|
|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 1314151617 18> |
| Author | |||||||||
newrynyuk 
Liam Brady 
Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1556 |
 Posted: 07 Mar 2021 at 6:54pm |
||||||||
The 2007 Asian Cup was hosted by Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam. And this was for a 16-team tournament. So a 48 team World Cup could easily accommodate 4 or 5 host countries. Yes Ireland, Romania etc. are hosting Euro 2021 without playing in it. But this is due to the tournament being played in host cities across the continent rather than countries. Pretty sure Mexico and Canada won't have to qualify for the 2026 World Cup they are co-hosting with the US.
Not ignoring NI being part of the UK, the fact is it isn't part of GB. The clue is in the full name of the UK being The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if The FA want to shave a host country off their bid to increase their chances of winning... All meaningless conjecture anyway. It won't have the support of UEFA let alone get voted on by FIFA. Edited by newrynyuk - 07 Mar 2021 at 7:06pm |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| Sponsored Links | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Territorial
Jack Charlton
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 5817 |
Posted: 07 Mar 2021 at 7:34pm |
||||||||
The 2007 Asian Cup (top googling btw!) has zero relevance to a World Cup Finals.
In theory it could, but in practice it won't. If UEFA is to fend off counter-bids from the other Confederations (esp CONMEBOL), it can only allow one European bid to go forward. And if it is to be the FA bid, there is NO WAY the other UEFA members will accept five of UEFA's 15 or 16 places being reserved for all five, none whatever, esp since four of them qualify so rarely by the normal route.
This is not like eg the Olympics, where cities bid. When UEFA indicated they would allow multiple venues (but not automatic qualification with it), they invited their various Member Associations to nominate stadia. So the FAI proposed the AVIVA and were accepted, while eg the Belgian FA proposed the (new) Heysel and were rejected. I repeat, it is Member Associations who bid for these things, not governments, states or cities.
North/Central America is completely different to Europe. For a 32 team Finals, CONCACAF gets 3 automatic places, plus a "half" place (i.e. play-off). For a 48 team finals, this is likely to rise to 5 or 6. The other Members are not going to object to the 3 host Associations qualifying automatically, if they (i.e. the others) have now a better chance of qualifying with Mexico and USA out of the way.
I really have no idea what point you're trying to make - call it "GB & Ireland" if you like. For as I've argued above, it is entirely irrelevant. If this bid is to succeed, it will have to get the support of UEFA. And UEFA will not support it on the basis of mulltiple automatic qualification. They might accept England on the basis that they are doing "the heavy lifting" (plus they always qualify anyhow!), but that will be the hight of it, since if they were to allow one more, then they'd have to allow all four others. And I repeat, they will NOT do that. Thereafter, should the bid succeed, it will be for the five to agree the venues between them. On which point the IFA has already tacitly accepted they will not get a 40k stadium built for them, meaning they will want something else. And since a National Training Centre has been hinted at, I'm guessing that they'd accept that as providing a much better legacy for the game in NI than half a dozen games in Belfast. Especially if they haven't qualified to play any of those games!
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
SuperDave84
Robbie Keane
ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me! Joined: 26 Aug 2011 Location: Far Fungannon Status: Offline Points: 21384 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 1:36pm |
||||||||
|
There's always the possibility of some form of qualifying system being proposed solely for the hosts. For example, they could say "England get to host plus one more host nation via a host-nation playoff competition". Then, say none of the other four qualify through the normal route (pre-playoffs), a playoff path is preserved just for those four, and it functions as something of a warm-up event for the tournament proper too. Now there is a question as to what happens if the some of the others qualify automatically and whether there is a retained additional spot or not but that could all be worked out. That balances the issues of the need for host-nation representation without taking up spaces unnecessarily or for sides who are not deserving of a place on a sporting level. Now there are options and trade offs and balances and discussions to be had to gain support for a position like that but there are definitely things that can be done to win support from UEFA for the bid even including some sort of qualifying system that guarantees a minimum of two places for the hosts while giving the others a chance to qualify. Which would be the best is another matter entirely, but I'd prefer a negotiating position where the opening gambit was "England plus whoever else qualifies automatically plus a guaranteed playoff path for the others who don't make it", which would likely be resolved as "England plus whoever else qualifies automatically and only if none of them do then a guaranteed playoff path for the other four for a second spot".
Edited by SuperDave84 - 08 Mar 2021 at 1:37pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
newrynyuk
Liam Brady
Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1556 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 3:16pm |
||||||||
Oh there was no need to Google that! I can't be the only one who remembers Iraq's shock Asian Cup triumph.
So in a 48-team World Cup, CONCACAF would get an increase in places, but UEFA wouldn't? Of course they would. And that will cover the extended hosts automatic qualification spots.
You DO know that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, right? That's what I'm saying, It should be a GB and Ireland (i.e. not involving Northern Ireland, of The IFA if you insist it's associations not coountries) bid. 4 host countries still too many? The South American bid is Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and Chile. Edited by newrynyuk - 08 Mar 2021 at 3:30pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
newrynyuk
Liam Brady
Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1556 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 3:23pm |
||||||||
|
Double post. Sorry
Edited by newrynyuk - 08 Mar 2021 at 3:30pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Terzino
500 Club la la la 
Joined: 06 Apr 2016 Status: Offline Points: 661 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 4:03pm |
||||||||
The 2006 World Cup was meant to go to South Africa, but in the end, the Germans paid the right people and the vote went their way. Number of days any German has spent in prison for that: 0. For Boris there will be zero consequences too. Just pay the £5 or £6 million needed for every vote. The worst that will happen is that, in 2050, a FIFA Ethics Committee will launch an investigation into England's successful bid for the World Cup and find a few irregularities. They'll promise that they'll tighten their rules in future and that will be that. And the point about the London Olympic Stadium is not about 2012. It's about its current use. West Ham got a great deal from Boris on that one. And why aren't the IFA asking for a new stadium? It would be pure bloody madness to decline this, once in a generation, opportunity for them to get their hands on a world class facility!
Edited by Terzino - 08 Mar 2021 at 4:07pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Territorial
Jack Charlton
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 5817 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 8:02pm |
||||||||
Maybe some sort of compromise like this might work. Anyhow, when people wonder at the IFA joining the bid but not hosting any games, they might like to consider this. Any of ROI, Scotland or Wales could host games but fail to qualify, so end up watching other countries playing in AVIVA, Hampden, Millennium etc. Whereas if NI did qualify, I could take our having to play our games in any of those stadia (or in England)
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Territorial
Jack Charlton
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 5817 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 8:48pm |
||||||||
Different numbers entirely. CONCACAF has 43 Members, but the VAST majority are no-hopers (US Virgin Isles, Monserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis etc): For a 32-team Finals, Mexico are virtually guaranteed to qualify, with USA v.likely, with the rest scrambling for one other place. When the Finals are expanded to 48, CONCACAF will get uplifted to 6 places. So that even with 3 held off for USA/Can/Mex, the rest now have a much better chance than before with 3 extra places up for grabs. And that's before you consider the overwhelming power, both footballing and economic, which USA/Can/Mex hold in getting their way. While FIFA would appreciate the chance to give football a boost in Canada, in a way that eg ROI or NI don't need. Compare that with UEFA. We've already seen that when the Finals were bumped up from 24 teams to 32, UEFA got shafted by FIFA in only getting one more of the extra 8 teams. Worse still, when the Finals are expanded by another 16 places to 48, UEFA will only get an extra 3 of them (13 to 16). Which means that if three, four or five are held off for host Associations, the rest will have even FEWER qualifying places open to them than they do now, when the Finals are 50% bigger! And when you consider that those others include giants like Germany, Spain and Italy, it makes it even more certain that UEFA will not permit all the countries in a multiple bid to be permitted automatic qualification. The numbers are all here:
CONMEBOL has 10 Members. Yes, 10. With 32 team Finals, they get 5 entries. When the Finals are expanded to 48 teams, they will get 6. Meaning that with the four hosts qualifying automatically, there will still be just 6 teams competing for 2 places: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia. The first two of those are overwhelmingly likely to get there, the other four hardly ever do (if at all), they won't complain.
How do I get it across to you? Countries, governments, cities etc do NOT bid to host a World Cup Finals. Member Associations do. Now for some reason, it seems to matter to that it be called a "GB and Ireland bid". It's incorrect, even petty, but if you want to, then run with it. I just hope your head doesn't explode if anyone ever refers to it as the "British Isles bid"  Edited by Territorial - 08 Mar 2021 at 8:51pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
newrynyuk
Liam Brady
Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1556 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 9:17pm |
||||||||
Let’s just agree that this bid hasn’t a hope of hosting the 2030 World Cup. The IFA are gonna have to fund their new training centre another way. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Territorial
Jack Charlton
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 5817 |
Posted: 08 Mar 2021 at 9:49pm |
||||||||
Except which Germans paid for it? It wasn't their politicians, that's for sure, since Merkel & Co were far too cute to allow themselves to get caught up in that. Rather it was big business - kit manufacturers, media giants etc - see eg the late Robert Louis-Dreyfus (father of Sunderland's new owner, btw): "In October 2015 the German news magazine Der Spigel reported that the bidding committee for the FIFA World Cup 2006 had set-up a slush fund
that [Robert] Louis-Dreyfus, at the time CEO of Adidas, filled with 10.3 million
Swiss francs in 2000. Allegedly these funds were used to bribe numerous
FIFA officials and secure Germany's bid to host the 2006 World Cup,
whilst a FIFA report had strongly criticised England's supposedly
'unprofessional' rival bid presentation. According to internal FIFA
documents, Louis-Dreyfus had demanded a repayment of the funds in 2004,
which were transferred as €6.7 million via a FIFA account in Geneva to
an account held by Louis-Dreyfus."
You're way behind, Terzino. The 2006 Finals were awarded by a vote of FIFA's 20 EXCO members - easy enough to bribe, easy enough to keep quiet. They've changed it now so that it is voted for by all 209 FIFA Member Associations. To give all of them £5m would cost the guts of a billion quid. Try keeping that one quiet!
A new 40k stadium would cost something north of £100m. In return we might get half a dozen matches in 2030. Thereafter we would have difficulty selling out enough matches even to pay for the upkeep. And it would also make Windsor virtually redundant. Whereas with £100m, we could spend, say, £40m on a National Football Centre, £40m on IL grounds and £20m on grassroots facilities. That would proivide a far greater legacy than the chance to say we got to watch Egypt play Chile in the new Superdome down the road. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Terzino
500 Club la la la
Joined: 06 Apr 2016 Status: Offline Points: 661 |
Posted: 09 Mar 2021 at 7:39pm |
||||||||
|
Well there you have it.
The backing of the British Commonwealth will give the English bid a substantial advantage over rivals. How can they lose? All that's really left up for discussion at this stage is the mascot. Will it be a Bulldog or a Dragon, or even a Unicorn (to keep the Scots happy)?
Edited by Terzino - 09 Mar 2021 at 7:40pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Englishborn
Kevin Kilbane 
Britishborn Joined: 08 Nov 2019 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 191 |
Posted: 11 Mar 2021 at 7:25am |
||||||||
Its 4 countries. UK is a kingdom not a country
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Baldrick
Robbie Keane
Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32741 |
Posted: 11 Mar 2021 at 8:41am |
||||||||
Head along to the UN and look for the name plate where it says England Scotland or Wales or N Ireland and you will be looking. By your logic Spain is not a country either and Denmark as they are both kingdoms.
|
|||||||||
|
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
pre Madonna
Robbie Keane
I am MALDING Joined: 30 Nov 2014 Location: Trumpton Status: Offline Points: 44659 |
Posted: 11 Mar 2021 at 10:23am |
||||||||
|
And neither is Kerry!
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Denis Irwin
Robbie Keane
Stay Home & watch Lethal Weapon Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Location: Ath Cliath Status: Online Points: 37950 |
Posted: 05 Jun 2021 at 12:03pm |
||||||||
|
Spain Portgual bid confirmed
Edited by Denis Irwin - 05 Jun 2021 at 12:04pm |
|||||||||
|
Eamonn Dunphy:"I'll tell you who wrote it, Rod Liddle, he's the guy who ran away and left his wife for a young one".
Bill O'Herlihy: Ah ye can't be saying that now Eamonn |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Shedite
Jack Charlton
Joined: 09 Dec 2011 Status: Offline Points: 9816 |
Posted: 05 Jun 2021 at 12:54pm |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ConorMac77
Ray Houghton
Joined: 22 Apr 2015 Location: Newry Status: Online Points: 3688 |
Posted: 05 Jun 2021 at 1:10pm |
||||||||
Would make for a great holiday alright - but - I'm just wondering, will the Spanish clubs' persistence with that Super League work against the bid, seeing as UEFA only want 1 European bid to be submitted? It wouldn't be fair on the Portuguese though as their clubs had nothing to do with it.
Edited by ConorMac77 - 05 Jun 2021 at 1:12pm |
|||||||||
|
The nation holds it's breath...YES, WE'RE THERE!!!
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Territorial
Jack Charlton
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 5817 |
Posted: 05 Jun 2021 at 7:13pm |
||||||||
The bid will be by the two National Associations, who are dead-set against the ESL, not by the clubs. Though as it happens, the President of La Liga has also been one of the most outspoken opponents in Europe of the whole ESL proposal, since a breakaway by the Big Three would destroy his own league. And the Portugese FA and league will be the same, for fear of possibly losing Benfica, Porto or Sporting.
Edited by Territorial - 05 Jun 2021 at 7:14pm |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 1314151617 18> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Britain/Ireland may bid to host World Cup 2030
Topic Options
Territorial wrote: