Guest Kamy100 Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 From The Scotsman: As the World Cup in Germany draws to a close, it is being reported in South Africa that FIFA executives have made contingency plans to move the 2010 competition to Australia because of South Africa's high levels of violent crime, inadequate public transport, widespread AIDS infection and a general lack of readiness. The reports, based on an interview with a member of South Africa's organising committee just back from Germany, coincide with confirmation that the country's prestigious World Cup transport project, a rapid-rail link from Johannesburg airport to the centre and Pretoria, will not be ready on time. The former South African president Nelson Mandela celebrated by holding the World Cup aloft in May 2004 when his country won the right to host the 2010 World Cup finals. But the report in the Rapport newspaper said FIFA was alarmed by the organising committee's plan for "tented towns" to relieve a lack of hotel accommodation. Joop Demes, the managing director of the hotel investment arm of real estate group Pam Golding, said 600 new hotels would be needed, each with at least 100 rooms, to lodge the one million-plus fans expected to flood South Africa in July 2010. [...] Tony Leon, the leader of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition, said South Africa was "two years behind in its preparations, due to government sluggishness in processing all the legislation necessary". Tony Twine, a leading independent econo-mist, warned that the South African organisers and government were adopting "a very casual" approach. He added: "I'm not sure we're going to cope with it." Rapport quoted the anonymous member of the South African organising committee as saying FIFA officials are increasingly cynical about Danny Jordaan's assurances that everything is fine and ahead of schedule. The confirmation by Murray & Roberts, South Africa's biggest construction company, that the £2 billion Gautrain project will not be ready for 2010 is only part of the evidence contradicting him. The country's public transport system is generally in chaos, and there is no transport system at all in three of the centres where World Cup matches would be played - Nelspruit, Rustenburg and Polokwane.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Ozz Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Interesting. Substitute all the African placenames with English ones and World Cup with Olympics and 2010 with 2012 and there's another Scoop for you!
roversyoyo Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Interesting. Substitute all the African placenames with English ones and World Cup with Olympics and 2010 with 2012 and there's another Scoop for you! Someone call a doctor! My sides have split Bloody hell, its 6 years away and people are already willing to put the boot in.
Ronin Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 From The Scotsman: As the World Cup in Germany draws to a close, it is being reported in South Africa that FIFA executives have made contingency plans to move the 2010 competition to Australia because of South Africa's high levels of violent crime, inadequate public transport, widespread AIDS infection and a general lack of readiness. The reports, based on an interview with a member of South Africa's organising committee just back from Germany, coincide with confirmation that the country's prestigious World Cup transport project, a rapid-rail link from Johannesburg airport to the centre and Pretoria, will not be ready on time . . . The country's public transport system is generally in chaos, and there is no transport system at all in three of the centres where World Cup matches would be played - Nelspruit, Rustenburg and Polokwane. If this is the case, it makes you wonder why the got the thing in the first place. Although I have my suspicions
blue phil Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 If the South Africans can't handle it then FIFA would probably opt for another backward , "emerging" nation . Yep , Australia is as good a choice as any ......
philipl Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 The issues about the South African games are mind-boggling. Even if they get everything right, it is a vast country with somewhat limited public transport. The opportunity for having Group games moving around the country is therefore all but impossible. With luck, it will be like the World Cup in the USA... at best.
Flopsy Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 they managed with the cricket world cup - on a smaller scale and some games in neighbouring countries aside
AussieinUk Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) Why is Australia in the mix? We didn't bid to be world cup host did we? If the South Africans can't handle it then FIFA would probably opt for another backward , "emerging" nation . Yep , Australia is as good a choice as any ...... Not going to bite, Edited July 10, 2006 by AussieinUk
Drakefyre Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 I don't see how AIDS could be a reason to move the World Cup.
dave birch Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 There are always stories like this going on. The 2004 Olympics had similar problems and talk was going around that they would have to go back to Australia, but it was never going to happen. The Greeks got their act together and put on a great games. I suspect that something similar will happen here, and the Saffers will pull their finger out.
Tris Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Fat Sepp Blatter has staked his whole FIFA leadership on ensuring the 2010 World Cup happens in Africa. And was also behind the move which now sees an extra African country in the finals but the holders have to qualify. In fact the two are intrinsically linked - he wouldn't have won the presidency without (2), and (1) was a pledge he made if he did win. The African teams provided much entertainment in this tournament, but in the final analysis they were crap, and having one extra African nation and making the champions of the world qualify is a joke. This might come home to roost as domestic Italian football rips itself to bits in the next few months - a nasty qualifying group draw could see WC 2010 played out without yesterdays winners. FIFA are implanting (and paying for) consultants within the host nation like never before, but the signs are not good in terms of emulating Germany. At best they can make sure the tournament works, but they can't recreate the amazing and perfectly organised / policed fan fests we've experienced in Germany - unless ridiculous security measures are put in place and a new public transport system falls out of the sky (and they learn to brew decent ale and make good sausages). Fat Sepp Blatter changed the rules to make sure the 2010 WC went to Africa, so it's likely that 2014 will be South America (Brazil is favourite) and we may be back in Europe in 2018 - and logically that would be in England. 12 years seems so far off ... I'm just going to focus on Rovers in Europe this season, and then make sure I'm at Euro 2008 - not the same buzz as the World Cup, but let's take what we can get!!
grizfoot Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 If it was in Australia the game would be played at like 3am our time wouldn't they. Would probably help boost 'soccer' interest in Australia though.
cn_barlow Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 If it was in Australia the game would be played at like 3am our time wouldn't they. Would probably help boost 'soccer' interest in Australia though. I think more fans would go to Australia aswell. I know i would...but there's no chance im going to South Africa
SouthAussieRover Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 If it was in Australia the game would be played at like 3am our time wouldn't they. Would probably help boost 'soccer' interest in Australia though. So what? That's what a lot of us have had to do for the past month. It would sort out the real "soccer" fans amongst you
Moppy Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 I think more fans would go to Australia aswell. I know i would...but there's no chance im going to South Africa Definatly. I would go across for sure. What a great excuse to go back Ozz. I do wonder were the games would be played though. Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Brisvagus but then..... 95% of international sport is in Melbourne and I can see the ozzies wanting to hold about 50% of the whole tornument at the MCG. Not sure how it would work on short notice.
AussieinUk Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) I do wonder were the games would be played though. Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Brisvagus but then..... 95% of international sport is in Melbourne and I can see the ozzies wanting to hold about 50% of the whole tornument at the MCG. Errr right.. Sydney - Sydney Football Stadium 46k, Olympic Stadium 83k, SCG 44k Brisbane - Gabba 42k Melbourne - Telstra Dome 57k, MCG 95k Adelaide - AAMI Stadium 52k Perth - Subiaco Oval 43k Thats 8 stadiums.. Edited July 11, 2006 by AussieinUk
Rover4ever Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 The African teams provided much entertainment in this tournament, but in the final analysis they were crap, and having one extra African nation and making the champions of the world qualify is a joke. Ivory Coast: Would have qualified from any other group Ghana: Beat Czech Republic as comfortably as Italy did. Undone by bad refereeing in 2nd round Tunisia: Were better than Ukraine, again the referee ignored a Ukranian HB and gave a penalty for a Shevchenko dive. Angola: Held Mexico to a draw and lost only to Portugal (just like England ) Togo: Worst African team here and the results showed, still had plenty of battle in them. Contrast that with teams like Serbia, Poland, and Ukraine, all of whom qualified comfortably from Europe but were not good at all.
cn_barlow Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 The Ukraine still got further than any African team..... :ph34r:
Tris Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 Ivory Coast: Would have qualified from any other group Ghana: Beat Czech Republic as comfortably as Italy did. Undone by bad refereeing in 2nd round Tunisia: Were better than Ukraine, again the referee ignored a Ukranian HB and gave a penalty for a Shevchenko dive. Angola: Held Mexico to a draw and lost only to Portugal (just like England ) Togo: Worst African team here and the results showed, still had plenty of battle in them. Contrast that with teams like Serbia, Poland, and Ukraine, all of whom qualified comfortably from Europe but were not good at all. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed watching all of the teams from Africa - I was in Dortmund for Togo v Switzerland and it was fantastic entertainment. You can't say that about too many games involving Switzerland! My gripe is with Blatter who - in his quest for support from all corners - decided that the WC holders have to qualify, in order to shoe in an extra spot for a team from Africa. The holders should never have to qualify for the finals, end of story.
tchocky Posted July 11, 2006 Posted July 11, 2006 Surely there are other countries in Africa that would be more suited to taking over, like Egypt? Or in the middle east - must be perfect in terms of security and comfort/services. Bit hot for the players though..
American Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed watching all of the teams from Africa - I was in Dortmund for Togo v Switzerland and it was fantastic entertainment. You can't say that about too many games involving Switzerland! My gripe is with Blatter who - in his quest for support from all corners - decided that the WC holders have to qualify, in order to shoe in an extra spot for a team from Africa. The holders should never have to qualify for the finals, end of story. But they don't have to qualify, they have to qualify for the FINALS. People discount the rest of the tournament, all of the "qualifiers." Really they are the earlier rounds. It would be like the FA champs being put in the quarterfinals.
neekoy Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Errr right.. Sydney - Sydney Football Stadium 46k, Olympic Stadium 83k, SCG 44k Brisbane - Gabba 42k Melbourne - Telstra Dome 57k, MCG 95k Adelaide - AAMI Stadium 52k Perth - Subiaco Oval 43k Thats 8 stadiums.. Suncorp 52K ANZ 48K Canberra Stadium 24K Energy Australia Stadium 26K WIN Stadium 20K Adelaide Oval 33K Princes Park 35K There's another 7 if required
philipl Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Isn't the World Cup minimum 30,000 with 40,000+ preferred? Obviously holding World Cups in large countries has its logistical drawbacks- South Africa is huge but Australia is another matter altogether. Including Perth as a venue in European terms would be like having the World Cup in Germany with a few games played in the Siberian cities with German-speaking populations.
American Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 33,000 or so covered. I'm not arsed to look it up, but I read something like that in the official guide.
cn_barlow Posted July 12, 2006 Posted July 12, 2006 Isn't the World Cup minimum 30,000 with 40,000+ preferred? Obviously holding World Cups in large countries has its logistical drawbacks- South Africa is huge but Australia is another matter altogether. Including Perth as a venue in European terms would be like having the World Cup in Germany with a few games played in the Siberian cities with German-speaking populations. Even so...there are 12 stadiums listed above with 30,000+ capacity. How did it work when it was held in the USA? Im a bit young to remember it....was it focused on one part of the coutry?
Recommended Posts