England World Cup bid

[Baracus]

its cost 460m for englands bid. Wtf!!!!!

This is going to hit grass roots football badly

[Bender]

its cost 460m for englands bid. Wtf!!!!!

This is going to hit grass roots football badly

what did they spend that on

[McDermotX]

its cost 460m for englands bid. Wtf!!!!!

This is going to hit grass roots football badly

Surely that was including the bribe for FIFA.......if so, they'll get it back

[Baracus]

No beer, too hot and no ****ing pork sausages......what a disgrace!

Forget all that and no gays in qatar...burka up brazilian, argie, spanish bitches. No tits on tv

[Craig_H]

Forget all that and no gays in qatar...burka up brazilian, argie, spanish bitches. No tits on tv

Yes, because world cup coverage usually doubles up as 'babestation' or whatever the **** it's called

[Suarez]

Badum-tush. Someone opened their christmas crackers early this year

You're basically not making a point mate. Make one with any sense of validity, and i'll respond accordingly.

Firstly, the point I made was that the overwhelming majority of FIFA's host nations do not need development of any kind. That was in relation to a point made by another poster.

You responded with USA and Japan, which is debatable. I responded that the point that I didn't think they needed developing, Japan already loved football, and the US never will.

Then, like a tard, you come out of the blue with "It's not fair, they all hate us, blah blah..."

and "There's no reason why 'different' countries shouldnt get their chance too." in relation to something I've not actually said?

Then I have "It's very pathetic that people think the world starts and ends with England, and that this country has a divine right to hold the world cup". Being just a little presumptious I think? I don't think that and haven't indicated so.

Then I have "shouldnt countries who have NEVER hosted a WC, get the chance to do so, if they have the means? " Again, in response to what? I haven't said they shouldn't.

So don't come back saying I'm not making a point. Argue with something I've actually said if you want too, it'll make a change.

[-V-]

What? South Africa aside, its been Germany, Japan, France , U.S.A and Italy in the last 20 years. Hardly countries in need of development.

No, not really. Its never going to make it big in the US and Japan already loved its football.

Russia? Last time I checked, they've always loved football and made a ****ing pigsear of the single match that was the champions league final. Qatar? We may as well give it to Jersey next time.

Anyway, you've missed off Italy, Germany, and France, showing that FIFA do not think about "developing" countries when choosing a host. Tho original point was complete poppycock.

You've completely missed the point mate. Im talking about current day not why certain countries hosted it in the past.

They are choosing countries which need development of their Stadia and Infrastructure for the betterment of their countries and their people. Thats why South Africa won and thats why Brazil won. Because it benefits them for the long-term and not just for one tournament

[Leyton388]

One things for sure. There will be none of this in Qatar













Will be more like this.

[Baracus]

what did they spend that on

Surely that was including the bribe for FIFA.......if so, they'll get it back

We will find out sooner or later. But by the sounds of it, they must have bribed everyone in fifa plus themselves.

[-V-]

its cost 460m for englands bid. Wtf!!!!!

This is going to hit grass roots football badly

I think your confused mate. The bid cost £15m. Perhaps hosting the tournament would have needed investment of £460m but that won't be needed now.

Russia have proposed to invest £2.4 Billion and hope to transform many of their cities and develop their infrastructure greatly

[Suarez]

You've completely missed the point mate. Im talking about current day not why certain countries hosted it in the past.

They are choosing countries which need development of their Stadia and Infrastructure for the betterment of their countries and their people. Thats why South Africa won and thats why Brazil won. Because it benefits them for the long-term and not just for one tournament

Time will tell if you're right, but I don't give FIFA that much credit. Saying that, more stadia means more football which ultimately means more financial avenues for FIFA. Yep, you're right.

[Craig_H]

One things for sure. There will be none of this in Qatar

http://champions-league-betting.com/images/sexy/brazil_fan4.jpg

http://manjr.com/wp-content/gallery/larissa-riquelme/larissa-riquelme-paraguay-world-cup-fan-7.jpg

http://futbolgirls.com/uploads/Image/spanish_babe_futbol_fan.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/265/220/south-korea-fan_display_image.jpg?1277055571

http://ll.broadbandsports.com/images/2006-world-cup-girls06130630.jpg

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2...20Paraguay.jpg

First one is a ladyboy.

[Leyton388]

First one is a ladyboy.

Well she will defo not be there LOL

[Kenneth]

When did the world cup become some kind social philanthropy scheme, and FIFA a political organisation? It's a football tournament FFS sake. Who will put on a good show, there's your criteria. And I'm ****ed if a joint Belgium / Holland bid could do that better than England.

Maybe england wasn't the best option but no ****ing way was it the worst. FIFA are sticking two fingers up at England. They don't like being found to be corrupt, and they haven't been ashamed to say it. If they were less arrogant they'd have evened out the votes to make it look like a reasonable contest. They didn't, they said 'we had the power now **** off, rock the boat and you'll pay'.

[Kenneth]

First one is a ladyboy.

BS