I think this is what the Internet would call a "fail". And when the poll closes and it doesn't go the Daily Mail's way, it'll be what the Internet would call an "epic fail".
It's being widely reported that Blatter told FIFA executive members "not to forget the recent media allegations" just before they voted. This is akin to a judge directing a jury and could explain why England only received two votes (one of these is assumed to have come from Geoff Thompson, the English delegate) and why the pre-promised votes didn't materialise.
I don't think anyone can say for sure that England would have won this tournament without the intervention of Panorama and the Sunday Times - let's be honest, if it's not Russia's turn in 2018, then when would it be? 2030 is the next European-hosted World Cup (they don't qualify as an Asian nation - being members of UEFA).
However the timing of the BBC's broadcast has raised questions that they were trying to maximise ratings due to the bid being in the media spotlight last Monday. Why couldn't they have broadcast it on Monday 6th December? The points raised would have been just as valid.
It's being widely reported that Blatter told FIFA executive members "not to forget the recent media allegations" just before they voted. This is akin to a judge directing a jury
Except that it is a Judge's responsibility to direct a Jury about what they have heard in evidence, however it is NOT Blatter's responsibility to direct the supposedly free-thinking executive.
IF (a big if due to a lack of verifiable source) he did say what has been reported, it just demonstrates how corrupt this whole process was.
However the timing of the BBC's broadcast has raised questions that they were trying to maximise ratings
Or just because it was actually very topical and relevant.
due to the bid being in the media spotlight last Monday. Why couldn't they have broadcast it on Monday 6th December? The points raised would have been just as valid.
Just as valid, but old news and potentially just as damaging - inferring that the winning country might not have won on the basis of its actual bid.
The only thing that would damage the UK's chances is the morons we sent out their on behalf of our country Cameron, Prince Andrew and Beckham we could have done a lot better than that.
I don't think anyone can say for sure that England would have won this tournament without he intervention of Panorama and the Sunday Times - let's be honest, if it's not Russia's turn now, then when would it be? 2030 is the next European-hosted World Cup.
.
It raises more questions than answers. Did Russia win as it is basicly a blank canvas or did England lose becouse of Parorama?
As much as I love to buy into this idea that Russia is a good choice as it is a blank canvas then surely Albania or Scotland have a chance in future.
As for the BBC they have a right to bring this up but the timing could not have come at a worse time I mean they are not going to pull out of showing the 2014 World Cup are they?
As for the BBC they have a right to bring this up but the timing could not have come at a worse time I mean they are not going to pull out of showing the 2014 World Cup are they?
that is an intersting point, when the BBC did a similar treatment on Crufts, they stopped airing it.
That said the Crufts Panaorma, really hit out at the "sport" and its negative effect on dogs, it didnt say that football itself was bad, just FIFA itself.
Dogs win Crufts, with unnatural breeding, that is not the case with football, nor what the BBC was suggesting,
A slight differnce, but you still have a point, worth my discussing above in my post.
It raises more questions than answers. Did Russia win as it is basicly a blank canvas or did England lose becouse of Parorama?
..... or because England is very far from a blank canvas?
As much as I love to buy into this idea that Russia is a good choice as it is a blank canvas then surely Albania or Scotland have a chance in future.
As a pure blank canvas, how would you know that this would not be the case? However, both countries lack something that Russia has in abundance - a massive, untapped market that can be developed and nurtured.
..... or because England is very far from a blank canvas?
As a pure blank canvas, how would you know that this would not be the case? However, both countries lack something that Russia has in abundance - a massive, untapped market that can be developed and nurtured.
But what about the local man trying to earn a crust selling t shirts or Key rings but cannot as he is not one of the sponsors.
Personally I will not lose any sleep over this as we have the 2012 Olympics which is for sports lovers of all sports. Also the Commonwealth Games & Rugby world cup both codes
But what about the local man trying to earn a crust selling t shirts or Key rings but cannot as he is not one of the sponsors.
That is an issue regardless as to which nation gets what tournament. It always has been, and always will be. Just as some locals will still make a few bob out of selling counterfeit or low-quality merchandise until caught.
It's being widely reported that Blatter told FIFA executive members "not to forget the recent media allegations" just before they voted. This is akin to a judge directing a jury and could explain why England only received two votes (one of these is assumed to have come from Geoff Thompson, the English delegate) and why the pre-promised votes didn't materialise.
I don't think anyone can say for sure that England would have won this tournament without the intervention of Panorama and the Sunday Times - let's be honest, if it's not Russia's turn in 2018, then when would it be? 2030 is the next European-hosted World Cup (they don't qualify as an Asian nation - being members of UEFA).
However the timing of the BBC's broadcast has raised questions that they were trying to maximise ratings due to the bid being in the media spotlight last Monday. Why couldn't they have broadcast it on Monday 6th December? The points raised would have been just as valid.
That is very true even though England had the best bid on technical merit. I think the damage was done the moment the Sunday Times went public a few weeks ago so it's unfair to heap all the blame all on the BBC.
I think that first round elimination with only 2 votes was a message to all other countries, "If you intefere with or highlight our rotten, sleazy and corrupt practices and threaten our nice gravy train then we will punish you".
A few years ago, the International Olympic Comittee had to go through a clean out of both personnel and practices to clean themselves up and that's now long overdue at FIFA too.
Neither country won on the basis of the bid, both were the worst bids while Englands was the best.
It doesnt take a genius to work out what happened.
Yes, that the winning bid was not based upon the technical excellence, but on other factors quite likely to include the additional opportunities, the likely legacy i terms of infrastructure that would not have been built, and quite possibly the greasing of wheels and some mutual horse-trading.
But that is of course just speculation and opinion. The real truth is known by those who voted, and until (if ever) they make their voting intentions and reasons public, it will remain speculation.
And it is for that reason that any enquiry into the England bid and why iit failed will be a total waste of time, as no-one will be able to arrive at a proper conclusion without knowing those reasons.
It's being widely reported that Blatter told FIFA executive members "not to forget the recent media allegations" just before they voted. This is akin to a judge directing a jury and could explain why England only received two votes (one of these is assumed to have come from Geoff Thompson, the English delegate) and why the pre-promised votes didn't materialise.
I don't think anyone can say for sure that England would have won this tournament without the intervention of Panorama and the Sunday Times - let's be honest, if it's not Russia's turn in 2018, then when would it be? 2030 is the next European-hosted World Cup (they don't qualify as an Asian nation - being members of UEFA).
However the timing of the BBC's broadcast has raised questions that they were trying to maximise ratings due to the bid being in the media spotlight last Monday. Why couldn't they have broadcast it on Monday 6th December? The points raised would have been just as valid.
The question of ratings is interesting. Panorama is a dying brand imo-for people like me growing up in the seventies it represented brain achingly boring television and that perception still stands for me. The programme on Monday was boring too and it was only watched by 2.97 million people and yet, rightly or wrongly, it will create a whole new assortment of people who will have recurring resentment for the BBC whenever the subject is brought up-like Jonathan Ross paypacket is for another group.
Not worth it in my view-the Beeb would have done themselves a huge favour by showing it in January imo. The reaction would have been very different then.
The timing of the documentary was appropriate, though the rumours of corruption have been widespread within the industry, the sheer scale of it needed to be exposed, Airing the broadcast on Monday 6th would have smacked of sour grapes - the Times article did more harm than the BBC and yet that was hurriedly 'dealt' with by suspending those accused - though not by announcing a FIFA-wide investigation to ensure the whole body was clean. They hide behind the fact that no criminal investigations were brought against those previous alledged to have been the recipient of bribes - citing that 'commercial payments' were at the time, no illegal.
Members of the Executive Committee are known to have indulged in very dubious practices (yes Jack Warner, I'm talking about you) both during the run up to Germany and South Africa, let's not even talk about the recent result for the Trinidad and Tobago national football team!
The sight of David Cameron, David Beckham and Prince William, this week with their noses firmly affixed to the arse of Sep Blatter and that even bigger crook, Jerome Valck stuck in my craw - the idea of The FA apologizing for our media when they know about FIFA's corrupt practices smacks of collusion - are we really prepared to bow and scrape to get a World Cup - obviously by what we have seen this week, the answer is a resounding yes, are we prepared the turn a blind eye to vote bartering, brown envelopes and buddies voting together in a closed door process, the answer is a resounding yes, are we prepared to let FIFA ride roughshod over the laws and tenets of this country, so that Football Can Come Home - I think we know the answer to that question
Is getting the World Cup so important to this country that we watched our own political leader be led around by Sep Blatter, scooting across the Pond at the behest of the aforementioned Jack Warner - so we can add 'Star Power' to our bid -
Where was Putin? Where was Obama? - Yes, Bill was there, but he is not exactly current is he?
In the end, I'm glad we didn't get it, not because I didn't want England to have it (I think it would have been great) but what it would have meant we had to do to get it!
The fact that FIFA allowed a BBC Panarama documentary to affect the UK chances of hosting the World Cup just show's how corrupt they really are and validates the BBC's programme. Although putting the programme off a week would have been a good idea it's not like they would be less corrupt next week.
After all the corruption allegations directed at FIFA if you were a betting man and expected that the allegations were true - which nations would you expect to gain the world cup hosting?
Russia and Qatar? Maybe?
I think the Panorama episode was shoddily put together but the BBC had the right to broadcast and not have fall out - regardless.
As For Mr Blatter and the delegates - I feel they proved the allegations are correct and they should of gone further on the programme - i.e. Panorama could have predicted the result.....
Interesting there are 2 votes for Holland and Belgium in the first round that there wasn't in the second round.
Maybe those delegates realised after Round 1 that the Holland/Belgium bid was unlikely to be succesful, and went for their preferred option between Russia and Spain/Portugal
There is one thing I hope that happens now as a result of this failed bid.
I would be very happy now for the UK's newspapers and TV stations to thoroughly investigate all those FIFA executives in the finest detail and bring out all that sleaze into the light. That will hopefully bring the whole rotten FIFA edifice down and lead to significant reform.
Vladimir Putin decided it was not worth turning up but arranged that his bid would be adequately represented .The England team lobbied late into the night with the delegates who could influence the vote.
If someone kept you away from the expectations of your bed ...who would you vote for?
Disclaimer:- Anything you read between these lines is your interpretation and not necessarily those of the poster
The only remedy left to England is to hit FIFA and UEFA where they might feel it - economically. Pull the national side out of the 2014 World Cup qualification and our club sides out of UEFA competitions.
The hard bit would be to get the Premier League to bite the bullet and discontinue world-wide Premier League tv coverage.
So much money is generated by foreign advertisers around the world that FIFA would be forced to listen by pressure from the rest of the world.
All of the above to continue until far reaching reform of FIFA is achieved and all corrupt delegates and Associations are shown the door.
Round 1: Australia1 vote, Japan 3 votes, US 3 votes, South Korea 4 votes and Qatar 11 votes.
Round 2: Japan 2 votes, South Korea 5 votes, US 5 votes and Qatar 10 votes.
Round 3 South Korea 5 votes, US 6 votes and Qatar 11 votes.
Round 4 US 8 votes and Qatar 14 votes (Qatar obtain absolute majority)
And this is how the 2022 votes went.
Even more strange than the 2018 bid is how Qatar managed to drop a vote from the 1st round to the 2nd. In the 2018 case it is probably right that as Holland/Belgium were not going to win, it made sense that 2 people who orignally voted for them, chose out of the bids they preferred between Spain/Portugal and Russia. But this one I don't understand at all.
The only remedy left to England is to hit FIFA and UEFA where they might feel it - economically. Pull the national side out of the 2014 World Cup qualification and our club sides out of UEFA competitions.
why? the England team as I understand isnt that good at the moment, I fail to see how us pulling out would be seen as a punishment by Fifa, just an untalent time, saving from getting egg on its face.
I suggest we host a "5Nations: Football" that way we stand a good chance of winning. However you have to assume we wont face the same problems if we tried to host a EU Cup.
So the Russians and Qataris put their hands in their pockets then...
I think the doc showed FIFA to be shady as hell. I love footie, I'd have loved a World Cup here but not at any cost. Sod em.
I'm disapointed we didn't get the World Cup, but how about we congratulate Russia? The amount of bitterness I've heard, especially on the radio talk ins, makes it embarassing to be English.
Comments
Oh, i'm sure they'll find a way to fix it!:D
I don't think anyone can say for sure that England would have won this tournament without the intervention of Panorama and the Sunday Times - let's be honest, if it's not Russia's turn in 2018, then when would it be? 2030 is the next European-hosted World Cup (they don't qualify as an Asian nation - being members of UEFA).
However the timing of the BBC's broadcast has raised questions that they were trying to maximise ratings due to the bid being in the media spotlight last Monday. Why couldn't they have broadcast it on Monday 6th December? The points raised would have been just as valid.
IF (a big if due to a lack of verifiable source) he did say what has been reported, it just demonstrates how corrupt this whole process was.
Or just because it was actually very topical and relevant.
Just as valid, but old news and potentially just as damaging - inferring that the winning country might not have won on the basis of its actual bid.
Who should we have sent out then?
It raises more questions than answers. Did Russia win as it is basicly a blank canvas or did England lose becouse of Parorama?
As much as I love to buy into this idea that Russia is a good choice as it is a blank canvas then surely Albania or Scotland have a chance in future.
As for the BBC they have a right to bring this up but the timing could not have come at a worse time I mean they are not going to pull out of showing the 2014 World Cup are they?
That said the Crufts Panaorma, really hit out at the "sport" and its negative effect on dogs, it didnt say that football itself was bad, just FIFA itself.
Dogs win Crufts, with unnatural breeding, that is not the case with football, nor what the BBC was suggesting,
A slight differnce, but you still have a point, worth my discussing above in my post.
As a pure blank canvas, how would you know that this would not be the case? However, both countries lack something that Russia has in abundance - a massive, untapped market that can be developed and nurtured.
But what about the local man trying to earn a crust selling t shirts or Key rings but cannot as he is not one of the sponsors.
Personally I will not lose any sleep over this as we have the 2012 Olympics which is for sports lovers of all sports. Also the Commonwealth Games & Rugby world cup both codes
They got confused as there was no option to blame the immigrants.
Seems like a fail for them as that poll would be the most likely to blame the BBC.
you would think that was to make sure England went out in the 1st round, why else would 2 voters desert their 1st choice?
Neither country won on the basis of the bid, both were the worst bids while Englands was the best.
It doesnt take a genius to work out what happened.
That is very true even though England had the best bid on technical merit. I think the damage was done the moment the Sunday Times went public a few weeks ago so it's unfair to heap all the blame all on the BBC.
I think that first round elimination with only 2 votes was a message to all other countries, "If you intefere with or highlight our rotten, sleazy and corrupt practices and threaten our nice gravy train then we will punish you".
A few years ago, the International Olympic Comittee had to go through a clean out of both personnel and practices to clean themselves up and that's now long overdue at FIFA too.
Yes, that the winning bid was not based upon the technical excellence, but on other factors quite likely to include the additional opportunities, the likely legacy i terms of infrastructure that would not have been built, and quite possibly the greasing of wheels and some mutual horse-trading.
But that is of course just speculation and opinion. The real truth is known by those who voted, and until (if ever) they make their voting intentions and reasons public, it will remain speculation.
And it is for that reason that any enquiry into the England bid and why iit failed will be a total waste of time, as no-one will be able to arrive at a proper conclusion without knowing those reasons.
The question of ratings is interesting. Panorama is a dying brand imo-for people like me growing up in the seventies it represented brain achingly boring television and that perception still stands for me. The programme on Monday was boring too and it was only watched by 2.97 million people and yet, rightly or wrongly, it will create a whole new assortment of people who will have recurring resentment for the BBC whenever the subject is brought up-like Jonathan Ross paypacket is for another group.
Not worth it in my view-the Beeb would have done themselves a huge favour by showing it in January imo. The reaction would have been very different then.
Members of the Executive Committee are known to have indulged in very dubious practices (yes Jack Warner, I'm talking about you) both during the run up to Germany and South Africa, let's not even talk about the recent result for the Trinidad and Tobago national football team!
The sight of David Cameron, David Beckham and Prince William, this week with their noses firmly affixed to the arse of Sep Blatter and that even bigger crook, Jerome Valck stuck in my craw - the idea of The FA apologizing for our media when they know about FIFA's corrupt practices smacks of collusion - are we really prepared to bow and scrape to get a World Cup - obviously by what we have seen this week, the answer is a resounding yes, are we prepared the turn a blind eye to vote bartering, brown envelopes and buddies voting together in a closed door process, the answer is a resounding yes, are we prepared to let FIFA ride roughshod over the laws and tenets of this country, so that Football Can Come Home - I think we know the answer to that question
Is getting the World Cup so important to this country that we watched our own political leader be led around by Sep Blatter, scooting across the Pond at the behest of the aforementioned Jack Warner - so we can add 'Star Power' to our bid -
Where was Putin? Where was Obama? - Yes, Bill was there, but he is not exactly current is he?
In the end, I'm glad we didn't get it, not because I didn't want England to have it (I think it would have been great) but what it would have meant we had to do to get it!
Russia and Qatar? Maybe?
I think the Panorama episode was shoddily put together but the BBC had the right to broadcast and not have fall out - regardless.
As For Mr Blatter and the delegates - I feel they proved the allegations are correct and they should of gone further on the programme - i.e. Panorama could have predicted the result.....
8 years is a long time.....
Maybe those delegates realised after Round 1 that the Holland/Belgium bid was unlikely to be succesful, and went for their preferred option between Russia and Spain/Portugal
I would be very happy now for the UK's newspapers and TV stations to thoroughly investigate all those FIFA executives in the finest detail and bring out all that sleaze into the light. That will hopefully bring the whole rotten FIFA edifice down and lead to significant reform.
If someone kept you away from the expectations of your bed ...who would you vote for?
Disclaimer:- Anything you read between these lines is your interpretation and not necessarily those of the poster
The hard bit would be to get the Premier League to bite the bullet and discontinue world-wide Premier League tv coverage.
So much money is generated by foreign advertisers around the world that FIFA would be forced to listen by pressure from the rest of the world.
All of the above to continue until far reaching reform of FIFA is achieved and all corrupt delegates and Associations are shown the door.
Round 1: Australia1 vote, Japan 3 votes, US 3 votes, South Korea 4 votes and Qatar 11 votes.
Round 2: Japan 2 votes, South Korea 5 votes, US 5 votes and Qatar 10 votes.
Round 3 South Korea 5 votes, US 6 votes and Qatar 11 votes.
Round 4 US 8 votes and Qatar 14 votes (Qatar obtain absolute majority)
And this is how the 2022 votes went.
Even more strange than the 2018 bid is how Qatar managed to drop a vote from the 1st round to the 2nd. In the 2018 case it is probably right that as Holland/Belgium were not going to win, it made sense that 2 people who orignally voted for them, chose out of the bids they preferred between Spain/Portugal and Russia. But this one I don't understand at all.
I suggest we host a "5Nations: Football" that way we stand a good chance of winning. However you have to assume we wont face the same problems if we tried to host a EU Cup.
I'm disapointed we didn't get the World Cup, but how about we congratulate Russia? The amount of bitterness I've heard, especially on the radio talk ins, makes it embarassing to be English.