Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jpeace121
- Start date
El Floppo
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
Looks like the guy who laughed and took a pic of the Villa player who went over the boards last season.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
2 reasons:
1. It takes out one of the main objectors (and the most likely party to sue) to a winter WC. With Fox muzzled, all the little contries backing the '22 and Blatter remain happy
2. It muzzles the argument of reforming the process in any substantial way for '26. Gulati was being cagey about whether we were bidding to try to help clean up the process with one of the big carrots being increased tv revenue an open bidding process would bring. It basically makes the leverage GUlati had holding the U.S. bid in his back pocket less.
Blatter'so support comes from those that want a winter WC in Qatar and an unclean '26 bidding process. This furthers both those goals.
FQIPRRE!!
Autumn Wind
Footballguy
I'll be at PPL for the first game, which will likely be the high point of what promises to be another lackluster Union campaign.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Vegas is out for the next round of MLS expansion
==================================
LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -
Las Vegas will not be home to a Major League Soccer franchise, at least for the next few years.
On Thursday, the city announced the league informed officials Las Vegas would not be selected for an expansion team for the 2017 or 2018 seasons.
The announcement comes on the heels of an ongoing battle within City Hall on how a downtown stadium would be built.
The city planned to place a $200 million stadium in Symphony Park for the team, with both private and public funds to be used.
In a statement, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman said on the decision:
“Of course I am disappointed that the MLS did not select Las Vegas for an expansion team in the 2017 or 2018 seasons. I still believe our city would be the perfect location for a major league team, and I am saddened that we miss out on the opportunity to gain $450 million in downtown investment and job creation. A team coming here would have been the catalyst for other developments in the downtown. I hope the MLS will still consider Las Vegas for a team beyond 2018, and that the league's decision will not be a negative influence on other major league franchises coming to our city.”
Stay with FOX5 and FOX5Vegas.com for updates.
==================================
LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -
Las Vegas will not be home to a Major League Soccer franchise, at least for the next few years.
On Thursday, the city announced the league informed officials Las Vegas would not be selected for an expansion team for the 2017 or 2018 seasons.
The announcement comes on the heels of an ongoing battle within City Hall on how a downtown stadium would be built.
The city planned to place a $200 million stadium in Symphony Park for the team, with both private and public funds to be used.
In a statement, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman said on the decision:
“Of course I am disappointed that the MLS did not select Las Vegas for an expansion team in the 2017 or 2018 seasons. I still believe our city would be the perfect location for a major league team, and I am saddened that we miss out on the opportunity to gain $450 million in downtown investment and job creation. A team coming here would have been the catalyst for other developments in the downtown. I hope the MLS will still consider Las Vegas for a team beyond 2018, and that the league's decision will not be a negative influence on other major league franchises coming to our city.”
Stay with FOX5 and FOX5Vegas.com for updates.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I do as well. When you are a league trying to break into the big time, sometimes you have to do something bold, and Vegas would have fit nicely as a risk.
But I think the Minnesota and Sacramento bids are so strong, they might not have felt the risk was worth it, at least now.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Day games would be lousy there.
Jaysus
Good times!
There's still timeAt least they didn't sign 6 keepers this off season
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
The stadium was suppose to be designed as a retractable roof with air conditioning. Not that it matters any more.
Kafka
Footballguy
Brendan Rogers in Rome, purportedly "inquiring" about Pjanic. I love Miralem's game, but question his heart. He has all the talent, as evidenced by last year...but....since he renewed his contract, he has been uninspiring; constant back passes, no attacking dribbles, few audacious through-balls, no finishing...all things he has in his game. His set pieces are still magnificent. I'm torn on this; it's probably him or Strootman(ManU) out this summer; Kevin's been prone to injury while Pjanic really needed to assert himself this year(due to Roma's constant injury crisis) and failed...if the price is right, I guess...hopefully he responds to Sabatini's signaling him out recently. In summation...PJANIC IN THE STREETS OF ROME!!*
*(apologies to RHE)*
-Lol @ "signaling"...yeah, that too.
*(apologies to RHE)*
-Lol @ "signaling"...yeah, that too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kafka
Footballguy
...steps...passes...Strootman is a phenomenal all-around player, unfortunately Roma probably won't be able to turn down United's crazy money...thank God for Radja, he's been Roma's best player this year.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Much to my chagrin, Cletius beat me to the Pjanic pun while I waited for him to play a CL game in London. So I can't take credit.
Still waiting to drop Widespread Pjanic and Pjanic at the Disco.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Strootman is the second best young CM in the world behind Pogba, IMO. But the injuries are very worrying.
Also, the only puns I have for Strootman is to sing "Strootman, Strootman!" like Billy Squier.
Also, the only puns I have for Strootman is to sing "Strootman, Strootman!" like Billy Squier.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
OMGOGMOGMGOGM NYCFC beats up on bad Scottish 1st division team at MCFC academy stadium:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/sports/soccer/nycfc-offers-clearer-glimpse-of-its-plan-in-exhibition-victory.html?mabReward=A7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
much like the article, I'm burying the bigger lede that Lampard had beers with his future teammates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/sports/soccer/nycfc-offers-clearer-glimpse-of-its-plan-in-exhibition-victory.html?mabReward=A7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
much like the article, I'm burying the bigger lede that Lampard had beers with his future teammates.
The Gator
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I hope not. I think moving Can to be a ball-playing CB in a back 3 was a stroke of genius for Brendan. I thought Can only showed flashes at CM for Pool and I worry that he lacks the engine to be a holding or box to box mid. He has good speed in short bursts, but I don't think he has 90 minutes of really hard running in him. So CB suits him.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not factoring in the hair.
EDIT: I guess the :tldr: version of this comment is "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)"
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gator
Footballguy
I see your point, but I think with Gerrard and Lucas out we are going to find out. The FM position I'd have him play is deep lying play maker, because I tend to agree about 90min of hard running. That's basically the position he played the last 20min of the Bolton game, pushed up from RCB. Everyone looked to get him the ball that game in that position and he was amaaaaaaazing.
B Maverick
Footballguy
Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Did they play St Mirren again or is this the same game we talked about a few days ago in here?
I think St Mirren is in the SPL not the Scottish First Division if memory serves.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Same game
...the story finally showed up on my NYTimes recommended feed 3 days late.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
St. Mirren, more like Helen Mirren.
charvik
Footballguy
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15o7Xls-edHHcGHlQTILbocH_6OmtItnbryUyvAhE81A/edit?usp=sharing
Should work for you to download, but I doubt google docs will let me run all the background stuff, so it might not work unless you grab it.
I use this for running scenarios on possible results as the season closes out.
ETA: It actually does work online...
Last edited by a moderator:
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I have been searching high and low since this news came out of the blue and can't find even a decent rumor on any price.
This is so shady, who knows what was written into the contract.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
Well that would be interesting considering Univision is locked out of the WC until 2030 at earliest
Sammy3469
Footballguy
As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Nah...I want to take the kid to one, but until the later summer they don't have any afternoon games (and I don't count Sunday at 5pm). Think I'm sort of aiming for the Orlando City game on July 26 if he's kicked his nap by then.no worries- I actually appreciated the link since I missed it the first go-round too.Sammy3469 said:Same gameNewlyRetired said:
you getting season tickets, sammy?
At least they have a few afternoon games...can't even say that for the Red Bulls.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
It depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
You seem to think that's a bad thing from FIFA's perspectiveIt depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
B Maverick
Footballguy
I am guessing then that the requirements for the Women's WC and Men are different?It depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
A US-based World Cup seems less likely due to the seemingly restricted opportunities for graft. Not that our folks are above that kind of thing, but it does seem we're at a competitive disadvantage compared to Africa, S.America the Middle East, Russia and China in such matters.You seem to think that's a bad thing from FIFA's perspectiveIt depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
yes significantly different. Capacity and playing surface are two significant differencesI am guessing then that the requirements for the Women's WC and Men are different?It depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
NewlyRetired
Footballguy
I was not talking about FIFA's perspective. I was talking about level of success of which finances play a huge part in that definition. There is no way I could ever see a Canadian WC being even within the same universe of success financially as a US one and the stadiums are one of the big reasons.You seem to think that's a bad thing from FIFA's perspectiveIt depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
B Maverick
Footballguy
I 
Alex Morgan
Alex Morgan
Sebowski
Footballguy
But equal field to Canada, no?A US-based World Cup seems less likely due to the seemingly restricted opportunities for graft. Not that our folks are above that kind of thing, but it does seem we're at a competitive disadvantage compared to Africa, S.America the Middle East, Russia and China in such matters.You seem to think that's a bad thing from FIFA's perspectiveIt depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
QuizGuy66
Footballguy
Not if Canada has to build/improve stadiums. I think that's the point being expressed.But equal field to Canada, no?A US-based World Cup seems less likely due to the seemingly restricted opportunities for graft. Not that our folks are above that kind of thing, but it does seem we're at a competitive disadvantage compared to Africa, S.America the Middle East, Russia and China in such matters.You seem to think that's a bad thing from FIFA's perspectiveIt depends on the definition of successful.As Americans, I think we're sort of fooling ourselves that a Canadian WC wouldn't be just as successful as a US one (I mean it's not like Americans wouldn't flood Canada...4-5 of the stadiums would be an 8 hour drive from NYC, for instance).Canada <> US and don't forget the factor of the US selling more tickets than any other world cup in history with 80% or so of the current number of games. Unlike many countries *coughQatar* FIFA will be able to charge a ridiculously massive amount for tickets and people will be willing to pay. That's not as true for games in, say, Saskatoon.It is a fun exercise to think how much higher the rights fees would be for the US broadcasts if the Cup is here versus somewhere else. Because of the primacy of the European audience most of those games would still be taking place during the daytime here. The bump might not be quite as much as you'd think. (And as I mentioned previously, it's not to say that there isn't necessarily a different cost baked into the contract if the US is awarded the 2026 Cup - totally possible that Fox agreed to 2 prices - a higher one for a US-based Cup and a lower one for a Cup based somewhere else - have the details of the price come out yet?)B Maverick said:Canada would be interesting on the heels of the women crying foul over the turf being used. Would they give Canada the men's tourney after that? Would the mandate grass or make them play on turf? Either way it looks like trouble.Sammy3469 said:It's supposedly a non-Euro, non-Asia WC. The only confirmed bidders are Canada, Mexico, and Colombia with Canada seemingly the only real option (I seriously doubt FIFA would let Mexico be the first country to host 3 of them). There's not much difference for the rest of the world between a Canadian or US WC. Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal are already publically supporting the effort. Throw in the other cities with Canadian football teams and you get to the necessary number of cities (not that that really matters).Sinn Fein said:'26 is theoretically a "european" cup, no? Or, have they abandoned rotating the world with Europe?
ETA - I guess we have had two outside of Europe, so maybe Europe gets it every 3 cups now
-QG
I do think this is all sort of moot, since I won't be shocked if the "reform" is that the rotation policy is part of the problem and Blatter decides to open it to everyone (i.e. China).
In terms of expenses, Canada would have to invest billions more than the US to get enough WC ready stadiums. There are only 4 stadiums in the entire country that hold over 40k (the FIFA minimum size for WC), and some of those would need massive refurbishment. And they have none that meet the requirements for the opening game and final.
For the US, we would most have to solve a few field turf issues, but other than that, the stadiums would need almost no money put into them.
-QG
Sebowski
Footballguy
They just strike more like trying to cut a construction deal with a group of mormons. They are pretty by the book up there, eh?
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Is Martin Odegaard so much of a phenom that he may be the youngest player ever to play in the Champion's League?
Sebowski
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal all roughly 3-1 to win it at this point. United and Arsenal will be slight favorites if they go through tomorrow.
Assuming none of those three lose to an "other" team, the favorite that avoids the other favorites until the final has a big leg up.
Assuming none of those three lose to an "other" team, the favorite that avoids the other favorites until the final has a big leg up.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
I can't see him playing meaningful minutes. But a cameo probably isn't out of the question.
Similar threads
