Fifa vice-president in no doubt over 2018 World Cup bid.

[marcus agrippa]

that Warner bloke sounds like an idiot.

England should get 2018. I can't see how Italy can get it before England, esp. when they've yet to sort out their hooligan problems. and then there's Spain and their racists.

 

[londonredmaniac]

absolute twat

i wish i knew how to spell xenophobia

 

[Im red2]

He sounds to me like some guy who has had a bad day. Italy?? no hooligans over there at least none who are not members of the police.

 

[MrMarcello]

Yes. . . and two of the best, ever. Which is I wouldn't have any qualms about it going back to Mexico. England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil are the best places to host a WC. Not the US, Australia or any other nation devoid of passion for the game.

Have you been to Mexico lately?

I saw quite a bit of passion during WC94. Do remember there are millions of immigrants and descendants of in this nation. And the rest of the world will love to flock to the US for a vacation during a hosted WC. Not to mention the huge stadia and buckets of cash.

 

[rednev]

What an absolute tosser. Speaks a lot of sense though.

 

[Cal?]

So are most of the European teams (all but Germany, Italy, and one or two others who are hot that year). Going into any given World Cup, how many nations actually are capable of winning the tournament, maybe 6? Everyone else there is just "making up the numbers," so why not let the entire world share the spots instead of bringing in the third tier European nations who have as much chance of winning the Cup as do the Camaroons, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, or the USA?

Italy, Germany, France, England, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Rep, Croatia, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia

That's 15 countries who are better than those you listed just off the top of my head.

 

[Frosty]

Jack Warner was proven on Panorama to be a corrupt, shady, arsehole who shouldn't even hold a post with any organisation nevermind be so high up in FIFA.

Treat his comments, just like you would he, with utter contempt. This is all fallback over the complete stitchup the BBC did on him, nothing else.

Jack Warner? Isn't he the Fifa tout from WC 06?

All true. Probably completely irrelevant is the fact he holds a grudge against the BBC for exposing him as a shady ticket tout, and as a result has a contempt for all things English. If we are honest, is there anyone that is not corrupt in the higher climes of FIFA?

So are most of the European teams (all but Germany, Italy, and one or two others who are hot that year). Going into any given World Cup, how many nations actually are capable of winning the tournament, maybe 6? Everyone else there is just "making up the numbers," so why not let the entire world share the spots instead of bringing in the third tier European nations who have as much chance of winning the Cup as do the Camaroons, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, or the USA?

Italy, Germany, France, England, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Rep, Croatia, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia

That's 15 countries who are better than those you listed just off the top of my head.

Cameroon are better than Ukraine, Croatia, Switzerland, Greece and Russia IMO.

I would like to see fewer European teams in the World Cup. Switzerland v Ukraine in the last 16? Please.

More African and South American teams should be allowed in. I would give 8 spots to Africa personally, instead of five. Cameroon and Nigeria didn't even qualify for 2006, and neither did South Africa. Africa is where the talent is being squeezed, not Europe

 

[Keano1999]

Jack Warner is an idiot but unfortunately he's powerful enough to cause problems for any English bid.

The schedule for US 94 was determined by FIFA so that the games would be played at times best suited for European tv audiences. You will also find that it was the best attended world cup in the history of the tournament.

Regarding the criticism of the US qualifying, I hope you realize that the US qualified ahead of Mexico for the last World Cup and regularly beats Mexico everywhere except in Mexico City. The US team is the dominant team in CONCACAF.

 

[ILBB15]

Jack Warner is an idiot but unfortunately he's powerful enough to cause problems for any English bid.

The schedule for US 94 was determined by FIFA so that the games would be played at times best suited for European tv audiences. You will also find that it was the best attended world cup in the history of the tournament.

Regarding the criticism of the US qualifying, I hope you realize that the US qualified ahead of Mexico for the last World Cup and regularly beats Mexico everywhere except in Mexico City. The US team is the dominant team in CONCACAF.

We do not criticize the US qualifying, but that North and Central America have too many qualifying spots.

I would give two spots for them.

 

[Cal?]

Cameroon are better than Ukraine, Croatia, Switzerland, Greece and Russia IMO.

I would like to see fewer European teams in the World Cup. Switzerland v Ukraine in the last 16? Please.

More African and South American teams should be allowed in. I would give 8 spots to Africa personally, instead of five. Cameroon and Nigeria didn't even qualify for 2006, and neither did South Africa. Africa is where the talent is being squeezed, not Europe

Who's fault is it that Togo, Tunisia & Angola made the finals ahead of Cameroon or Nigeria?

Cameroon are no better than Ukraine, a whole bunch of mediocre players led by a super striker...

 

[Frosty]

The position I would argue from is that the World Cup is too focused on European teams. Make it a proper World Cup - drop the European play-offs, cut down Europe's allocation to 10 from 14 and allocate the other positions to Africa (I would argue three should go there) and one more for South America.

That way football gets stimulated in Africa, and their players are more likely to play for their countries of birth knowing that they have a good chance of playing in the World Cup than defecting to a European nation.

Think how good Senegal should be if Vieira et al played for them instead of France?

 

[Spoony]

Invite Brazil and Argentina and perhaps the best African nation to the Euros and you'd have a tourno better than the WC.

 

[Billy]

Nevermind whether he thinks we should host the cup or not, how can anyone in such an influential position be so unprofessional?

"Nobody in Europe likes England"

What is he? 5 years old?

First we had William Gaillard coming out with "Unfortunately in Britain it is the behaviour." after the trouble at the 2007 European Cup final and now this.

Can you imagine if an Englishman in a prominent position in either UEFA or FIFA came out and said things like this? He'd be out of a job straight away. Gaillard is supposed to be 'director of communications' for god's sake! The lack of professionalism from these pillocks in fancy suits is astounding .

 

[Iron Stove]

The position I would argue from is that the World Cup is too focused on European teams. Make it a proper World Cup - drop the European play-offs, cut down Europe's allocation to 10 from 14 and allocate the other positions to Africa (I would argue three should go there) and one more for South America.

That way football gets stimulated in Africa, and their players are more likely to play for their countries of birth knowing that they have a good chance of playing in the World Cup than defecting to a European nation.

Think how good Senegal should be if Vieira et al played for them instead of France?

That depends what you're after. A great tournament of football or a circus with "exotic" fans all doing little dances, dressing up in national costumes and such. That's fine too, but as a fan of the game I think high quality football should always come first.

 

[FresnoBob]

Italy, Germany, France, England, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Rep, Croatia, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia

That's 15 countries who are better than those you listed just off the top of my head.

From my vantage point, your mistake, and Spooney's, is that the World Cup isn't about the 32 "best teams in the world" getting together, it's about the 6 or 8 teams with a realistic chance of winning getting together with 24-26 other sides that represent the rest of the world in a tournament.

Those other teams represent what is currently the cream of the crop in North America, Africa, Asia, and the far-flung islands of the Pacific and South Seas. While still third-world in terms of performance, perhaps, the gap is narrowing and this is the tournament (and the lovely fans from Nigeria/Jamaica/Korea/et al) that enables all of you football fanatics to remind the rest of the athletic world that this is the planet's number one sport.

Let's be honest, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Denmark (and Spain, based on their constant choking on the big stage) have a much chance of winning the World Cup as Singapore, Tahiti, or Greenland, so why is it better to have those Euro-principalities fill up all the spots when 90% of the world would rather see nations from their part of the globe be cannon-fodder for Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, or other actual world powers?

 

[Frosty]

That depends what you're after. A great tournament of football or a circus with "exotic" fans all doing little dances, dressing up in national costumes and such. That's fine too, but as a fan of the game I think high quality football should always come first.

Both, ideally (although I would prefer a 'festival' rather than a 'circus')

I honestly believe that if Africa were given 8 slots instead of 5, you would see the quality of the WC increase - more African players would want to play for their countries, and the teams will improve in quality. It is the World Cup, after all. European teams have the Euros to fight it out amongst themselves. I just think it is pointless to repeat that feat with Brazil and Argentina every four years. It should be truly representative - not just an 'elite' group of previous winners duking it out. Other teams should be given the chance to play at the highest stage, and improve as footballing nations - which is why I suggest giving extra positions to those regions which have a lot of footbaling potential.

If you want to improve the quality, maybe the number of games played in Europe should be reduced, as all the players are knackered by the time June rolls around.

 

[Soebek]

I say just increase the number of teams involved. You could double the number of countries in it whilst making each team play only one match more (an extra knockout).

In my opinion, that would be amazing, but then I guess it would go on far too long and probably be too difficult logistically.

 

[Cal?]

The position I would argue from is that the World Cup is too focused on European teams. Make it a proper World Cup - drop the European play-offs, cut down Europe's allocation to 10 from 14 and allocate the other positions to Africa (I would argue three should go there) and one more for South America.

That way football gets stimulated in Africa, and their players are more likely to play for their countries of birth knowing that they have a good chance of playing in the World Cup than defecting to a European nation.

Think how good Senegal should be if Vieira et al played for them instead of France?

The point is that there aren't that many top footballing countries in Africa. As I've pointed out earlier, Cameroon & Nigeria missed out on WC06 to the likes of Togo, Tunisia & Angola, 3 teams who finished bottom of their groups in the WC, even Cote D'Ivoire failed to progress.

Africa deserve a couple of places, nothing more.

 

[FresnoBob]

The point is that there aren't that many top footballing countries in Africa. As I've pointed out earlier, Cameroon & Nigeria missed out on WC06 to the likes of Togo, Tunisia & Angola, 3 teams who finished bottom of their groups in the WC, even Cote D'Ivoire failed to progress.

Africa deserve a couple of places, nothing more.

And Greece is the King of European football, according to Euro2004. Is that what we want to see on the world stage?

 

[Cal?]

From my vantage point, your mistake, and Spooney's, is that the World Cup isn't about the 32 "best teams in the world" getting together, it's about the 6 or 8 teams with a realistic chance of winning getting together with 24-26 other sides that represent the rest of the world in a tournament.

Those other teams represent what is currently the cream of the crop in North America, Africa, Asia, and the far-flung islands of the Pacific and South Seas. While still third-world in terms of performance, perhaps, the gap is narrowing and this is the tournament (and the lovely fans from Nigeria/Jamaica/Korea/et al) that enables all of you football fanatics to remind the rest of the athletic world that this is the planet's number one sport.

Let's be honest, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Denmark (and Spain, based on their constant choking on the big stage) have a much chance of winning the World Cup as Singapore, Tahiti, or Greenland, so why is it better to have those Euro-principalities fill up all the spots when 90% of the world would rather see nations from their part of the globe be cannon-fodder for Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, or other actual world powers?

Actually, that's not entirely true. The Chinese people might be more interested in watching China get trashed by Brazil (as happened in 02), but they will not be anymore interested in watching the Saudis or Korea get beaten by Brazil than watching Ukraine get beaten by Brazil.

The World Cup is ultimately a competition to decide the best national team (I think we can all agree quite a few G14 clubs are better) in the World and should therefore be competed by the best teams in the World.

 

[Cal?]

And Greece is the King of European football, according to Euro2004. Is that what we want to see on the world stage?

Now you're talking about strategy?

So Greece play boring football, what's to stop African sides doing it?

 

[Iron Stove]

From my vantage point, your mistake, and Spooney's, is that the World Cup isn't about the 32 "best teams in the world" getting together, it's about the 6 or 8 teams with a realistic chance of winning getting together with 24-26 other sides that represent the rest of the world in a tournament.

Those other teams represent what is currently the cream of the crop in North America, Africa, Asia, and the far-flung islands of the Pacific and South Seas. While still third-world in terms of performance, perhaps, the gap is narrowing and this is the tournament (and the lovely fans from Nigeria/Jamaica/Korea/et al) that enables all of you football fanatics to remind the rest of the athletic world that this is the planet's number one sport.

Let's be honest, Greece, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Denmark (and Spain, based on their constant choking on the big stage) have a much chance of winning the World Cup as Singapore, Tahiti, or Greenland, so why is it better to have those Euro-principalities fill up all the spots when 90% of the world would rather see nations from their part of the globe be cannon-fodder for Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, or other actual world powers?

I too like the special feeling that the WC brings. It's nice to see the fans and I imagine it would be great to travel to one one day(closest thing I've been to was one of the Euros)..

..but for me it ultimately comes down to watching good interesting games. I always watch almost all of the matches but when it comes to a game like Trinidad - Saudi Arabia or the like, I can't be bothered. For me it's not about who's going to win the tournament, but watching quality football and a lot of the nations that get in nowadays can't produce that.

Both, ideally (although I would prefer a 'festival' rather than a 'circus')

If you want to improve the quality, maybe the number of games played in Europe should be reduced, as all the players are knackered by the time June rolls around.

I prefer 'circus' for effect

I think you're right about reducing the number of games in the European leagues, but with all the money involved in football nowadays I just can't see that happening.

As for allowing more African nations I'm not convinced that it would better the quality of football. A Denmark/Greece/Sweden etc I feel has more of a right to be at the competition than a Togo/Angola. I don't believe they should reduce the number of African slots, but mostly Asian and North American.

 

[Cal?]

I prefer 'circus' for effect

I think you're right about reducing the number of games in the European leagues, but with all the money involved in football nowadays I just can't see that happening.

As for allowing more African nations I'm not convinced that it would better the quality of football. A Denmark/Greece/Sweden etc I feel has more of a right to be at the competition than a Togo/Angola. I don't believe they should reduce the number of African slots, but mostly Asian and North American.

Basically, in my very honest opinion, USA, Mexico, Japan & Korea are about as good as your 2nd tier European sides like Greece, Ukraine, Switzerland et al.

The rest of the teams in either continent are really 3rd tier standard - Finland, Scotland, Austria standard or below.

 

[CR#7]

what a fecking piece of shit cnut

 

[poisson]

here he is, the xenophobic twat

his wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_"Jack"_Warner

i found this paragraph very interesting -

"Warner has been accused of corruption on BBC's Panorama for repeatedly taking advantage of his position for financial gain. FIFA's auditors, Ernst & Young, estimated that his family made a profit of at least $1 million from reselling 2006 World Cup tickets that Warner had ordered.

Minutes of FIFA’s executive committee indicate that a fine of almost $1 million, equal to the expected profiteering, was imposed on the family. Despite numerous reminders from FIFA, only $250,000 has been paid."

 

[FresnoBob]

Actually, that's not entirely true. The Chinese people might be more interested in watching China get trashed by Brazil (as happened in 02), but they will not be anymore interested in watching the Saudis or Korea get beaten by Brazil than watching Ukraine get beaten by Brazil.

The World Cup is ultimately a competition to decide the best national team (I think we can all agree quite a few G14 clubs are better) in the World and should therefore be competed by the best teams in the World.

The best teams in the world do compete in the World Cup. They are Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, and two or three other national sides, depending on who's hot at that particular time. In the past, that has included Spain, Turkey, Mexico, Korea [with referees], Sweden, or Holland, among others--but none of them consistently. The fact remains that 24 to 26 teams at the World Cup are nothing but filler--including England (usually), Ukraine, Russia, Switzerland, Denmark as well as teams from "not-Europe."
Having any of these also-rans from your continent playing one of the teams actually capable of winning the tournament means nothing more than having Brazil unload on Trinidad, and from what I've seen at the World Cup the past 25 years or so, games between two Europeans sides aren't necessarily any more attractive or exciting than those played by teams from other parts of the world.

 

[Eto'odinho]

Exactly, you could argue that USA, Mexico, Japan & Korea can compete with the 2nd tier European sides, but the rest of them? T&T, China or whoever these 2 continents come up with are simply a joke.

South Korea did finish 4th in 2002

 

[Eto'odinho]

It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.

Thats a load of bollocks, thats another load of crap.

 

[Richter]

Jack Warner seems to like attention.

Rhain move likened to slavery

From correspondents in London

August 10, 2007 FIFA vice-president Jack Warner has slammed the signing of Australian wonderkid Rhain Davis by Manchester United, likening the move to "football slavery".

"It's obscene and most absurd," Warner of the Davis family's decision to quit Australia for north-west England.

"And we have to fight that and put laws in place to prevent those things," Warner said.

"That is almost a kind of football slavery ... and we have to understand that slavery by any form is slavery.''

Agence France-Presse

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22221134-23215,00.html

 

[HKRed]

Jack Warner seems to like attention.

Rhain move likened to slavery

From correspondents in London

August 10, 2007 FIFA vice-president Jack Warner has slammed the signing of Australian wonderkid Rhain Davis by Manchester United, likening the move to "football slavery".

"It's obscene and most absurd," Warner of the Davis family's decision to quit Australia for north-west England.

"And we have to fight that and put laws in place to prevent those things," Warner said.

"That is almost a kind of football slavery ... and we have to understand that slavery by any form is slavery.''

Agence France-Presse

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22221134-23215,00.html

I read that too, what a cocksucker this bloke is. How many kids have had to move because their father changed his job? FFS, his family have made a huge sacrifice and moved away from their home just to give him a chance to realise his potential.

This man is a cnut.

 

[HKRed]

Here's the bastard selling Formica, how low can you go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou7Ads6WCcA

 

[Wibble]

does this prick have some personal feud against english people or what to say that?

Yes. A British documentary revealed how he made a million quid for his family form by selling tickets he got through his position. Nobody likes their corruption being paraded around in public.

 

[Wibble]

While I have concerns about clubs signing such young players to liken it to slavery is ludicrous. he would be better served watching French (and probably other) clubs who bring in loads of African youngsters and ruthlessly discard those they don't want.

 

[The Hairdryer]

here he is, the xenophobic twat

his wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_"Jack"_Warner

i found this paragraph very interesting -

"Warner has been accused of corruption on BBC's Panorama for repeatedly taking advantage of his position for financial gain. FIFA's auditors, Ernst & Young, estimated that his family made a profit of at least $1 million from reselling 2006 World Cup tickets that Warner had ordered.

Minutes of FIFA’s executive committee indicate that a fine of almost $1 million, equal to the expected profiteering, was imposed on the family. Despite numerous reminders from FIFA, only $250,000 has been paid."

I would like to hear ThomasM's view on him.

 

[VP]

It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.

Idiotic view. 25 places for Europe?

European teams are vastly overrated. Sweden couldn't beat T&T in the past world cup. England just about beat them. Just a couple of examples.

The European Championship is probably the most boring national team competition. Even the Asian Cup is more entertaining than that.

 

[Furious George]

The European Championship is probably the most boring national team competition.

Nah, that'd be Eurovision.

Oh, btw, you're an idiot.

 

[Im red2]

What is a ticket tout doing in such a high position?

 

[VP]

Nah, that'd be Eurovision.

Oh, btw, you're an idiot.

Euro 2004 was won by Greece...

 

[Chorley1974]

This twat is just an example of how corrupt FIFA is, he knows too well that if the WC is held in England it will be above board and difficult for him to get his cnutish shitty fingers in the till too easily. Italy would suit him much better as their football is full of corrupt feckers. You can guarantee nothing will be done about this dickhead's comments.
With all the shit that England get from EUFA and FIFA that we should just forget international football, when we get to the tournaments we are just treated like 2nd class citizens and the refs are all cnuts to us too.

 

[enghuei]

Jack Warner hates England. I guess he got rejected by a fit English bird during his teenage days.