2017 - 2018 Football Thread - Page 224

On March 19 2018 14:24 WillyWanker wrote:
He didn't carry Portugal 90% of the way, and that was the season before.

On March 20 2018 00:09 Salteador Neo wrote:
I'm super late to the party but mad props to Chelsea for playing good football vs Barça, it was a true battle of Power vs Finesse. Hazard, Alonso, Willian and Kanté were great in the second leg. Chelsea were just unlucky to meet an on-point Messi so early. Would have liked to see team play vs Roma, Juve, PSG or ManU instead, because they didn't deserve to be eliminated so early.

On March 21 2018 01:10 Ysellian wrote:


I didn't think Chelsea was that good if I'm honest haha. I do respect their approach to the game with that I agree. I think being pragmatic isn't bad at times, you can't always take the game to your opponents, but when you do have players with the special extra I feel bringing your own game leaves things much less to chance. When you don't have those players though or too few of them I can understand it, especially if you are far the worse team.

I do agree with you on the United thing. Being negative with an inferior side is one thing, but when you are supposed to be the dominant team that shit is infuriating.

On March 21 2018 16:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
nope. our team still won our fair share of games under lvg and it sucked to watch every single one of them. mou's teams arent as boring as lvg's was so i can put up with it but just because you win it doesnt mean everything is ok.

A “risk analysis” document prepared by Pavco officials outlined an astonishing series of non-negotiable contract terms from FIFA that would have burned taxpayers to a crisp.

They included a requirement that B.C. Place install not just one temporary natural-grass playing surface on top of the stadium’s existing artificial turf (installed just three years ago at a cost of $1.3 million).

The contract demanded a second “contingency pitch” just in case something went wrong with the first grass field and a new one had to be installed on short notice.

FIFA not only demanded two grass fields for B.C. Place, they also demanded two electricity supplies to the stadium in case of a power failure.

A “second separate source of power supply for the stadium” would be “entirely and wholly the responsibility of the stadium and host city,” the risk assessment said.

“Pavco flagged that for us right at the beginning — they have a single power source,” Tourism Minister Lisa Beare told me.

The cost of a backup power supply — be it gas-powered generators or a separate B.C. Hydro line — was listed as “unknown” in the assessment.

Then there were the security costs, notorious for going over-budget. A prime example: Security for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver was originally budgeted at $175 million and ended up costing over $1 billion.

“That was a huge concern for us,” Beare said. “We couldn’t get any firm requirements or cost estimates.”

Stoking the fears of the government was the 2014 World Cup experience of Brazil, which spent over $900 million on security, including a massive video-surveillance system and training on potential chemical and radiological terror attacks.

Keep in mind Vancouver was only in line to get two or three soccer games as part of a unified bid to host the World Cup by Canada, the United States and Mexico.

But, even though the number of games was small, FIFA still demanded “exclusive use” of B.C. Place for up to two months, requiring all other events to be cancelled or postponed.

During the “exclusive use period,” FIFA insisted on a “clean stadium clause” banning all non-authorized advertising and commercial activity — and not just within the confines of B.C. Place itself.

The ban included “prohibition of any promotional, public-relations, religious, political or commercial advertising of any kind in, on, above, around or about the stadium without prior written approval by FIFA,” the assessment said.

“When they were using words like ‘around’ and ‘about’ the stadium, we sought clarity on that and the bid committee could not provide it,” Beare said.

“It would have made us responsible for activities that happened outside the stadium,” she added, saying the government was concerned about policing the activities of businesses near B.C. Place.

If you’re wondering whether all these costs would have been offset by a share of World Cup ticket sales or TV rights — forget it.

“An exceptionally broad and almost universal ownership of commercial rights with respect to the competition” would remain exclusively with FIFA, the assessment said, including “media rights, marketing rights and ticketing.”

As B.C. taxpayers absorbed all the costs — and FIFA scooped all the World Cup profits — FIFA also demanded special treatment under B.C. taxation and labour laws.

“The FIFA World Cup represents an event of national importance and public interest, which justifies the granting of a tax exemption,” said a FIFA document entitled “Overview of Government Guarantees.”

The tax exemption would also apply to FIFA service providers, contractors “and certain designated individuals.” The same document also required the government to grant FIFA “exemption from labour law” and allow “unrestricted import and export of all foreign currencies.”

As if that’s not enough, FIFA also wanted the right to change the terms of the agreement after it was signed, with any cost increases borne by taxpayers.

On March 22 2018 23:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ugh, why?

https://twitter.com/ESPNFC/status/976795279956602881

On March 22 2018 23:44 Acrofales wrote:

Are you upset about him coming to the US? Or about him leaving ManU? As an MLS fan I thought you'd be happy?

On March 23 2018 00:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also if he is still recovering from his injury, hence the reason he hasn't been playing, the MLS pace and pitches could easily tear him apart.