Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Back Spain for 2018

There is no better venue in the world for the 2018 World Cup than Spain. With a language that unites the old world and the new, a network of modern stadia and a transport infrastructure that makes Britain's look Neanderthal, Spain also has Sun, the Med and pretty girls, many of them without even a trace of a moustache. Top class hotels, world class cuisine, superlative art and architecture and, even with recent price rises, some of the cheapest drink and cigarettes in Europe. C'mon, where would you rather spend the Summer? Barcelona or Bromsgrove? 


You know it makes sense. Back Spain for Eighteen. 

11 comments:

Woodsy42 said...

Actually if it's football I would like it as far as possible from me. China or Mongolia would be ideal.
Somewhat selfish I suppose but you did ask :-)

Raedwald said...

Yes, er, likewise ;) but I think we need to back a decent runner like Spain to prevent us from being landed with it

Anonymous said...

Agreed boss, what bothers me about the Iberian bid, is.........where is the money going to come from?

Another bailout maybe?
What is Britain's likely financial involvement - we 'built' their posh new roads and railway stations did we not (isn't that enough)?

Scrobs... said...

It all smacks of 'job creation' or public funds investment by another name.

It was done with Blair's Dome, then the Olympics and Wembley was in there somewhere as well.

Also, just think of the sports quangos on huge inflated salaries, 'administering' all this.

Phil said...

As I understand it Euro 96 cost somewhere between bugger all and nothing, at least to the tax payer, and were probably a net earner for the treasury.

Given the 2018 bid doesn't promise new stadia or infrastructure I can't see it costing the taxpayer this time round. Sure there are police and security costs, but club football already pays it's own policing costs so I'd be fairly sure the World Cup can be made to do the same.

Thus the only real reason I can see to oppose the bid is a dislike of the sport. Fair enough as far as it goes, but don't complain when the same logic is used to oppress your passions and interests.

In any event I think the Brummies have done your work for you by choosing tonight as the best time to have a flare flinging riot at St. Andrews.

Budgie said...

No, Phil, I don't "hate the sport" but I sure hate the wall to wall coverage being shoved down my throat all the time.

Phil said...

Budgie, now that's strange use of quote marks as I didn't actually use the word hate. You do know making things up does just weaken your argument? The lady protests too much and all that.

However to address the point, do you genuinely believe that the location of the tournament would make any difference to the media coverage? Personally I doubt it, the tabloids and Sky will stir up a storm regardless.

Indeed you could argue that it could produce less coverage; if we won the bid the team would auto-qualify and therefore every England game for ~2 years would be a friendly. It's hard to whip up a storm about a meaningless friendly.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I think we've had our fair share of taxpayer-funded sporting boondoggles recently, what with the Olympics and the Commonwealth games coming up in Glasgow in 2014.

Time for someone else to pick up the tab, I reckon.

Is it not a disgrace that Cameron, supposedly the leader of the country (actually we all know it's the EU commission, but let's keep up the pretence) is wibbling about football when the economy of all Europe is crashing about our ears? What priorities!

Oh, and what Woodsy42 said, too.

Anonymous said...

Yep - woodsie42 is on the money. Literally. Only the Chinks can afford to host these games anyway. And with the absurd "zero tax" demands from FIFA they can go feck their hands!

Budgie said...

Phil, you appear to think that restricting your "right" to impose football on the rest of us counts as "oppression". The word "hate" seemed, by comparison, mild and succinct.

Phil said...

Budgie,

Personally I'm not bothered either way about the World Cup, if anything I'm fairly pleased we didn't win as the process looks quite exceptionally corrupt.

However the point is wherever the World Cup is held the media coverage will be at saturation levels and as explained it wont cost the taxpayer any money. Therefore I still haven't heard a decent reason to be against the World Cup being in England other than not liking football.

As a contrast I don't want the London Olympics because they are costing a fortune (and we always knew they would) and will cause great disruption. Therefore I can happily oppose them because there will be impacts and costs on non-Olympic fans.

The World Cup will not have any such problems, I may not enjoy it but it wont do me any harm so why oppose it?