|
World Cup; Lost Again
|
|
Topic Started: Dec 2 2010, 03:35 PM (5,305 Views)
|
|
Setenza
|
Sep 19 2013, 11:16 AM
Post #61
|
Knitting with only one needle
- Posts:
- 6,056
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
Winter World Cup looks like happening says the BBC.
- Quote:
-
"What has come out of this meeting is that the World Cup cannot be played in Qatar in the summer," said Britain's Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce.
"Everyone was certainly in agreement about that."
And everyone knew that 3 years ago....
Maybe the perfect time to switch the scottish league to summer.
|
|
|
| |
|
findus
|
Sep 19 2013, 01:33 PM
Post #62
|
- Posts:
- 4,444
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- Setenza
- Sep 19 2013, 11:16 AM
Winter World Cup looks like happening says the BBC. - Quote:
-
"What has come out of this meeting is that the World Cup cannot be played in Qatar in the summer," said Britain's Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce.
"Everyone was certainly in agreement about that."
And everyone knew that 3 years ago.... I want a go of the crack that our FIFA baboons clearly dine off of thrice-daily. What a massive heap of shite.
|
|
|
| |
|
whatsthatonyourback
|
Sep 19 2013, 01:46 PM
Post #63
|
- Posts:
- 4,443
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
If I was one of the nations bidding for that World Cup and had lost out to Qatar, only to then see it switched to the winter, I would be none to happy.
Fortunately for me, I am not a nation that was involved in bidding for that particular World Cup and am prepared to let it slide.
|
|
|
| |
|
radger
|
Sep 19 2013, 04:33 PM
Post #64
|
- Posts:
- 461
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- June 26, 2011
|
Australia are none too happy, and may be suing rather than letting it slide.
They should never have picked Qatar, I think Oz would have been a terrific place to host a world cup. Who wants to go to the bleedin desert anyway?
|
|
|
| |
|
findus
|
Sep 19 2013, 05:07 PM
Post #65
|
- Posts:
- 4,444
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- radger
- Sep 19 2013, 04:33 PM
Australia are none too happy, and may be suing rather than letting it slide.
They should never have picked Qatar, I think Oz would have been a terrific place to host a world cup. Who wants to go to the bleedin desert anyway? Would you go if I gave you a large wad of cash and lots of gifts?
Or this bag of crack.
Edited by findus, Sep 19 2013, 05:08 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
radger
|
Sep 19 2013, 05:39 PM
Post #66
|
- Posts:
- 461
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- June 26, 2011
|
See that's something that kinda puzzles me a wee bit, everyone suspects there's been foul play afoot, bribes and such, financial motives to give it to Qatar. But with all that suspicion, plus all the recent cases of bribery and corruption in FIFA, I (perhaps naively) struggle to see how they could receive a huge bribe and not have it picked up upon, especially with all the talk for transparency and fair play. If (as we seemingly all assume) Qatar have paid FIFA shitloads to get given this tournament, why has nobody picked up anything.
I really can't see anything else to justify giving it to them, other than "it's never been to the middle east"
|
|
|
| |
|
Setenza
|
Sep 19 2013, 06:34 PM
Post #67
|
Knitting with only one needle
- Posts:
- 6,056
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- radger
- Sep 19 2013, 05:39 PM
See that's something that kinda puzzles me a wee bit, everyone suspects there's been foul play afoot, bribes and such, financial motives to give it to Qatar. But with all that suspicion, plus all the recent cases of bribery and corruption in FIFA, I (perhaps naively) struggle to see how they could receive a huge bribe and not have it picked up upon, especially with all the talk for transparency and fair play. If (as we seemingly all assume) Qatar have paid FIFA shitloads to get given this tournament, why has nobody picked up anything.
I really can't see anything else to justify giving it to them, other than "it's never been to the middle east" Who's going to pick up on it? As far as I know, FIFA don't have anyone checking up on them much. At least not a the top level where blatter etc sit.
Giving it to a region that's never hosted it before I think is a decent idea, but when there's so many issues stacked against a country, it's beyond reason to make the choice.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tom_Boland
|
Sep 19 2013, 07:05 PM
Post #68
|
- Posts:
- 1,053
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #93
- Joined:
- May 1, 2013
|
Anybody know what the alcohol consumption laws are there?
|
|
|
| |
|
Setenza
|
Sep 19 2013, 07:11 PM
Post #69
|
Knitting with only one needle
- Posts:
- 6,056
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- Tom_Boland
- Sep 19 2013, 07:05 PM
Anybody know what the alcohol consumption laws are there? It's legal under certain conditions. I don't think even FIFA would be foolish enough to give the world cup to a country that fans couldn't drink in.
|
|
|
| |
|
Micky
|
Sep 19 2013, 07:27 PM
Post #70
|
- Posts:
- 948
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- Tom_Boland
- Sep 19 2013, 07:05 PM
Anybody know what the alcohol consumption laws are there? Not like we (the Scots) will have to worry about that...
|
|
|
| |
|
Naebody
|
Sep 19 2013, 09:03 PM
Post #71
|
- Posts:
- 5,204
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- September 13, 2010
|
- radger
- Sep 19 2013, 05:39 PM
See that's something that kinda puzzles me a wee bit, everyone suspects there's been foul play afoot, bribes and such, financial motives to give it to Qatar. But with all that suspicion, plus all the recent cases of bribery and corruption in FIFA, I (perhaps naively) struggle to see how they could receive a huge bribe and not have it picked up upon, especially with all the talk for transparency and fair play. If (as we seemingly all assume) Qatar have paid FIFA shitloads to get given this tournament, why has nobody picked up anything.
Well, bear in mind that old man Havelange, Blatter's predecessor, is said in court documents to have taken bribes totalling nearly £15m. But here's the wrinkle: they were legal bribes.
What constitutes a legal bribe? Well, who knows, but I guess anything's possible with a good lawyer. Luckily, Qatar's got one of those. His name's Laurent Platini. You might recognise the surname.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tom_Boland
|
Sep 20 2013, 07:23 AM
Post #72
|
- Posts:
- 1,053
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #93
- Joined:
- May 1, 2013
|
- Micky
- Sep 19 2013, 07:27 PM
- Tom_Boland
- Sep 19 2013, 07:05 PM
Anybody know what the alcohol consumption laws are there?
Not like we (the Scots) will have to worry about that... Yer right, we'll just watch it in the boozer.
|
|
|
| |
|
radger
|
Sep 20 2013, 11:44 AM
Post #73
|
- Posts:
- 461
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- June 26, 2011
|
Just with all the recent corruption scandals that have went on, there was this big thing about transparency, so if anyone ended up with £20 million mysteriously popping up in their account, people would know about it.
Not got the foggiest about legal bribes.
Just give it to Australia, it's never been there either. And they have beaches instead of deserts. Someone teach them what a legal bribe is. Teach me as well while you're at it.
|
|
|
| |
|
whatsthatonyourback
|
Sep 20 2013, 11:49 AM
Post #74
|
- Posts:
- 4,443
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- September 10, 2010
|
- radger
- Sep 20 2013, 11:44 AM
Someone teach them what a legal bribe is. Teach me as well while you're at it. Send me £100 and I will.
|
|
|
| |
|
Morvant's Finest
|
Sep 20 2013, 12:27 PM
Post #75
|
- Posts:
- 2,100
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- January 13, 2011
|
Well if this was the kind of treatment the journalists were given, imagine how well looked after the FIFA delegates were leading up to the vote (and are going to be looked after in 2022).
The bits in bold highlights how staging high profile games and 'inviting' top players and managers to Qatar helped smooth the passage of acceptance as well.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/13/freebies-transparency-trust-journalism-readers-editor- Quote:
-
Open door The readers' editor on
freebies, transparency and trust in our journalism
Freebie: a thing given free of charge; origins, US, 1940. That's how one dictionary defines a thing that most journalists have been offered at some time in their careers. The freebie can be anything from a TV company sending carol singers to the Guardian offices decked out in Dickensian costume for 10 minutes of carols in the lobby (as happened two weeks ago, and very pleasant too) to massively expensive trips set up by companies, governments or NGOs. Those that fund these trips know the value of transporting journalists to far-off places and events that might not otherwise be covered by journalists in an era of ever-tightening editorial budgets.
In deciding which are acceptable and which not, a sense of perspective is needed. Beating the carol singers out of the doors of Kings Place with several long spoons would have seemed ungracious. Neither is it sensible to take the attitude that all NGOs are good and all "corporates" bad. There may be very good reasons to accept a trip if, for instance, it enables a journalist to interview someone to whom there would otherwise be no access. The key is transparency, and trust in the journalist to be unaffected by baubles.
One reader's recent measured complaint questioned the basis of a comment piece in the Sport section on 25 November about Qatar's bid for the 2022 World Cup. He wrote: "I would be grateful if you would consider whether or not disclosing in an article of this kind that the trip was paid for by the people/organisation/product/plan it is promoting, is fostering that bond of trust between reader and paper
[The] article might have been exactly the same had the paper paid for it but if that trust is undermined, then how are we as readers meant to exercise our judgment of that?"
The "bond of trust" the reader refers to is at the heart of the Guardian's (soon to be updated) editorial code, which says: "The purpose of this code is, above all, to protect and foster the bond of trust between the Guardian (in print and online) and its readers, and therefore to protect the integrity of the paper and of the editorial content it carries."
Under the heading "Freebies" it adds: "We should make it clear when an airline, hotel or other interest has borne the cost of transporting or accommodating a journalist. Acceptance of any such offer is conditional on the Guardian being free to assign and report or not report any resulting story as it sees fit."
The Qatari trip was set up by the emirate's government, which wanted to take a team of journalists to Qatar to support its World Cup bid. The Guardian's sports department had turned down offers of a trip in the past, but as they knew that this time they would be able to have access to Sir Alex Ferguson, cover the Brazil v Argentina game and see what the Qataris had to say, the trip was accepted.
As part of the coverage the sports desk commissioned the journalist to write about her impressions of Qatar; the piece strongly supported the Qatari bid. The journalist, who is not unfamiliar with the Middle East, stands by every word she wrote, and I have no doubt that the opinions she expressed were honestly held. But our failure to footnote the fact that the trip was funded by the Qatari 2022 World Cup bid committee, or write it into the story, gave readers cause for doubt. There were at least 30 strongly negative comments to that effect posted below the article, and it took too long for us to go into the thread to make matters clear.
But it would be wrong to single out the sports department. One of the reasons that trip was not footnoted is because the rule has slipped more generally across the Guardian. While many trips are flagged up as being paid for by a body other than the newspaper, such as the recent visit to Helsinki by our education correspondent, a report of which appeared on 6 December, the rule is not always rigorously applied. Such trips are taken across a variety of areas, including the environment, and more widely throughout the Middle East. I don't think it is a wish to "con" the readers.
Journalists worry that appending a footnote undermines the journalism in the eyes of the readers. But editors should enforce this rule without exception, because what really undermines the journalism is when it isn't enforced.
The article itself contained totally un-biased comments like:- Quote:
-
"The technological wizardry is already virtually foolproof but, to a scientific dunce, the really exciting thing about such innovation is its potential geopolitical and historical impact.
If the 40C June heat no longer presents an insurmountable barrier, a key excuse for failing to award the Middle East a World Cup is removed. And, as everyone I spoke to said: "Qatar winning this would be about far more than just football.
An unprecedented opportunity awaits to forge fresh, enhanced understanding with the Arab world. This chance to deconstruct some tired preconceptions about Muslim mindsets should not be shunned lightly. With a successful tournament serving as a highly effective slap in the face of extremism, Islamic fundamentalists could even be in for some overdue marginalisation. Admittedly passports bearing Israeli stamps do not exactly go down a storm in the Gulf but Qataris are adamant that, were Israel to qualify, they and their supporters would receive warm welcomes."
|
|
|
| |