Chan-rant

[Chandler]

Can't be bothered to respond to all the points in this thread, but surely France's opposition to the Iraq war should have made them more likely to host the 2012 Olympics?

The real reason was due to the multinational sponsors deciding London was a better bet.

They're the same forces that will decide whether South Africa is in a fit and proper state to host the 2010 World Cup.

It's hosted the cricket and rugby versions without any serious problems, so should be able to move onto this.

But the Premier League would be very interested in a piece of the action (and a large share of the proceeds), should contingency plans become necessary.

And bringing a World Cup to England might just be the one thing that could save Gordon Brown from electoral oblivion in 2010.

Unlike Chandler, I don't think the World Cup will be switched, but I can see reasons why others might think that way.

That's what cost them the games silly Billy! Don't you remember the old US State Dept refrain about the countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq - 'Forgive Russia, ignore Germany, punish France (not that they could do anything else but oppose the war you understand as their combined presence in the country was the very reason why Exxon, BP and RDS went in under the guise of the 'Coalition of the Willing')?

The games were won for an extremely reluctant London (anyone recall the Queen's unguarded remarks to some juvenile delinquent achiever at Buck House c 2004 that there wasn't much call for the Olympics around here?) by some highly questionable 'diplomacy' that caused one Jacques Chirac to moan that MI6 had done a lot of arm twisting (in such situations, of course, the DGSE always play cricket).

How South Africa will host the 2010 World Cup may shape up to be one of the great enigma's of our age as construction and renovation hasn't even started at some of the stadia let alone the essential infrastructural work. Clearly some major intervention of one sort or another is required. And that means De Beers (those nice people who have kept Muggerbe in his nice house next door) Anglo American, RTZ and XStrata either bailing Mbeki out or pulling the rug out from underneath him. Now IF it's the latter...

I find it difficult to swallow that we will get the 2010 World Cup if snot gobbler Brown (yes, he really does eat his boggies) is still in No 10 - but it is possible. More likely this would be an election gift for 'Daz' Cameron but the clock is ticking here. Sarkozy is playing a neat diplomatic game over Beijing 2008 (alerting everyone to the 'news' that China has occupied Tibet for the last 57 years and giving PetroChina a sly poke in the ribs on behalf of 'Big Oil')) which might earn him enough Brownie points to win the 2012 games back from grateful London property developers (who have had their East End 'condo canyon' sties decontaminated out of the public purse) - Mbeki permitting.

If Paris does get 2012 back and that's looking 50/50 there will almost certainly have to be a quid pro quo with London. That somewthing else will probably be the World Cup (for FIFA read 'frog'). Our chance of 2010 is receding so 2018 is the more likely possibility. But Blather and FIFA, Canal +, ZDF, EUROSPORT and assorted European FA's don't want England, SKY and the FA to host it now, then or ever (which is why Blatter is continually poking his nose into FA business and why Man U, Spurs and even Bolton fans are finding themselves at the wrong end of baton charges in Italy, Spain and France to keep alive the memory of English hooliganism).

Wake up children and smell the sports politics - it's exactly the same as the other sort and it stinks just as bad!

[dandannieldanok]

Wake up children and smell the sports politics - it's exactly the same as the other sort and it stinks just as bad!

I'm not sure anybody really cares mate (especially people of my age), when you're watching a world cup or the olympics most people concentrate on the sport rather than the politics of the decision-making behind it all. World Cups and Olympics don't even excite me anymore and all this politics stuff just increases the boredom for someone like me.

[Webbo]

<Not as good as usual>

There is no chance that Paris will get the Olympics from us.

PS Daz is short for Darren.

[Chandler]

There is no chance that Paris will get the Olympics from us.

PS Daz is short for Darren.

Only a few little piggies with their snouts in the BOC trough, a handful of nandy addicted medal prospects and the odd eccentric inventor of obscure sports want London 2012. Virtually all the media coverage here is negative about it. Barely a month goes by when there isn't a story about the rocketing cost, corruption in the awarding of contracts, complaints about the after use of faciltities, problems with decontamination of the site...do you want me to go on? So what I hear you say.

I'll give you so what...can you imagine the media dissing the World Cup in such a way? No chance, absolutely no fookin' chance. And that's why there's at least an evens chance of a trade with our little froggy friends if snot gobbler gets the old heave ho by autumn and bumblin' Boris becomes Mayor.

PS 'Daz' as in the washing powder except blue 'Daz' Cameron washes greener...

[General Smuts]

Only a few little piggies with their snouts in the BOC trough, a handful of nandy addicted medal prospects and the odd eccentric inventor of obscure sports want London 2012. Virtually all the media coverage here is negative about it. Barely a month goes by when there isn't a story about the rocketing cost, corruption in the awarding of contracts, complaints about the after use of faciltities, problems with decontamination of the site...do you want me to go on? So what I hear you say.

I'll give you so what...can you imagine the media dissing the World Cup in such a way? No chance, absolutely no fookin' chance. And that's why there's at least an evens chance of a trade with our little froggy friends if snot gobbler gets the old heave ho by autumn and bumblin' Boris becomes Mayor.

PS 'Daz' as in the washing powder except blue 'Daz' Cameron washes greener...

I love you. Post more your brilliant.

Have you anything about aliens?

[Webbo]

Only a few little piggies with their snouts in the BOC trough, a handful of nandy addicted medal prospects and the odd eccentric inventor of obscure sports want London 2012. Virtually all the media coverage here is negative about it. Barely a month goes by when there isn't a story about the rocketing cost, corruption in the awarding of contracts, complaints about the after use of faciltities, problems with decontamination of the site...do you want me to go on? So what I hear you say.

I'll give you so what...can you imagine the media dissing the World Cup in such a way? No chance, absolutely no fookin' chance. And that's why there's at least an evens chance of a trade with our little froggy friends if snot gobbler gets the old heave ho by autumn and bumblin' Boris becomes Mayor.

PS 'Daz' as in the washing powder except blue 'Daz' Cameron washes greener...

Every Olympics since Montreal has had bad publicity and complaints from the local taxpayers, can't remember any of them being moved.

[Ultra]

That's what cost them the games silly Billy! Don't you remember the old US State Dept refrain about the countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq - 'Forgive Russia, ignore Germany, punish France (not that they could do anything else but oppose the war you understand as their combined presence in the country was the very reason why Exxon, BP and RDS went in under the guise of the 'Coalition of the Willing')?

Except a lot of the delegates who decided on the venue were from countries where the US writ wouldn't be expected to run large - especially given their own experiences with Yankee intervention in the past.

The games were won for an extremely reluctant London (anyone recall the Queen's unguarded remarks to some juvenile delinquent achiever at Buck House c 2004 that there wasn't much call for the Olympics around here?) by some highly questionable 'diplomacy' that caused one Jacques Chirac to moan that MI6 had done a lot of arm twisting (in such situations, of course, the DGSE always play cricket).

"Extremely reluctant"? You're having a laugh, aren't you? Ken Livingstone and his unlikely buddies in business were never going to turn down the chance of a multi-billion pound investment programme. They were up for it every bit as much as Blair was.

How South Africa will host the 2010 World Cup may shape up to be one of the great enigma's of our age as construction and renovation hasn't even started at some of the stadia let alone the essential infrastructural work. Clearly some major intervention of one sort or another is required. And that means De Beers (those nice people who have kept Muggerbe in his nice house next door) Anglo American, RTZ and XStrata either bailing Mbeki out or pulling the rug out from underneath him. Now IF it's the latter..

The companies you mention will have very little influence on FIFA. It's the big world players such as McDonalds, Vodafone etc which will assess any possible risk to their "brands" and then politely suggest a move. And what are your sources for such massive delays in the building work? Perhaps you could share them with us..

I find it difficult to swallow that we will get the 2010 World Cup if snot gobbler Brown (yes, he really does eat his boggies) is still in No 10 - but it is possible. More likely this would be an election gift for 'Daz' Cameron but the clock is ticking here. Sarkozy is playing a neat diplomatic game over Beijing 2008 (alerting everyone to the 'news' that China has occupied Tibet for the last 57 years and giving PetroChina a sly poke in the ribs on behalf of 'Big Oil')) which might earn him enough Brownie points to win the 2012 games back from grateful London property developers (who have had their East End 'condo canyon' sties decontaminated out of the public purse) - Mbeki permitting.

Brown - or Cameron for that matter- could make a pitch for the World Cup on the basis that most if not all of the required stadia are already in place. As an election could (and probably will) be delayed until May 2010 there's no way that FIFA will wait that long. Note also that Brown and maybe even George W have moved ahead of Sarkozy in the matter of action against China.

If Paris does get 2012 back and that's looking 50/50 there will almost certainly have to be a quid pro quo with London. That somewthing else will probably be the World Cup (for FIFA read 'frog'). Our chance of 2010 is receding so 2018 is the more likely possibility. But Blather and FIFA, Canal +, ZDF, EUROSPORT and assorted European FA's don't want England, SKY and the FA to host it now, then or ever (which is why Blatter is continually poking his nose into FA business and why Man U, Spurs and even Bolton fans are finding themselves at the wrong end of baton charges in Italy, Spain and France to keep alive the memory of English hooliganism)

50/50? Nowhere near it. In fact, as the building contracts in London have almost all been signed I'd say it was extremely remote. And why would Sky be interested in assisting a World Cup bid, when FIFA rules specifically bar them from screening any of the matches?

Wake up children and smell the sports politics - it's exactly the same as the other sort and it stinks just as bad!

There's a strong smell of something - but it seems more to do with agriculture than politics..

[Chandler]

Except a lot of the delegates who decided on the venue were from countries where the US writ wouldn't be expected to run large - especially given their own experiences with Yankee intervention in the past.

Bluster, Ultra, nothing more than bluster. You are either very literal minded Ultra or this very weak effort of yours is an heuristic device to get me to fill in the rather large gaps in your knowledge - so be it.

OK lets take your points one at a time. For you to deny that Paris lost 2012 because of France's oppostion to the invasion of Iraq is rather like a Creationist denying the theory of natural selection. As the article below from the 'Evening Standard' (written a full two years BEFORE London won the 2012 games) clearly shows the London bid only got the heavyweight backing it needed to succeed because of a perception in the Anglo Saxon world that France had to be punished:

Chirac's stance fires Blair interest in 2012

By Adrian Warner, Evening Standard Last updated at 00:00am on 09.04.03

Jacques Chiraq's opposition to the Iraq War seems certain to lead to Tony Blair backing a London bid for the 2012 Olympics, possibly at the start of next month.

For months, the Prime Minister's main concern about supporting a bid has been the possibility of losing to the French President, with whom he has had a difficult relationship even before Chirac blocked a second United Nations resolution over Iraq last month.

Given Britain's frustration over France's anti-war stance, insiders say it now looks very unlikely Blair will allow Paris an easy ride in what is expected to be one of the most fascinating tussles for the Olympics.

Significantly, the International Olympic Committee will decide on the 2012 venue in a vote in Singapore in July 2005, meaning the campaign will reach a climax around the time Blair could call the next General Election.

Because of the Iraq crisis, Paris and London, joint favourites for 2012, have both postponed making a final decision on whether to join a race which includes Madrid, Moscow and New York.

Paris is happy to delay its campaign because it is struggling to find a strong candidate to lead the bid. Although the Cabinet has yet to officially back a British bid, London has employed head-hunters to find a bid chairman from the business world and been finalising funding plans.

London planners have stressed to Blair's aides in recent weeks that, while they understand the reasons for the delay, they are keen for a decision to be made soon, with the IOC deadline for candidates set for mid-July. If the war is over by May, an announcement after the local elections on 1 May could be on the cards.

The big question any potential bid leader will ask is: Will the Iraq War be a major obstacle to a London bid, given that IOC votes are usually highly political?

Asked the question, one seasoned IOC member stressed a lot of water is going to go under the bridge before he and his colleagues gather in Singapore. It is likely to depend on how the world looks in mid-2005.

"Look, if we're still thinking about the influence of a war on a decision in more than two years, then the world has major, major problems," the member said.

Will the American bid suffer too? There's already a great deal of anti-American feeling among IOC members because of the 1996 Atlanta Games, which were badly organised, and the 1999 corruption scandal involving last year's Winter Games hosts Salt Lake City.

It is possible the war may not help New York's cause but the Americans were struggling anyway and it is unlikely to be the main reason for any defeat.

The key point is that the IOC is a club - not an international organisation like the UN where members represent their governments. Many IOC members are fiercely proud of their independence from politicians and in a secret ballot, they can vote how they like and nobody knows.

"I think London has more to lose from its transport problems and from possible internal squabbling than from the geo-political situation," one experienced IOC observer said.

This most interesting quote also backs up my point that a prospective London bid for 2012 had no support amongst the real movers and shakers (and by a supreme irony one of them was the proprietor of the Evening Standard, Northcliffe Newspapers, who up until the appearance of the piece above used the rag to rubbish a possible London 2012 bid).

That's enough for you and futter to suck on for the moment. More debunking to follow.

[Webbo]

Every Olympics since Montreal has had bad publicity and complaints from the local taxpayers, can't remember any of them being moved.

That's enough for you and futter to suck on for the moment. More debunking to follow.

All I have said is historical fact. I don't know how you can debunk that.