Africa_v_Europe

[a_shearer]

You've all admitted that England is the best equipped nation to host the tournament.

So why South Africa? More politically correct bull**** I suspect.

"Africa hasn't had it yet *whine* *whine*." Well life just isn't fair!

If life was fair, 10 year olds would get to drink. But do you know why we don't let them? Because they aren't ready, haven't developed the right internal facilities, and it ISN'T SAFE!

 

[Drinky UKSN]

a_shearer - If hosting the 2006 World Cup sauses ultimate armageddon in South Africa, feel free to come back here then and stick it to us. At the moment though, they have adequate stadia, experience of hosting a football event, and have the fact that we need to open up the game to new continents to enlarge the audience and get more people playing the game. South Africa is more than a politically correct choice, and it is patronising to them to say otherwise.

 

[chrishaz]

the best african country to give the world cup to would be MORROCCO (or however u spell it)

It hosts the King Hassan cup every year, and has the tourist facilites at Casablanca, Rabat etc.

Its national team is better than SOuth Africa's (they did better in the world cup and have done well in friendlies against Holland) (they did ok a year ago against france, but i know they got a bit hammered this year by the french)

They have not as much crime as south africa, and it is near Europe so more european fans could afford to go than in S.A.

England and Germany should give their votes to Morrocco just to piss the South Africans off for 'getting into bed' with the brazilians, over 2010 world cup.


It not just South Africa, but also Morrocco could be the first african world cup


chris

 

[Zidane]

a_shearer

Look if England win you can come back here and tell us how bad of idiots we are. But every one knows that England doesn't stand a chance in hell. There's just NO way you will get it. Germany has a better chance than you. And still they wont' get it. Give up, hand the world cup to africa and try again in 2014 because you don't have a chance at the 2010 WC either. South Africa are more then able to host this event. They have fine stadia they have all the infrastructure they need, plus you can say it's africa's turn. There are a million reasons SA should get it and even more why England shouldn't.
So give up man. It's over. Maybe if you didn't have so many hooligans at Euro 2000 there might have been a slight chance.

 

[a_shearer]

England won't win.

Because FIFA is a liberal association determined to undermine the good of the game for their own political gain.

South Africa IS NOT the best choice. Everyone knows that. But FIFA wants to make the politically correct choice and give it to Africa. Its compromising the safety, integrity, and enjoyment of the game.

Sad and pathetic.

 

[Voltaire]

I personally like German stadiums, and the atmosphere is very clean. Security would not be a problem, I do not think.

Olympic stadium is just a masterpiece...and every other German stadium is very artistic and given a very modern look...

Plus, the National Team needs all the help it can get...

England would be nice, but after the Euro-cup, many oversea travelers might be too frightened to walk out with colours supporting their team...

And I agree with Shearer on South Africa...they are very behind when it comes to security...I know nothing of their mortality rate, but I know that theft is awful, and that they have the highest incident of rape in the world...I love the culture, but I pity their government...

I think Germany would be the best location...

 

[Neutral]

I think the 2006 WC should go to the Island of Vanuatu. They're in the middle of the Pacific. They probably have two or three quality pitches, the teams can practice on aircraft carriers belonging to their nations, the increased military presence would ensure that any holigan activity would be quickly stopped (throw the idiots into the sea). The weather is wonderful - except for occiasional tsunami that could kill eveyone on the island. Appointment would also mean automatic qualification for the Vanuatu national team which is a bonus for the locals.

 

[Zidane]

Well a_shearer Iraq, Iran AND Kashmir happen to located somewhere in the vacinity of Asia. That is where the 2002 WC is being held. Plus there is fighting in Kashmir so we couldn't use that. Iraq and Iran dont' have the infrastructure. but South Africa does and will build more by 2004.
And what are you talking about hooligans??? Look in your own country. I'm not saying anying bad about england it's a great country but the hooligans are there and everyone knows it so face reality.

 

[Bolso]

Ok Shearer, I'll name a couple of countries and you tell me which ones should host the WC even if they don't have bids for 2006...

1.Australia
2.Spain
3.Germany
4.Sweden
5.Italy
6.Argentina
7.Uruguay

(hey we only hosted once to!)
8.Morroco
9.Malaysia


Hey everyone let's back up Neutrals Bid! LOL

[This message has been edited by Bolso (edited 07-06-2000).]

 

[Gunner]

South Africa is a big NO-NO for me.
a_shearer is right with some of his arguments

e.g. England has the better stadia,better police force to deal with hooligans,better facilities and more experience.

However, I believe that today, FIFA will vote for SA.Because of ONE reason, their trump card.......
Nelson Mandela: him alone got them the Rugby World Cup 95 and the African Nations Cup, so he will get them the World Cup before he croaks.... ooops! Sorry but it's the truth.

a_shearer did get a tad carried away in his arguments, but the sentiment was, and is, totally correct:

If you want a great World Cup, a safe WC, an enjoyable WC,a passionate WC,an exciting WC, in a football-mad country,
PICK ENGLAND!!!


PS: I'm from Eire so I have more reason to hate the English than anyone.LOL
Vote for Celtic Nations 2008 Euro Championships!!!!!!!!!!

 

[a_shearer]

None of the countries you have listed Bolso, have made preperations. (Germany noted.)

 

[Black_Ned]

Germany to host in 2006
Well, well, this is a big surprise...

Germany have won the race to host the 2006 World Cup, defeating South Africa by 12 votes to 11 in the third round of voting by FIFA's 24-man executive committee.

England's three-and-a-half-year, £10million campaign to stage the event ended in failure in Zurich today when they were eliminated from the second round of voting, receiving only two votes, from Scotland and New Zealand.

That left Germany and South Africa to enter the third round with 11 votes apiece, with Germany strongly favoured to win, as both Scotland and New Zealand sided with the Europeans.

The Germans' shrewd campaign reaped reward in the final hours, with the four Asian countries backing their bid.

Morocco was eliminated in the first round, which saw England receive five votes.

Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2000 22:17:13



[This message has been edited by Black_Ned (edited 07-06-2000).]

 

[Ruben Sosa]

That wasn't the point shearer...

 

[Kewell the Jewell]

Shearer

why cant idiots like you work out in your thick head that FIFA have to spread the so called "world game" to every part of the world!!

Sth Africa's facilities and infrastructure were ok for the world cup even if they arent teh best and if they got the world cup then it would give the Africans a chance to see the World game at its best.....

people like you have to realise people play soccer outside of europe and sth america...

u think its your right to have to world cup in your continent!

 

[Drinky UKSN]

A_shearer reminds me of the anti-thesis of the 'liberal' attitudes he states - men sitting in a smoke-filled room patting each other on the back and winking that they'll do each other favours - because 'we don't want to see those dirty Africans host it - they probably haven't even heard of cars yet!' before guffawing loudly, handing it to an established nation and slapping each other on the back for doing the right thing and making sure only the tried and tested happens. I am usually meant to be impartial on these forums, but a_shearer's attitude on his one point nauseates me.