GRcade

<]:^D wrote:the state of Spain

Rex Kramer wrote:

<]:^D wrote:the state of Spain

Well somebody had to step up and be Holland this time.

Parksey wrote:A bit annoying that the USA are getting a second world cup so soon. For all FIFA say they want to take the world cup to new places, they opted against Morocco for some reason. Might be because it was promosing double the £4bn profit the African bid cited. America will have had two in my lifetime now.

It'll be Mexico's third since 1970 too, albeit they got one when Colombia pulled out.

I'm a little bitter as it just seems to unfairly pass England by. We've had one Euros and one WC. In contrast, since we've held the WC, France have had three Euros and one WC. The last one, Platini basically admitted was rigged to give it to France while he was UEFA President.

There are noises that an England bid would be welcomed for 2030. But no doubt there'll be a bid that lines FIFA's pockets a little bit more.

Lotus wrote:Spain

As for 2026, bit odd having 3 countries - do they all automatically qualify? Would've been nice if it'd just been one country, or maybe a joint US-Mexico or US-Canada. 3x the bribes though, so every cloud...

Tomous wrote:

Parksey wrote:A bit annoying that the USA are getting a second world cup so soon. For all FIFA say they want to take the world cup to new places, they opted against Morocco for some reason. Might be because it was promosing double the £4bn profit the African bid cited. America will have had two in my lifetime now.

It'll be Mexico's third since 1970 too, albeit they got one when Colombia pulled out.

I'm a little bitter as it just seems to unfairly pass England by. We've had one Euros and one WC. In contrast, since we've held the WC, France have had three Euros and one WC. The last one, Platini basically admitted was rigged to give it to France while he was UEFA President.

There are noises that an England bid would be welcomed for 2030. But no doubt there'll be a bid that lines FIFA's pockets a little bit more.

To be fair, I think the Morocco bid had a lot of bid attached to it. They needed a lot of investment in stadium and infrastructure and I'm not sure it would have been good for the country to host it. Would have been a risk all round.

England have a right to be bitter. The bid really should have won in 2018 and probably would have on a fair playing field without corruption.

A 2030 bid will have to go up against Uruguay who are going to bid with Argentina and have the advantage of it being the 100 year anniversary of the first.

Moggy wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Parksey wrote:A bit annoying that the USA are getting a second world cup so soon. For all FIFA say they want to take the world cup to new places, they opted against Morocco for some reason. Might be because it was promosing double the £4bn profit the African bid cited. America will have had two in my lifetime now.

It'll be Mexico's third since 1970 too, albeit they got one when Colombia pulled out.

I'm a little bitter as it just seems to unfairly pass England by. We've had one Euros and one WC. In contrast, since we've held the WC, France have had three Euros and one WC. The last one, Platini basically admitted was rigged to give it to France while he was UEFA President.

There are noises that an England bid would be welcomed for 2030. But no doubt there'll be a bid that lines FIFA's pockets a little bit more.

To be fair, I think the Morocco bid had a lot of bid attached to it. They needed a lot of investment in stadium and infrastructure and I'm not sure it would have been good for the country to host it. Would have been a risk all round.

England have a right to be bitter. The bid really should have won in 2018 and probably would have on a fair playing field without corruption.

A 2030 bid will have to go up against Uruguay who are going to bid with Argentina and have the advantage of it being the 100 year anniversary of the first.

England should have bid for 2026, I think they’d have had a good chance against USEXADA and Morocco.

Tomous wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Parksey wrote:A bit annoying that the USA are getting a second world cup so soon. For all FIFA say they want to take the world cup to new places, they opted against Morocco for some reason. Might be because it was promosing double the £4bn profit the African bid cited. America will have had two in my lifetime now.

It'll be Mexico's third since 1970 too, albeit they got one when Colombia pulled out.

I'm a little bitter as it just seems to unfairly pass England by. We've had one Euros and one WC. In contrast, since we've held the WC, France have had three Euros and one WC. The last one, Platini basically admitted was rigged to give it to France while he was UEFA President.

There are noises that an England bid would be welcomed for 2030. But no doubt there'll be a bid that lines FIFA's pockets a little bit more.

To be fair, I think the Morocco bid had a lot of bid attached to it. They needed a lot of investment in stadium and infrastructure and I'm not sure it would have been good for the country to host it. Would have been a risk all round.

England have a right to be bitter. The bid really should have won in 2018 and probably would have on a fair playing field without corruption.

A 2030 bid will have to go up against Uruguay who are going to bid with Argentina and have the advantage of it being the 100 year anniversary of the first.

England should have bid for 2026, I think they’d have had a good chance against USEXADA and Morocco.

I think European bids were banned due to it being in Russia in 2018. Can't go to the same confederation within 2 World Cups-hence why Asia are banned from bidding in 2030 due to Qatar in 2022.

Tomous wrote:

Lotus wrote:Spain

As for 2026, bit odd having 3 countries - do they all automatically qualify? Would've been nice if it'd just been one country, or maybe a joint US-Mexico or US-Canada. 3x the bribes though, so every cloud...

Yes but it's a 48 team World Cup in 2026 so....

Lotus wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Lotus wrote:Spain

As for 2026, bit odd having 3 countries - do they all automatically qualify? Would've been nice if it'd just been one country, or maybe a joint US-Mexico or US-Canada. 3x the bribes though, so every cloud...

Yes but it's a 48 team World Cup in 2026 so....

I read the other day that 2022 could be 48 teams as well, which would mean Qatar having to co-host with other Middle Eastern countries. Such a clusterfuck.

PatSharpsMullet wrote:

Moggy wrote:I just had another go on the work sweepstake.

Peru.

Peru haven't lost a game since losing to Brazil to November 2016.

Believe.

more heat than light wrote:

PatSharpsMullet wrote:

Moggy wrote:I just had another go on the work sweepstake.

Peru.

Peru haven't lost a game since losing to Brazil to November 2016.

Believe.

I've got a fiver on Peru at 200/1. You picked a winner.

Tomous wrote:

Lotus wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Lotus wrote:Spain

As for 2026, bit odd having 3 countries - do they all automatically qualify? Would've been nice if it'd just been one country, or maybe a joint US-Mexico or US-Canada. 3x the bribes though, so every cloud...

Yes but it's a 48 team World Cup in 2026 so....

I read the other day that 2022 could be 48 teams as well, which would mean Qatar having to co-host with other Middle Eastern countries. Such a clusterfuck.

I believe they've voted against that

Lotus wrote:Just reading about 2026 and it sounds pretty shitty. The groups of 3 teams still sounds terrible, but 75% of the matches will be hosted in the US, and Mexico and Canada don't get any games after the round of 16 (and even that is only 1 game each). The US was always going to host more but I didn't think it'd be that skewed.

Dual wrote:We're going to win it. Believe.