March 27 WCQ vs. Jamaica location?

[narduch]

 

[Admin]

I really hope they can make this happen. 

WC in BC Place would be fantastic. 

[gigi riva]

In all honesty it makes no difference to me where They play. I believe it will be in either Toronto or Edmonton

[pod818]

I can't see them playing in Edmonton again.

That pitch was awful

[Shway]

30 minutes ago, pod818 said:

I can't see them playing in Edmonton again.

That pitch was awful

Olympic Stadium is even worse. That concrete toilet has so much potential. 

[pod818]

12 minutes ago, Shway said:

Olympic Stadium is even worse. That concrete toilet has so much potential. 

they would have to put grass in..which I'm not sure is feasible or not

[BearcatSA]

2 hours ago, lbula17 said:

Summer makes sense for a victory tour, (in terms of going to different stadiums across Canada and playing friendlies there) Other than that hopefully in the fall they find a way to get players together from the MLS and the European leagues.

European players on a limited break before their clubs get back into July training, MLS regular season with no break:  who's playing? 

[lbula17]

47 minutes ago, BearcatSA said:

European players on a limited break before their clubs get back into July training, MLS regular season with no break:  who's playing? 

Players that want to make the final 23/34 for theWC and who are on the cusp of being a part of it. I feel like there wont be any starts but those that want to battle for those final spots might choose to play the friendlies. 

[lbula17]

3 minutes ago, lbula17 said:

Players that want to make the final 23/34 for theWC and who are on the cusp of being a part of it. I feel like there wont be any starts but those that want to battle for those final spots might choose to play the friendlies. 

23 or 24**

[theaub]

Can't see clubs releasing anyone for out-of-window friendlies with how condensed everything will be over the next 9 months.

[Ally McCoist]

I think we end up getting 4 pre-WC friendlies. Two in September, two in October. The June window seems to be reserved for NL.

[narduch]

7 minutes ago, Ally McCoist said:

I think we end up getting 4 pre-WC friendlies. Two in September, two in October. The June window seems to be reserved for NL.

There is no October window.

I think we will have 2 in June and 2 in September.

If we draw into a higher letter group we could have one pre World Cup

[Cblake]

7 minutes ago, narduch said:

There is no October window.

I think we will have 2 in June and 2 in September.

If we draw into a higher letter group we could have one pre World Cup

Only way I could something happening in October would be for MLS guys but being so close to November would it be worth it as you would have to fill the roster out for such a game? 

I think once on the ground a friendly makes sense in Qatar vs. a country in another group. 

[ted]

21 hours ago, admin said:

As I recall it, the official dropping of the bid was right before the submission. 
 

You recall wrong. BC simply never submitted their paperwork to be included which they had been saying they would not do for months.

I think if you are going to post under the "Admin" account you should be accurate (and neutral).

[Admin]

10 minutes ago, ted said:

You recall wrong. BC simply never submitted their paperwork to be included which they had been saying they would not do for months.

I think if you are going to post under the "Admin" account you should be accurate (and neutral).

This not how I recall it at all.    I guess it was well known there, but to most people it seemed like a surprise they were not part of it.  I read an article that said they pulled out right before the bid went in, didn't really see any need to double check it.   Is it more accurate to say they were expected to submit the papers, but didn't?   I'm not even against their willingness to tell FIFA to go fuck itself.

I'm good just not posting here at all...   But paying over a grand a year to keep this alive out my own pocket I'll post whatever the fuck I want.

[BearcatSA]

2 hours ago, lbula17 said:

Players that want to make the final 23/34 for theWC and who are on the cusp of being a part of it. I feel like there wont be any starts but those that want to battle for those final spots might choose to play the friendlies. 

If not a FIFA window, there is no guarantee that clubs would release players.  I'm not sure how much of a "victory tour" without the key protagonists would actually draw in some places but maybe an experential side might generate a big crowd, who knows.

[Free kick]

****deleted due to fact that it was posted in the wrong thread*****

Edited February 9, 2022 by Free kick

[footballfreak]

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

This was the reason given at the time (June 2018) of the pullout:

Quote:"Our government has a responsibility to ensure that B.C. taxpayers are not on the hook for hidden costs. The province carefully assesses all sports events for value to taxpayers," she said.

"The FIFA bid agreement contained clauses which the government felt left taxpayers at unacceptable risk of additional costs. We tried very hard to get assurances regarding our concerns. Unfortunately, those assurances were not forthcoming."

Why Vancouver will be on the sidelines for the 2026 World Cup | CBC News  - Jun 2018

 

The question remains:  what could those cost have been that are unique to Vancouver and not relevant anywhere else?   As for those clauses?  well we think we all know what they are (see article below).  But everyone else signed up none the less and those clauses aren't going to go away.  They are the same as that that was applied for the 2015 WWC and and the 2007 U20 WC.   

PS.:  regrading those clauses,  I'll bet that this is what they baulked at:

Canada makes major guarantees, including tax exemptions to host FIFA 2026 games | National Post  - Dec 2021

 

PS2:  if you read that RECENT article (just above) note this:  "The Canadian government will also be on the hook for all security costs around the event. The 2014 games in Brazil came with approximately US$800 million in security costs."

THIS HAS TO BE WHY BC GOV'T WANTS BACK IN NOW.  The federal gov't is now picking up the tab for the security cost.   Thus proving Jamie's point (and UT's point)  that it was the BC government really who dropped the ball big time on this file.  

So the BC Government wanted cost assurances from either the federal government or FIFA, got neither, and pulled out because they didn’t want to be left holding the bag if FIFA upped the bill and the feds didn’t step up. Seems pretty prudent to me. Chicago and Denver(?) also pulled out at this stage, so it’s not like this was a unique issue.

Edit: It was Minneapolis I was thinking of, not Denver.

Edited February 9, 2022 by footballfreak

[Free kick]

12 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

So the BC Government wanted cost assurances from either the federal government or FIFA, got neither, and pulled out because they didn’t want to be left holding the bag if FIFA upped the bill and the feds didn’t step up. Seems pretty prudent to me. Chicago and Denver(?) also pulled out at this stage, so it’s not like this was a unique issue.

Edit: It was Minneapolis I was thinking of, not Denver.

No.  they pulled out because of costs for which the federal government ended up picking up the tab on.  

There is no mention anywhere that the federal govt was sought after for assurances 

 

PS.: i just realised that I put my post in the wrong thread

Edited February 9, 2022 by Free kick

[footballfreak]

28 minutes ago, Free kick said:

No.  they pulled out because of costs for which the federal government ended up picking up the tab on.  

There is no mention anywhere that the federal govt was sought after for assurances 

 

PS.: i just realised that I put my post in the wrong thread

There is zero chance BC pulled out without consulting the federal government to feel them out first. 

As much as we all want this to be a successful World Cup, the reality is these mega sporting events leave the hosts in the red more often than not.    

Getting into bed with FIFA is a very dangerous game. Sometimes the winning move is not to play.

Edited February 9, 2022 by footballfreak
Oops, I also didn’t realize which thread I was in.

[Free kick]

3 minutes ago, footballfreak said:

There is zero chance BC pulled out without consulting the federal government to feel them out first. 

As much as we all want this to be a successful World Cup, the reality is these mega sporting events leave the hosts in the red more often than not.    

Getting into bed with FIFA is a very dangerous game. Sometimes the winning move is not to play.

How do you know that they did reach out to the Federal government?   

as for leaving the hosts in the red?   Other than probably South Africa,  i dont know any other reported  cases where this Happened.   for the olympics?  yes, there are plenty of such stories 

[TGAA_Star]

4 hours ago, Ally McCoist said:

I think we end up getting 4 pre-WC friendlies. Two in September, two in October. The June window seems to be reserved for NL.

If that is the case, my 4 choices for friendly matches would be against Serbia, Egypt, Nigeria and reigning world Champions France

[Califax]

6 hours ago, Shway said:

Olympic Stadium is even worse. That concrete toilet has so much potential. 

There was a time when I thought the Expos coming back (Tampa lease ends in 2026) was destined to coincide nicely with a facility that could be used for the World Cup then filled into a permanent baseball park.

it was all going to click. a beautiful new stadium in Montreal for the World Cup and expos and blue jays in the same division for weekend series in the summer forever.  

Instead we got a global pandemic. 
 

 

[footballfreak]

3 minutes ago, Free kick said:

How do you know that they did reach out to the Federal government?   

as for leaving the hosts in the red?   Other than probably South Africa,  i dont know any other reported  cases where this Happened.   for the olympics?  yes, there are plenty of such stories 

Because no one looking for money is going to turn down the opportunity to ask for it. The World Cup is a prestige project of national importance that requires federal funds to pull off. No province/city would charge ahead without federal backing.

You would be harder pressed to find a recent World Cup that made money for the host nation than lost it. I didn’t follow the aftermath of Russia, but Brazil, South Africa, and Japan/Korea all left a slew of cost overruns and white elephants. Germany, one of the best run tournaments ever, utilizing all of the vast existing football infrastructure at their disposal, turned a net profit of just €56.6M for the entire tournament after spending €3.7B (~1.5%).

[kacbru]

2 hours ago, Free kick said:

How do you know that they did reach out to the Federal government?   

as for leaving the hosts in the red?   Other than probably South Africa,  i dont know any other reported  cases where this Happened.   for the olympics?  yes, there are plenty of such stories 

Perhaps something BC has some experience with?  All kinds of infrastructure investments to support the games that jumped to the head of the queue at the expense of other priorities.