in Asia.

[ursula]

I'm merging this with the 2014 poll thread.

[Fulham9]

Originally posted by DoyleG
The list is countries that are suitabel but have never hosted it before.


In case you missed it, the United States and Brazil have already announced their intention to bid for the 2014 World Cup. England will also probably bid for the 2014 World Cup. So if you want to have anything other than a fantasy poll, you might want to include those countries.


And post construtive remarks, not the BS seen on some other threads.

Hint to fellow BS posters: DoyleG has a somewhat odd definition of the word "constructive." Apparently, DoyleG doesn't consider it "constructive" if you point out that a hypothetical Canadian bid would have serious practical obstacles to overcome to even get in the running for a World Cup.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Fulham9
In case you missed it, the United States and Brazil have already announced their intention to bid for the 2014 World Cup. England will also probably bid for the 2014 World Cup. So if you want to have anything other than a fantasy poll, you might want to include those countries.[/B]

That was China considering a bid, not the US.
Brazil will get it as soon as their finances are in order.
England will get it as soon as they agree to build a national stadium. That means something else that taht Pickett's Lock garbage.

Originally posted by Fulham9
Hint to fellow BS posters: DoyleG has a somewhat odd definition of the word "constructive." Apparently, DoyleG doesn't consider it "constructive" if you point out that a hypothetical Canadian bid would have serious practical obstacles to overcome to even get in the running for a World Cup. [/B]

So does a US bid Tex. Go back into the hole along with all the other disaster from your state.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Alberto

Okay, here goes.

China. No. they can certainly organize and host the world cup, but I am morally opposed to their hosting based on their blatant disregard for human rights.


No argument there. It would also be on the heels of the 2008 Olympics.

Originally posted by Alberto

Australia, I would like to see Australia host. They would do an excellent job. Oz is a very positive place with enthusiastic fans. They have the stadia and infrastructure.

One question, would the world cup interfere with the VFL season?


Australia was may main choice, apart from nationalisim. It may interfere, but that might be minor.

Originally posted by Alberto

Canada, marginal choice. Lots of issue regarding the fields. Most are synthetic and not grass.

Question on whether the CFL would move their season back a month to start in the middle or early part of July.

Infrastructure clearly exists. Stadia do need work though. Clearly workable.

Grass or FieldTurf, which is FIFA approved, can be put into stadiums that don't have it. The CFL could move to early July with a Grey Cup in early December. There shouldn't be any problems with the stadia issue.

[Fulham9]

Originally posted by DoyleG


That was China considering a bid, not the US.


The USSF has already announced that they are planning a 2014 World Cup bid.


Brazil will get it as soon as their finances are in order.


Considering that the 2014 WC won't be awarded until 2008, that gives Brazil considerable time to do just that.


England will get it as soon as they agree to build a national stadium.


Even without a new national stadium, England's stadia compare very favorably to Canada's. Arsenal is building a new 60,000 seat stadium. You've got Old Trafford, St. James Park, Stadium of Light, Elland Road, Hillsborough, Villa Park, Anfield, Goodison Park, and Stamford Bridge. All of meet current FIFA requirements. Manchester City will soon have a new 50,000 seat stadium. Liverpool, Leeds and Everton all have new stadium plans. And if you still need a larger stadium in London, there's Twickenham. That picture looks a hell of a lot better than Canada's.


So does a US bid Tex. Go back into the hole along with all the other disaster from your state.

My name is not Tex.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Fulham9

The USSF has already announced that they are planning a 2014 World Cup bid.


There's a difference between showing intrest and announcing a bid. The US is the former, as have every other soccer story posted on the subject.

Originally posted by Fulham9
Considering that the 2014 WC won't be awarded until 2008, that gives Brazil considerable time to do just that.


Let's see: A nearly bankrupt coutry with a devealued currency and "California-style" blackouts. We know why the World Cup won't go to Argentina, same applies to Brazil.


Originally posted by Fulham9
Even without a new national stadium, England's stadia compare very favorably to Canada's. Arsenal is building a new 60,000 seat stadium. You've got Old Trafford, St. James Park, Stadium of Light, Elland Road, Hillsborough, Villa Park, Anfield, Goodison Park, and Stamford Bridge. All of meet current FIFA requirements. Manchester City will soon have a new 50,000 seat stadium. Liverpool, Leeds and Everton all have new stadium plans. And if you still need a larger stadium in London, there's Twickenham. That picture looks a hell of a lot better than Canada's.

Twickenham has been shot down by English fans on this board. You complain about the CFL wanting a piece, wait till you see the Rugby boys go at it. They need a national soccer stadium. Everyone has seen the infighting with Picketts Lock and it isn't good.

City of Manchester Stadium is being reduced in size to below 40,000. Why else isn't Man City moving in until next year?

And don't bring Hillsborough into this.


Originally posted by Fulham9
My name is not Tex.


What is it then?
George W. Bush?
Dick Cheney?
Bush Sr.?
Paul Begala?

[Craig the Aussie]

It will not be Australia - not in 2014, not in 2018, probably not ever.

The next WC in the Asia/Oceania time zone will be China (probably 2018), and then there will be a long break until the next one.

I would love it to be here, but it won't happen.

[Prenn]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Everyone has seen the infighting with Picketts Lock and it isn't good.

Picketts Lock is an athletics stadium, I think you mean Wembley.

[Fulham9]

Originally posted by DoyleG


There's a difference between showing intrest and announcing a bid. The US is the former, as have every other soccer story posted on the subject.


I said that the USSF has "announced that they are PLANNING" a bid. Obviously, there is a big difference between planning a bid and actually making a bid. But, the fact remains that if you ask the question: "Who will host the 2014 WC?", then you need to assess all the potential candidates, and not just the ones you think Canada has a chance of beating.



Let's see: A nearly bankrupt coutry with a devealued currency and "California-style" blackouts. We know why the World Cup won't go to Argentina, same applies to Brazil.


The situation in Brazil isn't nearly as bad as Argentina. The fact that the IMF was willing to go into Brazil but not Argentina should speak volumes about that. There is no reason to write off a Brazilian bid at this early stage.



Twickenham has been shot down by English fans on this board.


Yeah, I can see the conversation at FA headquarters:

"Bloody 'ell, if we just had one more ground, we could host the World Cup!"

"What about Twickenham, sir?"

"No, don't be ridiculous, Johnson, the boys on BigSoccer would never go for it."



You complain about the CFL wanting a piece, wait till you see the Rugby boys go at it.


June isn't rugby season, so the problem is one of agreeing on a price.


They need a national soccer stadium. Everyone has seen the infighting with Picketts Lock and it isn't good.


So England needs one stadium, as opposed to the 10 Canada needs? Even so, the FA and the govt. are still committed to a national stadium at Wembley. What about Canada? Where is Canada's 80,000 seat stadium? How do you propose hosting a World Cup without one?


City of Manchester Stadium is being reduced in size to below 40,000. Why else isn't Man City moving in until next year?

And don't bring Hillsborough into this.


Hillsborough seats 40,000. It hosted matches in Euro 96. If the new stadium in Manchester seats 40,000, that is two more stadia that meet minimum FIFA standards already.

How many stadia does Canada have right now that are not used by another sport during June? 0, zero, zilch, zip, nil.

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Fulham9

Yeah, I can see the conversation at FA headquarters:

"Bloody 'ell, if we just had one more ground, we could host the World Cup!"

"What about Twickenham, sir?"

"No, don't be ridiculous, Johnson, the boys on BigSoccer would never go for it."




Well despite your overly stereotypical English conversation ;) I hate to inform you that Twickenham will never be used for football, the rugby authorities see to that. It's not an option, unfortunately.

Still England have more than enough stadia to host a world cup, we have the infrastructure and plans to be able to host one next week if needs be :)

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Prenn


Well despite your overly stereotypical English conversation ;) I hate to inform you that Twickenham will never be used for football, the rugby authorities see to that. It's not an option, unfortunately.

Still England have more than enough stadia to host a world cup, we have the infrastructure and plans to be able to host one next week if needs be :)

Until the English can stop the infighting that goes on, it won't get the WC.

[RichardL]

I'm sure 12 years is enough time for even the FA to rebuild Wembley. It's also possible that there could be a club ground of that size by then. A fourth large side at old trafford perhaps?

I think FIFA would like to have another world cup in Brazil, it just depends if Brazil are capable of hosting it. The fact that the US hosted it relatively recently could go against them.

[Peakite]

Originally posted by Prenn


Well despite your overly stereotypical English conversation ;) I hate to inform you that Twickenham will never be used for football, the rugby authorities see to that. It's not an option, unfortunately.

Still England have more than enough stadia to host a world cup, we have the infrastructure and plans to be able to host one next week if needs be :)
Or the locals will stop it.

Something to do with the agreement to build it specifiying only a certain number of capacity fixtures a year. Which are taken up by the rugby union fixtures they have planned. So if that sport were to disappear.....

[Fulham9]

Originally posted by Prenn
Still England have more than enough stadia to host a world cup, we have the infrastructure and plans to be able to host one next week if needs be :)

Yup...and the same goes for the US. All pretty good reasons why the 2014 World Cup is going to be held in England, the US or Brazil; and not Canada, China or Australia.

[Fulham9]

Originally posted by Luan

Which are taken up by the rugby union fixtures they have planned. So if that sport were to disappear.....

I see you have attended the DoyleG School of World Cup Planning.:)