Huckleberry Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Unfortunately it didn't work out that way for the buffalo bills :'( There is a cycling term for that in belgium, Pulling a "Poulidor" Poulidor was cyclist who always ended 2nd in the tour the france :D Raymond Poulidor (born 15 April 1936), is a former professional bicycle racer. He was known as the eternal second, because he finished the Tour de France in second place three times, and in third place five times, including his final Tour at the age of 40. Despite his consistency, he never wore the Yellow Jersey in 14 Tours, of which he completed 12. His career was distinguished, despite coinciding with two great riders - Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx. This underdog position may have been the reason Poulidor was a favourite of the public. Edited July 8, 2014 by Heimdall
wjag Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 Great photos Heimdall.. I particularly like the last one. The US team could have used that.
Taro T Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Amazing. Definitely want the Netherlands to meet them in the Final. Something special about travelling 1/2 the world away to play a team that you could have driven ~1hr to play. That would be soooooooo Section V playoffs.
Brawndo Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 This explains what happened. https://twitter.com/TheWorIdCup/status/486626882444464128/photo/1
Huckleberry Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Shi6Q1zSI Best comment on the game i read so far: " I wanted to upload the game to Youporn, but they don't accept rape " Edited July 9, 2014 by Heimdall
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Many have already expressed their thoughts on why Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup, but after looking at the numbers, how can one argue against that? The average income is equivalent to 638 american dollars per month. Brazil has the 13th largest economic disparity in the world, so I can't even imagine what fraction of the population makes less than 638 a month. Brazil spent 11.5 billion on this World Cup. 3.5 of that came from the tax payers. This is most ever spent by a host country. From what I read, FIFA requires 8 stadiums for a World Cup. Brazil built or renovated 12. This left many displaced. W/ just a little common sense, one can quickly think of a number of things the money spent could've gone to. Quick examples include school, health care and some type of food allowance. Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup. If a country is not financially stable, they should not even be considered. Not out of cruelty, but out of concern. Many countries that are financially stable already have stadiums, hotels, etc... needed to host a World Cup. Sure, money will still have to be spent, but not to point where it has such a negative impact on the general population. FIFA should consider all of this when choosing a host country. But hey, FIFA is corrupt, so what type of changes will be made? FIFA should be disbanded. Edited July 9, 2014 by thanes16
LastPommerFan Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Many have already expressed their thoughts on why Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup, but after looking at the numbers, how can one argue against that? The average income is equivalent to 638 american dollars per month. Brazil has the 13th largest economic disparity in the world, so I can't even imagine what fraction of the population makes less than 638 a month. Brazil spent 11.5 billion on this World Cup. 3.5 of that came from the tax payers. This is most ever spent by a host country. From what I read, FIFA requires 8 stadiums for a World Cup. Brazil built or renovated 12. This left many displaced. W/ just a little common sense, one can quickly think of the number of things what the money spent could've gone to. Quick examples include school, health care and some type of food allowance. Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup. If a country is not financially stable, they should not even be considered. Not out of cruelty, but out of concern. Many countries that are financially stable already have stadiums, hotels, etc... needed to host a World Cup. Sure, money will still have to be spent, but not to point where it has such a negative impact on the general population. FIFA should consider all of this when choosing a host country. But hey, FIFA is corrupt, so what type of changes will be made? FIFA should be disbanded. All of the world cups should be played in Western Europe, North America (not Mexico), Australia, Japan, or South Korea?
Eleven Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Many have already expressed their thoughts on why Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup, but after looking at the numbers, how can one argue against that? The average income is equivalent to 638 american dollars per month. Brazil has the 13th largest economic disparity in the world, so I can't even imagine what fraction of the population makes less than 638 a month. Brazil spent 11.5 billion on this World Cup. 3.5 of that came from the tax payers. This is most ever spent by a host country. From what I read, FIFA requires 8 stadiums for a World Cup. Brazil built or renovated 12. This left many displaced. W/ just a little common sense, one can quickly think of a number of things the money spent could've gone to. Quick examples include school, health care and some type of food allowance. Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup. If a country is not financially stable, they should not even be considered. Not out of cruelty, but out of concern. Many countries that are financially stable already have stadiums, hotels, etc... needed to host a World Cup. Sure, money will still have to be spent, but not to point where it has such a negative impact on the general population. FIFA should consider all of this when choosing a host country. But hey, FIFA is corrupt, so what type of changes will be made? FIFA should be disbanded. They've got an Olympics right around the corner, too. The Brazilian populace was right to be pissed, but it's their country's bid, and not FIFA's (or IOC's) decision to award, that's the problem. GCoE is right; it is a global game and should be shared among many countries. But it's ultimately up to the country to decide its readiness to bid and host.
LastPommerFan Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 They've got an Olympics right around the corner, too. The Brazilian populace was right to be pissed, but it's their country's bid, and not FIFA's (or IOC's) decision to award, that's the problem. GCoE is right; it is a global game and should be shared among many countries. But it's ultimately up to the country to decide its readiness to bid and host. Imagine: All the FIFA nations pay into a pool based on their Total Association Football Revenues. That pool pays for (most of) the tournament and infrastructure in host nations below some threshold football revenue level. Would that work?
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) They've got an Olympics right around the corner, too. The Brazilian populace was right to be pissed, but it's their country's bid, and not FIFA's (or IOC's) decision to award, that's the problem. GCoE is right; it is a global game and should be shared among many countries. But it's ultimately up to the country to decide its readiness to bid and host. It does comes down to FIFA's decision. The FIFA Executive Committee has 24 members. A multiple round exhaustive ballot system is used to determine which country will host the World Cup. It's not all about which country offers the highest bid. For the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, 2 members were suspended due to accusations of selling votes. Glass Case of Emotion has an interesting idea. That would enable many countries to host a World Cup. Edited July 9, 2014 by thanes16
Eleven Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 It does comes down to FIFA's decision. The FIFA Executive Committee has 24 members. A multiple round exhaustive ballot system is used to determine which country will host the World Cup. It's not all about which country offers the highest bid. For the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, 2 members were suspended due to accusations of selling votes. I know that. But why bid if you can't handle it? FIFA didn't make Brazil bid.
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I know that. But why bid if you can't handle it? FIFA didn't make Brazil bid. Sure, Brazil made a bid. Doesn't mean FIFA had to award them the right to host the World Cup.
Eleven Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Sure, Brazil made a bid. Doesn't mean FIFA had to award them the right to host the World Cup. Brazil was the only candidate.
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Due to a decision made by FIFA in 2003. FIFA announced the 2014 World Cup would be held in South America. After the announcement was made, Argentina, Columbia and Brazil announced they would like to host the World Cup. Brazil and Columbia were the only countries to make a formal announcement. Columbia withdrew in 2007. FIFA is still responsible for the World Cup being held in Brazil. In 2008, 72% of the Brazil population supported it. Earlier this year the percentage was at 48%. Of course nothing could be changed, but it shows if Brazil had it's head on straight 6 years ago the World Cup may have ended up in another country. Make that another continent. Edited July 9, 2014 by thanes16
Eleven Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Due to a decision made by FIFA in 2003. FIFA announced the 2014 World Cup would be held in South America. After the announcement was made, Argentina, Columbia and Brazil announced they would like to host the World Cup. Brazil and Columbia were the only countries to make a formal announcement. Columbia withdrew in 2007. FIFA is still responsible for the World Cup being held in Brazil. In 2008, 72% of the Brazil population supported it. Earlier this year the percentage was at 48%. Of course nothing could be changed, but it shows if Brazil had it's head on straight 6 years ago the World Cup may have ended up in another country. Make that another continent. No, FIFA is not responsible. The people you identified above are responsible. It's their money and they decided how they wanted to spend it. If no one in SA had bid, FIFA would have moved it elsewhere. As corrupt as FIFA is, it is not responsible for the decisions of the Brazilian government, which is elected by Brazil's citizenry. If I spend beyond my budget on a luxury car, is it the car dealer's fault?
LastPommerFan Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Brazil's GDP has doubled since they were awarded the cup. The current downturn is the reason for the upset populace, and there is nothing anyone in soccer could have done about that.
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 No, FIFA is not responsible. The people you identified above are responsible. It's their money and they decided how they wanted to spend it. If no one in SA had bid, FIFA would have moved it elsewhere. As corrupt as FIFA is, it is not responsible for the decisions of the Brazilian government, which is elected by Brazil's citizenry. If I spend beyond my budget on a luxury car, is it the car dealer's fault? People were living in the moment. If the population had considered the costs involved, as they are now, the chances of Brazil making a bid drop. If Argentina and Columbia pulled out for financial reasons, they played it smart.
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Argentina has been controlling play. If the Netherlands don't turn things around, it's only a matter of time before Argentina scores. Pulling for the Netherlands to win.
Guest Sloth Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I'm pulling for the Dutch here. A european country has never won a World Cup in south america. If the Netherlands win, it's a done deal. I'd enjoy watching a Germany/Netherlands final. Edited July 9, 2014 by thanes16
dEnnis the Menace Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 A european country has never won a World Cup in south america. If the Netherlands win, it's a done deal. I'd enjoy watching a Germany/Netherlands final. I think that would be a great final to watch!
Huckleberry Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Many have already expressed their thoughts on why Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup, but after looking at the numbers, how can one argue against that? The average income is equivalent to 638 american dollars per month. Brazil has the 13th largest economic disparity in the world, so I can't even imagine what fraction of the population makes less than 638 a month. Brazil spent 11.5 billion on this World Cup. 3.5 of that came from the tax payers. This is most ever spent by a host country. From what I read, FIFA requires 8 stadiums for a World Cup. Brazil built or renovated 12. This left many displaced. W/ just a little common sense, one can quickly think of a number of things the money spent could've gone to. Quick examples include school, health care and some type of food allowance. Brazil should not have hosted the World Cup. If a country is not financially stable, they should not even be considered. Not out of cruelty, but out of concern. Many countries that are financially stable already have stadiums, hotels, etc... needed to host a World Cup. Sure, money will still have to be spent, but not to point where it has such a negative impact on the general population. FIFA should consider all of this when choosing a host country. But hey, FIFA is corrupt, so what type of changes will be made? FIFA should be disbanded. No offense, but looking at USA, i don't think anyone from there should point at another country and say, your money should be better spend on school and healthcare for the poor. And financial stability aren't words I'd use either. Edited July 9, 2014 by Heimdall
Eleven Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I'm disappointed by the the result was reached, but I am happy to see what I consider to be the best two teams in the world in the final. No offense, but looking at USA, i don't think anyone from there should point at another country and say, your money should be better spend on school and healthcare for the poor. And financial stability aren't words I'd use either. Think about this. We don't often get outside perspective, and when we do it's "Oh, it's those Euros." Maybe this belongs in the politics thread, but I think Heimdall has a legitimate point. Heimdall, I'd love you to join us in that thread. Because our city schools suck, our healthcare system is a travesty, and we don't take care of our poor very well. But that discussion really is for that thread--come on in?
Recommended Posts