Qatar 2022

Mustard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
10,781
What's your definition of roof?

Something that encloses a space.

Not a lean to. For instance. Wimbledon centre court had an enclosure. Now it has a roof. You wouldn't say your house had a roof if the living room was open to the elements but the kitchen and some of the bedrooms had a lean to.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
3,804
The notion that the US couldn't take a World Cup at short notice because of stadia issues is ridiculous. If you followed that criteria, then we couldn't either and perhaps no country in the world could, not if they all had to be completely covered massive stadiums with grass. The issue on the roof seems foggy.

The US has plenty of huge indoor stadiums that could have grass laid in short time.. Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Arizona, Houston, Indianapolis off the top of my head. Seattle is an outdoor stadium so if its been used very recently under some new criteria then well there you go. To add to that, you have enormous outdoor stadiums in NY, Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC, Tampa, San Francisco, Kansas, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, San Diego and many more. Not to mention, a whole country full of absolutely monstrous college football team stadiums. Some of them 100k big. A lot of all these fields are grass or hybrid already

If FIFA were to ever make some emergency plans and move location, then I'd be pretty positive that they would have to relax their criteria re roofs or there would be no possibilities at all. Its not like we haven't held many footballing tournaments in days gone by without stadiums being completely covered.

I remember at the time of the Qatar bid roofs were an issue and important because of the absurd heat in the country. The US is hot in places but you could be clever about where you avoid.
 

Mustard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
10,781
The notion that the US couldn't take a World Cup at short notice because of stadia issues is ridiculous. If you followed that criteria, then we couldn't either and perhaps no country in the world could, not if they all had to be completely covered massive stadiums with grass. The issue on the roof seems foggy.

The US has plenty of huge indoor stadiums that could have grass laid in short time.. Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Arizona, Houston, Indianapolis off the top of my head. Seattle is an outdoor stadium so if its been used very recently under some new criteria then well there you go. To add to that, you have enormous outdoor stadiums in NY, Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC, Tampa, San Francisco, Kansas, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, San Diego and many more. Not to mention, a whole country full of absolutely monstrous college football team stadiums. Some of them 100k big. A lot of all these fields are grass or hybrid already

If FIFA were to ever make some emergency plans and move location, then I'd be pretty positive that they would have to relax their criteria re roofs or there would be no possibilities at all. Its not like we haven't held many footballing tournaments in days gone by without stadiums being completely covered.

I remember at the time of the Qatar bid roofs were an issue and important because of the absurd heat in the country. The US is hot in places but you could be clever about where you avoid.

No mate. The Qatari bid was built on clouds. Man made clouds to shelter the ground from heat....

Beats isn't an idiot but I do think he has called this one wrong. Covered seating isn't a roof.
 

SlumDilla

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
2,072
The notion that the US couldn't take a World Cup at short notice because of stadia issues is ridiculous. If you followed that criteria, then we couldn't either and perhaps no country in the world could, not if they all had to be completely covered massive stadiums with grass. The issue on the roof seems foggy.

The US has plenty of huge indoor stadiums that could have grass laid in short time.. Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Arizona, Houston, Indianapolis off the top of my head. Seattle is an outdoor stadium so if its been used very recently under some new criteria then well there you go. To add to that, you have enormous outdoor stadiums in NY, Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC, Tampa, San Francisco, Kansas, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, San Diego and many more. Not to mention, a whole country full of absolutely monstrous college football team stadiums. Some of them 100k big. A lot of all these fields are grass or hybrid already

If FIFA were to ever make some emergency plans and move location, then I'd be pretty positive that they would have to relax their criteria re roofs or there would be no possibilities at all. Its not like we haven't held many footballing tournaments in days gone by without stadiums being completely covered.

I remember at the time of the Qatar bid roofs were an issue and important because of the absurd heat in the country. The US is hot in places but you could be clever about where you avoid.
One of my friends in Texas is in charge of one of the recreation fields at a University in Dallas. He told me that during the bidding process the US committee reached out to him to see if they could use their facilities if they won the bid. Its a nice facility as well, the one the states has going for it is the college teams spend millions of dollars for very lush and overly spacious facilities. Putting grass on a field is nothing for them.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
26,146
The notion that the US couldn't take a World Cup at short notice because of stadia issues is ridiculous. If you followed that criteria, then we couldn't either and perhaps no country in the world could, not if they all had to be completely covered massive stadiums with grass. The issue on the roof seems foggy.

The US has plenty of huge indoor stadiums that could have grass laid in short time.. Minnesota, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans, Arizona, Houston, Indianapolis off the top of my head. Seattle is an outdoor stadium so if its been used very recently under some new criteria then well there you go. To add to that, you have enormous outdoor stadiums in NY, Boston, Baltimore, Washington DC, Tampa, San Francisco, Kansas, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago, San Diego and many more. Not to mention, a whole country full of absolutely monstrous college football team stadiums. Some of them 100k big. A lot of all these fields are grass or hybrid already

If FIFA were to ever make some emergency plans and move location, then I'd be pretty positive that they would have to relax their criteria re roofs or there would be no possibilities at all. Its not like we haven't held many footballing tournaments in days gone by without stadiums being completely covered.

I remember at the time of the Qatar bid roofs were an issue and important because of the absurd heat in the country. The US is hot in places but you could be clever about where you avoid.
I dont understand how people are getting confused, I'm a former engineer who for someone unknown reason loves architecture and knows a lot about it

Yes the US can lay grass in time but the person said they could host it tomorrow, which I highlighted they technically cant whereas most of europe can, London could host its own world cup

The majority of US stadiums have no roof and have astroturf, ALL our stadiums have roofs that cover spectators, its actually part of the Premier League rules. Hence why west ham had to install a new roof at the olympic stadium. I also stated that only 4 of 64 stadiums dont fit that criteria, I dont get how England cant host it?

Now I never said it had to be a closed roof/indoor stadium or a stadium with a retractable roof.

There is also the issue of whether a FIFA standard pitch would fit in these stadiums as a football pitch is a lot wider than an NFL pitch. Stadiums like the mercedes benz stadium overcome this with retractable seating. There are 137 stadiums in the US that can host football but that reduces to 42 stadiums when considering dimensions.

Of course they have some great stadiums that if you grass would be great like AT&T stadium(Dallas), NRG stadium(Houston), Minnesota stadium, Mercedes Benz stadium in the next year as well as the University of Arizona stadium and the Seattle Seahawks stadiums

Now out of those 42 stadiums that can host the world cup, a lot of them are baseball stadiums or college stadiums and that number gets even smaller. However there are more than 12 stadiums that could do a good job hosting it but the point of taking it to america would be to increase the appeal of football there so there would need to be at least one or two football specific stadiums included from the MLS.

They have some of the biggest stadiums in the world but that doesnt make them good either. Hence why NFL stadiums are some of the smaller stadiums in the US but yet the best stadiums of any sport in the world. The stadium in the last US world cup whilst big weren't good at all and going to somewhere like the cotton bowl whilst potentially great wouldn't be great.

If FIFA were in desperate need to hold a tournament, on a short notice the US could host it(if given time to make changes) but the stadiums need work for a world cup bid imo

Now England only has 11 stadiums currently that match the FIFA requirements and would do a good job(for me olympic stadium couldnt be selected for the english bid) but it is enough but this includes twickenham(we have so few because we only have 12 stadiums over 40k seats)
 

yankspurs

"We're not a selling club"
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
24,050
Richard Conway‏Verified account@richard_conway
Richard Conway Retweeted Peter Rossberg
German paper Bild claim they have copy of Garcia Report - the unpublished Fifa inquiry into 2018/22 World Cup bids. Potentially explosive.

Richard Conway‏Verified account@richard_conway 22m22 minutes ago
Replying to @richard_conway
Understand Bild will start publishing details tomorrow. First topic? Qatar.

Peter Rossberg‏@PRossberg
Replying to @richard_conway
First Part is rather a teaser to explain the Reader the subject and surroundings. Part two is Qatar


:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 

ExpatFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
1,604
I was working there during all this. We all knew they'd bribed the African and Asian FIFA Executive members. I've been waiting years for it to come out. Now, maybe, at last, it's going to.
 

yankspurs

"We're not a selling club"
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
24,050
Skimming through the first part. Cant get any more blatant than naming the payee of a trip of a football official to Qatar as "bid 2022." Nice one, Qatar. Aussie and England had some very shady dealings also related to their bids. You wanna take 2018 away from Russia, it should go to Belgium and Holland who were clean according to this report.

Report on Russia and then the US from Garcia's deputy(Garcia recused himself from these investigations) are next on my agenda.

How, exactly, can you clear Russia when they made very little documents available to you and your only basing stuff on the word of the accused discounting the allegations?
 
Last edited:

theShiznit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
11,358
And yet somehow it's all not supposed to be a smoking gun big enough to strip Qatar of the WC.
o_O
It's bizarre isn't it, it's like 'wow, look at the level of corruption that led to this country that should never have been able to host a World Cup hosting the World Cup... Just as well FIFA's no longer corrupt'

'So you're going to strip them of the tournament right?'

"Oh, it's impossible to do that now."

'OK, so to confirm FIFA is clean now right...'


I suspect there are still lots involved not uncovered yet that would get caught up in the shit storm if the Tournament was stripped from Qatar, These men haven't been so scared since they took three Viagra to make sure and they still couldn't get it up.

A lot of trophy wives are probably sleeping a lot easier now knowing hubbie's dicky ticker may not last the next few years, the payouts may not be as big as they were expecting though :(
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,432
Skimming through the first part. Cant get any more blatant than naming the payee of a trip of a football official to Qatar as "bid 2022." Nice one, Qatar. Aussie and England had some very shady dealings also related to their bids. You wanna take 2018 away from Russia, it should go to Belgium and Holland who were clean according to this report.

Report on Russia and then the US from Garcia's deputy(Garcia recused himself from these investigations) are next on my agenda.

How, exactly, can you clear Russia when they made very little documents available to you and your only basing stuff on the word of the accused discounting the allegations?

The hypocrisy from the UK is hilarious isn't it. I just don't get why there's such a furore over this (Qatar) - like almost every other World Cup - ever - hasn't been fucking bought by the hosts.

Look at Germany - they are now bollocks deep in a bribery scandal over 2006.

Of course Qatar bought votes, but they were only playing the game how it's been played forever. It's going to be a fucking farce, but so it should be, it should go ahead as a monument to the way FIFA have run these hosting bids for decades and just maybe it will bring about a change, but I won't hold my breath.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
5,202
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41522970

There is "an increasing political risk that Qatar may not host the World Cup in 2022", according to a confidential report examining the risks surrounding the project.
I work in risk management and there are a lot of misconceptions that can be spun anyway you want

It wouldn't surprise me that something like this would appear on the Qatar risk register; in fact it would be neglient if it didn't

What would be really interesting to find out is (i) how they've rated this risk (ii) if the risk is a thread or an opportunity and (iii) what mitigations (current and proposed) are in place
 
Top