BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 MLS benefited from a $USD 50 million legacy fund left behind from profits generated by World Cup 1994, so the possible financial benefits to be reaped from a standalone bid shouldn't be underestimated. That plus the upgrades to stadia to 40,000 seats and infrastructure needed to be fully compatible with a World Cup game would have been a potential cash bonanza for a lot of people, if federal and provincial government money was going to pay for it all. Back around 2014 the CSA seemed to be aligning itself with Traffic Sports and the NASL. In the Blatter era that may well have been the better way to go to get the job done, so there was a real opportunity to cash in big time in a way that arguably could justify the funds needed for a league launch on the scale Rollins was tweeting about. Post-Blatter the landscape at FIFA is very different and the USSF were no longer going to sit out the 2026 bidding process over what happened with Russia and Qatar winning the previous two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said: If there are 12 host cities as seems to be being suggested by FIFA an equal co-hosting would be 4 each. If the US is getting the lion's share plus the final then it's unlikely to be more than two or three in Canada? There's no way Mexico would roll over like that. The intent is for the US to be the main host and have most of the games and the finals in US soil. Expect Mexico (for sure) to oppose that, (hopefully) Canada as well. Any thing short of equal matches between the 3 nations and that co-bid thing will fall flat very fast. Again, any of these 3 nations can host on their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 21 minutes ago, ted said: Does being a cohost scupper any hope for infrastructure improvements outside Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? Not that it is my preferred answer, but I think it does. The US has the capacity to go it alone - I think it is unlikely that any co-hosting is done on an equal basis. I suspect they will get the lion's share, while we and/or Mexico would have a smaller portion and not the final. In terms of stadia, that probably means reliance on the big 3 here in Canada. That is discouraging for anyone seeking to leverage the WC into funding for CPL infrastructure, but from a government perspective it makes the bid far more attractive because it would significantly reduce the cost of participation. And these days, the money guys usually win the argument in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazlo_80 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Ansem said: There's no way Mexico would roll over like that. The intent is for the US to be the main host and have most of the games and the finals in US soil. Expect Mexico (for sure) to oppose that, (hopefully) Canada as well. Any thing short of equal matches between the 3 nations and that co-bid thing will fall flat very fast. Again, any of these 3 nations can host on their own why would it fall flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shermanator Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 So, Paul Beirne was in Calgary yesterday. Hopefully he's still in town, I'm going to try and hit him up for a beer if he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, shermanator said: So, Paul Beirne was in Calgary yesterday. Hopefully he's still in town, I'm going to try and hit him up for a beer if he is. If you touch base, maybe remind him of the thread he started on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 ...and the podcast interviews he was going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shermanator Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Ya, I'm not going to bring either of those up. I have more important things to discuss with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, lazlo_80 said: why would it fall flat? Because the Mexicans were very adamant at hosting the World Cup to begin with. They have the Azteca stadium, so they are unlikely to accept any argument of the final game not being host in Mexico City. Knowing the US, the chances of splitting the tournament evenly are slim to none, and they would never acknowledge that it's Canada's turn to hold the final game either. They will want most of the games, which at that point, Mexico will be out. If we all know that the US can organize 2026 easily on their own, ask yourselves, why are they entertaining the idea of co-bidding? I'm speculating they don't like their chances in a solo bid against Canada, so they figure they might propose to co-bid but take the lion share of the tournament which would by default be perceived as an American World Cup. But I'm not delusional, I can see it from a mile away. Canada will happily settle for a few games and be content that the US "invited" us to "their" party...typically Canadian... So guys, let's party because we're getting the World Cup!!!! (a few matches here and there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazlo_80 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 36 minutes ago, Ansem said: Because the Mexicans were very adamant at hosting the World Cup to begin with. They have the Azteca stadium, so they are unlikely to accept any argument of the final game not being host in Mexico City. Knowing the US, the chances of splitting the tournament evenly are slim to none, and they would never acknowledge that it's Canada's turn to hold the final game either. They will want most of the games, which at that point, Mexico will be out. If we all know that the US can organize 2026 easily on their own, ask yourselves, why are they entertaining the idea of co-bidding? I'm speculating they don't like their chances in a solo bid against Canada, so they figure they might propose to co-bid but take the lion share of the tournament which would by default be perceived as an American World Cup. But I'm not delusional, I can see it from a mile away. Canada will happily settle for a few games and be content that the US "invited" us to "their" party...typically Canadian... So guys, let's party because we're getting the World Cup!!!! (a few matches here and there) so are you saying it would fall flat with FIFA as a competitive bid? Fall flat with the sporting public? Fall flat with the mexican population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just now, lazlo_80 said: so are you saying it would fall flat with FIFA as a competitive bid? Fall flat with the sporting public? Fall flat with the mexican population? The Mexicans will hate anything that won't be dead even and most likely the final game not being at Azteca. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said: If there are 12 host cities as seems to be being suggested by FIFA an equal co-hosting would be 4 each. If the US is getting the lion's share plus the final then it's unlikely to be more than two or three in Canada? Glitch misread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Either way it doesn't make much difference to the question of how much action there is likely to be outside Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which was the point I was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 56 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said: Either way it doesn't make much difference to the question of how much action there is likely to be outside Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which was the point I was making. Yea i misread and mostly agree those 3 will be locks with edmonton likely being included too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauder01 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said: Either way it doesn't make much difference to the question of how much action there is likely to be outside Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which was the point I was making. All Canada World Cup games to be held in #HamOnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, marauder01 said: All Canada World Cup games to be held in #HamOnt Alright, sure, but that's only because it's the only city that wasn't nuked during the Great Trump Temper Tantrum of July 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Ansem said: Because the Mexicans were very adamant at hosting the World Cup to begin with. They have the Azteca stadium, so they are unlikely to accept any argument of the final game not being host in Mexico City. Knowing the US, the chances of splitting the tournament evenly are slim to none, and they would never acknowledge that it's Canada's turn to hold the final game either. They will want most of the games, which at that point, Mexico will be out. If we all know that the US can organize 2026 easily on their own, ask yourselves, why are they entertaining the idea of co-bidding? I'm speculating they don't like their chances in a solo bid against Canada, so they figure they might propose to co-bid but take the lion share of the tournament which would by default be perceived as an American World Cup. But I'm not delusional, I can see it from a mile away. Canada will happily settle for a few games and be content that the US "invited" us to "their" party...typically Canadian... So guys, let's party because we're getting the World Cup!!!! (a few matches here and there) I hope not but you could see that sort of Canadian mentality thing occurring. We should bid ourselves considering you may be right when it comes to the USA fearing they'll lose to a Canadian only bid. However, if we do decide to co host, it should be split 50/50. If you recall the Korea/Japan World Cup, both hosts had 8 venues each so I imagine the same thing would occur in 2026, especially considering the increase in teams. If we co host and get very few games, I will be pissed as that would be such a wasted opportunity. A World Cup is suppose to grow the game in new markets with a side benefit of infrastructure development. Having games in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver will not grow the game here any further and will be a huge missed opportunity when it comes to building infrastructure throughout the country. It needs to be in the other markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Fuck it go big or go home. We can totally manage it and we've never had one whereas the states have. If fifa really wants us both(or all three) to have it I find hard to believe they will blame anyone for putting in a solo bid. Who knows though. With infantino at the helm its apparently a whole new FIFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshopper1917 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I may be wrong but I think it would be a super long shot for Canada to get the world cup on its own. It hard to imagine the political will is there to put the billions of dollars that would be needed into the facilities. Besides that we have a fairly small population spread out over a large land which would be logistically challenging. Finally I may be wrong but I think that the world cup similar to the Olympic games is now heavily about money. Are 60,000 Canadians going to shell out 100$+ a ticket to watch Nigeria Vs. Australia (nothing against those countries) and dozens of other matches like that over the entire tournament? Im not pooping on Canada but I think with our current population, stadiums and soccer fan base it would make much more sense to be part of an American bid and host some games. I just dont think it is feasible in any way shape or form to have the whole tournament here at this time in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, grasshopper1917 said: I may be wrong but I think it would be a super long shot for Canada to get the world cup on its own. It hard to imagine the political will is there to put the billions of dollars that would be needed into the facilities. Besides that we have a fairly small population spread out over a large land which would be logistically challenging. Finally I may be wrong but I think that the world cup similar to the Olympic games is now heavily about money. Are 60,000 Canadians going to shell out 100$+ a ticket to watch Nigeria Vs. Australia (nothing against those countries) and dozens of other matches like that over the entire tournament? Im not pooping on Canada but I think with our current population, stadiums and soccer fan base it would make much more sense to be part of an American bid and host some games. I just dont think it is feasible in any way shape or form to have the whole tournament here at this time in history. This is probably the more rational POV, but I want to offer a counter point, just because. The World Cup isn't about rationalism, it's about nationalism. No team has ever won a world cup with a foreign manager, and while I wouldn't be foolish enough to suggest that Canada is going to win the world cup, I think you have to give credence to the idea that it's about more than just being rational, its about passion. The only world cup England ever won came on the heels of WW2 and the whole "keep calm and carry on" movement, in which the english were undoubtedly badass mother fuckers. There does seem to be an abnormal amount of nationalism going around recently(or perhaps it is just me) and we should be looking to ride this wave to a solo hosting IF WE CAN. I'm not saying we will, I'm just saying that should be the aim, at least in order to leverage our way into as big a share of it as possible. It's time to start getting excited folks. Tell yo kids, tell yo wife. 2026 is close in some ways, but it's also far in some ways. If we were able to work the country into enough of a World Cup frenzy, I don't think it should be absolutely ruled out that we couldn't host. But again, this is probably more of an emotional point of view than a rational one, so take it with that lump of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said: It's time to start getting excited folks. Tell yo kids, tell yo wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuillermoDelQuarto Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Macksam said: was hoping someone would get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macksam Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pqhbv Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I'm just glad there was a five hour break on updates to this thread... Finally I can sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackTheBlizzard Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 9 hours ago, GuillermoDelQuarto said: But again, this is probably more of an emotional point of view than a rational one, so take it with that lump of salt. There was very little chance that Stephen Harper would have committed to paying for sports stadia upgrades and new builds that potentially would have run over $1 billion, so maybe the hope that kept fueling things was that the attitude in Ottawa would change after the last federal election. If the CSA are pushing for a joint bid now, I think it points towards there being no huge enthusiasm from Justin Trudeau and the Liberals to fund a standalone bid. The 48 team thing wouldn't have helped as it probably meant a couple more large 40,000+ new builds would be needed in smaller non-CFL cities to have any chance of measuring up to what the USSF would be proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.