|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 15, 2013 7:02:35 GMT
It should have been Australia, sit and imagine it for a second England fans would have loved it down their. Nation of alcoholics, legalised brothels, Ausie baiting... Mind You, one of our lot went down their for the 2001 Ashes & ended up having a ding-dong with a local. He got 6 months community service & they took his passport off him, just invade he decided he didn't fancy it!!! I think this guy may be credited with introducing Stoke to the "Bread Song" via the Barmy Army, but I stand to be corrected...
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 15, 2013 7:07:03 GMT
Did I say invade, it must have been a Freudian slip, I ment incase!!!
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Nov 15, 2013 23:08:30 GMT
USA was the best bid for 2022. By far. Englands was the best bid for 2018. By far.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 21:24:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bgstokie1999 on Jan 8, 2014 11:27:49 GMT
The World Cup I'm Qatar won't be held in June & July it is being switched to between nivember and January at the latest thoughts ??
Will effect champions league other cups and leagues all around the world
|
|
|
Post by onlyonesirstan on Jan 8, 2014 11:37:38 GMT
Not sure how they can possibly rearrange everything for our winter. I would have thought January would be the best month, as no European competitions, but it will take some organisation.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Jan 8, 2014 11:39:45 GMT
Should never have had it in the first placr just shows how corrupt fifa are .
Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 8, 2014 12:07:36 GMT
Well I guess that will be the end if our traditional festive fixtures then. They will be moved for that year and will prob say well we may as well have a winter break from now on. Shove the World Cup up your fuckin arses FIFA!
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 8, 2014 12:12:16 GMT
I'm actually in favour of a winter break in principle. But this won't be a winter break. But what's going on? Look here FIFA vice president Jim Boyce shocked by Valcke statement as decision yet to be made by FIFA executive committee
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 12:19:51 GMT
Blatter has already made a commitment not to play it in January 2022 because of the Winter Olympics taking place then and the Africa Cup of Nations is in January 2023. One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing ... now there's a surprise! Having seen his actual quotes now, Valcke is talking complete and utter nonsense isn't he? "But Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke says it could take place between 15 November and 15 January."
There is absolutely NO CHANCE that the tournament could finish in the middle of January because if it did: 1. The tournament would have to be played over Christmas - NO CHANCE. 2. And the tournament would have to be changed from the 2022 World Cup to the 2021/2022 World Cup or the 2022/2023 World Cup - I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jan 8, 2014 12:20:44 GMT
I'm actually in favour of a winter break in principle. But this won't be a winter break. But what's going on? Look here FIFA vice president Jim Boyce shocked by Valcke statement as decision yet to be made by FIFA executive committee I just think it will lead to a winter break. Out of interest Joe why would you want one?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jan 8, 2014 12:30:05 GMT
Stafford, it's just that everyone in the game... every England manager of the last 25 years, all top managers from both Britain and across the world say a winter break would benefit the England team. By the time tournaments come round the players are just sick of playing knackered and little niggly knocks accumulated start to take a toll. By the way chrimbo fixtures would be intact. It'd just need a blank Premier League second Saturday in January which is made up for by starting the season a week earlier in August.
The case against it is instead of players resting on a beach and getting some rest and sun the greedy clubs would whisk them away for a friendly in Miami or Tokyo or somewhere with jet lag.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 8, 2014 12:51:28 GMT
Blatter has already made a commitment not to play it in January 2022 because of the Winter Olympics taking place then and the Africa Cup of Nations is in January 2023. One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing ... now there's a surprise! Having seen his actual quotes now, Valcke is talking complete and utter nonsense isn't he? "But Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke says it could take place between 15 November and 15 January."
There is absolutely NO CHANCE that the tournament could finish in the middle of January because if it did: 1. The tournament would have to be played over Christmas - NO CHANCE. 2. And the tournament would have to be changed from the 2022 World Cup to the 2021/2022 World Cup or the 2022/2023 World Cup - I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Pissing off the IoC will be a big no no, but I doubt they'll give 2 sh1ts about the African Nations. I think Nov/Dec is most likely in 2022. The key issue will be that the qualifying for Euro 2024 will have to be squeezed into 1 calendar year (2023) and a calendar year when there won't be many free dates in the Spring/Summer as these will be taken up with domestic and european fixtures which were postponed during the WC.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jan 8, 2014 12:53:28 GMT
I cant see how a winter break would help the England team,once the break is over,it will still be the same useless tossers getting picked.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 8, 2014 13:20:05 GMT
It has to be a boycott then. Has to be.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2014 13:47:36 GMT
It's going to happen,time to get on with it. Time for UEFA the FA,The Premier League & The Football League to make plans.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 8, 2014 13:52:20 GMT
Blatter has already made a commitment not to play it in January 2022 because of the Winter Olympics taking place then and the Africa Cup of Nations is in January 2023. One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing ... now there's a surprise! Having seen his actual quotes now, Valcke is talking complete and utter nonsense isn't he? "But Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke says it could take place between 15 November and 15 January."
There is absolutely NO CHANCE that the tournament could finish in the middle of January because if it did: 1. The tournament would have to be played over Christmas - NO CHANCE. 2. And the tournament would have to be changed from the 2022 World Cup to the 2021/2022 World Cup or the 2022/2023 World Cup - I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Why is there no chance of it being played over xmas? I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense & that this shouldn't be happening,I also agree that it will probably finish before xmas/mid December but don't see any reason why FIFA would say no to games over the Xmas period. Indded they may be keen on it - more people are off work at that time therefore TV viewing figures could (& surely would) be higher.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 8, 2014 14:31:02 GMT
A Press Association journo has put together a seemingly viable potential calendar for the season which limits the disruption. Blatter insisted today 2022 World Cup won't be Jan-Feb. He wants Nov-Dec. I worked out how that could work with minimal disruption to European leagues >>> May 2022: European season ends as usual.
June: When the World Cup would usually be played, footballers will have the month off.
July: Champions League qualifiers as normal. Gandini says there might have to be fewer qualifying entrants to cope with the earlier start.
Mid-July: Start of season for leading European leagues.
August 2-3: Champions League playoff round.
August 9-10: Champions League playoff round.
Mid-August: European transfer window closes.
Aug 23-24: Champions League group stage begins.
Sept 2: Euro 2024 qualifiers.
Sept 6: Euro 2024 qualifiers.
Sept 13-14: Champions League group matchday 2.
Sept 20-21: Champions League group matchday 3.
Sept 30: Euro 2024 qualifiers.
Oct 4: Euro 2024 qualifiers.
Oct 11-12: Champions League group matchday 4.
Oct 18-19: Champions League group matchday 5.
Nov 1-2: Champions League group matchday 6.
Nov 4: Mandatory release of players two weeks before World Cup. There would be no need for the usual postseason rest period before the World Cup given the event falls in the middle of the season when they would usually be playing up to three times a week. There would be space for the usual World Cup warm-up games, which would take the place of the regular November international date.
Nov 18: World Cup begins in Qatar.
Dec 1: World Cup group stage ends. 368 of the 736 players exit.
Dec 4: World Cup round of 16.
Dec 6: World Cup round of 16 ends. 184 players exit.
Dec 9: World Cup quarterfinals.
Dec 10 World Cup quarterfinals. 92 players exit.
Dec 13: World Cup semifinals.
Dec 14: World Cup semifinals.
Dec 17: World Cup 3rd-4th place. 46 players exit.
Dec 18: World Cup final, which falls on Qatar National Day. The final 46 players exit the tournament.
Dec 26: The Premier League could return to start its traditional packed Christmas fixture program. Other leagues could chose to resume later if they determine that players returning from the World Cup after reaching the final or third-place game need a longer break.
Mid to late June: European leagues end.
August 2023: Premier League season starts as usual after a two-month break. In 2014, the Premier League season is starting just a month after the World Cup final in Brazil.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 8, 2014 14:39:23 GMT
i would be in favour of england and the fa boycotting it, and it would be nice if the top european leagues joined in.
the most watched football in the world is the premier league, champions league and top european leagues. if these countries said to fifa fuck off the fifa would have to listen as it would affect sponsors and tv money
however the fa can puff and pant all it wants, them cunts are to spineless to rock the boat.
when it is to late and blatter is either dead or to old to face any charges the real story will come out
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 14:47:25 GMT
i would be in favour of england and the fa boycotting it, and it would be nice if the top european leagues joined in. the most watched football in the world is the premier league, champions league and top european leagues. if these countries said to fifa fuck off the fifa would have to listen as it would affect sponsors and tv money however the fa can puff and pant all it wants, them cunts are to spineless to rock the boat. when it is to late and blatter is either dead or to old to face any charges the real story will come out it would only work if all the top euro countries joined in though wouldn't it and that's doubtful as most haven't seemed to be as near as pissed off about it as the english are...in fact didn't they all vote in fabvour of moving the World Cup to the winter anyway? the Premiership and the English FA are 2 different organisations so even if the English FA (and therefore the England team) boycott it, it wouldn't make a shred of difference to FIFA. there wouldn't be anything to stop about 80% of the Prem players going off to represent their own countries..pretty sure the English FA couldn't force foreign players to stay and play in the Prem (doubtful the clubs could/would either given that they don't stand in the way of the African Nations players/CONCACAF players going over for their tournaments during the season). basically, if the English FA boycott it then all FIFA will miss out on is 25 sub standard players turning up to just make up the numbers in the tournament. whlst i can see that people are up in arms about "What about the Prem fixtures..what about Champs league...what about League cup" etc. etc. let's try and remember that this is the best part of a decade away in terms of being to reschedule/reorganise things around the date change of the world cup, it's not as if this is happening next month! if it wasn't possible in terms of logisitics/TV sponsorship deals etc. then FIFA wouldn't allow it anyway as it would effect them financially as they get a proportion of all TV rights and sponsoship deals anyway...pretty sure they'd discuss all this before making any cast iron decision. yes, they may be incompetent and corrupt but one thing they DO care about is MONEY and if there's any chance of that being effected then you can make damn sure they'll have investigated all of that side of things. P.S. it's also worth mentioning that FIFA have said that these dates are only Valke's own, personal opinions as to when he thinks would be best and no decision has been made at all as yet
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 14:59:50 GMT
Blatter has already made a commitment not to play it in January 2022 because of the Winter Olympics taking place then and the Africa Cup of Nations is in January 2023. One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing ... now there's a surprise! Having seen his actual quotes now, Valcke is talking complete and utter nonsense isn't he? "But Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke says it could take place between 15 November and 15 January."
There is absolutely NO CHANCE that the tournament could finish in the middle of January because if it did: 1. The tournament would have to be played over Christmas - NO CHANCE. 2. And the tournament would have to be changed from the 2022 World Cup to the 2021/2022 World Cup or the 2022/2023 World Cup - I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Why is there no chance of it being played over xmas? I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense & that this shouldn't be happening,I also agree that it will probably finish before xmas/mid December but don't see any reason why FIFA would say no to games over the Xmas period. Indded they may be keen on it - more people are off work at that time therefore TV viewing figures could (& surely would) be higher. For a whole host of reasons Will. Not least, players and supporters not wanting to be away from their families during that time. It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time but to actually play the World Cup THROUGH Christmas just wouldn't happen imho.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 15:02:10 GMT
Why is there no chance of it being played over xmas? I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense & that this shouldn't be happening,I also agree that it will probably finish before xmas/mid December but don't see any reason why FIFA would say no to games over the Xmas period. Indded they may be keen on it - more people are off work at that time therefore TV viewing figures could (& surely would) be higher. For a whole host of reasons Will. Not least, players and supporters not wanting to be away from their families during that time. It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time but to actually play the World Cup THROUGH Christmas just wouldn't happen imho. just out of interest Paul, when you say "It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time" why is it any different for players to go over to Oz for Christmas to play cricket? especially given the fact that the World Cup is almost exactly the same period of time as the Ashes tour has been and the Cricketers didn't receive anywhere near as much financial remuneration for their troubles. to be honest, i don't really think the supporters thing is going to be an issue. i think FIFA already know full well that this World Cup would have far less travelling supporters anyway even if it was held in the Summer simply because of the restrictions faced in that country (alcohol not being allowed in public, homosexuality, terrorist threats etc.)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 8, 2014 15:13:20 GMT
because only 8 teams play test cricket and most sides play at home in their summer and tour in their winter
playing a world cup in a european winter season would be like playing test cricket in in england in november, totally alien
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 15:17:13 GMT
i would be in favour of england and the fa boycotting it, and it would be nice if the top european leagues joined in. the most watched football in the world is the premier league, champions league and top european leagues. if these countries said to fifa fuck off the fifa would have to listen as it would affect sponsors and tv money however the fa can puff and pant all it wants, them cunts are to spineless to rock the boat. when it is to late and blatter is either dead or to old to face any charges the real story will come out it would only work if all the top euro countries joined in though wouldn't it and that's doubtful as most haven't seemed to be as near as pissed off about it as the english are...in fact didn't they all vote in fabvour of moving the World Cup to the winter anyway? the Premiership and the English FA are 2 different organisations so even if the English FA (and therefore the England team) boycott it, it wouldn't make a shred of difference to FIFA. there wouldn't be anything to stop about 80% of the Prem players going off to represent their own countries..pretty sure the English FA couldn't force foreign players to stay and play in the Prem (doubtful the clubs could/would either given that they don't stand in the way of the African Nations players/CONCACAF players going over for their tournaments during the season). basically, if the English FA boycott it then all FIFA will miss out on is 25 sub standard players turning up to just make up the numbers in the tournament. whlst i can see that people are up in arms about "What about the Prem fixtures..what about Champs league...what about League cup" etc. etc. let's try and remember that this is the best part of a decade away in terms of being to reschedule/reorganise things around the date change of the world cup, it's not as if this is happening next month! if it wasn't possible in terms of logisitics/TV sponsorship deals etc. then FIFA wouldn't allow it anyway as it would effect them financially as they get a proportion of all TV rights and sponsoship deals anyway...pretty sure they'd discuss all this before making any cast iron decision. yes, they may be incompetent and corrupt but one thing they DO care about is MONEY and if there's any chance of that being effected then you can make damn sure they'll have investigated all of that side of things. P.S. it's also worth mentioning that FIFA have said that these dates are only Valke's own, personal opinions as to when he thinks would be best and no decision has been made at all as yet England boycotting the world cup would be barmy and wouldn't serve the interests of anybody - absolutely. However where it gets interesting, is if the Premiership refuse to suspend their calendar. I'm pretty sure in that instance, the clubs would be able to stop their stars dissapearing because as you say, the competition is still a long way away and if there is a chance that the Premiership won't suspend it's league, then I'm sure you'll see many (if not all) clubs protecting themselves against such an enventuality, as contracts are drawn up with players over the next few seasons. They players in effect will have to pledge a commitment to the club first and foremost if they want to sign for that club, if the worst was to happen. The African Cup of Nations doesn't provide a precedent here because clubs know that they're not going to lose 90% of their first team to that competition when they draw up those contracts with those individuals. Having said that, the African Cup of Nations takes place the following January, so are the clubs expected to lose those players for BOTH compettions, back to back, if the Premiership isn't suspended? I'd suggest that the Premiership still has lot of power to yield here if they so desire. The FA on the other hand are completely powerless.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 15:20:19 GMT
For a whole host of reasons Will. Not least, players and supporters not wanting to be away from their families during that time. It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time but to actually play the World Cup THROUGH Christmas just wouldn't happen imho. just out of interest Paul, when you say "It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time" why is it any different for players to go over to Oz for Christmas to play cricket? especially given the fact that the World Cup is almost exactly the same period of time as the Ashes tour has been and the Cricketers didn't receive anywhere near as much financial remuneration for their troubles. to be honest, i don't really think the supporters thing is going to be an issue. i think FIFA already know full well that this World Cup would have far less travelling supporters anyway even if it was held in the Summer simply because of the restrictions faced in that country (alcohol not being allowed in public, homosexuality, terrorist threats etc.) As Salop has said, the Ashes and the World Cup are two COMPLETELY different animals. So completely different, I don't think (with respect) they're even worth discussing as a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 15:28:26 GMT
it would only work if all the top euro countries joined in though wouldn't it and that's doubtful as most haven't seemed to be as near as pissed off about it as the english are...in fact didn't they all vote in fabvour of moving the World Cup to the winter anyway? the Premiership and the English FA are 2 different organisations so even if the English FA (and therefore the England team) boycott it, it wouldn't make a shred of difference to FIFA. there wouldn't be anything to stop about 80% of the Prem players going off to represent their own countries..pretty sure the English FA couldn't force foreign players to stay and play in the Prem (doubtful the clubs could/would either given that they don't stand in the way of the African Nations players/CONCACAF players going over for their tournaments during the season). P.S. it's also worth mentioning that FIFA have said that these dates are only Valke's own, personal opinions as to when he thinks would be best and no decision has been made at all as yet England boycotting the world cup would be barmy and wouldn't serve the interests of anybody - absolutely. However where it gets interesting, is if the Premiership refuse to suspend their calendar. I'm pretty sure in that instance, the clubs would be able to stop their stars dissapearing because as you say, the competition is still a long way away and if there is a chance that the Premiership won't suspend it's league, then I'm sure you'll see many (if not all) clubs protecting themselves against such an enventuality, as contracts are drawn up with players over the next few seasons. They players in effect will have to pledge a commitment to the club first and foremost if they want to sign for that club, if the worst was to happen. The African Cup of Nations doesn't provide a precedent here because clubs know that they're not going to lose 90% of their first team to that competition when they draw up those contracts with those individuals. Having said that, the African Cup of Nations takes place the following January, so are the clubs expected to lose those players for BOTH compettions, back to back, if the Premiership isn't suspended? I'd suggest that the Premiership still has lot of power to yield here if they so desire. The FA on the other hand are completely powerless. to be honest i'm not so sure how much power we would have...as you say, it would certainly make contract negotiations interesting in view of signing players if the new contract falls within that time frame but...would Prem clubs risk forcing players to sign contracts that insist on them staying here while the world Cup is on? although it protects them (the clubs), and it's understandable they want to protect themselves, it also makes it pretty damn sure that very few top players would actually sign for them and you'd just see the best players going to other leagues around europe instead who wouldn't insist on those kind of clauses (as those countries would be taking part in the WC anyway).would you sign for any club that insisted that you couldn't represent your country in the WC? it could actually make things worse in the sense that we could see all the Prem top players moving abroad a year or two before the WC so they can actually play for their countries and no top players coming here for a year or two beforehand either for the same reason. also, i know some clubs don't allow players to go to friendlies/training camps etc. as it is nowadays but are they even legally allowed to insist that you don't represent your country even if you are selected? even if they are allowed to, would those laws apply to EU members who obviously have far more rights playing in England than those who have to obtain VISAs etc. (those are genuine questions by the way as i have no idea of whether there would be any legalities re: Employment law that may/may not come into play here) obviously, we just don't know and only time will tell but it could very well end up with us ostracising ourselves from the footballing fraternity in europe if we tried to get too hard ball about it....that would really have a massive financial impact on the Prem as well as if the top players move away/stay away then the quality of the league suffers and consequently the massive financial deals in terms of sponsorship and TV rights disappear. it's one hell of a Poker game the FA and the Prem will have to play with FIFA if they really want to stick to any principles they have.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 15:30:47 GMT
just out of interest Paul, when you say "It's all very well playing darts or cricket around that time" why is it any different for players to go over to Oz for Christmas to play cricket? especially given the fact that the World Cup is almost exactly the same period of time as the Ashes tour has been and the Cricketers didn't receive anywhere near as much financial remuneration for their troubles. to be honest, i don't really think the supporters thing is going to be an issue. i think FIFA already know full well that this World Cup would have far less travelling supporters anyway even if it was held in the Summer simply because of the restrictions faced in that country (alcohol not being allowed in public, homosexuality, terrorist threats etc.) As Salop has said, the Ashes and the World Cup are two COMPLETELY different animals. So completely different, I don't think (with respect) they're even worth discussing as a comparison. i think as far as the people involved are concerned it's actually very similar.....the english cricketers basically see the Ashes as the pinnacle of the game (more so than the Cricket World cup), professional footballers see playing for their country in a WC as the pinnacle of their international careers (and get paid very well for it!). i don't think there would be many players at all that would be up in arms about having to miss Christmas one year with the wife and kids because they had to represent their country in a WC and get paid shitloads for it in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 15:36:30 GMT
England boycotting the world cup would be barmy and wouldn't serve the interests of anybody - absolutely. However where it gets interesting, is if the Premiership refuse to suspend their calendar. I'm pretty sure in that instance, the clubs would be able to stop their stars dissapearing because as you say, the competition is still a long way away and if there is a chance that the Premiership won't suspend it's league, then I'm sure you'll see many (if not all) clubs protecting themselves against such an enventuality, as contracts are drawn up with players over the next few seasons. They players in effect will have to pledge a commitment to the club first and foremost if they want to sign for that club, if the worst was to happen. The African Cup of Nations doesn't provide a precedent here because clubs know that they're not going to lose 90% of their first team to that competition when they draw up those contracts with those individuals. Having said that, the African Cup of Nations takes place the following January, so are the clubs expected to lose those players for BOTH compettions, back to back, if the Premiership isn't suspended? I'd suggest that the Premiership still has lot of power to yield here if they so desire. The FA on the other hand are completely powerless. to be honest i'm not so sure how much power we would have...as you say, it would certainly make contract negotiations interesting in view of signing players if the new contract falls within that time frame but...would Prem clubs risk forcing players to sign contracts that insist on them staying here while the world Cup is on? although it protects them (the clubs), and it's understandable they want to protect themselves, it also makes it pretty damn sure that very few top players would actually sign for them and you'd just see the best players going to other leagues around europe instead who wouldn't insist on those kind of clauses (as those countries would be taking part in the WC anyway).would you sign for any club that insisted that you couldn't represent your country in the WC? it could actually make things worse in the sense that we could see all the Prem top players moving abroad a year or two before the WC so they can actually play for their countries and no top players coming here for a year or two beforehand either for the same reason. also, i know some clubs don't allow players to go to friendlies/training camps etc. as it is nowadays but are they even legally allowed to insist that you don't represent your country even if you are selected? even if they are allowed to, would those laws apply to EU members who obviously have far more rights playing in England than those who have to obtain VISAs etc. (those are genuine questions by the way as i have no idea of whether there would be any legalities re: Employment law that may/may not come into play here) obviously, we just don't know and only time will tell but it could very well end up with us ostracising ourselves from the footballing fraternity in europe if we tried to get too hard ball about it....that would really have a massive financial impact on the Prem as well as if the top players move away/stay away then the quality of the league suffers and consequently the massive financial deals in terms of sponsorship and TV rights disappear. it's one hell of a Poker game the FA and the Prem will have to play with FIFA if they really want to stick to any principles they have. As we know, footballers first and foremost, are interested in money, players don't turn down lucrative contracts to go and play in other leagues for a lot less money. The point I'm making, is that FIFA' s arrogance here is utterly outstanding. I'm not saying for certain that one thing or another is going to happen but the fate of the 2022 World Cup might not actually be (totally) in their hands, although they believe it is. It still might be decided my football agents and football club lawyers or at least they might still have a major efffect on it, the clubs' will be protecting themselves over the coming seasons, unless the Premiership make an early announcement that their league is to be suspended.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 8, 2014 15:40:03 GMT
As Salop has said, the Ashes and the World Cup are two COMPLETELY different animals. So completely different, I don't think (with respect) they're even worth discussing as a comparison. i think as far as the people involved are concerned it's actually very similar.....the english cricketers basically see the Ashes as the pinnacle of the game (more so than the Cricket World cup), professional footballers see playing for their country in a WC as the pinnacle of their international careers (and get paid very well for it!). i don't think there would be many players at all that would be up in arms about having to miss Christmas one year with the wife and kids because they had to represent their country in a WC and get paid shitloads for it in the process. You've reached that conclusion basing it on the mind set of just the England players I assume, you're surely haven't come to that assumption by considering the mind set of footballers from the whole of world football, have you?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 15:41:00 GMT
i totally agree Paul. as you say it's typical FIFA "We've decided it and that's that" bollocks.
i don't think players would stay away permanently either, i just think if it came to that you may see a hiatus of top foreign players just for a year or two preceeding the tournament in the full knowledge another top euro club would come in for them anyway. the lesser players wouldn't have as many concerns as they may not be likely to represent their countries anyway.
it's most definitely going to be interesting over the coming months though as they have to make a definite decision in the next 12 months or so really to be able to restructure everything else that will be effected by the date change and restructure it gradually. they can't leave it too long and then make huge changes too near the time.
personally, regardless of the rights, wrongs, whys and wherefores, i think Salop is spot on in that the FA will make the right noises within the British press for PR purposes but then completely bottle it with FIFA when it comes to the crunch.
|
|